Developing Suggestions

NOTICE

The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process. However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions.

Shortcut:
DS

Developing Suggestions

This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.

It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.

Further Discussion

• Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
• Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.

Resources

• The Frequently Suggested List
• Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

How To Make a Discussion

Adding a New Discussion

To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.

Adding a New Suggestion

• To add a new suggestion proposal, 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.
• The process is illustrated in this image.

{{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.
• 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 month may be cycled without notice.

Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Encumbrance + Freerunning

Timestamp: --Anarchomutualist says: The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order. 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Mechanic

Scope: Free running

Description: Once a player goes above 75% emcumbrance, free running has a chance of failure. (Failure would be akin to jumping into a ruin - land in the street and lose HP.) The formula for failure chance is ((encumbrance)-75)*2. The message for a failed freerun would be The weight of your equipment bears down on you, and you fall into the street. The logic here is that it becomes more difficult to perform parkour when you're carrying portable generators and shotguns. Consider this a "lite" version of Zombie Lord's suggestions.

Discussion (Encumbrance + Freerunning)

I can't find a dupe anywhere, so you're clear in that department. However, I do recall that a few players of previous generations (like mid-2006 early 2007) considered "Freerunning" to be a system of bridges. But that aside, I would probably change this just a little. Perhaps a set percentage of failing to freerun? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But carrying three shotguns and five generators while leaping between rooftops is both believable and balanced! You can't change it! You're just trying to help those evil, smelly, zombie things, when they already control the entire city! blaeeegh!!!!11 --VVV ^RPMBG 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense from a realistic standpoint, but this is a game, we should be aiming at making it more fun. Does this make the game more fun? I can't see how. - User:Whitehouse 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

^This. It would also make it extremely hard to run bounty hunters (who need a lot of guns and ammo and one genniefuel at the same time to do their thing at all). -- Spiderzed▋ 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything that makes freerunning less uber than it is can only be a good thing. Oh and I am one of those who don't see freerunning as being Parkour.... It seems more likely to represent breaking and entry combined with a bit of rooftop/fire escape athletics to me. --Honestmistake 11:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more a fan of the "A wizard did it" explanation. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The last time I suggested this the Survivors all cried at the thought of losing their ability to fly like Superman with 1000 pounds of shit on their back.--

| T | BALLS! | 13:44 18 March 2011(UTC)

---

Remove Decorative Objects

Timestamp: FT 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Flavor, buildings.

Scope: Decorative objects in buildings.

Description: Survivors currently have the ability to place decorative objects in buildings, up to a limit of 13 objects. The limit is useful, and while it should remain, it can lead to a situation in which a safehouse becomes so stuffed with a type of art that a given collector doesn't want, that they can't stuff it with the sorts of items they do want. Presently, the only way for that collector to remove the art is to die, stand up as a zombie, and destroy it. I would like the ability to remove these objects, one at a time, as a survivor, as follows: When you are in a room containing decorative objects, you see an action button with a drop down menu: "Take decorative object (5 AP): (drop down list of available objects)" Upon clicking the button, the character expends 5 AP, acquires the object, and receives a message describing the action (e.g. "you carefully remove the tapestry from the wall, and fold it for storage," "you gently remove the sculpture from its display, being careful not to damage it," or "you remove the antique mirror from the wall, covering its fragile glass surface"). Other players present receive the message "Character name took the/an object name." Attempting to take an object while fully encumbered would expend no AP, return a message like that received when finding an item while fully encumbered, and would not remove the object from the room or notify other players. Thanks in advance for reviewing this suggestion, and offering advice. --FT 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (Remove Decorative Objects)

Nice idea. I support it. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 05:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your complaint here is that your safehouse is too decorated and you just want to change what's there? Sort your priorities out. 05:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I kind of like how at the moment, die hard collectors have to turn in to zombies to destroy unwanted art, and it's produced some great gameplay in the past - e.g. Cult of the stuffed crocodile and alligator cultists destroying each others' avatars in Skarin Row PD and filling the rest of the space, but this is a sound and logical idea.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As Misanthropy, a lot of effort for a mechanic that hardly anyone will ever want or need.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As above..rather useless even if survivors being able to destroy decorations does make sense.       02:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Syringe Woes

Timestamp: Gerald Studabaker 01:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Considering combat revives or reviving people in ruined NTs helps overpower syringes as is, it doesn't really make sense that a zombie would hold perfectly still while someone tries to jab a needle in its neck. When it is possible for a zombie to miss an attack on a completely stationary makeshift generator, one would think it should be possible for there to be a possibility of missing a moving target that is trying to kill you with such an intimately accurate attack.

Scope: Considering that recent changes to humans make it a breeze to get resources more easily, syringes are practically given away now, so it is too easy to clear a ruined building with a couple of syringes and 20 AP. This way, even with a really high percentage like 70-75% success rates, humans would occasionally miss and it would keep the syringes from being so overpowered.

Description: Zombies are getting wise to being revived. In order to keep on a mission for brains, they are learning to dodge attempts to be revived. Using a syringe now has a 25% chance of missing its target outright and having it knocked out of your hand. You still lose the syringe and expend the 10 AP escaping the zombie's thirst for your brains.

Discussion (Syringe Woes)

Well, I agree that combat revives are pretty op. I think this might work better as a skill zombies can pick up. Something down the chain of skills which make it more difficult to get reved anyway. I have been playing a zombie for years now, and combat revives are the biggest thorn in the side of attacks. They are way too game changing, and players who want to stay as zombies should have more skills to make it so. --Zarak Goldleaf 02:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to get revived, get rotted. Simples. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 14:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What recent changes to humans? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called brainrot. Next. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tie something like this to a sub-skill of brain rot. That way it still has practical zombie use for NT sieges whilst appeasing the "dur brain rot stop combat revives" crowd at the same time. 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

10AP for missing? Seems too high. - User:Whitehouse 18:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New skill. Under Brain Rot. If you are in a powered NT, and someone tries to revive you, there is a 50% chance of failure. That way, one guy with a genny and fuel can't clear out five zombies in one go. --VVV ^RPMBG 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the Syringe is the most cost effective, efficient, and powerful weapon in the game. Stupidly so. As such it should be treated as a weapon. I support making it a 1 AP cost to use, but 10% chance to hit weapon. Agreed, Zombies would not passively accept this procedure. I don't expect Kevan to stop pampering the Survivors anytime soon though.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:27 8 March 2011(UTC)

Uh, no. They're tools. Not under Brain Rot, either. People who have Brain Rot hardly get needled anyway. Perhaps a prerequisite of BR, not sure if that's work. But there's still more about this skill to be hammered out: how much AP would it cost if you miss? and would it waste a needle? --Espemon333 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

10%? Too low. After all, it's a medical procedure done by trained professionals. BTW, what about these guys? ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't count. 01:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

10%. So 1 in 10. So 10 AP average. So, same as now minus the automatic hit and insane speed. As for the Mrh Cows, the revive cycle is already too cheap and easy. I'd go farther, it should cost the reviving body extra AP to stand. 6 to 10 AP at least. Spread the cost around. Makes it so those revive alt zergs that Survivors love so much don't get to absorb all the cost.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:26 9 March 2011(UTC)

Well 10% would be too low if we're making it an attack. They do have to search for syringes just like ammo and they at least get 65% with ammo, so if we're making a syringe a stock attack, I would say 5 ap instead of 10, and you get a 65-70% chance. I actually like the idea of it being a sub-skill of someone that already has brain rot. The idea is you despise resurrection so much that you are adept at dodging even in a powered NT. As per the other person's question, the recent changes are that humans can just hang out in a building and get additional searches so long as they don't die, so finding these automatic-success syringes is easier, whereas a brain rot zombie trying to hold an NT is just as prone as a level 1 zed is. This severely interferes with my ability to eat brains.--Gerald Studabaker 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Read this. Scout Safehouse is a worthless skill. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

less than worthless ~ it's total shit ~ easy to hide tho --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 10:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're hanging out in a powered NT and get combat revived, that's your fault for not destroying the generator. Kevan's not "catering to survivors" by allowing Combat Revives. Zombies seem to forget that they can kill a survivor in a much more AP efficient manner than any other player in the game. Now, back too the skill, howsabout we try this: Survivors with NT Employment have a 50% chance of hitting with a revive. Lab Experience upgrades you to a 75%, then another skill, like, 'Advanced Lab Experience' or something allows you a 90% chance to hit with a revive. --Espemon333 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC) EDIT: If you miss, it wasted 1 AP and a needle.

Bullshit. You can argue semantics all you want about the CR not "killing" the player, but the end result is the same: The player is being taken out of play. A single zombie can take 1 fully healed Survivor out of play in 50 button presses or so. With the same 50 AP a Survivor can take 5 Zombies out of play with 5 button presses in a matter of seconds. Who's more efficient again? In most instances a single Survivor is generally about 3 times more efficient than a single Zombie. Which is bad enough, but when it comes to Combat Revives it gets into the realm of utter stupidity. So of course Survivors cry and whine any time someone suggests they give up on their game of kick the cripple.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:31 18 March 2011(UTC)

I think the point of this isn't that zombies are hanging out in powered NT's, but more that a group of Zombies who have captured an NT and smashed the genny and ruined it, can easily be destroyed by a few guys with some fuel, a generator, and a few of syringes. This skill might be unnecessary if you just remove generators in a ruined building providing power for revives.--Zarak Goldleaf 03:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What's with the hate on combat revives? I find them to be a crucial part of practicing Dual Nature. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 01:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Zarak is exactly right. It isn't that zombies just leave generators around, but even if they did, the building is entirely ruined and ransacked. You shouldn't be able to just pop in a genny and easy-peasy revive zombies while it is still ruined. I mean, why bother ruining any building at all if you can just ignore the supposed drawbacks of them? --Gerald Studabaker 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm undecided whether I like this suggestion. In it's current for I'll say no. Maybe if developed I'll have a better opionion. I guess the only feedback I have right now is to point out that there currently exists a mechanic that affects the to-hit percentage of needles. Revivification inside a Dark building has a 50% success rate. Failed attempts cost 1AP but the needle is not lost. You can build off that, I suppose. ~ _{05:47, 11 March 2011}

Rotter revives during NT attacks are fairly rare but only because there is only a small chance that anyone inside is awake and active when you break in. More frequently what happens is that you only get in with enough AP to groan and some smart ass jabs you before help can arrive.The bigger problem is indeed that, even ruined, a powered NT means my poor rotter can be dragged back to the land of the mouth breathers while resting up after the brawl--Honestmistake 17:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with this suggestion is that it makes revive points impractical, since it doesn't distinguish between rotters who are trying to stay dead and survivors who want to return to life. You're doubling the AP costs for all the RPs around Malton, just to get rid of the rare occurrence of a survivor carrying a generator, fuel, enough syringes to clear the building, and enough AP to do so. In any case, if you're that desperate to deny an NT to the survivors, there's a simple solution: Put 4-5 zeds inside the building, and there's no way a lone reviver can empty the building, repair, and barricade all at once. --Beleester 04:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a skill under Brain Rot called "Resistance," that would allow to to choose to stay dead. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Both the zombie and the survivor in me are telling me that this is a bad idea. Just stick with Brain Rot, m'kay? --Espemon333 20:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The zombie in me says "yes please!" I do not want to be revived while sieging an NT and buying the Rot was supposed to prevent just that. Sadly along came an update and flushed that all away. Combat revives are great if you want to play dual nature but for most dedicated rotters they are an un asked for pain in the ass that take away fun. Lets have someway to at least defend against the 1 shot kill that is zombie rape via syringe :( --Honestmistake 16:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Rage in Malton

Timestamp: Spiderzed▋ 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: "New" Mechanic

Scope: Newbs outside of Borehamwood (whether corpses or zombiefied)

Description: The recent wave of whining about the game being dying and cycling some "current" suggestions got me thinking about ways to make the game more newb-friendly. Borehamwood had a neat little mechanic called Rage, which allows a zombie who a.) hasn't Lurching Gait and b.) is in the presence of a harman to gain that skill instantly without any XP cost. Applying it to Malton would make it a good bit easier for newbs (for who being a zombie is hard, whether voluntarily or by being killed), and it would also give some incentive to new dyed-in-the-wool pro-survivor types to follow feeding groans who otherwise would never consider to play a zombie. As that mechanic already exists for another map, it should be easy-peasy to implement.

Discussion (Rage in Malton)

Could probably even be beefed up by adding Ankle Grab and/or Vigour Mortis to the Rage grab bag, but that might be a bit extreme. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note to the dupe faction on DS: There were also two other suggestions about softening the effect of dying, but I think they are sufficiently different from this one, especially as this idea is built around an existing mechanic from another map. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To play devils advocate; Helps zergers. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So does everything useful. 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

i just like saying the word "poop" it makes me smile.--

bitch 19:28 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything that benefits newbs benefits zergers too. That being said, I see relatively little abuse potential for zergers. Lurching Gait only saves APs, which is irrelevant for zergers (who can always make more alts to gain more AP). Getting to the grab bag, Ankle Grab is also solely an AP saver, while Vigour Mortis is useless for zergers: Either they have it already (zombie zergers), or it is of little use for them (harman zergers). -- Spiderzed▋ 22:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lurching Gait does not save APs. Lurching Gait saves AP. --VVV ^RPMBG 02:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

But still, street treats are pretty rare. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't have to be street treats (although they are certainly the easiest for MoL-impaired newbs). New zombies spawn close to a unmuffled feeding groan and can immediately put this to good use, while dead harmanz can follow feeding groans while they are zombiefied and outside. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I actually like this idea! However, if we do add Ankle Grab and VM, let's make it more of a 'pick one' than a 'here, take 'em all!' or a 'ya get a random one!' kinda thing. Maybe, instead of Ankle Grab, we put in MoL. Just a thought. --Espemon333 00:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I'd limit it to just Lurching Gait without the other two skills. Not because I don't think that it be worth it for the sake of the newbs (I think so), but rather to cut down on potential "ZOMG Zmobies are so overpowered" Against votes by trenchies. Plus, it increases the chances of this getting implemented, since Kevan just needs to swipe the code from Boredomwood. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting tips and tips at first change harman => zambah should probably also be expanded when this gets implemented. Starting tip should probably be put between bullet 2 and 3, since it is tied to feeding groans, and to increase the chance of newbs actually reading it. As for tips at first class change, I'm clueless for positioning. Proposals by anyone good at wording? -- Spiderzed▋ 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not good at wording, but after nearly a week, I better still go ahead. Starting tip:

• You should listen for the feeding calls of other zombies to find fresh meat, and look for survivors who have been dragged out onto the streets by other zombies.
• When you run into your first survivor, you should Rage to make getting around easier.
• It's generally a good idea to end your day in a group of other undead - a lone straggler is a fairly easy target for a passing zombie hunter or military cleanup squad.

Class change tip: "Your character has become a zombie - although you can no longer speak or use your equipment, and will take 2AP to walk from block to block, a new and powerful skill tree has become available to you. You can earn experience points by attacking and killing survivors, and smashing at barricades and machinery installed in buildings. You can also lessen the 2AP cost to walk from block to block by letting loose your Rage in the presence of a survivor. The feeding groans you've been hearing as a survivor are now a valuable resource for finding vulnerable safehouses." -- Spiderzed▋ 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See Suggestions Dos and Do Nots#Balance: "Don't Give it Away." A free skill is equal to 100 free xp, and just being in the same square as a survivor is pretty close to a zero-risk situation.--FT 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that this has already been implemented in Borehamwood, and Street Treats are pretty rare. I'm gonna say just Lurching Gait as well. --Espemon333 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They are in BOREHAMWOOD. In Malton, street treats are NOT rare. I've actually had to pass up street treats on my zombie in order to still have AP when I get to the latest strike. And my survivor could easily consume all his 'kits healing the injured outside. That's not even including the zombies who would sit at RPs, get revived, then go and walk around outside to exploit this to give free LG to bahbahs. This idea is honestly...no. Zergable and exploitable to the highest degree. Shadok ^{T Balance is power} 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: Borehamwood isn't Malton. You know that permadeath thing? And how "headshots kill zombies forever" was removed? Survivors were likely to become a scarce commodity very quickly, while the zombie population would only diminish as players quit playing. Zombies would have been expected to do much more walking around to find good targets, and also to have a slower rate of xp gain because of target scarcity. Giving them a free skill- particularly the one that makes all that wandering around they'll need to do less AP intensive- makes a lot of sense. It's not designed to be an ongoing, back-and forth PvP experience, though, it's a temporary challenge map, and just because there were novel rules there doesn't mean they'll work well in Malton. That said, you can of course suggest it if you want- I'll just vote kill. In terms of corrections you should make before suggesting, there's this bit: "who a.) hasn't Lurching Gait and b.) is in the presence of a harman." You should rewrite that to something more like "who hasn't acquired the Lurching Gait skill, and is in the presence of a harman." This: "(for who being " should be "for whom." And "who otherwise would never consider to play a zombie." should be more like "would never consider playing as a zombie."--FT 14:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Rage can be abused by zergers. But as I said above, it's probably one of the least interesting goodies for zergers since it only saves AP (which are largely irrelevant to zergers, since they can have as many as they can run alts). Who this really helps though are newbs, which should be a primary interest of us given the dying state of the game and the harshness of the game towards low-levels. - As for wording changes, duly noted. I'd clean up informal slang as harman anyway when that moves from DS to the actual suggestion system. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Defiled Graffiti Change

Timestamp: Smyg 18:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Survivor

Description: I'm not entirely sure if this is just a bug or an overlooked point and belongs elsewhere, or if it has been brought up before, but when you clean up a piece of defiled graffiti and then spray something new over it, the flavour text reads You improve your work. Given that you've just cleaned off gore from the original piece, and seeing has how cleaning it doesn't require a spraycan, you haven't actually added anything of your own, no? Therefore, it's not your work at all and shouldn't be claimed to be so. And yes, I'm aware I'm probably not making much sense.

Discussion (Defiled Graffiti Change)

Sounds like a bug to me. Try reproducing it, and filing a bug report.--FT 21:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

City overrun

Timestamp: Zarak Goldleaf 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Map change

Scope: Malton Map

Description: This might be a bit of an unpopular suggestion, but here it is anyway. The map should be reduced in size by 1000-2000 rooms or so. At present, population trends show the population at a low, as a result density of players is at roughly 1.6 players per room. At times the density has been as high as 5 players per room. As the game continues to lose players, it causes the density to continue to decrease, resulting in less interesting action, and more time spent wandering around looking for someone to fight. My suggestion is that 10-20 suburbs be termed 'overrun' and closed down for awhile, in hopes of bringing the density back up and reviving more interesting play from suburb to suburb.--Zarak Goldleaf 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (City overrun)

I like the idea of this, and indeed the game could use a density boost to keep things interesting. However my concern is that at current levels of survivors, shrinking the map might force an endgame situation where zombies just steamroll the city and survivors have nowhere to scatter. I'm not sure if that would necessarily happen, but it does seem possible. What do you think?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it at all. People are rather fond of their city as it is. I'd say it would be better to create a separate map (á la Monroeville and Borehamwood) that is smaller. Smyg 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggested something similar a while ago. People just couldn't work out what to cut. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Restructure the suburbs individually. Remove a lot of the open space (streets, parks, etc), keep the buildings more clustered. Bringing all the burbs down to 9x9 cuts 19 blocks off of each one, and that's 1900 less blocks overall, isn't it? That seems to be a fifth of the overall map but that can't be right, can it? Still, it doesn't actually sound as difficult as the results would suggest. 19:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring the suburbs sounds like a solid idea. The main idea is just to increase the density of players in the world to increase activity and encourage players to stay playing. It has become increasingly annoying wandering around looking for action and just finding empty streets and buildings.--Zarak Goldleaf 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My spin-off version: With the density of hungry undead and resistant survivors decreasing, the external military is now beginning to reclaim Malton, one block at a time. Every day, at server midnight, one of the blocks adjacent to the border is deleted, becoming part of the border. Complete destruction of the city would take 10,000 days, which means it would finish in late 2038 if it started today. Kevan could speed up, slow down, pause, or even reverse (the border becomes overrun, and a previously deleted building returns (repaired, but without cades, machinery, etc.)) the trend to fit with population change. All characters, active or otherwise, who are at a block when it is reclaimed would receive the message Military forces killed you in a hail of automatic fire. Your body has been moved away. They would become a dead body in one of the adjacent squares. If there are no adjacent squares (if all those around them have been reclaimed, and they were trapped in what would essentially be a separate city) they are moved outside a random strongly barricaded building, much like a newly spawned character.

This is better than hacking off chunks of city because it would be much more gradual, and we could see the effects before committing to a potentially game-destroying change. It would slowly herd fearful players ('If I sleep on the border, I could die!') into a smaller area, rather than suddenly uprooting entire regions. --VVV ^RPMBG 05:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I really like this suggestion.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 12:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK. However, Instead of killing people (whcih sounds like a really bad idea) just make it so the military always reclaims an EMPTY building / street. If all the border blocks are occupied, then nothing happens (and chances are density is pretty good already). This really could just amount to a new sort of decay that makes the block entirely un-enterable to all citizens, and only happens to empty blocks on the edges of the map (and maybe blocks further in that are in contact with existing re-captured blocks).  Swiers 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

YES! to what Swiers^ and Tripz^ said. Permanant, unenterable ruins sound just right. Or perhaps everyone should feverently spam UD-links everywhere online and try to increase Malton's poplace --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 08:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This will be a remarkably popular suggestion, especially amongst members of the groups and hordes which are either built around a specific building or buildings, and those which have territories they routinely return to. I predict that this idea will go far, inspire no ragequits, and not be detrimental to the game's health at all. --DT^PK 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Spending 10 ap just running around looking for something to do can be rather lame. Dwindling player density is especially rough for new zombies, as they move slow, have low hit chances and do terrible damage. compacting the city while a low player density just makes sense. These would not have to be irreversible changes and could be undone as density increases. It could be structured so that zones that get tossed are zones with the lowers player densities.--Zarak Goldleaf 03:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also there's the point that certain skills (Feeding Groan, Scent Death) are coded to trigger useful effects only at certain minimum densities; they simply don't work as intended with low populations.  Swiers 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

The following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below.

No suggestions from here are currently up for voting.