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

Beckon Zero Damage "Attack"

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 00:18, 18 July 2012 (BST)

Type: Skill upgrade

Scope: Zombies

Description: What if zombies could use scent trail to track allied zombies who want to be followed? I suggest upgrading Flailing Gesture to also gives zombies a Beckon attack. This attack would cost 1 AP, deal 0 damage, and have an 100% chance of success, acting like the zombie version of a newspaper attack. It would look like this to the target: A zombie slowly gestured for you to follow it. Survivors and zombies targeted by the Beckon would receive a link to the "attacking" zombie's profile, and recognize them if already in their contacts. If a zombie has Scent Trail then they would be able to follow the zombie that beckoned at them. This would make Beckon a pretty handy way for allied zombies to stick together without talking to each other. You could beckon at each one of your contacts in a room so they know where to meet you.

Discussion (Beckon Zero Damage "Attack")

At least to me, it feels a bit out of place. Plus, if you're in a group with someone and they groan, it already says, "you hear a familiar groan", so you can coordinate with your friends that way to find the food. Other than that, just get your allies' attention by saying something in-game, then point in the correct direction. Not only does it accomplish the same thing, but it also lets you do it once for an entire room, rather than having to do it once per ally. —Aichon— 00:33, 18 July 2012 (BST)

But if you're a zombie then you're speaking through the filter of death rattle. And feeding groans are great for calling zombies to converge on an ongoing attack, not so good for moving around together regardless of where survivors are. What if you want to lead your band of say 5 allied zombies across 4 suburbs to attack a specific distant location? You could use Beckon to guide them there with stops along the way. Feeding Groan is much more random and uncontrollable, and not really useful for planned travel. --A Big F'ing Dog 00:38, 18 July 2012 (BST)

Why not let one attack signal all the zombies in the same block? -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 00:44, 18 July 2012 (BST)

To protect zombie anonymity. You might not want every zombie present, many of them strangers perhaps, to know your position and be able to follow you around. Also, since Scent Trail requires an attack it makes sense to treat Beckon as an attack rather than a form of speech. --A Big F'ing Dog 00:47, 18 July 2012 (BST)

As it currently stands, you need the zombies profiles to make this work. If you have the profiles, odds are good that you have another means of communication. I'd rather my zombie be identifiable to random zombies but be able to tell a large group, hey let's all hit the cades at x. I could see a few cases of players specifically not wanting to meta-game finding this useful, but in general it would be more useful to signal everyone at once. As for making sense, once survivors can't jump between buildings carrying generators I'll worry about that. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 01:33, 18 July 2012 (BST)

^^^^^^ This. -MHSstaff 01:39, 18 July 2012 (BST)

I realized I completely missed the Scent Trail part of this suggestion before. Honestly, I'm just not getting it. For one, the flavor is all off. Zombies don't coordinate or communicate intentionally in lore. They communicate incidentally, which is why things like Groan and Bellow make sense. Nor are they telepathic (note to self: come up with something involving telepathic zombies) or show any awareness for one another in lore, so it makes no sense that they'd know where the others are if they're not in the immediate vicinity.

I do agree that the game could use a better means for in-game organization among zombies since it is a real problem, but I feel like the mechanic proposed here is actually too much of a hassle, too expensive, and just something that better belongs in the meta-game than in-game. I don't know what a good mechanic that solves the problem would look like, unfortunately, but I just feel like this isn't it. Sorry I can't offer something more constructive, but I'm not sure what would feel right to me. :( —Aichon— 03:58, 18 July 2012 (BST)

The rules of zombies changes from fictional universe to universe, and in Urban Dead's world the undead are clearly sentient and malevolent. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to say "Barhah harman! Hahaha!" and groups like the RRF wouldn't make any sense. Plus there are plenty of fictional stories where zombies aren't entirely mindless. And even Romero's films, as classic as you can get, addressed the intelligence of zombies. Day of the Dead had Bub the zombie, who retained parts of his humanity and grew fond of a living human. And Romero's Land of the Dead featured "Big Daddy" as a main character, an unusually intelligent zombie who was able to lead a zombie horde against a fortified human city.

As for the cost, I think the 1 AP per zombie is an important balancing factor. Being able to lead specific allies around is a useful ability and it shouldn't be a free upgrade. It's a useful tool, so it should have an AP cost above that of normal groaning. Also, I think the AP cost is more of a boon to zombies than a penalty. If zombies could beckon to everyone for 1AP, then people would do it all the time and it would be ignored as spam. Your history would just be a list of dozens of zombies beckoning for no reason. Imposing a per zombie AP cost forces it to be targeted, and more likely to be important. It's the difference between "That zombie wants ME to follow him" and "That zombie just blared out a message for everyone to follow him, and so did twenty other zombies." --A Big F'ing Dog 05:02, 18 July 2012 (BST)

I like where this is going. A big part of playing as a zombie is getting ferals or zombies of another group to convene. We have other mechanics with this goal in mind (groan, bellow, flailing gesture) but they fall short in places. As dog pointed out, groaning works only once cades are breached and there are sufficient survivors present. Gesture has limited uses and death rattle is cumbersome. Something to this vein would be very helpful.

I don't see too many issues with the current suggestion at all actually. Its balanced because it requires both zombies to have a skill set. The only minor issue I find is flavor. Its kind of an unintentional use of the Scent Trail skill, which is used to hunt down survivors which have had interaction with you. I'm sure this can be worked around or explained though. ~ _{01:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)}

Would you have to Beckon each ally in a square or would one Beckon work for all known allies in the square? Maybe you could choose? -MHSstaff 01:34, 18 July 2012 (BST)

You'd have to beckon at each individual ally you want to have follow you, costing 1 AP per person. As an attack, only the person targeted would see the message. I think that's important for balance, since limiting zombie speech is a core part of making gameplay fair. Letting someone spend a couple AP each day to lead a small handful of allies around is one thing. Letting a horde leader spend 1AP to lead 50 zombies could have much more significant consequences. Of course, Beckon and Feeding Groan could be used together to lead around larger hordes. For example, a zombie leader of a 200 person horde might beckon at his 3 lieutenants to have them follow him. That small strike force should be large enough to break into a building and issue a feeding groan. The other 196 zombies will hear the familiar feeding groan and join up with the leaders. There are other advantages to making it 1AP per person too. It allows zombies to stealthily alert other zombies to their presence, without giving away their profile to everyone present. It should also cut back on spam, forcing people to only beckon if they really want someone specific to follow them.--A Big F'ing Dog 03:03, 18 July 2012 (BST)

---

Scorched Earth

Timestamp: • LtZurSee slapped your nose with a newspaper for a heal from CORAM (0 seconds ago) 13:53, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Type: Skill Suggestion

Scope: Survivors/Zombies in Siege Situations

Description: So, right now, sieges are far too difficult for survivors. While, yes, barricades are easier to maintain than destroy, the sheer weight of numbers is easily weighing in the zack's favour. So I suggest an addition. A bit of flavour, a bit of a bonus for the top level survivors, that also hurts them as much as helps them. Often, there ends up being large piles of bodies, both survivor and zombie forces, revivifying and waiting to rejoin the zombie side. "Living" and dead, as it were. But what does every smart survivor do in siege such as this? How does any survivor stop disease, and make sure their enemies don't return? They burn the bodies. Adding to the Zombie Hunter tree, AFTER headshot, survivors will gain the skill "Scorched Earth". When survivors have both a source of fuel (fuel can), and a source of ignition (flare gun), they will be able to spend 2AP (1 per 'action') to first douse their block's body pile with the petrol, and then ignite it with a flare gun. Doing so consumes both items. The effect this would have would result in the following: All zombie corpses in the pile (not revivifying) will be required to spend a further 5AP to stand up, in order to 'repair the damage done', much like repairing after a headshot. All revivifying corpses in the pile will have their revivification wiped (as it would be like killing them once more), and also be required to spend the AP penalty. The AP penalty STACKS with the headshot penalty, equally balancing the loss of revives. An award of 5 or 10 XP for the team play element (equivalent to a pistol or shotgun blast). This would encourage the following: New tactics on the part of zombies, and survivors alike. Zombies would need to focus attacks on important Resource Points to make their attacks more useful. Junior zombies would not be penalized for soloing, as survivors would not want to waste a fuel can, and a flare gun on making a lone body stay down. Survivors would not stack outside Resource Point walls, and instead would focus on dedicated revivification points. Player Killers will have a new tactic they can use, when targeting specific groups. Newbie Survivors, untrained in combat, will gain a new way of assisting, and leveling that doesn't require a system rework. Zombies will be wise to, but not forced to, attack garages before sieges - giving survivors new points to defend, and more time to prepare for the oncoming horde. Sorry for the long post. I hope it's not too wall of text-y. I look forward to hearing development ideas.

Discussion (Scorched Earth)

No. Just no. At the cost of just 2AP, you'd be able to cause massive amounts of AP damage. A stack of 20 bodies would suffer a collective 100AP loss. Do you not see how overpowering that would be? This also breaks a couple rules of game mechanics, such as skills that stack and area of effect damage or "splash" damage. If you're worried about losing sieges, try being as coordinated as your enemy. ~ _{16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)}

I really want to like the idea since I think it could make the game more interesting (and I even had a massive comment typed up in favor of it that countered most of what Vapor said), but then I realized it could be abused pretty badly in an unintended way. For instance, players laying siege to a location could go to the designated revive point for that location and regularly burn the bodies. Each body would cost the survivor side 5AP to stand, 10AP to revivify, and an average of 6AP to find a syringe in a lit NT building (plus however much would be lost by sitting at an RP while at 50AP), which is roughly equivalent to the cost of finding a fuel can. And since the types of people that would do this would also be searching for firearms regularly, they would have most likely found flare guns along the way without ever having to look for them specifically, thus meaning that they'll break even on AP if they burn just a single body. Anything after the first one would then be pure profit for them.

I'm actually okay with it if it acts as intended, but you need it to cancel revivification to stay balanced, and if it can cancel revivification, it can be used in unintended ways that would upset the balance far too much. —Aichon— 16:47, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Survivors outnumber zombies by more than 2 to 1 and almost the entire map is green, yet someone is still trying to nerf zombies? Holy fucking shit, I had forgotten just how fucking stupid the contributors in the section generally are. --Papa Moloch 19:51, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Finally somebody says it. Thank you! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:02, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Sieges are too hard for survivors because Survivors are completely incompetent. --DT^PK 20:40, 10 July 2012 (BST)

DT Nailed it. Find ten active players, set up an IRC channel, and you can hold onto any building for a considerable time.--Ross^lessness 21:26, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Your example contradicts what's being said, since we crumpled pretty quickly after the bulk of the RRF showed up, and we had far more than 10 of us in IRC, as you'll recall, most of whom were extremely competent players. Between ESCAPE and Blackmore 4(04), we've seen that neither quantity (ESCAPE, which had roughly 4x as many survivors as zombies) nor quality (Blackmore, which had relatively even numbers) can stand up against an organized force on the zombie side for any length of time. Which may not be a bad thing, given the current state of the game, but I still long for the glory days of sieges, since Blackmore is the closest I've ever come to a great one.

Though, now that you mention it, it might be fun to try something like Blackmore again at some point. —Aichon— 22:54, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Most buildings fall in "sieges" are little more than collection of ferals, or steamroller hordes. I can name several buildings out there, who hardly ever fall to anything other than the larger hordes, because they're defended by intelligent survivors. 404 is just the best example of what can be achieved by intelligence and coordination --Ross^lessness 22:59, 10 July 2012 (BST)

You're talking about a disparity, however. You have intelligent survivors on one side against unorganized zombies on the other in what you're talking about. I'm suggesting that when two organized groups of roughly equal size meet, the zombies steamroll the survivors every time. Again, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a separate matter, but I would still like to see a game where zombie and survivors are closer to 50/50 and it's more of an even fight when roughly equal numbers of organized players meet each other in a siege. —Aichon— 23:21, 10 July 2012 (BST)

I disagree. It is easy for either side to take a building. Holding a building is equally difficult for either side. It's a matter of a single instance versus continuous watch. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 02:12, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Well, to be clear, I'm not suggesting things are a cakewalk for either side, but in the context of organized groups, which is what I was discussing, your statements don't hold water (though I wouldn't necessarily disagree in the context of disorganized players). While the game is balanced around ferals and loners, organized groups tilt things in their favor by being closer to the mathematical ideals, and I've done a lot of the math on this topic. When you have organized zombies against organized survivors, the numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of zombies, which is part of why the hordes continue to be the wrecking balls they are, even when they run into organized survivor groups. Barricades are the only item that provides the survivors with a meaningful advantage in terms of AP, but strike teams are extremely efficient against barricades. The only way survivors can counteract strike teams is by having a critical mass who can respond in realtime, and while Blackmore 4(04) demonstrated the soundness of that idea, it also demonstrated that it can't stand up for any meaningful length of time against a roughly equal number of organized zombies on the other side. —Aichon— 05:47, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Personally I'd say Combat Reviving provides a meaningful AP advantage as well, but I get your point. I'd also say that Blackmore fell because the number of organised surviors was far lower in the end than the organised zombie numbers, including several RRF strike teams. Its really a fault of the survivor system, much more smaller, dispirate groups. Perma death cities are the perfect example. Neither of them had a survivor group that would ever had made the stats page. --Ross^lessness 09:28, 11 July 2012 (BST)

I'd add FAKing too. It's like artificially increasing the number of survivors you have in a meat shield. The attackers have the advantage, since they can get the most out of coordinating or being online at the same time doing the same thing. It's hard for the defenders to be online at the same time as the attackers are on at the same time. It's a guess. If both attackers and defenders are organized, attackers get more out of coordinating since they choose the time. Usually the attackers are zombies. So we see "steamrolling" of buildings. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:36, 11 July 2012 (BST)

FAKing still favors zombies, since the AP it takes to search for FAKs and apply them is about 1.5x greater on average than the AP it takes damage a survivor for that amount (e.g. finding and applying 3 FAKs = 24AP on average, whereas attacking for 30 damage with claws = about 15AP on average), and "artificial" meatshields provide virtually no benefit. Preventing a beachhead is what's necessary, and while FAKing may provide an additional survivor's worth of HP, it doesn't provide an additional survivor's worth of AP, which is what would actually help. Similarly, while combat revives are one of the survivor's greatest weapons, the math still favors zombies by as much as a favor of 6-to-1 (which is better for survivors than the 8-to-1 they get with firearms). The aggressor advantage (note: seems as if we should have an article explaining that idea) definitely plays a large part in things as well, as you pointed out, but even without it, the math still favors zombies. Over any length of time, they'll eventually drain the survivors of AP, turning things in their favor. We saw that at Blackmore, where all of the active, coordinated people were bereft of AP because of all the work they were having to do to keep things together. —Aichon— 16:04, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Where are you getting your numbers for FAKs? It usually takes me, even with z:s ratio largely favouring survivors, only 1-3 AP to find a FAK and 1 AP to apply, making it 10HP per 4AP typically, or at worst. If I stock up on FAKs (which I do and did in the past for sieges) then it's 10HP (or 15HP if I can do surgery) per 1AP. This is against, if the RNG is lucky, 3AP spent for the zombies to do 9HP damage. I'm going to win here. "Artificial meathshields" increase the number of AP that zombies must use to get the same effect, which is to kill survivors; it's like having body building multiple times, almost. FAKing is more reliable than CRing and killing, since if there are no barricades (and usually there won't be after a break in because of 'cade blocking) they must just stand back up again and re-enter. Really, the only options a survivor has is revive, kill, or heal. Barricading doesn't work because of barricade blocking (past 3 zombies). Killing can be ineffective because zombies may just re-enter, if they're smart. Reviving is optimal, but CRing has its issues and reviving fallen survivors who need to be in your contacts is also difficult, since they may at times move out of the building to an RP (since they don't want to add to the zombie meat shield) or they may not stand up at all, if they're not online. I prefer to FAK, usually; it's wonderful to do so while the zombies claw at you and realize they are getting nowhere.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:22, 11 July 2012 (BST)

I was pulling my numbers from that previously linked page of mine, which pulled them primarily from the search odds page. It looks like I was giving the numbers for unlit hospitals, which take an average of 7AP per FAK to find. If we had used lit hospitals, it would have taken an average of 19AP to find and apply the 3 FAKs in my previous example, which is still 1.25x greater than the AP to undo that healing (and that's before we consider travel time, since most decent sieges are in malls, forts, or NTs these days). And my point regarding meatshields is that zombies don't need to kill humans to win a siege. They need to establish and hold a beachhead. After that, everything else will handle itself. Having more meatshields doesn't prevent that, since it doesn't increase the amount of AP on the survivor side. It does delay zombies and give the survivor side more time to put together a coordinated defense if their numbers are relatively small, but in a large scale siege it's rarely a worthwhile activity, except to frustrate active zombies. —Aichon— 16:50, 11 July 2012 (BST)

I agree its totally bigger fool theory. There needs to be a very specific reason to defend anywhere. River Tactics and Ghost Town Reclamation is where all the cool kids hang out. Also location. A decent hospital or NT is much more defendable, especially when powered. --Ross^lessness 17:00, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Those percentages must be wrong. I spend most of my time, nearly all of it, in a hospital, so I have a good experience on how FAK search rates play out, how they work in lit/unlit, and how they work out during a siege. This is anecdotal, but it really does take only 1-3AP to find a FAK. Let's pretend a bunch of zombies just broke in. If we're talking about being prepped for a siege (inventory full of stuff), then we need not consider search percentages. We are doing no searching, just applying searched items. Survivors will easily outpace zombie damage with FAKs, even 1 survivor against a few zombies. 1 AP = 10HP for survivors, 15HP if with surgery; 1AP may% = 4HP with a bite, or 3HP with a claw. The other options are barricading, reviving, or killing. Usually there are enough zombies that barricading is a waste of time; CRing may be impossible because of Rot, and there are other issues; reviving falling survivors first requires them to be dead, and it requires them to be standing, and it may depend where they stand, either being inside the building as a zombie or at a revive point. For a survivor to do anything meaningful, they need to be alive. FAKing keeps them alive so that they may log in later and still be alive, and thus be able to expend their AP usefully, rather than wait for a revive that may or may not come, or if it does come, it may not be quick enough to help survivors with a siege. FAKing can ensure that survivor AP is used at all; this is why I usually FAK in immediate response to a break in (the zombie-coordinated, 10+ zombie # kind). I can reliably assume that trenches or people with guns will come online and clear the zombies, and they will be able to do so because they are not dead and have been FAKed. [Maybe I will have to explain where exactly I'm coming from here, and why I prefer to FAK people, so maybe I'll do that later.] --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:18, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Pretty sure we're talking about different things. You're talking about a siege that doesn't last long enough for restocking to be necessary, whereas I'm not. And you're talking about smaller scale encounters where FAKing makes the difference between holding a building or not, whereas I'm not. I'm talking about sieges that will last for more than a few days and will have enough survivors inside that the zombies won't be able to clear them immediately. Short-term, you're correct about a lot of what you said, since survivors are effectively able to "bank" their AP in searches they did during peaceful times, and they definitely can outpace zombies in brief encounters. Long-term, that stuff doesn't matter and the zombies pull ahead in the AP war. As for search odds, it's possible they're outdated, but they strike me as being pretty accurate for what I find regularly on my survivor. I don't spend all my time in hospitals, but I do visit them regularly. —Aichon— 18:18, 11 July 2012 (BST)

I'm coming from the perspective of a hospital that frequently changes hands, day to day, where all I do is revive when the zombies are in possession, and heal when we are. There are lots of FAKs in a hospital. This hopsital had a ~ two year long continuous siege, and has had imbalances such as 100+ standing zombies (some of which were LUE) outside vs. 50 survivors (minus 25 that run immediately) inside; we lasted two and a bit days. It was exciting. I'm also thinking about dealing with groups like LUE, which generally take a building out in one or two attempts, and where I have really nothing else to do at the time of a break-in other than heal. Long term, if long term happens, the real answer is a mix of healing (to reduce the effectiveness of one of their strikes), 'cading (when possible), killing (because at some point the zombies need to be booted), and of course reviving. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:35, 11 July 2012 (BST)

I can agree with all of that except for the last part. The whole point of strike teams in bigger sieges is to establish a beachhead. If it's a tough nut to crack, smart strike teams may not even bother attacking anyone, and will instead save that AP so that they can ?rise later. That's also why I feel barricade interference is a tad bit unbalanced at the moment, since it doesn't take many zombies to form a beachhead that will hold against a significantly larger number of survivors (though, to be fair, Blackmore had a few 15+ zombie breaches that were repelled, which I found VERY surprising). —Aichon— 23:09, 11 July 2012 (BST)

What are you proposing survivors do in response to a strike that just happened or is happening at the moment when the survivor logs in? In my experience, if the zombies are repelled, they try again roughly 24 hrs later. If they aren't, zombies in. If it's in-between, things get messy and poorly defined. At some points the trenchies log in, or free run through, and the zombies are emptied over a period. ?rise doesn't work over a long period, even 15 minutes, since that's 15 minutes someone has stay at the keyboard. I rarely run out of HP to heal and if I do, I search for more FAKs if I'm in a hospital. I don't generally have the AP or ammo/guns to kill, nor revive unless a buddy in my contacts stands up inside. The point of the FAKing, without anything better to do, is to "absorb" the AP zombies and thus reduce how much damage they do; if zombies plan on just sitting inside, they are evicted over an hour or two, a time that such zombies can't stay online for, or don't usually. (I would have to agree with 'cade blocking, certainly with what it does to mall sieges.) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:33, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Barricade if they can, otherwise start evicting zombies as quickly as possible so that you can barricade, since I still contend that barricades are the only mathematical advantage survivors have in the long-term. ?rise actually does work extremely well if you have a coordinated group of zombies, since the zombies can see the zombie stack order, meaning that they can know which zombie will be killed next and can tell that person to be on standby to ?rise. I was doing that earlier this week with MOB, in fact, allowing us to maintain a breach against a group of survivors who we knew were coordinating via IRC in realtime, this giving ferals a chance to follow us in and clean up for us. And while healing does absorb HP, it doesn't fix the problem with zombies forming a beachhead. In a sufficiently large siege of roughly equal sides, you'll get solo survivors coming through at the same rate that you have feral zombies in the siege entering the building, which is why it's so critical to evict zombies ASAP. Once they can establish a beachhead, everything else is downhill for a horde. —Aichon— 23:57, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Before barricade blocking, barricade is the first thing I or pretty much anyone would do. Since then, with 2-3+ zombies, it's a waste. I assume that because the zombies organized a strike team, they are also organized to leave AP to get up and go back in (if they missed the ?rise) after being headshot. FAKing delays and reduces what they can do, and most of the zombies can't stick around for too long, and if enough survivors/trenchies are alive on my side and there are enough in the surrounding area freerunning through, then they can be dumped... avoiding most of the problem of zombies standing right back up and waltzing back in, since the barricades will still be done. I'm basically cynical about the point of killing or even CRing if they can just walk right back in immediately. If time has passed, fewer zombie players are at the keyboard and when dumped they may actually stay outside until enough zombies are gone for the 'cades to go back up. FAKing will keep the human meatshield alive in the meantime (and those with guns can get right to shooting as they come online). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:11, 12 July 2012 (BST)

Based on the search odds page, I still think that only holds true in the short term. If the siege lasts long enough that you're having to restock, the efficiency no longer plays in your favor, and you'll spend more AP recovering than they will damaging you. And if we go with your assertion that FAKs are easier to find than the search odds page says (even with your numbers, they're not much more efficient), you still need some people to work on clearing the breach, which will cost more AP for survivors than it cost for the zombie side. Since zombies in your scenario that make it inside can dedicate their full AP to attacking, while survivors would be split between an AP-efficient/break-even action (FAKing) and a massively inefficient but necessary action (attacking or combat reviving), zombies will still pull ahead in the AP counts over the long-term. Short-term, a lot of what you say is correct due to the survivor's ability to bank AP. Long-term, the math doesn't pan out once stocks run low. Long-term rarely happens, however, due to the aggressor advantage. My gripe is that the few times we've seen it happen, things have still fallen apart due to the math. —Aichon— 00:41, 12 July 2012 (BST)

If we're talking about protracted sieges, then having to search for ammo would be included the same as having to search for FAKs, though more AP will need to be spent for the ammo than the FAKs. But there's a few things we're leaving out, such as which building is under siege, say, hospital, PD, NT. Each have their item advantage. There's also how near different TRPs are. Do we have a hospital right next to a PD? If the siege is protracted, then things will get more complicated, because we need to include which building is under attack and what else is near... short term we can assume people loaded up with FAKs, guns, ammo, whatever. Inevitably, though, yes, zombies have the AP advantage, since survivors get "worn out" from searching for items they've expended. If it was equal early on AP-wise between survivor and zombie, it won't be later (assuming other factors are the same...). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:35, 12 July 2012 (BST)

Sounds like we're basically on the same page. As far as location goes, I was assuming the best case possible as we considered each consumable, meaning that all of the numbers would actually be worse for survivors in practice, since travel times would need to be factored in. I think the best case scenario overall is a lit NT, since it opens up the possibility of combat reviving rotters, which is what you'd likely be facing if the zombies are organized. If you're in anything else, you'd be spending something like 20AP extra per rotter that gets inside in order to shoot them and restock on ammo, and that's definitely not tenable. —Aichon— 02:03, 12 July 2012 (BST)

Indeed. Survivors should just barricade strafe. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:09, 12 July 2012 (BST)

Or River Tactics and Ghost Town Reclamation. I hear that's what all the cool kids are doing these days. ;) —Aichon— 07:35, 12 July 2012 (BST)

Now, what part of this is directly related to the suggestion?        22:53, 12 July 2012 (BST)

Directed mainly at Papa Moloch: I wasn't trying to nerf zombies, no. Not soley, anyway. I know that right now the playing field is how it is, which is mainly survivors. Hence why I was allowing (though not aiming entirely at)PKers, spies and other sneaky, player hating types to equally bash out the field. However, Vapor does make a solid point on the splash damage thing. I don't know how it managed to slip my mind, but it does affect more than one target. Equally valid is Aichon's points on the math of it all. But- I guess that's why we have the development page, right? So someone can point out the floors and errors in a concept before it actually has a chance to be voted on. --• LtZurSee slapped your nose with a newspaper for a heal from CORAM (0 seconds ago) 10:12, 11 July 2012 (BST)

---

Show groups with five or more known members in the Group Rankings listings

Timestamp: BOSCH 17:08, 8 July 2012 (BST)

Type: Game statistics Group Rankings change

Scope: Meta-gaming/groups

Description: As the number of active characters has decreased/levelled out, so too group membership is down overall. I therefore propose that we lower the current bar, and show groups with five or more known members in the Group Rankings listings (down from the old ten). It would boost recruitment and visibility for many groups that have between five and nine members and/or those groups that flit between being on the stats page and not. A simple change that could positively impact the smaller, closer knit, usually more territorial groups this game now produces, whilst offering more visibility for established and brand new groups alike.

Discussion (Show groups with five or more known members in the Group Rankings listings)

I rather like it. Currently, there are probably 10 or so groups about to be dropped off stats if even one member idles out. There's only a few groups above 20 members right now with most hovering between 12 and 15. The times, they are a changin'. Stats page should probably reflect the change. If this gets too much resistance, perhaps change it to groups of 8 or more known members. ~ _{16:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)}

Sounds fair.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 17:00, 10 July 2012 (BST)

You'll get more and more groups showing up as you go lower, so I think 8 might be a better compromise. Even so, that's one of those things that's best left to Kevan to decide, since he'll be able to tell how much of a difference it'll make. —Aichon— 17:32, 10 July 2012 (BST)

^This --Ross^lessness 19:28, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Quick note of clarification: I don't mean that we should kill this suggestion. I just mean that the decision of exactly where the cut-off should be should be left to Kevan. Rather than phrasing it in terms of what the cutoff should be, it might benefit from phrasing it in terms of how much larger you'd like to see the list, then state that the cutoff should be set to that amount, be it 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or whatever, since we don't know which value is the right one. —Aichon— 19:34, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Just bumping this one, and saying that I'd be in favor. It would make it clearer which groups are active, and would benefit new players interested in smaller groups as well as those who want to get a new group off the ground. Bob Moncrief 22:24, 11 July 2012 (BST)

You could just have him change it to show the top X number of groups instead of group numbers. Decided by that group rating stat, if equal sorted by average level and lastly alphabetical if needed.        22:58, 12 July 2012 (BST)

I like that better. Maybe top 100, sorted by the "Rating" column? —Aichon— 23:49, 12 July 2012 (BST)

My concern with "last alphabetical" being used as a criterion is that it's biased against groups with names starting with late letters in the alphabet (and therefore possibly against any groups starting with "Zombie"). I'd be cool if it included the top 100 (or however many) and then any that are tied by ratings stat with group #100, which should only be a couple at most. Bob Moncrief 00:07, 13 July 2012 (BST)

That's exactly what he said: use it as a tiebreaker. Personally, I'd suggest Rating, Known Members, Alphabetical, in that order, and would ignore Average Level (since Average Level and Known Members can be derived from each other after you have Rating, I'd rather use Known Members, which is not approximated and has a better distribution of values, than Average Level, which is rounded off and has less distribution). —Aichon— 00:24, 13 July 2012 (BST)

100 could be a lot. There are currently 52 on the page. Especially if we included all which were tied, we'd end up with considerably more than we would want or expect. I think a numerical cutoff is better (and probably easier to implement - not normally something we should be concerned about, but when it comes to little things here and there that we'd like Kevan to do, we'll be more likely to get it implemented if it's just "change this number from 10 to 8" or whatever).--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 00:34, 13 July 2012 (BST)

---

Verbose Barricades

Timestamp: —Aichon— 17:01, 27 June 2012 (BST)

Type: Game message

Scope: Barricades

Description: The game has various messages in it to help survivors identify forms of attack from threats other than zombies, such as messages saying when someone PKed another player, destroyed a generator, or tore down the last of the barricades. These are all necessary, since players are unable to respond to threats if they cannot identify them (shooting everyone is not a viable option). Unfortunately, one significant threat has been left out. The game currently has options to "Ignore all barricade messages" and "Observe demolition and rebuilding of loose barricades", but it does not have an option to report higher levels of barricading. As a result, it's possible for someone to overbarricade anonymously and without fear of retaliation. When done purposefully, it can be a very effective form of attack, since survivors are unused to fighting their own barricades and the game does not appear to be balanced around having to deal with large-scale overbarricading. I'm proposing a third setting to "Observe barricading beyond very strongly". For a quick example, if I raised the barricades from VSB to EHB, you would see the following if you had chosen to enable the option: Aichon raised the barricades, removing access from the street. (yesterday) Aichon raised the barricades. (yesterday) ...and again. To avoid spam, messages are only produced when barricades go from one level to another, such as HB to VHB, and the message about survivors being unable to enter only appears when barricading from VSB+2 to HB. Any messages presented by this option would be in addition to, rather than as a replacement to, the ones presented by existing options. EDIT 1: Added clarification regarding what happens to other messages. EDIT 2: Rephrased messages slightly, as per comments from Ross below.

Discussion (Verbose Barricades)

Thoughts? —Aichon— 15:21, 29 June 2012 (BST)

Not in favour. At all. Anonymous over-cading is a legitimate tactic for player-killers and death cultists alike, and the last thing the game needs right now is moves like this stamping down further on such perfectly valid dark arts. I've played survivor and dealt with over-cading, and yes, it's frustrating, but you just deal with it. Barricades are WAY over-powered for survivors, so the ability to over barricade (anonymously) is a minor, but useful, counter-weapon. --BOSCH 16:23, 30 June 2012 (BST)

I agree that overbarricading is a perfectly legitimate and useful tactic. Where I disagree is in the anonymity. Your arguments rightly justify overbarricading as a valid tactic, but they do nothing to justify the need for it to be kept anonymous. In every other form of attack I can think of in the game, anonymity is not provided, so I fail to see why it should be provided here. Overbarricading should be frustrating, but right now it is unnecessarily frustrating. —Aichon— 20:58, 30 June 2012 (BST)

Not in favor, either. The suggestion assumes that all overcading tactics are attacks, which they are not. Barricading policies were invented in meta and should stay that way. Often, survivior groups have conflicting opinions on barricade levels and often, players just don't know about barricade policies. In-game messages which imply that overcading is an attack would breed much in-fighting I believe. Also, as Bosch. Don't nerf PK and DC players, plox. ~ _{16:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)}

Vapor, you're arguing points I agree with and had accounted for already, so I think I may have phrased things poorly. What I'm suggesting is simply that players have the option to be presented with additional facts so that they can decide for themselves whether or not an attack has occurred. Nothing more. I very intentionally phrased the messages so that they neither connoted nor inferred that any wrongdoing had occurred, and I only referred to overbarricading as an attack when it was "done purposefully". I never made the assumption that all overbarricading was an attack, nor did I do anything that would insert barricade plans into the game, since I wholly agree with you that those should exist solely in the meta-game. Essentially, all of your points are things I had already thought of and felt I had addressed, but clearly I did not do so adequately. Since this is Developing Suggestions, would you mind helping me to consider some revisions that might make those points clearer? As for DCists and PKers, as much as I love overbarricading, that's a preference on my part, and this isn't about me. —Aichon— 20:58, 30 June 2012 (BST)

I think I probably phrased things incorrectly as well and sounded rather accusatory. What I maen is that, by your reasoning, an in game message warrants an in game action. If I am a survivor and see that "ZombieX brought down the last of the barricades", I'd likely target that zombie at the first oppurtunity. If I am a zombie and I see the message "SurvivorX began to rebuild the barricades using a refridgerator", I'm likely to target that survivor as soon as possible. Now I don't doubt that you or another conciencious survivor might engage SurvivorZ, who raised cades above VSB++ in conversation about local barricade policy or treat them as a DC if that's appropriate, but your average Trenchie may not (and probably won't) be that polite. Basically, I think that no matter how its worded, it would incite innapropriate actions by a a rather wide cross-section of the game's population. ~ _{23:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)}

If I suggested that in-game messages always warrant responses, I apologize, since that is not my belief. For instance, there are messages for placing art pieces, Christmas trees, and museum artifacts in buildings, and some people choose to respond to those (e.g. the Philosophe Knights "educate" people who steal property from Centers of Learning), while most people do not. It's simply a matter of making the information available so that people can choose to act on it. And while I didn't mention it, I should think that this option would not be the default choice, meaning that your average trenchie would not be aware of who's barricading. Even if they were however, I fail to see how that is necessarily a bad thing. It's different, to be sure, and there may be a period of adjustment, but things would doubtless stabilize, as they do after any change. —Aichon— 02:46, 1 July 2012 (BST)

Here's what I think. Bosch and Vapor are completely focused on the disadvantages to PKers and DCists. They're not looking over those disadvantages to spot the advantages that PKers and DCists can use to use this addition to their advantages. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:31, 30 June 2012 (BST)

I really don't see many advantages that could be applied to PK and DC players aside from your blackmail example, and I think that's a bit of a niche tactic. Not something that I or may other PKers DCist that I know would employ. ~ _{23:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)}

There are always advantages to take advantage of. You just need to stop thinking normal and start thinking crazy. Remember, if it looks stupid, but works, it ain't stupid. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:32, 1 July 2012 (BST)

Winking emotes won't persuade the majority of us that your idea isn't crap. --BOSCH 01:01, 1 July 2012 (BST)

See, the difference between you and I, Bosch, is the way we think. Again, don't think simplistic. Sometimes, for an effective strategy, you gotta think outside the box, mate. If an idea looks like crap to you, but it works, then you can't really say it's crap, can you? Saying it's crap would imply that the idea does not work. Most of my strategies and tactics, mate, you might say it's crap, but they work, do they not? It might not be something you're used to, but they work, therefore, you can't really say they're crap. If Aichon's suggestion sees the light of day, I bet you I can come up with a strategy that works that takes advantage of this addition. So, Bosch. Don't say an idea is crap until you see it in action. As stupid as they may seem, you can't say anything if they work. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:05, 1 July 2012 (BST)

I'm actually in favor of it because it gives me plenty of incentive to blackmail people and groups. With something like this, a DC-ist can easily claim a pro-survivor group helped out with the pinata-ing of a building. For example, Skynet unintentionally helped Organization XIII pinata their HQ once by increasing the barricade levels (O13's HQ is an island, if you guys recall). An addition like this gives such DC-ist groups or groups that use DC tactics the opportunity to blackmail and lower the reputation of both pro-survivors and pro-survivor groups. Don't think normal, like what Bosch and Vapor are doing. Think crazy. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:30, 30 June 2012 (BST)

So, would this mean you see increasing and decreasing cades or would it just be when the cade level is raised? -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 21:02, 30 June 2012 (BST)

Only increases. An initial version of this suggestion included an additional option to also observe decreases, but I removed it for the sake of keeping things focused. That said, your question made me realize that I forgot to account for the "Loosely" option that already exists. I'll add a clarification in a moment. —Aichon— 21:25, 30 June 2012 (BST)

I like it.... sometimes it is more important to know who is trying to block access than it is to know folks are chewing their way in! Saying it shouldn't be notified because it might compromise some play styles is like saying attacks etc should be anonymous--Honestmistake 23:12, 30 June 2012 (BST)

Similar suggestions have been made in the archives. One of the main arguments against it, from my recollections, is that it actually encourages PKing of "offenders". It potentially causes problems, given the metagame nature of barricade plans, and the fact that unintentional overbarricading is easy to do (especially for newcomers, or simply because someone else was also barricading in real time, when you put up that one piece too many) -- boxy 00:32, 1 July 2012 (BST)

Overbarricading certainly is easy, and there may be a period of adjustment while everyone gets used to that fact. Just as people acclimate to any other game changes, so too would they do so here. All this is doing is providing additional information so that people can make informed decisions. Nothing more. How they choose to act on the information available has been and will always be their prerogative, and is outside the scope of this suggestion. —Aichon— 02:46, 1 July 2012 (BST)

Good lord, I forgot how much this place begs for change but can't handle it when it comes. Anyways, I like the suggestion. It plays for both sides, as a PKer, DC, Zombie, etc. you can easily tell if there are and who the active re-builders are and target them(as you should correct?). It is balanced because it helps survivors see recurring offenders or the misinformed.

Next, you all are jumping to the conclusion that this will cause people to kill others at the drop of a hat. How many times have you seen someone get PKed and not really cared to search for the offender? Point proven.

Lastly it's just common sense, if someone tears off a sheet of drywall or drags a refrigerator across the room to build a barricade your going to notice. Just like you notice when someone jumps out a window or sets up a generator.        17:56, 2 July 2012 (BST)

I prefer both Suggestion:20070704_Barricade_Alerts and Suggestion:20070901_View_Barricade_Level_Increase --Ross^lessness 18:22, 2 July 2012 (BST)

What about them do you like, specifically? I see flaws in both, but I'm curious why you prefer them. I'm rather fond of the wording of the messages used in your first link, and may appropriate that for this suggestion. —Aichon— 18:49, 2 July 2012 (BST)

Oh yeah, totally the wording. --Ross^lessness 19:29, 2 July 2012 (BST)

I like this, but it'd probably be Duped were it taken to voting due to the numerous suggestions in this vein already. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:34, 2 July 2012 (BST)

If the ones Ross linked are any indication, there are sufficient differences. For instance, neither of the ones he linked is optional, meaning that the spam arguments lobbied against them would not apply here, and both of them present messages both for increasing and decreasing the barricades, whereas this one does not (I don't believe survivors should have in-game help in seeing barricades going down). Also, the first one he linked only applies at the border between VSB and HB, whereas this one extends to EHB. —Aichon— 18:49, 2 July 2012 (BST)

I like this idea, since it only shows cades going up. What minimal problems it creates for PKers/DCist is more than compensated by the likelihood that survivors will spend more AP warning and/or killing offenders and less AP actually fixing the problem. While it does also offer a way to inform new or just unknowing players of the suggested cade levels. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:26, 2 July 2012 (BST)

---

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.

There are currently no suggestions up for voting.