Developing Suggestions

Suggestion Navigation

Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions

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

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

Developing Suggestions

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

Further Discussion

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and substitute the red texts with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew

|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

Cycling Suggestions

Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.

This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the Overflow-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.

If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

Suggestions

Remove “cock” from the banned words list

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 17:51, 20 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Filter fix.
Scope:	Bad word filter.
Description:	“Cock” is one of a number of words that sound as static when broadcast over the radio. However, there are many legitimate uses of the words “cock”. Here is an example. I tried to broadcast, “When the cock crowed, the cocky cocker spaniel cocked a shotgun at the cock-eyed cockatrice at the Cocker Museum.” It appeared as: 28.01 MHz: "When the ..." static "... crowed, the ..." static "...y ..." static "...er spaniel ..." static "...ed a shot" (29 minutes ago) 28.01 MHz: "gun at the ..." static "...-eyed ..." static "...atrice at the ..." static "...er Museum" (28 minutes ago) I’ve heard static hiss, but I’ve never heard it crow. What type of dog was that? A staticer spaniel? I’ve never heard of that. And have you heard of a mythical creature called a staticatrice? No? I haven’t either. As you can see, there wasn’t a single bad use of the word “cock” in that sentence, but the filter went nuts over it. And the Cocker Museum…that’s one of a number of places in the game that contain the word “cock”. Imagine a radio conversation calling for help. 28.01 MHz: “Zombie breach at the …” static “…er Museum!” 28.01 MHz: “The …” static “…er Museum? Where’s that?” 28.01 MHz: “Not the …” static “…er Museum, the …” static “…er Museum!” 28.01 MHz: “That’s what I said, the …” static “…er Museum! 28.01 MHz: “No, you said the …” static “…er Museum! Help is needed at the …” static “…er Museum!” 28.01 MHz: “That’s what I said! Look, where is the location you need help?” 28.01 MHz: “Randallbank-(67, 37)” 28.01 MHz: “That’s the …” static “…er Museum, right?” 28.01 MHz: “No, it’s not called the …” static “…er Museum, it’s called the …” static “…er Museum!” 28.01 MHz: “But I can’t see any …” static “…er Museum in this suburb! The location you gave me has the …” static “…er Museum!” 28.01 MHz: “You’re not making any sense! Besides, there isn’t a …” static “…er Museum! The coords I gave has the …” static “…er Museum!” 28.01 MHz: “Now look who isn’t making sense.” Etc., etc., etc. That’s what it would look like from a third party, because each side, thinking they broadcast “Cock” correctly, didn’t know it was staticed. All that confusion and wasted AP over understanding a simple call for help. And trying to spraypaint “Entry point at the Cocker Museum” would probably yield these results. Your spraycan hisses and runs out. “WTF?” Your spraycan hisses and runs out. “!!?” Your spraycan hisses and runs out. “WTF is this!? I already went through 3 spraycans, and I still havne’t sprayed the message!?” Your spraycan hisses and runs out. “Why won’t it spray!? All I want is to notify people they can enter at the Cocker Museum!” Your spraycan hisses and runs out. Your spraycan hisses and runs out. Your spraycan hisses and runs out. “All my spraycans are gone! Fuck! This is bullshit!” So the word “cock” should be removed from the ban list. There are many non-rated-R uses of it, and the game has many locations containing “cock”. It shouldn’t be banning the names of its own locations! Besides, the banned word list doesn’t stop Real GAYmer from broadcasting his obsession with “c0cks”, so it doesn’t actually do any good existing.

Discussion (Remove “cock” from the banned words list)

...Or, you could just use coordinates. Giving text rapists more ammo isn't going to fly very far no matter how you justify it. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I don't see how this gives text rapists any more ammo. They already bypass the filters as they are anyhow. The game simply shouldn't be banning its own names. Besides, do you have any idea how many people don't know the coordinates? And why does this appear so nicely in editing mode, but seem all smashed together in view mode after I make the edit? The radio and spray can lines should be seperated.--Kolechovski 19:14, 20 August 2008 (BST)

That's because consecutive lines get bunched up together by the wiki. Either use bulletpoints, indent them, or separate them with empty lines. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:29, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Use <br/> for line breaks. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 19:58, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Tangling Grasp Negates Dark

Timestamp:	Ellaandcharlie 11:10, 20 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	combat, balance change, dark buildings
Scope:	zombies
Description:	Whenever a zombie inside a dark building lands a successful Tangling Grasp on an opponent, their instincts and senses (particularly smell) kick in, allowing them to negate all darkness combat penalties for as long as they maintain the Tangling Grasp. If the grasp is lost for any reason, hit %ages go back to the normal for dark buildings, i.e., halved. This helps reduce the Dark Fortress effect. And it's logical that if a zombie is actually grasping an opponent, it's no longer "fumbling in the dark"... Note: I claim no originality in making up this suggestion. I have been working on a few previous suggestions. I would like to thank many many lovely users who suggested fantastic suggestions that got killed by repeat offending nazis. But let's get onto the discussion on this awesome idea I made!

Discussion (Tangling Grasp Negates Dark)

I would vote keep on this so fucking hard. This is perhaps the best Tangling Grasp mod suggestion ever. Thankyou for making all our lives so much easier. I love you, and your posts. Please don't ever stop :)--CyberRead240 11:13, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I love this suggestion! Normally I just complain about other peoples ideas without going to any effort of my own. But wow, this suggestion is great. 2 thumbs up! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:18, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Did you even look at this page? There's a suggestion that has the exact same name and effect only one suggestion below. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 15:51, 20 August 2008 (BST)

You do realise that the suggestion is a copy, and (I'm guessing) most likely made to mock the creator of the previous one by overly positive response to this one? - User:Whitehouse 16:18, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Well then it's spam, and abuse of the suggestions system. As I said on the old suggestion, if you want to ridicule someone, use their talk page. (or better yet, your own) Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Refresh Button

Timestamp:	-Ninja13 08:45, 20 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	everyone
Description:	Wouldn't a "Look around" button be useful? For example if you are in siege and you want to keep an eye out for changes in the barricades or you are a zombie on the other side of the 'cades who also wants to keep an eye on them. Now there would be a button up in the set of actions at the top near the attack drop-down lists that allows you, for zero AP, to update your surroundings.

Discussion (Refresh Button)

What the hell do you think the refresh button on your browser is for? - tylerisfat 10:04, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Oh yeah, hey everyone, I'm back from vacation! looks like i missed a crap load of suggestions that sucked balls. kudos especially to blakefiredancer and his self-indulgent suggesting. - tylerisfat 10:05, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I agree. Refresh repeats your last action, while you can just reload the map.cgi or whatever it is page using the address bar a look around button would make a lot of sense.--x o x o 10:14, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I agree with this one. It's better than Wans shitty suggestions anyway.--CyberRead240 10:57, 20 August 2008 (BST)

A separate button would be nice since the browser's refresh button repeats actions and reloading the page from the addressbar wipes the page from history, so you can't look back on the events. In the meantime you can use this. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 10:56, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Or this bookmarklet: javascript:window.location.href="http://www.urbandead.com"

Swiers 19:06, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Tangling Grasp Negates Dark

Timestamp:	WanYao 08:51, 19 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	combat, balance change, dark buildings
Scope:	zombies
Description:	Whenever a zombie inside a dark building lands a successful Tangling Grasp on an opponent, their instincts and senses (particularly smell) kick in, allowing them to negate all darkness combat penalties for as long as they maintain the Tangling Grasp. If the grasp is lost for any reason, hit %ages go back to the normal for dark buildings, i.e., halved. This helps reduce the Dark Fortress effect. And it's logical that if a zombie is actually grasping an opponent, it's no longer "fumbling in the dark"... Note: I claim no originality in making up this suggestion. It's what most zombie players thought (hoped...) was going on -- mistakenly -- when dark buildings were first introduced.

Discussion (Tangling Grasp Negates Dark)

If you go through Kevan's talk archives to find the section where I asked about this, you'll see he's got it in mind as a potential zombie dark buff if needed. As such, making the suggestion seems functionally redundant, though maybe a god poll of public sentiment. Swiers 09:03, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, I have read that... However, it has not been implimented... So it's still Suggestion page fodder. ;) And, yes, it might be a bit of a prod for him to get on some kind of zombie de-nerf for dark buildings, whether it's this or something else. In any event, talking about it can't be harmful, can it? --WanYao 09:53, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Seeing as a zombies main attack is biting or clawing, and they are holding their target it makes sense that they would attack at full accuracy. - User:Whitehouse 09:18, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, makes sense. why wouldn't their attacks just be 100% if they had a grip on someone, even if it wasn't dark?Shooty08 13:08, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Coz that would make zombies overpowered. Same reason me with an axe hits a unmoving zombie only 40% of the time. There's a happy medium between gameplay and realism that needs to be found will all these sorts of changes.--x o x o 14:02, 19 August 2008 (BST)

that, was sarcasm. I know that completely unbalance the game. Shooty08 13:02, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Let's envision this concept in combat: even in the dark, I could simply shove a shotgun or lead pipe near my body to block that zombie's melee attack while they're groping me. And with the decreased visibility, it's not too unlikely that they'll hit that instead of myself. --Aeon17x 14:38, 19 August 2008 (BST)

It's best to think of an idea in terms of mechanics first, flavour second. UD combat doesn't follow normal rules of logic. If I had a shotgun with two shells in it, and you were asleep in a Mall, I could walk right up to you and blow your head off in the real world. In UD, I'd have no chance of killing you unless you were already greviously wounded.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming you're a very 'pro-survivor' type player. Which is fine of itself, I guess. However, I'd recommend you trying playing a feral zmobie for a few weeks. It's not great fun, one of the reasons why historically this particular zombie apocalypse has been rather short on zombies. --Bob Fortune ^RR 22:01, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Nice red herring right there, Bobby. And way to go on thinking that I'm pro-survivor. ;) --Aeon17x 02:11, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Dark buildings are equally bad for survivors and zombies, why should we change the balance, the tangling grasp bonus still functions at 100% efficiency. IMO it's fine as it is (Btw you left suggestion name in the title lol) --Diablor 19:47, 19 August 2008 (BST)

They are by no means equally bad for survivors. For several reasons... 1) survivors begin with higher to hit %ages and their weapons do more damage than zombie attacks 2) survivors have a way to negate darkness penalties -- generators... zombies have no means to negate these penalties. none at all. 3) a couple of measly FAKs, i.e. a handful of APs, can negate an entire day's worth of zombie AP... and save a survivor's life.

Dark buildings are unbalanced against zombies. This idea seeks to deal with that imbalance. --WanYao 22:03, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Quite right. Zombies get the raw deal with Dark buildings. Firsty, survivors can, should they choose, search up a generator and some fuel to light the place up. Quite a common tactic among Bounty Hunters these days. Secondly, survivors don't need dark buildings. With two exceptions, there's nothing of value inside. It's easy for survivors to just move on down the road. Zombies, on the other hand, unlive to kill survivors. Dark buildings makes this difficult for them. --Bob Fortune ^RR 22:06, 19 August 2008 (BST)

If dark buildings are so problematically unbalanced against zombies, why don't we see survivors sleeping in ruined dark buildings? Simple- because normal, unruined buildings are safer. Are dark building is of special value only so long as it is both dark AND has no zombies / dead bodies inside it. Remember, survivors can't dump bodies from dark buildings, so they can't get rid of the zombies (who thus effectively ave infinite AP) without powering the building (which makes it not dark, boosting zombie attacks). I think its pretty well balanced right now, with survivors having the advantage in firepower and generator use, but requiring a more co-ordination to use it effectively. Zombies simply have to take out the 'cades & generator, and the building is eventually theirs. Swiers 22:53, 19 August 2008 (BST)

But you don't actually check all those dark buildings, do you? I've seen plenty of survivors who hide out in dark buildings because after all, it is safer than "hiding" on the streets. (and if you're in a red suburb and actually want to survive, hiding in a dark building is the way to go from what I've found.)

All in all, I like this idea. We all know that the game is currently balanced slightly in the survivors' favor, and if this suggestion is implemented, the balance will definitely be closer to equal than it is now. I Am Sabbo 01:33, 20 August 2008 (BST)

If survivors are hiding in dark buildings in red suburbs why are you not checking dark buildings? Besides it's not like dark buildings are trp's anyways. Back to the point, just because survivors can install generators at any given time in a dark building, what incentive do they have? It wouldn't help less it's one of the forts and would just be a big waste of a genny and fuel can since it's not a trp. Per avoiding the penalty if this was implemented survivors wouldn't have a way to avoid tangling grasp now would they? Dark buildings are meant for hiding and they are equally balanced for survivors and zombies, zombies can hide in them as well as survivors and thats the bottom line. Why else would anyone go to a dark building? --Diablor 03:28, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Survivors do hide in open, ruined dark buildings. I do it, and I see a fair number of other people doing it, too. There are very good reasons for hiding in dark ruined buildings, i.e. even if you are disccovered, zombies are totally nerfed inside them. And, the whole thing about not seeing bodies? Who cares? It's irrelevant... except that is allows zombies to spy? Ah, zmobie spaiz, whatever, dark still nerfs zombies in combat hardcore... And, it's a PKer buff as well... I thought thew guides were neither buff nor nerf PKers -- but this update did just that, gave PKers a fantastic place to hide... No, it's time to start tweaking darkness, imo, but mainly for zombies. Perhaps I'm whining? Maybe... but someone has to take the opposite side to people complaining about Decay costs ;P --WanYao 07:39, 20 August 2008 (BST)

lol, yeah ;P ;P ;P ;P--CyberRead240 07:57, 20 August 2008 (BST)

And, the whole thing about not seeing bodies? Who cares? Any survivor who is inside an UNruined dark building and hopes to keep it barricaded so as to keep zombies out? If there might already be zombies inside, or if once they get in there's no way to get them out, the buildings are not defensible. Granted, in areas where survivors have unruined buildings, they don't really NEED to defend dark buildings...

Swiers 08:25, 20 August 2008 (BST)

None of that makes sense, swiers... Unless I am missing something... If you want to repair a dark building, you plop a genny. Then you can see the bodies. Then you simply dump the bodies. And, you can barricade with bodies inside a building, any building. Unless there are bazillions of bodies, it's a moot issue. And if there are bazillions of zombie bodies, you have problems anyway... But it's not like you have to clear invisible standing zombies... The only thing you can't do is barricade if the genny is taken out and there are standing zombies inside. --WanYao 10:05, 20 August 2008 (BST)

A dark Safehouse with dead bodies inside is effectively a safehouse with zombies inside it- zombies you can not get rid of without dropping a generator, even if the safehouse is EHB. Dropping a generator makes it not dark, until you kill the generator, which means clearing a few bodies costs the AP needed to find a generator (at east 10) plus fuel (often another 10) plus killing the generator (another 10), which means it almost never happens. As a lone feral zombie, I have cleared out intact dark building that had 4 or 5 survivors in them simply by standing up each day and munching. It took multiple days to do, but the result was the same every time I managed to get in.

Swiers 19:13, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I've been waiting for this for a long time. WanYao to suggest a game change. Now it's time for WanYao treatment! OMFG NO STUPID GOOOOOOOOOOOONG SPAM STUPID CRAP LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL GAME RUINER OUT OF GENRE and so on. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:47, 20 August 2008 (BST)

How droll. GONG! Next contestant, please. --WanYao 10:05, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Despite your efforts at passing off DDRs comments as mindless jabber, his comment is so very correct. The UR SUGGESTION SUX OMG NOWAY is totally warranted. PLZ take this to voting?--CyberRead240 10:48, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Were you plan on actually contributing criticism, or did you just want to stand around and act like an asshole? Because that's what Talk Pages are for.

I believe that this would make things easier for zombies, but considering that survivors can't barricade or fix ruined dark buildings, I think the current zombie attack percentages work fine. Of course, this screws over zombies when they come across an EHB unruined dark building, but how often does that happen? The inability to dump comes into play there though. In Summary, It feels (at least from my perspective) like Dark Buildings are already balanced (at least in terms of survivors vs zombies). Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (BST)

SyringeNullification

Timestamp:	~ Galaxy125 22:10, 18 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Balance Change, Item
Scope:	Zombies, Necrotech employees
Description:	"Suggestions Dos and Don'ts" says players should, "Leave Other People's Inventory Alone - Many suggestions involve destroying things in other people's inventories. Remember - every opponent in the game is still another player, and what you might do to them they will do to you! If you don't want your items destroyed, don't destroy theirs." The following suggestion goes against this, though. I suggest that claw attacks include a 1% chance to destroy a syringe carried by the attacked survivor. This is low enough that it would only be effective in large-scale assaults, and if you're carrying a syringe during a large-scale assault you're probably combat-reviving anyway. In addition, Hunting Goods stores in malls would be boosted by a 2% chance of finding a Bandolier. Like with Flak Jackets, only one is ever needed, and they're emplaced immediately. They have an encumbrance of 5%. They would protect syringes from destruction, and reduce the encumbrances of syringes and of shotgun shells to 1%. This hits the flavor of zombie movies where necessary plot devices are lost during a zombie attack. Look at what you're wearing right now. Is there any place where you could hide a delicate syringe where it would remain undamaged during a fight?

Discussion (SyringeNullification)

No. No. No. Suggestions Dos and Do Nots also says Multiply it by a billion, and I don't think that every survivor ever attacked having all his syringes destroyed is fair. Beer bottles and delicate electronic equipment survive attacks just fine, as do syringes. Not only that, but this doesn't even solve any in-game problem! It's an overpowered, useless survivor buff, and the first thing I've ever seen that makes me want to call someone a zombie trenchcoater. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Multiply it by a billion, then. That doesn't negate the fact that, on average, each destroyed syringe is equivalent to the loss of 300 HP. That's right, survivors lose 1 syringe per every 5 deaths. It's not designed to solve a problem, it's designed to slightly enhance realism. Multiplying it by a billion does nothing. -- Galaxy125 04:48, 19 August 2008 (BST)

LOL!!! This is funny. Very funny. Oh, wait, this isn't a joke? Leave my fucking inventory alone, alright? Got it? Good. --WanYao 23:21, 18 August 2008 (BST)

And the sickeningly trenchy "bandolier" idea is a massive and totally unbalanced survivor/ecumbrance buff. And probably a dupe, too. FAIL. --WanYao 23:24, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Seriously, one would think that after that Horses fiasco you'd have started doing your homework and putting in some thought, but this is about as close to Trenchy as an idea can get and still be onesidedly pro-zombie. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 23:50, 18 August 2008 (BST)

This isn't pro-zombie. It's a giant survivor buff. --WanYao 01:39, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Right, I didn't see the shotgun part. This Idea is no longer the closest thing you can get to Trenchy and be pro-zombie, it is in fact another Trenchy empty-space-between-the-ears-fart onto the talk:suggestions system. congratulations. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:46, 19 August 2008 (BST)

The fact that you were debating about whether it was pro-zombie or pro-survivor shows me that this is a good idea that needs some work. Unless you're going to help, though, lemme know if I should make a Bridge page so you can lurk under that, instead. -- Galaxy125 04:48, 19 August 2008 (BST)

The "Bandolier" idea is added to give survivors a way around it. Don't like it? I don't blame you, it does seem a little overpowered. Have any suggestions? I didn't think so. -- Galaxy125 04:48, 19 August 2008 (BST)

I'm leaving your fucking inventory alone. This is SyringeNullification, not Condoms'n'Lube'n'BananasNullification. -- Galaxy125 04:48, 19 August 2008 (BST)

No you're not, you moron. You're asking for a 1% chance per hit for a needle to break. Wake up. --WanYao

Lol Wan i think you missed the point there :P He's basically accepted his suggestion is shit and is attempting at insulting you...--x o x o 08:43, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Huh. Personally I carry a couple of syringes at any time, so that if I'm killed, then I always revive a survivor or two after being revived myself. So your assumption about not many people carrying syringes in a siege is probably off. Also, the bandolier thing...oh man, that is really overpowered. At the very least, limit the number of syringes and shots it holds. -- Ashnazg 1207, 19 August 2008 (GMT)

A new way to revive

Timestamp:	Werewing 11:14 8th August 2008 (BST)
Type:	balance change and improvement
Scope:	All players,in areas where no survivors exist
Description:	I believe there should be an in-game way to revive without the assistance of other players,it should be some sortof machine that has a high durability,that changes its position and fully "heals" itself upon then enbd of the day/or the end of the week.This may seem erratic and probably has ben suggested before,but in some suburbs,there isnt a living player in sight. Details/summary: An automatic machine that can revive players at a changing spot in each subarb Cost to players:For fairness reasons,since standing up costs a whole 10 AP something like this must take near 30-40 AP Durability:Something like this shouldnt inhibit zombie players permanently,so it should be destructable(for the day/week) something like 150 durability shoul dmake it dustructable to a small hoarde of determined zombies. A small side note:I'm new at suggesting here,especially in this bizarre format,so do tell me if there seem to be errors in this suggestions template.

Discussion (A new way to revive)

Fixed it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:33, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Thank you-werewing7:34 EST(I dont see the server time anywhere)

It seems like something a mad scientist could create given a few years, a moving, self-repairing revivification clinic.Shooty08 13:20, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Well whatever it is, it couldn't move itself since Urban Dead has no NPCs. Not only that, but you haven't explained how it would effect Brain Rot, or how the cost would change for those with Ankle Grab. Not only that, but it wouldn't be able to "automatically" revive anyone, (no NPCs), and exactly how would you justify this kind of radical technology constantly arriving and being distributed to a city under a full military quarantine? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 15:42, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Survivors need more reasons to work together, not less. If a suburb has no working revive points, then it's time to move out and find one if you get killed and really want a revive. Revives are ridiculously easy to find already. No self serve revives, evah -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:49 18 August 2008 (BST)

lol... no, as everyone above. this is a role playing game and as such you need to work with other people, it's that simple. 'sides, how will this tell mrh?-cows from hostiles? but... when UD goes steampunk this would totally rock... "those COMBAT REVIVE-ers, they mad, MAD i tell you!!" --WanYao 18:14, 18 August 2008 (BST)

I believe there should be an in-game way to revive without the assistance of other players, I believe that's totally against the point of the game; its a low tech MASSIVELY MULTIPLE online rpg. Multiple, as in other players are required. Swiers 19:15, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Hey, dude. I can certainly see where you're coming from. In this war between the survivors and zombies, survivors win by reviving and zombies win by killing (survivors killing zombies is relatively pointless). Since death cultists are allowed to swandive from tall buildings, life cultists should be equally enabled, right? However, the sides are not supposed to be symmetrically equal. Death is (by nature) supposed to be easier than life. Revive points must for now suffice. -- Galaxy125 21:47, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Your understanding of this game is pretty superficial, isn't it? Sometimes, people still amaze me.... --WanYao 23:27, 18 August 2008 (BST)

I killed 3 zombies standing outside my mall yesterday now i haz 3000 spare xp and nothing to spend it on :( --x o x o 01:02, 19 August 2008 (BST)

How does that have anything to do with this idea? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:33, 19 August 2008 (BST)

It's a pretty superficial game. -- Galaxy125 04:49, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Let In Light

Timestamp:	Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 19:09, 15 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Fix/improvement
Scope:	Ruined Dark Buildings
Description:	Well We all know that Malton has neither eternal night or day, nor an alteration between the two; but regardless, there is enough light outside for some buildings with windows to facilitate searching. Dark Buildings are dark because they lack those openings, but if they've been ruined long enough, their roof caves in, leaving the building, oddly enough, still in darkness. My suggestion is that any Ruined Dark Building that has decayed to the point of having weeds growing, a caved in roof...etc, be treated until repaired as one with enough light to preform basic tasks such as seeing corpses and attacking. This would not buff search or repair rates, or otherwise treat the building as a normal building that happens to be dark. The basic premise of this is that small patches of light can make their way in, enough to see dim outlines like bodies, or to be able to follow a moving target, but not enough for any real detail to be seen (I.E. being able to see items or repair targets). Basically, any Dark Building with indications of having a caved in or open roof in its description has visible bodies and no combat debuff.

Discussion (Let In Light)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

To be deleted on the 24th with no active conversation --Diablor 18:29, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Completely Revamped this suggestion. what do you think of it now? And if anyone has an idea for a better name, let me know. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (BST)

So you're saying that buildings that have the collapsed roof description shouldn't be dark? Can't really tell what you're suggesting --Diablor 21:48, 15 August 2008 (BST)

If a Dark building's roof has collapsed, or it has weeds growing..etc (any indication that the roof has fallen in), then it be treated as a powered dark building for purposes of repair, I.E. It can be repaired without setting up a generator. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 21:59, 15 August 2008 (BST)

Yea that makes sense, as to relieve some of the stress on repairing extremely ruined buildings. --Diablor 01:17, 16 August 2008 (BST)

You edit conflicted me writing that.. See my post below... Diablor, if survivors weren't so fucking LAZY, no buildings outside of places like Easton and Dumbell Hills (maybe) would be that high. Quit whining and do something. With 13,000 plus active survivors, there is no excuse for whinging about it. None. --WanYao 01:22, 16 August 2008 (BST)

The places this would apply would be few... although, seeing as many dark ruins are neglected... it's more common than you think. It's pro-survivor and anti-zombie -- because it nerfs ~~darkness~~ decay, and because it allows barracades to be built in the most horrific of places to be a hungry zombie... But, any place it'd apply to would have very large cost to repair... And, this might offer a tiny bit of encouragement to the 13,000 odd lazy ass survivors letting fully 1/3 of the map rot in Decay. Seriously, I am seeing tons of buildings, in suburbs with very few zombies, that are 60+ AP to repair. The greater survivor community is PATHETIC. --WanYao 01:21, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Indeed, there is no doubt that many survivors are lazy beyond excuse, but as you said, this change would encourage the repair of those greatly damaged buildings, and as such the reclamation of ghost towns (especially amongst non-metagamers). Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:27, 16 August 2008 (BST)

This change would "reward" survivors for being lazy fucks. Oh, a building is at 38 AP to repair with a gennie? I'll just wait another week and when the ceiling collapses I won't need the generator. Yeah, I should have just bucked up and got a gennie and fixed it, but since I didn't want to waste the AP to find one I now have to waste more AP to repair the building. (That doesn't make sense, Tech.)--– Nubis ^NWO 03:57, 16 August 2008 (BST)

You didn't spend the AP to find a generator, so now you have to spend the extra cost that has accumulated. This suggestion isn't meant to reward or penalize survivors for waiting to repair, the current AP cost increase system does that just fine. This is just meant to add realism, and more importantly to encourage the repair of ghost-towns and long damage buildings by non-metagaming survivors. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 04:32, 16 August 2008 (BST)

But you are making it easier to repair. That's like saying after the walls collapse you won't need a toolbox anymore or wait a little bit longer and you can repair it without the construction skill. Taking away parts needed to fix something nerfs the ruin mechanic.

To repair a building you need: AP, toolbox, construction, generator. Wait X days and to repair the same building you will only need: AP, toolbox, and construction. AP regenerates. Even if it gets up to 1 million AP you will still get it back without effort. Changing the mechanic (in this way) nerfs the mechanic. Which buffs survivors when they don't deserve it.--– Nubis ^NWO 05:48, 16 August 2008 (BST)

I think this is a good balance between fixing a fairly glaring realism issue and giving survivors a super buff. Although i do agree survivors are lazy fucks for not repairing dark buildings in well relatively well managed burbs. Also as Wan, there is probably a total of about 100 survivor players out there trying to repair buildings in neglected areas, i fucking can't wait for some huge horde to go and fuck up all the malls and forts in the eastern states and have a whole bunch of displaced retards with nowhere to go.--x o x o 02:23, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Join me at the Trood Building, in Dullston, J3D .... WanYao 03:12, 16 August 2008 (BST)

You would logically rebuild the roof as a first step in repairs, and then its gonna be dark again, so you should still need a generator for repairs. What I COULD see doing is dropping the OTHER effects of darkness while the roof is collapsed, which might in fact be a zombie buff, as it makes them less appealing as hiding places. Swiers 04:43, 16 August 2008 (BST)

I thought about that, but it seems to big a change to remove a building's entire Dark status due to aging, and if your only light source was coming in from a hole in the roof, what would you repair first? my main reason for proposing this is not to add realism, but to assist in the reclamation of long-ruined buildings for non-metagaimng survivors. as it is, it's just getting nuts. I think this change is a necessary one that improves the game, while not going too far or unbalancing it. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 04:49, 16 August 2008 (BST)

"Going nuts" seems a bit melodramatic. Ruined dark buildings really don't hurt survivors. In fact, they provide dandy entry points. Think about it- what if every dark building in the city were a perma-ruin, and could never be repaired. Would it really matter?

Swiers 05:19, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Fine, would you prefer it if I also negated the attack debuff? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 05:30, 16 August 2008 (BST)

All barricade plans should be scrapped and re-designed around perma-ruined Dark buildings as entry points. It'd be a fucking fantastic idea. --WanYao 05:36, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Tech- yeah, get rid of the combat de-buff, and also let people see dead bodies. That's really the number one thing that makes dark buildings so hard to re-take anyhow; if you kill a zombie inside one, you can't dump the body!
Wan- no doubt, I said that since ruin was first introduced. You still need VSB resource buildings (NT, Hospital, PD) for newbies (current plans also lack these, at least as implemented) but you could get rid of all the other other entry points and let ruins do the job. 07:01, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Revamped the suggestion. What do you think of it now? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 19:35, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Seems good. Gives the trenchies a reason to go kill zombies where it will do some good, or at least removes the discouragement, without changing the basic mechanics of requiring a generator.

Swiers 00:05, 17 August 2008 (BST)

I take the viewpoint that the weeds grow towards the light (such as there is) and so block it that way. Dark buildings aren't the problem here – most of these long-ruined buildings are NOT dark! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:00, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Dark buildings are not that common. Ruined dark buildings arent even a problem for people, regardless of how far ruined they are. 1 day? three years? no fucking difference. A dark building entry point for survivors is like christmas to the older generation of whiners who moaned about everything being overcadesd and wanted to be able to see entry points. Well, now you can. Stop fucking whining already. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:58, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Crawforde

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 13:34, 15 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	A whole new goddamn city!
Scope:	Everyone bored with Malton and Monroeville
Description:	As it turns out, before the zombie outbreak occured in Malton, there was a sample of the then-dormant zombie virus sent to NecroTech's Regional Headquarters located in downtown Crawforde. After Malton went into zombie quarantine, the scientists at Crawforde decided to work on an antidote to the zombie outbreak, using their sample as a research subject. This is where the updated version of the revivification syringes came from once the zombies had started to adapt to the earlier formula. Now, as it turns out, the virus has escaped its Crawforde containment and has run amok, much like it did in Malton. Cue yet another military quarantine, as well as a shutdown of all NT research in other cities, pending a full investigation. Essentially, this adds a new city to the mix: Crawforde. This city is a combination of the ideas in both Malton and Monroeville. It has the same basic shape as Malton, except the districts are more distinct and less grid-ish, like Monroeville. Most of them still fit the grid-like pattern, however some districts may be more than one 'space' on this grid. Notable landmarks in Crawforde include: Longfin Island, Crystalline Bay, Rouke Bridge, Hallister Bridge & Tallis Bridge To the south-east of Crawforde there is Longfin Island, named after a myth of the native inhabitants where the island was fished up by a deity, only to be tossed back for being undersized. Longfin Island is 2x3 Malton suburbs in dimensions, and has 3 bridges that cross the waters of Crystalline Bay, linking it to the rest of the island: Rouke, Hallister and Tallis. Tallis is the only one to the west of the island, and is 2 lanes wide. The other two are to the north and are 1 lane wide. Sheffield & Sons. Commercial Airport A small airport located on Longfin Island, the airport is a 5x3 area used as one of the two major evacuation points during the initial Crawforde outbreak. Here is a blueprint of the Sheffield Airport: The hangars would have item find rates similar to Auto Repair Yards. Each hangar is seperate, but are grouped together on the map for easy labelling. They are barricadable. The radio tower is a scaffolding with radar dishes on it. It is ruinable, and if ruined prevents survivors from using it to broadcast messages. Otherwise, transmitters inside the Terminal or Control Tower can be used with double the standard word limit. The control tower is barricadable, and can be used with binoculars. The terminal is one building, and is barricadable (but not from the other half of the building, like malls and other large buildings) The entrance behaves exactly like a Fort gatehouse. There is a fence running the perimeter of the airport; this is the only way in. The carpark is just a carpark, and the grass is just like a park. Crawforde Grand Central Station The second major evacuation route for Crawforde's citizens, the GCS is essentially a 3-square train station arranged in a line. The central part is the 'hub', where they used to have the train information on billboards. This area now serves much the same purpose as the billboards found around Malton, and is the only enterable square of the GCS. To the east and west you have the platforms used for east and west-bound trains. NecroTech Regional Headquarters Located in the central, most zombie-intense part of the city, this was where the Crawforde zombie uprising began. In gameplay terms, this is a Scientist's Fort, much how a mall is a Citizen's Fort. In this 3x3 walled complex, the Regional HQ has facilities for the processing and reviving of zombies (W square), as well as on-site employee quarters (SE square), a cafeteria (E square), infirmary (NE square) and even a crematorium (N square) for disposing of former test subjects. In the centre of the compound there is the Admin tower. Essentially the same as any other tower in any of the 3 quarantined cities, except that it offers NT clothes in addition to standard buisness suits. CBNN Complex Short for Crawforde Broadcasters News Network, this 2x2 TV station is located in the the North-Western area of the city. This building, once used to entertain the masses in Crawforde, it is now used to broadcast emergency messages to anyone who still has a working Television. Essentially what is stated here, except broadcasts are live, are made the same way as Radio Broadcasts, and include a link to the sender's profile. Crawforde University A sparse collection of buildings in the mid-Eastern section of the city, Crawforde University is where the brightest of the bright came to study art, literature and other such academia. Re-worked version of Malton University. ADDITIONAL 2: Crawforde Central Police Headquarters This 2x2 building, located on the West side of Crawforde, acts just like an enlarged regular PD, only the armoury contains Combat Shotguns as well as the regular kind. SE square: Administration SW square: Central booking NW square: Armoury NE square: Prison cells Oceanview Fort Located on the south side of Longfin Island, Oceanview Fort was built in 1925 in order to combat the threat of what was thought to be an incoming enemy fleet, but was instead a large school of whales. Since then, the fort has been modernised, and in its armoury can now be found Combat Shotguns and Submachine guns. Malls There are 4 malls in the city: Beachcomber Mall, located near the Northern shore of Crystalline Bay, Island Mall on Longfin, Silverroad Mall in the South-East, and Wild Hills Mall in the North. New item in Crawforde: Hunting Rifles removed. I thought they would be of some use in Crawforde. Apparently not. ADDITIONAL 1: Combat Shotguns can be found in the armouries at Crawforde Police Headquarters and Fort Oceanview, as Crawforde is a much more modernised city and as such has a better equipped police force. Regular shotguns can still be found in smaller PDs and in Malls. Submachine Guns can be found in Fort Oceanview's armoury. ADDITION 3: Map of Crawforde (Not to Scale) Brief rundown of the districts in Crawforde: Wild Hills A mostly woodland area, Wild Hills is home to the Wild Hills Mall and CBNN buildings. Resource Buildings Hospitals: None NT buildings: None Police Departments: None Fire Departments: None Notable Buildings: 2 Residential Area Mainly consisting of houses, schools and libraries, the Residential Area is where most of Crawforde's population settled down. Resource Buildings Hospitals: Moderate NT buildings: Few Police Departments: Moderate Fire Departments: Moderate Notable Buildings: University Slums Home to the lesser-off of Crawforde, the Slums contains a large amount of apartment blocks, hotels, motels and bars. Resource Buildings Hospitals: Few NT buildings: Few Police Departments: Moderate Fire Departments: Moderate Notable Buildings: None Watercrest This is where the more financially secure of Crawforde's citizens dwelled. Expect to come across the odd mansion here. Resource Buildings Hospitals: Moderate NT buildings: Moderate Police Departments: Few Fire Departments: Few Notable Buildings: None Central Buisness District The commercial side of Crawforde, expect to find numerous banks, monuments, parks and offices around this area. Resource Buildings Hospitals: Few NT buildings: Only the Regional HQ Police Departments: Moderate Fire Departments: Moderate Notable Buildings: 2 Western Crawforde Nothing really note-worthy in this district, aside from the Central Police Headquarters for Crawforde Resource Buildings Hospitals: Moderate NT buildings: Moderate Police Departments: Few Fire Departments: Moderate Notable Buildings: Crawforde Central Police HQ Southern Crawforde The shopping district for Crawforde. Many find Silverroad Mall to be better equipped than other malls, and often shop here instead. Resource Buildings Hospitals: Few NT buildings: Few Police Departments: Moderate Fire Departments: Few Notable Buildings: Silverroad Mall Bayside A tale of two districts, really. On the Crawforde side, Bayside contains multiple shops, hotel & casinos, bars and Beachcomber Mall. On the Longfin Island side, there's industrial port buildings, including many factories. Resource Buildings Hospitals: Few NT buildings: None Police Departments: Few Fire Departments: Few Notable Buildings: 4 Longfin Island Located in the bay, Longfin Island can be considered a substantial colony all its own. Resource Buildings Hospitals: Few NT buildings: Few Police Departments: Few Fire Departments: Few Notable Buildings: 3

Discussion (Crawforde)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

To be deleted on the 24th with no discussion --Diablor 18:29, 19 August 2008 (BST)

You just barely reached double-digit level and you're already bored with the game? --Aeon17x 13:40, 15 August 2008 (BST)

Not really, I was just bored with the limited building types in Malton. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:45, 16 August 2008 (BST)

No sniping, no matter how far the idea is buried within another idea. Sniping would in no way help with holding the bridges. The zombies would just wait for all the trenchies to run out of ammo, stand up, and cross the bridge. --Bob Fortune ^RR 17:38, 15 August 2008 (BST)

Yep. Hear you actually made me think you had a well thought out and (if a little large-scale) passable idea, but the hunting rifle addition digs its own grave. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 18:18, 15 August 2008 (BST)

I do, however, like the idea of another "test city" with lots of large structures, especially the NT headquarters. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 18:19, 15 August 2008 (BST)

There are so many new city suggestions all the time... Meh... Instead of worrying about Monroeville or some new city, players should be focusing on Malton. In particular, there is a whole fucking NW and west side that needs survivors do go repair and cade. And the NE corner deserpately needs zombies. There is PLENTY to do in Malton, a lot of it dangerous and exciting... if you'd get off your asses and just do it. And this doesn't even touch on the many, many different styles of play you can adopt if you want more "variety"... No... Give it up already... If you're THAT bored, either you're not creative enough... or you need to find a different game to play. --WanYao 18:41, 15 August 2008 (BST)

OK, it was pretty late when I came up with this, note that I am adding some more onto it that I forgot to add in initially now. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:51, 16 August 2008 (BST)

I don't like new cities coz they detract from Malton, but if a new city was definately going to be introduced i do like the idea of this one, minus the snipers of course because despite being aware that they are constantly shot down you haven't grasped the main reason: they are totally useless! There is no reason to kill a zombie outside! You will spend way more ap killing it then it takes to stand up! Also as Wan, Malton is an exciting place at the moment :) --x o x o 03:10, 16 August 2008 (BST)

I figured that a sniper would work in Crawforde as some of the high-priority zombie targets (NT HQ, Airport) have tall buildings a square away from the entrance. This would allow survivors to snipe zombies from inside the safe area. However, as said, the ammo would be limited, to the point of uselessness.--Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:36, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, I like everything about this except the weapons. Combat Shotguns maaaay be alright, I'll get back to you on that, but Sniper Rifles? Not a chance. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 03:15, 16 August 2008 (BST)

I decided I'm okay with combat shoguns, but only inside a rare large building; like the Armory of a Fort or the Weapons Locker of one massive police building. In every police department is just too much, make them a resource that makes people and zombies want to fight over a building for!!! Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 03:17, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Okay. Minor PDs in Crawforde would have standard Shotguns, the Crawforde Police Headquarters (location TBC) and the Oceanview Fortress (Fort on south of Longfin) would be the only places. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:36, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Now you're talking! If every large building in Malton has some powerful unique asset, item, service, or feature that can only be found there, it'd encourage combat over those areas, as well as adding interesting new gameplay! With all these potential survivor buffs, you might have to do something extra for zombies though... Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 03:45, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Good point. I doubt that reduced NT building numbers (due to the presence of NT's Divisional HQ, there was less of a need for them around the city, pre-zombies) would be enough of a zombie buff.

Maybe making frequent brakes in free-running corridors, to limit Survivor movement? That probably wouldn't do it by itself... Maybe less resource buildings of all kinds (due to the "unique" locations and their survivor buff contents), coupled with few extensive free running corridors? This definitely seems like something you'll have to figure out over a decent period of time, with input from dozens of users, but I think it deserves to be explored. I know I'd want to play there! Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 04:06, 16 August 2008 (BST)I HATE EDIT CONFLICTS! RARRRAAGAHHHRAAGGH!

Would a 2-lane highway down the centre of the city divide the free-running lanes enough? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:36, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Personally, I was thinking of having like "blocks" (like in real cities), with streets/wastelands/parks/monuments...etc. running in between building bunches, but that's just my take on it. I don't think a single division in the center of the city would really limit survivor movement that much however... Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 19:37, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Simplist thing to say, if your going to come up with a whole new city....then do it! Both Malton and Monroeville are on a grid of 100 squares by 100 squares. Start there and make the city. Whether or not city ideas come up all the time (they don't, not really), the more compelte your idea, the better (regardless of the idea). We are here to discuss the idea, not do it for you.--Pesatyel 20:07, 16 August 2008 (BST)

I'm not sure about Pes' insistance on Apathy, but I do agree with one thing: Planning this thing out would make it much more likely to be implemented. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 21:17, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Apathy? Not apathy. I've just seen a LOT of suggestions that amounted to little more than "I want X". And that's it. That's easy. Just saying it. Anyone can do that, but it takes some thinking to come up with the how of it. If your going to make a suggestion, it would behoove you to MAKE a suggestion. How are we supposed to know what you had in mind? What we have to work with, as far as the discussion goes? YOU are making the suggestion X, not me. If you say "I think a chainsaw would be a good addition" I'd expect you to have SOME idea on the stats of the chainsaw. If you expect ME to come up with them, then I might as well be making the suggestion myself, right? But I'm not, YOU are (and, yes, I"m using the generic "you" to denote the author, not you specifically). Basically speaking, I'd have to believe the author of the idea has SOME idea, which, truth be told IS what we have here. But what I said still applies, given the enormous nature of the suggestion.--Pesatyel 07:59, 17 August 2008 (BST)

I may be stuck on a vehicle idea vein but, if the city is on several islands and you're already adding in new guns, why not personal boats? That could add in another large maybe 2x1 industrial dock structure as well. Just a thought considering you would have squares containing only water.--Ninja13 22:34, 16 August 2008 (BST)

No. No. Oh God No. No. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 21:50, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Sorry, mate, but as Tech. No vehicles. Industrial docks would still fit in though... --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 04:19, 17 August 2008 (BST)

To make free running less useful, how about cliffs or ridges that you have to go around instead of through?Shooty08 11:56, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Just a suggestion it just seems like a waste of space to have a whole bunch of inacessable blocks.--Ninja13 23:23, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Reset Character V2

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 02:20, 7 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Prestige
Scope:	All Players
Description:	On the bottom of the skills page there would be a new button with a drop down box labelled: "Reset as Civilian/Military/Scientist/Zombie" Conformation will be required in the same style as Brain Rot Clicking this box: Removes all skills, Empties the players inventory, Changes the class of the player to what was specified, Sets XP to 75. It does not: Reset player Level, Remove 'paid' status. Benefits: Allows players to play from start their characters without having to use new names... Allows players to change class if they decide they do not like their current one early in the game. Flaws: Slightly harder to begin again as the character has no skills/items (75XP will allow the player to buy a skill in their selected class or at least make it easier to purchase their 1st skill). Now I know lots of people will probably think along the lines of 'just create another character' or 'people with lots of XP can get to a really high level quickly' In response... 1) You do not have to reset your character if you do not want to. 2) Every character must have a unique name, if you reuse an old name rather than discarding it, the character is not wasted and other players are more likely to get the name they want as opposed to the 473rd variant... 3) The level is not reset to allow for other players to see how experianced another player is, although this is a double-edged sword as power-leveling trenchies will always want bigger numbers than everyone else.

Discussion (Reset CharacterV2.0)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

To be deleted on the 24th with no discussion --Diablor 18:28, 19 August 2008 (BST)

You gain levels because you buy new skills. If you're removing all your skills, then naturally your level will reset, too. There shouldn't be any other way around it.

Some workarounds:

Upon choosing a class, start with that class' starting skill. At zero XP. Just like how a new character is.
Character reset can only be done once.
Characters should have a note on their profile that they have reset their characters. It's up to you whether to make it visible to other people, but it should still be there to remind the player that they have already reset their character and cannot do so again.
Character reset cannot be used by those who have learned Brain Rot. It should still be kept irreversible, not something players can have an option to back out of it.

Personally, I think this suggestion isn't needed at all and would probably not vote for it as is, but it is slightly interesting. Other MMOs have reset functions in their characters, but very few actually do it right. --Aeon17x 13:38, 15 August 2008 (BST)

This is not your average "level grinding MMO". Suggestions that allow you to raise your level indefinitely will never pass. We should put Level Increase in Frequently Suggested Ideas. As a matter of fact, if this suggestion cycles out with no one objecting, I'll do it. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 18:22, 15 August 2008 (BST)

It belongs on the list and maybe next month it will be on the Lynch Mob.--– Nubis ^NWO 04:24, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Same shit, different pile. Give it up already. --WanYao 18:36, 15 August 2008 (BST)

So, basically, the point of this suggestion is to start over at level 1 using the same character name. I see NO other point. Dressing it up in "benefits" is irrelevant.--Pesatyel 08:02, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Kevan says no to resets. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:23, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Buy Level

Timestamp:	Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 16:56, 13 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	All players, zombie/human, XP
Description:	a lot of talk has been around of what to do with massive ammounts of unused XP help by old, high level characters. some like prestige characters that has been mentioned recently. Taken from cross class skills that cost 150xp each. This idea would allow player to buy a level. Although meaningless, and providing no extra bonuses or skills it would adress three things the UD community has talked about. lvl 41 & 42 guys, that wish they could do something with hoards of useless XP. Strict survivors that wish they could go higher than lvl 20 without buying zed skills. strict zombies that wish they could get higher levels without buying harman skills. how it would work After reaching level 10 (much the same as headshot) an option would apear in both skill sets called "Level" with the description "increase your level" at a cost of 150xp. Example: a level 41 player has 4000 XP. through "buying levels" they could choose to expend their XP buying (26 levles for 150 XP) and have thier profile read "level 67". They would not have any extra bonuses, notation, classes, or extra skills.

Discussion (Buy Level)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

Delete on 25th --Diablor 19:05, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I know that this sort of suggestion has been all the rage lately, which is exactly why i've brought this to suggestion talk. If anyone can think of a better wording, or has some usefull feedback it would be apreciated.

Dupe. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:03, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Retarded idea. Just like every other one of these idiotic "l337 klub" suggestions.. THIS IS NOT A WORLD OF WARCRAFT! This game is not about power levelling , it is not about s00per giga-r@d elyte OVER 9000!! characters... If that's what you want, go play another game. --WanYao 18:07, 13 August 2008 (BST)

And before you whinge and tell me how non-constructive I am being.. Stop.. Wait.. Think. I have just explained to you precisely why your idea is lousy: it's totally out of UD's game-genre. Which makes it, as we say around here, "Spamtastic". --WanYao 18:13, 13 August 2008 (BST)

While I can't compete with (or understand) all of the "733t" symbols in Wan's post he is completely correct. This game is not about leveling. It is one of the few games where leveling makes things easier rather than harder and therefore opposite of most games. When characters max out they all become the exact same. So what's the point of adding more levels? That doesn't add variety to the characters nor does it improve the character. You make your character unique by how you play it not by how high your level is. If you had actually played UD enough you would realize that the characters that stand out are the ones that have an interesting approach or gimmick. Not the characters that are level 50++. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:32, 13 August 2008 (BST)

my "leet-speak" is actually derived more from a parody of old school, 2600 era hacker lingo (shit, did i ever just date myself, heh), with random bits of new school leet-speak thrown in... making for a completely unintelligible mess... which is exactly how i like it! :P As for the suggestion... um... it's all been said. Next, please. --WanYao 23:36, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Somebody tell me how this is bad idea. And no "geek speak".--Pesatyel 05:13, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Everything about this idea represents what Urban Dead is not or shouldn't be. point blank: It is a bad idea. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 05:19, 14 August 2008 (BST)

More trenchies and other XP hungry folks who play the game just for the XP, all in order to give their group a higher rating. It's no longer which group has the most number of skilled players, it will be about which group farms XP most effectively. --Aeon17x 05:24, 14 August 2008 (BST)

How? You mean to tell me people can't play the way the want? Telling me that, when I max out, I have to play a certain way is JUST AS BAD as any "trenchies going for levels" crap. Just HOW does a handful of players wanting to try to get to level 100 (or whatever) gonna matter to those players that don't? How is it different from 1 to 42? Until a character maxes out, isn't that the primary motiviation of most players....to max out? If players want to "waste" their XP on pointless levels...so what? HOw does it break the game or adversely affect other players (any more than getting to max already does)? --Pesatyel 04:28, 15 August 2008 (BST)

We already told you. It's not our job to fix and refine your suggestion for you, nor is it our job to repeat our criticism until you understand it. We point out flaws in people's ideas, that's what we do. If you disagree with our assessment, then ignore us and take it to voting; otherwise, we've already told you what's wrong with this idea: It's everything from its basic spirit to its in-game fallout. Believe us or don't. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 04:32, 15 August 2008 (BST)

You can play the game however the way you want. Go ahead, trench it up, even make a group for it. But that doesn't mean we won't stop you from pushing this dumb idea forward. --Aeon17x 11:21, 15 August 2008 (BST)

No. 42 is the Answer. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:28, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Ah 42, how i love thee.--x o x o 07:23, 14 August 2008 (BST)

what do you get when you multiply six times nine? seriously though, more levels would be fine if you actually got something for them. leveling up for the sake of leveling up is pointless. Ask anyone who's played any RPG, the levels only help if they improve your skills or stats. Otherwise they're just a waste of time and energy. Oh, and XP. Shooty08 15:18, 14 August 2008 (BST)

See Midinian's dupe link. And then take a look at this. Same suggestion, just revised. And both by me. My point here? There are already some suggestions which deal with the overabundance of XP. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 15:12, 16 August 2008 (BST)

First of all its not MY suggestion. I'm just playing devil's advocate. All I see, above is "this is retarded" but not WHY its retarded. Are the people who hate the suggestion so worried about "trenchies" that this would adversely affect their OWN playing experience? I see "this game is not about "leveling"" ok, then why do we level? Why not just have everyone start at "maxed" status? Up until a player maxes out, leveling is THE dominant force/reasoning for playing the game. After all, you can only do so much to "play the game the way you want" (ie. make your character "unique by how you play it") if you don't have the skills to do that. Hence leveling. Again, this is not MY suggestion and I'm not ignoring anyone. I'm just NOT understanding. All I see is "this is retarded". And when I ask WHY, I get, "we already told you". I'll go with the answer I did get. A maxed character is defined by the way the player plays as opposed to leveling. That does NOT say why "leveling is bad" just that since there ISN'T any additonal leveling, you have to make do with what you have. If, for sake of argument, this suggestion DID go in, that players could buy levels up to 100.....how does the change/hurt/alter/impede YOUR ability to define your character by the way you play? Buying those "above maxed" level is not a requirement. Nothing is. So tell me how it "ruins the game" or whatever ill-defined reasoning (beyond "its retarded" or "its a dumb idea") for it being a bad idea. Anyone watch The Root of All Evil? What is the "ripple of evil" here?--Pesatyel 20:02, 16 August 2008 (BST)

We already told you. It's not our job to fix and refine your suggestion for you, nor is it our job to repeat our criticism until you understand it. We point out flaws in people's ideas, that's what we do. If you disagree with our assessment, then ignore us and take it to voting; otherwise, we've already told you what's wrong with this idea: It's everything from its basic spirit to its in-game fallout. Believe us or don't.

I already said it but apparently you didn't hear me. This is a bad idea, everything about is is terrible, listen to us or don't, but stop whining about our opinions. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 20:07, 16 August 2008 (BST)

We level up in order to have the abilities that allow us to play with a distinct style. Leveling up for the sake of leveling up, that's what I don't like. Hell, if it weren't for the blatantly obvious zerging problem, I'd be pretty happy if everyone started at level 41, with Brain Rot being buyable whenever you want.

Like I said in the discussion for the other suggestion, creating an infitite XP sink for no purpose or benefit is bad. Running out of things to buy presents the question; "Hey, do you want to play for something other than XP?". I don't mind people who play the game just for the XP, but everyone deserves to get the choice. The trenchies can continue playing for the XP, and the others can find other reasons to play. It's their choice, and it should remain their choice.

All this does is increase the level-count. The only place where you can see it is the profile page. The profile page also contains the XP counter. For the trenchie-type player this would merely move the location of where you get to see the size of your e-penis. However, this also makes the "leveling up for the sake of leveling up" type of gameplay more official (being an actual part of the game), which would encourage more people to play that way. That's something I do not find a good thing. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 21:09, 16 August 2008 (BST)

And, actually, it WOULD have an impact on the group stats page, as far as I can understand it... You could inflate your group's standings by headshooting zombies at revive points every day and be were liek nambah WON!!!1 in teh statz, N00bz!!! Fuck that. --WanYao 00:39, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Why it is retarded:

"a level 41 player has 4000 XP. through "buying levels" they could choose to expend their XP buying (26 levles for 150 XP) and have thier profile read "level 67". They would not have any extra bonuses, notation, classes, or extra skills" -- It is therefore completely fucking pointless. It has no in-game effect. Its only purpose is for power gamerz to compare e-peens. That is NOT what this game is about. If you have any level of intelligence and/or critical thinking skills you'll "get" this, you'll see from the way the game is designed that it is not meant to be a WoW clone with zombies...

Capiche? Good... Non capiche? Matters not, just fuck off with this suggestion anyway. --WanYao 22:34, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Thanks for the exasperated answer (and, no, I don't mean that negatively or as "an attack"). It doesn't answer my question though (though the comment above, about the stats page does). And, there are a number of things that have "no in-game effect" (or a minimal one at best), yet they are included. For me, it boils down to some people telling other people how to play. YOU don't like the whole "trenchie e-penis comparison" thing or whatever. I can understand that. But how does that affect YOUR game? If, for sake of argument (not sure I should bother since it was ignored above), this WERE to get implemented.....then what?--Pesatyel 08:11, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Trenchie-ism is the total opposite of survivor teamwork. If there is a reward for having massive amounts of XP beyond the current maximum levels, then overall player behavior would slowly shift from cooperative to individual... and actually, that is already sort of happening now. No reason to make it any more worse, right? --Aeon17x 10:12, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Anyway, as for Pesatyel's rhetorical question on implementation, I compiled something in response to this suggestion: the Malton XP Leaderboard. It's not quite the same as buying levels, but it does give some recognition for those players who took the time to obtain massive amounts of XP. --Aeon17x 10:12, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Every last one of them is a zombie!! Which should tell you something... That survivors have better things to do than kill zombies in the street... XP is a meaningless marker in UD, all said and done, and having in-game ways of waving your e-peen was NOT part of the design philosophy... This much should be OBVIOUS. And yes this is telling people how to play the game -- in the same way that saying "No new military guns!" or "No oozing zombies!" or "Don't touch my APs!" is "telling people how to play the game". There are parameters, there are limits... --WanYao 20:40, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Totally pointless suggestion. If somebody can see your level, they can see how many spare XP you have. If you really want, whip up a quick greasemonkey script that divides that by 150 and adds it to level. Or just do it in your head, using 100 instead of 150. Whatever. Pointless. Swiers 19:19, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Advanced Genetic Mutation

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:52, 12 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Brain-rotters.
Description:	Sub-skill of Brain Rot. You've been a zombie for so long that your genetic structure has been radically mutated, almost unrecognisable from its original state. Your original genetic code is still present, however in order to reach it advanced lab equipment is required. From now on, you can only be DNA scanned when inside a powered NecroTech building.

Discussion (AGM)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

Delete on the 23rd with no active conversation --Diablor 18:03, 18 August 2008 (BST)

I'm not a zombie but this seems useless as far as I can tell --Diablor 21:58, 12 August 2008 (BST)

I am a zombie and this is retarded. I normally try to keep a NPOV when evaluating suggestions, but from now on Blake I'm taking the gloves off for each and every one you post due to the enormous amount of bad ideas you flood this page with. This is a horrible idea, it may even be worse than your super retarded *no touching scanner* Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 22:02, 12 August 2008 (BST)

You still need to explain why you think it's bad though. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:05, 12 August 2008 (BST)

I'm happy to help Techercizer slap you upside the head in this in this case. If you can't figure out the reasons on your own, I'll generously assume you haven't used a DNA scanner enough to be making any suggestions that affect DNA scanning. Go try earning a few levels as a brand new NT tech, then try running a revive point, and then re-write the idea if you still like it.

Swiers 22:16, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Anyways, what's horrible about this idea is it makes DNA scanning useless for rotters. it's already tough enough as it is! If there's rotter inside a powered NT, he's gonna get revived in a sec, Newbies getting EXP or Pros looking to track hordes; either way, this idea nerfs Extractors horribly. Just let it go Blake, it's a terrible idea, and just like most of your ideas, it could have been seen as such with just a little research, a bit of experience, and about 2 minutes of thought. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 22:30, 12 August 2008 (BST)DAMN EDIT CONFLICTS, STOP HURTING ME YAO!

Some ideas are so idiotic that they just don't deserve to be addressed seriously. But... thanks, Swiers, well said there! --WanYao 22:28, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Brain rot doesn't really need a buff. The only reason why it doesn't seem as useful is because the number of players who buy the skill are too few to make a significant disruption in most revive queues. --Aeon17x 03:14, 13 August 2008 (BST)

ZOMG IT'S NEMESIS!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 14:09, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Lol Axe --Diablor 14:48, 13 August 2008 (BST)

You have a real brain rot, don't you? Apart from a clear rape and violation of even the most basic of sciences, it is also a big useless nerf to newbie NT lab assistants. Have you any idea how difficult a life they already lead? ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:15, 13 August 2008 (BST)

While I'm all for making survivors suffer this suggestion will only hurt unlucky non-metagaming players that can't catch a revive quickly enough or survivors that are dumb enough to start as lab techs. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:37, 13 August 2008 (BST)

OK, fair enough. I suppose that AGM could not just 'fail' the scan, but result in an inconclusive one. They still get the XP from the scan, but unless they're in a powered NT building then you don't get any information from it. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:10, 14 August 2008 (BST)

That already pretty much happens with Brain Rot. This idea sucks Blake, it was doomed from the start due to poor research and little thought. let it go. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 02:17, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Don't get any information from it? That sounds just like hiding since there would be no way to identify a rotter in a revive queue, therefore it'll only get spammed.

By the way, you haven't explained why you think it's a good idea. --Aeon17x 03:39, 14 August 2008 (BST)

That's Blake, he just throws out one crappy ill researched and un-thought-out idea after another, usually with little or no explanation of exactly what he's fixing, if anything. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 03:52, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Well, I thought that there could be more of a difference between 'career zombies' (Rotters) and the regular kind. After all, Brain Rot all-but sacrifices your survivor abilities, so you'd better get some good use out of the skill tree.

Oh, and you'd get a custom message for scanning a AGM'd zombie. Something along the lines of "You extract a DNA sample, but it is far too mutated for the scanner to identify the zombie's former identity."--Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:04, 14 August 2008 (BST)

At present, DNA extraction has approximately a 75% failure chance vs Brain Rot. This skill fails to deliver. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:13, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Uh, Blake, this is the nicest it'll get: the mere fact that with this skill it's impossible for a brain rotter to reveal their identity makes your suggestion dead in the water; therefore, don't push it. Every other reply will be downhill from here. --Aeon17x 07:51, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Like this one... Try playing a rotter. Or, at least UNDERSTAND what the point of having Rot is. It seems you don't... --WanYao 08:06, 14 August 2008 (BST)

The point of rot is so u can be lvl42 and pew pew pew your noob 41 friendz coz lvl is all that matters in urban dead duh.--x o x o 08:12, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Brain Rot doesn't do anything to your survivor abilities. Play a rotter before making suggestions about brain rot, dammit. You know what? As a general rule, don't make suggestions about things you're not experienced in. This applies to everyone. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 10:22, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Here's a thought on how this process could be easier: Hows about you kill your ideas before you even post them here!? That's called "Thinking", a lot of us do it! What's more, how about you bugger the hell away from subjects you obviously don't know jack shit about? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Awww i came here thinking this would be about annual general meetings...now that is a good idea. Just imagine everyone cuming together in The Arkham Sisters once a year...--x o x o 07:55, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Forced meme is forced. I have to admire your persistence, however. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:25, 14 August 2008 (BST)

He's a dedicated 2 Cool member, to be sure!--Nallan (Talk) 11:34, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Forgeting skills

Timestamp:	--[[User:Runemasteryx\| The Strelstys deputy]] 20:44, 12 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Game Mechanic
Scope:	Everybody
Description:	Allow you to play the game again I'm getting kinda bored just playing an powerful guy, and feel like a change. I don't want to make a new person, to hard to keep track of them all. So my sggestion is that you can reset skills. You can choose skills and forget them, and then work your way back to earning them. It is simple and you can choose what skills to forget, but mabye a limit on skill lose, 5 a day?

Discussion (Forgeting skills)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

Delete on 25th --Diablor 19:04, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I moved your suggestion to it's proper position and fixed the template. --Diablor 22:30, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Your improper construction of a suggestion almost reveals as much about your ignorance of suggestions protocol as your actual idea. This is a bad idea for tons of reasons, if you don't want to have your ideas shot down in flames, read the associated material (Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested) and watch others make suggestions. I'm getting kind of tired of telling n00bs to do this, especially considering it's right on the suggestion's page. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (BST) if one more asshole edit conflics me i'm gonna break something

This comes up quite often. Hence it's a dupe. Where's Iscariot to? He's good at finding those. Yes. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 22:34, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Just scroll down to Reset Character, below. Sheesh. --WanYao 15:19, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Leave my skills alone. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 15:57, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Oh... and if you're "getting kinda bored just playing an powerful guy, and feel like a change" then I suggest putting those skills to good use. Get your arse out of the malls and the fort armouries, ditch the trenchcoats and the katanas in favour of FAKs, needles and a toolbox... And get your ass to the NW corner... Trust me, it's anything BUT boring up there. There are so many different styles to play this game in, and to have fun with it. It's not the game's fault if you're bored, not in this way, anyhow. But if you really ARE bored, then maybe consider taking a break, or quitting? No, really, and I mean that without disrespect... --WanYao 18:18, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Send him to the Hills. Use your maxed out guys to repair the buildings sitting at 40+ AP to repair. (We have a few that are up to 77 AP) Repair a building, get killed, in 2 days when you get your AP is out of the negatives come back for more. The game is less boring when you can only play every 2 or 3 days. Problem solved. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:42, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Fuck i hate ppl bitching about spare xp, have you tried hitting about 15 and leveling off revives and repairing? It is nigh on impossible. Not that that matters at all because XP IS POINTLESS AND SO ARE LEVELS. If you only get joy out of buying skills go to WoW or some other crap.--x o x o 08:16, 14 August 2008 (BST)

I get annoyed with people telling other people how to play.--Pesatyel 04:30, 15 August 2008

(BST)

There are limits. Respecting those limits, as I explained above, is telling people how to play, yup. And I'm going to scream and yell and tell people how to play UD when they suggest shit like uzis or oozing zombies or bicycles or wtf lazer centaurs-- when people propose stuff that is OBVIOUSLY contrary to the design philosophy of the game. Because there IS a design philosophy, and it ZOMG tells people, within certain parameters, how to play the game.. What part of that don't you understand, pesatyel? --WanYao 20:46, 17 August 2008 (BST)

For the record, I PK so I stay out of mall, those thing are death traps, and Having too many alts is annoying --[[User:Runemasteryx| The Strelstys deputy]] 00:13, 18 August 2008 (BST)

What is needed is not some sort of amnesia device but a way to retire characters that is both meaningful and in genre... Basically that boils down to escape or a glorious perma death. Neither should be mandatory but making such achievable as goals (or the final price of failure) should be goals achievable for anyone who wishes to try... Either way attempting an action that leads to one or the other should result in the character being recorded in a hall of fame and then being wiped ready for a restart! --Honestmistake 00:50, 18 August 2008 (BST)

We don't need some kind of character farming "hall of fame death". If you want your character gone, stop playing it until it Idles out, then post that he "Finally escaped Malton" on your userpage. Happy? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:01, 18 August 2008 (BST)

You're basically talking about a Quest, Honest'. Make UD a quest game? Hmnnnnnnn.... Meh. IMNSHO, you wanna go out with a bang? Make a name for yourself in-game. Then retire. Remember the RPG part of MMORPG? Yeah... that... --WanYao 02:59, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Bicycles

Timestamp:	Ninja13 20:34, 11 August 2008
Type:	possible skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Add two new skills and items that would help in the repairing and upkeep of a bicycle. I know, vehicles are on the commonly suggested page but bicycles would be different. Across the city there would, realisticly, be old bikes that have been there since the infection started or earlier that would have been locked up and not worth anyone's time in the panic. These bicycles would be available to survivors with a new skill Engineering and a toolbox would be given a list of what the bike needed to be brought up to a level of rideability. These items would include (but are not limited to): Seats: Mall Sports Stores 3% Junkyard 3% Chains: Mall Hardware Stores 4% Factory 2% Junkyard 1% Handlebars: Mall Sports Stores 2% Factory 2% Junkyard 1% Tires: Mall Hardware Stores 3% Factory 2% Junkyard 1% Also, wire cutters would need to be brought back to get the bikes out of their locks. Once survivors got the bike repaired they would need a second skill Bicycle Experience to avoid the debris and dead bodies and even then they would run a 1% chance of popping a tire in each block they moved. The trade off would be half-cost for traveling, making it possible (albeit difficult) to traverse the city in one day. Related items would be (but are not limited to): Wire Cutters: Warehouse 2% Mall Hardware Store 2% Factory 2% Bike Locks: Mall Sports Stores 4% Patch Kits: Mall Sports Stores 4% Auto Repair Shop 3% Patch kits would be needed since a rider, moving up to 100 blocks at a 1% fail chance would statistically blow a tire on that trip so a one or two use patch kit would be needed. It would work in the same way a spray can does, running out and being removed at the end of its usefulness. Bike locks would be needed if a rider, who just spent so much AP and resources on their new bike would like to stop over at a safehouse just to rest or to stay a while would need to lock it up. Locks would each be given their own code and told to the owner when they are found. Of course the wire cutters that would be used on unrepaired bikes can be used on repaired bikes as well and they can be stolen. Edited: Zombies of course would see fixed bikes locked up outside of buildings and know that survivors were there. Bikes would be like gennys except useful and not just a flag to zombies. Also, zombies could attack bikes and bring them back to their original state of ruin. Also, if a zombie attacked a survivor on a bicycle in their square it would do double damage. Furthermore, survivors attempting to cut locks would have 7% success chance.

Discussion (Bicycles)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

Delete on 25th --Diablor 19:03, 20 August 2008 (BST)

People won't like this just because it brings wire cutters back, I suggest at least taking that out --Diablor 02:44, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Dupe of a ton of stuff, Bike suggestions are very common. I'll go find dupes if no one does it for me in the next few hours, as I'm busy atm. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 02:45, 12 August 2008 (BST)EDIT CONFLICTS!

Nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubis! --x o x o 03:03, 12 August 2008 (BST)

It's added to my page (Thanks Tech!) I'm a bit tired and can't properly bitch out the suggester right now, but rest assured I will launch an angry rant later. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:45, 12 August 2008 (BST)

IUNNO. _■^■ 03:32, 12 August 2008 (BST)

A million new skills and stuff for something that's totally dupey already!?? Grrrrrh... --WanYao 05:30, 12 August 2008 (BST)

uh, the only similarity i see in that one is that they share a title. this is different in the sense that it would add the dimension of gameplay involving stealing bikes in the vein of pking or gking. most other vehicle suggestions make no mention of where the bike goes when not in use or where it comes from. it also makes bikes only useful for a different means of long-distance transportation other than free running with its own risks.--Ninja13 03:27 12 August 2008

It took me about 20 seconds to find this after reading your suggestion. At least look around before you post something! Way too complicated as well. --Jared^{Talk W! P!} 16:56, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Bikes in various forms are suggested lots. As are car and APCs and even tanks. And even the occasional horse (wtf??). All of these are generally bad ideas that usually attempt in some way to get around barricade and Free Running issues. And usually are big buffs to survivors with no benefits or added fun for zombies. In the case of your suggestion, it's just plain overcomplicated and doesn't really add much of value to the UD experience. And adding several new skills is a bad idea, usually... because old players can buy them veryu easily, whereas it's just more crap to spend XPs on for newbies. And, on top of it all, this is rather out of genre... Sorry, mate, but this idea just isn't going to fly. --WanYao 17:34, 12 August 2008 (BST)

No vehicles. Ever. Here's why - zombies cannot be removed from a particular square (Forts being the two exceptions). Once a zombie is outside your safehouse, he isn't going away until he chooses to. I laugh whenever I read trenchie groups vowing to 'clear the zombies' from a suburb. You can't. The survivor counter to this is mobility. Survivors have Free-Running to enable them to get to the places a zombie can't easily reach, and Construction to make these places even less accessible. Effectively doubling a survivor's mobility is an enormous boost to the survivor cause, and something which will make the game even more unbalanced for zombies. In addition, a vehicle would allow survivors more daily AP to search up ammo, FAKs and syringes, making the game even less balanced. Unless you can come up with a suggestion that's fair for both survivors and zombies, you'll never get it to pass. This concept is unworkable. Nice shot at it, but vehicles will never pass voting. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 17:49, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Well Wan and Bob i was unaware that the game was perfectly balanced in the first place. When radios were put in the game my level 41 guy bought it up right away. Now my level six guy has not bought it because he has other things he needs like free-running and gun skills. By that logic adding any new skills is a bad idea because the high XP people will just buy it up. And as for the searching bonus, why would you spend tons of AP to fix a bike to have likely less AP later to search at your destination. Bob F you make a good point. If zombies were able to deal extra damage to survivors on bikes and damage is taken from falling off of them (in the case of popped tires). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninja13 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I never claimed the game was balanced. It isn't. It's skewed toward survivors as it is, which is why I would oppose a suggestion which would bring benefits only to survivors. I wouldn't think that allowing zombies to inflict extra damage on cycling survivors would do much for balance in practice. It would be extremely rare that a zombie encountered a survivor actually using a bicycle, and in the majority of such cases the survivor would move away faster than the zombie could follow. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 22:12, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Smarten up Mr. Niiiiiiiiiiiinja man. "By that logic adding any new skills is a bad idea because the high XP people will just buy it up" -- yeah ... that's EXACTLY the logic ... unless it's a very good skill idea, you have to balance what it does to newbies vs. those who snap it up as soon as it's implimented. In any event, others have explain the other reasons why this is a dumb suggestion. Now... go put that katana back in your trenchcoat Mr. Niiiiiiiiiinja and talk to me some other time. --WanYao 22:34, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Seriously, this idea is crap, and if you can't understand why then you're either not thinking or can't see the obvious damage ideas as unbalanced as this would do. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (BST)

You are right Bob. This does need to be more balanced for the zombies. I'll work on that. As for you Wan, consider this. I have two characters that I play, One is a maxed out Private and the other is a low lever firefighter. My high-level character snapped up radio operation when it came out a while back. It so far has had no serious use for me. Meanwhile my low-level character has yet to purchase it because YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT SKILLS YOU BUY. If Kevan added "Crazy Firearms Training - +1jillion% to hit with all firearms" tomorrow everyone would buy it right away, regardless of level because it is extremely useful. So it doesn't really matter how it affects the high-level vs. the low-level because everyone has the capacity to buy levels. Ninja13 03:06, 14 August 2008

lengthy, detailed refutation of this retarded suggestion

Give it up already.

This idea out of genre. It's massively overcomplicated. It doesn't really add to the fun: it just makes things more complicated (i.e., a whack of new items, a whack of complicated mechanics, TWO new skills). Engineering is not a skill that you use to fix bikes, it's how you build bridges and design chemical processing procedures and inspect pipeline safety, that kind of stuff, you git. You haven't even explained what the movement benefits of bicycles are. Also just adds one more way to grief and an excuse for trenchies to PK people for being ZOMG BIKE THIEF!!

If all the above comments (my own and others') are not enough, let me spell it out for you according the suggestions guidelines.

From the Frequently Suggested page: "Vehicle suggestions crop up regularly, often allowing double speed movement in exchange for a set up cost to get started. They reliably get shot down for being out of genre, not useful enough, or not accounting for the amount of debris that would likely be blocking roads and railway tracks."

From the Dos and Do Nots page:

Don't Create Multi-Step Skills

Performing actions in the game as you would in the real world is just too complex. Suggestions that involve separate actions for each step are too tedious and are probably too complicated to be implemented. If your suggestion requires several actions to be completed in sequence, don't propose it. This same argument applies to temporary stat boosts. If your suggestion boosts character stats for a limited number of turns, it will almost certainly be voted down.

Don't Find New Ways to do Old Things

Having more than one way to accomplish the same thing adds nothing to the game. Complex methods that involve searching for numerous ingredients or components to combine into health potions or ammunition are intricate, not interesting. Players want new features, not complicated versions of existing features. (Empahsis added)

	Mighty Bullshit Wand
	This user or group supports the use of the magical bullshit wand to educate users with bad suggestions.

Do you get the fucking point, yet? --WanYao 08:12, 15 August 2008 (BST)

First: "The trade off would be half-cost for traveling, making it possible (albeit difficult) to traverse the city in one day." line twelve about halfway down the page.

Second: Ok. Whatever. Even though this does account for the debris...

From the Dos and Do Nots page: (that you posted)

"If your suggestion requires" in no way requires the player to use it and...

Don't Find New Ways to do Old Things

seeing as how there are no vehicles in the game anyway does not find a new way to do an old thing.

But i can see that even if this was perfectley balanced and fair for everyone (which I admit it is not) you would still shoot it down just cause it says against it on the Dos and Dont's page. --Ninja13 01:21, 16 August 2008

It's unamimous that this is a retarded idea. Out of genre, unbalanced and overcomplicated. It's not my fault you're too stupid and stubborn to let it go. Everyone has been trying to be nice to you... But you obviously don't deserve the respect. Now piss off, n00b. --WanYao 07:39, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Ninja, you are missing the point. IT WILL NEVER BE PERFECTLY BALANCED. That's why it is on the Do and Don't page. But please follow your own advice and refrain from posting anything on that page since you now realize it will always be shot down.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:08, 17 August 2008 (BST)

And to answer your comment: seeing as how there are no vehicles in the game anyway does not find a new way to do an old thing. The "old thing" is movement not vehicles. Not sure how you failed to grasp that concept.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:10, 17 August 2008 (BST)

"Lets wait until he agrees with us and then loudly restate our point like dicks" - Nubis and Wan Yao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninja13 (talk • contribs) 04:19, August 18, 2008.

At least we have the balls to sign our posts.--– Nubis ^NWO 06:23, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Death penalty

Timestamp:	Warioman 13:52, 10 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Death Modification
Scope:	Survivors/Zombies in Malton
Description:	I noticed that death in this game really is not a big deal. You can easily be revived for free and if you're a zombie...well you just lose 10 AP. So I thought that maybe when you die, you will lose experience and or skills you have learned as a real penalty. This could mean that you won't be able to learn all the skills as quickly. This could make the game longer for players because once you have acquired all the skills, there isn't too much more to do in the game. This could then also mean that even for the top players, that if they die, they may lose skills and would have to work again to get them back. I don't know exact amounts of exp or skills you would lose and the game staff can decide that, but i just think that death isn't significant enough in this game( it is in Monroeville!).

Discussion(Death Penalty)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

--Diablor 16:23, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Well, I wouldn't really mind, since I've got 9000+XP, but a lot of people would probably be turned off by this. --Apocalyptic doom 1:41, 13, August 2008 (EST)

I think it's too much of a loss. I know how it could be explained, but it would be a huge turn off to dying, people would almost be afriad of fighting. Then we'd see an era of trenchies and squatters. The fact that it's only 10 AP to stand up for a zombie is balanced, they cant use items, stuff like that. This shakes the scales a bit too much for me. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:12, 10 August 2008 (BST)

Actually if you have Ankle Grab it's only 1 AP. (6 if Headshot), regardless, taking away player's skills will never pass (see Suggestions Dos and Do Nots under don't screw with other player's EXP). There was something like this in place with the old Headshot but it was removed because it sucked. I'm all for making it a tiny but tougher for zombies to stand back up, but harman survivors die enough and wait for revives enough as it is, not to mention that any change you add runs the risk of unbalancing the game. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 21:34, 10 August 2008 (BST)

Dupe of something that was intentionally changed to make the game better. See Headshot#List_of_Zombie_Hunter_skills and On Strike. Of course, survivors were never penalized in this manner... Swiers 21:40, 10 August 2008 (BST)

This just makes the game totally unfun. Taking away people's hard earned XPs and skills = no fun at all. And the mere thought causes anxiety attacks amongst those who were around for the old headshot. BAD IDEA. --WanYao 21:43, 10 August 2008 (BST) N:Here fucking here.--Insomniac By Choice 09:44, 11 August 2008 (BST) You want a death penalty, play Monroeville. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:16, 10 August 2008 (BST)

This would make it next to impossible for new users, they would die and lose what little XP or skills they've earned.Shooty08 22:48, 10 August 2008 (BST)

It's about damn time survivors only suffered from this. The first skill you bought should be the first one you lose. Do it in that order. And make it so you lose the rest of that tree too! Let's make the game completely unplayable! But that would make being a PKer fun again! Shoot your enemies and make them (more) retarded !-- #99 ^{DCC ^{SNACK STRONG}} 07:21, 11 August 2008 (BST)

There is so much wrong with this i'm not even going to bother. Also, before making suggestions about how boring the game is once you've leveled how about you actually level? You have obviously never stood up with all skills or you'd know ankle grab negates the 10ap cost.--x o x o 08:32, 11 August 2008 (BST)

You know, putting aside the rampant mockery here, do you think it could work out if when a level, say 40 or higher character dies, they lose a random skill? As in, that avoids griefing any new players, and at the same time gives veterans something to do with all that XP they have hanging around... -- Ashnazg 0734, 11 August 2008 (GMT)

This suggestion makes me murderous. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 09:14, 11 August 2008 (BST)

Zombie death is indeed meaningless. That's because players in this game are trying to tip the survivor/zombie percentage. Killing zombies does not make them alive again. That's why zombies kill, and survivors revive. -- Galaxy125 18:32, 11 August 2008 (BST)

i have to agree with the others, loss of XP by way of penalty would bother most folk. skills all the more. the cycle of death-undeath-revive-death is what keeps UD rolling unhindered. though, it would be nice to find a use for all that XP high level people have stacked up i don't think this is it.--Blackmarketmorphine 15:59, 12 August 2008 (BST)

No. If anything, there should be a random chance of gaining a skill. Namely, Brain Rot. Don't tell me you can survive 100+ headshots without your brain turning a little mushy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:43, 14 August 2008 (BST)

No way. If death were any more serious than a minor inconvenience, you couldn't have awesome groups like the Philosophe Knights. And a ton of amazing and varied tactics are BASED upon the fact that death doesn't mean much at all. Like the first person says, we'd see an era of trenchies and squatters. And nothing else besides. I thought it was lame at first, too, that death didn't mean anything...then I realized some of the implications of having a "meaningless death" game mechanic, and fell in love with Malton politics. The game is plenty interesting, and interesting precisely BECAUSE death and life are so cheap. --Jen 07:05, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Suggestions up for voting

Last Login Time Displayed

Now up for voting! The discussion that was previously here can be viewed on the talk page of the suggestion. --Jared^{Talk Aces C-Kids} 17:21, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Throw 2

Voting time! (Discussion was saved on the actual suggestion talk page)

Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

Further Discussion

Please Read Before Posting

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Cycling Suggestions

Suggestions

Remove “cock” from the banned words list

Discussion (Remove “cock” from the banned words list)

Tangling Grasp Negates Dark

Discussion (Tangling Grasp Negates Dark)

Refresh Button

Discussion (Refresh Button)

Tangling Grasp Negates Dark

Discussion (Tangling Grasp Negates Dark)

SyringeNullification

Discussion (SyringeNullification)

A new way to revive

Discussion (A new way to revive)

Let In Light

Discussion (Let In Light)

Crawforde

Discussion (Crawforde)

Reset Character V2

Discussion (Reset CharacterV2.0)

Buy Level

Discussion (Buy Level)

Advanced Genetic Mutation

Discussion (AGM)

Forgeting skills

Discussion (Forgeting skills)

Bicycles

Discussion (Bicycles)

lengthy, detailed refutation of this retarded suggestion

Death penalty

Discussion(Death Penalty)

Suggestions up for voting

Last Login Time Displayed

Throw 2

Navigation menu

Search