Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Further Discussion

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

Cycling Suggestions

Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.

This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the Overflow-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.

The following suggestions are currently on the Overflow page: No suggestions are currently in overflow.

If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

---

Suggestions

Zerged Barricade Obstruction

Timestamp:	--Johnny Bass 07:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	more zerg protection in game
Scope:	Zombie
Description:	Currently, zerged zombie characters can all contribute to barricade blocking rates if they are from the same IP address. Characters tripping the flag should not contribute to this rate in the same fashion that characters from the same IP address cannot heal each other.

Discussion (Zerged Barricade Obstruction)

Sounds very reasonable. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Is their rate of barricading affected like their healing, etc? If not then it should be as well.

---

Minimap Class Emphasis

Timestamp:	Vince with Shamwow 05:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	The background colors for other survivors are very pale and extremely difficult to tell which class they are at first glance. I think they should be made to contrast with each other a little more.

---

Trail Blood

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	I suggest adding a skill to let zombies allow other zombies to know where they are. The Trail Blood skill would put a new button on a zombie's interface: [Trail Blood]. Clicking it causes your zombie to ooze and drip blood and bile as they move. This doesn't have any effect on the room description because the amount is relatively small, but it makes a zombie far more fragrant. If you draw attention to yourself by speaking it allows zombies with Scent Trail to track you. Here's how it works. A zombie has Trail Blood activated. They speak, doesn't matter if they have death rattle or not. Zombies with Scent Death that hear the message see this: A zombie said "Hrmmmm harman" (now 3n1w) A useful way of gathering fellow zombies to you. If you ever want to not be trackable you'd be able to press [Stop Trailing Blood] to switch back. Switching either way would cost 1AP. Each time a zombie speaks when Trail Blood is active there would be a 10% chance of losing the ability to leave a trail (they don't lose the skill, just the button). They've just run out of gore to drip. Killing a survivor replenishes this gruesome supply and restores the button. This ensures that only effectively muderous zombies would be able to keep calling allies. This skill would be useful in areas with limited feeding groans, or where survivors heavily outnumber zombies. Experienced players could call others to follow them - if a high level zombie or one in a reputable group is trailing blood, they may have a smart target in mind. Even more useful would be the ability zombies would gain to follow their contacts and stick together.

Discussion (Trail Blood)

What do you think? I'm trying to make something gross but plausible. Just a little dribble of blood from the zombie's mouth, or oozing from bullet holes in their side. That tiny residue is enough for zombies with enhanced scent to track them. And as a game function, I think it would prove fantastically useful. I think it remains balanced since you can't tell other zombies about targets, nor send them elsewhere, but merely convince them to follow you. --A Big F'ing Dog 17:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the range on this? 15 squares, I presume? And do we need another zed-gathering skill since we already have feeding groans? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

15 spaces does seem like a decent range. Feeding Groan is useful if you don't know anyone. But it'll quickly disperse a gathering of zombies as they log in at different times and go after the most recent groan. This would be useful for zombies that know each other, or want to keep working together based on past success. Zombie groups could even operate without metagaming mostly. The leader just groans, and the pack follows them to the new location. --A Big F'ing Dog 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I think 15 spaces to be too large. You can hear a loud groan from a ways away, but your nose won't be that good. I would suggest a range of 10 squares. Because this is more versatile than groan (they can find you at block without survivors present), it should have a shorter range. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well just make it 10 squares like Scent Trail. As for "replenishing" the gore, it would make sense that if the zombie is damaged they would get replenished also.--Pesatyel 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"They speak, doesn't matter if they have death rattle or not." I'm unclear why this skill should allow a zombie without death rattle to talk. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 06:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Lay To Rest

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombie survival
Description:	Zombies can now purchase the skill "Lay To Rest" for 100XP with the following properties: A zombie can now "Lie Down" for a cost of 1AP A zombie that is lying down cannot perform any action except standing up in the normal manner and at the cost of 1AP (regardless of ankle grab). When a zombie is lying down it cannot be seen from adjacent squares (from a distance it appears as a dead body), it can however be seen/attacked/pricked by any player occupying the same square as if it was a normal (standing) zombie. A zombie that is lying down cannot be seen through Binoculars and is not included in External Military Reports. If a zombie lies down in a building it cannot be dumped (if your in the building you are in the same block (large buildings they must be in the same block to be seen) so it acts as a normal zombie). Effects: Helps to increase zombie survivability, Gives more of a purpose to walking the streets as opposed to free running everywhere, Practically useless to zombies in hordes because the sheer amount of activity means they are likely to be discovered by people going to and from the scene, Useful to feral/lone zombies in quiet areas because they are only likely to be discovered by chance/people searching for zombies outside.

Discussion (Lay To Rest)

Pointless. At the moment it has no advantage other than costing 1AP more (to lie down and get up) as it does currently to simply die, and THEN get up. Also, it could be manipulated to prohibit survivor xp, by lying down to stop a survivor from getting the xp-gaining last hit. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The advantage is it reduces the chance for a zombie to be spotted, potentially saving them from the AP they would lose from a headshot and I don't see how it would stop a survivor gaining XP because the zombie can still "be seen/attacked/pricked by any player occupying the same square" this would actually be more useful to lower level players because they could lay down and reduce the chance of being spotted then get up later for a total of 2AP as opposed to the 10/15AP they would have without ankle grab. --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Zombies are predators, not prey. And no ninja zombies! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies are predators, but how often (in the genre) do you see a zombie playing dead/still alive amongst the bodies that only attacks when a victim gets within range. This allows zombies a better chance at survival which is crucial for newbies, it also means I can't pop my head out and get a reading for 9 blocks as accurately, if a scout wants accurate data they'll have to check each block. This hopefully makes it easier for low-level zombies and more interesting for high level survivors. --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Newbies won't have this skill though. It's absolutely useless for gaining XP, and would only serve as a red herring. As for rising from a pile of bodies, we have this handy little skill you may have heard of called Ankle Grab.
The mere fact that people are proposing a skill that lets zombies hide from survivors speaks volumes as to the sad state of the game's current population balance, or more to the point, im-balance. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that all the rocket launcher suggestions speak volumes to how hard it is to kill zombies? :) ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure this would be duped many times over if brought to vote. This is not new or original. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea... Just a few questions. If this were used inside a building, would the survivors be able to dump the zombie outside like with a corpse? How does this affect binoculars? Is accuracy increased when attacking a dead body (since, you know, they don't move...)? Will this influence the External Military Reports? It's a good idea, but it needs some work. More details, mostly. --LaosOman 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the suggestion is it stops zombies being seen from a distance, up close they function just the same as any other zombie. So... No to dumping, Binoculars can't see them, and they are not included in radio reports. Attacking the zombie would have the standard attack % as well. Update to description to include these details. --Kamikazie-Bunny 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the utility of this... if it is to hide zombie numbers in an area, then it hurts zombies just as much as it helps, because they would not see one another at range and that makes it tougher to horde up. If it's to prevent being "hunted," then... why? Since this is a skill, you are asking a zombie to buy THIS rather than, say, Ankle Grab. If they had Ankle Grab, it is easier to just get killed and hop back up again. So... how do you envision this being used? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested a lot before and this is probably the WORST itteration I have ever seen. You cannot use "normal" zombie genre logic in this context because the game is much too simple for that to work. Do you have ANY idea how this could be abused? Obviously not. This is not about "zombie survivability". That is already factored into the game by the ability of a zombie to stand at full health. Your argument, first of all, is confusing. Either the zombie is "lying down" OR it is standing. With this suggestion, you have them doing both at the same time. I have several other issues, but you have to clear THAT one up first.--Pesatyel 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see this being implemented. It doesn't matter if the zombie dies it only costs 1 AP to stand up (6 if you include Headshot) Apart from nerfing headshot, this serves the zombie very little. .--Ricci Bobby 12:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Vomit

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Zombie Attack
Scope:	Zeds&Victims
Description:	"It has been observed that some zombies have become so bloated from consuming the living that they have began regurgitating on their victims prior to consumption... whether this is to aid digestion, create room for fresh meat or if the zombie gains some form of pleasure from this torture remains unknown. Survivors of attacks describe the vomit as 'an intense burning sensation' however the real threat is if the fluid gets on the victims face and in their eyes, the fluid effectively blinds the survivor for an extended period of time or until they can rinse it out." Zombies will now gain the following: A new attack "Vomit" which causes 1 HP damage and has a base accuracy of 15% Upon a successful hit vomit has a 50% chance of causing 1AP damage. Vomit receives the bonuses of Vigor Mortis and Tangling Grasp (Acc. not Grasp) Gastric Acid (Subskill of digestion) - Doubles the HP and MP damage of vomit.

Discussion (Vomit)

dont.mess.mit.meine.AP! >=[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vas vaiting for dat.... Anything useful to say rather than just quoting the wiki? --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't fucking touch my fucking AP, you fucking fuck. Also, we don't have Mana Points. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not mana, it's MAGIC points, mana is the stuff it is made from. --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We still don't have magic points. And don't mess with our AP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add some things wrong with the suggestion. Firstly, in AP efficiency, this is sorta useless, because the small chance to deal 1 ap is not sufficient compared to the zombies, current damage potential. Also, all that with just an AP destroyer, and even then, 50% chance, isn't sufficient enough to use it as a tactic. Of course, with the bonuses, these chances become a bit better, but even then, theres no logic to hand-melee-related skills giving bonuses to mouth-related attacks, else it would affect the bite also. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AP efficiency is meant to be low, if it was higher players could completely destroy survivor AP stocks by metagaming and dedicated tactics. This way a full supply of Z-AP is only more effective than headshot when maxed out (nearly all attacks are useless at low levels). I did not want it to be so that a lone zombie could demolish a players AP supply, only that they could hinder it in a similar fashion to headshot. I'm not sure why your complaining about the bonuses though V.M effects all non-weapon Zattacks that includes the bite and so does tangling grasp (effectively by grabbing the survivor for better aim). Whoops, forgot to sign! --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

When a new feature is introduced, people tend to expect it to be a buff or a nerf, else it is useless. If a new skill is introduced, it is expected to be useful in some way. If it isn't AP efficient like this skill, I'm afraid people just see a potential skill that they won't wanna use. And Blake has got a good idea down there. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, we need more requisition before we can implement such an unbelievably good skill.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 10:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

no. gb2 l4d. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps this suggestion could work well if it 'doubled' the scent value of a survivor in terms of Scent Death? Zombie puke would smell rank, and as such would be picked up by nearby zeds. Plus, a marker to same-area zeds to show who's been coated.--Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the AP loss would doom this suggestion as it stands. I could see vomiting being used to infect survivors, though. Make this a skill that requires infectious bite. Vomiting would hit at 40%, do 1 damage and cause infections. There would be no hp gain from vomiting, and also less damage caused or experience acquired. The Mad Axeman 11:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Blake has something of an idea. Under normal "tracking" rules, a zombie can only track a survivor if the survivor interacts with the zombie (ie attacks or whatever). With this, the zombie can puke on the survivor and thus intiate the same tracking ability (maybe even for OTHER zombies too).--Pesatyel 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing feels to much like the boomers from Left 4 Dead. -CaptainVideo 05:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Barriers

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	everyone
Description:	New Item: Lumber. Found in Factories, Junkyards, and Warehouses. 20% Encumbrance. To build a Barrier you need the Construction skill, a Toolbox, and at least 1 Lumber. When outside you have a new button: Build Barrier, if you have all the above requirements. The buttom will have a drop down menu with the options North, South, East, and West. Clicking the button costs 10 AP and builds a Barrier along the side of the block you are in along the direction you picked in the drop down menu. Now as long as the Barrier is in place no player, Zombie or Survivor, can cross the barrier, directly or diagonally. Barrier Levels: Barriers come in 5 levels. You can keep building on an existing Barrier up to Level 5, but each level costs another 1 Lumber and 10 AP to build. L1: Weak Barrier L2: Barrier L3: Strong Barrier L4: Heavy Barrier L5: Extremely Heavy Barrier. Barriers exist on the line between two blocks, so you can't "double up" a barrier by building along one blocks South border and the block belows North border. Only one Barrier can exist on this line, but you could build on this Barrier on either side. Attacking Barriers: Barriers can be attacked, if a player is on one side or the other. Barriers have HP equal to their level times 15. Only Hand to Hand Weapons or Claws effect Barriers. Guns and Teeth have no effect. Flavor text changes to reflect the new levels as a Barrier loses its HP to attacks. Barriers inside buildings: You can build a Barrier inside a building, but in this case it only blocks FreeRunning.

Discussion (Barriers)

They have way too much health, for starters. 10 AP barricading only gives 10 HP cades, at most. And what about diagonal movement? Blocking Free-running is also a big no-no. It's basically a way to make something non-ruined a ruin with spies or whatever. Not only that, getting into EHB and Barrier'd buildings would be impossible, say, Malls for instance, right? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I was thinking Barriers would be attacked using regular combat. So, no "half attack value" like barricades, but you would just chew threw them normally. So a zombie would need to land five Claw attacks at normal hit rate to take it down one level, or 25 successful hits to bring an Extremely Heavy Barrier down to nothing, so at 50% thats about 50 AP, vs the 50 AP that a survivor would need to put them up. Not including searching for the Lumber.

2. A Barrier would block direct movement and diagonal movement. So if facing a Barrier to the North, you couldntt move N, NW, or NE.

3. I didn't think about Big Buildings, but I think you would only be able to build Barriers along the outside of those, like only the N and W of the NW Square of a Mall, only N and E of the NE square of the Mall, and so on. As if it were one big Block instead of four separate ones. You could still freerun into a building like that though as long as no Barriers were built inside. But then youd need to build Barriers along 8 different sections and with no Lumber inside as a resource that would be hard to keep up. I'm assuming you can Attack "inside" Barriers from adjacent buildings.--Zombie Lord 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless used with setting up 4 barriers around each side it is useless. And when it does get barriers blocking each side it becomes over powered. Probably a dupe aswell, good thinking thou --Athur birling 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, not so much 4 sides of one block, but think if you strung a line of them up along several blocks, on only the West side lets say. You'd have a wall that would have to be smashed through or gone around. You could set up "fences" around areas. Not so useful for a single player, but Groups could organize fence lines around as large an area as they think they could maintain. --Zombie Lord 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The last think this game needs is more barricades (which is all these are), especially insanely overpowered ones like these. --Papa Moloch 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Insanely? come on, you need 10 AP AND a resource item that weighs 20% just to get 15 HP worth of Barriers. 15 HP that can be taken down with 5 Claw attacks at 3 Dmg. It would let Survivors block off sections from each other more than anything.

And Barricades isn't "all these are". Check my response to Athur.--Zombie Lord 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. 1: Lower their health. 8 HP should be fine (2 axe swings). 2: You can only block diagonal movement if you have barriers on both the directions involved (to block NE, barricades are N and E for example.) 3: Extra levels add a fraction of the original's health (4 HP) --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't 8 HP three axe swings, with 3 damage per swing? I think Zombie Lord also need to clarify whether this gives XP like doing HP damage (lots, easily) and whether or not crowbars get the bonus here as they do when attacking cades. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested before. This is a wee bit better than in the past, but still significantly overpowered. Imagine you enter square A to find a barrier with 75 HIT POINTS. Then square B with another....on and on for several squares. Maxed out survivors would have little reason not to do it. Why? Nothing else to do and many like screwing with others. There are also some zerge issues. 200 XP is NOT that difficult to acquire for a character to create zerge barricaders. Most of all, this would just hurt zombies and newbie players without Free Running.--Pesatyel 04:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess. Still, one 75 hp barrier is going to cost 50 AP and 5 Lumber (plus the AP to find the lumber). You'd have to make an assload of zergs to make any real progress like that. The bigger groups in the game could make use of it if they really organized. I think you'd have to use it carefully too. I mean, you'd be locking some zombies IN, just as much as others out. If used in combo with the inside barriers, Survivors would have a way to actually claim territory and defend it from other Survivors. Which is the real point of this whole suggestion. Maybe there is a better way to go about it though?--Zombie Lord 06:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we've seen this one several times before. See Suggestion:20070914 Build Barrier for one such dupe. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Blah, blah. Different mechanics, not a real dupe, etc, etc, blah blah--Zombie Lord 06:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Dark Building Anonymity

Timestamp:	LaosOman 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Building change
Scope:	Survivors in dark buildings
Description:	With the lights out, you can hardly see anything. So how is it that you can still identify other survivors when in a dark building? I propose that instead of Also here are <person X> and <person Y>, it will read There are two survivors here. If a person is in your contact list, you will be able to identify them, since you know them well enough to know their voice - There are four survivors here. You recognise two of them as <person Y> and <person Z>. If the persons are not in your contact list, and it's really important for you to know their identity, one could use Feeding Drag as a zombie, or install a generator as a survivor. Any interaction with you that they have in the darkness, (with healing being the most obvious example), will show A survivor healed you for 10 HP, with a link to the profile in A survivor. Diagnosis would no longer work in dark buildings, since names are not portrayed. Healing will be done like DNA Extraction, but if you heal a survivor who is not yet at full health, they will still be next up for healing. Attempting to heal a person with full health or bringing a person to full health will move the stack. If a zombie has Scent Fear, the attack order will be grouped in "dying, wounded, normal", but order within those categories is random. A zombie with Scent Blood has a more advanced attack order, with the least healthy survivors getting attacked first. If a zombie does not have Scent Fear, attack order will be determined like with other zombies.

Discussion (Dark Building Anonymity)

I appreciate the realism but dark buildings were enough of a pk buff. This is too far.--xoxo 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How would interacting with non-contact-listed survivors work? Like zombies? Or would it work at all? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Re:Interaction would work the same as with zombies: You heal a survivor for 10 HP. The Diagnosis skill would not work for obvious reasons, but if you heal somebody who had full HP, the next person in the stack will be the next to be targeted. Attacking order is determined as usual for survivors, you just don't see the dropdown box.--LaosOman 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombie identity can be revealed by scanning and this would need some sort of similar process. A torch might work for this purpose:

• "You shine your torch into the dark corners of the building and reveal 'survivor x'"

Preferably this would show the description from their profile page and the link so you can see skills or add them as a contact. It could work really well but I have to ask what it would add to the game other than making it harder to hunt down PKers? --Honestmistake 13:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Survivors can already be identified by fueling a generator or by using Feeding Drag on them (takes them outside into the light). If they interact with you, for instance with attacks or healing, the a survivor in a survivor healed you for 10 HP will be a link to their profile, like with zombies.
As for your second question: this adds only "realism" to the game. Or rather, more logic. As side effects, PKers may become harder to hunt down, but one can simply add known PKers to a contact list to avoid that.
...I actually think this may shift balance to the zombies more than to pro-survivors or PKers. A zombie with Scent Fear will attack in order of "dying, wounded, normal", while a zombie with Scent Blood will actually attack the survivor with the least HP first (they work with scent, rather than sight, so naturally it still works in a dark building). Basically, this makes dark buildings just a little less attractive to the survivors, who are generally considered as the "overpowered" side.--LaosOman 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! This seems like a great idea, and besides, why would you wast ammo on a Pker hiding in a dark building? While some will say no, I think this is a necessary evil for the sake of flavor/realism, and also, you could just as easily hide from PKers there too! Kinda. Keep! --S1leNt RIP 05:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are pkers not already hard enough to kill in a dark building? I don't know how many times some has asked me to drop a genny in some bank--Athur birling 09:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: It's not going to make PKers any harder to kill - accuracy will still be halved, just like it always was. And if you've had no previous interaction with the PKer (and thus, won't have him among your contacts), why would you want to kill them to begin with? --LaosOman 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Rubble Usage

Timestamp:	=Col Noonan 11:38, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	I had the idea for a quick and easily available weapon for humans that I read was used in a four hour long skirmish in Stalingrad. Add a brick to the weapons list. It would have to have a low accuracy rate and damage dealt, so that it isn't too cheap. It would be available in EVERY square, and would deal one more damage than a punch, with a little less accuracy rate. It's just for those that, say, run out of ammo and absolutely need a weapon.

Discussion (Rubble Usage)

I'm not arguing against your suggestion exactly, but your logic. When you "run out of ammo" that is what tennis rackets, baseball bats, pipes, knives, axes, hockey sticks, fencing foils, cricket bats, crowbars, golf clubs, and ski poles are for. As for the suggestion itself you really need to be specific with your game mechanics. "A little less accurate than a punch" is too vague.--Pesatyel 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Either way, it's a dupe. _Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And humans, by definition, means zombies too. Man, I'm such a perfectionist, I even make myself proud. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I created the entry being cited above, you have my endorsement if this makes it to Peer Reviewed. Bear in mind, however, that you'd have to satisfy the critics when I couldn't. -CaptainVideo 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Fence Repair

Timestamp:	Super Nweb 07:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Humans
Description:	Ooh about to get flamed again, I just know it. As of now fences are useless (Along with wire cutters). Now I think the idea of all the fences in UD magically repairing themselves is stupid so why not let the humans do it, this is a spin on an old suggestion. New skill under construction "Advanced Construction" basically it allows you to take an area that previously had a fence and if you have a lead pipe in your inventory you can cade it up to VSB+2 for 5ap. This is balanced by the fact that you need lead pipes to do it, and wire cutters would be useful again, but it wouldn't be invincible to zombies, just an easy barricade.

Discussion (Fence Repair)

1. Dupe.
2. Game breakingly overpowered since wire cutters can't be found any more. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
3. . This honestly doesn't make sense. -CaptainVideo 04:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I realized that this needs clarification. Even if wirecutters were reenabled, the idea of fences healing themselves is what gets me. 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete: you haven't explained how wire cutters would be useful again; also, as Iscariot says, wirecutters can no longer be found. As-is, this is broken due to buffing what's already one of the biggest survivor AP advantages. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Carry

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 13:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Flavour
Scope:	Profile checkers
Description:	In addition to the wearing section of the description page there should be a "Carrying" section with two slots, one for hands and one for back. Objects being carried have no effect on game play and are purely for flavour. As with clothes different items are available in different places and some are available in a range of colours. Feel free to suggest additional items to the example lists below: Hand objects: A Wrench Some Frankincense Some Rosary Beads A Broken Torch A Shovel A Safety Sign A Fire Hose A Broken Assault Rifle A Stethoscope A Bucket A Car Tyre A Plastic sword A Generator Parts A Traffic Cone A Stereo A Football A Hockey ball A dead rat Survivors can also equip an item from their inventory to display the sort of roll they are currently fulfilling, if the equipped item is dropped/used/etc. then it is removed from the description. Back Objects: A Child's backpack A Back pack A Rucksack A Sleeping bag In addition to these objects for survivors there are several objects only zombies can pick-up in the presence of dead bodies... Hand Objects: 01+ bodies - A Bone 05+ bodies - A Human liver 10+ bodies - A Severed arm 15+ bodies - A Human heart 20+ bodies - A Human head Although these objects will have no effect on the game, I and (I'm assuming) other players enjoy reading the colourful descriptions of the mostly silent population of Malton. These objects will help people better define their characters appearance and possibly provide an idea of the players mindset. I am aware their is a description section but there is only so much room in it and this allows us profile readers a little more fun and to use our description to better express our characters personality.

Discussion (Carry)

I don't really feel this is necessery, but I don't have any strong objections either. The back space seems to have too little in it. I suppose you could add a bum bag to the back space! Carefull with the wrench - it looks like something that should have an in game effect, such as smashing someones skull in. The Mad Axeman 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit it's not necessary, it's purely flavour and has no in game effect. I know the back list is a little empty, feel free to suggest as many things as you can think of that are appropriate. I'll update the list later. If Kevan ever implemented one of these objects as an item I see no reason why it can't be on both choices, there's no harm in showing people what you are carrying. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"In addition to the wearing section of the description page there should be a "Carrying" section with two slots, one for hands and one for back. Objects being carried have no effect on game play and are purely for flavour." - Take it to Clothing Suggestions. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not a clothing suggestion though and should certainly be here, if implemented it could best be improved on that page though. --Honestmistake 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Necklaces are not clothing, medallions are not clothing, 3D glasses are not clothing, goggles are not clothing, and gas masks are not clothing. And this isn't even one third into Clothes. This is essentially a clothing suggestion, even if they aren't exactly clothes. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

those are all worn items though, this deals very specifically with things being visably carried which i personally see as being a distinct enough change to be discussed here.--Honestmistake 08:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Objects with a distinct use and the require a failure possible search = items. Objects with purely flavour reasons that appear in the 'character is wearing' pane = clothing. Which part of this logical progression escapes you? All this does is spam up this page because you can't be arsed to take it to the correct page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your complaining about spam? 90% of your comments are non-constructive and spam up idea discussions (And just to ensure you don't start on some stupid debate about this being a spam comment) I've removed the backpacks from the idea to account for the "It's there so it must do something" mentality that some people adopt and made a change to items that can be shown... --Kamikazie-Bunny 09:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot "In addition to the wearing section of the description page there should be a "Carrying" section" ...which part of this led you to believe these are worn when it clearly states they will be in a seperate section called "Carrying"? No where does this suggestion say you can place searchable items in these slots, that is my addition to the discussion. Nowhere do I say that these searchable items would no longer require searching... in fact i clearly state that they should be in your inventory (hence you would already have to have searched for them!) Saying you don't like an idea is fine, saying you don't like it and that means it has no right to be here is not.. even if this should be on clothing suggestions when complete it is here for discussion and development which is very definitely the purpose of this page.--Honestmistake 10:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like idea for a slot for the back as it can only mislead folk into thinking they can carry more. As for the rest I think the carry object should also allow any item in your inventory to be selected.--Honestmistake 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Midianian is right this really IS a clothing equivalent suggestion.--Pesatyel 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is essentially a new clothing slot in many respects, however given the very nature of the slots they could be seen to act differently. There would be no point posting these onto the clothing page as the slots do not exist, also, because any sort of bag is going to suggest improved carrying capacity it deserves discussion (and i believe killing) Finally the "item" slot could and probably should be expanded to allow the display of a favoured "useful" item as well as the purely decorative. If it gets accepted then it would deserve space on the clothing page but at the moment it is a developing suggestion to iron it out and gauge support for the extra slot/s --Honestmistake 08:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a clothing suggestion. New clothing slots have been suggested before, guess where they went? Clothing suggestions. If it has an effect, it's a suggestion. If it does nothing but appear in your profile, it's clothing. I repeat, this is a clothing suggestion. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If he includes my suggestion to allow inventory items to go in this slot it would have an in game effect. If you place a syringe, toolkit, FAK etc there it shows people what you might focus on. Sure you could just type that into the description but this would do it better.--Honestmistake 11:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to try re-work this suggestion into two parts in a few days... The first being the "adding a carry slot to display an item in your inventory" and the second being a "list of flavour items that can be found in buildings for the carrying slot"... the boys and girls can bitch and moan about the new flavour items option all they want but the first part should be 'unique' enough to satisfy the nit-pickers. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dupe. Also, don't connect suggestions. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already a clothing suggestion nearly identical to this one. I voted no. --William Told and Co. ^{ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ} 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Kick Out Skill

Timestamp:	Close to death 20:00, Monday, 2nd March 2009
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivor.
Description:	New skill, Civilian skill, 35% Chance of hit, 2 Damage This is a skill that will even it out a bit, the zombie skill "Feeding Drag" lets the zombie player drag helpless survivors outside for the kill, right? well this is a skill that will let you kick them out before they can drag you out. Practicaly it is a skill that lets you kick a zombie that just entered the building, out again, Condition for skill to work: The doors still have to be open, the baracades have been destroyed. This is a skill ment as a last ditch efforts to save the building while dealing some damage in the process. Cost 5AP, Cannot be used against other survivors. Alternate is this skill adds "Kick" as an attack with the same parameters as punch, but with the chance of kicking the zombie out of an open door. What it will say if you miss "You attack the zombie but miss" What it will say if you hit "You kick the zombie for 2 damage. They drop to x." What it will say if you hit and zombie gets kicked out "You land a kick on a zombie and it gets forced out the open door for 2 damage. They drop to x."

Discussion (Kick Out Skill)

Well how does this sound?

Moved from Category:Current Suggestions. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty pointless to me. You might as well finish the zombie off and dump the body. And you want to be re-barricading if possible, which conflicts with kicking the zombie out. --Explodey 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. It saves a step, and when you're down to your last couple of AP points, that matters. -CaptainVideo 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrible for many different reasons, not the least of which is that zombies have to gravely weaken survivors in order to drag them. Add into that the massive AP cost of getting a zombie into a building as compared to the minimal AP cost for a survivor to do the same and I think we can just say that this suggestion isn't workable. --Papa Moloch 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

From where? -CaptainVideo 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From the brain of everyone's favorite wiki-bigot. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As Explodey said, it doesn't really have much relevance or point to the current game system. Also, you should elaborate on what is considered a 'recent' break in. Can you kick a zombie till ten minutes after he has gotten inside the building? Or what? --Happy doodle 18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Overpowered. Feeding Drag has a the requirment of the victim being 12 hp or less. With this, I could, conceivably, kick out 9 full health zombies, then spend the last APs to barricade (or run). Maybe if there were significant penalties you would do better. Maybe there is a chance of you going out with the zombie. Hell, maybe there is a chance of getting infected (kicking knocks something of the zombie or something).--Pesatyel 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While I don't seem much use other than flavor from it, for balance you could fix it to better balance with Feeding Drag by only being able to use it on a zombie at 12 hp or less and not doing any damage. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. There'd be no point to killing zombies at all (other than XP). You just get them down to 12 HP and kick them out. If they try back in, you could kick them out immediately. A zombie at 12 HP is already much worse off than one that's dead, this would make them almost completely powerless. The zombies would have to start killing eachother if they ever wanted to get anything done. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the main thing that needs to be changed is that this has to only be affective against zombies with "12 hp or less", i'll just see if there are any more suggestions by you guys and then i'll edit the skill to better match what the players want. --User:Close to death 19:20, 4 March 2009

No. Read Papa Moloch's comment. This is overpowered no matter what. It takes a lot of effort for zombies to break into buildings, and survivors shouldn't be able to just kick them out. --William Told and Co. ^{ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ} 09:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

• Suggestion:20090301 Skyscrapers as Navigation Landmarks is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion:20090302 Basic Character Visuals is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion:20090310 Direction With Most Group Groans is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---