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

---

Make zombies stronger than survivors, but not invincible

Timestamp: Sophie ◆◆◆ CAPD 22:07, 31 May 2010 (BST)

Type: Balance chance

Scope: Survivors and zombies

Description: The whole suggestion is this (updated): I propose increasing accuracy of zombie attacks, to 75% for claws and 45% for bite, and removing barricade interference altogether. The rest of this text is a long boring explanation for why yours truly believes this change would be advantageous for everyone. Background Disregarding for a minute the game theme, and role-playing aspects and such, Urban Dead can be seen as a competitive game where two factions fight each other; while the game is open-ended, this is the main source of conflict, and conflict means excitement, suspense, drama, and lulz. I submit that the current game mechanics, while playable, encourage avoidance, rather than confrontation between the factions, which takes away this important source of entertainment. This makes UD a dull game—more so for zombies than for survivors, but frustrating for both, really. Under current game mechanics, lone zombies are underpowered and generally lose (as in: they fail to achieve what they set out to do, viz. nomming brainz), while organised zombies are unbeatable and always win. The former is clearly due to zombie attacks being too weak, this hardly needs elaboration, and it should be obvious how this suggestion addresses the issue. The latter is a more subtle effect, but still easily explainable (I hope). In Urban Dead, players who are online attack players who are offline, whose characters take damage passively. The main difference between survivors and zombies is how they deal with attacks: Survivors can reduce the risk of being attacked by erecting barricades, and Zombies suffer little or no penalty for dying. These are the pivotal, game-defining traits; the trade-offs; the strengths that make each faction competitive against the other. Everything else—attack odds and damage, skills, weapons, etc.—are refinements and qualifications on top of these main "faction advantages". Zombie groups are invincible because barricade interference allows a few coordinated zombies to take away survivors' vital faction advantage, turning a potentially interesting pitting of different combat styles into a plain fight to the death where one of the sides doesn't care about dying. While this may be entirely fitting and proper, in-genre like, I submit that, in a competitive game, it sucks goats arse. When a comparatively small team of players can consistently wipe out multitudes overnight, there is something clearly broken. A hundred zombies shouldn't be able to take on 400 survivors, at least not without a long, bitter fight. This, however, doesn't mean survivors are the side that suffers more. On the contrary, it's zombies who have it worse. Interference is not a game breaker because survivors can work around it easily, by the simple expedient of avoiding confrontation with zombie groups. Survivors don't need to fight zombies. Naive survivors will still try, every so often, and become frustrated; more clever ones just spend their AP role-playing, cleaning up after the horde once it's moved on, harassing weak zeds in green suburbs. Or killing each other, of course, which is fair and fun, sod the silly zombies. So survivors have several viable options open for them to enjoy the game. Many will just abandon, though, having come here expecting to fight zombies, and realising that that particular sort of conflict is strongly discouraged by the game itself. Zombies, on the other hand, don't have the prerogative of occupying themselves in other things. They are forced to either make a kill every blue moon, which is well frustrating, or joining a horde for guaranteed victory without challenge, which may be satisfactory for some but (I would think) boring for most. Plus, from my experience participating in the community, and developing metagaming tools: there's a significant segment of players who can't or won't metagame—a majority, in fact. And the "unchallenged certain victory" option doesn't apply to them. So the "leaving the game" alternative seems even more attractive for zombies. In sum, the assumptions here are: Zombies are being forced to choose between certain defeat, which is frustrating, or certain victory without a challenge, which is arguably boring. Further, zombies are being forced to metagame in order to aspire to victory; otherwise it's frustration for them all the way. Survivors are being forced to choose between certain defeat, which is frustrating, or a number of activities which hardly involve zombies at all, which is silly in a zombie game. When survivors opt for avoidance, the main source of conflict in the game is lost. Which is a bloody shame and makes the game dull for everyone. And the expected outcome is: All this sucks and many players will leave the game. More zombies than survivors. For some sort of experimental confirmation, refer to Survivor-Zombie_Imbalance#The_Graphs. Which of course doesn't mean this theory is correct; only that it doesn't contradict observable facts. As a further observation: while there are reasons for survivors to team up in groups, there really are no tactical reasons for such, at least none involving zombies. Creating large groups for the purpose of fighting hordes is pointless, since hordes can't be beaten no matter the size of the harman group, and lone zombies can be beaten without any coordination at all. [1] Rationale What this suggestion seeks to achieve is to make zombies stronger than survivors, to increase their numbers, and to bring back conflict between the survivor and zombie factions. Think of: Scary feral zombies that can break into a building and kill a survivor in a single AP-cycle. No more complacent harmanz headshotting ferals on the street, then going back to sleep safely in their green suburbs. Survivors should be always on their toes. It's good for them. More players willing to play as zombie, since there'd be more action and killing for them, even without going through the hassle of coordinating with a horde, which is not for everyone. Zombies are already at a disadvantage here, most players seem to prefer human characters; the game really doesn't need to discourage a large portion of players from playing zombie. Survivors that actually stand a chance to defend against a horde. Viz.: massive, fun, fair, proper sieges. A meaningful reason for survivors to team up in groups. The specific increase ratio in damage, 200%, was of course pulled out of thin air; just an educated guess of a possible sweet spot. In any case, without interference, this only defines the factor by which zombies can be outnumbered and still win.

Discussion (Make zombies stronger than survivors, but not invincible)

Remove interference, add +2 damage to both attacks (to 5 and 6 for claws and bite), and add a +15% to-hit bonus for zombies attacking barricades, which is replaced by a -15% penalty when there are X or more zombies on that same square, X being negotiable. Allows ferals to take down cades easier but stops it being a complete cake-walk for hordes. Rationale is that a few zeds can work unhindered, a large horde means infighting, lack of manoueverability, etc. 22:14, 31 May 2010 (BST)

Cheers Mis, yup, this sounds reasonable, although I'm not sure complicating calculations of the odds. I will wait for more input here, will try to run some numbers as well, may very well end up modifying it to resemble this. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 00:39, 1 June 2010 (BST)

As a feral player, I agree with Mis basically. The one big letdown for ferals are barricades, and they should be the primary thing that should be dealt with. Needing 40AP (VSB) to 80AP (EHB) just to get in is just madness from the lone feral's PoV, especially as the enemy can conveniently cade up with just 10AP to VSB and then headshot the intruder at his leisure, unless the feral gets lucky with his feeding groan. At the same time, I think that a penalty for hordes, while not a bad idea, is effectively pointless. Timed strike teams don't care about the penalty, as decading anyway takes up a minor amount of APs on the individual level for them. Anything that would be sufficiently painful would just encourage salami tactics where teams who are just big enough to don't trigger the penalty move into the square, attack, move out and let the next team hit. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:25, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Fair enough, this is good stuff. Would you be agreeable to, instead of buffing zeds by increasing damage, increasing their accuracy to say 150% of current values? That's 75% for claws and 45% for bite. From Aichon's numbers here, I believe this would mean a full skilled zed could destroy a VSB+2 in 26 AP, an EHB+4 in 56 AP, and kill a bodybuilder in 23 AP. With those averages, ferals at full AP can realistically break into a VSB and kill a harman by themselves about half the times they try. Timed strike teams don't care much about cades, indeed, and they would deal a lot more damage this way, but without interference, this doesn't mean the whole horde gets in behind the strike team. So survivors have a fighting chance. How's this sound? --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 22:04, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Sounds fair enough at large. (I'd yet think that the upper end of barricades needs some nerfing so that a lone feral has a considerable chance to get inside within a single AP cycle, especially as about every freerunner prefers to sleep in them. But that's another can of worms that would make the suggestion even more far-reaching and invasive than it already is.) -- Spiderzed▋ 22:20, 1 June 2010 (BST)

You people are underestimating ferals. Tompson and Marven Mall have, more often then not, been under zombie control since the MOB came through, quite a while ago. The zombies' woes should not be shifted from cades to meatshields. Up the damage of both attacks by 1, and leave cades alone. --VVV ^RPMBG 23:25, 31 May 2010 (BST)

Heh. I'm not certain about Tompson, but funny you mention Marven, because that mall is one of the reasons that moved me to suggest this. Marven Mall is most certainly not being held by ferals, but by a very impressively well-coordinated pack of about 10 rotters, who are able to tear down the barricades, get inside and squat, all of them together, in 2 minutes flat, every day. This group single-handedly defeated survivors out-numbering them by at least 3 to 1, very likely more, and including at least three well-coordinated survivor groups (forums + IRC) plus a largish population of "feral survivors" floating around the mall. For all I know, they are still struggling; I gave up as a pointless waste of my time after a month of this. Do let me know if you'd like screenies of these zombies working together, we have tons of them, and these guys are really, really good (kudos, santaria). This is not unlike Clubbed to Death holding Blesley Mall, or the Butthole Surfers holding Joachim, when they did.

And btw, this was quite the surprise, for CAPD at least, since we just had defeated some 30 actual ferals who tried for several weeks to break into our HQ. We assumed, like you just did, that Marven was being held by ferals who remained there after the MOB. One of silliest mistakes I've seen us make.

In any case, I respect your opinion of course, cheers for your input. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 00:39, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Not a fan. I follow your logic, but we seem to have different opinions on what we want out of the game. I had a lot more typed up, but can summarize it as follows: this game can be balanced in a number of different ways, based on what it is that is desired, and right now, I like the fact that it's balanced around small scale encounters favoring the survivors while large scale ones favor the hordes. It makes RP sense and keeps the game interesting (including for feral zombies, I believe, since I get plenty of eats when my dual nature character is dead, even though she doesn't follow any hordes around). I do think that zombie interference is overpowered, but I don't think that removing it entirely is the answer, especially so if you couple it with a damage increase, since that would just pressure people to join strike teams. —Aichon— 00:23, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Understood, thank you. Indeed, what each player wants out of the game is a personal opinion. I'm sure my good Cap'n Sednik's expectations are a lot closer to yours than mine. Personally, I don't mind if the game favours hordes in certain scenarios, but I believe survivors having absolutely no chance in those isn't healthy for the game. I'm not sure I follow your comment about strike teams.

My feral manages a break-in rather often, perhaps once every two days. Kills however are much rarer, I'd say it's probably once or twice a week. This for a full-skilled rotter. Considering that BHing I average about a kill a day, I really think feral zombies could use more hurt power to be as fun to play as a survivor. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 09:52, 1 June 2010 (BST)

As Aichon, I understand what you want to do but I don't think this is the way to go about it. Removing zombie interference entirely is asking for a revert of one of the most powerful changes to UrbanDead, and your increase to damage creates too many new problems (notably, does a Flak Jacket reduce the damage from a zombie (under current mechanics, it should)? And if zombies are doing more damage, and ferals are perfectly strong on their own--what incentive do survivors have for hanging around and engaging in seiges instead of running away (like they already do)? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:43, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Also thank you, Maverick. Indeed, this is reverting an important change introduced to make zombies more powerful. My point is that, in achieving that, hordes became unstoppable and, in that sense, if you allow me to abuse a math concept, the game has been "solved". Meaning an infallible winning strategy is available, and is simple enough to be implemented. Think tic-tac-toe, which is trivially solvable by all but the most naive players. Now I'm certainly not arguing that Urban Dead as a whole is "trivially solvable"; I'm arguing that a very important part of it is, and that detracts from the game's enjoyability.

I don't think I agree that "ferals are perfectly strong on their own". But in any case, the buff I propose for zombies is so extraordinary because I'm well aware that removing interference would weaken them a lot. Do you see why I think adjusting odds or damage are a change of a very different nature than interference? I believe fiddling with the numbers affects balance linearly; interference destroys the core survivor advantage in the game, making the actual numbers pretty much irrelevant.

The incentive I foresee for survivors hanging around is: once interference is removed, large-scale sieges become once again winnable by survivors. Perhaps very hard to win, but the possibility would exist. I believe survivors run away because it's been quite thoroughly demonstrated that, under the current mechanics, a large-scale siege can not be won, so what's the point in staying? (and before you or Ross come here to remind me of 404 feats: I'm well aware of those, and I also believe those are not reproducible by mere mortals :P).

As for flaks, I think they shouldn't have any effect. I'm trying to keep changes to a minimum: flaks should still make no difference against zombies, XP gained should still be the amount of damage inflicted, half XP for zed on zed, etc. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 09:52, 1 June 2010 (BST)

---

Beginners get percentage bonus on attacks

Timestamp: Gmanyo 17:29, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Type: Balance change

Scope: All newbie players

Description: I noticed that it is very difficult to attack things as a beginner, not necessarily because attacks do very little damage, but because your chances of hitting are so low. It makes it difficult for beginners to attain their first skill. I am suggesting that we add a 5% bonus on hit chance to all players who have not yet acquired another skill. This would only modify the chance of hitting, not the damage. For example, if a new player tried to punch something, they would have a 15% chance of hitting instead of 10%, but it would still only do 1 damage. The player would lose this after gaining their first skill. In other words, as soon as the player got one skill they would no longer have this bonus. The bonus would also count for zombie attacks. I think that this would help give newbie characters a kick start into the game. At the same time the bonus wouldn't be enough of a boost to keep people from leveling up to keep the bonus, because the benefits of a new skill would be greater than the benefits of the bonus.

Discussion (Beginners get percentage bonus on attacks)

Maybe. Most newbie zombies usually have some hard time killing humans on their first lvl so I think this is balanced as long as it is the first lvl.--Kralion 22:19, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Could help zergs, I'm not sure... More importantly, according to a random article I read on how MMORPGs are like Skinner Boxes, taking that hit percentage away from newbies could frustrate them (by making things appear to be harder) and increase the odds of a ragequit. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:14, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, I guess that might happen. It think it would have to be very clear that they would lose it; maybe a screen at the beginning of the game that tells them, and then another screen that tells them before they increase their skill level.Gmanyo 00:31, 27 May 2010 (BST)

Doesn't that seem like it makes the game so complicated at a time that many newbies are still trying to integrate? Plus, how many newbies gain EXPs through kills? I bet that at least a third of them or more use heals, DNA extractors, or another method. Why not simply half the cost of their first skill? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:42, 27 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, but it's just really disappointing as a new zombie when you spend 24 hours worth of AP attacking a barricade and you get 13XP for your troubles. Maybe the half thing would work.Gmanyo 00:47, 27 May 2010 (BST)

Just... no. First off, 1st level survivors shouldn't be attacking anything. With the exception of the old punch & FAK, which honestly isn't even necessary outside of a permadeath city anyways. Secondly, baby zombies aren't going to see a reasonable increase in abilities with just 5% at 1st level--AND they will then be angry when they lose it because lots of zombies take Lurching Gait as their second level skill so they can keep up with a mob vs. hit slightly more often. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:20, 27 May 2010 (BST)

But attacking things is what most people naturally do first, and certainly my favorite thing to do. I actually take back what I said about it just being about leveling up quicker: part of the reason is because of how tantalizing it is to have an attack or a weapon but not being able to use it almost at all. I think it would give new users a chance to do some legitimate attacking (not that they would do much damage, but at least they could hit things). My idea was that if you have a chance to get a new skill and you like attacking, you can get a weapon skill with a weapon you already have. If you don't care much for attacking, then they probably will not care for the loss (as long as they know beforehand!). And 5% isn't actually that small an increase: I would certainly consider using a weapon at 10%, but would never use my precious AP and/or bullets at 5%.

As a side note, I don't think that this should apply to flares or other non-weapon items with attack capabilities.Gmanyo 09:06, 27 May 2010 (BST)

Just because it is a natural response doesn't make it a smart thing to do. If I have a hornet buzzing around my head, the natural response is to swat at it--which is bad because that will just piss it off and then I get stung. Same thing applies here. Joe Survivor attacks Fred Zombie and doesn't kill him, but saves enough AP to find a VSB safehouse for the night. Fred Zombie has that exciting zombie skill that lets him follow Joe to his safehouse, tear down the cades, and eat him like the harman sandwich he is.

I'm not saying that your heart isn't in the right place, it's just that you're going about this the wrong way. Part of the reason survivor hit percentages are so low is to discourage attacking things until you purchase the skills; the odds of you actually killing your target are ridiculously low, so all you really do is doom yourself. Lots of zombies start as zombies, which gives them Vigor Mortis to boost their hit percentages off the bat (because let's be honest, attacking is pretty much the zombie forte). New and exciting ways to get players interested and keep them around is great... but I'm pretty sure this suggestion isn't one of them. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:30, 27 May 2010 (BST)

Hmm. You're right here. Plus, it could be used by bots.

But I still think we need something to give people a kickstart. I'm still pretty early on in the game, and it already feels like a grind (search, search, search, search, search, search, you found a FAK, search, search, you have no AP left, wait 24 more hours, search some more; I'm sorry, but that does not make me want to continue playing). Im thinkin' the half XP for first skill thing might work. Maybe. I know that technically we're getting into different suggestions altogether, but I think that this is an appropriate brainstorming location.

I also think something needs to be done on a larger basis for the grinding bits of this game, like searching, but that's for another section. Gmanyo 15:14, 27 May 2010 (BST)

The original definition of zerging was creating characters for one day of use, but because they could start in most any suburb and have terrible hit rates, the term fused with alt abuse. My main objection to this idea is that it would partially undo this, helping people who get lucky with their starting location to zerg rush a particular target with troubling efficiency.

Also, when you start you first character, you don't need high hit rates. At first, your to busy sleeping inside to think about such complex matters. A few days later, you start to think ahead somewhat, and by then you almost have your first skill. It's only a few weeks in that you start to want to impact Malton, and by then, you already have the skills you need to do so. You grow fast enough as it is, to speed it up would take some of the fun out of being new. --VVV ^RPMBG 07:10, 29 May 2010 (BST)

I haven't thought through it much yet, but would someone stockpiling EXP be able to abuse this suggestion at all? As in, you don't have to buy a skill right when you get the EXP, so are there situations where someone could prolong this advantage beyond its intended use by stockpiling rather than purchasing? As I said, I haven't thought it through, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there to see if anyone could come up with a situation where it'd get abused. —Aichon— 07:17, 29 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, it would. I don't think that this particular idea would work too well (though that could be solved by taking away the bonus as soon as they get a certain abount of XP, probably 125). But I still think that new users need to be drawn in more. Gmanyo 11:09, 29 May 2010 (BST)

---

Burning Down The House

Timestamp: Captain Howdy 09:25, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Type:

Scope: Buildings

Description: Having a Fuel Can in your Inventory while inside a building gives you a new button: Start Fire. This action consumes 5 AP and 1 Fuel Can. You cannot start a fire inside a building that has Survivors or Zombies inside; as they will stop you. Preforming this action has a 50% to Burn you, causeing 30 HP of damage. After starting a fire your next action must be Movement or you will automatically suffer 30 HP worth of damage. So there is a chance you could suffer 60 HP if you dont leave. The effect of burning the building is the same as Ruin. Once you have left the building after starting the fire the building acts as any other ruin and can be entered as normal.

Discussion (Burning Down The House)

Yee-haw! No death-cultists don't need infections anymore to create pinatas, just an empty EHB barn and a fuel can. And they can keep going without needing a fresh revive afterwards. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:59, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Yep, this would be a massive buff to death cultists. The fact that they could keep doing it without needing a revive means that they could stock up on fuel cans and then go on an arson spree that could easily wipe out a good portion of the emptier suburbs, leaving loads of difficult to deal with piñatas in their wake. Piñatas need to be a fringe tactic, not an everyday thing, since they're a real bear for survivors to deal with sometimes. —Aichon— 20:58, 26 May 2010 (BST)

How would the people make a fire? they need something to light it and I dont think there are a lot of matches in this Zombie Apocalypse.--Kralion 22:17, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Just keep it simple. Allow fuel cans to be used to start a ruin in an empty building for 6 AP by a survivor who also has the Ransack skill, using up the can. Ruin for harmanz, with the addition of an item adding extra AP to the cost to keep it balanced out. 22:19, 26 May 2010 (BST)

I didnt really liked this suggestion but Misanthropy version made it fair enough.--Kralion 22:41, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Except that it'd still mean they could go on a piñata rampage in quick succession, which isn't possible right now. They'd essentially be overpowered. —Aichon— 00:41, 27 May 2010 (BST)

This (Mis's) idea could be balanced out by destroying all barricades in the process. It would make sense flavour-wise because let's face it, a fire that can effectively destroy a building will take down furniture and things blocking the door too. ONLY if this tactic destroyed barricades could I ever see this passing on a vote. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:23, 27 May 2010 (BST)

I still think it's overpowered, no matter how you cut it. Consider the options:

1. With VSB and EHB barricades, the zombie must spend exorbitant amounts of AP up front without knowing if the building is empty, it'd take 40AP (VSB) and 84AP (EHB) on average to down the barricades, and another 6AP to ruin, for a total of 46AP or 90AP. The zombie can attack another target immediately.
2. For current death cultists, it takes 30AP to kill yourself after rising with an infection, and 6 more to ruin, for a total of 36AP. Before you can strike again though, you or your buds would need to spend about 30AP to get you back up and running again, so the total is actually more like 66AP, regardless of barricades. You also get the benefit of not having to spend your AP up front and the ability to create piñatas.
3. If we go with this suggestion, it takes roughly 16AP to scrounge a fuel can and 6 to burn the building, for a total of 22AP. You can attack again immediately, you don't have to spend AP up front to see if your target is even viable for ruining, and you could have stocked up on fuel cans, allowing you to hit multiple targets in quick succession.

So, no matter how you look at it, you're gonna be spending FAR less AP than you would currently and receiving a FAR more potent attack. Having the ability to piñata was just insult to injury, but even with taking the barricades down, you're essentially buffing death cultsists by giving them an alternative to parachuting that costs not even half as much, can be done many times in a row, and makes them downright overpowered. Parachuting was already very powerful, but it was inconvenient. This would give them something more powerful and more convenient, which makes no sense to me. —Aichon— 06:57, 27 May 2010 (BST)

I had not thought about the AP imbalance as such; good catch. Well then on the SLIM chance that this is still salvageable, what about having the AP cost of a Burning Ruin = 10AP+2AP for every level of barricade? So ruining a VSB+2 building would cost 30AP, and ruining an EHB+1 would cost 46AP. At the level where piñatas are really a pain it isn't the most AP efficient way, but it saves the death cultist the need to get a revive (unless their zombie friends eat them). And, obviously, still keeping the original chance of damage (50% chance for 30HP damage for creating the ruin, another 30HP damage if the character's next AP is not spent on movement). --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:10, 27 May 2010 (BST)

Well, mechanics-wise, I think the numbers you suggest balance out decently well (well enough that I'm not going to quibble for now), but there are still some big issues. For one, it makes no flavor sense for why it would cost more (fire spreads either way, so what does it matter if the door is barricaded?). And second, it's horribly complicated and makes no intuitive sense to someone who would be playing. You couldn't succinctly explain this idea in the same way you could, say, the cost for repairing ruins. While that's not a deal breaker by itself, I think of it as an indication of an overcomplicated mechanic. Something simpler would be preferable. —Aichon— 07:20, 27 May 2010 (BST)

If you want flavour, well... umm... you could say that it costs more AP because you have to spend more time/energy soaking up all those levels of barricades? *nervous laughter* I don't know. You were making AP discrepancy arguments, so that's where I went. You never said it had to make sense!

tl;dr -- Damnit Jim, I'm only a doctor! --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:27, 27 May 2010 (BST)

I don't like this. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:45, 27 May 2010 (BST)

---

Revive Recovery

Timestamp: Captain Howdy 09:04, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Type:

Scope: Revived players

Description: Standing up from a Revive costs +10 AP. So players without Ankle grab would pay 20 to Stand after a Revive and players with Ankle Grab would pay 11 to Stand after a Revive. This will discourage suicide in the form of repairs, meatsheilding, etc.

Discussion (Revive Recovery)

Also discourages new players from playing the game.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:01, 26 May 2010 (BST)

So lower it to +5. Then a new Survivor can pay 15 and not be any more discouraged than a new zombie getting Headshot. :P Except of course that its a million times easier for a Survivor to get the XP they need for Ankle Grab.--Captain Howdy 18:13, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Except this suggestion is the reason ankle grab was put in. Understand the game before you demand that you're right.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:23, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Right. So only zombies should be discouraged.--Captain Howdy 18:27, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Hell no. Do not make the game less fun. - User:Whitehouse 18:16, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Unless you're a zombie. Then make the game a little fun as possible :P--Captain Howdy 18:23, 26 May 2010 (BST)

This makes the game less fun for EVERYONE.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:23, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Not for zombies. It just levels the 'less fun' out for Survivors too.--Captain Howdy 18:27, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Combat revies will now also drain 10AP from zombies. Doubt they will love that. - User:Whitehouse 18:28, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, so I think it should only be +5 now. It would be worth it I think. I'm so used to paying 6 to stand I doubt I'd even notice.--Captain Howdy 18:30, 26 May 2010 (BST)

It wouldn't. It would stop people playing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:38, 26 May 2010 (BST)

You need to understand the game before making comments.--Captain Howdy 18:40, 26 May 2010 (BST)

I have three fully-levelled characters, have been in the game for three years, and have been an active member of this suggestions system for over a year, with a suggestion in peer reviewed. Your suggestion is atrocious, and will only cause more problems in the game. Stop trolling and accept that it won't work.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:43, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Whatever. You think only zombies should suffer this 'atrocious' effect and no matter how many characters you play you're arguing from a purely dedicated survivor point of view. You're a biased idiot and I'm done with you. Not to mention that you have stop using logic and fallen into the logical fallacy of Appeal to authority--Captain Howdy 18:47, 26 May 2010 (BST)

You're a newb, but please, fuck off. --Thadeous Oakley 18:55, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Logical fallacy: Ad hominem.--Captain Howdy 18:57, 26 May 2010 (BST)

I'm sorry, is calling someone an idiot not ad hominem now?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:58, 26 May 2010 (BST)

The difference is that I already made my argument. You never did. The entirety of your argument has been Appeal to authority up to this point.--Captain Howdy 19:01, 26 May 2010 (BST)

What, my argument that it would make the game less fun by limiting playability was an authority argument?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:03, 26 May 2010 (BST)

So why do you ignore my point that zombies already suffer this 'less fun' aspect and simply state your 'credentials' as proof enough. Why is it ok for you that zombies can pay 15 to 6 to stand but its not ok for Survivors. Your argument only applies to survivors(this is why I say you are biased), while ignoring that zombies already suffer the effects of this. I would have expected you to say that the reviver must pay 10 already, which would be the logical counter. However, not only is this is an easy get around for cheaters, but Zombies don't get 'old hands' to absorb all those Headshot AP costs. Why should Survivors. I think the cost should be spread between the two players. I'm only asking for fairness.--Captain Howdy 19:11, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Do survivors stand up as survivors? If not, GTFO, troll.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:13, 26 May 2010 (BST)

If you can't form a complete thought, fine. Have a nice day.--Captain Howdy 19:23, 26 May 2010 (BST)

I have two zombie characters, one of whom is in a giant seige right now, and the other is in a safe suburb creating a pinata. Send this to voting if you want, but it'll be spaminated within the day.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:56, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum.--Captain Howdy 18:58, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Question Why do you want to discourage suicide and meatshielding? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:19, 26 May 2010 (BST)

I want to make it cost something for the person who does it, not just his reviver. Zombies can't count on old players to absorb their Headshot costs, so I don't think Survivors should either. The current system that piles all of the revive costs on another player invites cheating. This might make a player think a little more about the costs of 'senseless actions' like suicide. No one(or very few) would willingly allow themselves to be killed painfully and I'd like to see that simulated to some degree. The costs to walk to an RP can be a bothersome, but a dedicated survivor can always go life cultist, killing other zombies and such while waiting. In groups this can be easy enough to get around: "I spent all my AP killing other zombies, come revive me at X location." Or in the case of cheaters, they can just take revive alts straight to their dead alts location and negate all the walking costs.--Captain Howdy 19:32, 26 May 2010 (BST)

How is suicide senseless? I've missed the point somewhere. At the minute If I'm standing at a revive point and get revived it costs me 1 ap to stand up again. Under your suggestion it would cost me 11ap. How does that aid survivors? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:41, 26 May 2010 (BST)

I assume you're being facetious.--Captain Howdy 20:12, 26 May 2010 (BST)

No, not at all. Are you suggesting this as an aid to zombies? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:24, 26 May 2010 (BST)

I'm suggesting it as a balancing effect on the AP costs survivors pay vs the AP costs zombies pay to Stand, and as an anti-cheat measure as its too easy for Survivors to abuse the system to negate the revive costs on their Main with alts.--Captain Howdy 20:33, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Also, suicide is generally difficult for people to commit as every natural impulse rebels against it. Standing in a building and waiting to die a horrible death through claws and teeth would be extremely difficult for the average person to commit to. Adding an additional cost to death might help simulate the natural aversion people would have towards it.--Captain Howdy 20:34, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Simply put this makes combat reviving (already the most ap efficient way remove to zombie from a building) even more effective. A single survivor can already clear a ruined NT with four rotters inside with a single days ap. All this does is reduce the chances of those zombies reclaiming the building, by penalising them further. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:25, 26 May 2010 (BST)

The suggestion is fundamentally broken. Survivors already pay more for revives than zombies, by quite a wide margin, but you're not considering all of the costs (for reasons that I can only interpret as being self-serving...yes, ad hominem, oh no). You conveniently tried to switch the argument to be only about the revivee, not the reviver, but it's not about that at all, since this is a multiplayer game and reviving is a group effort in many cases. It already costs survivors ~48-66 AP to revive and recover. At worst, for zombies (whose numbers are also given in that link), it's not even half that, and at best, it's as little as 1/20 of that. Zombies already pay less than survivors, but you've chosen to not consider all of the costs for both sides.

But that's not as big an issue as the nature of these changes, which will end up hurting both sides quite badly (i.e. in ways that could break or ruin the game). At the high levels, this change will absolutely punish Death Cultists or non-Rotted zombies, while also hurting your everyday survivors, who, as I pointed out, already pay more for revives than zombies (anything that hurts a group is in need of strong justification since we should be making the game more fun, not less), but at low levels it will be unbearable for pre-Rot zombies, given how frequently they get revived in combat (it's the most AP efficient way to deal with them). So you'll be making the game less fun for newbies, especially zombies, will force zombies' hand on the Brain Rot decision (or else abandon them to dealing with costly revives frequently), will give survivors an improved version of what is already their best tactic, and will hit survivors in their Achilles Heel while offering them no alternative solution. Regardless of who gets hit harder by this change, I think it's safe to say that everyone loses. —Aichon— 20:45, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Well, lowering it to +5 AP would change little for high levels, the same 15 or 6 as per usual. It may hit the newbie harder though as a zombie player I'm used to standing up for 15/6 every time I log in. It's much easier for Survivors to hide though, but as a zombie you pretty much wake up to a Headshot every day. I think it would encourage Survivors to actually survive. They would see life as precious and not take their death into account as a 'tactic' so much. It would make life a lot harder for those who claim some building and try to hold it at any cost, dying and being revived in order to cram the place with HP. But the player that tries to, you know, survive would be mobile and avoid zombies as much as possible. While all of these extra costs you speak of a real, most of them can be negated through other players doing it for you or cheating. Survivor have a lot more options with the ability to help each other. Zombies cannot 'feed on a corpse' for other zombies and the like. They can't adsorb their Headshot costs like survivors absorb the 10 AP revive cost for their new players. At the very least I congratulate you on being able to form a coherent argument.--Captain Howdy 21:03, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Wanted to quickly direct your attention to the last point here as well. I'll take a look through what you just said in a moment. —Aichon— 21:07, 26 May 2010 (BST)

While all of these extra costs you speak of a real, most of them can be negated through other players doing it for you or cheating - Arguing that cheating renders something useless is a baseless argument, since that could be said for almost anything in the game. By its nature, cheating is a way of breaking the game, so it's redundant to point out that it does so in this case too. Also, as you said later, they're not negated, they're merely absorbed by someone else; the cost still exists. The paradigmatic example you're offering is of a group effort to revive others as they die, but then you seem unwilling to consider the costs to the group as a whole. The survivors are already paying for those revives (hand over fist, I'll add), and if you want to hit them where it hurts, you can already hit their syringe supplies to cripple them. Making a change like this would merely change the critical mass necessary to support the tactic, not end it (and it's already a losing tactic anyway if you're relying on it to survive in the long term, so you can expect that if they're clueless enough to use it now they'd continue using it regardless of these changes). —Aichon— 21:41, 26 May 2010 (BST)

This will seriously make sieges more faster and less rewarding as most survivors would ran away rather than staying to fight. All the high lvl zombies would break in and kill most of the people leaving nothing for the newbie zeds that now need to run to the nearest siege again only to see the same happening.--Kralion 22:08, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Listen: you're a verbose asshole. I can respect that being quite circumlocutory myself, and at times a bit of a prick on a bad day (or all the time depending on who you're asking). However, you are also an idiot whose suggestion sucks, and whose useless dumb pride is preventing him from using DS the way it was intended. Shut up, listen to these people who are much smarter and more experienced than you, and go away before I break out the pretty pictures to explain this simple concept. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:19, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Since both Rosslessness and Aichon played the good cop/constructive criticism role, I will step up and play bad cop.

1. You're an idiot.
2. You obviously have not played the game for very long, NOR have you spent any amount of time looking at the wiki to see where the game has come from. If you had, you would see that what you are essentially asking for is the removal of the Ankle Grab zombie skill; a skill which everyone playing this game will agree was a good addition.
3. Seriously. Idiot.
4. Cheaters? REALLY? You're trying to justify the pain of this idea as a detriment to people who cheat (which in UD is better known as zerging). Let me hit you with an ACME sized weight of fact:: zergers couldn't care less about this suggestion. They don't care if it costs them 10AP, 20AP, or 35AP to stand up. Why? Because they have numerous alts to revive each other and cause mayhem! That's part of the definition of a zerger: having lots of characters that help each other out.
5. Did I mention that you're an idiot?

Tell you what, I'll play ball. In fact, I invite you to man up, pull your head out of your ass and take this suggestion to voting so you can see what a WONDERFUL suggestion you're making. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:38, 27 May 2010 (BST)

[High-fives Maverick] Though I did step up to play bad cop first, I'm not a competitive sort, and the sooner this moron shuts up, the better it is for all of the wiki. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:54, 27 May 2010 (BST)

[Returns the high-five] Sorry, dude I totally missed your bad cop until after I had posted. tl;dr on my part. But I agree, can't have enough bad cops for a suggestion like this. Almost makes me want to go get a pitchfork and a torch, you know? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:57, 28 May 2010 (BST)

What about my enormous bad cop introduction? :( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:29, 28 May 2010 (BST)

You weren't angry enough. You were... disgruntled cop, or something. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:31, 28 May 2010 (BST)

Your anger was spaced out over a long debate. We're not here to negotiate, we're here to deliver ultimatums. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:13, 28 May 2010 (BST)

While this suggestion is ostensibly created for the purpose of aiding zombies by hurting survivors; it would actually help survivors by making their best weapon, the combat revive, even more crippling to a zombie (Seriously. Why do people use guns and axes so much? Just save enough ammo for 2-3 kills to only be used on rotters and DCs. Scan First! Use your new inventory space for syringes to clear out the regular zombies). My survivor characters would love this, but I would vote kill, as I have my zombie characters to think about as well.--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 03:45, 28 May 2010 (BST)

---

Rename "Fire Axe" to "Axe"

Timestamp: CorndogheroT-S-Z 11:36, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Type: small textual adjustment

Scope: Anyone who uses or comes in contact with axes

Description: Instead of appearing as "Fire Axe" in the inventory, the item currently known as "Fire Axe" would simply be known as "Axe". This allows for some ambiguity as to whether one is using a fire axe, a hatchet, a medieval battleaxe, a woodcutting axe, et cetera.

Discussion (Rename "Fire Axe" to "Axe")

Kitchen knife was renamed to "knife" because of the veritable plethora of places where it could be found, it made zero sense for them all to be kitchen knives. The fire axe though is well named as last time I checked there is only one type of axe that would make sense to be found in those places. People usually don't store their battleaxe in auto repair shops. -Devorac 13:16, 12 May 2010 (BST)

I think, think, this is a dupe. I'd suggest checking for this if you ever decide to take it to voting. --

 

 

 

 

13:24, 12 May 2010 (BST)

As a medieval re-enactor, I personnally store my battleaxe in my garage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murdoc (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

In all honesty, a fire axe is the only thing that makes sense to crop up with such regularity in a city. 14:00, 12 May 2010 (BST)

How about renaming it to Fire Ax.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:14, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Because that's not a word. 14:46, 12 May 2010 (BST)

The dictionary I checked (Oxford) disagrees with you. It's a valid alternate spelling. —Aichon— 00:27, 13 May 2010 (BST)

You new worlders and your disappearing letters. Given that the game users "colour" uniformly I can't see "ax" being added. 13:08, 13 May 2010 (BST)

Well, to be fair, I wasn't actually sure if it was an American thing or not. I checked Wikipedia though, and it says that both spellings are valid in the US, which is what I always figured, since I've used "axe" most of the time. I was aware that some Americans actually take the two spellings to have slightly different meanings, though I can never keep track of which is which. —Aichon— 19:34, 13 May 2010 (BST)

Based on that new piece of information I am now going to assume that American mechanics use renches and anyone with a wrench wishes me harm. 00:34, 16 May 2010 (BST)

I want an "Axe of Fire"! But really, I can't imagine there being that many variations of axes in Malton. The one variation I can imagine would be the sort you take with you when you go camping. - User:Whitehouse 14:29, 12 May 2010 (BST)

I am not Iscariot --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:42, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Wow, nearly exactly a year.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:05, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Would it be a dupe if we changed the suggestion to "Rename Fire Axe to Firefighter's Axe"?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:29, 13 May 2010 (BST)

Badoomching. --VVV ^RPMBG 21:29, 15 May 2010 (BST)

a) It's spelled "axe" you gorram backwards colonials! Oh... wait... I'm a backwards colonial, too. Nevermind... ;) b) Fire axes are found all over the place: "Break glass in case of emergency" type things... It's perfectly realistic to leave it as is. --WanYao 22:01, 18 May 2010 (BST)

I actually would rather not do this. I enjoy having the game less generic: the "fire axe" gives an image of a bloodstained, two-handed axe salvaged from some fire department. Saying "axe" would be boring. Plus, it works better with the fireman. Gmanyo 17:59, 26 May 2010 (BST)

---

Shove Zombies

Timestamp: Scvideoking 02:58, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Survivors

Description:OK se we all know a zombie can grab us and drag us to street level at some point right? well how about survivors can shove zombies out windows? I mean its realistic and a bit more fair. This would have the same use as a weapon except if you succeded text would be You grab the zombie by the neck and shove it with all your might out the nearest window Heres are examples You are stading in x the building is dark there is 2 zombies here(AP would be 10 to shove one out of the dark building) You are standing in x the building unlit There is 1 zombie here(5 AP to shove out) Youu are standing in x the building is lit There is 1 zombie here(3 AP) What happens to the zombie? he is forced to street level You could also be brought with the zombie(Cause its pretty damn hard to get one off you) Credit to maverick though i did make some adjustments 15% you shove the zombie out the window 75% you and the zombie both go out the window 10% you miss the zombie and fall out the window if you fall out with it you suffer -5 HP without The zombie you die This also isnt something EVERYONE can do you must get the skill witch would be a misc skill Not an insta kill if u shove them out of a window

Discussion (Shove Zombies)

I think you need to learn to follow the instructions at the top of this page, rather than thinking you can outsmart them by just copy/pasting from someone else (I had to fix it for you, just as someone has to for almost every suggestion you make). I also think it's a horribly overpowered idea. You're essentially giving survivors an insta-kill against zombies that always works and will cost 5ap or less in most cases. Currently, the cheapest way to remove a zombie from a building is to revive it, which costs 10AP for the revive, an average of 12AP for the searching, 1AP for the body dump, and some unknown amount of AP for travel to and from the NT facility. So, you're suggesting we go from the best method being, say, 30AP to 5AP, and you see nothing wrong with this at all? —Aichon— 03:27, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Did you read this correctly Aichon? there is no INSTA-kill you just shove them out a nearby window and since they are already dead they lose no HP plus if u revive a zombie there is a chance they will just PK u.--Scvideoking 22:08, 11 May 2010 (BST)scvideoking

I read it correctly (back before you removed the text). It said What happens to the zombie? he is forced to street level and needs to stand up HP loss is 2 for they are already dead. Since I couldn't make sense of the "HP loss is 2" part (I thought you were saying that they lost all of their HP too), it sounded an awful lot like an insta-kill attack. Anyway, as was pointed out, throwing a zombie outside is as good as killing them anyway. Whereas survivors lose a lot of AP having to get revived, zombies lose it when they have to break into a building. Insta-kill or not, it's overpowered to ludicrous levels. —Aichon— 00:18, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Yes this is entirely equal to feeding drag. Perhaps better adherence to barricade plans, HIPS, damn tactics, Sutherland's, or any number of good tactical doctrines expounded on this wiki would mean that you'd be better prepared to HOLY FUCKING SHIT A ZOMBIE WE ARE SO SHITTERED 03:33, 10 May 2010 (BST)

The only way I would get behind this is if the attack rates were as follows:

• 10% you shove the zombie out the window
• 10% you and the zombie both go out the window
• 80% you miss the zombie and fall out the window

Naturally, if the survivor goes out the window, s/he dies as per usual. Then MAYBE I could get behind this. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:00, 10 May 2010 (BST)

I would definitely vote keep with the percentages above. Make it a 1AP action, too. Also, make it the survivor default attack. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:43, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Okay, I'll bite and give serious feedback. Change the above numbers to 10% each and the remaining 70% doing nothing and I could vote for it... As long as the following were all added:

• It's a new skill requiring maxed hand to hand.
• It only kills if you were in tall buildings with less than VS barricades
• It only causes 5 damaged if used from any other building (and even then can only be used if no cades are present.
• but most importantly... it was an alternative skill to headshot. Thats right, one or the other but not both. --Honestmistake 17:08, 10 May 2010 (BST)

What about people who have headshot and want zombie shove instead?--V darkstar 19:33, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Fuck them! --Honestmistake 00:53, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Oh okay.... I suppose we could just have kevan recode the database to refund the xp cost to every player with headshot? --Honestmistake 00:55, 11 May 2010 (BST)

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but on the off-chance you are, it'd only take a one-line SQL command to the database to refund the XP. Anyone familiar with relational tables and SQL could probably write you the code in a minute or two. —Aichon— 00:29, 12 May 2010 (BST)

This is an awful concept as presented, but I can think of a couple of changes to make it worthwhile. In fact, I'm not entirely opposed to the whole concept if it's modified properly.

First, Feeding Drag requires that the victim be low on health... down to 13 HP, actually. I see no reason that the same restriction shouldn't apply to Shove. You shouldn't be able to shove a reasonably healthy zombie out the door, both for realism and game play purposes.

Second, I think it should be a standard attack on the dropdown menu appearing like Feeding Drag, and have a % chance of success or failure just like other attacks.

Third, your system of varied AP cost to shove depending on building type and condition is weird and unappealing. It shouldn't cost more than 1 AP, regardless of building type. I do think that some sort of modifier is appropriate for building conditions, but not an AP modifier. More likely a % chance of success modifier, or a chance for the zombie to retaliate with one or more bite auto-attacks (Yes, I know, "no auto-attacks". I don't care. I think it's a good idea in this case. We're talking about someone trying to greco-roman wrestle a zombie through a door... the odds of a bite would be gigantic and merit an auto-attack, and more than one if you're trying to do it in the dark).

Fourth, I like Maverick's idea of the player possibly ending up outside with or instead of the zombie, but not his implementation. I think it's perfectly reasonable that you should likely end up outside, but that shouldn't hurt on its own, and you can just spend another 1 AP to go back inside. A minor feature, nearly meaningless, but kind of nice and good flavor.

Fifth, I don't see the point of this costing the zombie any health or knocking him down. It's a shove. It takes 5 shotgun blasts to knock a healthy zombie down, and you want to hurt him and knock him down with a shove? Don't be ridiculous. Besides, zombies only fall down when they're at 0 HP, for reasons seen on this page many times in the past, and always rise with full health.

These changes would result in your example looking more like this:

• You are stading in x the building is dark

there is 2 zombies here - attack option - Shove 1 out- 1 AP, 25% of normal chance of success, zombie gets 2 bite auto attacks, 90% chance you are dragged outside with the zombie

• You are standing in x the building unlit

There is 1 zombie here - attack option - Shove 1 out- 1 AP, 66% of normal chance of success, zombie gets 1 bite auto attack, 75% chance you are dragged outside with the zombie

• You are standing in x the building is lit

There is 1 zombie here- attack option - Shove 1 out- 1 AP, 100% of normal chance of success, zombie gets 1 bite auto attack, 50% chance you are dragged outside with the zombie

Of course, this requires figuring out what the "normal chance of success" should be. I think it should be fairly low, since it's hard to shove anyone through any door. Ever tried it? It's pretty damn hard if they don't want to go. But it could also open up a new hand-to-hand branch on the skill tree for improvement in this. If it's just a set skill with no hope of improvement, I'd suggest maybe a 25% chance. If it becomes its own branch on the skill tree with room for improvement, I'd suggest less, maybe 10-20%. That'd give room for more skills to improve it. Or it could be enhanced by Body Building, so that the skills could become complimentary.

I think that with these modifications, or something like them, this could provide an interesting alternative for daring survivors to remove low-HP zombies from a building rather than spending the AP on attacks to finish them and dump the bodies. I wouldn't expect it to pass a vote, though, and I'm betting that someone shows poor reading comprehension and/or ends up CNR by claiming that what I'm proposing is a 100% chance of success in lit buildings rather than not having a penalty on their normal attack rate of somewhere around 10-25%. So let's be clear, the % chances listed in the examples are suggestions of modifiers to their normal % chance of attack success, not their actual % chance to succeed at this. Just in case anyone reads this far. Which they probably won't, at least not attentively.

And while I'm here, where ideas go to die, I've been wondering about something unrelated. When a survivor climbs up a tall building and jumps off, he dies. He then has to stand up, and is at full zombie HP. When a zombie does the same, he doesn't even fall down, and his HP aren't renewed. Why? Is there any point to this? It seems like it's deliberate, because it runs contrary to the rest of gameflow. Low-HP zombies can kill one another to avoid headshot, why can't they climb and jump to do the same? I figured I'd ask a group of people whose experience rationalizing and justifying poor game features that put zombies at a disadvantage is truly staggering, so I came here. It's definitely a minor issue, but it's got me curious, and perhaps one of you can provide an actual reason.--Necrofeelinya 00:54, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Basically its because getting someone else to kill you to avoid headshot requires co-operation and timing while an action that allows you to do it without help is much easier to abuse. --Honestmistake 00:57, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, but it doesn't matter when zombies die. They just get up again. Closing off a minor game exploit like that with a feature that runs contrary to common sense while leaving open the options of Whack'N'Fak, VSB ruins, pro-human zombies, etc. doesn't make sense to me. I'm wondering if there's a reason that goes beyond that. After all, for a zombie to seek out a tall building, enter, climb, jump and rise again would usually take a certain amount of AP... often more than just eating the headshot. Can you think of any other reason that zombies committing suicide might negatively affect gameplay?--Necrofeelinya 01:07, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Yes. So a zombie doesn't just enter, jump out, stand up, and re-enter any time he takes down the barricades of a tall building. That's what feeding on corpses is for. Getting other zombies to kill you is a really unavoidable side effect of a system which doesn't prohibit life cultism. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:53, 11 May 2010 (BST)

So the whole purpose of this is to prevent lone ferals low on HP from breaking into the occasional tall building, finding harmans, spending AP to climb, jump, stand and reenter instead of just attacking right away, and holding position with 50 or 60 HP while groaning for help instead of whatever HP they had before? It's not hard enough to kill and dump a lone zombie, even at full health, for that to seem like much reason to code in such a fashion as to prevent zombies from suicide. All this does is help nerf the already-largely-nerfed feral and baby zombies. It has no effect on any group larger than 2, and it looks like the likelihood of it having a serious in-game effect is next to nil. I'm beginning to wonder if it's just an oversight on Kevan's part, where for some reason the "jump" option was only coded to affect survivors, but on the face of it, it seems deliberate.--Necrofeelinya 03:38, 11 May 2010 (BST)

"zombie gets 2 bite auto attacks" NO AUTO-ATTACKS this has been proven to be unbalanced and unfair to the gameplay, just look it up on the frequently suggested.--V darkstar 13:40, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Before getting your hackles up you might want to actually look into past precedent, I know of at least one auto-attack that is sitting in peer reviewed. -Devorac 19:16, 11 May 2010 (BST)

I'd also like to point out that in this instance, an auto-attack is far less dangerous than a regular attack. If I'm a survivor, which do I prefer? Getting hit with an auto-attack by a logged-off player, or getting hit with a full-on assault by a logged in zombie while I'm logged off? If I get bitten by an auto-attack, I can spend the rest of my AP fleeing and healing before the zombie even wakes up. It's not that big a deal. The most it's likely to do is startle me and possibly trick me into fleeing out of fear that the zombie player is also logged on and might continue attacking, which still doesn't prevent me from fleeing and healing even if he is logged on. In a regular attack, the survivor is asleep and gets teed off on until the zombie runs out of AP.

The ban on auto-attacks is to prevent things like land mines, where the player is unaware that the attack might be forthcoming and the damage may be severe. In this case, the player knows the attack might occur, and chooses whether or not to risk it. It's both voluntary to risk it and extremely limited in potential damage (unless the survivor is stupid enough to shove without a FAK and gets infected, in which case he deserves to die). Besides, there's already an auto-attack implemented in-game. When you free run into ruins you fall to the ground and injure yourself. That's effectively an auto-attack. It hasn't had any noticeable effect on game balance. And as far as I'm concerned, even with my suggestions adopted to change it, this is still just basically a survivor buff, albeit an interesting one. The only question is whether the auto-attack should cost the zombie AP, to which I say no. I think the effect is minor, and it's generally not considered a good idea to mess with players' AP... they might prefer to use it another way, such as attacking when they actually have a chance of killing someone. No need for the auto-attack to use any AP, especially since the survivor is coming to them.--Necrofeelinya 01:02, 12 May 2010 (BST)

I agree with what maverick said--Scvideoking 21:48, 11 May 2010 (BST)scvideoking

I'm afraid that, even though you insist it isn't an instant kill, it is. Zombies, having no ability to die, instead experience death by being kicked out of buildings and made to stand up. That's their equivalent of death. Your suggestions includes both as part of the attack.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:29, 11 May 2010 (BST)

If you fall ou will land on your back our face up and since a zombie can still control the body but quite poorly i may add they would have to stand up--Scvideoking 22:47, 11 May 2010 (BST)scvideoking

Your formatting sucks and I had to fix your comment for you; your idea is completely idiotic and shows both a complete lack of experience as a zombie and a total inability to read what people who know what they're talking about have written; your suggestion is a stupid, over-powered instant kill that hurts zombies even more than normal death by preventing them from responding with a timely rise. Your idea would break the game, end playing as a zombie, decide all sieges in survivor favor, and destroy Urban Dead as we know it. Wise up or I get the pretty pictures to better explain this simple concept. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:08, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Lelouch i Know it sucks as told to me by aichon another sysop so please read the disscussion before telling me things i already know as for the signature i hit the button then typen my name as the wiki does not have(of my knowledge) a guide for new users to the wiki as of my suggestion this is not a way for survivors to become better than zombies it is in a way fair tho even though we can cade buildings and send broadcasts zombies have many numbers and many more skills than the survivors Where as this is where a player with said skill can shove a zombie out of a building but there is the possiblity of them going out the window w/ them and another possibility is you could miss and fall out then die. i am not sure the rules for sysops but i think(not sure) is that they are kind to new wiki users and explain what they did wrong this is a wiki and most of all this is a game in my opionion the game is not good and needs some major work done on several levels but that is my opinion I play it because i am bored and its something that can take about 30 min of time.--scvideoking —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scvideoking (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Leluch isn't a sysop, and no, sysops arn't required to be nice to newbies (even though most are). As you can see here, zombies do not have "many numbers", they are in the minority, always. One critical point you don't seem to get here, is that zombies don't really care about dying, except when that means they get dumped out of the building they are trying to clear out. That's the only reason zombies care about HP. Getting pushed out of a building without having to be killed or revived, then, is a big blow to deal for very little risk, unless you do it the way the guys above say (in jest) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:22 14 May 2010 (BST)

I didn't say it sucked. I said it was horribly overpowered. It's an interesting idea, but needs a lot of work if it's going to avoid being spaminated when/if it gets put up for a vote. I'm definitely a bit more brusque when I comment on this page, just because there's a lot of cruft on here and I don't like it to steal the attention from good ideas. That said, I do try to be friendlier when dealing one-on-one with people. As a side note, my role as sysop has virtually nothing to do with my opinions here, so don't take my word as law or treat me as anything special, because I'm not. When it comes to most pages on the wiki, I'm just a guy, ya know? —Aichon— 05:56, 14 May 2010 (BST)

This is very simple and the wall of text above was totally unnecessary... Survivors have bazillions of very AP-efficient means to kill and/or neutralise zombies. They do not need another one. It is therefore not "fair" or "balanced" to let survivors push zambahz outside just because zambahz possess feeding drag. By that logic, survivors should have infectious ammo, as well. --WanYao 22:03, 18 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, I'm sayin' we kill this one. It seems unnecessary, and wouldn't make the gameplay any better. Gmanyo 18:05, 26 May 2010 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Feeding Drag Change moved to Suggestion talk:20100531 Feeding Drag Change

Increase variety of useful melee weapons moved to Suggestion talk:20100519 Increase variety of useful melee weapons