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: Victory Locations can Move and Depants.

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

Review the character limit for radio tranmissions.

Timestamp:	Three Dog 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Any survivors using the radio
Description:	I was wondering, Since I started the Galaxy News Radio i've found that the very small amount of characters you can use is at best, a thorn in my side, couldn't it be possible to make the transmission amount of characters the same as for speaking, it makes perfect sense really. I understand that the limit is there to stop spamming of the radio channels, however they can still spam, just it takes more ap, and if it takes up a new line everytime they broadcast something, it probably makes more of a mess. Not to mention something like this would greatly benifit the many radio stations around the cities. I appologise if this has been brought up before in suggestions, and if it has feel free to delete it.

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

Sounds kind of dupey, but I'm pretty sure the limit is there from a technical point of view. Only the people in your current building can see speech, while everyone with a transmitter can see radio. I guess it may be there to save Kevan bandwidth. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So because they can "still spam" we should make it EASIER?--Pesatyel 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The 'Out of AP' Page

Timestamp:	Yungblood 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	interface
Scope:	the forgettful and the busy
Description:	unlike my other suggestions, this one is abnormally simple: You are still able to view your inventory and drop items when you have run out of AP. Once, you run out of AP, you are given the message 'You are asleep' for humans and 'You are swaying slightly' for zombies. The page is then useless and you can no longer interact with the game. My suggestion is that you will still be able to view your inventory, but the list is no longer in 'button' style. Also, you can drop any item as you would if you still had AP. This would give survivors a chance to drop what they were to busy to drop while in-game. If this is a dupe, then I'm sorry. I'm horrible at searching for dupes.

Discussion (The 'Out of AP' Page)

What's the point? You can drop stuff once you get AP back, and there's never really any hurry to drop stuff.  Swiers 04:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not good from a RP point of view, ether. You are sleeping when you are out of AP. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And if your in that much of a hurry, its only half an hour. What about zombies?--Pesatyel 07:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

zombies can still drop stuff ;) --xoxo 11:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, im a person who only checks my accounts once a day, so I guess why that affects me. i usually let my AP get the full 50. -- Yungblood 16:28, 23 November (EST)

---

Bloody Clothing

Timestamp:	Galaxy125 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Minor Improvement - Clothing Adjustment
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	Scent Blood allows zombies to determine health and infection status of players, which aids zombies in target selection. I propose that blood-flecked, blood-stained and blood-soaked clothing confuse the zombies' Scent Blood ability. Specifically, I suggest that blood-flecked clothing reduce a survivor's HP as seen by the zombie by 2 HP, blood-stained as 5 HP, and blood-soaked as 10 HP. Note that these are only changes to the survivor's apparent HP as displayed next to that survivor's name: if the zombie swings at that human, they get the normal, unadjusted message with the survivor's regular HP. I recognize that a zombie could just check the survivors' profiles to see if they're wearing blood-altered clothing. This adjustment is mainly intended for large-scale sieges (where checking survivors' profiles is difficult), with the "realism" bonus that if you're wearing bloody clothing, zombies are more likely to come after you. Suggestions for dealing with the "apparent negative HP" effect are welcome.

Discussion (Bloody Clothing)

This would be way too confusing, since the survivor would appear to have two different HP totals at the same time. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Pestolence. We would have EVERYONE wearing bloody clothes. What's the hinderance to that?--Pesatyel 22:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If infection cure was not 100% and bloody clothing reduced the chances further i could see a point... as is its just a confusiong fluff for no good (in game) reason. --Honestmistake 01:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Interesting idea, though, but would just get annoying pretty fast. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

confusing and unnecessary. clothing is for flavour; it has no game-play impact. --WanYao 22:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's masks and fuel-stained clothes. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [510,24]} 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, precedents (thank you Midianian!), but I agree with WanYao, Pestolence, Pesatyel and Honestmistake that it's too confusing. However, Honestmistake had an interesting (and far less confusing) idea for having bloody clothing partially prevent infection cures. I'll update the suggestion/idea to reflect that. Thank you all so far for your input, and I would appreciate more. -- Galaxy125 11:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Profile Reset

Timestamp:	Tony 07:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	just some things
Scope:	players in general
Description:	ok you know when you make your first profile you get a sweet name but later you want a fresh start BUT you DONT get keep that name of yours,well i propose that you use the wikito contact kevin or whoever to request a reset by sending them your character info and such, and it will only work if youhaving an acount on the wiki. il try to think of somthing to help with this.

Discussion (Profile Reset)

Fixed your formatting. However, this is covered in the official FAQ. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [509,21]} 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just create a new character and capitalize a letter or add a number at the end. big freaking deal. Although, i wouldn't be so opposed to kevan doing a death purge of any character that hasn't been logged in for a year or more, to free up some names. - tylerisfat 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is something i fully support... I also can't see why we cant have the same names in different cities/maps but that is a different matter!--Honestmistake 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That'd leave to confusion. What if a new guy rocked up and created Finis Valorum (coz he liked star wars like that) and then got PKed constantly and had zerging allegations threw at him. Far better to just create another name, there's still truckloads of them out there. In regards to this suggestion, nah, extra work for kevan and you might change your mind again. Create another character if you want.--xoxo 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand all the reasons to ban same names in same cities but in the case of new maps it just doesn't work..... sure a new Finis will probably get whacked (i waved at him myself?) but so will "finis valorum 99" or whatever... If there can be no transfer then there should be no name blocking... for gruds sake the new map dies in about a week so name blocking romm themis a real pain!--Honestmistake 01:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah i guess the different city is just a kevan thing. He could make Bwood profiles b1,b245 etc but i guess this was easier...--xoxo 01:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Same names in different cities could easily cause trouble. I certainly wouldn't want anyone running around in another city with the same name as my character in Malton. It's natural to assume that they're controlled by the same player. Anything they do there is going to be reflected on my character in Malton.

There are tons of names available, just pick one and make a new character. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [501,22]} 01:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be problematic. The profile interface is very simplistic. Having "Bob" 3 times with different classes and skills would just be too complicated and also unncessary. I mean there is already an infinite number of names out there. But I DO like Tyler's idea of deleting the oldest unused characters.--Pesatyel 05:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No. For about the 248th time. No profile resets. --WanYao 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Look inside/outside

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Ability
Scope:	All players
Description:	Allows anyone, regardless of living/dead status, to look inside/outside of buildings, so long as there are no barricades and the doors are open. This adds a new button, labelled "Look through doors". By looking through the open doors, you can get a basic idea of what is awaiting you inside/outside. You cannot see outside graffiti from inside, but from the outside you can spot bloodstains and graffiti, but you are not close enough to read the graffiti, nor are you able to make out how much blood there is. You can spot players through open doors, but the following rules apply: If there is less than 5 people present, you will not spot them. If there is between 5 and 9 people present (inclusive), then you have a 10% chance of getting the message 'Through the open doors, you see something move.' If there is 10 to 14 people present (inclusive), there is a 25% chance you get the message 'Through the open doors, you see something large shifting around'. If there is 15 to 19 people present, there is a 50% chance you get the message 'Through the open doors, you see what appears to be a group of people'. If there is 20 or more people present, you will get the message 'Through the open doors, you spot a large group of people'. When I say 'people' , I mean both zombies and humans. This does nerf the Hiding in Plain Sight strategy somewhat, however only if you're in a large group.

Discussion (Look inside/outside)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Will this cost an AP? Pretty useless IMO-why not just enter the building? Linkthewindow  Talk  09:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The chances of a building with 20+ survivors inside having DWO is pretty low. Likewise 20+ zombies in a building would probably give clues outside. (It being ruined or the windows being smeared with bloody handprints. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No AP cost. It does take an IP hit, though. I was actually thinking about making it automatic. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if the doors are open, it'd be a better option to just enter the building and see everything and peek inside and get a vaugue description, assuming this suggestion requires AP. -- Yungblood 7:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I think if this was a freebie for whoever brings down the last level of cades (if they have MOL) or closes the door then i would say yes but as a generic freebie for all its not so good.--Honestmistake 22:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty useless; why not just enter the building? This also is Xray vision, which is a huge no no. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's borderline X-ray, but the lack of barricades makes it uncommon, and not as bad as other X-ray suggestions. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it also makes sense that you can look out an open door. Unlike other X-ray suggestions (one or more of which may have been my own) --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be fine if it was automatic, like if the doors are open you just get the status report on outside in the description, otherwise it's too pointless, so no.--xoxo 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

---

ZombiesVsCades

Timestamp:	Destor 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	As a zombie with maxed out skills, the worst part of being a zombie is that you cannot generally break down the cades, get inside, and kill a survivor in one play ssession. if you are lucky, you might get to do this sometimes, but I generally have to log back on ater a few hours to finish the survivor off. So, I suggest that zombies should no longer get the baricade creaks message after they buy a new skill called rip down or something. because of this, they will now always hit when they get a hit, instead of half of a chance because of the creak message.

Discussion (ZombiesVsCades)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  10:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no conclusive evidence that barricade creaks and halved accuracy are linked. Supposedly it's just random (not indicating a near miss) flavor text. And have you even thought this through? What it seems you want is that zombie should get the full 50% when attacking cades. This would mean that VSB buildings could last about 20 attacks before the cades fall. EHB (I think it has max 20 stages) buildings would last around 40 attacks. Basically, no building could stand against one single zombie. While I'm all for making it a bit easier on the feral zombies, this is not what I would like to see implemented. - User:Whitehouse 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As Whitehouse. Where did you get that the creaking message meant half of a chance? --Pestolence^(talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OH HEAVEN FORBID THAT ZOMBIES NO LONGER HAVE TO FUCKING META-GAME THEIR ASSES OFF! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! -- #99 ^DCC 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Haha. The zombie children. Zombie fetus. - tylerisfat 08:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

problem is that a lot of zombies would continue meta-gaming and utterly destroy all harmanz within days! A skill which gave a MOL zombie with free running a (very) small chance to wriggle into buildings that fall below strong cades might be acceptable. Probably not though!--Honestmistake 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be amused by a mechanic wherein zombies can "wriggle in" to LB buildings, but doing so increases the barricade level by three (in other words, goes from LB to QB, LB+1 to QB+1, or LB+2 to QB+2). This could be reasoned as the zombie struggling through weakened barricades, but collapsing the ceiling of the building behind him. -- Galaxy125 02:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of them remembering that they dont need to destroy the cades if they can clamber over them... that being said i do think it has been shot down before, probably more than once.--Honestmistake 11:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I was led to believe the creaking message was half chance because of the barricades page. It says it like it is a fact, so I assumed it was. Second, the purpose of this was so zombies would be able to take down a cade in one gameplay session. And third..... what? I cannot tell if you are being supportive or not. Finally, the suggestion for zombies to crawl through barricades has been shot down before, so I would just get a large string of dupes. --Destor 00:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that on the barricades page. It does mention that the chance of weakening the barricade is equal to half the hit rate of the weapon used; however, that has nothing to do with the creaking message. The only the word "creak" ever appears on that page is in the sentence "Sometimes a barricade will "creak", but this will not weaken the barricades." And unless Kevan or someone else comes by with evidence to prove you right and me wrong, your suggestion is now irrelevant, since it is based on a faulty premise. Good day, --Pestolence^(talk) 01:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference is Guides:First_Day_in_Malton. Ctrl-f to find "creak." Other previous suggestions (Suggestions/RejectedMay2006#Toxic_Miasma) also talk about creaking/hitting being a secondary randomization effect. -- Galaxy125 02:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference to creaking in Guides:First_Day_in_Malton is just there to explain that seeing creaks means you missed. I put it in for flavor and because it seems likely, but I have no hard evidence that it is in fact so. OTOH, It also has no real bearing on this suggestion either way; if it is not already that way, Kevan can adapt the code so that it does work that way, or would be equivalent. IMO, the idea is overpowered; a bonus to your next hit with you get a creak would be less of a boost, but that is likely a dupe.  Swiers 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your forgetting ONE important thing: Hordes. Multiply it by a billion. Zombies CAN take down barricades in one session by working together. Your whining because as a lone zombie you can't get in and kill a guy on your own. Tough shit. It's not supposed to be THAT easy.

• Example: a zombie yses 40 AP to tear down a barricade and enters. He has 9 AP left to attack and gets in 3 or 4 hits before running out.
• Example 2: 4 zombies each use 10 AP to tear down the barricade and enter. They each have 39 AP to attack with.

All of that is with the normal rules. I suppose its moot because your not ACTUALLY suggesting anything about barricades or anything. All your suggesting is that you no longer get the "creak" mesage. That does not alter anything what so ever. Oh, also, it is ALWAYS half hit percentage to any attack (except the crowbar, guns and knife).--Pesatyel 03:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that I forgot the multiply by a billion rule, so it would not work anyway. but, the main purpose of the suggestoin is to remove the half-hit chance for zombies. I understand that it would not work, but you are being a little harsh. The entire purpouse of this was to remove the half hit chance. the creaking is unimportant. If I ever entered it as an actual suggestion, I would remove that now, but I will not because you have convinced me otherwise. do, better luck next time to me, good night to all of you.--Destor 05:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The half % to hit is there for a reason, that's the point of my example.--Pesatyel 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

illogical, sadly. but, as DCC or whoever, zombies do have to metagame their asses off to succeed. but, even as it stands, when they do they do, they are damn hard to stop... this isn't exactly fair, but i don't know how to fix the problem... and this isn't the way. --WanYao 12:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Zombies In The Water

Timestamp:	Maunder 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	environment interaction
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies should be able to walk in deep water (eg, style c85 "a river") that players cannot, as in Borehamwood. They're not breathing, after all, and haven't we seen them emerging from rivers and ponds etc in the movies? It just seems right! An automatic ability for anyone in a zombified state. But, to slow them down a little, it should take them an extra AP to enter a deep river (so 3AP without Lurching Gait, 2AP with).

Discussion (Zombies In The Water)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days.

- Linkthewindow  Talk  05:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

most humans can swim, i wouldn't worry too much about logic.--xoxo 05:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Borehamwood is a temporary city so adding suggestions for it is pointless. Also, Malton has no water. But as said, why can't survivors swim across too? Then you have to deal with the ramifications of the water. What about water/underwater combat? Are zombies "invisible" underwater?--Pesatyel 05:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a river, perhaps the curent of the river is too strong for survivors to swim? As for no water in Malton, there is supposedly a "river" to the North, its just that the map would need to be expanded, which is possible in the future, even if it doesn't happen in the near future.--G-Man 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The river doesn't appear in the game, and if the current is too strong for survivors to swim, then how would zombies, who are supposedly slower and clumsier than humans, manage it? --Pestolence^(talk) 01:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Supposedly" is nothing and that doesn't counter the whole host of other things necessary to consider, as I stated.--Pesatyel 02:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

@Pestolance, think World War Z and the zeds in oceans, yes this is different but its a good example, the zombies are merely grounded, not trying to swim, which would be a huge difference. @Pesatyel, yes those would have to be considered, but this is still a start, and can be justified as just zombies with the ability to move through, as well as a possible spot in Malton that could be opened up in the future. It is something interesting to explore for future maps or additions to Malton and shoulden't be shot down so quickly.--G-Man 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, which cause me to elucidate my thoughts a bit further. I wanted to change one aspect of a map's dynamics and tactics, without changing the direct player interaction any: survivors can be "cornered" in a space bounded by deep water, but zombies cannot. Survivors cannot depend on a few access bridges as defensive choke points. I'm not trying for "realism" about how people should interact with water, so I'm not even going to suggest a rationale behind it other than its effects on game play. The consequence of my suggestion as it stands is that zombies could attack each other normally while in the deep river, but they'd have no interaction with survivors because there can't be any survivors there. You can think about changing combat in the water if you want to, or allowing humans to enter it too, but my proposal doesn't suggest that. If you're going to criticize my suggestion, shouldn't you actually address what I suggested? Or if you really think the suggestion ought to include those changes, can you explain why it's better that way, or what my suggestion lacks on its own? -- Maunder 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, even though it won't have a big impact on Malton as it stands, it's a relatively simple rule adjustment to implement and understand, and would have interesting effects for any future maps with deep water, whether they be short-term or long-standing (and may inspire the design of such maps!). -- Maunder 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Details are important to shoot down those who will vote down your susgestion based only on the lack of them. They expect rational situations and any sugestion (even here) to cover all bases, so it is imperitive that the suggested problems by Pesatyel be addressed. It makes sense so only the best suggestions make it through, that all players will be happy with, even if the suggestion system is broken based on voters taking sides instead of a neutral point of view. Don't worry, just figure out how those situations fit into your sugestion and then ask for comment on your proposed solutions. Even a basic idea can help someone here figure something out. Personnely I would have no survivors in the water, and zombies "invisible" in all spaces except for a few exceptions.

• When in the same space as another zombie, all zombies are visible.
• Zombies in a nearby water space to another zombie will be counted as "blurred images", and no accurate numbers will be given.
• Any survivors next to a water space have a "blurred image" of any zombies in adjacent water spaces.
• Any zombies in a water space have a "blurred Image" of any survivors/zombies on dry land.

As well I would go with the ability to attack, but no damage done or xp recieved, due to water slowing the blows. As for the actual message given to survivors, "You think about entering the water, but realise the current is too strong to swim across"--G-Man 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

---

High-speed manufacrured syringes

Timestamp:	Rachel Akebre 08:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Use for manufactoring syringes
Scope:	NecroTech Employees
Description:	Currently there is no reason to manufacture syringes, because the search rate is far more than 5%. So I propose that the revive cost for manufactored syringes is 5AP instead of 10. It would still be less efficient than searching (16AP in total vs 25) but it would encourage tactics and intelligent behaviour. (The examples are obvious) The manufactured would be marked with a (2.1) after their name.

Discussion High-speed manufacrured syringes

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting suggestion. I like the idea of a short-term AP cost for a long-term gain. Can't find a dupe, and could introduce some interesting tactics (especially among dedicated revivers.) Linkthewindow  Talk  08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with making manufacturing better is that it prevents search rate balancing which, with syringes, is a major major deal. Not to mention there are situations where Manufacture is better, originally the skill was as good as or better than the search rates at the time and currently is both more reliable for suicide revivers running low and any affected extremely negatively by the variable search rates thing that can make certain areas down right useless for searching.--Karek^maps?! 09:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

20ap versus around 9 is a bit steep. I think 15 would be more reasonable. --xoxo 09:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Used to be 20 AP vs 5, also used to be 20 AP vs ~35. Still, I'd pay twice the cost when I absolutely need the needles to know I'm not gonna get boned by the RNG in an area that I know is bad for NTs, especially if the only one I can power is Ransacked or Ruined.--Karek^maps?! 09:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it has a purpose, but considering syringes are 2% encum, it's a very niche market.--xoxo 09:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think i would vote keep for this. Would allow for a slight benefit to survivors to give a balance that, at least in contested area's, is desperately needed. A slight add on thought would be that maybe only the manufactured ones can revive rotters (still inside the powered building, of course) or the other way around, only found ones. - tylerisfat 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. Since the odds are tipped toward the Zombies, why not cut down the AP usage/creation for syringes? This would provide a slightly less steep advantage for the zombies. It might actually counter-balance the the advantage. I would vote for this. -- Ωmega360 ^T 04:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What? Odds tipped for the zombies? This is retarded especially since ALL syringes are 100% to hit and 100% effective. WAH WAH! you have to use some rechargeable AP to make it if you can't find it! Oh NOES you can go into the negative to make it if you don't find it! This is so ROUGH! You can't justify lowering the AP cost to use a syringe - any syringe. We don't want to go back to the days of 1 AP per needle. It was increased because needles are too powerful as a weapon. Now with DNA Extractors that is especially true since there are a lot less (if any) wasted on rotters. -- #99 ^DCC 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We're not going back to the days of 1 AP per needle. The suggestion is 5AP, with a cost of 20AP beforehand. And the odds are tipped towards zombies, as they have a skill that lets them stay zombies as long as they stay out of powered NT, and if they are revived, they can jump off the nearest building for 1AP (not including getting into the building). Oh wahh, that's so obviously biased... although admittedly it's easier to revive than kill, barricades are entirely unbalanced (deliberately) and being a survivor is more complex. So I guess we're even. ;)--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 07:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Going to have to agree, don't want to waste the AP? don't press the button. Remember it's the only thing that even can be manufactured, and it is the most powerful weapon in the game x10, even if 100% of the deciated zombies were rotters. Syringes aren't meant to be easy to find and there's little reason to change this mechanic in this manner as it fits what its meant to accomplish without providing too much of an advantage or disadvantage based on situation. Want to tip the scales? Find something else, otherwise just search.--G-Man 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so much that the odds are in favor of zombies, but the difficulty of getting a revive, especially for rot revives. i know you likely don't care about those rot revivers, but some of us do. perhaps cheaper manufactured syringes that can only be used in powered buildings? - tylerisfat 23:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having played a survivor with Brain Rot, I can tell you that it is not difficult to get a rot revive, especially if you're in a group (even a small one). --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [500,18]} 00:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I hope to open a rot revive clinic through my own group in the future, and had begun to in the past through another group I was a part of before it fell apart. As for the diffculty of getting a revive, both my characters have been undead for the month of November, who both act as exculsivly survivor, and yet I still don't support this change.--G-Man 03:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue, just speaking from experience. I have a rotted survivor who's been waiting and mrhing around for a long bloody time. So much so that i just log in to keep him from idling out. He's been there for a month and a half waiting for the NT's to get back up and going. Not saying its impossible, but it can be a challenge. I have another survivor thats been stumbling to a different revive point every couple of days, trying to find a revive. I shouldn't have a to join a group to get a revive. (I have other characters in groups, by the way). Its not the safe suburbs, its the suburbs currently under seige that i'm seeing. Its very difficult for people to keep generators going. Thats all I'm saying. I'm not a giant advocate of this suggestion, but I would probably vote keep. I realize its possible to get rot revives, much more easily if i'm in a group, but if my character is a brain rotted/non-meta gamer, i shouldn't have to change that just to get a revive once every couple of months. - tylerisfat 05:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be waiting for a revive in a suburb under siege, rot or no rot. Going into a green suburb to get revived is often faster even for non-rotters. Also, waiting in a ruined NT isn't very productive, most likely you'll just get shot and dumped when they take the NT back. Find a powered NT and break in (it is possible to break into EHB all by yourself, won't probably even take a week if you're lucky, assuming you have maxed claws). Then look at the people who are in the building, check who has the necessary skills, gesture at them, mrh and hope that other zombies don't find the open NT before one of the survivors wakes up. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,18]} 11:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The only real reason beyond my laziness for not having a revive is using my IP hits for new borehamwood characters. ;) - tylerisfat 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a significant difference between found and made syringes but I am not sure that this fits the bill. Personally i think giving them a 50% chance of curing infection would be fair given the cost of making them... --Honestmistake 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This I could agree with, but a lower percentage.--G-Man 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What? A 100% to hit AND it cures infection? How about manufactured syringes that auto-kill any zombies outside the NT when you make it because it is just THAT AWESOME and only costs like 5AP to make and comes with a sniper scope! DON'T FUCK WITH SYRINGES. There isn't a problem with the needles - it is with the dipshits playing survivors. You want a rez? Move to a green suburb. Not that hard people now that the Dead don't have the whole fucking map red anymore. Fucking Pussies. -- #99 ^DCC 23:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Chill man. Giving such a small buff to a manufactured syringe as a 25-50% chance to cure infection (if there even is one!) could actually help zombies when people start wasting AP to make em. Zombies already know that infection is only a hassle anyway and very rarely kills anyone. Personally i would like syringes to cure at 25%, manufactured syringes to cure at 50% and FAKs to cure at 50% unless in a powered hospital (100%) but its very unlikely that would pass!--Honestmistake 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

there are lots of reasons to manufacture a syringe... and the fact that it's automatic is the benefit; 20 ap is the trade off. and, as dcc says, survivors just don't play smart... that's 90% of the problem. --WanYao 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Barricading outside

Timestamp:	Swordy 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement to construction
Scope:	All Humans with Construction
Description:	What this improvement idea does is it allows humans with Construction to erect Barricades around a building. These Barricades could only be brought up when the interior of a building is not barricaded because; lets face it no one could drag a desk or other Barricade material over a giant mound on junk... The Barricades on the outside could only be brought up to Very Strongly not Extremely Heavy due to realism issues. Case and point, would you honestly in a real outbreak be able to make Barricades out side your house so tall that no one could get over them? Just using material lying about barricades that high would be very unlikely… That is the main reason that the barricades only go up to VSB but the other reason is that due to over barricade in some suburbs new players are left out in the streets unprotected and die very often. These outside Barricade could be clambered over by Survivors and used as an outside save haven, while still serving a use to defending buildings if used. This is my first suggestion so sorry if it is wrong or hard to understand. Evil Swordy

Discussion (Barricading outside)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved up to the top of the suggestions que (it was posted at the bottom.) Please post at the top in future. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is something that has been suggested before, and has been shot down based on the premise that it is wildly over powered for survivors. Remember that those playing as Zombies are players too, and you can't be perfectly safe. They have to be able to get to you, and as it is it can take a Zombie his full daily 50 AP just to work the cades down... and not even make it inside. - tylerisfat 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Overpowered? Not really. This suggestion allows you to choose maximum barricading level, you can either have cades on the inside of the building (the way it is now) which can go up as high as possible, or you can have them on the outside where they are limited to VSB. The point of this is simply to halt over-barricading (actually that is rather powerful in some sense). All this suggestion does is enforce VSB by starting the construction on the outside of the building which disallows the building of cades inside. You'd be told that there are cades there, and that (if you are a survivor) you can scramble onto the inside of them to relative safety (relative because while on the inside of the cades you are still outside the building), but you'd be visible from other blocks. It wouldn't hinder movement, it'd just function as blocking zeds from entering the building and attacking survivors in the same block as long as the survivor has opted to be on the inside of the outdoor cades. In fact, this slows survivor movement if they want to enter a building with outdoor cades, as you'd need to scramble over them, and then enter through the doors. That's how I read it anyhow. - User:Whitehouse 23:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, i think once the outside ones are erected you can build internals as high as EHB as well. realism wise there'd be no reason why you couldn't. if i'm right in that interpretation it is very much overpowered.--xoxo 09:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, misinterpreted that did I. Well if it is that way then yes it would be somewhat overpowering. Suggestion maker, would this prevent cades on the inside? Or can they be built freely once the outside ones are done? - User:Whitehouse 17:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

...well... i Meant this to only be able to make the Barricades on the outside and not on the inside and if you could have the double layers of cades this would be insanely cheap but i dont have a really good reason for why you wouldnt... maybe you ran out of materials? or something... but one thing you have to consider is that you can only erect the outdoor baricades when you have no indoor Baricades... so a wandering Zed could still get through the outdoor cades and kill anybody out there but would have to wait for more AP for the internal Cades...so ya take that anyway you want to....however Whitehouse your original statements on this matter accuratly state wat i was hoping this would be used for. Sorry this is rather esoteric to read but ya that is why i posted this here to get feedback and polish this up if people like it...--Swordy 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To use the words in the suggestion: "...would you honestly in a real outbreak be able to make Barricades out side your house ...". Who the fuck would DO that?--Pesatyel 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In a real outbreak? Of course you would. A lot of houses have chokepoints that would be better for barricading. If a zombie can't get on your raised stone porch, it can't get to the doors or windows. In Malton? No.--William Told 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your surrounded by zombies and your going to go outside to barricade?--Pesatyel 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it if I was surrounded by zombies at that particular moment, but I'd do it if none were around.--William Told 02:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Want to stop over-barricading? The solution: Kill 'Caders. Problem solved. -- #99 ^DCC 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Ignore this Voice

Suggestion:20081115 Ignore this Voice is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 07:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)