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
Translation Project
| Timestamp: Eridel Olivier (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
| Type: Base Game |
| Scope: Everyone |
| Description: Playing the game in english can be a hindrance for non-native speakers. I think it's about time to start a Translation Project. |
Discussion (Translation Project)
Develop the suggestion a bit more? What languages are you thinking of adding? --Janus talk 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Donator Perk: Clothing Badge Slot
| Timestamp: Lassiter (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
| Type: Improvement |
| Scope: Everyone |
Description: I suggest adding a new "badge" type of clothing, and placing appropriate items for it in buildings around the city. A few potential examples:
Unlike other clothing the badge slot would be restricted to people who have donated money to Urban Dead, as a way of displaying their support in game. Although I'm wary of game monetization if done wrong, I think adding one extra clothing slot is a discreet and non-obnoxious way of letting players show off their contribution and increase their roleplaying options. I think it would encourage a lot of people to donate. If more people donate that's good for everybody, not just donators who get the perk. The more revenue Urban Dead generates, the more time/money Kevan can devote to maintaining or hopefully even improving the game. |
Discussion (Donator Perk: Clothing Badge Slot)
Barricade Interference Should Require Lurching Gait
| Timestamp: Lassiter (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
| Type: Anti-Zerging Tweak |
| Scope: Zombies |
| Description: I suggest changing barricade interference so it only takes effect if at least 2 of the zombies present have lurching gait. This would be a small countermeasure against zerging, since it means a brand new level 1 character would be less effective at helping other zombies hold buildings just by standing there and doing nothing.
This also makes sense from a realism perspective since the descriptive text of barricade interference says "the zombies lurch into your way." You should have to get good at lurching before you can lurch in the way. This tweak should not penalize non-zerg zombies too much, since lurching gait is one of the first skills zombie players take anyway. |
Discussion (Barricade Interference Should Require Lurching Gait)
I'm sure from my bias toward thinking that barricade interference is (somewhat) cheesy would mean I agree with this, so I agree with this. Certainly reduces the effectiveness of throwing level 1s (even with no zombie skills) at buildings under attack. A compromise for people who don't share my view would be to reduce the % contributed toward interference by the non-Lurching zombie crowd. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- The wiki isn't entirely clear on this, but it seems that barricade interference is a flat 50% failure rate that kicks in at 2 zombies rather than each zombie adding towards a cumulative total. 2 zombies and 50 zombies likely cause the same amount of interference. This change would likely make zero difference on barricade rates in buildings with lots of zombies, since the odds are at least two will have lurching gait. It could make a difference if the zerger is the one who initially breaks down the barricades with their main character and then moves their alts inside. --Lassiter (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Barricade inteference needs things to make it more, not less, effective. Still, as an anti-zerg measure this doesn't really harm people (zombies are people too!) who play fair so I mostly approve Honestmistake (talk)
Making lurching gait a requirement makes sense, both flavour and gameplay wise. Making it a subskill of lurching gait would make more sense to me but the zerg crowd would obviously object. --Kamikazie-Bunny (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Love it. Barricade interference is a necessary mechanic, but it's not without its flaws. This is one of them. —Aichon— 17:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Playing Dead
| Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: Disgusting |
| Scope: Survivors |
| Description: Have you ever noticed how rare it is for a zombie to attack another zombie? It's the smell!
|
Discussion (Playing Dead)
I actually rather like this mechanic. It makes it safer (but not safe) for survivors to go outdoors which means less meatshielding, and any increase in outdoor survivors means more deaths. It provides more opportunity for lowbie zeds to get experience while at the same time making it harder for zergers to wreck places. It gives the hardly-ever-used Scent Death more usefulness. It adds some fun new types of interactions. All in all, I'm a fan. —Aichon— 18:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds great thematically but makes it very easy for Death Cultists to get inside and cause chaos :( Honestmistake (talk)
Ramming the door
| Timestamp: PayneTrain(FU) 06:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: New Mechanic for Doors |
| Scope: Zombies |
Description: Ok,ok before you all go "crap,heres another guy with a new mechanic for doors again!!" hear me out!!!!Ok so the lower level zombies cant open doors until they get their "memories of life" skill,right? but they're still driven by the instinct to feed,right? so it doesn't mean they'll go chasing after a person and then suddenly stop when a door gets closed in the zombies face and be like "DOORS!! my only weakness!!!whatever shall i do?".We've all seen zombie movies where at least one zombie busts open a door to claim its food!Ok so onto my suggestion! The zombies who do not have "memories of life" should be given the option to Ram the door when the barricade level reaches 0(where zombies with "Memories of life" are given the chance to open the door)They have to Ram the door a total of three times until it busts open on the third try....The flavor text will be
for the first two times and
for the third time,when it busts open.
Unlike many of the other suggestions that have been made concerning Doors,the door will not suffer any damage and no other AP has to be used on it other than the AP that's usually used on it in game(opening and closing).
|
Discussion (Ramming the door)
Make it a 30% chance to ram the door open rather than costing a set 3AP and I'll be onboard. Kamikazie-Bunny (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's no indication you're making any progress, which will be confusing to many players at first.
- This skill would be a godsend to zergers who lack Memories of Life.
Over 60% of zombies already have enough AP to have purchased every zombie skill. Only 15% have not purchased any skills (and I'd wager most of them are either temporary accounts or else have the XP to do so already but haven't for various reasons). Which is to say, while this is indeed an ongoing (but mostly temporary) point of pain for zombies, this approach to solving it seems like a rather heavy-handed approach. —Aichon— 23:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
3. It's been done before and way better than you, pantstain. Which is pretty much par the course for anything you attempt. Suggestion:20080711_Door_Bashing ----
FoD PK Praise Rando!00:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Although I do appreciate your butthurt tantrums that are residual from how I hurt your feelings the last time i was here I'd prefer it id you did it on my talk page...or better yet make another page just for me and show us all how much an awesome life you live!!! ;D Now,on a serious note I did search for other "door bash" suggestions before posting this one but obviously i had missed out the one that you have pointed out to and yes it is a better suggestion probably because mine is STILL BEING DEVELOPED,is probably why i put it in the D.E.V.E.L.O.P.I.N.G SUGGESTIONS list,dont you think? And aichon,I have read your suggestions and I will discuss them with you a bit later--PayneTrain(FU) 05:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It's adorable how you think making suggestions will do anything ever. ---- FoD PK Praise Rando!05:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- its even more adorable how you're acting exactly like one of my(might I say really kinky) ex girlfriends who kept saying shit kinda like this hoping she'd illicit a response from me but,in a way much differentor exactly the same as what you're expecting--PayneTrain(FU) 06:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- So, now we're both trading the word "adorable" to each other and you're comparing me to your ex. If you're coming onto me, just say it already, man. I'd definitely have to consider it, hate fuck is best fuck. -- FoD PK Praise Rando! 08:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- So, now we're both trading the word "adorable" to each other and you're comparing me to your ex. If you're coming onto me, just say it already, man. I'd definitely have to consider it, hate fuck is best fuck. --
FRENZY!!!
| Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 02:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: Attack method |
| Scope: Zombies |
| Description: Frenzy is a subskill of Vigour Mortis costing 100XP. Once purchased zombies have the option to make a Frenzy (15AP) attack costing 15AP (in case it wasn't obvious).
When a zombie goes into a frenzy it automatically makes 10 individual claw attacks, each time each time targeting a random target from the available claw attack target list (this includes Survivors, Zombies (unknown zeds are grouped as a single stack), Generators, Radios, Barricades, Decorations and anything else I may have missed that you could target with a regular claw attack).
I dunno, maybe you stumbled upon someone, they're down to 1HP and you're down to 1AP, with Frenzy (15AP) your odds of scoring one more kill just shot up. Just used all your AP breaking down that 'cade and you want to cause some mayhem before you wake up in the street tomorrow? With Frenzy (15AP) you can! It's a live Mall Seige and you've finally broken in but there's 50 survivors gunning you down? Frenzy (15AP) gets a few more attacks in before you go down (note: condition not applicable to kids spamming ?rise). WOW, you've finally encountered a player online at the same time and he keeps moving so you're wasting AP on empty air, Frenzy (15AP) might just happen to be more efficient; if he's there!
And someone else may want to target the 'cades... or that genny... or maybe they just don't like Christmas and want to tear down the decorations. Frenzy (15AP) does not discriminate against playing styles.
Because a zombie in a frenzy is easily distracted... if he was in control he wouldn't Frenzy (15AP).
Why don't you log in every 30min for the next 5 hours?
Boo hoo! If you have that many contacts odds are you're metagaming to save AP rather than using convoluted zombie speech and you're probably syncing your playing times to attack together anyway, so you're better off saving the AP for a combined effort.
I know, I just felt like it... here's another one Frenzy (15AP). |
Discussion (FRENZY!!!)
Sounds too much like the grenade suggestion,only this time for zombies!its likely to get shot down real fast!Imagine 20 zombies using the same skill in one building,dont really like that odds.Id like it better if the zombie exploded after doing it :D--PayneTrain(FU) 05:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I...I don't know what to think. Half of me says, "meh, weak AoE attack...SPAM", while the other half says, "actually, it's balanced fairly well". I like the fact that it empowers lone zombies instead of groups working together. I REALLY like the fact that it plays on the distinction between what's effective and what's efficient. And I love the way you presented it as well and how it provides an entertainment factor that helps to quash concerns that auto-attacks take away from actually having fun playing the game. Hell, it doesn't even help zergers out, since it still would be more effective and more efficient for them to crack the 'cades and then just do their usual attacks still. So yeah, I'm for it (until convinced otherwise). —Aichon— 23:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Survivor mumble
| Timestamp: K 14:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: zombie ability |
| Scope: everyone |
Description: When more than a single survivor is present in a building, zombies outside can hear mumbling from inside. Mumbling can be heard once an hour on the hour. The following would be the flavor text and indicate general numbers:
A potential extra bonus: If more than 4 survivors can be heard, zombies are able to groan with a special groan to attract other zombies (still requires the groaning skill).
This would carry 5 blocks. |
Discussion (Survivor mumble)
Nothing to add, other than that I like it and haven't thought of anything to complain about yet. —Aichon— 08:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The method for hearing mumbling is broken. Not only would zombies log in to 20+ messages of mumbling but it gives zeds a free check on survivor activity. Zeds should only hear mumbling if survivors have actually said anything rather than if they're just present, generators/lights are already a good indicator of survivor activity. Quick redraft:
- When a zombie is outside a building if any players have spoken inside the building since their last action zombies may hear it, this is reflected by an update to the building description.
- Players have spoken 10-20 times - You heard mumbling from inside.
- Players have spoken 20+ times - You heard voices inside.
This make more sense. A group of quiet survivors are going to draw less attention than the mad badger-eater next door who's ranting and raving to himself all day. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I did think about tying it to survivors actually talking, but I found a couple reasons against. The most obvious being it encourages survivors to not communicate, something they already do too much. The other being, it means that the game needs to track the number of times someone talks, figure out at what point that number reset (it'd be pretty silly to just keep the tally going over weeks), and it would mean heavy RPer's would be prime targets. As for the 20 messages, it could be handled the same as any repetitive message (with the "...and again."). As for the free check, yes it would be. It might be better to make it a 1 AP skill, but the downside with that is it actually makes it more useful since it can be used on command, so a single scout could check half a suburb in a few minutes (unless somehow you mean to combine it taking an AP and being dependent on survivors speaking 20 times, which I'd think kills all utility). With the low player numbers, the map is too large, so this attempts to lessen the effect of empty buildings on zombies. --K 16:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- It needs to function as a reaction to survivor activity not just their presence or it becomes completely unbalanced. Lights already fulfil the role of notifying zombies of a survivor presence in the general area. It's one of the reasons "looking through windows" has been shot down so many times. More info here --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I did think about tying it to survivors actually talking, but I found a couple reasons against. The most obvious being it encourages survivors to not communicate, something they already do too much. The other being, it means that the game needs to track the number of times someone talks, figure out at what point that number reset (it'd be pretty silly to just keep the tally going over weeks), and it would mean heavy RPer's would be prime targets. As for the 20 messages, it could be handled the same as any repetitive message (with the "...and again."). As for the free check, yes it would be. It might be better to make it a 1 AP skill, but the downside with that is it actually makes it more useful since it can be used on command, so a single scout could check half a suburb in a few minutes (unless somehow you mean to combine it taking an AP and being dependent on survivors speaking 20 times, which I'd think kills all utility). With the low player numbers, the map is too large, so this attempts to lessen the effect of empty buildings on zombies. --K 16:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think survivors would just randomly mumble to themselves,especially if it would give away their position,it would make more sense tying it to the talking,but there are are problems with that too as you you stated above.So i suggest that you change it to "noise" or "sound" from inside the building because there will obviously be a lot of noise made from searching a building for supplies or from just random movement,especially if there are a lot of other survivors in there.The flavor text would probably be like "You hear some "movement/noises/shuffling/sounds" from inside.--PayneTrain(FU) 05:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Standing Guard
| Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." |
| Scope: The brave and the stupid |
| Description: Fed up off zombies taking down your 'cades? Has the sight of seeing your friends and family getting torn limb from limb made you sick one too many times? Do you want to give it your all to protect those ones you love or do you just want to look like a total badass? Then get out there and show 'em what you're made of....
The presence of a survivor outside a building impedes zombie efforts to destroy barricades. Standing guard is an entirely passive ability; a survivor does not need to take any action or expend any Action Points (AP) to cause the effect. They need only be standing outside. If a zombie successfully attacks the barricade while a survivor is standing guard, the game displays the following message:
If a zombie fails to attack the barricades because of interference, the following message is displayed:
|
Discussion (Standing Guard)
I have 2 problems with this. First, zombies don't need anything to make hitting cades more difficult. Second, the group this would most benefit is zerging survivors. I know the same can be said of zombie cade blocking, but in that case the building must first be breached (plus an unleveled zerg zombie can be dropped with 10 AP @ 100% to hit). --K 00:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much exactly what Kirsty said. This would be a great idea if the game were brand new and zombies were evenly matched in terms of numbers. But at this point, we don't need to be putting up literal barriers between zombies and their targets. Plus, zergers could and would absolutely abuse this mechanic to utterly destroy what's left of the game. Thousands of level 1 alts could effectively make a building impenetrable, and while it would be hilarious, it'd also be game-breaking. —Aichon— 03:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- But think of all that tasty XP just standing there. Most people tend to avoid playing as zombies because they have such a hard time finding tasty brains unless they metagame. With Lvl-1 alts littering the streets there's more incentive for players to play as zeds, easy XP and regular kills. The more people zerg, the faster the Zeds level up and the harder it becomes to survive, more people will play as Zeds even if it's only to gain XP for when they get revived. Yes, spammers will spam them but people do that anyway, it's a rare day I don't pass a ruined building with a Lvl-1 zed inside. And so what if people spam them, they'll be doing so outside malls, stations and hospitals where survivors gather. And when there's meat in the streets zombies will gather to eat. Kamikazie-Bunny 13:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Most people who are interested in playing as a zombie already have a max-level zombie. As such, leveling up isn't an incentive at all. And even if it was, one minor incentive does not offset the massive abuse this change could cause. —Aichon— 14:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I simply disagree, you say it's abuse but every meat-shield standing in the street is easy XP to those who need it. Are you really saying we shouldn't cater to lower level zeds? Yeah, sure, if everyone was maxed out it's easy to abuse but Max-levelled players aren't the majority, they're only the most vocal. --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- What happens when they get the XP they need and still are stuck attacking level 1's outside of buildings? Most people play zombies because they want to kill survivors, ruin their buildings, etc. They don't want to kill some level 1 that will never be used again. Do the first few levels suck, yes; but the solution is not to break the game for everyone else. There isn't going to be a single a survivor outside each corner of the mall, there is going to be 10. How long are these people going to play when they get a few levels and find they are still stuck attacking the same level 1's? --K 14:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome to disagree with me, but the stats page disagrees with you. Only about 15% of zombies are level 1. Over 60% of zombies have enough levels to be maxxed out on their relevant skills. And I didn't say we shouldn't cater to low-level zeds. I said that offering levels isn't much of an incentive. Big difference. I'm fine with finding good, creative ways to cater to low-level zombies. I'm not fine with breaking the game for 100% of players in an effort to provide a modest, temporary boost to a small portion of the playerbase. —Aichon— 08:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I simply disagree, you say it's abuse but every meat-shield standing in the street is easy XP to those who need it. Are you really saying we shouldn't cater to lower level zeds? Yeah, sure, if everyone was maxed out it's easy to abuse but Max-levelled players aren't the majority, they're only the most vocal. --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Most people who are interested in playing as a zombie already have a max-level zombie. As such, leveling up isn't an incentive at all. And even if it was, one minor incentive does not offset the massive abuse this change could cause. —Aichon— 14:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Zombies can barricade
| Timestamp: A ZOMBIE ANT 07:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: Ability addition |
| Scope: Malton |
| Description: Zombies with Construction can now barricade ruined buildings (but not unruined/unransacked ones). This means in perpetually ruined places like Ridleybank can have pinatas littering the landscape, making it impossible for survivors to even get in them and repair them.
You might also see hilarious situations where survivors are stuck outside for newb zombies while vets hold buildings and keep them barricaded against survivors. Great idea yeah? |
Discussion (Zombies can barricade)
Your second best idea. Micropayments were better. —Aichon— 16:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless survivors need to break such zombie 'cades down to 0 before entering, I'd have to say no. It'll just be used by life cultists, to barricade ruins to a level (VSB++) where someone can enter the building, and make repairs in relative safety, but other zombies can't enter to hold the ruin -- boxy 21:17, 24 July 2014 (BST)
Tactical Nukes
| Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 00:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: Post Apocalyptic Fun |
| Scope: Everyone |
| Description: After almost 20 years of observation, the external military have decided to start dropping nukes, after all, it's the only way to be sure.
When the countdown finishes tactical nukes will be dropped on X "randomly selected" suburbs. In a blinding flash those suburbs will be completely levelled and all the occupants will die. What does this mean for you?
|
Discussion (Tactical Nukes)
Would you believe I'm quite sure the concept of nukes is a dupe? However, I am in favour of the temporary, random and partial reduction of the city's size. I'd prefer for the blocks to not become Wasteland, and for their barricades to be instantly destroyed and become Ruined. Make the radiation temporary (2 months?) at a time and new nukes to fall every 2 months. maybe 10 at a time. And it would be nice for a warning via Emergency Military to be shown so players at least have the chance to get out in 24 hours. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Simply ruining a suburb and killing its occupants would be seen as too much of a zombie boon for my preference. All it would do is force survivors to avoid the suburb for a set duration, which wouldn't be that dissimilar to the mega-hordes of UD-past. Making the suburb inhospitable and of no worth would forces players to change tactics in the greater game rather than sit around waiting to reclaim what was lost. The one thing I did toy with was to leave buildings standing (but unable to be barricaded). My main concern with this idea is squatters living on the edge, hiding on the wrong side where they can venture out to attack with minimal HP drain but retaliations would cost the attacker every turn. --Kamikazie-Bunny 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding was that they couldn't "venture out" since there'd be no buildings to be in in the first place? And I believe a zombie boon could only help the game more, surely it's one of the points of this suggestion (since the biggest problem in UD is that most suburbs are caded and green). My warning is that demolishing buildings (I assume permanently) will condemn this suggestion to be killed, lest implemented. The only thing survivors really have is baseless sentimentality to suburbs and blocks they like, and surely not one of them will commit to a suggestion that will offer a chance of their favourite spots permanently being wiped off Malton. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
AP Micropayments
| Timestamp: A ZOMBIE ANT 05:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: Base game |
| Scope: All players |
| Description: AP is very important, so maybe UD should take on some more current gaming trends and introduce Micropayments to get more AP when they have run out.
The pricing scale will be as follows:
My theory is that when Kevan realises how much money he could make with a good game, he might start updating it more and invest more into keeping a strong community. This is the only way UD can survive. Note: I used AU because obviously I am AU, but we can discuss pricing scales etc in the discussion section. Thoughts? |
Discussion (AP Micropayments)
lols aussies —Aichon— 14:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Please be a humorous suggestion, because I'm a cheapskate who doesn't want to pay to win free, text-based browser games. (Actually no, it's just that I'm in college. P: )
I see a valid point with this suggestion, but due to the design/history of the game, I'm not in favour of anything that gives a select number of people more/faster AP ticks than the general userbase (it doesn't matter if it's based on how much money you give to Kevan's Beer Fund, how long you've played UD, or how much XP you have.) if you're looking for some serious discussion. It will destroy the game's balance, since some people have an AP advantage that not everyone else has. Besides, that price for 10 AP is my lunch money for a single day. In no way am I preventing/hampering Kevan from making money out of a good game; I'd have long donated for my characters if I could (I even disable ads for UD!) That and I just really hate microtransactions.
This did give me a good laugh for a while, though - thank you for making my night, and my day! --
(stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 23:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kirsty Cotton likes this. --K 00:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I've also decided that perhaps some other things could be boosted with microtransactions:
- "Trench Master" - 15% higher search rate for weapons for a week - $10 AU
- "Hulk Hogan" - 25% more encumbrance for a week - $15 AU
- "Jesus" - Upon confirmation of payment, provides and instant revive to your character - $3 AU
- "Private School" - 50xp for $1 AU
Do you think these could be added alongside this suggestion? Or do you think AP is enough to be offering for money? A ZOMBIE ANT 07:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not only do we NEED these ones, we also should have AP boosts that increase your rate of AP regeneration, backpacks for 25 permanent encumbrance improvement, and if you spend a load of cash, maybe even a Mini-Z(ombie) to go in your inventory (costs 25 encumbrance) so that you always have something to shoot! —Aichon— 07:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- What about upgrades to the pre-existing weapons? For the low, low price of $5, you can convert any knife into a katana, or a scalpel! 2 pistols can be turned into an uzi for $10, and you can "craft" a machine gun out of 3 shotguns, if you use $25 as a catalyst. You don't deal more damage or get any added perks, apart from the bragging rights of "last-hitting" / shooting someone with your $pecial weapon. It's sure to widen UD's demographic. ;) -- (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 14:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
What about Zeds? Zeds need love to:
- £1 - "Headless but smiling" - Immune to headshots for one week
- £10 - "How'd he get in?" - Zombie can enter any building regardless of barricade levels.
- £15 - "Zom-Bomb" - The player can spawn up to 10 zombies at their current location. These zombies are placed individually and can be stacked in the same location if desired. They perform no actions and will idle out/expire after 5 days as if they were a normal player.
-- Kamikazie-Bunny 19:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Aw, for shame, I would have wanted the Zom-Bomb to be akin to an MPK (Monster Player Kill, for the uninitiated.) D: Speaking of zombie boosts:
- $3 - "Goin' Bananas" - Gives a special melee weapon to your zombie, the Banana. Non-tradeable item.
- $5 - "Our Zombies Are Intelligent" - Zombie can speak like a normal human being.
- $20 - "Zombie Parkour" - Zombies can free run, too! (Player must already have "Free Running" survivor skill. Expires after 2 days.)
And something for everyone:
- $7 - "Illegal Speed" - Moving by a block only costs 0.5 AP. Expires 1 day after activation. -- (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 23:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the above suggestions, I actually cannot believe I forgot to include Zombies too. And Chirgirgien, your idea of cosmetic upgrades to weapons is also amazing. God, this micropayment thing is opening up such a massive can of worms I think I may have to split it into several different suggestions. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
What about story expansion packs? Maybe $10 for each episode of the story, $25 for a season pack that includes all DLC, with the lore getting fleshed out (pun not intended) little by little so that we can finally answer the question of whether or not Malton is in the UK or not. —Aichon— 15:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget your lovely safehouse!
- $5 "Break the silence" Instantly places a radio in current building
- $8 "Repair the damage" Instantly repairs current building
- $10 "Light the darkness" Instantly places a powered generator in current building
- $15 "The best offense is a good defense" Attackers have a 50% less chance of hitting you wile in your safe house
- $20 "Abracadabra!" Makes the barricades of current building CUEHB (completely utterly extremely heavily barricaded) (EHB+2) --__/Storm\___ «^^^» 07:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Syringes as a weapon
Timestamp:   18:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
|
| Type: Syringe function. |
| Scope: Survivors |
| Description: Stabbing a human/survivor with a necrotech syringe delivers 1~3 damage to them, and it infects them so that they lose 1HP for every turn, similar to Infectious Bite. This effect is cancelled with the use of a first aid kit on a hurt/infected human/survivor. The nechrotech syringe now appears on the weapons list. It would appear as (Attack) [Anja Arnheim] with [syringe somethingorother]. Attempting to use a human/survivor with a syringe normally through the general inventory will continue to result in the game saying to you YOU CAN ONLY REVIVE THE WALKING DEAD. Stabbing a human/survivor destroys the syringe, and it is lost from inventory. Hit rate is 100%. It is 100% because it can only be used once. Think of it like this, if every time you hit somebody with a baseball bat, but the bats are made of glass, so you shatter the bat but the human / survivor now has shards. The 100% is also because of the compliment of poisoned drain of health after receive only one to three damage especially after one use. I do not know how much it should be, but it should be in the one to three damage area. |
Discussion (Syringes as a weapon)
My spidey sense thinks this is a dupe. Let me check. --Rosslessness 22:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
What are the hit rates? A ZOMBIE ANT 02:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize forgetting that part, it is very important. I have added it to the suggestion, and a little bit more. I hope that this is not a repeat suggestion. I thought it would have been a repeat suggestion and looked very hard, but I might have missed something. -- 02:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not a fan of the 100% hit rate. I would be, if the syringe finding chance was similar to infection bite (40%?) per AP, but since it varies from suburb to suburb (if I am remembering correctly) it would be too hard to balance out with a simple hard number. which I'm not a fan of. Obviously, it's a personal call, but mine would be: Make it something like 55% to hit (the extra 15% chance over 40 for infectious bite is to offset the AP you probably spend finding them), if you miss, it doesn't break, and if you're human it stacks with infectious bite (it is a different infection, after all) so you lose 2AP per action, but once you're a zombie, it disappears. Make it only applicable to humans. That oughta make the game a bit of fun! A ZOMBIE ANT 02:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Make it inst-hit (100% hit chance), 0 damage, automatically induces an infection and disposed of after use. I'd vote keep for that. -- Kamikazie-Bunny 18:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'd prefer seeing it with 0 damage over the 1~3 damage dealt in the original suggestion (as it's already quite OP with the 100% to hit,) although DDR (sorry if you didn't want to be abbreviated that way) raises a good point about syringe search rates. I always wished that the syringe could be weaponized not only in the context of "combat revives", but also among the currently living. 45 ~ 55% to hit might seem fair with the 1 ~ 3 damage chance. I'd rather not see it deal the same kind of infection as Infectious Bite. A different 'status effect' that, as DDR says, stacks with Infectious Bite would be fun. -- (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 13:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Ringing bells
| Timestamp: Storm 07:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: change to a building |
| Scope: churches and or cathedrals |
| Description: right now anythong stands and I will give several things that could be done. The main thing is that survivors will be able to ring a bell when in a cathedral and or a church. When in the building it would take 2 AP. to ring the bell, and it would generally work like a flare (note range not decided). Zombies could be allowed to hit the bell also. If in favor state if it should be in cathedrals and or churches. Also if zombies should be able to hit the bell. State what you think the range should be. If you think it should be in a cathedral also state if a bell should be in every square or only a randomly generated one. |
Discussion (Ringing bells)
I'd definitely support this on cathedrals, and I like the idea of it being only in one square per cathedral. Maybe not on churches. I don't think it being a zombie-available ability makes sense (without, say, a new skill, which in turn only makes sense if it's in churches too). Entering the steeple would presumably cost 1AP, and since the only thing you could do in there is ring the bell, might as well just make it bell-ringing for 2AP without the steeple (or have it in the description: "You climb to the steeple and ring the bell", etc.) I think a good range would be somewhere around 5-8 blocks; any further and it could become a nuisance. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 15:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd think that you should put it in both churches and cathedrals (just one block in the cathedral) and that you'd follow Bob's suggestion for how to deal with steeples (i.e. it costs 2AP, rather than having to actually enter a separate room). —Aichon— 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I removed the part about the steeple, and put Bob's suggestion in. --Storm 21:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I can get behind this. My thoughts and ideas:
- Bells can only be found in one square of churches/cathedrals (there are multi-square churches)
- Bells cost 2AP to ring
- Bells cannot be rung if the building is ruined
- Bells will automatically ring once when the square is ruined.
- Church bells have a range of 4 squares
- Cathedral bells have a range of 8
- Flavour Text:
When ringing
- Inside the building "The bells echo throughout the building"
- Outside (same square) "The bells ring out from the tower"
- Outside (different square) "You hear a bell ringing X-Y from here"
- Inside another building "You hear a bell ringing in the distance"
When ruined
- The bell comes crashing down and reverbs throughout the building
- Outside (same square) "A loud clanging cascades down through the tower"
- Outside (different square) "You hear a bell heavily clang X-Y from here"
- Inside another building "You hear a bell clang in the distance"
Kamikazie-Bunny 22:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Very good suggestions Kamikaze-Bunny. What do you think about zombies being able to hit the Bell? One other thing I think churches should maybe have a range of 5 instead of 4. Oh EVERYONE I just got an idea to limit spam maybe the bell can only be rung once per set amount of time --Storm 05:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Tree houses
| Timestamp: Storm 22:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: Buildings |
| Scope: Parks across Malton, and anyone who has construction |
| Description: This is a serious discussion, and is not intended to be humorous. Parks across Malton have been generally never used so I have an idea to make them better. When a survivor who has construction and a toolbox and and are standing in a park they can construct a tree house at a cost of 20 AP. A ladder would be the way to get up into the tree house. Once some one is in the tree house they can pull up the ladder so no one else can come up. Characters in surrounding blocks or players looking on with binoculars will not be able to see the tree house unless they step in the park as the tree house is concealed by the trees. The tree holding up the tree house can be destroyed. When a tree house's tree is destroyed there will be no effect to the park. another tree house we be able to be built when the existing one is destroyed. If in the tree house when the tree is destroyed a person will get the message "While in this tree house you fell to the ground injuring yourself as it's trunk was destroyed from an attack" you would lose 5HP from this. If in the block when the tree house comes down a message states "(someone) attacked the tree house trunk bringing it down and caused it's complete destruction from the fall". If the attacker was using a fire axe "attacked" will be replaced with "Chopped". Tree houses would have a 70 HP Value. The most effective weapons against it would be a fire axe which would have a hit rate of 15% (axe proficiency would increase this) and zombie hands of course. Zombies gain 10 XP for destroying a tree house. Four descriptions of the tree damage are 0-25% a Strong and healthy tree 25-50% A sturdy tree 50-75% a weakened tree 75-99% a severely damaged tree. Survivors with construction, and a toolbox can fix the tree house for 4hp per 1 AP gaining 1XP. Once built a tree houses description starts out as "crudely built" but for a cost further 5 AP from the previous they can hit "improve" which will increase it's description. Start: "crudely built" 1: nicely built cost 5 AP 2: amazingly built cost 10 AP 3: masterfully built cost 15 AP. Each time they improve they gain 2XP. If carrying a spray can survivors standing on the tree house could have the option to spray the tree house colors from a drop down list once the tree house is at nicely built. Spray cans still leave messages in the interior of the tree house. Any graffiti in the park will still be on a random tree. For another 10 AP A survivor can make a sign at entrance of the tree house stating whatever they want it to say max. 20 characters once the tree house is at amazingly built. It will take 5 AP to take down the sign. Tree houses can contain radio transmitters and portable gennies once it is masterfully built. They can also be decorated like regular buildings. Here is a example of what the tree house description wound look like: You are standing in (something) park. There is a masterfully built tree house standing on a weakened tree here. It is spray painted green and has a sign saying "Revive sqaud". It's ladder is extended down, and lights are on inside. |
Discussion (Tree houses)
Does anyone realize that I put this here so I could develop this as a possible suggestion? So could someone voice their opinion please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- Hey Storm, just a note first. The wiki isn't so active anymore that you can expect to get responses on a suggestion (or, often, a talk page) right away. Most suggestions I've seen in the past year or so have gotten only 1-2 responses, and getting none isn't uncommon. (Also, impatience tends to make people less likely to respond.)
- In response to the suggestion itself, I think that any suggestion which expands the playing area (as this one does, by allowing another spot within parks to be moveable into and out of) isn't a great one, due to the decreased number of players already being spread so thin. It also seems to create a whole slew of new actions, most of which take a number of AP. Not in itself a discredit, but a simpler suggestion might get more support. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 03:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding, and sorry about the impatience, and that I just noticed I didn't sign it either. I'll wait a bit to change anything. Do you have any suggestions to make it simpler? --Storm 04:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- As Bob said, it effectively increases the number of places a player can visit in Malton. As a result, it will spread out the population even more, which would result in things feeling even less populated than they do now. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to make tree houses work without doing that, so I have to say that I don't think it can be fixed and that it'll be something that wouldn't get any support from the regulars. —Aichon— 05:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding, and sorry about the impatience, and that I just noticed I didn't sign it either. I'll wait a bit to change anything. Do you have any suggestions to make it simpler? --Storm 04:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I posted this here knowing people would not be in favor of it (reason stated in previous comments) but I thought it would be cool to have in game, and the idea was stuck in my head so I posted it anyway. --Storm 07:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Rooftops
| Timestamp: Storm 09:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Type: buildings |
| Scope: buildings across Malton |
| Description: On urban dead there are many buildings you can take refuge in. You defend the cades with your life. And when it's time to run you can just free run to another block. In my suggestion a button will be added to the interface that says "Roof" only when a survivor goes up to the roof can they begin free running to another block. Flavor text could be," you take the stairs up to the roof and see the urban skyline in the distance" Also when holding a metal pipe you are given the option to block the door with it. A survivor who tries to reach the roof with the door blocked gets the message "You find the door to the roof has been blocked and won't budge" They are then given the option to force the door open which has a 100% chance of working it says "You jostle with the door pushing, and shoving until the metal pipe that was blocking it fell to the ground" but they also could fall down the stairs doing this which takes away 5 HP stating " While you were jostling with the door you lost your balance, and fell down the stairs. The metal pipe that was blocking the door then fell at your feet." When carrying a crow bar there is no chance of falling only a chance of failing if successful it states "You use your crow bar to pry the door to the roof open allowing you access. If unsuccessful "you can't seem to wedge your crow bar between the building and the door" When you are located on top of a rooftop flavor text could be "You are standing on top of (place) the urban skyline is visible in the distance" That is the message when the door is closed and not blocked when the door is open it states "You are standing on top of (place) after taking in the urban skyline you notice the door to the stairway is ajar" when on a building with it's rooftop door blocked it states in the description "You are standing on top of (place) after taking in the urban skyline you notice the door to the stairway has been blocked with a metal pipe" you are then given the option of unblocking it when done so it says "You remove the metal pipe that was blocking the door and throw it aside" For zombies it is the equivalent to a loosely caded building. And will need memories of life to open the door. No one can bypass the blocked door and will have to unblock it before preceding. All buildings except junkyards will have roofs that you need to go on to to start free running. Fort gate houses will not have Roofs. There could be flavored messages according to buildings such as a steeple in a cathedral instead of a roof. Other buildings that could have flavored messages Stadiums, and fort buildings (excluding the gate house)." --Storm 09:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
Discussion (Rooftops)
First, I feel like bell-ringing could be listed separately (and would more likely pass as a cathedral-only option). I do like the idea of rooftops, although maybe only on certain buildings that would have extensive and/or flat roofing (I'm thinking Malls in particular). Making it required to free run out only makes sense if rooftops are available on all buildings, including the others you listed like junkyards, stadia etc. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I'll add bell ringing into another suggestion. But the thing about all buildings having roofs I think junkyards would be the only one to have no roof needed to free run as all you have to do is jump off a gate to another building. --Storm 20:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else have any comments on rooftops? --Storm 07:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I like the idea but the mechanics seem vague. It would cost at least 2AP to move between buildings, more if you have to unblock the roof door. That might upset people. Buildings without roof tops, you mentioned, would lose the free running advantage, that might also upset people. Additionally it would make these roofless buildings inaccessible from the outside if barricaded over VSB, and that is a big no-no. What I do like about this idea is that it adds another dimension to buildings. To me this sounds better if implemented as a default available action, so lower level characters have the option to move between buildings via roof tops without free running, at a modest increased AP cost, and optionally at the risk of falling off the roof and taking damage too. --Wez 14:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- first off I meant that you can still free run into and out of buildings that don't have rooftops, and this would take away the plus +1 AP to enter/exit the roof for these buildings because they don't have roofs. Well I can see two fixes for the first part wez talked about. It could be when you open the door but fall it doesn't waste another AP, and you automatically get up and go up onto the roof. So you can choose to use the crow bar risking Ap or use your hands risking HP. Also there would be a less of a chance of you running out of AP on a roof next to zombie than on the street. This would not take 2 AP every time you free run it's just +1 AP when you are going into or out of a building. A second alternative would be everything in the suggestion applies besides the part about you having to go onto the roof to start free running. I generally think it should be the first one (but voice which one or any ideas you have when commenting about that. About the thing of being able to free run at a low Level I don't think it should be done but if so I think it should be that you would have a 65% of falling off the building (if you do you will lose 5 AP), and if you make it you gain 2XP state your opinion on this part while commenting also. OTHER ADDITIONS: please vote on these if I should add them into the suggestion. #1 30% could be the chance of you falling while using your hands to open a door. #2 40% could be the chance of you failing to open the door with a crow bar. #3 the door to the roof can be blocked on both sides (IE you would have to use or hands or crow bar to open the door if it is blocked from the inside, and gaining the same consequences if you fail). #4.A when a building is ruined you can not go on the roof (but still free run away, and with out that 1 AP to get on or off the roof). #4.B if so should players lose 5hp from falling if on the roof when it is ruined #5 if carrying binoculars a survivor can risk a 50% chance of falling off the building, and losing 5 hp to see the amount of zombies/survivors below. #6 for a 40% chance of falling off the building and losing 5 hp a survivor can look at the surrounding blocks (IE: the 8 blocks surrounding the center one), and see the zombie/survivor amount. #7 should players be able to jump off the building? #9 should players be able to decerate the roof? #10,if you think something should be changed voice under #10. #11 have any ideas/suggestsions you think could be included voice it under #11 --Storm 06:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea...if it had been around from the start of the game. Adding it now would further divide the player base, however, since you'd effectively be adding thousands of new places for survivors to hide. Anything that does so at this scale will get an automatic "no" from me, regardless of how good it is otherwise, I'm afraid. —Aichon— 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well it could be when a zombie smashes the door they gain XP, and when they smash the pipe off the door it opens, and they are automatically taken onto the roof. Second thing if #4 would be added all you have to do is ransack the building and your human food comes crashing down with a extra 5 hp already taken off. Third option we could just remove the part about blocking doors. I think these could remove it from being a hiding place. Also you don't have to give it automatic "no" as this is in development. If you think something is wrong then try to suggest something to change it. --Storm 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding "no", all I was saying is that I couldn't imagine getting behind anything that splits up the population more, and it seems like that's a fundamental part of this idea (i.e. I had no advice to offer in developing it, since it seemed unsalvageable to me). That said, my imagination is lacking apparently, since 4B (which I had not read, since I sometimes skip the comments, particularly when they're unbroken walls of text :P) seems to address the issue in a creative way, at least inasmuch as it reduces the need for zombies to check more places for survivors (the losing HP stuff I could take or leave). If they find survivors inside, they should be happy, and if they don't, they can ruin the place and find more of them, which should also make them happy. I'd have never thought of that. In that same vein, I can't help but wonder if maybe zombies should be able to see any survivors that are on the roof. It'd let them know that if they break in they are guaranteed to find someone inside, which could help with the current situation. —Aichon— 23:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's more like a mountain of text. I skipped most of what I wrote the first time through and had to do it all over again because of the amount of errors so no hard feelings. The part about seeing survivors on the roof I think that is a very good idea actually, and it would help zombies also. It could be automatic like you suggested or if #6, and #7 are added it could be that will make it automatic if they are successful in looking without falling, and to see/smell/hear the survivors on the roof always it could be put into a new skill or part of a existing one. --Storm 05:41, 28 January 2014 (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.
