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

Crowbar training

Timestamp:	Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	From months of continuing to lever away sections of barricades, survivors are becoming more skilled in finding the fastest way to pry away the boards. This would be a new training, either as a basic civilian, or off of construction, which would give something like a +10% (Or something like that, feel free to discuss) boost to using a crowbar on barricades. This would primarily help to deal with over-barricading, and zombie pinatas. I don't think that there's much window for alt abuse, and this would mainly just edge the statistics slightly, without changing the game fully. (How many people would buy this skill early on?)

Discussion (Crowbar Training)

Personally, I think crowbars could use a +5% base to-hit. As it sits right now, crowbars are more useful than fire axes only twice a year-- when there are supply crates dropping (and even then, it's not about being better at getting the crate, it's about breakage of items inside). Once you have Axe Training, there's really no reason to ever touch a crowbar again, and I think that's a shame. Anyway, I don't really like this idea, first because I think crowbars should get a boost without a skill, and second because I think saying "crowbar training" sounds silly. But I support the general idea. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Crowbars are lighter than axes but have the same chances to hit barricades. If you don't need a melee weapon, a crowbar is better than an axe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of increasing the base to-hit for a crowbar, what about a skill that gives a +5% or +10% bonus... but ONLY for the purpose of removing barricades? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Let's make some difference between classes

I know it's too complex, but I think it is interesting. I'd like to develop skill and make classes differ from each other. The following skill suggestion is just a try. And excuse me for my bad English.

Timestamp:	--Vissarion Belinski 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skills
Scope:	All players
Description:	UD has 4 starting classes. There are three survivor classes (Civilian, Military, Scientist) and Zombie class, which you recieve after death. Starting as a Zombie and getting revived makes you Civilian. So there are three classes. Civilian<->Zed; Military<->Zed and Scientist<->. And VERY slight difference between them. So slight, that we feel it only two starting months (if we really feel). That slight difference makes me say that there is only one class for 30000 active players. We need some difference! Every class should have one (or few maybe) unique skill, and if you take Zombie unique skill, you can't take survivor unique skill. That would make the game much more interesting. Let's discuss and develop it. Military Skill or skills may be: Improved Headshot, making zombies spend 10, not 5 AP to stand up. Professional [firearm] training, which adds further +10% to hit chance. That's more balanced, as it can be used by PKers and Z-spies, not only by Hunters. Science NecroTech put smart english word here. You need to spend just 5 AP to revive zombie and just 10 to manufacture syringe. Civilian Treasure Hunting, adds +10% bonus to find something when searching any building. Zombie And to balance all that survivor skills let's make zombies more powerfull with special zombie skill. I don't know how to call it, but I know how it should work, not making zeds too powerfull. When zombie attacks a survivor and if the survivor HP drop to 25 or lower (wounded), zombie starts to feel hunger and rage, making all attacks stronger. That's just like feedeng drag, but adding +1 bite attack. Getting skills To take special survivor skill you must have all other survivor skills of your class. All Science skills -> NT something skill etc. Zombies must complete Vigour Mortis tree.

Discussion (Let's make difference between classes)

It's very clear to me you have no understanding about balance in this game at all. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Second. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And do you think that all balance is about 50 APs? I really don't know about the numbers, chances, rates and calculations in UD. Or do you say that whole idea is shit? --Vissarion Belinski 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What these ideas do is cripple the zombie side by overpowering survivors. Survivors are already winning the AP race due to their superior ability to bank AP and the soak of barricades. The best rule of thumb in buffing everything is to use the 'Times by a million' rule. Compare the damage that your suggestion could do with the current status quo and the overkill of this should be startlingly apparent. Just a guess, but I'm thinking you've never played a pure zombie. Go create one and try and level it on your own and see how crippling headshot is in its current form and then try and imagine how nasty it would be to just implement your headshot section. In short, yes, the whole thing is shit. However, start to look through the numbers and try to see why we're saying this rather than get offended and disappear. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you move this suggestion to the Humorous section? No one's going to take this seriously. It's severely unbalancing. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you be quiet? The notion of the rules against humour in the suggestions system do not, have not, and will never apply to Talk:Suggestions. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the move because it is genuinely funny (to a vet, at least... the ignorance is astounding) and because my trollsense is tingling. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"In short, yes, the whole thing is shit." And what about the whole idea of making them different? Also I played (and play) pure zombie, and I really do not think headshot so crippling as you say. Maybe others have different opninion.--Vissarion Belinski 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should they be different? I like the fact that there are no practical differences between the classes after reaching a certain level. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. What Midinian says also factorises in realism. After months in a zombie apocalypse, all survivors would be acting the same way. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Shotgun Shells Stacking

Timestamp:	=ScaredPlayer 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I'm pretty new to UD, and I looked in the frequently suggested area for something that might be similar to this, and I didn't really find anything. As we all know, pistol ammo comes in the form of a clip - a cartridge that holds six bullets. Shotgun ammunition comes in the form of shells, single shots that are found individually. I think that changing the interface to stack shotgun shells would be a great improvement to UD. My reasoning for this is that if you are carrying a lot of shotgun shells, your inventory area will be filled up with buttons that say "shotgun shell". I propose, to fix this problem of filling up that space with repeat names for the same item, it be changed to "Shotgun shells (x)", where x is the number of shells currently in your inventory. Reloading would be the same - clicking on the button would reduce x by 1, and fill up your next empty shotgun, just as it is now. I can anticipate some arguments against this, such as "If this is implemented, how will you drop individual shotgun shells?" As it is now, you must drop items one at a time from the dropdown menu. If this change were implemented, the same thing would still apply; you would see simply "Drop: Shotgun shell". When you do that, the number of shells is decreased by one at no AP cost, exactly the same as it is now. As well, some people might find this to be "useless", as I can see from other suggestions that have been deemed "useless" as well (which is many). I would argue that this isn't in fact useless - it solves the problem of having an inventory full of white boxes labelled "shotgun shells", and rather consolidates all of those annoying buttons into one button; thus simplifying the task of looking through your potentially huge inventory for that next shotgun shell.

Discussion (Shotgun Shells Stacking)

This is a good idea but there is already something close to that but you would have to download mozilla firefox and one of the add-ons for UD has that User:Close to death 4:43pm 24 March 2009 (EPT)

---

Assault Rifle

I am aware this is not to be suggested, however please review fairly

Timestamp:	Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 1345 hours
Type:	Weapon, Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I will open this with the stated knowledge of two facts, I am aware that these should not be suggested. I am an infantry combat veteran, and hope I can provided a new thought process on the weapon. Locating a rifle and ammunition Updated 22 Mar 09, 2242 hours Originally I attempted to offer the concept below, however im updating the concept to include that rifles would be available at all normal weapon locations with a lower chance of finding them than other fire arms. since as stated it would be very difficult to locate one and finding rifle magazines would frustrate players. Original Concept 22 Mar 09, 1345 Hours Rifles would only be available from an Armorie. Ammunition would be found in all normal ammo providing locations, a rifle magazine would hold 18 rounds at 6% encumbrance. Statistics Damage: 5 points (4 against Flak Jacket) Encumbrance: 6% Skills Starting Skill: 5% accuracy Basic Rifle Training: 25% accuracy Advanced Rifle Training: 50% accuracy Jamming and Reloading Jamming rate: 10% or 15% Fix Jam: 5AP and loss of one bullet. Reload: 2AP or 3AP Concept The idea is that the assualt rifle would be very hard to locate and more difficult to use. The skill set would be seperate from the other weapons, making it more taxing to learn. Jamming is a balancing measure for the larger surplus of ammo available per reload, as well as a heavier reload tax. In reality rifles jam, if in Urban Dead one AP represents a single trigger squeeze, then fixing a jam should require 5 (SLAP the magazine, PULL the charging handle, OBSERVE ejecting round, RELEASE charging handle, TAP feed assist) and the loss of one round of ammunition. Reloading the Weapon would require 2AP or 3AP to balance the larger ammo surplus and that it would be more complicated to reload a Rifle. The damage of the weapon would be the same as a pistol for balance and "realism". I specifically offered the weapon should be less accurate, this again is for balance and "realism". A rifle is more difficult to hit a target with then a pistol or shotgun, which are more point low and shoot then aim and shoot. Rifles also have an series of thoughts that should be put into every squeeze of the trigger (realistically: steady firing postition, trigger squeeze, maintain site picture, and breathing control) in a combat situation these fundamentals are often passed over making the shooter less accurate than on the firing range. In summary the rifle would not be as effective as the currently available firearms (save longer time between reloads), generally this suggestion is offered to allow a realistic and balanced concept of a rifle to be implemented. I understand that the overall concept of the External Military's removal of "heavy weapons" (note assualt rifles are "small arms") realistically I feel that such a mission would be very difficult to achieve. Having been in a combat unit in Iraq that attempted to disarm a city I speak from experience when I say the process takes years to achieve and is impossible to date. A military unit on mission to achieve this while in the midst of a zombie outbreak is terribly unlikely in any reasonable period of time. I eagerly await your honest discussion. Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to the improvement of the truly awesome game.

Discussion (Assault Rifle)

This seems a bit pointless. Its less accurate than a pistol and also less reliable, add to that its weight and the fact that it does the same damage and having a larger clip really doesn't seem much of a saving grace. Basically you gotta ask... why would anyone want one?--Honestmistake 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel the power of grim compel me ARRGHHH! COUP!!!!! (Ahem) It dilutes ammo search rates. If Im a new survivor searching for ammo at a pd and i keep on finding assault rifle ammo (Which is almost pointless, especially far away from forts) instead of shotgun and pistol ammo, I'm going to get bored. Or spend all my times hanging out in forts. (Shudders and gains control of left hand) Nurse! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt to add flavor to the game and perhaps a new weapon would do that, however I must agree with Rosslessness on the ammo dilution. I've never even seen a fort with my character, why should I have to waste my AP finding and dumping ammo I'll never use. Also, AP just represents actions, not the time it takes to do those actions. So it takes 1AP to reload a weapon, run up the side of a building, or say "Chuck Norris", though in reality that should require infinite AP. (sorry) --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A large percentage of the melee weapons are pointless, the idea is to add another weapon to the game. The magazine weight is equal to the same number of pistol clips, the suggestion allows for a new medium to engage your targets without making an over-powered weapon like most previous suggestions. I did, when posting the concept attempt to "nerf" the weapon to allow for a more open response. And in its defense, it would surely be more useful than a crucifix or fencing foil.--Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

I'll vote YES. We're tired of all that shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol... Malton's big city with two military forts. It just need to be properly balanced. And need to be explained. For example, military helicopters have dropped containers with rifles to forts bla-bla. --Vissarion Belinski 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol FLARE GUN surely? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people use it as a weapon too often. You need tons of them to kill someone. Another real weapon will add something new and fresh to the game anyway. --Vissarion Belinski 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, realism, in a game with zombies.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I'm hoping the discussion would offer suggestions on how to implement the item fairly into Urban Dead.--Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

SUGGESTION: Don't. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"I am aware this is not to be suggested, however please review fairly" - Erm, why? You obviously know that the community's tired of new gun suggestions and still you thought to bring it, spam up this page and waste all our time. Why then would we treat you with anything less than the same contempt you've treated us with? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so hard. They continue to suggest and doesn't it means they want it? Is it a game for players or conservatives (maybe that's not the right word =)? And maybe I know nothing about balance, but that Assault Rifle seems pretty balanced =) It will just add something new to UD. --Vissarion Belinski 01:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you don't know Iscariot. Anyway, UD isn't a game we should change for change's sake - it should be balanced, bring something new to the game, etc. There's a reason there have only been pistols and shotguns so far - the two-gun system works, and more stuff means dilution (mentioned above) and more junk in the system. We're not fans of spam 'round here. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you all reject third weapon. Properly balanced it won't do any harm. Just another weapon. Is that so bad? --Vissarion Belinski 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really even about balance - the game's fine as it is, no need to add in a third weapon that could be (or probably is) unbalanced. We don't really need "just another weapon." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I offer, there are "pointless" items in Urban Dead, why carry a GPS when we have the wiki? Why use the radio when we have external communication? Why have stats for a fencing foil? Why go to the mall and pick out clothing for our characters? If you embrace none of the unsubstantial elements of a game then why even have games? Games are created to allow our imaginations to engage in a fantastical environment. --Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

Not everyone uses the Wiki or metagaming, for both GPS and radios. Some people like to RP with foils. Some people like to choose clothing. They're there because they're fun and they don't really substantially affect game mechanics. You can RP UD as much as you want, or play it as only a game with mechanics. Where are you going with this? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, it's a stand-up weapon suggestion nonetheless. The the dilution argument is very true, but seeing as there's only two armories, I doubt it would effect gaming balance too much. That said, if this were implemented, it would be more so for roleplaying purposes, much like the creation of cricket bats. --Private Mark 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet the ammo is found everywhere. This'd require dropping all that rifle ammo (IP hits), and either the lessening of search rates for pistol/shotgun ammo or the increase of search odds overall in ammo locations. I don't like the idea of a pilgrimage to an Armory to get a rifle, and then having to hold on to one (or more). --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated, I do see the dilution argument, which was not in my initial thought process. I have updated accordingly and left the original information above. --Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

"im updating the concept to include that rifles would be available at all normal weapon locations" That's not good. Why should MALL stores have Assault Rifles? It is a military weapon after all. Police Depts is used by starting players. They won't be happy to waste 150/200 addtional XPs or to waste their APs and get rid of useless Rifles to get Pistols. Junkyards - maybe, with a very low chance to find it. But the only main point for Rifle should be Fort's Armory. Otherwise it will cause problems. It is even better not to just add Rifle to the Armory, but to replace Shotgun there with Rifle, as double-barreled shotgun is not really military weapon. --Vissarion Belinski 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with new weapon suggestions. The TWO submachineguns in peer review are proof that they can get in to peer review even after being spammed/killed several times. The key is that the weapon needs to both be unique AND fun, within the confines of simplicity of Urban Dead. The way I read this one, its nothing more than an INFERIOR pistol. The fact it has a higher ammo capacity is not enough to offset all the bad parts.--Pesatyel 02:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I did attempt to "nerf" the item when I originally posted it, hoping the discussion would generate constructive critiques on how to better implement the weapon. --Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

---

Plague

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 16:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	I like the Necrotech skills but there's one thing that bothers me - they're too altruistic. I want there to be a choice between helping revive others and hording syringes for yourself. Plague would be a zombie subskill of Infectious Bite. Biting an already infected survivor who has less than 25hp would make them plagued, a new condition. The plague is a more potent version of the zombie infection that can linger in weak immune systems. A plagued survivor loses 1hp per turn just like infection, but only when they have less than 25HP. While a survivor can be infected and plagued at the same time the damage doesn't stack, even with both only 1hp is lost per turn. Healing the survivor to 25HP or higher would stop the health drain, but they'd still have the plagued condition. When their health is reduced to 24 or lower it'll start draining their HP again. So FAKs are effective treatment, but they can only put plague into remission. Only a revivification syringe would cure plague. Injecting a living human being (including yourself) would only cost 1AP, because they wouldn't struggle, but still use up the syringe. Being revived from the dead would also cure any plague you had while living. Theoretically someone could live with plague forever, but you'd want to cure it to make yourself less vulnerable if you're ever injured. It'd give people a reason to be selfish with syringes, appropriate for the zombie apocalypse.

Discussion (Plague)

This is annoyingly how i wanted infection to work in monroeville during the permaheadshot era. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Annoying, but interesting. It'd probably need a needle boost to even it out and I can't say that I'd like to see something like that happen. --Johnny Bass 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Or leave needles where they are and slightly boost FAK search rates. It probably wouldn't be terribly unbalancing even without something to counteract it though. Survivors may just want to keep two FAKs in reserve instead of one so they can bring themselves to 25 if they're badly injured and plagued. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Rot

Timestamp:	----Honestmistake 13:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies.
Description:	Sub-Skill of Flesh Rot. Cost: 100 XP The body is now so far gone with rot that even in a powered NT it often takes more than a single syringe to revive, not only that but prolonged contact with this walking cadaver risks infection! However the advanced decomposition may be noticeable to those nearby Because of the advanced state of purification that this body has reached it has become harder to successfully reinvigorate, even inside a powered NT revives will fail 50% of the time. Revive Attempts & Body Dumps have a 1% chance to spread infection (as if bitten) Due to the advanced state of decomposition the body of those rotters may give warning to those nearby, The areas description will include a note of how many zombies smell particularly rotten. IE: "there are two zombies here, one of them smells worse than normal" Many did not like the idea that scans and (particularly) attacks could also result in the infection which is exactly why they are no longer included. A lot of people did not like the idea of no warning. This is now included and there is always the potential for a later medical or NT skill to further identify those with advanced rot (as well as possibly negate the infection chances!) Contributors: Thanks go to Zombie Lord for his enthusiasm in pushing this

Discussion (Advanced Rot)

I am putting this back up now that I have had chance to amend it, what do you lot think... have I ironed out most of the flaws or does it still need work? --Honestmistake 13:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a skill that's really needed. It seems that essentially all the skill does it make it harder to do a Rot Revive, and I don't think there is exactly an epidemic of those happening. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 15:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you would be surprised at how common they are, from my experiences I would say that it is by far the most common way of dealing with rotters in a live break in and its at least 50/50 when squatting inside a ruined NT.--Honestmistake 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So do these failed revives work the same way as regular failed revives? That is, 1 AP cost and waste a syringe? Also, I don't know the warning would be clear enough that revives could fail/infection could result, especially for newer players. It's a start, though --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I should have made it clearer that the failed revive would cost the full 10AP... anyone trying to revive without first scanning pretty much deserves to lose out. As for the warning part, I was aiming for intentionally vague after all most people will soon work it out and those playing when (if) it got introduced would have read the full details in the update log.--Honestmistake 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I still greatly dislike the self-infects, I think only bites should infect someone. As for the syringe failure...that's a pretty steep penalty with not too much warning. What if there's a high rate of failure, but it only costs 1AP and doesn't use up the syringe. "The zombie is so rotted you fail to find a place to inject the revivification syringe." Then you could try again. This would just give reviving the same failure rate as scanning a brain rotter. --A Big F'ing Dog

I think the primary purpose of this (and I could be totally wrong here) is to hurt Combat Revivers in powered NTs vs. Rotters. Now, it's just 10 AP to kick someone out. If it only cost 1 AP and didn't waste the syringe, it would just be 10-12 AP to kick Rotters out (50% chance, will likely have happened after 3 tries), which makes this suggestion have very little actual impact. I do agree that there should be no such thing as self-infection, though, and as for warning - people do learn fast, and if you're not going to scan first, you might as well be slapped upside the head. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should zombie players have to pay XP for this? Why isn't this just made an update of Brain Rot? The current warning already covers this, so doesn't need amending. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies would have to pay xp for this for two reasons. 1st: the survivor side has become used to doing the 'Powered NT Combat Revive Boogie' and will scream "NERF" if we take it away for free. 2nd: (because I tend to agree with you) I have included a slim chance that those trying the revive will not only waste their AP and syringe but will also become infected! --Honestmistake 08:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Infection Safety

Timestamp:	Haliman - Talk 12:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Infection Change
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Alright, I made this one after I saw the Multiple Infection Starins suggestion. Basically, this game isn't very newbie friendly. Most people quit right away. Well, what this would do, is make new players (say, level 5 and below)immune to infection. This won't be too much of a balence change since they are only level 5. Nothing is permanent yet, but what do you guys think?

Discussion (Infection Safety)

I remember something like this being suggested earlier (not sure if it was infection immunity, though). The fact is that it just postpones the eventual collision with reality. It's not really much of a difference whether they quit on level 1 or level 5. Also, this doesn't make any kind of sense flavour-wise. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You and your flavour. Ok. Newer survivors are much more resistant to zombie infections as their immune systems are much more robust than long term survivors, who are only held together by necrotech chemicals. OR New survivors are more resistant to infection, having been pumped full of antibiotics before being airlifted into Malton. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your immune system gets better when you're exposed to nastities, and as such new players should be more vulnerable ;P. Also, if I recall correctly, only military characters are brought into Malton, the rest essentially just leave their homes when you start playing them. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on the ailment in question. AIDS for example does nothing to boost your immune system. I'm pretty sure that anyone wandering into malton and its disease would have made sure they were topped up with useful anti zombie dugs. Incidently, where's all the flaming on developing suggestions? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection isn't mainly what makes the game newby unfriendly. The spartan interface, lack of easily enterable buildings, and (really massive) dis-incentive to keep playing as a zombie once your level 1 survivor dies are what does that.  Swiers 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem of the game is that it is really hard at the beginning. As a level 1 you really are nothing more then a meatbag, be it a survivor or zombie. However making it more newbie friendly would require fundamental changes in the game. Which are hard to come by. This change might actually help though. I think infections can be quite an annoyance for newbies since they don't know how or where they can cure it (unless their doctors). Maybe a special ingame message would appear when you get your first infection telling you how and where to cure it. (just like with first times deaths)--Thadeous Oakley 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it gives some kind of message every time you're infected. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to level up at the beginning--it takes a long time and a little bit of effort. Therefore, a lot of people quit. So what? I want to play with the people who sucked it up, not the idiocracy and their ever-vanishing attention spans. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Paddy. Suck it up, meatbags. :P ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection is already on the weakside with the ability of anyone to heal it with a single FAK. Hell most players learn early on to carry at least 1 FAK for such emergencies, and it isn't THAT difficult for newbie survivors to find one. In fact, because healing is one of the most common ways of getting XP, infection is kinda inconsequential since it is automatically healed, even if the healer doesn't know the person is infected. I can see level 1 and level 2 characters being unaffected, but 5 is just too much.--```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pesatyel (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

neg on that chum. I reckon infection could use a boost, not a nerf. When's the last time anyone actually died of an infection anyway? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's my point.--Pesatyel 09:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You are aware that it's possible to run a level 5 character around Malton for a year contributing to the survivor cause every successfully? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then how about a time limit too? Level 5, or two months. Whichever comes first? --Haliman - Talk 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would even go as far to say rule of 3: after level 3, or after 3 weeks, you lose the immunity. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Simpler, I think and less of a hit on people who can't play regularly, is once you get, say, 300 XP, your no long immune (whether you SPEND the XP or not).--Pesatyel 09:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since none of you seem to be getting it, you can have this when newbie zombies get immunity from headshot and stand up costs for the same amount of time. Deal? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. It's really painful for new people to lose 15 AP. Maybe not relieve them of all 10 of the cost, but preventing headshot's +5 cost wouldn't be too shabby. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New zombies get immunity from Headshot and stand up costs right after we get permanently rid of zergers, ie. never. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Vague Idea for a Rifle

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Keeping this vague while I solicit your feedback. Nothing here is set in stone. Here's the basic idea. Rifles are ideal for long range attacks, while pistols and shotguns are better at close range. This makes rifles useful primarily just for outdoor use. If used indoors their accuracy would be reduced by half. A rifle would do 7 damage per bullet (6 through a flak). Max accuracyy with skills would be 65%, so max indoor accuracy would be just 32.5%. A rifle would be a poor choice for clearing out a building, but an ideal choice for attacking a rotter in a revive queue. Where could it be found? Mall sports stores, fort gatehouses? Suggestions welcome.

Discussion (Rifles)

well it would keep the trenchies happy... they love shooting stuff outdoors ;) On the whole though I think you would do well to find Grim's "no new guns" template and read it carefully. Its not all true and unbiased but he did make some very good points. --Honestmistake 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase. adding another weapon reduces the rate of finding the existing ones. Which is bad. Especially for newbs who have only a few skills, especially when that weapon will have 32.5% accuracy a lot of the time. secondly, remember most rotters will also have fleshrot, so theres at least another drop in damage per ap. Look at the sniper rifle link above in the pages intro, theres a couple of useful points summarised there. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

fleshrot and flak don't stack, do they?--Honestmistake 18:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't stack. And yes, a new gun drops existing search rates but only if you put them in gun stores and police stations and replace part of the percentage for existing weapons to do so. I was thinking of not putting them in PDs at all. Perhaps mall sports stores, as a kind of outdoor recreation gear? They already sell knives and binoculars. Fort gatehouses?--A Big F'ing Dog 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't really make sense not to find em in the armouries though and adding the search rate as a bonus to the current percentages is a pretty big boost to survivor AP storage potential. --Honestmistake 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"ideal choice for attacking a rotter in a revive queue" Ideal how? The max accuracy is the same as other guns. Sure, flaks/flesh rot eat a slightly smaller portion of the damage but that doesn't affect much. Being only able to use it outside is a significant downside. If you're going to put this in places where I can't get the other guns, I'd rather just carry the regular mix of pistols and shotguns. Since they can both be found in the same place, the search rates are effectively double as I don't care which I get. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your missing some stuff, like ammo capacity, AP cost to use, base attack percentage and "upgrade" skills. The problem with new weapons is that Urban Dead is overly simplistic so there are only so many "roles" weapons can play. The pistol is moderate damage, moderate ammo. The shotgun is high damage, low ammo. All that REALLY leaves is low damage high ammo. The only other feature I can think of for a rifle would be the ablity to shoot into a different square. SOMETHING has to stand out to make this different from what we've already got. Why do you think 80% of the melee weapons aren't used? They are all, effectively, the same--Pesatyel 05:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Except for axes, which are the best for hacking and tied with debarricading and knives, which are best for GKing/RKing and finishing off foes for those who care not for xp. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since that player would be maxed out, they would have the maximum attack percentages for weapons, so it would be whatever weapon they wish to use. Probably the shotgun.--Pesatyel 09:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Portable NecroTech Equipment

Timestamp:	Nuerotoxic2213 13:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Slight Improvement/Balance Change
Scope:	Survivors - High Level
Description:	As Far as i'm Concerned i've been defending Ackland Mall for a good number of Years(been around since 05' actually) and i've always noticed that while i can't complain too much about the distance of NT's to some malls, Ackland by far is mostly boned. instead i believe that we should implement ever so slightly a form of portable Syringe/Necronet access equipment. much like a generator, once setup it can only be destroyed, not picked up and carried. while i know this sounds rediculously unfair to zombies, i believe that the following measures for said equipment is still fair while. in such cases as ackland mall, the mall falls too easily because it has never been able to get a fair chance to acquire syringes, since all zombies have to do is camp a few of themselves inside the ruined NT(like 7 blocks away) and the entire surburb goes to hell. A) Must be hooked up to a powered Generator to work B) Still costs 20AP to manufacture a syringe, and cannot search for syringes. they MUST be manufactured, eliminating the chance for any survivor to gain the ability to "find" syringes in any building other than the NT's C) Give it a HORRBILE search rate to severely lessen the chances of finding one and can only be Found in powered NT's by people with the all the NecroTech skills. D) For NecroNet Access the closest Phone Mast should be powered(provided were assuming it would run off of wireless internet) E) Identifying the portable equipment(for each necronet skill the search rate could increase 1%)can only be done by people who have all Necrotech skills(although the search rate would go up 1% per level it would only be able to be found once you acquire the last necrotech skill). F) Zombies gain more XP for destroying said equipment than they do for destroying generators G) Zombies have a higher percentage hit rate to destroy said equipment making the equipment "fragile"(which means zombie can easily de-commission said equipment by either destroying the equipment itself or by disabling the generator) H) Zombies can identify buildings with said equipment when powered, much like zombies can see which buildings have powered generators, eliminating the chances for a hidden NT "factory".

Discussion Portable NecroTech Equipment

I like all the provisions for this except "H" - not so much because I think it's unreasonable, but because I think it's impossible. How would a zombie know which building had a Portascanner in it? -CaptainVideo 13:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i thought about that and i had to figure it this way, would it be completely fair to zombies if these portable machines could be easily hidden from view? while i made sure that zombies and humans alike benefit from this idea, i had to try and be as fair as possible. zombies who have sufficient skills can identify NT buildings. i say the same goes for this machine. as i said, that way there aren't any hidden NT's factories about. this also makes them more of a target for zombies. while it provides survivors with an ability to create syringes on the spot, it also makes them more prone to attack. Nuerotoxic2213 13:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your balanced approach, but I can't support this until this detail is either dropped or given a good backstory. Here, I have an idea. How about, "You are at [BUILDING]. Lights are on, and you hear the whir of light machinery inside"? Sooner or later - probably sooner - you'd figure out that this sound meant portable NecroNet gear. -CaptainVideo 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are asking for a portable necronet system which connects wirelessly and works indefinitely? Check out the flavour text for rotter revives to see exactly why the first part would be a massive nerf to zombie kind wireless access to NecroNet. Change the explaination for how it works and i could see how this might work for a limited use item; ie it carries enough chemicals to produce 10 syringes or it has a chance to run out in a similar way too spray cans with replacement chemical stocks (like fueling a generator) available. Even balanced out like that I am still not sure it is needed.--Honestmistake 14:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

sure, limited uses sounds like a good part. its why this is in developement still. Nuerotoxic2213 14:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have to be limited in use or at least require some form of "ammo" in the form of refills... still leaves the problem of whether its actually needed though. Sure 1 mall gets it a little tough but no-one makes folk stay in malls, they stay because the benefits outweigh the draw backs. For this thing to be even halfway fair to zombies it would have to be so AP inefficient that even travelling 20 blocks to search would be a better option and that just makes it pointless froth--Honestmistake 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i was only using Ackland as an example, i am sure that in many other places the same problem occurs. and while zombies have the ability to stand back up and be fine and we have the ability to barricade and use items most buildings fall due to either a lack of needles or a lack of survivors. this would possibly bring life back into abandonded suburbs giving zombies more of an area. or you could make it so every so often a syringe wouldn't work. there are many ways where you can cut back. make it have limited uses, keep it at 25 AP to manufacture and have it work 70% of the time. although in some opinions it may be "nerfing" zombies i don't think i was entirely unfair in that it can be identified from the street and easily destroyed by zombies while giving them more XP for destroying it while increasing their hit rate for it. Nuerotoxic2213 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this. If you're not comfortable at Ackland, move somewhere else. Not all places should be equally defendable, the differences give places identity. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

again......using ackland as an example. and i've been at ackland since 05'. and while its a really tough place to defend, it makes havercroft friendly to mostly high leveled players who also meta-game. looking for a way to involve and draw new players into current ghost-towns as well. lets face it, most new survivors run for the soft spots of malton such as the SW quad. Nuerotoxic2213 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in new survivors going to "soft spots". Once they level up and/or find the safer places boring, they can go to more interesting places where everything is not flowers and candy. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i never said new players going to soft spots WAS a problem, however this could entice them, as well as other players to different locations. in essence it make the game a little richer, as well as detract from it. Nuerotoxic2213 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the game is still heavily mallcentric. That's the reason that the search rates for FAK were changed. For most players, there are really only 5 locations total anyone gives a crap about (malls, nts, hospitals, factories (generator) and auto repair (fuel)), especially after acquiring the 2 mall skills. Turning 3 other 4 into "mini nts" just makes it worse.--Pesatyel 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you tried to nerf this update it would be devastating to zombies. Green suburbs would have a portable NT in every building and survivors could be a real pest if they decided to move into a ruined suburb with an armada of NTs at their disposal. It might be better to suggest an update for the wasteland next to ackland mall to become an NT building. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my, me! What a brilliant idea(!) We could have a whole slew of these, you know Santlerville doesn't have any libraries? Let's have a portable library! The Arkhams are a long way from any malls, so let's have portable malls!

/sarcasm

Welcome to this thing we call reality. Your parents lied to you, life isn't fair, not all men are born equal and not everywhere is as easy to defend. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am totally going to patent and market the Portable Mall^TM. It should be out in time for the holidays. It's sure to be the #1 Christmas gift boutique item. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 09:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Brain Rot Option

Timestamp:	Bob Boberton TF / DW 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Brain Rot change
Scope:	Brain rotted zombies
Description:	This adds an option in your settings if you are a brain-rotted zombie: "Accept Revives" with a checkbox. With the checkbox empty, all revive attempts fail, even during break-ins to powered NT buildings. When the checkbox is filled, you can only be revived inside a powered NT, as is the situation now. Basically, if you're a rotter, and you don't want to be revived, you can't be. This is the original purpose of Brain Rot, unless I'm mistaken.

Discussion (Brain Rot Option)

Does a DNA Scan reveal the zombie's status to a survivor? Also, still a little worried about blocking queues at Rot Revive clinics, and concerned about making it significantly harder to reclaim lost NTs as far as game balance in the long-term. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to say "This zombie is too decomposed for a successful revive" in scans, I suppose. As for NT reclamation, I really do not like combat revives since it basically invites the newly risen death cultists to kill you from the inside out (OK, so this only happens some of the time - but it still happens). As for clogging up Rot Revives, regular RPs get clogged too, do they not? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This would totally nerf the best survivor strategy for defending or attacking NT buildings - combat reviving.

Do survivors get the ability to toggle the ability to die? Linkthewindow  Talk  06:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean the way that introducing rotter revives totally nerfed zombies ability to hold NT's?--Honestmistake 07:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And this isn't toggling off a Zombies ability to die at all. It would just force Survivors to actually kill them. It's not like there is some sort of "Reverse Syringe" that knocks Survivors down as bodies but lets them Stand up alive so Death Cultists can make pinatas easier. :)--Zombie Lord 07:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, I would still vote kill for this because i don't see any justification for rot being togglable. I would much rather go with a new skill (such as the advanced rot below) which would make it harder or impossible to revive said rotters.--Honestmistake 08:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not toggling rot entirely - under this suggestion, if you have rot, you can still only be revived inside a powered NT. It's toggling whether revives for those with rot will succeed in a powered NT. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 08:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. Currently the best way to take back an NT is by popping in and CR-ing all the zombies - it requires a lot of coordination, but it's effective when tried.

This would totally nerf that tactic described above, and hence making taking back NT's (especially in a red suburb) a lot harder. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A zombie's death doesn't mean much and is by no means comparable with a survivor's death. When a survivor dies they get transformed into a zombie. When a zombie dies, they just spend X amount of AP to stand up. However, when a zombie gets combat revived, they are transformed into survivors. Survivor death and a combat revive are roughly equivalent, except that a zombie can solve the situation all by himself, while a survivor can't. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at - this pretty much means a rotted zombie can never become a human again. Hence, they totally bypass the effects of a combat revive. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice, Link. Combat reviving is a valid tactic, just like clogging revive points with rotters is a valid tactic. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, and while this wouldn't normally be considered the place for it, it fits in with this suggestion quite well. Why can Brain Rot zombies be revived in a ruined yet powered NT building? I thought the justification for being able to revive zombies here was that you have the NT labs, but surely you can't claim to be using ruined labs - the equipment is broken. Would an acceptable alternative suggestion to this one be that rotters can only be revived in a powered, non-ruined NT building? I accept this changes the dynamic (does it really go as far as nerfing the combat revive? I don't think so) and would make it harder to reclaim a ransacked NT building. Survivors can speak though, so what stops your NT guardians popping across to your local mall, picking a time within the next 48 hours and having everybody tool up to reclaim it. I would have thought there would be an amount of in-game satisfaction with a successful raid performed in that style (but maybe I'm wrong). --Roorgh 08:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember a discussion on just that idea a good while back (not long after rot got nerfed) I don't think it got to suggestions though. I would be all for it though--Honestmistake 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity you can't change more than one game dynamic at a time in a suggestion. If we removed the ability to combat revive rotters in a powered but ruined NT building, and changed it so identified rotters were placed at the bottom of a revive queue (no clogging) then there would seem to be somewhat of a balance. The game still changes, and those that want Brain Rot may feel better, but without making it easier to grief people wanting to revive. Is there anyway to suggest a combination of these? --Roorgh 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But is it really griefing? Stopping the "other side" is a legitimate aim in game and slowing the rate that survivors can revive is the main way zombies can do that. The game has enough ways to screw lone or small groups of zombies and seeing the work of 5 or 6 zeds overturned in minutes is pretty demoralizing. The current mechanic makes NT's very poor targets for anone but large hordes and of course PKers. --Honestmistake 11:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I, personally find jumping in and having a big CRAP on the zombies in the NT is quite satisfying, myself XD.

But as I've said, combat reviving every zombie inside is the best way to take back NT's - although it requires a lot of coordination, and you might revive a pker. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why you can revive rotters in a powered NT isn't the labs or equipment, it's the wireless access to NecroNet. That's why you need NecroNet Access to do the revives, and that's also why the building doesn't need to be fixed in order to do it. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

but wireless access is being supplied by a piece of equipment. Where I work all the wireless access points are quite visible (not really the sort of thing you want to start hiding behind walls really) so should be just as easy to trash as lab equipment. It still seems like whatever equipment is required for making syringes and using them is ruined. If this really is the desire of Kevan's I'd like to see the description of the NT buildings changed to make it clear. --Roorgh 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can't fix a broken access point with just a toolbox which would imply that zombies don't break them. Often times access points are placed pretty high (even at ceiling level), so it could be that zombies can't reach them (or just don't care enough to try). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombie death is a big deal as it costs a huge chunk of your AP to stand up if you have not bought ankle grab. Syringes = insta kill unless you buy a skill to make you immune to the insta kill... that skill then gets nerfed so that it protects you everywhere except inside the most important building in the game... How about we bring in a special zombie mechanic that makes infections curable only in a powered hospital unless the FAKer has a special skill or item? It sounds very harsh but its basically what you are advocating for the survivor side because you enjoy the power to squash resistance for 1 click of a button. Clearing NT's should always be a priority for the survivor side.... not to create rotter revive stations but to defend their own supply of vital syringes, asking for a mechanic designed to allow rotters to change their mind to be kept because you enjoy using it to make the game easier is a very one sided way to look at the issue.--Honestmistake 11:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If they're one-clicking for CRs, then they're idiots and will soon find themselves dead. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion they have no need to scan 1st as they are in a powered NT and just want the attacking zed out ASAP. --Honestmistake 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it might be useful for Kevan to occasionally open up other mini-cities like Borehamwood to try out radically different rulesets. It'd be like an experiment-- I'd certainly try out a new rules set to see what it would actually be like. And then better mechanics could bleed into Malton once they were proven in other cities. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell, YEAH. I suggest we call it "Ballstown"--Zombie Lord 21:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming everyone's in on it, otherwise mass CRing is going to back-fire. Still, it's on building type, one situation (there needs to be a generator) and it requires the use of an item. Not a big deal. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone always seems to forget...or ignore the fact that it cost 10 AP to do a revive too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pesatyel (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes... it's not as cheap as it's often made out to be, and the side affects (Gkers, Pkers, although they are frequently overblown) can be annoying too. Cheaper then using ammo, but not game-ruinage cheap. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If a single full health flesh rotter gets in you need to shoot him over 20 times on average to knock him down with a pistol... or you can stab him once with a needle! Those extra clicks would have given the rotter time to do something a bit more fun than clawing barricades so sod the relative AP costs its player fun that's imbalanced.--Honestmistake 11:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am well aware it costs 10 AP. But it's also the SPEED of the CR that is a big bonus. A Survivor can drop and dump 3 to 4 Zombies in a matter of seconds. And in the cases of NT's, we're talking usually TEAMS of Survivors that can drop and dump a whole Mob in seconds. The need to actually KILL Zombies takes longer and generally a lot more AP. If Zombies had some equivalent way to empty whole buildings of Survivors in mere moments and have the building Ruined only a few moments later, Dedicated Survivors might be a little more understanding of the average Zombies annoyance with CR tactics. And let me tell you it SEEMS really cheap on the zombie side, especially when you have blown through most of your AP just to get in the damn building only to have a Survivor undo your work in 1 second for a measly 10 AP, and rebuild the cades for a fraction of what it cost you to take them down. "Ammo" is rarely a concern for the dedicated CRer, they never seem to run out and they can pick it up right there in the NT. Imagine a Shotgun Shell that could take out a 60HP Zombie with one hit and never missed.--Zombie Lord 15:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And zombies have barricade blocking. Which makes it hard, or sometimes impossible to barricade. If you're complaining about a coordinated effort by survivors to actually do something useful, then look at zombies. When groups like Mall Tour (after they get their act together), or LUE and such other groups coordinates a bunch of zombies to strike at one instance, massing numerous zombies inside in mere minutes and making killing or CRing hard because smart zombies will have 7AP to stand up and reenter. Of course, zombies can coordinate like this in any building, but survivors can only do this in one building type, under one condition and with use of an item they need to search for. It may seem "cheap" but it's a valid tactic, just like clogging RPs with rotters and humans killing humans are valid tactics. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a valid tactic, just like RP clogging is. It may be annoying (and RP clogging is,) but it's still a valid way to play the game. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are actually complaining about survivor coordination? The only reason zombies are so effective in this game is because of coordination. The only reason survivors are so ineffective (a lot of the time) is because of lack of coordination.

I know that teams of survivors are usually involved in taking back a NT using combat revives - I've been in those teams. There is a lot of effort involved - it's not just "lol got ammoz?" You'll need people with needles (which take time to search for,) a generator and fuel, someone to take the (occasionally hefty) repair cost, to barricade and spam ?dump at the end of the attack. Some of those can be done by more then one person, of course. And this tactic is only usable in one building in the game. I know of zombie groups that can destroy an entire suburb in a few days. I can't see survivors doing that by combat reviving (because they simply can't.) Likewise, I don't hear survivors (beyond mindless trenches,) claiming that coordinated zombies are unfair to the game, like you appear to be doing with coordinated survivors. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have nothing against survivor co-operation in the circumstances you are talking about... sadly the only time my rotter gets revived is while attacking an NT not while defending it after its been taken and I took the rot especialy to prevent revives. The powered revive was implemented specifically to give zeds who took the rot a chance to switch sides but it is most commonly used to clear zeds from NTs after (or worse during) a fight. What you are defending is a one shot kill that undoes a lot of hard work that is most often done by individual players rather than just the meta hordes.--Honestmistake 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I like what Roorgh had to say. Cancelling RP clogging would be a fair equivalent to cancelling NT rotter revives. They are both a bane to the opposition but beloved by their practitioners. There seems to be lot of effort to take away survivor advantages lately. BOooo on you! --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RP clogging is an in game tactic designed to counter an in game tactic while rotter revives are a coded solution to a percieved problem. RP's are player artifices that are not hardcoded into the game, they exist solely because the player base designate certain spots as places to wait for a revive. Rotter revives on the other hand are coded directly into the game, supposedly to allow rotters a chance to play as survivors for whatever reason but most frequently used by survivors as a way to clear NT's quickly. The two are not really comparable as they evolved in very different ways--Honestmistake 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We have tried before to weaponise syringes correctly and remove this 100% hit and kill weapon, but the trenchies rally round and cry until we take the idea away. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[remove this 100% hit and kill weapon] It seems to me that those finding too much trouble with this 10ap kill... well, they buy rot. That's what the cool kids do now a days, right? --YoHoho^Talk 02:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely why I made this suggestion - the reason people bought the Rot was to avoid being Combat Revived against their will. It would seem to me that you need the fancy labs in an NT to revive rotted specimens, and apparently survivors tackle, tie down, and repeatedly stab zombies to combat revive them. I'd rather it be that the zombie can actively resist this procedure. Hell, they can (and do) everywhere else, passively. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't argue logic in Urban Dead, there is no logic. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. Not everywhere, but for the most part Malton is logical. Mostly not the whole zombies thing though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends how technical you want to be. Why doesn't the survivor struggle when being dragged out of a building? Why can I be shot in the chest 5 times and yet live? How do I perform surgery on myself? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite being crazy sounding, you just gave me an idea. Survivors can't be dragged out until they're beaten to a pulp, so why can full-health rotted zombies be insta-kicked from powered NTs? Maybe change this up so that if they have more than 25 HP or such they can't be revived, still using the checkbox - "refuse revives while above 25 HP? <box>" Also buildings in Malton don't spontaneously turn into turnips and float away. On a semi-related note, about six of us in TF cleared 11 zeds (there was one more til a smelly person CRed a zed... and he came back to kill someone. RRF guy.) without much trouble AP-wise. We're still holding it, EHB. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This game isn't fantasy either. CRing a 25HP zombie (or anything that low) is pointless and wasteful of other survivors AP. A change like that would render Combat Reviving useless. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It would render Combat Reviving rotted zombies in powered NTs useless. CRing non-rotters wouldn't be changed and remain a valid tactic. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in one building type, under one condition, with the use of an item and with the use of a coordinated effort.* --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you can't tell, I harbor deep distaste for Combat Reviving. It's been many a time SS (one of my characters) has broken in to have somebody recognize him as Dual Nature and be revived that I had to start threatening PKs of CRers. (I try to spend 50-50 human-zombie time on him, but CRers keep pushing it towards 100-0). But hey, that's a matter of opinion, and suggestions are democratic. I'm not Grim and I don't intend to be, haha. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, Dual-Naturers shouldn't care :P Do what I do, track down the CRer and kill him, they're typically easy to find. Have a trenchy inventory beforehand so you won't have to search. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed! I only care because then I'm supposed to play as a survivor (I really don't like to force myself to transmission from one to the other - it feels like cheating) and then it ends up I play more survivor than zombie when, as Dual, I'm meant to play both sides an equal amount. In my view of Dual, anyway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Zombies EAT the Living!

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Zombies.
Description:	Zombies can no longer attack other Zombies. If a Zombie tries to attack another Zombie no damage is caused and they receive the following message: "That is not a food source, you cheesy fuck!"

Discussion (Zombies EAT the Living!)

And the point of this is what, to eliminate the easiest, fastest method newly created level 1 zombies have of earning XPs?  Swiers 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies don't eat Zombies. Would end Life Cultists, which are the GAYEST thing since GAY came to GAYTOWN.--Zombie Lord 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No its about testicles, like all his other suggestions for some reason....---Pesatyel 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me our time would be better spent ENCOURAGINE attacking survivors then taking away a, sometimes necessary, source of XP for zombies. Survivors have NINE (10 if you include PKing) different ways of getting XP. Zombies have ONE way: attacking. Sure, it could be argued that zombies "actually" have 6 (atttacking survivors, zombies, radios/generators, destroying barricades, destroying decorations and ransask), but all of them are some variation on attacking which requires, generally some interaction with other players. Survivors have the luxury of having several XP gains that put them in no danger what so ever (healing being primary). In fact, granted I don't know how it is now, I remember stories of survivors leveling up WITHOUT EVER EVEN ENCOUNTERING A ZOMBIE. They just stay indoors, free running and healing or reading. And you want to get rid of one of the few ways for newbie zombies to get XP?--Pesatyel 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So we come up with some new ones. How about attacking barricades gives XP equal to your Claw damage. The really fucked up thing is that the first thing new zombies learn is not to waste time trying to attack survivors...but their fellow zombies...WTF?! HELLO?! Anyone else think that's ass backwards? Let's not teach bad habits right off the damn bat!--Zombie Lord 03:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why you only get half XP by attacking other zombies. Are you going to suggest getting rid of ALL PKing or just the zombie-on-zombie kind.--Pesatyel 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the zombie on zombie kind. It makes sense for Survivors to kill each other.--Zombie Lord 03:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies don't make sense. No blood circulation, no energy production - they're dead and shouldn't be able to move. Therefore we should eliminate zombies from the game. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You DO know this is a game about zombies fighting survivors right? So why would you "allow" survivor PKing but not zombie PKing? Have you ever even PLAYED a zombie?--Pesatyel 03:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a fool. Ever seen some zombie movies? Survivors are their own worst enemy. Zombies don't kill each other. Survivors do. Ben blows Harry away in NOTLD, Bikers raid the Mall in DOTD, Rhodes kills people in DAY. Zombies don't hurt each other ever. In the zombie movies, Zombies are decent people and Survivors are self-defeating assholes.--Zombie Lord 04:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes zombies are portrayed as eating each other, though. And zombies are supposed to be mindless, though DAY upsets this with Bub. There's more than one kind of zombie. Zombies certainly don't coordinate via metagaming etc. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen zombies eat each other in a movie. Sometimes they fight a little bit over food, but that's more like animals. They don't harm each other, just "show dominance" until one backs off and lets the other feed. Life Cultisting is just a very lame tactic, and HORRIBLE Role-Playing. Metegaming zombies is unfortunate, but sadly almost the only option the game gives for zombies to accomplish something.--Zombie Lord 04:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your forgetting an important facet of Urban Dead, one that sets it apart from standard zombie genre. ZOMBIES ARE PLAYER CONTROLLED. If the zombies in Urban Dead were all NPCs, then your logic, here, would work. The game is BASED ON zombie genre, but necessarily different because of that factor. Urban Dead is a zombie apocalypse game where survivors fight to stay alive againset zombies...and the occasional "crazy survivor". But it is more than just the mechanics of zombie genre, it is the mechanics of a game that is actually a simplified version of that genre. And, yes, there ARE zombie movies where zombies fight/kill each other.--Pesatyel 07:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ZL, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're wrong. True, in a Romero-style Zombie pandemic the dead would never attack each other - but if this was a story strictly conforming to conformity, it wouldn't be interactive. The whole point of letting humans play the game is letting them make descisions - and, in each case where two options are presented, one of them will be inferior. Letting the player choose is the whole point of the game. Since even the zombies - allegedly mindless killing machines who hunger endlessly for the flesh of the living - are played by humans, they too much have that option to be truly interactive. -CaptainVideo 05:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should drop the choice that does not help other Zombies while trying to level, and pick up something that does help, like boosting Barricade XP. Zombies really only have 2 choices anyway, attack cades or attack other Zombies unless they just happen to hear a groan (that probably leads to a Building that has already been recaded anyway)--Zombie Lord 06:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you deprived a zombie of its food source that it would turn to canabalism. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This behavior is already discouraged by the reduced XP. Do you really honestly believe "the first thing new zombies learn is not to waste time trying to attack survivors...but their fellow zombies"? I would say that what they learn is that if they have no other options, they can tear into another zombie for reduced XP, which is better than nothing, until they are strong enough to break through barricades on their own or fortunate enough to hear a feeding groan nearby and horde up. I seriously doubt that there are lowbie zombies out there who are genuinely under the impression that attacking other zombies is what they're supposed to be doing in UD. It's a stop-gap method to earn much needed XP. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 06:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So how about adding in the XP boost to Barricade attacks? Let's at least encourage a choice that helps other zombies WHILE lowbies are trying to level up.--Zombie Lord 06:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, barricades don't really take "hit points" of damage, so XP based on single "hits" makes more sense. Plus, while it encourages good zombie behavior, if it was a 1-to-1 XP per "hit point," many zombies would exclusively de-barricade instead of killing survivors, because the risk is greatly reduced and the XP nearly the same. However, what about an XP bonus for dropping that last cade level, sort of like a "kill bonus"? I could get behind that, if we kept it sensible like 10 XP. Though now that I'm thinking about it, it might lead to cooperation, where a death cultist and a zombie work together to get quick XP for the zombie by having the cultist continue to cade only one level, and let the zombie tear it down over and over. Hmm. Okay, this needs more thought. Short answer, I'm not opposed to some sort of increase in de-barricade XP, I just don't know what I think is a good way to implement it. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just a simple increase to 2 XP per "hit". That's 8.75 "hits" per 50 AP and 17.5 XP for a level 1 Zombie with VM. They could still get about 35 XP for just attacking other Zombies though. So let's say 4 XP per "Hit" and that's 8.75 "hits" per 50 AP spent x 4 = 35. So, if we dropped Zombies attacking other Zombies from the game, but increased Barricade XP to 4 per "hit" we'd just about even out, except for the 10 point kill bonuses. That might not be too bad though since it would give Zombies incentive to kill Survivors for the 10 point bonuses.--Zombie Lord 07:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As for, well ALL of Zombie Lord's suggestions....can you stick to ONE suggestion at a time?--Pesatyel 07:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if they get the same effect for attacking Gens/Rads/Decs... wait... that would be stupid! --Kamikazie-Bunny 08:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting bite hit rate (assuming Vigor Mortis) is 20%, right? Which means .4 XP per AP attacking zombies, plus the 10 you get for a kill. As a new zed working on gaining harman killing skills, I've manage to score zombie kills at revive points every 100 AP or so, so call it .5 XP per AP.
For cade attacks to equal that... Lets see, 30% hit rate, halved for attacking cades... Looks like each cade hit would have to be worth 3 or 4 XP. Not an unreasonable idea, I guess, although it seems odd a single cade hit could be worth more than a hit on a human!  Swiers 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It does seem a bit odd, but maybe we just need XP Reform Legislation! That's right, all combat hits now give a flat 5 XP per hit, for Zombies and Survivors. Non-Combat XP is left alone, so Scans and all those non-combat sources remain the same. That way a 4 XP Cade hit would still be less than XP than attacking a Survivor. Sure Survivors have to search for Ammo, but they also get those cades to hide behind and really there's no difference finding a shotgun shell vs a Pistol Clip, why should one give double XP? It would just mean shotguns would be used for what they are good for: lots of damage quickly, instead of a massive XP gainer, especially when they are used too much in that "knock a zombie down to 1 HP, then unload with a shotgun" for more XP per HP then you would normally get. Zombies don't get an equivalent "20 XP for one killshot XP cheat" now do they? It would also stop hurting new players on the "you lose 1 XP because of Flak Jackets/Flesh Rot. Why should you lose XP just because your target is wearing armor. You still hit em!--Zombie Lord 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What about PKing XP? Also, if you'd get 5 XP even from knives, you should expect survivors to level up purely by stab'n'heal. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

PKers should get full XP as well. As for Stab and Heal. We need Health Care Reform Legislation as well. Healing would now take time, not the Magical Wizard Heal Spell it is now. So any Stabbers would get attacked right back for their rudeness.--Zombie Lord 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reform this, reform that. Do you remember what I said about a completely different game? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

People bitch about "magic" when some fool wants Crucifix's to have some "effect", but we accept this Dungeons and Dragons style magical heal spell no probs. I'm just asking for some consistency.--Zombie Lord 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixes repelling or harming the undead is explicitly "magic" (or other supernatural force). Healing having instanenous effects is merely a simplification. The flavour is important here and makes those two cases very different. Also, delayed (or just slow) effects would seem odd if all actions were still instantaneous. And changing that would be a BIG change. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Come one, it's essentially magic. Change is good for you. Don't fear change. :)--Zombie Lord 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus, it wouldn't have to be a delayed or slow effect. How about, you heal 1 HP per half hour inherently. FAKS still heal Infection, plus we could add Bleeding rules. If you are Bleeding, you stop healing. FAKS stop Bleeding and allow the heal rate to continue.--Zombie Lord 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn. That's actually not half bad. Except that it still wouldn't solve the stab'n'heal problem, you'd just have to switch targets after every heal. All targets would end up at (full health - 2 HP) and one hour later they'd all be back in perfect health. You'd still get 5 XP from the knifing and (presumably) 5 XP from the heal. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your right on the stab and healers, but a lot times those fellows don't have Diagnosis when they are doing that so if several came along they might not see how much damage is adding up on people. There are guys who get really pissed even now at stab and healers even though it does not really harm them mechanics-wise. I get that it's mostly an RP consideration right now, but if they are getting pissed now, I imagine with this that stab and healers would start to become a bit more discouraged by those around them taking the hits. With this the First Aid/Surgery rules would need a tweak too though...maybe without First Aid FAKS fail 50% of the time, First Aid=100% working rate, Surgery: Maybe normally it takes one FAK each to heal separate cases of Bleeding and Infection, by that I mean if you had both it would require one FAK each, but a Surgeon can heal both at once with a single FAK. So, that might cut into stab and healers without First Aid who might need more FAK to get the heal part done and if they ran out before the guy they hit was healed...pissed off guy when he wakes up! :)--Zombie Lord 23:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Sign Up Bonus

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Player Bonus
Scope:	All Players
Description:	No doubt players of Urban Dead have recommended UD to other people. How about a reward system as a token of appreciation? When a new character is created a player has the opportunity to enter the ID number of a 'friend' who recommended UD to them: For each friend recommended the player gains +5XP up to a maximum of 100XP, Both players will be added to each others contact lists, A 'Has found x survivors' will be added to the players profile screen. Notes: Yes, there is the potential for zerg abuse, hence the 100XP limit... If players added to a contact list goes over the allotted amount they will not be able to add more until enough have been deleted as per normal. If someone can come up with suitable flavour text to replace 'Has found x survivors' for zombies I'm listening. Need flavour text for when someone known joins. e.g. You heard rumours that xxxx has been sighted in the city x minutes ago...

Discussion (Sign Up Bonus)

Have you seen the spamming of referral links for other games in UD? I wouldn't want that on anyone. I don't really see how this would add value to the game. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough I've hardly seen any, normally I see referrals on forums and websites and Since I play 80% in game I guess that means I'm lucky. I am aware that referrals tend to get spammed in sigs and such on forums but the only games I've played with them (and granted that's not as many as some people) tend to have no limits on the bonuses you receive or they have x per day but carry over to the next if you have extra, which inevitably encourages people to spam them. By placing a 100XP maximum regardless of time period there is no need to spam it once you've got 20 people to join and if people fear the counter is going to encourage it then I'll happily remove it. This isn't meant to add to the game or provide people with bonuses, like most systems I've seen, it's simply a thank you for those who do. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be better off making it based on time rather than some pre-set cap. If it were a maximum of two referrals a month for 5xp each, that might work a little better-- yes, someone could zerg a level out of it, but it would take them 10 months to do so, so who cares? You could even offer a bigger reward, if you capped the # of referrals per month, something like 10xp or even 15xp-- if it takes a zerger 3 months to gain a level from this, it would not raise a ruckus (I don't think). And yes, I hear the fallensword.com radio broadcasts too, but I largely ignore them. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Bellow

Suggestion up for voting, comments moved to suggestion talk page.  Swiers 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Free Running Lanes

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Free Running
Description:	1. Freerunning is no longer a Skill. Everybody loses it. 2. All Players CAN "Free Run" across buildings inherently, under the following circumstances: a.Free Running Lanes are Structures, makeshift bridges that span buildings. They must be built and maintained. Inside each Building (that is directly adjacent to another building) there is a new Option to Build Free Running Lanes. This requires a toolbox, 5 AP, and a new Item: Lumber Lumber. 20% Encumbrance. Found in Warehouses, Factories, Junkyards, and Mall Hardware Stores. Once built they can be destroyed the same as Generators, with the following Levels of damage: Undamaged, Lightly Damaged, Damaged, heavily Damaged, Destroyed. The Running Lanes level of damage is reported in the building the same as Generators so all can see how damaged it may be. Running Lanes that are damaged from Lightly Damaged to Heavily Damaged can be repaired by a Survivors with a Toolkit for 1 AP, which totally restores the Lanes to Undamaged status. Running Lanes inside Ruined buildings cannot be Built or Repaired. A building that has it's Free Running Lanes Destroyed cannot be Free Run into or out of. If you try to run into a building that has its Lanes destroyed you get a message: "That building has no Running Lanes" at 0 AP cost to you. A survivor who is encumbered at 75% or less can free run freely as long as the lanes are not Destroyed. A Survivor who is encumbered at 76% or above has a 25% chance to fall to the street, as long as the lanes are not Destroyed. A zombie has a 50% to fall to the street if they attempt to use a Running Lane, as long as the Lanes are not Destroyed. Destroying a Running Lane grants 5 XP to the destroyer, but only if they are a Zombie.

Discussion (Free Running Lanes)

Free Running. Since you appear to want the game to be completely different from what it currently is, why don't you make one yourself? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a stretch. The Free Running you link to allows people to fly I guess; or teleport. As far as I know Kevan has never explained what "Free Running" actually is in UD, so this is in no way an attempt to "change the game from what it currently is". Sorry, but "street acrobatics" does not allow one to span buildings like Spiderman.--Zombie Lord 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First, notice that the skill is not called Bridges. It's called Free Running. The street-acrobatics-thingy is called Free Running. It's not like I'm assuming the pistol to actually be an evil monkey that spits miniature black holes. No, I'm "assuming" that Free Running is Free Running. Second, those two sentences weren't supposed to be connected, I meant the game mechanics (and your Death Penalty suggestion) with the second sentence. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me that every person in Malton is a freakin Cirque du Soleil performer...Yeah, THATS more logical that bridges...Jesus FUCKING Christ.--Zombie Lord 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is also a surgeon, so fuck off with that reasoning. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. That shit should be changed as well.--Zombie Lord 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we now need to get into the whole "Zombies are impossible" thing and how survivors can just walk up to zombies and stab them in the neck with syringes? And how there seems to be an infinite number of supplies in buildings? etc. etc. I'd rather have a fun, balanced game than one where everything is completely and totally logical. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you play UD? --Zombie Lord 23:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I play because I find it to be fun and it's mostly balanced. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's balanced all right. 1 Survivor = 5 zombies.--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how a zombie apocalypse functions. And it's still only 2 to 1, not 5 to 1. The population balance like this fluctuates normally. It's not a sign of unbalanced game mechanics. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that 1 Survivor can hold off 5 Zombies with 50 AP forcing them to spend 250 AP on barricades. Throw the 2 to 1 pop ratio on top of that and its even worse. The main battle in this game is over barricades. 1 Survivor cancels 5 zombies. Now add in that zombie are outnumbered 2 to 1. Do the math.--Zombie Lord 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not pure math - two or three zombies can tear down EHB cades before the one survivor logs in, and then do damage to said survivor. Maybe even the other two zombies would log in before the survivor too and kill him off. With more volume (more total players, say 50 survivors to 250 zombies), as in Mall sieges and hordes etc., the zombies invariably have the upper hand - more log ins and break-ins around the clock. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe 5 zombies MIGHT kill off one survivor. This is what kills me about Survivors. They just accept the fact that their opponent REQUIRES 5 to 1 odds just to maybe kill one of them as if its somehow balanced.--Zombie Lord 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're just plain wrong there. At best the barricade construction/destruction advantage is a bit below 4 to 1 in favor of survivors, but that's only on QSB and below. As the cades get higher, the advantage gets lower, until at EHB level the advantage is on the zombies' side. Building barricades from none to EHB+2 takes an average of 34.67 AP, while taking them down from that takes an average of 76 AP, meaning that the true advantage of barricades is only about 2.2 to 1. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't know how to barricade properly.--Zombie Lord 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And you obviously don't know what you're talking about (or math, for that matter). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're giving me a mouthful of greek salad. A bunch of charts and numbers that don't mean anything. Only fools cade to EHB. You give me any 5 zombies and one building and I'll hold those fuckers out. Guaran-fuckin-teed.--Zombie Lord 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to prove you wrong ^{(though I doubt you'd aknowledge it even if I did)}. Anyone else interested? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Course I'd acknowledge it (that's acknowledge with a c, fool). You must be projecting your own bad habits on me. So, where shall we throw down? The funny thing is that you're too thick to realize that even if you DID get in, you'd still be proving MY overall point, cause you're not going to be able to KILL me. In the end, I'll spend 50 AP and your Zombies will spend 250 and achieve nothing. It's about the AP ratio, not whether or not you can make the breach. --Zombie Lord 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it that the best ratio you can achieve (on average) is 4 to 1? That leaves 50AP to kill you with. Let's see if anyone else is interested, I'm not going to start alt-abusing just to prove you wrong. Then we'll talk about the location. Also, you did read this, right? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you DID kill me, I'd still be right fool. 50 AP vs 250 AP. Hello?! I will concede that it's possible to achieve both those things (but not likely), but it's still 50 to 250. Even if for the sake of argument you could do both those things with only 4 zombies it's still 50 to 200. You're just trying to distract from my real argument with a Red Herring (like your Surgery dodge earlier)--Zombie Lord 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be wrong. You said you could hold five zombies out, "guaran-fuckin-teed." Please don't set yourself up for "No matter what happens, I'm right" arguments. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Was I talkin to you, bitch? I already stated above that I concede he could possibly get in with 5 zombies. I let Mid side rail me with his Red Herring into this totally irrelevant issue. The point is he is going to need 4 or 5 fucking zombies to deal with one Survivor and blow 200 to 250 AP vs my 50. When you toss the 2 to 1 Pop ratio on top of those ridiculous numbers its obvious we have a major AP imbalance in this game. NOW GO GET YOUR FUCKIN SHINEBOX.--Zombie Lord 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a stupid argument. There are too many factors to make any accurate claims on how many zombies a survivor can repel (except broad claims based on known facts like to-hit chances, etc.). Are the zombies organized? Has the survivor player paid $5 for additional IP hits? Does the survivor player have a life away from the computer? If the survivor player cannot afford to hit refresh every two minutes, and the zombies act in coordination, there is a very good chance that they will get in and eat him before he can react, because the interface of UD favors the active player. Perpetually keeping barricades at VSB against multiple zombies really requires that the survivor player can refresh the page constantly and that the zombies aren't coordinated. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are some great points Extro. But which side does being active benefit more? Survivors. Active cading...extremely efficient. Active decading...useless. About the ONLY thing on the Zombie side in this is holding a Ruin, and even then you're pushing yourself to least dangerous place in the stack every time you check, so you can watch other Zombies die and hopefully get the word out that Survivors are whittling away at the stack. I have one Survivor character and active cading is about the only way I cade with it. Zombies, and zombie players in general play the one log in a day method because there is hardly any reason not to. Survivors OTOH, play active and conserve their AP for use throughout the day A LOT more, cause its so damn useful. So, they have an AP advantage, numbers advantage AND are about the only useful characters for an active style of play, which is the best style of play. This helps their numbers because Survivors can play lone wolves if they want. More play styles, more players interested. Zombies are pretty much required to use metagaming hordes to achieve anything, more restricted play style, less players interested. The advantages just keeping stacking up on the Survivor side, and a few more AP sinks, harder maintenance for their buildings/tools are desperately called for. It's not going to "break the game" for Survivors to give up a little in one area of these numerous advantages in game mechanics.--Zombie Lord 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; when I say the UD interface favors the active player, I do not mean the player who logs in 10 times a day-- though certainly, they have an advantage by being able to keep tabs on things. I meant the player who is currently acting. A "sleeping" player cannot do a thing. Urban Dead has an active attack, passive defense scheme: survivors spend AP building cades so that they can walk away from their computer, and zombies spend AP attacking buildings, hoping to take advantage of the fact that the survivor player if off at work. Just as an anecdotal example, I have a character who hangs around quite a bit with MCM at Saint George's, where there are commonly 60-90 survivors clustered in a VSB building. Usually, the building is penetrated twice or three times a day by zombies, usually in groups of 2. And they accomplish this because they act in concert, as opposed to the survivors inside, who cannot watch the barricades every minute of every day. I've only engaged in "real time" combat twice in the four months I have played, and your "1 survivor can hold off 4 zombies" idea seems to be predicated on a real-time barricading/de-barricading model, where everyone is taking their actions at the same time. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's possible to get 4 to 1, but it requires a lot of work (and IP hits) and is risky. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Based on the average response from Zombie Lord there's nothing to be gained in going beyond saying the idea is shit (if that's your opinion). Any comment seems to be rewarded with (essentially) I don't care how you want to play, this is how I want it. --Roorgh 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this, the building's going to be unbarricaded when the experiment starts? Or you lose if you can't get it back to the same level it was in the beginning? Either way is fine with me, but in any other situation it wouldn't be just you keeping the zombies out, it would also be the person who barricaded it in the first place, making it 2 vs 5, not 1 vs 5. Also, the experiment should be repeated to smoothen any bumps caused by the RNG. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion isn't even internally consistent, never mind the game-breaking ramifications. And as Mid said, Free Running ≠ Makeshift Bridges... --  RoosterDragon  19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Not internally consistent". Explain. How is it not internally consistent?--Zombie Lord 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Building A has FR lanes built. Building B does not. Can you free run from A to B? Unclear, and the converse? Yet survivors in A would appear to have these lanes built that lead to buildings for whom the same lanes do not exist. And the fact these are supposed to be bridges? Some sort of special one-way variety? Even addressing this, still spam of inordinate magnitude. --  RoosterDragon  20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. If a building has no lanes you can't run in or out of it. So, no you cant run from a building with lanes to one without. A building would need several actual bridges that lead to all possible buildings. So a building with lanes would have all it's bridges up that lead to other buildings with their lanes up, but not building that don't have their lanes up. Its a way of simplifying what would actually take several bridges leading from one building. So, a building that technically had it's own lanes up but no other building around it did would indeed be cut off, and yes that's not entirely logical, but it's just a way to avoid excessive over-complications.

It's still more reasonable than teleporting with magical FreeRunning acrobatics.--Zombie Lord 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You've over-simplified evidently. A building that has lanes up doesn't have them unless the other one does too, but only for that building? If you build some lanes you could still be trapped because the others don't? That is magic. Unlike free running which, in case you have heard, is possible in real life. You could try and close the hole in this odd explanation, but this isn't the major issue with the suggestion, the major issue is the game-breaking-ness of the whole thing. --  RoosterDragon  20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Free Running as described in that link does exist, but trying to use that as a reason for the ability that exists in UD is stretching the boundaries of that real life skill considerably. Again, whats more reasonable, that we make bridges or that everyone in Malton is a super acrobat? And saying "game-breaking" is not a magic talisman that explains everything. How is gods name would this break the game. It would just make it a bit harder.--Zombie Lord 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you make this too complex you get hit with the KISS principle, but it could be changed to only buildings with their Lanes up can be run into or out of. So, a building with Lanes up could always be run into or out of regardless of whether the buildings around it have their Lanes up or not. This would actually help low level Survivors since they would not have to have a Skill in order to free run.--Zombie Lord 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not saying I support this, just pointing out that the concept of bridges from each building only extending half-way across the gap that is the streets is not impossible to grasp. If one building doesn't have its section of bridges up, well then the bridges from the other buildings that extend half-way across to that building have nothing to connect with and end up with a drop into the streets until the bridges that are to connect to them can be raised (I think that made sense). - User:Whitehouse 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah that would make sense too actually. Thanks, I think my original concept would work fine under that reasoning. It would make more sense that way, with each building requiring its own section to be anchored properly, which would be hard to do from the building over. --Zombie Lord 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breakage. I am assuming the suggestion lifts the limit on cade entry, if not it's even more breaking, whatever.

1. Let us initially assume survivors would seek to maintain these lanes as a method of safe travel. Any survivor wishing to build them will need a toolbox and 20% per bit of lumber. This is a massive encroachment onto the carrying capacity. They now need to search for lumber, spend 5AP to make the damn thing and an additional cost of entering the building from ground level.
   1. Survivors now have a heavily reduced carrying capacity. Limiting the ability to stockpile other important items.
   2. Survivors now have a new AP sink where one did not exist before. Searching, building lanes and getting into the building adds up to a lot, for one measly extension to the network.
2. Let us now assume that the network is low priority, being hard to create and maintain and needing a lot of infrastructure before it creates a network of a useful size and spread. Now survivors are forced to use an AP to exit buildings, then go towards their destination. Once there, they must spend another AP to get inside.
   1. You've cost the survivor additional AP for movement.
   2. You save zombie AP since some survivors may find themselves stuck outside when they would've otherwise been inside the FR network and safe.
3. Further, you've just allowed zombies to bypass cades. They can now raid a building but leave the lanes intact. At which point they can now free run into adjoining buildings with 50% success, and spend only a few AP to keep trying, certainly saves AP as opposed to knocking down those EHB cades that are now everywhere. So much for the usefulness of cades then, since zombies can just walk in from next door. In which case, lanes are strategically destroyed when under attack to prevent this, limiting mobility and wasting their high AP cost for their installation.
   1. Zombies can bypass cades? That's game breaking spam in itself.

To summarise:

• Survivor AP is now used heavily on this new addition, leaving less for other things.
• Survivor efficiency is reduced due to less carrying capacity and lengthier movement times.
• Zombies could bypass cades.

And if high cades levels still prevent entry...

• Survivors could get stuck outside in overcaded areas, along with wasting AP looking for an entry, zombies get free meals occasionally when one gets stuck outside.
• VSB cades would have to be more common, saving zombies a lot of AP in breaking down cades.

Game breaking enough yet? --  RoosterDragon  21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This all assumes Survivors REFUSING to adapt. It assumes Survivors carry on as under the old system without consideration for the new situation. A new AP sink is called for. Survivors already have an insane surplus regarding this in the overall AP attrition battle. Zombie entering your building through running lanes? break the Lanes around you OR just break the ones inside your own building. Simple. Your statement that zombies can "bypass cades" is an huge oversimplification, they cant just do it at will. You'd have to weight the bonuses and the drawbacks to maintaining your Running Lanes. Survivors would just have to adapt. Think a little maybe. Asking too much I guess.--Zombie Lord 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not too much to ask that survivors think and adapt (and they do it already) - you're just doing it in a game-breakingly bad way. And remember, a few zombies could easily use the lanes to get inside somewhere before someone in the sieged building logged in and destroyed the lanes. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's all pile up in a building and hit the Barricade button occasionally. Yeah, hardcore thinking there.--Zombie Lord 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the fact it's difficult to overcome cades, it's the fact it might happen. Barricades are a core mechanic and you do not fuck with the cade mechanics. If you suggest even a minor change in build success you would get spammed. Let alone letting zombies bypass them entirely, and not to mention the other problems... --  RoosterDragon  22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reactionary. Survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1, so I wouldn't be surprised if they spammed something that would lessen their not only numbers advantage, but also their basic mechanics advantage. That doesn't inherently mean anything though, aside from highlighting their fear of change and a challenge.--Zombie Lord 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevan alters the search rates on syringes occasionally to deal with such things, this has a direct impact on the revive rate but little unexpected collateral. Altering barricades affects everything. Ratio wise, it's always been pretty survivor biased. See the Statistics or even go nuts and check out Survivor-Zombie Imbalance for the full story. If you're looking to nudge it towards a more equal ratio, find a more directed, considered and non-breaking approach. This is a nuke that'll leave a smoking crater of a game afterwards. --  RoosterDragon  23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just don't get this whole "sacred core mechanic" thing. In a game where Survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1 and a single Survivor can hold off 5 zombies, spending 50 AP to their 250 AP in a barricade battle, is it REALLY going to be the END OF THE WORLD to mess with things? Sometimes it just stinks too much of a majority that likes to play kick the cripple refusing to have any sort of balance introduced.--Zombie Lord 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Now who's being reactionary? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that reactionary?--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's reactionary when you're suggesting it because the survivor-to-zombie ratio is now 2 to 1. This ratio fluctuates normally and is not a sign of mechanical imbalances. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The only major fluctuation we ever had that meant anything was when The Dead came to town.--Zombie Lord 00:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. There was a flux in November 2008, with about 60% zombies to 40% survivors. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I said one that "meant anything" You do know that occasionally Survivor groups run a lot of zombie alts around tearing things up, just so they have something to "heroically fight".--Zombie Lord 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, when survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1 it's imbalance, and when zombies outnumber survivors (almost) 2 to 1 it doesn't mean anything. As for your claim of zombie alts around tearing things up, evidence please. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, not when the AP imbalance is so far out of whack. As far as your request for "evidence", you're either being willfully ignorant, or are genuinely stupid.--Zombie Lord 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither. I just have not seen anything to point towards that. If it's that obvious, you should have no trouble with the proof. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to throw something out there, because the ratio thing bothers me. The ratio being 2-to-1 in favor of survivors simply means that more players are interested in being survivors than zombies; if my survivor wanted to be a zombie, I can leap out a window for 1AP and rise. It's easier in this game to get killed and stay dead than to get a revive and stay alive-- there's an immediate cure for revives, being suicide by window. No one is forcing people to be alive. What the ratio demonstrates is simply that more UD players right now (and I think, probably always) would rather play a "heroic" survivor than an "evil" zombie. So what you need to figure out is how to get players to want to be zombies, not punish them for wanting to be survivors. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree. I think it's because zombies are more difficult to play. If the Zombies had an easy time of it as the Survivors, I think you'd see the ratio reversed. I don't think its about good and evil, it's about what is easier. Most people take the path of least resistance. It's much easier to get a Revive and go about your business than spend 50 AP on cades to achieve no real result day after day. It gets boring, people quit or "go survivor" because you have more options. Survivors have it much better in the "feeling of achievement" department, simply because they have feast of options to choose from in what they wish to do. Even if its just to jack off over the Radio all day, or sit in the zoo and talk about molesting Koala bears with all the other furry freaks.--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It also makes Parachuting extremely easy, and then survivors have to sink even more AP to clear those EHB cades to VSB to even get inside. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And it allows survivors to create piñatas that can be maintained. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breaking. Not to mention every failed free-run (no lanes) would result in an IP hit, and it would probably happen frequently. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breaking, Rooster threw it down perfectly.--SirArgo ^Talk 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as clarification, how does a player know if free running "bridges" are present? Is it a graphical change (little bridges connecting squares), or a wall of text describing the bridges going off in every direction they go? Also, how would damage to the bridges be textually represented to adjacent buildings? For example, let's say we have three buildings in a row, A, B, and C. Zombies crash into A and damage its bridges to heavily damaged. Then they break into C and damage it's bridges to lightly. Will survivors in B see "You are in the BLAH Building. There are heavily damaged free running bridges here leading West. There are lightly damaged free running bridges here leading East"? Or would they have no idea until the bridges in A and C were completely destroyed, and now they cannot free run anywhere? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking just a line of text that would go next to the same area that Generators/Radios go. If you tried to freerun somewhere without Lanes, you just get a message that you cant go there at 0 AP cost to you. I suppose little graphics could be employed, or even the more involved description that would inform Survivors of the conditions of the Lanes around them that you describe. If we went with Whitehouse's idea of partial bridges (which I think is pretty awesome), maybe you would need to travel to discover the exact condition of bridges around you. I do think that little graphics would be a good idea though for the building you are currently inside of, that are only present if you CAN run to a building as that would save IP hits and having to "test" run just to see if it's possible to go that direction. There would need to be one graphic for each destination, so you could see the status of all possible directions.--Zombie Lord 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is everyone still trying to explain why this lame suggestion is so fucking lame? For the love of Christ let it smother in its own lameness. Happy St. Paddy's Day! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, refuse to even acknowledge the over the top Survivor advantage. Then you'll never lose it, right? Pathetic.--Zombie Lord 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The survivors have generally held a margin over the zombies over the game's history. Graphs FTW. Anyway, my point is, despite a generally high survivor population, they've never been able to go much higher than 2:1, zombies hold out well enough and some existential event or update sometimes comes along to reverse things for a while. The current 5:3 ratio is pretty run of the mill TBH. --  RoosterDragon  23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Goddamit, Im talking about that basic AP attrition imbalance, not the population. If the population was 50-50, the AP imbalance would still be hugely in favor of the Survivors.--Zombie Lord 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the best thing in this whole discussion area. I am suddenly in agreement! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing particularly helpful to add but I will not let that stop me. Free running as in parkour is done by very fit people in light weight athletic clothing, Free Running in UD is done by a besieged population living on tinned food and wearing Flak vests while carrying a full load of shotguns/generators/medicine cabinets etc. They are obviously not the same thing! Changing the mechanic so comprehensively in Malton is not going to fly. --Honestmistake 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have you know, we're all very fit around here. We all find time to become bodybuilders and I can balance 3 portable generators on my head while I swing an axe at zombies. And I have never eaten food ever. I just drink beer and wine. It's the diet secret of the stars! ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My only question is why we are still discussing this lame notion of an idea. It would break the game. Can we move on, now?!? --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Oh! Well, then... Carry on! --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus H. Me! OK people, repeat after me: Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll. This can't disappear until he spends five days talking to himself. It's already been explain to him multiple times why these are all stupid fucking ideas. Stop giving him an audience. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

thing is though, free running is broken and discussion of the topic can't hurt. Sure this version of change is not good but it stimulates discussion and that might lead to something useful.... stranger things have happened. --Honestmistake 00:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it tickles my humerus. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Sirens, the founder and creator of RedRum, make a nearly identical suggestion shortly before leaving the game?  Swiers 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but Mr. Hardcore Zombie Overlord With BIG BALLS is going to make a suggestion a day until the BALL-LESS survivors get over their PUSSYNESS and submit to his overwhelming HARDCORE-NESS. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right, bitch.--Zombie Lord 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone reading this come to Humourous Suggestions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonnua Koponen (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

/*claps* Congrats, Yonnua. --Private Mark 03:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Multiple Infection Strains

This suggestion has been moved to voting. The suggestion itself is located here and the discussion is located on the suggestion's talk page. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Diagnosis

Timestamp:	--Giles Sednik CAPDSWA 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill, balance change
Scope:	Survivors and Zombies
Description:	This skill would allow survivors to distinguish infected survivors from the uninfected. Infected survivors' HP would be shown in light green with this skill. Conversely, zombies could use this skill, in the same way that they can currently use diagnosis. Because undead physiology is different from the living, this skill could not be used to diagnose an infection in a zombie. Realism - It makes sense that survivors with a background in medicine (diagnosis) could pick out a survivor suffering from a zombie infection. In movies and literature infected survivors show signs of their impending demise in the form of cold sweats, palid complexion, shaking, etc. Even laypeople can spot a cold in a total stranger. If survivors and zombies can detect a 5HP loss in someone who slipped and fell in a ruined building they should also be able to spot the signature zombie bite and symptoms of an infection with the added experience of having basic diagnosis skills and witnessing their comrades die of infections. Game Balance - Just as Flesh Rot provided zombies with 2 advantages long enjoyed by survivors (Flak Jacket and Body Building), Advanced Diagnosis would provide survivors with the zombie advantage of being able to identify an infectection. Also it's a crossover skill so zombie players can make use of it. Furthermore, it would even out the number of survivor and zombie skills without having to introduce a new gameplay element. Implementation - This would go in the Scientific Skill tree as a 2nd level skill of diagnosis. However since Advanced Diagnosis would make it easier for survivors to heal infections, I could see introducing this new skill coupled with a boost to Infectious Bite, causing a 2HP loss for every 1AP spent.

Discussion (Advanced Diagnosis)

Make it a skill that is REQUIRED to cure infections, and make infections 2HP per AP, and you might get some traction. Sure, its "genre appropriate" that skilled doctors can detect infections, but its similarly appropriate that ONLY skilled doctors can cure them (not any shmoe with a first aid kit) and that they kill yah pretty quick.  Swiers 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Swiers. These are two ideas that have been offered up separately a couple (dozen) times, maybe together they would work. --Zombie Lord 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis.--Pesatyel 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the Swiers combo idea. That a dupe too?--Zombie Lord 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey I kinda like the idea of advanced diagnosis being required to treat infections. Anyone with a FAK could still heal damage, but the infection itself could only be cured by someone with advanced diagnosis. With advanced diagnosis you would get the message - You restore 10HP to JoeJoe, using your medical training to cure the infection. Though maybe the name would have to change if it was used for treating and not just diagnosing. Like Advanced Medicine , dunno --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By the time you locate somebody who can cure you, you'll have perished... Whether the zombie ran out of AP or you just got revivified, you'll probably have 25 HP or less, meaning that you can take only 13 steps before dying of infection. I think survivors should still be able to recognise and cure their own infections: it's really not difficult. --LaosOman 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when could you NOT cure your own infection? That is the primary reason Infectious Bite is considered "underpowered".--Pesatyel 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Requiring an additional skill in order to cure infection wouldn't really do much I don't think. It would just make it harder on newbies. If I can't cure myself, I'm screwed until I can find someone who can cure me.--Pesatyel 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So let's set aside the notion of a boost to infectious bite (either by doubling the damage or requiring a new skill to treat it). Lets take the suggestion 1 proposition at a time. How do you feel about a new skill called Advanced Diagnosis that would allow survivors to see who is infected? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis.--Pesatyel 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)--Pesatyel 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Diagnosis sounds good. Just don't make it a requirement for curing infection. --LaosOman 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You did a good job outlining this skill. I'm surprised Prognosis wasn't implemented. Admittedly I've enjoyed the guessing game survivors have of predicting which survivors need infections cured, but this skill makes sense. I also like how you suggest it being paired with an update of a more intense infection. --Fiffy 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So it seems there is no real objection to the idea of advanced diagnosis as stated? Or perhaps this suggestion has been lost in the clutter? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Bulk SMS Messaging

Timestamp:	User:J.W. 03:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	improvement, flavor
Scope:	Characters with mobile phones
Description:	Right now you can only send text messages to one person at a time. This change would allow players to send the same text message to multiple recipients at a cost of 1 AP. The obvious benefit is that it saves survivors AP when they want to send the same text message to multiple survivors at the same time. However, I don't think this changes AP dynamics at all since the same thing can already be accomplished via a radio transmission (albeit publicly instead of privately), and almost every mobile phone can already do this in real life. Therefore, this is really just a minor way to improve in game communication for survivors (and zombies who carry mobiles), hopefully making the game more fun all around. (And this is my first suggestion ever...so please be gentle)

Discussion (Bulk SMS Messaging)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 1 days.

--YoHoho^Talk 11:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You've pretty much nailed why this can't be passed in your own explanation, mate. SMS works because it's private and so more useful for coordination than the radio. Making it so easy to mass-message people would be an enormous communication buff. It's a balance thing: Radio is AP-efficient but public, SMS is AP-inefficient but private. Edit: You mention that in real life mass-messaging is easy and that is correct, but it also costs money per message sent. In-game the cost is AP. --Papa Moloch 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the only way I could see this working in game would be to put an increased ap cost to use it and limit the number of recipients (like 5 ap to message 10 people or something of the sort). Good first suggestion though. Keep them up! --Johnny Bass 16:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of being able to send the same message to multiple people. Right now this is a pain. I agree, though, that it would have to cost 1 AP for each recipient. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you guys are right, it is probably more of a survivor buff than I thought, so an added AP cost seems warranted, though I don't think it should be too high...The reason being, if a player or group of players wanted, they could set up a twitter feed, or an irc channel, or a password protected forum, or whatever else, to easily get to this level of communication. Wouldn't this change simply reduce the need for meta-gaming that already occurs and bring more of the game play inside the game? Otoh, i guess metagaming does have its place in UD.

And thanks for the feedback! --J.W. 19:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's an excellent point. Why should we tack on a prohibitive AP cost, when all that does is reinforce the notion that players must participate in the meta to be effective? Look at the suggestions recently about changing or adding aspects to feeding groans and such-- all of them pushed the idea of less meta. Obviously we feel that zombies should not be forced to the meta to horde up and be effective. Maybe we should think more about this suggestion before assigning a high AP cost to it. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a meta concern. I can carry a radio and tune it to a particular frequency that those on my contact list can tune to as well. Then someone with a radio can broadcast to all said people simultaneously. The radio is for mass broadcasts, the phone for individual. In other words, there is already a tool in game that does what this suggestion is, well, suggesting: The radio.--Pesatyel 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Spec Ops training

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors mostly
Description:	After spending so much time in the military, you have learnt how to use gestures as a form of silent communication. Unfortunately, though, regular folk don't understand a lot of it. New military skill, survivor-equivalent of Flailing Gesture. In additioned to the gestures available to zombies, a user with Spec Ops training can use specialist gestures (which appear in a second drop-down box to the left of the direction one) to indicate 'hostiles', 'friendlies' and 'assistance needed'. However, unless the other users have Spec Ops training, they will not understand the connotations of such gestures, instead seeing [Name] made a complicated gesture towards [direction/building/person] A Spec. Ops gesture can be made with a direction but no connotation, or with a connotation without a direction, i.e. [Name] made the gesture for [friendlies/hostiles/assist], or [Name] gestured to [direction/building/person] When compared to speaking, this can designate less information, but to more people (everyone). A zombie with Spec Ops training and Memories of Life can also translate Spec Ops gestures.

Discussion (Spec Ops training)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 1 days.

--YoHoho^Talk 11:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, not a bad idea, but i'm a little concerned about whether its actually necessary... Zombies cant talk so its a useful skill but humans can talk. I understand that only those with the skill will be able to understand it but that won.'t leave much control over who can see it in the long term. Will zombies with the skill be able to see the gestures? Sorry if it was answered above, im wiking via my phone so stuff is limited. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

just read the end. I actually think zombies with the skill shouldnt understand the gestures, otherwise i dont think this suggestion would be to useful :( D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Survivors already have 4 different manners of direct communication within the confines of the game and they barely use them properly. Personally, I don't see a need for yet another form of communication on the survivor side. Nifty idea though. --Johnny Bass 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree.--Pesatyel 03:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 1 days.

--YoHoho^Talk 11:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Hierophant (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

It is believed that success rates for all things affected by chance are dramatically reduced, to 0% in some cases. I agree that the presence of a zerg flag should disable blocking for that character – it's only fair to harmanz.
Now, how about making zerging harmanz not block ransack? :D ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not very useful in an active fight (to preventing zerging) because survivors won't know the zombies in question can't stop them from building. If its ground holding that concerns you, well, survivors still have to kill and dump the zergs at normal rates before repairing a ruined building so they can cade in the first place.
In fact, the main purpose of cade blocking is to allow non-metagame zombie co-operation, by giving zombies who do not co-ordinate actions a chance to keep cades down long enough to do something. Zergers don't NEED cade blocking, and gain little from it.  Swiers 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it would just be another way of removing any benefits that COULD be reaped from having zerg accounts. They may not need it, but it certainly helps them when up against active resistance. --Johnny Bass 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it DOES help overall. Instead, what it does is encourage paranoid zerg-cryers to try barricading buildings that are under attack by legit zombies, and wasting APs. The typical survivor player can't tell a zerg from a normal zombie horde, so this helps them not one bit, because they wouldn;t know when the cade odds were normal, and when they were gonna get blocked. If people can't make consistent predictions of game behavior, then they are likely to use sub-optimal tactics- so much so that this suggestion might actually HELP zombie zergs, by wasting survivor AP on a wide (if shallow) scale.  Swiers 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They might realise when when they try to barricade and real zombies lurch in their way. You actually get a special message to tell you that zombies obstructed you.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Discussion (Minimap Class Emphasis)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 1 days.

--YoHoho^Talk 11:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The colors are quite easily distinguishable on my display, so it could be you just need to calibrate yours. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I've tried adjusting it but I can't seem to get it to work. Oh well, if it's just me I guess it's not a big deal.--Vince with Shamwow 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you could see the class of others...(well without looking at their profile).--Pesatyel 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not alone. I recently discovered this, and I've been here over 2 years. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

news to me. Strikes me as somewhat useless at any rate...--xoxo 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 1 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Zombies without Death Rattle can talk, it's just limited to the pre-defined choices. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oho, I misunderstood what was written. I guess using the "Hmmmm Harmanz" example mistakenly got me thinking that having this skill would allow zombies to talk, circumventing death rattle. So it might be Hmmm Harmanz (1w2n) or it might be Mrh? (1w2n). I understand now. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Either type of zombie speech would work. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Range of 10 seems better to me but i also think the mechanic needs work. If this was called something more like "Rotting Flesh" and allowed you to show up in some noticable form on a scent map as a contact i think it would have a lot more merit. Say on a scent death use you had an indication of where any of your rotting contacts are?--Honestmistake 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to keep it voluntary though, don't want to let people track enemy group leaders just by having them in their contacts. Also, requiring the leader to speak signals that they want people to track them. Maybe a zombie doesn't have a good target in mind. It would be a waste of people's time to seek them out. This way, when a zombie has a plan, that's when they can speak before a crowd of zombies and get them to follow. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:38, 15 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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 1 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  11:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

The zombie is lying down then rises to attack nearby survivors... there are large loop holes in the game if your going to start looking at inconsistencies. For starters how can a sleeping survivor evade zombie attacks? Not everything needs clear rules to describe exactly what's going on, JFC we're playing with zombies! --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:50, 22 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)

You're not the only one to think that… *points at his comment further up* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

L4D is not where this came from, although I must admit there are similarities if you look hard enough. The ideas was based around the spitter ability in All Flesh Must Be Eaten(Wiki) which is a good deal older and damn good game if you want to role-play as opposed to run and gun like L4D.--Kamikazie-Bunny 15:05, 22 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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 1 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  11:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

---