Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Further Discussion

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

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Adding a New Suggestion

• Copy the code in the box below.
• Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.

• Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.

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

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

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
• If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.

This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Separate XP for Separate Skills

Timestamp: Enigma179 03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Rules Change

Scope: Survivors and Zombies

Description: I figured that someone gets experience in gun combat NOT by healing people or becoming a zombie and beating the snot out of people, but by y'know... using their guns. I propose that there be four kinds of experience (yes, those who play fable may start to see a resemblance). There could be combat experience, general experience, science experience and zombie experience. You would get general experience with any experience-gaining action we have now, and it would be the only experience you get from tagging/reading. Now, replace around 1/4 of the experience you get from combat (fighting zombies or humans, as a human) with combat experience, replace 1/4 of the experience you get from science (DNA scanning, revivification, healing) with science experience, and replace 1/4 of the experience you get as a zombie (all of the zombie experience-gaining actions) with zombie experience. General experience works just like how all XP works now; you can spend it on any skill you like. Combat experience can only be spent on military skills. Science experience can only be spent on science skills, and zombie experience can only be spent on zombie skills. When buying skills, it will automatically deduct the skillset-specific XP first, then general. In this way, players could be more specialized, but I don't think it will break game mechanics in any unacceptable way. I don't know if this has been done before, as it would be extremely hard to search through both sections, and I know that the Dos and Do Nots say that you shouldn't mess with XP, but I don't think that this will affect it so brokenly, and after all, this is what the developing sections is for, right?

Discussion (Separate XP for Separate Skills)

It's realistic, I don't know a single doctor that has spent hours in surgery and come out with an ability to perform tai otoshi better. Unfortunately this game contains zombies, which are as unrealistic as you're ever likely to get.

All this suggestion does is force a player into more grinding, it's a standard 'feature' in things like Warcraft because you have to pay to play, making you play longer means more money. UD doesn't need you to grind to make money, so all this does is reduce player fun by making them perform tedious actions before getting back to doing what they want. Case in point is the current young pretender Shintolin, after a week or two of grinding you can be an absolute badass with a spear and kill anything with ease, but if you want to then gain different skills you need to stop having fun and cut down trees non-stop for a week.... SNORE *Click close button on window*

To be fair, I'll probably institute the same system in my game when it's made, but for UD all it'll do is make the game less fun for new players, not affect older ones in the slightest and hasten game death. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In practice, isn't this already basically accomplished by making characters pay 75/100/150 XP for the various skills, depending on their starting class? People who start off as a character "specializing" in science have a harder time learning military skills, for example, as well they should, yet can learn them eventually. Your system would do the same, but complicate it a bit more. Seems unnecessary at this point. —Aichon— 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Special Infected

Timestamp: Ike Merodach 05:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: New Skill/Class

Scope: zombies

Description: I thought that this would be something interesting to add to the pretty homogenous zombie hordes out there. I propose that a zombie, after acquiring the maximum amount of zombie skills, be able to pick a unique skill that would allow him to evolve into a "Special Infected". These special infected would have enhanced powers such as beefed up attack, more HP, AP, or AP recharge rate. But here are the catches. First of all, you must only have ZOMBIE skills in your skill set. Any survivor skill would dilute the level of infected blood in the zombie's body, rendering that type of evolution almost impossible. Secondly, you have to have all the ZOMBIE skills for it to work. Finally, you can only choose one type, and it is irreversible. I think that having various types of special infected would keep those survivors on their toes, and it could even produce new strategies and methods for playing the game. Here are some of the types that I've thought of: Gnasher Special power: Choose between 30% increase in bite hit or double bite damage. Description: A zombie whose protuding teeth drip with black oil. He is rumored to be able to bite through anything. Ripper Special power: Choose between 20% claw hit or double claw damage. Description: A zombie with long bloody claws. His attacking force is lethal to all but the strongest survivors. Tank Special Power: Choose between 20 extra HP or double defense from guns or melee. Description: A looming behemoth. His body can withstand heavy bombardment. These are the classes that I've thought up so far. I really think this could work, if it was implemented right. I'll now leave this up for discussion.

Discussion (Special Infected)

More HP, AP, or regeneration invariably leads to imbalance.

• Faster AP regen? You can get more done, faster, than other players. Too much of an advantage.
• 2x attack? Extremely powerful. Do you mean double to-hit, or to-damage?
• Increased Defense? How so? Takes less damage from firearms, or all weapons, and if so, how much of a reduction is there?
• Traps humans? How do they get free? Can the zombie do anything while they're trapping a human?
• Healing other zombies? They don't need healing. They can die and get up again cheaply (at high level), and they can eat flesh if they have Digestion.

Also, you basically stole ideas from Left 4 Dead, didn't you? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. No L4D interpretations please. L4D is one game, UD is another. They play in totally different ways and don't need to lend off of each other for gameplay ideas. --

 

 

 

 

05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I do believe there is a template for this kinda suggestion. Further more, fuck and no. This is the worst suggestion I have seen since the last one Zombie Lord posted. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

This is not fucking Left 4 Dead.

You're welcome. 14:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can actually see some appeal in differentiating maxed zombies beyond the distinction between rotters and the death-culting non-rotters, but these concrete skills are either plainly broken, fuck deeply into the mechanics, or both. See Bob Boberton's break-down of the points, he's absolutely right about it. I'd recommend that you check the Do's and Don'ts and come back with skill ideas that aren't straight from that list. --Spiderzed 06:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even going to say much here because this suggestion needs more detail, specifically on the classes? Your one-sentence descriptions do nothing to tackle the actual mechanics of implementing these classes, and that needs to be addressed before any criticism (constructive or otherwise) can really be brought forth. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first off, thanks for bringing your suggestion here. I think that players should be encouraged to play zombies vs survivors and specialization in one category should provide some benefit against the other side. The particular skills you've suggested are too strong, as others have noted here, but don't let that stop you from trying to think of a more balanced suggestion that would accomplish the variety and specialization you had in mind.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Goast? As in, zombie goasts? Are they in front of a house? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw goatse. Thats what I saw.Cookies and Cream 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nothing to boast about mate. Chief Seagull talk 11:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. i was afraid.Cookies and Cream 11:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As always, Maybe in a new city.Cookies and Cream 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since I'm an admitted fan of a certain game with four survivors in it, it managed to have some influence in my initial thinking about Special Infected. The main idea is to have an incentive for people with pure zombies, that requires effort and resisting temptation to get survivor skills when revived. I've edited the classes up there now to something, hopefully, more balanced but still worth the effort of being pure zombie. Ike Merodach 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, let's begin.

First, don't edit your suggestion after people have already commented on it, or at least add obvious tags and strikes to show the changes, otherwise when I show up late due to computer problems I have no idea what everyone above was on about.

Secondly, have you run the numbers through this? Specifically the average damage per attack when contrasted to current numbers and de-cading percentages? Have you run that 'tank' of yours through the average survivor damage when you have that additional HP bonus? (As an aside, the fire axe, best melee weapon versus zombies in the game, average damage per AP is 1.2 IMS. When put up against an 80HP zombie with no deductions, FR and FJ don't apply to axes, you have 67AP needed to take out one of these. Kiss goodbye to Axes High as a territorial group... I wouldn't weep.) You need to be understanding that this entire game is about maths, AP expended compared to effectiveness.

Thirdly, mixing your specifics even from in genre gets frowned on in this game (particularly if it buffs the zombie side), the trenchies whined and cried when the zombies started using shotguns against them even though multiple examples from the genre show them using them (notably both Day of the Deads, I saw the remake last night, what a turgid bowl of vomit it was, watch American Beauty instead, Kevin Spacey being awesome and at least Mena takes her top off in that one), if we can't have guns achievable only through the intelligence of url codes with 10% accuracy, your chances of getting this through if fort radio gets a sniff are minimal.

Finally, I'm not a fan of the game you've taken this from (some would say stolen from), so I ask you, why do we need to go plundering the specifics of another game when we have our own to explore that are pretty much unique to us? Death cultists for example. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

EPIC FAIL This idea or suggestion is based around a concept or worldview so fundamentally flawed that it is completely beyond any redemption or improvement whatsoever, excluding complete obliteration and reconstruction from scratch, which doesn't count.

Also, get my font the fuck out of your sig, General; it's well past a month. Wub you!

Lelouch vi Britannia 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

_

I find it interesting that some people are allowed to attack a suggestion as "worst ever" (among other derogatory points) without actually saying what is wrong it with it. The point of Developing Suggestions is to discuss the suggestion. Work on it if it needs work or say why it wouldn't work. Not just attack. But I digress. I like the idea of class differentiation. But these ideas are way overpowered. Limiting the player to only zombie skills is irrelevant as an offset penalty since the only survivor skill that would be "lost" is NecroTech Employment. You don't want to go higher than, say +10% to any combat bonus and +2 to any damage bonuses. Probably not even THAT high. But 60%/70% to bite or 8 damage to bite is too much. As is 70%/80% to hit or 6 damage with claws. The problem with giving a zombie 80 HP is that you can't differentiate because of zombie anonymity. And what does "double defense against guns and melee" mean?--Pesatyel 05:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming he means just that. So a shotgun against that particular breed of zombie would do 6 damage instead of 10. I also like the concept, but I would make 2 suggestions:

• (1) BALANCE. All of these are horribly overpowered, as has been explained by both Iscariot and Pesatyel. The numbers need some serious work, and you can fine tune those if you start small and play the game some more.
• (2) EVEN-UP. Survivors should get some similar kind of bonus option based on the initial class they chose, and should be equally balanced with the zombie options.

My advice would be to move this suggestion to your userspace somewhere, do some fine-tuning and adjusting and then bring it back here in a couple of weeks for more input. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, if this goes ahead and we beef up some survivor skills to even things up a bit, before long more suggestions would be made to enhance one side, then that'll be evened up with extra skills for the other side, and so on and so on. Before long, we'll have a city populated by indestructible zombies and superheroes. Chief Seagull talk 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Shockingly all the usual Pro-Zombies here don't like this suggestion. Well you guys got one right - What the #*(@ does this idea have to do with zombies? They are undead, not superheros. --YoEleven 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Supers are just awesome like that, but I can see how somebody would feel if he logged in and found out that an old hag stabbed his character for 9,001 damage late in the night. And no one really wants to be abandoned and deceased in his sleep! But still, supers are awesome. Maybe if someone concocts some supers for survivor use, we can have a little arms race. Ike Merodach 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe we can keep some shred of game balance?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This "arms race" of yours can only have one end. Allow me to give you an example of what would happen... Hotgirrl99 the Cybernetic/Ninja/Sniper/Witch/Goddess/Mechanist/Tank/Bomber/The One fires her unstoppable orbital plasma cannon at BiggusDickuslol the Undying/Warlock/Pirate/Emperor/Maggot Lord/Spawn of Shoggoth/Son of Satan/Defeater of the saxons/Nuclear Behemoth/Cellular Anomaly/Antichrist for infinity damage. BiggusDickuslol The Undying/Etc... etc... counters with an unbreakable force field that blocks infinity damage. The internet locks up for eternity due to the fact that it is still trying to calculate exactly what infinity damage is against infinity defense. You see the problem? -Devorac 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, infinity/infinty is exactly the same as 3/3, 7/7, or X/X. That would make infinite damage versus infinite defense the same as any value of damage versus any value of defense. It's very simple maths, which means it's a terrible point for a scholar such as a Knight to raise. Secondly, Shoggoths were enginerred for their brute strength, not their durability, much like the Death Star. That would make another poor point for a scholar to be raising. For shame. For shame. 01:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In standard math yes, however trying to talk a computer into a limitless number is stunningly difficult which is the point. (usually you just use a really big number like a googleplex simulating infinity) Trying to have a computer run a program using infinity as one of your variables would be like asking it to calculate pi down to its last decimal place. I'm not sure how shoggoths technical aspects enter into this one though. -Devorac 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to comment on this suggestion since it's beyond hope and doesn't need me piling on more criticism, but I just had to respond to the math comments since they're bothering me. Infinity/infinity = Undefined in every mathematical system I've ever seen, since not all infinities are created equal, so to speak. 3/3=1, 7/7=1, but infinity/infinity might actually be infinity/(infinity+1) or infinity/(infinity*100)...they're all still infinity, but some are a "bigger" infinity, which is a common concept you work with in pretty much everything from calculus on up. —Aichon— 07:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They, however, are simulating a scenario in which two infinities of equal magnitude are being pitted against each other, these infinities being the highest possible amount of damage conceivable, as this would be the eventual result of the growth. Something like an (a+(n-1)d) with Infinite terms. (The Arithmetic series would not have an n, just a never-ending series of terms). The scenario also suggests that a number exists which can be modelled as a highest number. We'll call it x. A more apt way for them to put it would be x attack / x defence, where x is equal to the highest number possible. The use of the term "infinity" was incorrect, but was merely used as a hyperbolic colloquialism common in modern society.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A "hyperbolic colloquialism" has no place in factual math, which is what it sounded like they were discussing. You are correct though, in that x would've been appropriate, with x being a large number. —Aichon— 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just one of those annoying things. I actually failed my maths exam today, so that was very fun.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Or of course this could just be re-worked into a sensible buff for dedicated zombies to make them a bit more of a threat to the bullet bouncing; weight lifting; teleporting (sorry free-running) super dood's that are survivors? I mean having a "SPECIAL" power that only works occasionally and gives a target survivor a hard time rather than instant death can't be all bad can it? --Honestmistake 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion however BLOWS!!!! --Honestmistake 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing which may have already been stated; At leased think up a new name. Special Infected has a totally different connotation in Urban Dead, and you should have realised that when so blatantly plagiarising L4D's term for Zombies. Infected is a term for a poisoned survivor in UD. --

 

 

 

 

23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmmm.... *shrugs shoulders* by the looks of where this is going, I don't really think I can get this off the ground at all. I mean, I want it to be balanced, but I also want it to be appealing and worth the effort, and it looks like everything that's appealing is turning out to be unbalanced. And I'll go ahead and admit that I also wanted to see a little Left 4 Dead sprinked in too. We'll, at least when I play Left 4 Dead, I can pretend that the zombies are out to get me because they need some XP to get Brain Rot. All that's left to do now is to find out the best way to crown a Witch with a Necrotech syringe.... Ike Merodach 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Survivors Need Light, Zombies Don't Like Light

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 00:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Generator use

Scope: All

Description: Generators currently have no use except in resource buildings or dark buildings. This is an idea to make them useful in all buildings. Let's assume survivors need light to see. Zombies also need light to see but not as much, and too much light dazzles their sensitive eyes. Here's what this would do. In any non-dark building without a working generator survivors would suffer a -10% penalty to accuracy. Zombies would suffer no penalty. However in buildings with light survivors would gain a +10% bonus to accuracy. The light would also be a bit too much for undead eyes and zombies would suffer a -10% penalty to their accuracy inside a building with a working generator. This balances out a double-benefit to survivors from generators (+10 to you, -10 to zombies) by imposing a penalty on all survivors without a generator. Plus, zombies would be able to destroy the generator to get rid of that benefit/penalty. This would make destroying the generator a top priority before attacking survivors. Dark buildings (such as cinemas) would still provide a penalty for survivors and zombies when dark, and when lighting them would just negate that penalty. Lightning dark buildings would not provide any other benefit or penalty. Outdoor squares would be unaffected by this change, as would junkyards. So to recap: Dark Buildings, Junkyards, Outdoor Squares Work exactly the same as now. Inside every other building Survivors suffer -10% accuracy without a working generator Survivors gain +10% accuracy with a working generator Zombies suffer -10% accuracy with a working generator This would make lightning a non-resource non-dark building a tactical decision (gain bonus/negate penalty but advertise your position) rather than ill advised purposeless showing off. Thoughts?

Discussion (Survivors Need Light, Zombies Don't Like Light)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 30 at 14:11 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say get rid of the +10% bonus with lights. You don't see as well in the dark, but turning the lights on doesn't make you see better, it just makes you see at the regular rate. And how come dark buildings don't get this bonus/penalty? The lights are on all the same. They're just a lot darker with them off. RinKou 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"This would make destroying the generator a top priority before attacking survivors. " And why would we want that to be the case?--Trevor Wrist 02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why zombies would be effected, even as a balancing factor. Most genre has them able to attack regardless of the conditions in which they find themselves, including zombies that don't HAVE eyes.--Pesatyel 05:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombies need a +10% accuracy without a working generator, or this is straight-up unbalanced even at a cursory glance. Also, chance to damage a generator needs to be unaffected by these odds. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already highly attractive to smash the genny first and wouldn't need a beefing. A dead survivor costs a high-level zombie ~25AP and can be back up for at most 30AP (and more likely 12AP with ankle grab). Finding a genny and fuel costs rather ~50AP, and smashing it can safely be done with ~15AP. Every time but in exceptional circumstances (like a fort or mall that has lost nearby NTs and thus cheap revivives), it's already attacking the gennys what wins the AP race between humans and zombies. --Spiderzed 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss a memo somewhere? In what zombie break-in is breaking the generator NOT the first priority? Beyond that, Revenant is in the right that for this to be "balanced" it should be -10% one way and +10% the other for both sides. And regardless of what I just said, why do we need this? If you want to change your hit %, either buy a skill or go play in a dark building without a generator. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the genny is a priority. However how would -10% one way and +10% both ways be balanced? Sounds like a survivor penalty only that way. Regardless this suggestion is on the right track, just needs some re-tooling. --YoEleven 05:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's not a bad idea but as others have stated you messed up the numbers there, because you're giving a 20% edge to survivors and only a 10% edge to zombies.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Zombies can bash down doors

Timestamp: Enigma179 09:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Gameplay change

Scope: Zombies

Description: My last suggestion was shot down quickly, and that was probably my fault, but hear me out. I've heard that being a low level zombie isn't extremely fun; You don't get to attack survivors except for the lucky finds in the street, unless you go through the trouble of travelling with a horde you can't get into safehouses, and even if you find a loosely barricaded place with the lights on inside, you bash down the barricade and can't get in, because of one thing. The door. I propose that zombies without Memories of Life can bash down doors as if they were another barricade level, as I can assume the survivors lock the doors. Those with memories of life of course, can waltz right in without going through the trouble of taking down another barricade level. This would allow lower level zombies to get xp in the standard way without Zking and Memories of Life still saves you some AP.

Discussion (Zombies can bash down doors)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Feb 2 at 08:14 (UTC)

Something like this was proposed very recently by Zombie Lord, I believe, and I seem to recall that this aspect of his suggestion was well-regarded. I think it'd be a good idea. Zombies without a horde are weaker than survivors without a group, and this helps the newbies specifically without overpowering them. Sounds good all around. The only concern I'd have would be for lowbie survivors without Construction, but unbarricaded buildings that have their doors closed but are also unruined are uncommon as it is, and sleeping in ruined buildings has always been dangerous. It'd change very little for lowbie survivors. —Aichon— 10:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. When I Z, I'd like to know that if I wanted to, I could rip off the doors and feed on the meat. My one problem is that, where do the smashed doors go when your recade? Cookies and Cream 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming they haven't been ripped to shreds, you could just repair them using a toolbox. Chief Seagull (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Your toolbox is much better than mine. Cookies and Cream 09:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

When playing a Z you're supposed to travel in a group - of any level low or high. The whole balance of this game is based on low numbers of Survivors and Zombies the Survivors have the advantage; High numbers of each the Zombies have the advantage. All of our favorite zombie movies would have been pretty dull if there was only one zombie knocking on the door... Yawn of the Dead --YoEleven 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed doors are really important in sieges, and this harms newbie survivors as much as it helps lone zombies. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

s mentioned above these would need to be repairable otherwise NO building would have doors pretty quick. How would pipes factor in?--Pesatyel 05:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I honest thought this has been proposed like, 50 times. But I'm not going back to check :P. Either way, that's basically the way I'd imagine it should work, so no objections here. Locked doors will still act as an insta-barricade (as per pipes) for survivors without construction, but won't be completely invincible to new zombies. The argument is that low level survivors have any number of things they can do to get XP, several of which (ie healing) don't require any skills to do, and only requires one to do effectively for XP gain. Whereas zombies only have one source of XP and need to max out at least one combat tree in addition to MoL to max efficiency for their XP gain. RinKou 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I was thinking that (I didn't put much detail in the OP anyway) when a door is bashed open, you can close it at the cost of one AP, no skills required. This means that there won't be a whole crapload of buildings out there with no doors, and people won't have to start door-repair plans to keep a suburb somewhat safe. And to YoEleven, when I started Urban Dead I had no idea about this wiki, revive points, hordes or anything, I thought that the closest thing to organization was feeding groan. If I ever did get to a horde bashing down a barricade, I wouldn't be able to get more then one or two punches out of the survivors before they were all devoured. And it makes perfect sense from a flavour point of view, zombies would try to break a locked door just as much as one with a couch behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigma179 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

The closed door thing is just ridiculous. So lets do this. I would propose that the door be it's own level of barricade, so it would require 3 successful hits to gain entry. The door would be instantly closed again whenever a survivor added barricades, exactly how it works now. The door would essentially be 1 last level of barricades to protect survivors, that zombies with memories of life could simply bypass by opening the door. The door never breaks or needs repair, it is either closed or opened, and it can be opened by MoL, or by "forcing" the door open with 3 successful hits. The hit rate would be the same as to barricades.

How about this for flavor text?

• You smash at the door (this is a miss)
• You smash at the door, it creaks. (this is an unsuccessful hit)
• You smash at the door, weakening it. (this is a successful hit)
• You smash at the door, forcing it open. (this happens after 3 successful hits)--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the three-hit idea. That'd handle my concerns about lowbies by making this more reasonable, while still giving solo, lowbie ferals a chance to get into buildings. —Aichon— 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that a problem with the three-hit idea is that survivors could potentially use doors as a somewhat effective barricade. 3 successful hits, plus perhaps one more if the survivor inside happened to have a pipe... that means that the zombie has to work through 4 levels of barricades, the equivalent of a lightly +2 barricade. It may seem low, but to a newbie zombie, even if it does have vigour mortis, it won't be able to get that barricade down in one sitting (I'm pretty sure). Survivors shouldn't rely on closed doors and pipes to defend themselves against zombies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigma179 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Well, keep in mind it's an improvement over the current situation, where newbie zombies can't enter at all. I also don't know of any survivors who rely on pipes frequently. I've seen that cited quite a bit, but I've yet to hear of anyone actually putting it into practice on a regular basis. And this change wouldn't have any impact at all on veteran zombies, so all-in-all, it seems like an improvement. The number of hits necessary can always be reduced later as well. —Aichon— 14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I say cut it down to one level of barricade, but have each zombie forcing it open have to open it separately. The flavour text for successfully opening it could read:

• You smash at the door, forcing it open. It swings closed heavily behind you.

This would cause it to be less of a nuisance for low-level zombies, while still maintaining a level of protection against them - each zombie would be its own separate threat, until one with memories opens it properly for them. 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As mis. One level, normal memories of life means you can just open it, otherwise to open it is half hand attack percentage. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Same. I like it this way. Cookies and Cream 09:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you guys think I should actually put this one up to voting, perhaps some more detail in it? Template:Enigma179 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How does the pipe affect this?--Pesatyel 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The pipe is just a barricade... I propose making the closed door another barricade level and zombies with MoL can open it as normal. Template:Enigma179 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. It just didn't appear to be part of the discussion is all. I'm inclined to agree with Giles. Make it 2 (3 at most) attacks to break through. This is a special circumstance and 1 level just seemed a little to weak.--Pesatyel 04:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody want to put this up for a vote?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I just figured out that it's a dupe... I saw like 3 suggestions that are pretty much the same. Enigma179 03:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---