Developing Suggestions
| NOTICE |
| The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process.
However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions. |
Developing Suggestions
This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.
It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.
Further Discussion
- Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
- Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.
Resources
How To Make a Discussion
Adding a New Discussion
To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.
Adding a New Suggestion
- To add a new suggestion proposal, copy the code in the box below.
- Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.
- Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
- Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.
- The process is illustrated in this image.
{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}
- Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
- Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change.
- Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
- Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.
Cycling Suggestions
- Suggestions with no new discussion in the past month may be cycled without notice.
Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list
Suggestions
Encumbrance/Search Tweak
| Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 23:22 22 March 2011(UTC) |
| Type: Improvement |
| Scope: Encumbrance/Search mechanics |
| Description: 1. The Encumbrance of all items is doubled. 2. New Survivor Civilian Skill: Scavenging. Scavenging gives a +25% chance to find items for ANY search. This would be more fun for Survivors I would think. Afterall, who really enjoys searching a non-Mall for 50 AP and turning up with only a handful of items? 75% of which was shit you probably just automatically threw away. Basically, while you would be able to carry less, you would be able to find things a lot quicker. You'd just cycle through items faster, and being able to find what you want when you want would lead to less "spending my entire day searching for one fuel can" or whatever. You might be better able to find items in an emergency, like say if your PD is being overrun, you could pull up ammo a lot quicker and maybe turn the tide in your favor. Might help counter that zombies holding the door open effect. Might be able to win a Mall siege again, who knows. Would make Malls even more disgusting, but with some decent search rates away from the Mall, it might just lure a few people away from them. |
Discussion (Encumbrance/Search Tweak)
I kinda prefer the system as it is now with some minor tweaks. Things like basing the number of certain items you can carry at once off their weight. For example you could only carry one 20% encumbrance item(I think that is gennys, artifacts and the like) but you could carry as many pistol clips as you can find up to the 100% weight limit. 11:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Humans don't need to be able to have a wildly significant bonus in finding items. As a human, it is rare for me to not kill at least 2 zombies per day, whereas as a zombie, it is rare to even get inside a building by yourself. And as the humans greatly outnumber the zombies now (and have for awhile), I hardly see a reason to just give humans such a great bonus.--Gerald Studabaker 22:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't think only being able to carry half the current encumbrance changes anything?-- | T | BALLS! | 23:01 23 March 2011(UTC)
- It'd basically mean they'd be able to kill and restock in the same day because of the higher search efficiency. Instead of the current system where normally a survivor can kill one zed maybe wound another one depending on the RNG and their load out and then restock for a day or two. So in a sense your suggestion would make survivors almost more effective. 10:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would, as long as their area was well off. It would hamper those that like to stock up and go off into dangerous areas. Basically my aim is to limit their range more realistically. Keep supply lines shorter by not allowing them to carry a warehouse on their back. Of course the search bonus doesn't have to be as much as +25%. +10%, +20% or whatever would work best. I'm sure Kevan would change it anyway, probably tweaking it up and down until the best balance was found.-- | T | BALLS! | 14:06 24 March 2011(UTC)
- Should really just get rid of Shopping altogether. Going to a specific store in the Mall is a Skill? Sort of idiotic. Then just replace Bargain Hunting with Scavenging.-- | T | BALLS! | 18:43 24 March 2011(UTC)
- I would agree with getting rid of shopping as it is an insult to common sense. An over all double of encumbrance wouldn't work as some things need to stay the same. Things like pistol clips, knives, newspapers, most other 2% encumbrance items would stay at 2%. Pistols could be upped to 5% and shotguns could be 8-10%. Fuel cans at 15%. Tool boxes get moved up to 20-25%, Gennies and most other large items would be moved up to 30-50%. A comprehensive list could be made if this moves on to voting. I don't like the idea of making searching easier by very much if at all but I guess the cake always needs a little frosting on top. Have scavenging be the prerequisite for bargain hunting(reduce bargain hunting by at least the percent boost scavenging gives). Scavenging would provide a bonus to over all searching on any building how much of a bonus? I'm not sure. However I foresee the changes I'd like making many of those survivors who carry a small store on their backs angry and this suggestion unpopular. 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Should really just get rid of Shopping altogether. Going to a specific store in the Mall is a Skill? Sort of idiotic. Then just replace Bargain Hunting with Scavenging.-- | T | BALLS! | 18:43 24 March 2011(UTC)
- It would, as long as their area was well off. It would hamper those that like to stock up and go off into dangerous areas. Basically my aim is to limit their range more realistically. Keep supply lines shorter by not allowing them to carry a warehouse on their back. Of course the search bonus doesn't have to be as much as +25%. +10%, +20% or whatever would work best. I'm sure Kevan would change it anyway, probably tweaking it up and down until the best balance was found.-- | T | BALLS! | 14:06 24 March 2011(UTC)
- It'd basically mean they'd be able to kill and restock in the same day because of the higher search efficiency. Instead of the current system where normally a survivor can kill one zed maybe wound another one depending on the RNG and their load out and then restock for a day or two. So in a sense your suggestion would make survivors almost more effective. 10:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
ALTERNATIVE: make the item size doubling a part of the scavenging skill. I wouldn't get it. I don't care what skill boosts I get, I don't have a lot of room anyway. I can't think of a justifiable REASON for the doubling weight only AFTER you get a skill, but, y'know, screw realism.
ALTERNATIVE: You can get a skill, or perhaps an item, that negates the weight doubling.
Either of these might make this change a little easier to swallow. I, as it stands at the moment, would vote Kill on the grounds that the Rule of Fun takes presidence. --Espemon333 23:17, 30 March 2011 (BST)
- Half the point is to make it more fun...you know because now searching is so "fun". It would probably make all the Groove Theory cheaters cry if just anybody else was finding things as much as they are. I mean I could see how they would oppose this since they can find shit just as often as my suggestion allows under the current system. But if you left it to the average player the game would always be a one-sided game of kick the cripple so, just hoping Kevan comes to his senses.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:12 31 March 2011(UTC)
Shovel, Revised
| Timestamp: Gavriil 21:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
| Type: Weapon |
| Scope: Survivors |
| Description: So, yeah, after I submitted my suggestion I realized it was one heck of a dupe and I forgot to put in a lot of details. So here goes. The shovel is an alternate melee weapon (instead of the axe) for high-level survivors. It would come with a very low search rate, so that only those with the time and strength to search for a while could find it. However, it would have a potent 3 damage and quite high starting accuracy (~15%). The reason I think it should be this high is so that it feels like you're carrying around a potent weapon, without the burden of a "Shovel Training" skill. Also, to make sure the Axe and other weapons don't get outmoded, it would have a high encumbrance (because it would be a pain to lug around a 5-foot-long shovel) and possibly reduced damage against barricades. And honestly, it won't be as powerful as the Axe, it's just something a little different.
Please let me know what you think. |
Discussion (Shovel, Revised)
What would you put the encumbrance as? I'm all for more unconventional weapons though.. Oh and make it able to beak like the pool cue because of it's length. 11:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I was thinking 6 to 8%, but I want to know if that would be to much or too little. Also, I was looking for this to be a long-term weapon like the axe, but breaking could be added as some more balance. --Gavriil 19:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would certainly be good to have super-rare items scattered around -- ▧ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to play devils advocate here... what is the point? If it hits like a fire ax, and the only difference is that it is heavier, why would I want to carry it? As a practical consideration, I would not want to carry a weapon that does nothing but add encumbrance. John Ibans 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Basically, it's a cosmetic thing, but it would have a higher base accuracy. That's a good point, though. I might have to cut down a few things. --Gavriil 07:19, 27 March 2011 (BST)
- I am going to play devils advocate here... what is the point? If it hits like a fire ax, and the only difference is that it is heavier, why would I want to carry it? As a practical consideration, I would not want to carry a weapon that does nothing but add encumbrance. John Ibans 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Encumbrance + Freerunning
| Timestamp: --Anarchomutualist says: The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order. 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
| Type: Mechanic |
| Scope: Free running |
| Description: Once a player goes above 75% encumbrance If a player is holding "heavy equipment" (Christmas Trees, Generators, Museum pieces), free running has a chance of failure. (Failure would be akin to jumping into a ruin - land in the street and lose 5 HP.) If encumbrance is <50%, then the chance is 5%. If encumbrance is >50%, then the chance is 10%. The message for a failed freerun would be The weight of your equipment bears down on you, and you fall into the street.
The logic here is that it becomes more difficult to perform parkour when you're carrying portable generators and shotguns. Consider this a "lite" version of Zombie Lord's suggestions. |
Discussion (Encumbrance + Freerunning)
I can't find a dupe anywhere, so you're clear in that department. However, I do recall that a few players of previous generations (like mid-2006 early 2007) considered "Freerunning" to be a system of bridges. But that aside, I would probably change this just a little. Perhaps a set percentage of failing to freerun? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 03:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
But carrying three shotguns and five generators while leaping between rooftops is both believable and balanced! You can't change it! You're just trying to help those evil, smelly, zombie things, when they already control the entire city! blaeeegh!!!!11 --VVV RPMBG 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense from a realistic standpoint, but this is a game, we should be aiming at making it more fun. Does this make the game more fun? I can't see how. - User:Whitehouse 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- ^This. It would also make it extremely hard to run bounty hunters (who need a lot of guns and ammo and one genniefuel at the same time to do their thing at all). -- Spiderzed▋ 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Anything that makes freerunning less uber than it is can only be a good thing. Oh and I am one of those who don't see freerunning as being Parkour.... It seems more likely to represent breaking and entry combined with a bit of rooftop/fire escape athletics to me. --Honestmistake 11:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The last time I suggested this the Survivors all cried at the thought of losing their ability to fly like Superman with 1000 pounds of shit on their back.--
| T | BALLS! | 13:44 18 March 2011(UTC)
This would be realistic, but when it comes to a game, it doesn't really matter. This wouldn't change much, just make the game more of a chore and the playerbase is dying enough as it is. If it was implemented earlygame, sure. But those who don't like this will quit, so a chunk of the playerbase gone. We don't need that. The survivors use the hand of Kevan to free run, as you've shown Zombie Lord XD Shadok T Balance is power 03:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well maybe an extra light version. You only have a chance of failure if your carrying excessively large objects. Such as Christmas Trees, Generators, Museum pieces, etc. In this form it is not nearly as tedious as having it above 75% encumbrance and this could possibly be a stepping stone to the original suggestion. Ease the players into it while still making free running more balanced.. 01:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't even be opposed to someone carrying a bunch of heavy equipment having a 2 AP per square penalty for movement. This would apply to zombies as well, as they still have the same junk in their undead pockets. That, or to stick to free-running only, make it a 2 AP task to free run if you are <75% encumbered but you always succeed, just because it takes a little bit more out of you. --Gerald Studabaker 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd support this idea as well. How ever I wouldn't apply it to zombies since they are stronger than us. An interesting idea would be if you die you drop all large objects (genny, museum piece, etc) just a thought though. 10:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions up for voting
The following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below.
No suggestions from here are currently up for voting.
