Developing Suggestions

NOTICE

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

Shortcut:
DS

Developing Suggestions

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

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

Further Discussion

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

Resources

• The Frequently Suggested List
• Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

How To Make a Discussion

Adding a New Discussion

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

Adding a New Suggestion

• To add a new suggestion proposal, copy the code in the box below.
• Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.

• Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.
• The process is illustrated in this image.

{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}

• Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
• Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change.
• Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
• Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past month may be cycled without notice.

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

---

Suggestions

Brain Eater

Timestamp: Jebidijed 8 May 2013

Type: Headshot Mechanic

Scope: Everyone, but mostly Zombie PKers

Description: As a generic zombie, you should obviously be able to eat someone's brain. It would be a child move of Digestion and would behave almost just like the Headshot mechanic for survivors. As survivors need to do this with a gun only, zombies can only do this with their teeth. As soon as you whittle down a survivor's health to next to nothing, you can use your teeth and kill them to give them an extra 5 AP to stand up. Example Messages: For the zombie that ate the human's brain: You ate the human's brain! They will now have to spend an extra 5 AP to stand up. For the human that got his/her brain eaten: You had your brain eaten by a zombie! You will have to spend an extra 5 AP to stand up.

Discussion (Brain Eater

Eating someone's brain doesn't kill them instantly? —Aichon— 22:09, 8 May 2013 (BST)

Have you met survivors? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:24, 8 May 2013 (BST)

when i imagine myself getting pk, or kill. i imagine myself sit there, in a chair, and i see person sneak up behind me and shoot me in the back of my head at zero distances. and then i just sit there and say ow i took seven damage. now i imagine a zombie sneak up behind me, bite a hole in my head, and start eating at my brain. ow, i took damage. how would i survive a zombie eating my brain? it is very painful for me to think about. i am not sure how i can even survive shotgun! --Anja Arnheim 00:48, 9 May 2013 (BST)

Yes, but since a PKer who sneaks up on you still hits your flak jacket, we can assume that they're shooting your body, not your head. The headshot ability is only used as a finishing blow, hence why I don't understand how a zombie eating someone's brain can be anything other than a finishing blow. —Aichon— 13:55, 9 May 2013 (BST)

Flavour issues aside, the game needs less spite, not more--headshot for both sides isn't fun; removing headshot entirely is. 17:04, 9 May 2013 (BST)

Did I ever say that having your brain eaten wouldn't kill you instantly? No, I didn't! By the way, I changed it a little now. Jebidijed 9 May 2013

Ok, now I've changed it to be an actual headshot mechanic. Jebidijed May 16 2013

---

Super fun happy time

Timestamp: 21:16, 6 May 2013 (BST)

Type: Good

Scope: Everyone

Description: +1 to all damage. perhaps +2 to shotguns because 11/9 is silly. Infections still cause 1 HP loss at a time, digestion still gains 4, FAK healing is still at the same rates (5/10/15). Why? Increased turnaround in all deaths--minor pro-death bias is obvious but this also makes killing and clearing out zombies easier too, which should make beachhead tactics slightly less effective too, rendering sieges slightly more balanced. I'm sure it's been suggested before, but what matters is that it's being suggested by me. 21:16, 6 May 2013 (BST)

Discussion (Super fun happy time)

Are you seriously serious right now? This is just as nonsensical as the Flying Koala thing that Cyber suggested! (Sorry, Cyber) But there is a slight difference. When Cyber made his idea, it was actually kind of creative and a bit funny. This one just plain isn't. Jebidijed 8 May 2013

Yeah I'm seriously serious, this game has a stupendous side imbalance and measures to address that are always needed; one which plays into people doing what they consider "fun" (which for both sides is killing things) while also addressing the imbalance makes perfect sense. I get the feeling you have no zombie alts. Increased damage rates allow for quicker kills (helps everyone out), more xp gained per hit (helps new players out), and surprisingly is not a uniform zombie buff, as weapons now become even more powerful and barricades still remain just as much a pain in the hoop. Now, jebbers, let me know what your actual issue is, just in case I'm wrong in assuming it's the usual knee-jerk survivorism. 22:27, 8 May 2013 (BST)

I support adding more fun to the game. A "Super happy fun time" sounds like the definition of a fun addition. Would definitely vote against. —Aichon— 22:09, 8 May 2013 (BST)

It was this or waterslides. 22:27, 8 May 2013 (BST)

---

Angry Flying Koala Attack

Timestamp: -.- 04:11, 4 May 2013 (BST)

Type: Weapon

Scope: survivors

Description: If you search in the zoo, you can find an angry Koala that you can throw at anyone at a 50% rate, if it hits, it claws the crap out of the targets face and does 5 damage.

Discussion (Angry Flying Koala Attack)

No, no, and more damn no. Although the concept is humorous, it's just nonsensical in a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. Jebidijed 4 May, 2013

You destroyed all my hopes.-.- 03:40, 5 May 2013 (BST)

Humorous. I always support the use of living things as weaponry. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:04, 5 May 2013 (BST)

The game you are looking for is the other zombie mmo die2nite --Rosslessness 21:25, 5 May 2013 (BST)

I could suggest a variety of throwable animals to be placed within the game; squirrels, squids, leprechauns, cats. -.- 23:33, 5 May 2013 (BST)

This is unrealistic. Now, if the koala were an event with a chance to drop on your head and devour you unless you smeared toothpaste behind your ear, that would be authentic, by crikey. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:48, 6 May 2013 (BST)

Oh ho ho, so you suggest it happen as a random event? Inside of the zoo? -.- 03:51, 6 May 2013 (BST)

As the only Aussie to have commented in this discussion so far, I believe Rev has the most experience in dealing with attacking koalas, so I'll defer to his judgment, whatever it might be. —Aichon— 05:07, 6 May 2013 (BST)

Ok, so how do I put this up for voting now? -.- 06:14, 6 May 2013 (BST)

Follow whatever instructions Rev posts. He'll never lead you astray. Ever. —Aichon— 06:29, 6 May 2013 (BST)

Alrighty, lets do this Rev. -.- 16:48, 6 May 2013 (BST)

FYI submitting humourous suggestions is considered vandalism in case you weren't aware. ~ _{17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)}

There's no need to be jealous of my awesome suggestion Vapor d; -.- 00:53, 7 May 2013 (BST)

Actually, I forgot that we abolished that silly rule a while back. And I have no reason to be jealous. I did after all submit the wiki's first humorous suggestion after aforementioned vandalism rule was abolished. ~ _{04:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)}

You can't play along? Sheesh-.- 07:11, 7 May 2013 (BST)

As there is only one zoo mostly populated by roleplaying zergers I'd dare say it should by "flying koala shite fling". Its so unaustralian !--Rapture 04:42, 9 May 2013 (BST)

Do NOT be throwing squid around. I'll come at you like a spider monkey!--  Seekandyeshallfind     20:50, 9 May 2013 (BST)

Brain leach squids would be cool too. Mmmm I'm going get get my fingers all in the squid jelly :3 -.- 00:00, 10 May 2013 (BST)

why isn't this implemented yet? of course yes...put this up for voting or i will!--PayneTrain^(NWO/FU) 17:51, 20 May 2013 (BST)

wait,why doesn't the koala attack you if its angry....ok don't put it up for voting--PayneTrain^(NWO/FU) 17:54, 20 May 2013 (BST)

---

More Effective Zerg Flags

Timestamp ~ _{00:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}
Type Mechanics
Scope Zergs
Description
Currently, people that are flagged by the server as having used multiple characters within ten blocks of one another get penalized with lower than normal hit/search/cading percentages. To further impede zerging, I propose that the success rate for these actions drops to zero?

More Effective Zerg Flags (Discussion)

Discuss. Dupe me if you've heard this one before. ~ _{00:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}

The reason it's not zero is probably because it can be triggered accidentally. However, with dwindling numbers making this much less likely I'd say there's a good case for that being much less of a concern now. I say go for it. 01:20, 4 May 2013 (BST)

Sure, accidents happen. People slip up and get flagged even when not playing alts cooperatively. They'll slip up less often if there's more incentive to play it carefully, though so there's an added bonus. Might suck the first time it happens to you but it will probably be the last slip up you make. ~ _{02:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}

The zerg flags are nearly useless as it is, but sure, why not. I would like zergs to have a failure chance when speaking too, for added lulz around those zergtacular RPers. --RadicalWhig 06:16, 4 May 2013 (BST)

I feel like I remember something where if two alts were standing on the border opposite one another, say in Roywood and Pescodside, that could trigger the Zerg Flag. Or maybe it would tell you your safehouse was through the border when really it was wrapping around the map. Would that affect this? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:04, 5 May 2013 (BST)

I've never heard of that but if that is the case, then I'd probably suggest that fixed as well. Don't suppose that could be confirmed or disproven, could it? ~ _{20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)}

The safehouse thing I've seen, but I haven't seen it occur with the zerg flags. If Kevan wasn't a dick dead AWOL we could find out for sure. 01:34, 9 May 2013 (BST)

Any more input before I take this to voting? I'll reword it a bit and leave it here for a few days linger. ~ _{01:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)}

I'd want to see a complete list of what is being reduced to 0% (all attacks? all actions? somewhere in between?) if you take it to voting but the principal is solid. 01:34, 9 May 2013 (BST)

The idea is that it would affect only actions which are currently reduced by zerg flags, which I believe only includes attacks and searching and perhaps cading. Do you think it should include actions which normally have a 100% success rate? It would be a long list (I can think of about a dozen off the top of my head). ~ _{02:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)}

Revivification and I think healing are already affected, in that the success rates are not 100% when flagged. --RadicalWhig 03:32, 9 May 2013 (BST)

I'll ask Kevan for clarification on a few points. If I don't hear back in a few days then I'll just move forward with a the suggestion that everything that is currently penalized is further penalized. Its probably best to keep it vague anyway. Publicly accessible details about zerg flags could potentially help players circumvent them. ~ _{06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)}

I would prefer it if characters blatently tripped zerg flags that instant death occurs with larger revive costs OR an automatic teleport to a random area of the map . In my 3 second thinking it could stop (hopefully) survivor zergs (yeti fever) meatshielding forts and zombie zergs meatholding buildings (leather masters\miltown saints) and them getting up easily. Kevan always had his "I need to help people on crap home networks" but really in this day and age, if they have a crap network then they are probably too tight to donate into Kevan's hooker fund anyway. There are a number of zerg flags that get triggered but they are easily bypassed these except if the zerger in question doesn't care.--Rapture 04:38, 9 May 2013 (BST)

I really don't think massive idiots like those are caught by the existing measures, so this wouldn't help.

--RadicalWhig 07:03, 9 May 2013 (BST)

They are being flagged, it's just Kevans countermeasures aren't enough as it doesnt stop them from existing and taking up space. I haven't heard of him ban in account in a year or two but even with 100% kills there is only so much shooting another player can do.--Rapture 23:45, 9 May 2013 (BST)

I have to say, this one (and existing zerg measures to be honest) seem to be 'the horse is already out of the barn' measures. Which is to say they are about as effective as anti-doping measures in cycling. If you really want to stop this, make all characters email confirmed, and when a flag gets triggered, the account shuts down for a day, then two days and so forth according to some escalating structure. If this is truly 'cheating,' then it shouldn't be an in-game mechanism to punish it, it should be an administrative issue. Even in cycling, cyclists caught doping aren't given a flat tire and told to go compete with that.

If an account gets flagged as having many violations, there'd be a human intervention with the user. "This is my world and you will behave or be gone." All of this requires a responsible steward I know - which for us is nonexistent - but it seems to me trying to install mechanics that might accidentally affect the innocent is not the way to go. I thought about this long and hard during the Finis days... for whatever reason, there was great reluctance to inhibit that action, despite mountains of evidence. I tried to read into that, but most of my conclusions are sacrilege, so I'll keep them myself..--  Seekandyeshallfind     11:26, 9 May 2013 (BST)

Interesting suggestion. This is one topic I hear a lot of people discuss and I hear a lot of different opinions on how it could be handled. My suggestion is just one simple change that I think might be somewhat effective at impeding some of the zerging. I'd actually like to see more of these types of suggestions go through the proper channel. Perhaps if we inundate the suggestions system with zerg related things, K will pay a bit of attention. Not likely but what other choice is there. ~ _{16:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)}

I must say that this is interesting as a suggestion. Frankly, I am one of those people with a "crap network", as I live in Southeast Asia. Those of you who have at least made a visit to any Southeast Asian country that ISN'T Singapore and tried to check their e-mail there would know what I mean. That being said, "mobile broadband" is pretty much a joke here -- that's actually just wireless dial-up. It's no surprise that the IP limit can crop up from time to time on me, even considering the fact that I only play TWO characters (though I MAY donate soon, so that at least the IP limit is gone, in my case.) And if the 160-hit limit is being triggered by someone who plays only two characters, for an unknown reason, then I wouldn't know if my characters would be close to that of another person using the service (and assigned the same IP that I have been!) I do keep both of my own characters in opposite ends of the map, just to be sure. With the YETI zergs, I can somehow understand how this can be a good thing, but I am agreeing with the people who say that something that can affect the innocent is not really the way to go. With the RNG being... well... random, the current (or a slight increase) zerg penalty should probably be deterrent enough for zergers (unless they use sophisticated IP bypassing measures/zerg well enough to be able to bypass the in-game anti-zerg checks.) I may be incoherent right now; too early in the morning and I can't think straight in English. (P.S. I know that the US probably doesn't have dial-up anymore, or that AOL's issues may be fixed, but psst, it's not just America that plays this game.) -- Chirurgien  (talk)  23:16, 10 May 2013 (BST)

---

Suicide

Timestamp: -.- 02:35, 3 May 2013 (BST)

Type: survivor option

Scope: survivors, death cult

Description: It's pretty simple, if you have a shotgun with ammo or pistol with ammo, you can use 10 AP to shoot yourself and you die.

Discussion (Suicide)

You can already jump from a few different types of buildings in the game to commit suicide. And if you're parachuting, you can already use infection to kill yourself indoors. No need for an additional way to do it. —Aichon— 17:02, 3 May 2013 (BST)

jumping out of the building puts you outside and getting infected to die isn't as straight forward as just shooting yourself in the face. -.- 21:49, 3 May 2013 (BST)

Sure, but why is that necessary? So far, you haven't addressed what the motivation is for this change at all. Near as I can tell, the only thing it would do is make parachuting easier, which runs contrary to the design of the game. The game makes a point of not providing skills or abilities specifically to benefit roles that don't conform to the standard zombie or survivor ones, and in many cases actively discourages such roles (e.g. XP is halved when PKers are attacking survivors, I believe), and I think that's a trend that should continue, since those roles are meant to exist in the gaps between the others, rather than being officially supported ones. Besides which, simply from the perspective of balance, I think it's a good thing that parachuting is as difficult to accomplish as it is, since it's a very powerful technique that has an appropriate cost at the moment. —Aichon— 10:53, 4 May 2013 (BST)

Dupe. Suggested many, many times before. Next time, you might want to search a little first. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:12, 4 May 2013 (BST)

---

Free running out of ruined buildings

Timestamp: PayneTrain 14:04, 11 April 2013 (BST)

Type: game mechanic?i think..

Scope: zombies/survivors

Description: even after ruining a building survivors can free run out of the building,but not come back in because it's too damaged?what the fuck is up with that? So my suggestion basically states that the Harmanz should be given a 70% chance of failing when free running out of ruined buildings as the buildings can still act as Entry points even if they are ruined,which kind of ruins the point of ruining.

Discussion (Free running out of ruined buildings)

I've always liked it how it is. It's a nice balance, in that as zombies ruin a suburb, it gives survivors more of a chance to get indoors. Plus, doing it this way would effectively allow zombies to create clusters of buildings that are effectively pinatas. I.e. Surround an area of blocks that are EHB with ruins and suddenly no one can get into those buildings until the ruins are repaired or the EHB 'cades are broken down. While an interesting idea, I think it's a bit ludicrous that it could actually work. —Aichon— 18:03, 11 April 2013 (BST)

There are some unorthodox survivor tactics built around the ability to freerun out of ruined buildings, such as the Roftwood Barricade Plan which relies on permanently ruined dark buildings as entry points. Changing that mechanic would just take away that angle without adding a new one. Make the game more fun, not less. -- Spiderzed█ 18:16, 13 April 2013 (BST)

i know that,but i was just thinking that a shift in balance is required in favor of zeds rather than in favor of survivors,i mean almost all the suggestions or implementations have been made in favor of survivors,right. 1 of the basic reason's for ruining buildings is to obstruct free running,isn't it?so i feel this is a good suggestion--PayneTrain^(NWO/FU) 07:11, 14 April 2013 (BST)

I like this. It makes a lot of in-universe sense, and it would prevent populated suburbs from completely shrugging off or even benefiting from (in the case of overcading) small-scale zombie attacks, which is a huge peeve of mine. However, I think you may want to nerf this from the "no free running at all" to a 50% chance of fall out of the building/50% chance to free run normally, or something along these lines, to keep this from being too frustrating in heavily ruined burbs. --RadicalWhig 23:40, 15 April 2013 (BST)

Thankyou,i have taken a part of your suggestion and pimped it into mine...--PayneTrain^(NWO/FU) 19:18, 25 April 2013 (BST)

I'd say make it the same rate as injuring yourself falling from a ruined building (which is what, 20%? 25%? the Ruin page doesn't list it), and make it injure you in the same way. Then you've got yourself a deal. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:20, 4 May 2013 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

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

Free running out of ruined buildings

by PayneTrain^(NWO/FU) at 13:16, 14 May 2013 (BST)

Suggestion:20130502 Change in Graffiti Defilement Mechanics

by Lpha at 22:58, 2 May 2013 (BST)