Developing Suggestions

Suggestion Navigation

Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions

Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous

Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

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

Boost Contacts Limit for Donors

Timestamp:	Marcusfilby 21:41, 29 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Interface
Scope:	Survivors/Zombies
Description:	Something of a request, but one that would greatly aid players into the metagame aspect of UD: for a nominal fee (either included in the $5 already donated by players who get an IP hit limit waiver or as an additional $2.50 or $5), paid supporters would have the 150 profile limit on their contacts list doubled to 300. With several major groups on the stats page at or near the 150-member mark, one's contacts list can become quite swollen, without even considering the need to keep track of unaffiliated friends, close allies, sworn foes, that cute guy/gal/shambling corpse you once made eyes at, and the like. So, if it doesn't carry a punishing burden in terms of server overhead, a limit bump would be a great perk for paid supporters.

Discussion (Boost Contacts Limit for Donors)

You could also use some UI/coloring modifications to highlight an essentially infinite number of names. This isn't a bad idea, though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:54, 29 May 2009 (BST)

True, I should mention there are some 3d-party tools out there to try to expand the limit, but miss the value of corpse/zombie recognition. Thanks for the tip! Marcusfilby 21:58, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Excellent suggestion. That 150 limit is a real pain and encouraging people to donate is a decent idea. Also I bet Kevan would implement this because it would line his pockets lolz --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 01:14, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Dupe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 03:25, 30 May 2009 (BST)

An old one, at that. Oh well, maybe this will remind Kevan that that particular suggestion passed. I wonder if he reads DevSug... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

It's quite possible. He reads through more than A/PD, his talk, and finished suggestions you know.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:31, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Indeed. He's got quite the lurker or lurker-like stance though, he's certainly less likely to edit or intervene than, say, you! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:30, 30 May 2009 (BST)

New Survivor Weapon - Rifle (Revised)

Timestamp:	Franklin Castle 19:22, 29 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item - Weapon
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A semiautomatic rifle with a 5 shot magazine, reloaded using Stripper Clips. Rifle and S. clip would be found in Forts, PDs, and maybe supply crates. Rifles at 3% in Armories and 2% in PDs. S. clips would be found in Forts and PDs at rates of 7% and 6%. Neither the Rifle nor Stripper Clips would be found in Mall gun stores. Mall search rates would remain unchanged. Search rates in Fort Armories and Police Departments would only be changed in the sense that instead of a failure (You search and find nothing.), the Survivor would find either a Rifle or a Stripper Clip. Stripper Clips would have an encumbrance of 3% (as opposed to the 2% for either shotgun shells or pistol clips). The Rifle's damage per shot is greater than the Pistol but lower than the Shotgun. The Rifle has more ammo per reload than a Shotgun, but fewer than the Pistol. It weighs more than the others (EDIT 12% encumbrance). It takes 3 AP to reload (Explained as having to clean the rifle every time it is reloaded. Flavor text "You wipe the residue out of the receiver and reload the rifle."). Reloading a pistol takes 1 AP and gives 6 attacks (14% cost). Reloading a shotgun takes 1 AP per attack (50% cost). Reloading the rifle would take 3 AP and give 5 attacks (38% cost). A pistol's max damage from a full load is 30. A shotgun's is 20. The rifle would be 40. 1 kill with the pistol would cost 27 AP and the encumbrance for that kill is 12% (Pistol 4% + 6% for 3 extra clips). 1 kill with the shotgun would cost 22 AP and the encumbrance for that kill is 26% (Shotgun 6% + 20% for 10 extra shells). 1 kill with the rifle would cost 25 AP (9 AP to reload the rifle three times and 16 AP to kill with 4 rounds left over) and the encumbrance would be 21% (Rifle EDIT 12% + 9% for 3 extra clips). (All calculated as against 60HP + Flak) The Rifle's Accuracy may be upgraded by Military skills. Base accuracy is 5%. It receives the "Basic Firearms Training" boost of 25%. A new skill, "Rifle Training" would provide another 25% boost, and another new skill "Advanced Rifle Training" would give the last 10% boost, raising total accuracy to 65%. The Rifle has no special abilities (cannot shoot through barricades, cannot shoot at targets in the next block, etc.).

Name	Dmg	Dmg w/ Flak Jacket	Enc	Acc	Acc+1	Acc+2	Acc+3	Ammo	Notes
Pistol	5	4	4%	5%	30%	55%	65%	6 Bullets	Gun can be reloaded with one clip
Rifle	8	6	EDIT 12%	5%	30%	55%	65%	5 Rounds	Gun can be reloaded with one S. clip
Shotgun	10	8	6%	5%	30%	55%	65%	2 Shells	Gun can be reloaded with two shells.

Since version 1 of my Rifle proposal was, indeed, too complex and unbalanced, the concept has been refined and simplified (Version 1 discussion below).

Discussion (Rifle Revised)

You've done an excellent job thinking about this and weighing the encumbrances, ammo, damage, and AP. There are still 2 problems: search rate dilution and balance. Your idea of search rates not being affected is admirable, but as I understand it, the game doesn't work that way.

You search in a building until you find something at a given probability, and that "something" could be a radio, flak jacket, pistol clip, etc. Someone else could give you a more detailed explanation of that particular mechanic.

There is also the problem of balance. A lot of things in UD are set up with advantages and disadvantages. Great items like generators/toolboxes have high encumbrance and are hard to find, for example. Pistols and Shotguns are greatly different in their advantages/disadvantages by design. It forces players to consider the pros and cons and make a decision.

This rifle is so perfectly balanced between the pistol and shotgun that it eliminates that choice for survivors and would pretty much become the default weapon for everyone. Does that make sense? --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 20:36, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I'm not sure how workable it would be for the purposes of searches. That's a mechanic problem, and I'm just a thinker. I can come up with an idea, but actually putting it to use is where problems can arise.

The Pros and Cons are still there for the other guns. There's just something between them to serve as a middle ground. Pistols would still be lighter, and would only take a little more AP per kill. That would allow a person to carry multiple loaded pistols and pistol clips, while the rifle wielder would have a much lower capacity for carry. The shotgun (plus ammo) would weigh more than the rifle, but it would also be much more efficient at killing enemies, leaving more AP for other actions, while the rifle would cut down on possible actions. Initially, the encumbrance was much higher to compensate for the advantages (15%) but when it was revised, I brought it down to a more reasonable level (8%). Maybe increasing it to 12% would serve as a mitigating factor. That would make it weigh 3/4 of a toolbox, and the rifle ammo would still weigh more than other ammo.

I understand your point on balance. I'm just trying to come up with a weapon that is useful without being too advantageous. If it's too good, it's unbalanced, but if it's useless, it's of no value to add, and being limited to pistol and shotgun just doesn't feel authentic. There's just the mentality that '3 is better than 2' I suppose. Each gun has its advantage, and disadvantage. Shotgun - Powerful, but ammo is heavy. Pistol - Weak, but light. Rifle - Middle ground, but heavy weapon and heavy ammo, plus high AP cost for reload. --Franklin Castle 21:20, 29 May 2009 (BST)

It isn't perfectly balanced at all. It's been nerfed to the point it is now useless. The max damage you can do with a full load is 10 more than the pistol, but I can carry 4 pistols instead of one rife. The encumbrance is ridiculous. You've underbalanced it so much there is now no reason to keep it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:31, 30 May 2009 (BST)

The thing about UD is that the mechanics are very simplistic. The pistol has medium ammo and medium damage. The shotgun has low ammo and high damage. So what does that leave? Generally, it leaves high ammo and low damage. Or some kind of special effect. This doesn't do any of that.--Pesatyel 01:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

"New Skill"

Timestamp:	Mrbird123 13:06 GMT+0
Type:	Lunge, may weigh zombies to be a little stronger, New skill!, etc.
Scope:	Zombies can only use this skill, costs 1 action point like any other attack
Description:	This should branch off of the skill tree of Vigour Mortis. Basicly theres a starting chance of 10% that you well get the player with this. You jump onto the player, and if you get him - he gets knocked onto the ground and says " You lunge onto <name> and he falls to the ground". and you can continue to use attacks like bite and claw with a 5% chance extra than usual. If you miss an attack while down it will say "You <insert attack here> at him, but he dodges it and pushes you off" and the player cant get up unless : 1. you move to a different block/enter a house "The zombie stops the attack and lurches away" or "The zombie decides not to attack you and lurches away" 2.he uses an attack on you and it knocks you off. "You <insert attack here> as hard as you can and push the zombie off" 3.you miss an attack and the player automaticly pushes you off "The zombie attempted to <insert attack here> you, but missed and you toss it off" Now to help balance it: If you miss with it, the zombie loses one HP and it says "You lunge after <name> but miss and and land heavily on the hard floor below you" and as I said, takes away two action points and only has a starting chance of 10%. Even the most experienced zombie would have nothing but a 35% chance with it.

Discussion "New Skill"

Please fix this for me. until someone is kind enough to fix this just try to read it.*

It took a bit of tweaking (and I had to get off my phone browser at 3.30am in the morning) but I fixed it. I would suggest changing the "New Skill" name in the headers, to the name of the actual skill. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:37, 29 May 2009 (BST)

This sounds, to me, like a duplicate of Tangling Grasp. Also, the idea of taking 2 AP from the Zombie for failing to connect seems unbalanced. When we spend AP, we all know how many we're spending, and we act under that knowledge. If you're going to have an extra cost for missing, it should be HP (more than just 1), not AP. A survivor who free runs into a ruin gets hit with an HP penalty, not an AP penalty. I don't think the skill is all that necessary, since Tangling Grasp already exists, but maybe a mechanic like lunging out of a building (with the risk of splatting on the street) could make it different enough. --Franklin Castle 19:42, 29 May 2009 (BST)

This sounds likea dupe of various "survivor knockdown" ideas....but I'm not real sure. It still hard to understand.--Pesatyel 02:19, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Anatomy Skill

Timestamp:	Rolfero 17:15, GMT+1
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Both Survivors and zombies.
Description:	A skill that allows you to heal slightly better. This skill should only be available after the Lab Experience/First Aid/Surgery skill is bought. (Which one is best?) This helps others more than it helps you. The effects gained is the following: Each time you use a FAK, it heals 1HP extra. (Discussable) Each time you revive a zombie, it only need to use 5 AP to stand up. (Discussable) This is good both to survivors and zombies, the survivors advantage is pretty obvious, so I won't go in on it here. For the zombies, it is good because if a zombie gets revived against their will, it will take less time to commit suicide. (Discussable) EXAMPLE OF USE(S): playerA have the NecroTech Employment, Lab Experience, First Aid, Surgery and Anatomy skill. playerA find an infected player saying he needs to be healed. playerA heals him with a FAK, healing 11 HP, losing 1 AP, gaining 5 EXP. Later that night, playerA finds a zombie standing in a revive point. playerA then revives the zombie with a revivification syringe, gaining 10 EXP and losing 10 AP. The zombie now only needs 5 AP to stand up. (If the zombie got Ankle Grab, it still takes 1 AP to go up. It's not free, nor takes -4 AP) EDIT: Sorry, I meant FAKS heal 1hp EXTRA with this skill, not only 1hp.

Discussion (Anatomy Skill)

The drawback for zombies is that FAKs just became 10% more effective for survivors and standup costs for revived newbies just became 50% less expensive. No. FAKing is already one of the best things you can do during a break in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:25 29 May 2009 (BST)

The ability for survivors to use a FAK at diminished effectiveness without wasting any AP is an interesting idea. Normally any action which doesn't use AP is a big NO... but people would still have to spend AP searching for those items. That is an idea worthy of it's own discussion. I don't think the revive bonus is balanced though and you might want to ditch that part of the suggestion. --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 17:29, 29 May 2009 (BST)

1HP is a bit of a stretch. Encumbrance is 2% so you'd need 50 to be able to heal 50hp off one person, then have 50ap left over and no items to help you do anything. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Sorry, meant 1Hp extra. That probably screws ALL of your comments up. Edited in text. Please excuse me :S Rolfero 18:42, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

Well now it's very imbalanced. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Then please make the world a better place by telling me how to balance it. Remember - It's a science skill. Rolfero 18:48, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

Hmm.. Well, the the major problem with it is the lack of XP gain means nothing to anyone with the right skills. In fact, it means nothing to anyone, if you don't lose an AP. Hence, you should be healing less HP units if the bonus is no AP deduction. Overall, have you read Frequently Suggested yet? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I think I should rewrite the suggestion. I meant simply that the skill doesn't alter the AP used and the XP gained from using a FAK. It remains the same. And yes, I have read the Frequently Suggested. Were there anything you tried to refer to there? Rolfero 18:57, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

I may have meant Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, both those pages have the same purpose to me so I often get them mixed up. Just generally, messing with AP is not on, plus the Multiply by a billion rule shows this suggestion's drawbacks. Actions are supposed to cost AP, and merely using 100XP to buy a skill which can bypass that for healing (one of the most useful actions in the game) is severely detrimental to the balance of the game. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:08, 29 May 2009 (BST)

In the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, i guess you refer to the "Dont mess with other people's AP". It states that if you don't want to gain one AP per 24 hours, don't expect others to like it either. (It's just an example.) But, I want to use less AP to stand up if I'm lucky enough to be found and revived by a player with the Anatomy skill. Wouldn't you? Rolfero 19:19, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

So, as I now understand your explanation this is simply a 1HP boost to FAKs and a 5AP reduction to standing up after a revive. Both boosts would provide an advantage to survivors with no drawback. Survivor boosts are generally unwanted given the unbalance in the population of UD --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 20:09, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Uhm, unless I got something wrong, shouldn't skills just do that? Give an advantage to the player(s) whom it's affecting? After a quick check through all of the skills, none of them comes with any drawbacks. Why should skills start having drawbacks now? If you still think so, then please. I put this suggestion on the developing pages for a reason. Help me make it better! Rolfero 23:20, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

First part. This just makes FAKs heal 6 HP instead of 5. Unnecessary since we already have First Aid which heals 10 and Surgery which heals 15. It also, in a way, nerfs beer/wine. I also don't understand the point of "this helps others more than it helps you". Again, First Aid and Surgery. Lets not forget that healing is a MAJOR way to acquire XP, but only if you don't have First Aid and Surgery. How does this skill affect XP? Second part. You use a SYRINGE for reviving, not a FAK.--Pesatyel 02:16, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I know you use syringes, it affects both FAK's and Syringes. Tell me how to improve it! Should i throw away the +1HP to FAK's? I putted it here to get idea's and opinions. I have mostly only gotten only opinions. --Rolfero 09:38, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Well the question you have to ask yourself first is "WHAT are you trying to do?". The second question is "How will what you have in mind improve the game?". The first part with the FAKs, I already outlined why its unnecessary. The second part with the syrgines only helps survivors. That is not inherently a BAD thing, but then that's why I ask what it is your trying to accomplish with your idea.--Pesatyel 18:41, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I want to add a new skill to bring atmosphere and greater fun to the game, and other things they thought when Kevan/the suggesting people came up with the other skills. And you can't say syringes only helps survivors. My zombie character got revived 6 times in five days, and I haven't got the time to kill myself by going into an extremely large group of zombies/jumping out a tower yet, as it takes so much AP to get up! --Rolfero 18:53, 30 May 2009 (BST) Quick Edit: Just became a zombie again :D --Rolfero 18:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

New Survivor Weapon - Rifle

Timestamp:	Franklin Castle 18:51, 28 May 2009 (EST)
Type:	Item-Weapon
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle that holds 20 rounds of ammunition. I know that rifle suggestions tend to be shot down, but I have an idea that I felt was worth sharing. We currently have two firearms available for Survivors - Pistol (revolver) and Shotgun (double-barrel). The Rifle would be the third. Like all firearms, it would be limited to only the square where the wielder currently stands - no shooting at targets one block over, no shooting through barricades. The rifle is more powerful than the pistol, but weaker than the shotgun. It holds more ammunition (I suggest 20, but that could be lowered for balance) than either. It weighs more than either (15% Encumbrance) and reloading takes more than one step. The magazine must be removed (click on the rifle), the magazine must be loaded (1 click on the ammo box loads half the magazine - half the box of ammo), and the magazine must be inserted into the rifle (click on the magazine). Each action costs 1 AP, so reloading takes 4 AP total. Additionally, after every 100 shots, the rifle must be cleaned (which takes another 5 AP) before it can be used again. It would be found in police stations and fort armories at the same rate of discovery as other firearms, but not in mall gun stores. Any suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. Rifle: Dmg - 8 Dmg w/ Flak - 6 Enc - 15% Acc - 5% Acc+1 - 30% Acc+2 - 55% Acc+3 - 65% Ammo - 20 Rounds

Discussion (Rifle)

I highly suggest you read Frequently Suggested before considering a suggestion like this. You're going to get a lot of flak because this is suggested really frequently. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:33, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I looked at the Frequently Suggested page and saw the multiple rifle entries, but the most common reason for those being rejected was either that it was "automatic" or that it had no drawback. This weapon weighs a lot more, is less powerful than the shotgun, and has higher maintenance costs. I know it'll probably be shot down, but I just wanted to make an attempt. This Rifle could also be altered to make it more workable (10 rounds instead of 20, lower discovery rate, etc.). --Franklin Castle

Congratulations, a new gun suggestion that actually makes sense! I'll give this a keep if it goes to voting. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:11, 29 May 2009 (BST)

It still doesn't deal with the problem of diluting the search rate for useful ammunition, or making people carry even more weapons to use the ammo they find in PDs. You want to find more pistol clips, not dozens of types of guns and ammo that you should just drop anyway to make way for syringes or FAKs. Make it the only weapon and ammunition findable in a fort armory, perhaps. Make it a truly trencherific weapon, so the rest of us don't have to deal with it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:28 29 May 2009 (BST)

Any change will result in secondary implications, both positive and negative. The question is whether the benefits of a Rifle outweigh the detriments to the Shotgun and Pistol. I think it would. I've had to carry multiple pistols and shotguns because I kept finding the weapons instead of just ammo. That's detrimental, but it's a part of the game. It's also a big exaggeration to say "dozens of types of guns and ammo." We're talking about 1 new gun, 1 new type of ammo, and 1 accessory (magazine). It's not likely that anyone is going to be able to increase the rate of discovery for ammo. Also, if we relegate it to only the fort armories, then there's no point in it being added, since the forts are almost completely inaccessible 95% of the time. By keeping it in only the P.D.s and the Forts, it's kept from being too abundant, but it's still available for survivors. --Franklin Castle

So a weapon with an encumbrance of two and a half times of a shotgun, damage 8 with an effective 5 round clip for AP purposes? That's before the massive increase in ammunition capacity for a loaded weapon, 20 rounds? There's a reason shotguns and and pistols have low capacity, they force additional ammunition or weapons to be carried. I'd carry two of these and treat them as super pistols and back-up weapons and it'd cost me a grand total of 30%, loaded and unloaded weapons have no difference in the game.

How will a player know if there's a 'cleaning' phase coming up? Is there a count down? Is the game going to apply a separate timer on each one of these weapons that's found? If these have anything near the find rate of normal weapons in normal conditions they're never going to get cleaned, I don't think I've ever reloaded any weapon more than five times before finding a new one while looking for ammo, whether empty or full.

The fact that these aren't found in mall serves to make the game more mall-centric given that it dilutes the search rates for ever other ammo location. Mall-centric is bad. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:47, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Even without it encouraging mall centric behavior I'd be against this for the usual ammo and weapon dilution reasons. Put it in forts or some random useless building and maybe maybe --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 07:04, 29 May 2009 (BST)

If we only put it in the forts, then there'd be no point in adding it, because the forts are always either in Zombie hands or under siege where no one can get in. --Franklin Castle

How long have you been playing this game? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:21, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Not too long. I've been on a few months, and I've spent most of that time as a Zombie because I died almost as soon as I began. My reading on the Wiki has given me the impression that Forts tend to be either in Zombie hands or are under siege. If the rifles and their ammo were only found in the Forts, it would only serve to make the Zombies try even harder to keep survivors out. Letting them be found in PDs makes them accessible enough, but prevents mall shut-ins from being able to hold up with rifles looted from a mall gun store. If they want the guns, they have to risk their lives to get them, and risk their lives again to replenish ammo. --Franklin Castle 07:47, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Like I said, if 20 is too much, 10 might be more appropriate. That would result in 3 AP spent reloading (1 to remove magazine, 1 to reload, 1 to replace). I threw out 20 as an estimate because if it's too low, then it's useless, but if it's too high, it's overpowered. I need input to calculate what is balanced.

The player will have the duty of keeping track of his count. If he loses count, then after the 100th round is fired, he'll suddenly know because he'll receive a message like "Your rifle is jammed. It requires cleaning." Neither the pistol nor the shotgun have that problem because one's a revolver, which virtually never needs cleaning, and the other's a break-open shotgun, which also virtually never needs cleaning to make sure they fire. The rifle is a semi-auto, so the recoil of a shot chambers the next round. The gunpowder residue gums up the works. To prevent one character having multiple, perhaps a limit of 1 per character could be implemented, or the find rate could be lower than the other guns to compensate for its power.

It only makes malls more centered if the Rifle isn't used. If the person uses the rifle, then the mall doesn't help, as they can't replace their ammo in the Mall (ammo wouldn't be found there either). If a survivor wanted the rifle, they'd have to risk leaving the mall and searching PDs or Forts, and they'd have to look in those locations for ammo for the weapon as well.

Don't just look at an idea and say "It sucks." Look at it and try to come up with a way to improve it. --Franklin Castle

Regardless, the game is going to have to keep track of a 1000 shot timer on each weapon? Yes? The amount of lag that will happen will be tragic, it was bad enough with Moronville and Boredomwood, I don't want the current lag expanding, I want it decreasing.

There's a reason guns aren't received well and are on the Do and Do Nots list, better people than you have tried to fix them, but there's a reason we have three types of firearms in this game with increasing damage (5, 10 and 15) and decreasing capacity (6, 2 and 1). We call this reason balance.

You are misunderstanding what we're saying about mall-centric play and diluted search rates. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:21, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Then instead of having it every 100 shots, every time the weapon is reloaded, we make it necessary to clean it out. Every 20 (or 10) shots, the person must not only spend 4 (or 3) AP reloading, but must also spend an additional 3 (or whatever) AP to clean out the weapon to keep it in use. Instead of saying "That'll increase lag," try to come up with something that won't, but maintains some balance.

The Flare is an improvised weapon, not a true firearm. The point of the rifle is to try to create a balanced (true) third firearm. It's got better capacity than a pistol, but it's not as damaging as a shotgun. Reloading takes more AP than the others to compensate for its advantages, and it's increased weight also acts to try to balance it. If it's not balanced at the original proposal, then suggest improvements - calling for the idea to be scrapped isn't an improvement.

It wouldn't dilute the search rates. It would simply mean that if your normal search with 20 AP would yield 2 pistols, two pistol clips, and a shotgun, your new search with 20 AP would yield all of that PLUS a Rifle and rifle ammo. Instead of the search returning to say "You found nothing" you'd get a message that 'you found one of the two new items.' That increase would only take place in PDs and Forts, while the malls would have the original find rate. Maybe I am misunderstanding your meaning about the malls. I'm in an area without a mall, so mall play has never entered my considerations. Give me some input on what effects it would have on the malls so I can try to adjust my thinking. --Franklin Castle 07:35, 29 May 2009 (BST)

The flare may not be a real firearm to RL trenchies, but in this game it runs off the firearms skill, ergo firearm. I don't have to suggest how to fix it, it can't be fixed for the reasons everyone has already stated. The fact that you aren't grasping basic concepts and are under some fairly large misconceptions about things such as Fort conditions might make you want to reconsider suggesting stuff until you have this grounding in the game. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:48, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Let's reset the parameters, then.

Instead of being a 20 shot, 8 damage, etc. weapon, make it 5 shots of 8 damage. It is between the pistol and the shotgun in terms of damage per shot. Ammo count is more than a shotgun, but less than the pistol. It weighs more than the others, as well (10% encumbrance). It takes more AP to reload than the others. Reloading a pistol takes 1 AP and gives 6 attacks (15% cost). Reloading a shotgun takes 1 AP per attack (50% cost). Reloading the rifle would take 5 AP and give 5 attacks (50% cost). A pistol's max damage from a full load is 30. A shotgun's is 20. The rifle would be 40. 1 kill with the pistol would cost 27 AP. 1 kill with the shotgun would cost 22 AP. 1 kill with the rifle would cost 25 AP (10 AP to reload the rifle twice and 15 AP to kill). (All calculated as against 60HP + Flak)

Name	Dmg	Dmg w/ Flak Jacket	Enc	Acc	Acc+1	Acc+2	Acc+3	Ammo	Notes
Pistol	5	4	4%	5%	30%	55%	65%	6 Bullets	Gun can be reloaded with one clip
Rifle	8	6	10%	5%	30%	55%	65%	5 Rounds	Gun can be reloaded with one S. clip
Shotgun	10	8	6%	5%	30%	55%	65%	2 Shells	Gun can be reloaded with two shells.
Flare Gun	15	12	2%	2.5%	15%			1 Flare	After used, gun is discarded. Double damage if the target is fuel-soaked.

Rifle and S. clip would be found in Forts, PDs, and maybe supply crates. Rifles at 3% in Armories and 2% in PDs. S. clips would be found in Forts and PDs at rates of 7% and 6%.

Now, what are the balance problems if we use those parameters?

Also, does anyone mind if I rewrite the suggestion and delete this discussion thread with the updated proposal? --Franklin Castle 08:40, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Probably best to rewrite it and put it above with a note clearly explaining that it is a reworking, leave this here so people can refer to it if they want to. --Honestmistake 11:36, 29 May 2009 (BST)

New Barricade Rules

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 20:52, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement. Restoring Survivors BALLS
Scope:	Survivors BALLS.
Description:	Now tearing down barricades is not based on weapon attack percentages. Now the table below is used. Crowbar has a +10% to base. EHB.....: 25% (35% with Crowbar) VHB.....: 35% (45% with Crowbar) HB.......: 45% (55% with Crowbar) VSB.....: 55% (65% with Crowbar) QSB.....: 65% (75% with Crowbar) LB........: 75% (85% with Crowbar) Loosely.: 85% (95% with Crowbar) It's time to give Survivors their BALLS back. It's time for a ZOMBIE APOCOLYPSE, bitches.

Discussion (New Barricade Rules)

No. Survivors should never be more efficient at tearing down barricades than zombies. -- C h e e s e 20:55, 28 May 2009 (BST)

BALLS. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:45, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Sucks... or ...to the whalls? -- C h e e s e 21:49, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Hey look, the trolly troll is back! Did you find your balls yet? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:21, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Is this just for survivors, or does it change zombie rates for bashing 'cades as well? If it's both, it might be worth a try.--Necrofeelinya 00:40, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Yep, this would effect ALL attacks against cades. Cept for Knives, Guns, and Teeth which still would not work at all.--Zombie Lord 05:21, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Sure, why not? It's worth a try as far as I'm concerned.--Necrofeelinya 00:53, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Do not feed the zerging troll. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:48, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Hurmh. I just don't think you can mess with 'cades without seriously f'ing up the balance. Also, it seems like the hit % would be higher when the cades are higher and there's more stuff to bash. By this system it's more logical that you would miss at light barricades a bunch and how obnoxious is that? --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 07:11, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Or you could just assume that the cades are weaker at lower levels and easier to knock down.--Zombie Lord 07:33, 29 May 2009 (BST)

What's this have to do with a zombie apocalypse? I don't even see ZOMBIES in the suggestion? Just a guy with a nard fetish.--Pesatyel 01:47, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Don't be a fool, Pest. ZOMBIES get to tear down cades with this table too. Why are people so afraid of a real ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE? UD isn't even a game right now. Like a glorified social network for BALL-LESS survivors and some zombie groups that can't do anything unless they get 200 SHEEP together and their leaders can play "little fascist" of the intardwebz. COME ON, LETS HAVE A REAL GAME FOR ONCE!--Zombie Lord 03:21, 30 May 2009 (BST)

You're a retard. Get the off the internet. -- C h e e s e

Pussy.--Zombie Lord 19:23, 30 May 2009 (BST)

XD Best comeback I've ever seen. Ever. -- C h e e s e 19:25, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Hey, it's not my fault that you can be summed up so simply.--Zombie Lord 20:01, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Because I can read, understand and formulate my own opinion of this absolutely retarded suggestion? =/ Bit weak dude. -- C h e e s e 20:10, 30 May 2009 (BST)

No, ButtCheese, because you're part of the Pussy Clique that likes the game as it is, a BROKEN BITCH that can't even rightly be called a GAME. Kev doesn't care because he knows he's got a solid core of weak, bitch ass, pussies that will jerk each other off on their forums all day and then occasionally log into his server to go through the meaningless motions that DO NOTHING in an endless circle of pointlessness and rack up AD REVENUE for him. Trust me, he don't give a shit. He probably knows his pseudo-game is broken and can't be bothered to fix it because his little group of AD REVENUE producers will just mindlessly continue their foolishness. That's why you're a PUSSY. Not your odd conception that you can "read, understand and formulate your own opinion". You don't have an opinion, just the same old regurgitated party line of the Pussy Clique. Congrats. Pussy.--Zombie Lord 20:36, 30 May 2009 (BST)

You do realise that that rant makes you seem no older than the age of 14, right? -- C h e e s e 20:44, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Go ahead, keep the blinders on, SHEEP.--Zombie Lord 20:49, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Dude, that would be a horse. If you're going to insult someone you might as well be correct about it. People might think you're an idiot otherwise. -- C h e e s e 20:54, 30 May 2009 (BST)

♪It's my party, and I'll mix my metaphors if I wanna♪--Zombie Lord 22:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I wish I could sum people up that easy.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:12, 30 May 2009 (BST)

It's easy. Just reply "Pussy" or variations thereof to everyone that disagrees with you. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:28, 30 May 2009 (BST)

But I'll feel stupid and completely class-less if I do that. :( --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:30, 30 May 2009 (BST)

At least you'll "prove" you have "balls." Heh. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:32, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Nerfing this suggestion with spam or kill votes wouldn't make us "afraid of a real" Apocalypse. In fact, I'm pretty sure this screws zombies more. What with the fact that it'll be impossible to get in to safehouses which survivors can set up incredibly easily. In fact, on another note, I'm pretty sure you'd be "afraid of a real ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE". Firstly, you're quite clearly a coward. Also, there would be zombies, so you'd just be scared anyway. No wait, you'd be killed. Most likely while trying to build a bridge out of your window, because you think that that's how free running works. Clap, Clap. Also, you make many references to a REAL apocalypse, being inserted in to a FICTIONAL game. Surely such a lapse in time would be so ridiculous, that only you could have suggested it. However, I feel the worst thing for you about a zombie apocalypse would be that you wouldn't be able to suggest anything to make it absolutely stupid. You are a moron, you had it right when you weren't suggesting. Don't suggest again, unless you come up with a good idea. One last time: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:38, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Major Pussy.--Zombie Lord 19:23, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Feeding the troll his daily BALLS I see. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:40, 30 May 2009 (BST)

So I'm a "pest" (that's cute) because your shitty suggestion doesn't actually say anything about zombies, just survivors? If you get off your nard fetish and ACTUALLY think about how the game works and how to incorporate REAL ideas to make the game MORE FUN (not just harder), that would be better, M'kay? Also, what is included in the Urban Dead game is NOT about the wiki patrons here. Never was. It is up to KEVAN the "God" of the game. There have been TONS of "hardcore" style ideas suggested the last few years, none of which he's included. Why? Becuse this is a game. A game we can only play for 5 minutes a day. Zombie-primary players bitch because the game is harder on zombies then survivors (which is generally true) but stupid ideas like this that don't even make sense won't help "make things easiers". Tell ya what, why don't you go email Kevan and see if he will create a game just for you where, instead of survivors, you can have zombies and Giant Testicles. But until that happens, try to think of ways to make THIS game more fun...not just harder.--Pesatyel 18:54, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Ignorant Pussy.--Zombie Lord 19:23, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, but if survivors are going to be better at tearing down 'cades %-wise than zombies, then it should cost more AP to do so. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:48, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Crowd Feeding (Bites Work Better With Support)

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 15:33, 27 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Here's a suggestion to make a crowd of zombies more terrifying than the sum of its parts. I suggest adding a skill that provides a 10% accuracy increase to bite attacks, but only when there are many other zombies around that make it harder for your target to evade you. The accuracy increase would come under either of these two conditions: There are at least ten zombies present including you and survivors do not outnumber zombies There are at least twenty zombies present including you, regardless of survivor numbers This would make combat more interesting also, since it would give zombies an incentive to switch between the now slightly better bite and hand attacks to use tangling grasp.

Discussion (Crowd Feeding)

As mentioned in one of the suggestion advice pages, bites don't really need any more buffing. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:12, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Good god no. If anything, you should be weakening the bite percentage. I've found many times that my feral could break into buildings and infect up to 10 survivors before APing out, why make that better when there are 10+ zombies there with you? I wouldn't be as against this if it added 1 damage instead of 10% though. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:55, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Why? Why would a zombie get a bonus just because other zombies are prsent? In actuallity, as DDR said you'd more likely get a penalty. Think about it from standard zombie genre. Zombies are a mass of INDIVIDUALS. The only reason zombies attack a living person in groups is because they are ALL trying to eat him at the same time, not because of a coordinated effort. Granted that doesn't apply as well to UD zombies (they aren't really "standard genre") but they are still bound (somewhat) by the genre.--Pesatyel 02:26, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Zombie Items

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 05:18, 26 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Zombie toys
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	A heavily modified version of Kamikazie-Bunny's Ravage Corpse idea. Feed On Corpse now would provide more than just HP to zombies, it would also serve as a search which could reveal a selection of organs to serve as items in a zombie's inventory. The items would be as follows in order of rarity, with most rare at the top: Brain - When eaten, you gain 5 HP and your next 5 successful attacks gain double XP. Also, gain Memories of Life for the next 5 moves. No added bonus for multiple brains eaten. These would be rare, but valuable since they are the focus of the zombie's obsession. Heart - When eaten, gain 5 HP, -1 damage modifier to attacks against you for the next hour. No added bonus for multiple hearts eaten. Bone - When used, your next 5 attack attempts w/hands get a +1 damage modifier, bone is then auto-dropped. Liver- When eaten, gain 3 HP and the Infection ability for the next 5 moves. Lung - When eaten, gain 4 HP and the Feeding Groan ability for the next 5 moves. Eye - When eaten, gain 1 HP and for the next 5 moves gain the Scent Blood skill and ability to recognize NT buildings. Spleen - When eaten, gain 1 HP and the Death Rattle ability for the next 5 moves. I assume Kevan would choose a specific encumbrance and search % for each of these, so I haven't suggested anything exact for that. Zombie items would only be found on non-reviving corpses, of course. This way, the zombie has good reason to want these in its inventory, and zombies become more fun to play for those who tire of just 'cade bashing. And of course, since AP has to be spent searching for these things, the benefits are offset by the time spent looking for them, like with firearm ammo for survivors. The zombie FAK and defense aspects aren't that big of a deal, except for those who want to avoid being killed while using Scent Trail so they don't lose the scent of their attackers, but because of the way Scent Trail works they're still relevant. And an "all organs" option could be added to the Drop Item dropdown menu for revives, or they could just fling the body parts at others for no damage. It would give zombies a zombie-relevant inventory and add interest. And baby zombahs get the opportunity for temporary high-level skills by finding items, adding to their playability.

Discussion (Zombie Items)

I changed the effect of "Eye" because the binocular effect was a little far out, and I toned down the effect of "Brain", which may have been too strong, while adding an effect that would benefit baby zombahs. I didn't want to get over complicated with "Bone" by adding meat to it, so we're left with what's above. I figure the best part of it is the usefulness for less experienced zombies... most older zombies will see most of these items as just light FAKs, but younger zombies could get real use out of them. Sorry about swiping your idea, Kamikazie-Bunny, but I also wanted to shift it away from the notion of destroying a corpse and just incorporate it into the whole "Feed On Corpse" concept. I've deliberately left the notion of how characters might throw organs at each other after revives vague... I figure that would make a separate suggestion if this were to get implemented, or Kevan would implement it however he wants with this. I did a couple of quick searches for Dupes, and didn't find them, which surprised me. So let's see if this thing bucks the trend and gets a positive response. Whaddya think?--Necrofeelinya 05:18, 26 May 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, but I haven't played a determined zombah. So while I think it sounds fun and even interesting for low-level zombies, I want to hear what some more career-zombie players have to say. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:28, 26 May 2009 (BST)

Other then the "FAK" proprties associated with the body parts, older zombies would not really bother with any of them. They already have all the abilities listed, effectively.--Pesatyel 03:12, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Except for Brain, Heart and Bone, which all provide benefits for older zombies, although maxed zombies would probably be most interested in Bone, maybe Heart. Also, the FAK value shouldn't be underestimated. It's possible that zombies could benefit from healing to keep Scent Trail functional. You lose a harman's trail if you or the harman are killed, so avoiding death can sometimes be extremely important to zombies, if rarely.--Necrofeelinya 08:06, 27 May 2009 (BST)

I wasn't underestimating the FAK value. That's the ONLY "good" thing about this suggestion for older zombies. Older zombies don't need the "brain" benefits. If they aren't already maxed, they can acquire XP much eaiser then newbies who do need it so that's canceled. How does "bone" confer a bonus? Is it a melee weapon? And "heart" is way overpowered.--Pesatyel 02:21, 28 May 2009 (BST)

I think the fact that older zombies won't get as much use out of this to be a plus. They get to actively choose whether to pursue these items or not. It may not be in their interests, depending on the % chance of finding something useful. Maxed zombies are already powerful, baby zombahs need help. Bone confers a bonus by added damage if you successfully hit with one or more of your next 5 attacks. When you choose to utilize it by pressing the button in your inventory, it modifies a hand attack with +1 damage for the next 5 attempted attacks. If you miss all those, you get nothing. Heart only confers a -1 damage modifier for 1 hour, so I don't consider that overpowered. It isn't cumulative with additional hearts. It's far less powerful than a flak jacket. It won't save a zombie from a determined effort to kill it, even with a standard 50 AP.--Necrofeelinya 07:50, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Your not listening. HOW does the bone "confer a +1 to damage"? Magic? Just saying it grants a bonus doesn't mean realism is irrelevant. And, yes, the heart is overpowered. Flesh Rot and flak jackets have restrictions, this does not. A -1 damage against ALL attacks? That's pretty powerful. And an hour is a long time considering that all the other effects are limited to "the next 5 actions". And how DOES it interact with flak? Does it mean that a pistol only does 3 damage? EVERY zombie would be "powering up" at the beginning of any attack (especially if a concerted effort).--Pesatyel 03:51, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Two questions, how will noob zombies (who is the only target audience of this suggestion, really) going to know the difference between a dead and non-revivifying body? Also, what happens to these items when a survivor tries to 'eat' them? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:44, 27 May 2009 (BST)

I believe the game already accommodates discerning between dead and non-revivifying bodies. Don't you get a message when trying to feed on a revivifying corpse saying that it burns your mouth and you spit it out? At least I believe that's what it says elsewhere in the Wiki. And survivors wouldn't have the option of eating them. Just drop or throw, unless you want to add a suggestion where things get really gross, and which I would support wholeheartedly, of course.--Necrofeelinya 08:02, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Interesting. But I wonder how does the encumberance would work on these body parts...--Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 23:53, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Like I said, I figure Kevan will determine encumbrance as for normal items. I didn't want to set a specific number knowing he'd just choose his own anyway. But organs would be just like other items as far as encumbrance is concerned... they'd have a percentage, and you could only carry so many. If your zombie was already encumbered to the max, it couldn't pick up organs. It'd have to drop something.--Necrofeelinya 07:50, 28 May 2009 (BST)

I'm of the view that the MORE information you put into a suggestion the better it is "received" by Kevan. Whether or not he chooses to change the numbers is irrelevant. Without the information, you will be getting lots of "incompletes"....if you put this up for voting.--Pesatyel 03:51, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Older zombies aren't going to bother with this, they already have these skill effects, except for the NT identification (why is it they get this through eating bits of harmans that may not even have NT Employment?). Newbie zombies aren't going to take this because Digestion is one of the last two trees normally taken by zombies, claws or movement first, the other of that choice second. Rot might come as a third tree if CRs are a problem in that area (and they are, even if you're stood on a street) or Memories. The Scent tree is more attractive that the Digestion tree. The Digestion tree is only not going to be the final tree on those characters wanting to play the other side at some point, death cultists or dual natured players, Rot is more useful to actual zombie players and is bought accordingly.

Newbies aren't going to use it, older zombies have better things to do, what's the point? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:05, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Newbies may choose Digestion earlier because of this, much as zombies that previously avoided Brain Rot at all costs now choose it to get to Flesh Rot. I think Digestion is much more appealing than Rot anyway. What's a zombie without the ability to infect others? Right now newbies waste time on 'cades (usually missing), XP farm each other (dull and uninspiring), or chase hordes in the hope that someone drags a harman into the street to feed them (also not the biggest thrill). They could be empowering themselves with organ meat and gaining limited access to skills that otherwise would take forever for them to obtain. Older zombies can use the bonuses of Heart and Bone, they apply to everyone. NT identification as a feature of eye consumption implies temporarily improved perception... maybe they notice a sign zombies wouldn't normally notice. And honestly, I've never cared to get Rot. Just get bodybuilding and a flak jacket as a human. If someone CRs you, PK them. Not that the merits of Rot really matter to this discussion anyway.--Necrofeelinya 19:11, 28 May 2009 (BST)

What to take apart first? You are never going to pick Digestion before claws and movement, and you'll need Memories if you're going to be a feral. The wasted AP to get the items will be.... wasted in a half decent strike team or horde environment. As a feral I'd much rather have the scent skills to score kills for more XP rather than spend time on this picking up and using body parts malarkey.

The idea that newbies waste AP on cades is fallacious, all zombies must take down cades at some point and it takes a single skill (on top of VM) for a newbie to be just as effective at taking down cades as a fully levelled zombie. Any strike leader worth their title has newbies throw into the cades after a single skill in order to free up AP for the rest of the team to feed the newbie. Zombies more efficiently level and attack in a horde, but this idea doesn't fix it for ferals. It just forces them to by a substandard skill that doesn't help them level anywhere close to the standard way.

The point about zombie should be able to infect people is all well and good in fiction, where they get that skill from the outset, but they also get the useful skills in fiction like AG and BR from the start as well. Unfortunately in the game the ability to infect people costs 200XP and gives no return on increased hit or damage. It means that there is no decrease in the time between levels or the frustration in playing the game in that low levelled turgid manner.

This is a discussion about the merits of BR over Digestion, as it's a debate over how useful any skill tree is, and Digestion is simply the most pointless.

As for increased perception through eating eyes, go to your local fishmonger and butcher today and test something for me. Buy some fish eyes and some cow eyes and then eat them raw. Then look about and see if you can spot water and grass respectively more effectively. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:20, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I prioritise Digest&Infect over claws all the time, every zombie I've had feeds on the dead and digestion is a big part of that. From a purely numerical view point D&I is fairly pointless but most people are playing the game for fun, they're not 'trying to "win" at at the apocalypse'. Granted there is a small portion of people who play to win (they appear to be doing well...), read guides and adhere to them to become the 'best' player but I think it's safer to say more people use them as guides and play their own way and learn whilst having fun even if it's not ideal. We have Trenchies and Spammers shooting stuff and broadcasting pointless/entertaining messages all the time, I enjoy biting survivors, you appear to enjoy criticizing suggestions. It may be pointless but we enjoy it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 23:39, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I like the idea of zombies finding parts on their victims but if zombies have items they can use you get numerous problems:

Zombies will now have to see their inventory in the main view (I have no problems with this but I bet some ass does),
How to identify what is a zombie/survivor item (separate inventories with shared encumbrance/colour coding/trial and failure),
I'm sure some one out there will bring back the whole 'Hel' argument (of which we'll see 'Hel' everywhere cause people want to sound smart using it) of zombies doing something a survivor can (searching/using inventory).
Balancing of zombie items in the game, they we're designed not to need items so any items giving bonuses have to be very carefully balanced,
And I just know some shit stirrer is thinking about the "Future impact on the wiki" argument where they use the fact that because zombies will now have items people will suggest items for zombies which will undoubtedly be spam and spoil their prettywiki.

Solve those middle 3 problems and I'll be happy with it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:57, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Ravage Corpse

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 22:33, 24 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Fun
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies across the city have been spotted tearing up corpses in a most savage manner. A Ravage corpse button is now available to zombies when in the presence of dead bodies. When clicked, it gives the message You ravage the corpse. This costs 1 AP, the corpse can no longer be fed upon/ravaged and there is a 5% chance that the zombie will 'find' one of the following items. Bone Brain Eye Heart Liver Lung Spleen These items have no in game effect and they each have 2% encumbrance. They only act as collectables.

Discussion (Ravage Corpse)

Feel free to suggest any additional organs/body parts (non-gender specific parts only). --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:33, 24 May 2009 (BST)

Why, oh why, do trenchies not think before they suggest zombie improvements?

Zombies cannot see their inventory, so what's the point in collecting something if you can't see what you've collected? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:39, 24 May 2009 (BST)

Obviously this implies a method of seeing said items would also be implemented. Go be stupid elsewhere. -- C h e e s e 00:09, 25 May 2009 (BST)

No, it doesn't imply that at all. And someone telling me to take my "stupid" elsewhere when your last two suggestions were duped? Shows the fucking consideration you have for this system, Kevan's time and the time of every user that voted on your suggestion all because you couldn't be bothered to check the fucking archives. You are the biggest argument in removing the sysop spam clause. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:34, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Sorry, wrong again. Only one of my last two suggestions was duped and I only have two duped suggestions in total out of about 26-27 total suggestions giving making only 7.69% of my suggestions dupes. Your inability to check basic facts is precisely the reason why most of the wiki thinks you to be an arrogant dick with nothing better to do with his time than pick fights for absolutely no discernible reason other than to seek attention and continue in his misguided view that he's actually doing good for the community. -- C h e e s e 10:35, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Two in total? Are you sure? Now you're either deliberately lying to this community, failing to count to three or there's someone using your signature. Should I begin this hunt for the despicable villain who is besmirching your name? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:22, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Zombies CAN see their inventory items, if you click on the drop down list for dropping items you can see all your items. If you could interact with them then they would have to appear in the main view, but since you don't there is no need for them to appear there. The only time they would appear in the main view is when your revived and clicking them would do nothing (except maybe waste an IP hit). --Kamikazie-Bunny 00:42, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Open your page when you're alive and touch nothing, can you see your inventory? Do the same when dead. Because otherwise we'll be putting up with a dozen fucking questions here going "I picked up and eyeball today but can't see it, is this a bug?" and for each one of them there could be someone who doesn't use the wiki and thinks the game is fundamentally broken and leaves because of it. Well done. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:34, 25 May 2009 (BST)

The ones who come here and use the wiki will find this out by reading the wiki, it is here as a source of information. I fail to see the problem of someone coming here with a question and getting an answer related to UD. The ones who don't won't be bothering you. Having said that, if it's so much of an issue for you would you be happy if zombies could see their inventory? Obviously clicking something would waste AP/IP hits, but there is a big disclaimer saying "As a zombie, you are unable to use the objects you are carrying." which can be left in place or can you find something fundamentally wrong with this? --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:58, 25 May 2009 (BST)

"OMGWTF I CANT SEE MY EYEBALLS!! That's it, I'm quitting this game!" Seriously? As usual, your overreaction is completely ridiculous. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:18, 26 May 2009 (BST)

So this has less effect than Feed On Corpse, is entirely flavor, uses an AP, and uses some encumbrance, forcing the player to drop all their moist organ bits when revived to be able to pick up ammo? You can't even fling the body parts at people when you're revived? Hmmm... maybe not. I think I'd prefer a "Violate Corpse" option anyway... not as flamboyant, but more humiliating and embarrassing for your victim. Nice try, though. : )--Necrofeelinya 03:50, 25 May 2009 (BST)

How does this benefit anyone? MAYBE if you use it and you don't know what you picked up so that if/when you get revived, you get to see what you picked up. I bet this would get pretty boring after awhile. Maybe if you could throw them at someone or others could see that you have them or something.--Pesatyel 04:32, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Just as an idea of how to salvage this, why not make the items useful? Here are some ideas of how:

Bone - Your next 5 attack attempts w/hands get a +1 damage modifier, bone is then auto-dropped.
Brain - When eaten, you gain 10 HP and your next 5 successful attacks gain triple XP. No added bonus for multiple brains eaten.
Eye - When eaten, gain 1 HP and "Eagle Eye" option for 3 moves which works like binoculars. Must be in tall building to get binocular effect.
Heart - When eaten, gain 5 HP, -1 damage modifier to attacks against you for the next hour. No added bonus for multiple hearts eaten.
Liver- When eaten, gain 3 HP and the Infection ability for the next 5 moves.
Lung - When eaten, gain 4 HP and the Feeding Groan ability for the next 5 moves.
Spleen - When eaten, gain 1 HP and the Death Rattle ability for the next 5 moves.

This way, the zombie has good reason to want these in its inventory, and zombies become more fun to play for those who tire of just 'cade bashing. And of course, since AP has to be spent searching for these things, the benefits are offset by the time spent looking for them, like with firearm ammo for survivors. The zombie FAK and defense aspects aren't that big of a deal, except for those who want to avoid being killed while using Scent Trail so they don't lose the scent of their attackers, but because of the way Scent Trail works they're still relevant. And an "all organs" option could be added to the Drop Item dropdown menu for revives, or they could just fling the body parts at others for no damage. It would give zombies a zombie-relevant inventory and add interest. And baby zombahs get the opportunity for temporary high-level skills by finding items, adding to their playability.--Necrofeelinya 05:05, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I actually quite like that. The Brain one might be a little overpowered but the rest look pretty good to me. I'd change the bone slightly so that it starts as a limb then you can eat the flesh on it and gain a couple of HP and then get the bone bonus (just because it makes a bit more sense and gives all of them a healing effect). -- C h e e s e 10:57, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I like it... Hard to admit, but it just sounds quite fun. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (BST)

As an added bonus to the mostly useless eating of corpses this might be a bit of extra fun. I would strongly prefer it to be limited to just "you feast on tasty brains" and "you devour still warm insides" though as Revive syringes regrowing whole limbs seems a bit OTT and the rest is needless complication ... Oh and the eyeball one seems too like magic for my liking. --Honestmistake 11:46, 25 May 2009 (BST)

The zombie 'finds' the body parts to avoid the whole 'I pulled his eye out but he can see just fine' argument, by finding the part it implies it comes of the victim but it could of just as easily been next to the body therefore giving no penalty to the corpse. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:06, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I don't think you need to worry about that argument. Nothing should be standing under that logic. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:09, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Interesting idea. Perhaps a Holding: a spleen and a brain or something like that, in the profile. I'm not fond of this being a no-skill/everyone has it type of ability or a separate, buyable skill since it only gives flavour. It could be worked into another skill (like eating corpses)? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:09, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Dupe of Size Up et al, showing certain items in the wearing description. Thanks for playing. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:49, 29 May 2009 (BST)

C'mon, size up displays the inventory, not a single item of choice they are 'holding'. You should remember this, you duped me for suggesting it and it kicked off because the 'dupe' was under clothing and mine was under suggestions... You're slipping scari.--Kamikazie-Bunny 22:37, 30 May 2009 (BST)

No Syringe Manufacture in Ruined NTs

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 21:56, 19 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	ruined NTs
Description:	I noticed something from the suggestion NT Ruins Ruin Rotter Revives (try saying that 10 times fast), found here, http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20090409_NT_Ruins_Ruin_Rotter_Revives, that would support this mechanic. The CRing makes sense, because you are connecting to an outside source for the ability (NecroNet). But with Syringe Manufacture, that should require the ability of the lab equipment to do, so having ruined equipment should make it impossible to manufacture syringes. A few supporting mechanics… Zombies sweep lab equipment onto the floor. Afterward, you go inside…You are inside a ruined NT Building. The NecroTech logo is set in the wall behind the front desk, and doors open onto powered-down computer rooms and laboratories. The laboratories have been ruined, with broken equipment smashed to the floor.

Discussion (No Syringe Manufacture in Ruined NTs)

Your probably going to get the same "against" arguments that one did as well. People don't really make syringes, not when finding them is much more efficient.--Pesatyel 02:43, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Not in a ruined NT. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Sure, but it doesn't really take THAT much to do repairs, especially since NTs are so hotly contested, I don't think they stay ruined for very long. Besides, as Honestmistake said, this more fixes a seeming loophole then a nerf. I was just pointing out that people will bitch and whine.--Pesatyel 02:55, 21 May 2009 (BST)

To the contrary, the more contested a ruined NT is, the harder it is going to be to do repairs. Keep in mind to make syringes more efficient to search for rather than manufacture, you'd need to repair the NT (for whatever AP cost), barricade it, gen and fuel it. That could take 3 people to do that and not have any AP left over, and that's not counting the clearing of the zombies that might be inside. And to think that after all that, the players won't have the AP left over to search for the syringes, so then the 24 hour wait begins before they can give that a go. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:04, 21 May 2009 (BST)

It never even occurred to me that you could manufacture inside ruined NT's, I would think this to be a pretty obvious modification to remove a loophole rather than a survivor de-buff. --Honestmistake 08:16, 20 May 2009 (BST)

I'm all for it, for the same reason as Honest said above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:58, 24 May 2009 (BST)

This could easily be solved by asking on Kevan's page if this intentional or an overlooked code feature. If it's intentional you'll need a suggestion to resolve it (although the flavour, I'm guessing on the degradation of state of the art infrastructure, would probably mean the removal of CRs in ruined NTs as well) however if it's a overlooked feature it should get removed quickly without the need for a suggestion, much like the genny glitch on first day of dark buildings. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:02, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Military Frequency List

Timestamp:	Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:56, 19 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavour improvement
Scope:	Anyone
Description:	Ramping up those other military frequencies, for more spam free broadcasts. 25.90 Fort Overview. Broadcast once daily, alternating daily between each fort, just like a suburb report, but fort only. 25.91 Consumer Watch, random daily update on the state of a mall. 25.92 Devastation Report- Random daily report on building/s with over 100ap repair cost 25.93 Zombie Tracking. Hourly report on location of block with most standing zombies in malton. 25.94 Phone mast report. Daily report on the staus of 5 mobile phone mast buildings. 25.95 Malton Overview. Daily broadcast, highlighting any change in the zombie survivor ratio, plus random information on a non mall multiblock structure

Discussion (Military Frequence Use)

I'm now waiting for those dupe to roll in.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:56, 19 May 2009 (BST)

Even if there is a dupe, I dig the idea. Problem I see is [an odd one] giving the location of the block with most zombies in it. An odd problem, but the only thing I really see wrong. Seems a bit unnecessary. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 02:23, 20 May 2009 (BST)

I also think it's a great idea, and I also agree that the zombie channel seems kind of rough. What about the suburb with the most zombies in it? Or maybe even the one with the fewest? Alternate between the two, like with forts?

Also, since many people don't know the names of the mast buildings, maybe make the 5 buildings that it gives be the masts for the five suburbs in a random district? Gives you a better idea of the general area. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:03, 24 May 2009 (BST)

Would this be hard for kevan to do? I got no idea...but it's a fucking awesome idea. Rooster could make some tasty thingys and maps and that to give NPOV statuses...--x o x o 09:04, 22 May 2009 (BST)

It wouldn't be hard for Kevan to do, the coding should be similar to the EMRBs, the problem with this is the 'free lunch', at the moment the status require actual scouting by players, the expenditure of AP by players and then the effort to update the wiki. Automatically doing this reduces the atmosphere of uncertainty as to where the danger is in the game, conversely where the food is. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:51, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I know this is my suggestion but i agree with iscariot. At least in part. I feel only a couple of these are really viable and the information must be sketchier than actual scouting. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:04, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Military Frequency Use

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 02:32, 19 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavor/Improvement
Scope:	Forts
Description:	There are a few external military frequencies that players are unable to broadcast over. Since the military rebuilt the forts for survivor use, perhaps they also left them with equipment to broadcast on some restricted frequencies. I suggest allowing transmitters inside of fort buildings to be set to broadcast on channels from 25.90-25.95. People would be able to listen in from anywhere of course. This would not affect the channel broadcasting npc military reports, which is 25.96. People would still not be able to transmit over that frequency. And should Kevan ever want to add more npc military channels for some reason, there's still 25.97 and higher. What this would do is provide channels for intra and inter fort communication that have vastly reduced spam. Since only people within the forts can transmit over those channels there would be a much smaller number of people able to spam those channels at any given point. This would make 25.90-95 very useful for coordinating military operations among the forts' inhabitants and local patrols. I think anything that makes forts more about tactical operations and less about waiting in one place for a big mob of zombies to kick you out is a good thing.

Discussion (Military Frequency Use)

Or maybe the radio spammers who just sit still all day spamming radios would just go to the forts? --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:06, 19 May 2009 (BST)

and good riddance to em! --Honestmistake 19:19, 19 May 2009 (BST)

Am I the only one that's read the fucking archives even though it says to at the top of the freakin' page? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:18, 20 May 2009 (BST)

What's your point? That suggestion was 3 years old. You mean to tell me that NOTHING has or can change in 3 years to making bring up old ideas totally unviable? The question here is whether or not this old idea would be good, now as it wasn't then.--Pesatyel 02:49, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Change is irrelevant. This goes to voting, I notice it, put the link up, put out a call on IRC, five minutes later it's cycled. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:15, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Once again I have to disagree with your dupe link. The other suggestion is for coded radio channels with a variable range, it requires a new skill to use (and understand) and can be used anywhere. This only requires a radio and a very specific location, it also has the same range as normal radios. Those are pretty significant changes to the mechanic.... especially considering that the variable range bit was what got most kills in the old suggestion. --Honestmistake 08:22, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Does it allow you to broadcast on a previously locked frequency? Yes/No? Is there a restriction of some sort on this? Yes/No? We dupe stuff on grounds it's the same shit in a new shiny wrapper. Or shall we not dupe the next machine gun because it states that they can only be found in churches on the 15th of each month? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:45, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Yes, but this suggesstion would change nothing. It would just add more frequencies, that people either wouldn't listen to, or only a select group of people who stay in the forts would use. It wouldn't make them more strategic, people just wouldn't use this method unless they were already there. --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:44, 20 May 2009 (BST)

that might constitute a good reason to kill this but doesn't make it SPAM. --Honestmistake 18:49, 20 May 2009 (BST)

I never said anything about SPAM, you Donkey. --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:14, 21 May 2009 (BST)

My oops, obviously I meant DUPE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honestmistake (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Well the only person who said it was a dupe was Iscariot, and he says that everything is. In this manner, he's a bit of a Donkey.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:09, 22 May 2009 (BST)

So lets shut down the suggestion page then?--Pesatyel 02:56, 21 May 2009 (BST)

No, you're overreacting. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:22, 21 May 2009 (BST)

Not really, Iscariot calls dupe on pretty much everything. This one is very unlike his link but look below where he Dupes something because the game already has monuments as locations and something else because a script exists??? Now the script one actually is a dupe, just not for the reasons he gives. Its insane how often he comes up with the most tenuous of reasons for something being a dupe and if he ever gets away with enforcing his opinion on dupes then the page really will be redundant! --Honestmistake 08:23, 21 May 2009 (BST)

He won't get away with it. Trust me. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:08, 21 May 2009 (BST)

Trust you? Yeah.... --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:45, 25 May 2009 (BST)

How's about you think for yourselves? And knee-jerking against everything Iscariot says isn't "independent thinking". Meanwhile, it's not just Iscariot who uses the argument about scripts... it's a valid counter, used by the likes of sweirs and karek. And.. just because someone links to an alleged dupe doesn't mean it is a dupe, or that it'll be cycled out. And imnsho this is different enough from the orginal -- but barely -- and soley b/c the original is conviuluted and silly. --23:27, 21 May 2009 (BST)

I don't believe Sweirs or Karek ever voted "dupe" over something replicated by a script but I am not checking and could easily be wrong. The point is that a "dupe" vote is the easiest way to get stuff removed... sure you can appeal to an arbitrator but why should you have to when your suggestion clearly wasn't a dupe in the first place. As for "knee jerking" everything Iscariot says??? I call him often on the validity of his dupe links and disagree with a lot of what he does here but I also think he is capable of some very insightful and useful contributions which I have supported on more than one occasion. Oh and one last thing... please sign your posts so we can tell who you are. --Honestmistake 09:05, 22 May 2009 (BST)

It was a bit of sarcasm. I've been here a LONG time and there are VERY few idea that crop up that haven't been put up at some point in the past. 98% of suggestions have been tried before in SOME way (thus, not strictly dupes). Players come and go, as do ideas. What might not have worked in 2005 just MIGHT work now. So what's wrong with bringing it up? If it is still disliked, it will die again, but what if the new players actually like the idea?--Pesatyel 05:00, 22 May 2009 (BST)

Understand sunshine, it doesn't matter if a suggestion is liked by every fucker on this wiki, it really doesn't. Suggestions only have to impress one guy. Don't believe me? Go through Peer Reviewed and count how many aren't implemented. Your opinion, and that of everyone else here, means nothing. I'm quite sure Kevan made note of what seemed sensible or doable to him the first time they went through the system, if a situation in the game comes up that needs resolution I'm quite sure he uses this wonderful thing called his memory to remember if any of these would be viable. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:45, 25 May 2009 (BST)

As much as I agree that circumstances and consensus could change over a few years, the current system doesn't place any kind of time reference on suggestions for duping. A dupe from any time is a dupe, unfortunately. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:49, 22 May 2009 (BST)

Unfortunately, hence my mildly sarcastic comment. Hell there are people that claim dupe that don't even BOTHER taking the time to find one anymore.--Pesatyel 03:34, 23 May 2009 (BST)

Reorder items/pick gun to fire

Timestamp:	Excaliburp 19 May 2009
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Allow items to be reordered, so that there won't be situations where a survivor reloads the empty guns in front, but has half-empty ones left lower down the list that will never get fired unless he runs through all the freshly-reloaded ones in front. Either that, or allow a choice of exactly which weapon to fire, which solves that problem in a different way, but is probably a lot more troublesome to implement.

Discussion (Reorder items/pick gun to fire)

I support this dupe! The good news is that there are scripts to do this.... if you play from somewhere that means you can use em. --Honestmistake 19:27, 18 May 2009 (BST)

Megaphone

Timestamp:	The Master Scout 12:36, 17 May 2009
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Simple: a megaphone that allow survivors to launch vocal messages in the streets, and that works in a way similar to Graffiti and Feeding Groans. The player wrote the message in a text box, and everybody within a certain range (3,4 or so...)) will display it, maybe through something like "You heard a megaphone shouting "TEXT" from DIRECTION". ...to make things better, it's use can be limited in certain building. In any dark builings (no windows) it could be impossibile. While, in Tall Buildings and Towers, survivors may be supposed to use it on the roof, hence, it range can be wider. Just like Spray Cans, it's use can be limited to certain times before discard. After all, megaphones use batteries. It can be found, says, in Police Depts, Fire Stations, Hardware Store and the like. I think it can be an interesting variant to Radio Messages and Mobile Phones.

Discussion (Megaphone)

Seems a bit dupish...if that's even a word. I don't know, this isn't really necessary, and people will spam with this.--Thadeous Oakley 12:44, 17 May 2009 (BST)

It is a dupe, from 2005 IIRC. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:08, 17 May 2009 (BST)

Dupe-o-rific. But I'm lazy-o-rific. --WanYao 20:15, 17 May 2009 (BST)

Someone already suggest it? No surprise, i guess it's a pretty predictable idea, after all. Yes, probably people will spam with it...but i guess again that meta-gaming communication outside of the game is already overused, to make in-game communication really meaningful. By this point of view, an item like that will surely be useless.--The Master Scout 13:38, 18 May 2009 (BST)

There was a more recent dupe than 2005 too if I recall, but I don't think it ever went up for voting. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:06, 24 May 2009 (BST)

Sculptures In Parks

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 20:48, 15 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavour
Scope:	Park squares
Description:	Why should only the indoors be decorated? I suggest allowing people to place sculptures (and maybe other weather-proof decorative items) in parks as they can in buildings. Zombies would be able to attack these outdoors sculptures and destroy them one at a time with an accurate hit, but since they're out in the open and easy to attack there would be no xp gain for doing so.

Discussion (Sculptures In Parks)

Question - What's the point, really, if most survivors visit parks for a minute or so, looking for an EP? --Haliman - Talk 20:52, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Usually I am all open for more atmosphere in urbandead, but this seems just useless. I mean, when I am moving outside through open blocks its just click-click for me.--Thadeous Oakley 22:47, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Many parks are used as revive points. This would give the waiting mrh cows, visiting scientists, and scan blocking brainrotters a more interesting view. --A Big F'ing Dog 22:52, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Dupe of in-game. Monuments are sculptures in the open. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:02, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Can you attack monuments?

No

Can you choose where to place them?

No

Is this suggestion a dupe?

No

Is this suggestion worth implementing?

Also No.--Honestmistake 14:47, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Nope. As Iscariot and Honest M. I'd like to be able to target statues and monuments for grafitti/vandalism, though, that might be fun. --WanYao 20:17, 17 May 2009 (BST)

You already can, according to the wiki. In fact you get 2 XP for it.--Pesatyel 20:59, 17 May 2009 (BST)

Although if you mean the option to vandalise art insalations then that might be fun.... pointless but still fun. "Someone has set up a bust of long dead soldier... someone else has painted a mustache on it!" ;) --Honestmistake 19:29, 18 May 2009 (BST)

Suicide With A Vengeance

I was bored, so I put it up for a vote. It wasn't getting much discussion here anyway. If people can't even bother to troll it, maybe it's a good idea. Or not... guess we'll find out.--Necrofeelinya 18:58, 13 May 2009 (BST)

We ignored it because there was nothing constructive to add to such a bad idea. And criticising a bad suggestion is not trolling. Grow up. --WanYao 20:24, 17 May 2009 (BST)

Suggestions up for voting

Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

Further Discussion

Please Read Before Posting

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Cycling Suggestions

Suggestions

Boost Contacts Limit for Donors

Discussion (Boost Contacts Limit for Donors)

New Survivor Weapon - Rifle (Revised)

Discussion (Rifle Revised)

"New Skill"

Discussion "New Skill"

Anatomy Skill

Discussion (Anatomy Skill)

New Survivor Weapon - Rifle

Discussion (Rifle)

New Barricade Rules

Discussion (New Barricade Rules)

Crowd Feeding (Bites Work Better With Support)

Discussion (Crowd Feeding)

Zombie Items

Discussion (Zombie Items)

Ravage Corpse

Discussion (Ravage Corpse)

No Syringe Manufacture in Ruined NTs

Discussion (No Syringe Manufacture in Ruined NTs)

Military Frequency List

Discussion (Military Frequence Use)

Military Frequency Use

Discussion (Military Frequency Use)

Reorder items/pick gun to fire

Discussion (Reorder items/pick gun to fire)

Megaphone

Discussion (Megaphone)

Sculptures In Parks

Discussion (Sculptures In Parks)

Suicide With A Vengeance

Suggestions up for voting

Navigation menu

Search