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 replace the text shown here in red 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

Display player name with broadcasts

Timestamp:	Zhani 23:24, 29 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Radio
Description:	Currently radio broadcasts are made anonymously. I just logged in to see a broadcast of a referrer/affiliate link for another game (spam), with no idea who it was. Displaying the player name would not only help prevent abuse like this, but it would help players get to know each other and develop a sense of community in-game. In the RP context, it could be assumed that each broadcast includes the transmitter's callsign, as is fairly standard in radio. The appearance of broadcasts would be changed to: 27.00 MHz: PlayerName transmits: "Transmission content" (15 minutes ago) The player's name would link to their profile.

Discussion (Display player name with broadcasts)

No. Being able to spread propaganda/misinformation over the radio is a vital part of many PKer groups' armoury. Also, radio spamming can be a fine art as well as a nuisance - it's a matter of perception. This would make the game less fun by discouraging broadcasts due to fear of being hunted down and killed.. --Bob Fortune ^RR 23:49, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark

Timestamp:	Midianian^{\|T\|T:S\|C:RCS\|} 21:33, 28 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Mechanic change
Scope:	Bodies in dark buildings
Description:	Got a sudden inspiration reading Kolechovski's suggestion below. I doubt he'd adapt his suggestion to this, so I'm gonna make it as my own. Dumping in dark buildings is successful only 25% of the time. Other times it gives the message You can't find any bodies in the dark. The "dump" button is always available in dark buildings. You still can't see the bodies.

Discussion (Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark)

I would vote for this if you bumped it down to 20%, and added in a 20% chance to "stumble over" a dead body, getting the message While searching for bodies you trip over something soft. This fits paranoia better, because occasionally players will find a body but run out of AP before they can dump it. -- Galaxy125 21:44, 28 August 2008 (BST)

I don't think that works well. If you trip over the body, you should be able to dump it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:04, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Good idea mechanics wise. I suppose a smart player would only try to dump a body if they themselves had killed somebody (and thus knew there was a body to dump) but I can see others wasting much AP trying to make sure the building is "clean". Swiers 22:19, 28 August 2008 (BST)

If you just tripped over a body the chance increases? Or possibly the chance to dump something increases. Or maybe you can just dump it next time. Or maybe, It or you hear it skitter away from and/or squeak. You dump the rat, Or it gets away from you. You stub your toe on a fancy urn. You run into a wall. You dump a cat outside. _■^■ 00:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)

How's about something REALLY simple? ... If a body is in your contacts list, you can see it. And if you can see it, you can dump it. A 50% failure rate for dumping is optional, I don't care either way. --WanYao 02:26, 29 August 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry wan yao, but thats really silly. If i know you, how is it going to make it any easier to find your dead body in the dark? Just because i could recognize the person means that i have a psychic connection? plus, you could just add the person just before they die, or if it happened in between turns, add it from the notification area or whatever.

Midianian, i think i'd vote keep. makes a lot more sense the the complete inability. i'd prefer %20, and no bonus after bumping into a body. if you're paranoid and frantically checking a room, you can get all disoriented easy, especially if its all broken down, with rubble and growth everywhere. - tylerisfat 03:25, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Because my friends glow!!! ;P --WanYao 07:48, 29 August 2008 (BST)

That's what happens when nuclear physicists get interested in bukkake. -- Galaxy125 07:53, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Hey, that glowing excuse might actually work. Surely someone who died in a fire (*cough*fuelcanplusflares*cough*) would still have some hot embers on their corpse for quite a while. --Aeon17x 12:22, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Ok, so if someone is in your contacts, and is killed by a fuel can and a flare, then you can see them in the dark due to the embers for a full 36 hours after death. Thats a pretty simple game mechanic solution. - tylerisfat 20:07, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Tripping = nah. This suggestion = pretty kewl :) --x o x o 04:42, 29 August 2008 (BST)

I think the tripping over stuff should also be able to happen at random while you're barricading the place in the dark. That would be logical as while you were barricading you would be wandering around. Though the percentage should be much less than if you were specifically looking for the bodies.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:58, 29 August 2008 (BST)

How about any time you are in the dark and you barricade, search, or make an attack, you have a chance to "stumble across a dead body" equal to 5% x number of bodies present in your location, +50% if you just killed somebody. When you do, you get the option to dump a body. Body dumping (at least in dark buildings) would have to work like barricading does (IE, have an unpredictable rotating action url) for this to be implemented, but that doesn't seem a major obstacle.
Mind you, the above would totally replace the mechanics suggested by the OP.

Swiers 20:37, 29 August 2008 (BST)

So there would be no search for body button? That makes sence. That may make it a little more fair to a zombie that is remaining as a dead body till the coast is clear.--SirArgo ^Talk 21:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)

I don't like that, as essentially you'd get the body searching as a bonus to other activities that are already useful by themselves. Let's say a zombie breaks in. Somebody kills him and you start barricading. By the time the building is at VSB, it's quite likely that you've already bumped into the body. There's no paranoia there. Finding a body would be a nice surprise while doing other things, not an extra task that might or might not be necessary. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:46, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Dump dead bodies from dark buildings

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Restoring normal ability
Scope:	Dead bodies and dark buildings
Description:	Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone? Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.

Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)

A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. -- Galaxy125 21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or...

Swiers 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Group Bonus

Timestamp:	Squid Boy 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Balance change
Scope:	All denizens of Malton who belong to groups
Description:	OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front. Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society. With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency. So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members. The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it. So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus. Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?" What do you think?

Discussion Group Bonus

I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - User:Whitehouse 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)

I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you DO get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --Squid Boy 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. Garum 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)

You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - User:Whitehouse 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--Squid Boy 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)

If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - User:Whitehouse 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. Swiers 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)

i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--Themonkeyman11 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)

If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --Jared^{Talk W! P!} 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Restaurants

Timestamp:	Anotherpongo 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	New building
Scope:	People who take notice of buildings
Description:	If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes. Mechanics Restaurant Dark building Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally. Internal description Unpowered You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness. Powered You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. Ransacked You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor. Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied) Knife (3%) (kitchen knives) Wine (6%) (the finest in town) Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...) Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "You think about them hungrily" (currency not specified).) Clothing a chef's hat (white) (obviously) an apron (white/black) (waiters) standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)

Discussion (Restaurants)

Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --Aeon17x 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)

I don't see why not --Diablor 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)

*Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?
Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. _■^■ 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)

I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? I Am Sabbo 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)

A dark restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--x o x o 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)

It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --Anotherpongo^Where? 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)

As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --UCFSD 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)

a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--Fanglord2 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)

I Always vote for building suggestions-always love a change Linkthewindow 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)

I like this suggestion.--Themonkeyman11 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Brain Rush, aka Insomnia, Final Draft

Timestamp:	User: Not completely terrible 21:12, 25 August 2008 (EST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies, humans if they buy it as a zombie.
Description:	Similar to the body building skill but in reverse. Zombies who have the skill brain rush will get a rush of adrenaline, something zombies did not have before, as zombies are constantly developing. If revived, the player can still use this skill, as they will have even more adrenaline as a human. This skill adds 3 action points on to the maximum limit, giving you 53 action points when fully charged. The skill is in the zombie skill tree for 100 exp. Edited: deleted 75 exp for starting zombies, added ip limit solution, 3 action points.

Discussion (Brain Rush)

people might think its a bad idea, because of the "balanced" everything, but i would love having a bit more AP The only problem is - IP hit limit.--Piskus99 02:15, 26 August 2008 (BST)
I'd vote for this Shooty08 02:24, 26 August 2008 (BST)

None of the zombie skills ever cost 75XP, neither should this. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 02:25, 26 August 2008 (BST)

how are dead organisms making use of adrenal rushes? - tylerisfat 05:42, 26 August 2008 (BST)

I doubt the point as to whether zombies have functioning adrenergic receptors has been discussed, possibly because of the nonexistance of zombies. --Anotherpongo 15:38, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Should be 100xp like all Zombie skills, and should have 55 not 53xp (rounding up.) Other then that, it's fine. Some survivors might kill because they have to turn into a zombie to get it. Linkthewindow 07:10, 26 August 2008 (BST)

isn't there a rule that says dont mess with AP? i may be mistaken, but i thought there was.--Themonkeyman11 14:39, 26 August 2008 (BST)

According to the FAQ: There may eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same. Linkthewindow 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)

According to a paper I found in a NecroTech facility, This is untrue. Dead, Decaying Organisms, Their Bodies, Muscles, Nueral Pathways and Receptors. Humans with more Adrenaline, Couldn't that kill you? Zombies are constantly developing? Still 3 AP is fairly irrelevant, Leave the game be. _■^■ 02:34, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Add encumbrance section to the FAQs

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 01:41, 26 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	The FAQs.
Description:	The FAQs does not include any information about encumbrance, and it is a common question among newbs as to what it means and how it works. So, I recommend adding the following paragraph to the game’s FAQs. What is encumbrance, and how does it work? Encumbrance is based on what items you’re carrying, and how much. Each item has a set encumbrance, based on its weight and bulkiness. As you accumulate more items, your encumbrance increases. When it hits or exceeds 100%, you will be unable to pick up any more items until you use or drop some of the ones you’re carrying. Dropping items doesn’t cost any AP. If your encumbrance is 98%, and you pick up a generator (20%), your encumbrance will equal 118%. You will always be able to pick up any item before reaching 100%, no matter how far over the limit the final item takes you.

Discussion (Add encumbrance section to the FAQs)

Good idea. But there are always people who are negative .--Piskus99 02:17, 26 August 2008 (BST)

This doesn't go here. Go harass kevan on his talk page.--x o x o 06:39, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Well...It's still gonna be a suggestion, none-the-less. And since it is, here's a Reviewed dupe. Now I wouldn't know about this dupe if it wasn't one of my 100% keeps suggestions. :P --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 15:06, 28 August 2008 (BST)

I see. I'll harass Kevan some more; thanks for the link.--Kolechovski 20:29, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Insomnia

Timestamp:	User:Not completely terrible 13:43, 25 August 2008 (EST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors, and zombies if they buy it as a human.
Description:	This is similar to the body building skill. This skill adds 10 action points on to any person's AP, giving them a maximum of 60 action points. Though it will take longer for a person to be fully charged, I don't see much of a downside in that. Also being similar to body building, a zombie that wants to have insomnia can go get themselves revived and buy this skill as a human, then kill themselves from a window and go back to being a zombie. Since this will be a major skill, it will be expensive, at the cost of 300 experience points for any class.

Discussion (Insomnia)

Oddly enough I put this exact same thing in a few months ago but with different justification (AP buffer (+10 max AP, no change to regen)) and people started with the don't mess with AP argument. I'd still say yes to this although 300XP does seem a little high. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:58, 25 August 2008 (BST)

There are players out there with >10000XP. To them it doesn't matter. High XP cost is not going to make it balanced. --Anotherpongo 15:40, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Simply no, ap is the way it is to prevent one-man armies. Someone could go from Dulston all the way to Yagoton (I think) if they had 60 ap. --Diablor 21:03, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Its an interesting idea, though for people who have played forever, they have more than enough XP for this skill, and new people will have trouble fighting against others who get more actions per day and have more HP. Not to mention people who have honest multiple accounts (e.g. three roommates with separate accounts) will have problems with the IP hits. I assume this is going to get shot down. Shooty08 21:08, 25 August 2008 (BST)

This would be very powerful in situation where people can safely regen to 60 AP. I essentially makes a well-played zombie 20% stronger; 60 AP is enough to tear down 15 levels of barricades, which is most buildings under EHB. 60SP uded n conjuntion with DIRTNAP makes that tactic more powerful, too. And it clearly makes scouting and building repair more effective / less risky.
My guess as to the ultimate impact is that people would double the number of characters they play, playing them on alternate days, using 60 AP each day, or something along those lines. And I think that is a bad thing.

Swiers 21:46, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Make it a zombie skill that crosses over to survivors, and I'll consider. Maybe cap it at 55 AP instead of 60. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:03, 25 August 2008 (BST)

As Midi. --BoboTalkClown 00:19, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Perhaps, if the 'extra' 10AP came at a reduced rate, e.g. 1 hour for 1 AP? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:01, 26 August 2008 (BST)

For FAQ sake, already!! --WanYao 06:40, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Exactly! From the FAQ: There may eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same. -Pesatyel 07:39, 26 August 2008 (BST)

wan you is pun-ny.--x o x o 09:25, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Will have problems with IP hits and balance. I like the idea about slower recharge that an above editor placed, though. Linkthewindow 07:10, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, that is kinda nifty. It might work to allow characters that idle out to re-join the game with 70 AP or some such IF they are not corpses. Simulates them doing something with their time.

Swiers 05:10, 27 August 2008 (BST)

No! Make this a zed skill and I'll consider. --UCFSD 17:23, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Bandoleer

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 13:13, 25 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Humorous Items
Scope:	Trenchies!
Description:	The Bandoleer (Bandolier to you Americans) is the ultimate trenchie must have fashion accessory this season! Location: Forts 2% Encumbrance: 16% Ammo Capacity: 16 shotgun shells Purpose: None (arguably inventory management) Features: Up to 16 shotgun shells can be placed in a bandoleer, shells in a bandoleer have 1% encumbrance. When a trenchie has a bandoleer clicking on a shell loads it into a shotgun, if no guns are available then it is loaded into a bandoleer. Clicking on the bandoleer removes one shell from the bandoleer and places it in a shotgun, if no guns are available then the shell is loaded into a bandoleer. Notes: In the event that someone is incapable of the basic maths 16% encumbrance + (16 shotgun shells at 1%) = 32% encumbrance. 16 shotgun shells at 2% encumbrance = 32% encumbrance. Bandoleers are always found empty, previous trencie raiders emptied them of their contents before they engaged their brains!

Discussion (Bandoleer)

"Purpose: None" Do I really have to say anything else? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:45, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Also, ammunition doesn't weigh anything when they're loaded in a firearm. Shotguns are 6% both empty and fully loaded, pistols 4% likewise. Making them weigh something when they're in the bandoleer is inconsistent. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:49, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I could give it 24% encumbrance and drop the shell weight if you want it serious and with a purpose (allowing you to carry 33.3% more ammo) but then I'm sure people would scream "TRENCHCOATER!" and it wouldn't be so humorous... --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:54, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Jokes about Trenchcoaters are edgy and cool./sarcasm --Nitro378^{T JNL} 15:06, 25 August 2008 (BST)

It comes from the Freedom "bandoulière," so American spelling is always better. -- Galaxy125 16:40, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I know what the translation is (roughly) but what do you mean by "It comes from the Freedom" the freedom bit is confusing me? --Kamikazie-Bunny 17:47, 25 August 2008 (BST)

France = FREEDOM! Because in France they have actual democracy, and active citizens, and socialised health care. And they're also very open about sexuality and tend to be well-educated and literate, and are just generally pretty progressive and cool and stuff, taken as a whole. And, I think there were some Americans a few years ago, who were all, like, jealous of that, and so they made up some bad names and said some nasty stuff about France... And forgot that chips were actually invented by a Belgian. And some stuff like that. I think that was what he was referring to. --WanYao 07:35, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Since this has no game impacts, you could just code a greasemonkey extension to do the same thing. And people pretty much have. Swiers 18:42, 25 August 2008 (BST)

i think its a good sugestion except for the shells weight in the Bandoleer.......Canada rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Fanglord2 13:07, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Doors on the outside

Timestamp:	User:Whitehouse 12:23, 25 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Building change.
Scope:	All buildings in the city, everyone.
Description:	Currently it would seem that barricades are constructed on the outside of the buildings. This is evident because barricades are destroyed first, then the doors can be opened once the barricades are gone. This suggestion simply proposes to make it so that the barricades are on the inside and can only be attacked after the doors have been opened. This change would have to be accompanied by "open door" button being added to the zombie interface for those who have memories of life. Another thing that would change with this is that doors are no longer automatically closed upon the addition of a barricade level, it is an action that must be done first, or else the cades are open to attack from newbies. Pros: Easier to spot which buildings newbie zombie will be able to successfully attack and enter. Higher level zombies can move around suburbs opening the doors of all buildings making them "attackable" for lower level zombies. Makes sense, although that might not be a pro if it comes in the way of game mechanics. Cons: AP cost for attacking buildings and entering goes up by one AP, because the action of opening the door is no longer automatic upon entering, but an action taken previously. Newbie feral zombies can't help an uncoordinated attack on a building with doors untill someone opens the doors (a horde of newbies would be at a disadvantage, but they are today too unless someone has memories of life). AP cost for barricaders is up by one AP, because they have to secure the doors to be safe from newbie attacks (no longer automated). Not sure if this is pro or con considering barricade to deconstruction rate. I checked Peer Reviewed and had a quick search but didn't find any similar ones, anyone know of any dupes? If not, is this suggestion a possibility or should I just toss it out? Criticism please. User:Whitehouse 12:23, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Discussion (Doors on the outside)

"Currently it would seem that barricades are constructed on the outside of the buildings. This is evident because barricades are destroyed first, then the doors can be opened once the barricades are gone." - Actually, all the in-game text points to the fact that barricades are constructed on the inside... But that actually does point out a logical inconsistency, because they why ARE doors the last thing to open? Unless you assume, as I often do, that you're not just dealing with outer walls and one room... Instead, think of all the zombie movies where the survivors are getting overwhelmed and move further back inside, closing doors behind them...
"Newbie feral zombies can't help an uncoordinated attack on a building with doors untill someone opens the doors" -- This is unfortunately simply horrible. Sure, newbies can't get past doors atm, but they can tear down cades and wait around for someone to notice and go inside... In any event they can still contribute to "the cause"... With this change, you's take all that away... it's a HUGE newbie nerf, ultimately.

Nice try... and the whole doors mechanic is messed up, IMO, all round... But I don't think this is the way to fix it. --WanYao 12:44, 25 August 2008 (BST)

While I do agree that at first this might seem extremely cruel to newbies, it also does point out to them where they should and should not attack. A building without doors (churches, junkyards) are good choices, because newbies normally can't get the cades down in the first place and once they do the doors are always waiting. And we know that levelling on cade destruction takes too long anyway. So if you think about it, survivors going outside to close the doors is highly unlikely, meaning that once the doors have been opened they'd be likely to stay open longer anyway. But I see your point about the benefit to the overall cause. Also, interesting point about outer walls and inner doors, never thought of that. - User:Whitehouse 12:55, 25 August 2008 (BST)

So, you couldn't close doors from the inside after the building has been barricaded? That would probably result in most EHB buildings having open doors, because closing them would be a lot of work. More than the 3 AP to close doors on a VSB building (exit, close, enter). I think I like this. Would the status of doors be visible inside? There would be the barricades in front so you couldn't see them properly... --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:06, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, the idea was that you couldn't tell if the doors were open or not from the inside (thus resulting in a cost to check and fix it if they were open), but from the outside it would be made very clear. Although it seems that I missed a few things when I began to think about this suggestions.. now I don't know if you would be able to see barricade level. That would require glass doors.. and that would be a huge problem. - User:Whitehouse 13:09, 25 August 2008 (BST)

The way I see it, the barricades get built just inside the building entrance(s), and when those fall, survivors take shelter in rooms that have secured doors. Churches typically have only one interior room of any significant size... Swiers 18:47, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, I'm beginning to see it that. And this suggestion got more complicated that I had expected because of obstruction view of barricades.. and the fact that it adds one more AP to both sides in the eternal AP struggle.. I'm not really seeing a way of fixing this. - User:Whitehouse 18:56, 25 August 2008 (BST)

The only hope of truly fixing it would be a dual layer system, where lightly and below is counted as whats done on the inside, and done first, while above is counted as outside (things dropped out of windows, etc.), and newbies can attack down to lightly, but from there the door must be opened first. Unfortunly this has questionable methods to it, as well as the inconsistancy pointed out with survivours retreating further inside, but then again this could be countered with the fact only one door must be opened...--G-Man 05:13, 26 August 2008 (BST)

I really don't think your using logic well if you think things dropped from windows would equal strong barricades, while things built strongly are light. i think swiers has it right, the cades and doors are not nearly as flawed as most people think. the front doors might not even be there any more, but rather, the street front of the building is caded as a whole, and when that is broken through, the survivors are holed up behind a door. thus, you can't cade while zombies are inside, because its more then just dragging something in front of the door. - tylerisfat 05:35, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Very interesting. I like the idea...helpful for new zombies. Just to clarify though, can you close a door from inside if the building is barricaded? Because it wouldn't make sense if you could, but would mean almost all doors would end up being opened by older zombies if you couldn't... -- Ashnazg 1017, 26 August 2008 (GMT)

Instead, think of all the zombie movies where the survivors are getting overwhelmed and move further back inside, closing doors behind them... Well if the were several rooms in the building (wich makes sence) couldent the survivor just barricade each room?????? that would be unfair but it would just be common sence or the survivors could just try to hold the door closed.....--Fanglord2 13:01, 26 August 2008 (BST)

yes, it makes sense. but you can't do that for the same reason you can't have multi level buildings. Maybe survivors are hiding in those buildings that have 2 doors to go through before you get inside, and cade the space inbetween.--Themonkeyman11 14:50, 26 August 2008 (BST)

It aso makes sense just to assume that multiple levels of barricades add up to EHB. Plus, you only find so much stuff to pile up. Barricade strength really depends on the total mass used, and it won't matter much if its in one thick layer or multiple thin ones.

Swiers 15:20, 27 August 2008 (BST)

May as well make a door attackable to begin with, don't you think? I'll bet that no matter how many hinges and locks you put on that thing, it's got to be more flimsy than an extremely heavily barricaded hallway. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:39, 26 August 2008 (BST)

yes, it makes sense. but you can't do that for the same reason you can't have multi level buildings. i thought there was multiple levles seeing that you can jump out of a building window and get hurt or fall out of a building that is ransaked and get hurt, so there is multiple lvls because the most you cna get from jumping out of a 1 story buildings i like i dont know a twisted anckle... just thought id say that....Fanglord2 02:32, 28 August 2008 (BST)

No More Piñatas

Timestamp:	Aeon17x 04:09, 25 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Mechanics change
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	You know, I just realized that the whole concept of buildings turning into piñatas doesn't make sense when you consider how ruin works in the first place. Think about it. When you ransack a building, the lockers get punched, the desks get overturned, and the whole place is ruined. But wait! What exactly did you destroy when you ransack the building? The lockers. The desks. These are the exact same stuff you use to build barricades, and they are the ones that are explicitly wiped out when a zombie ruins a building. So I propose something. Whenever a building block is ruined, then all the barricades it had before will instantly fall down to nothing and the building is reverted to secured door status.

Discussion (No More Piñatas)

Makes no sense. They are damaged, not destroyed. Thats why they can be fixed. The other two problems with your suggestion is that first, barricades are needed before the building is ruined, so they were already built. Second, is the fact that even damaged stuff ca provide an effective barricade. Dont belive me, go to a junkyard and try to walk through a garbage mound. Leave pinatas alone. They are not common, and dont take much time to disable and repair. After all, you only need to get them down to VSB before you can walk in and fix it. Boo hoo, it costs you 20ap or so, who cares. Across the city that will be given to maybe one person a day. Given the thousands and thousands of spare people, it doesnt hurt. So stop whining and see that it isnt a problem, and is actually a really interesting method of resource denial. To prevent pinatas, try not to leave zombies inside a barricaded building. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:57, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Unfortunately the people with the task of spending that 20ap are the same ones who don't have the spare ap because they spent it repairing buildings for 80ap+. All these little pro-zombie things work fine because if you divide the cost by the 20000 survivors out there they are nothing, when however you look at it in terms of the few people who actually bother doing anything rather than shooting zombies outside it becomes apparent that actually pinatas do cause problems. I like 'em coz they've got character but don't just write it off as 'its .0000001ap a day each', coz its not.--x o x o 06:59, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Dont belive me, go to a junkyard and try to walk through a garbage mound. >> I know someone who tried this before, it wasn't a pleasant experience... (nail went through safety boot, ow). Anyway, I guess I agree with you on leaving piñatas as it is when you said it's a method of resource denial. --Aeon17x 11:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Dupe. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:39, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Why one earth is everyone trying to nerf pinatas? [...] Couple of points re: pinatas

They are actually quite hard to actually pull off in practice. They almost always require 2 or usually more people to coordinate closely.
At most you're dealing with maybe 10 barricade levels to get a pinata down from EHB++ to VSB++ ... Meaning it's not that bad.

This anti-pinata trend is just survivors whinging -- and trying to nerf some small but sometimes useful zombie tactic/mechanic -- because they can't do everything all on their oddy knockies. Again. And people wonder why the "trenchcoater" label keeps getting tossed around... --WanYao 11:42, 25 August 2008 (BST)

STOP WITH THE ANTI-PINIATA SUGGESTIONS!!! As a survivor I like piniata's it allows for some good roleplaying such as the last survivor barricaded himself inside starved to death for fear of facing the zombies and is now looking for a different kind of meal! My only problem with them was when I was trying to repair a ruined building, spent most of my AP getting in, killed the zombie, dumped, repaired the building and had major -AP so that when I finally could do something the zombie had rose, broke in, killed me and re-ruined the building! Apart from that they're fun in a bun. --Kamikazie-Bunny 12:15, 25 August 2008 (BST)

And I suggest: No More Barricade Strafing. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:51, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Pinata Decay

Timestamp:	Swiers 02:25, 25 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	adjustment
Scope:	barricaded ruins
Description:	The barricade level on any ruin would drop by 1 per day. This prevents pinatas from being a long-term problem (while leaving them a viable short term nuisance) and also rewards zombies from holding onto malls for a log time by getting rid of 'cades on the 3 "non-entry" corners for free. Ruin descriptonas already seem t imply things fall down over time; it make sense this would apply to barricades.

Discussion (Pinata Decay)

Any pinata nerf I'm good with and Swiers tends to make sense --Diablor 02:30, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I'd support it, I'm tired of having to look around for a ruined mall entrance as a zombie. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (BST).

I disagree with an automatic level drop. What about, instead, zombies just get a bonus to hit?--Pesatyel 03:46, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I think this is more to aid survivors dealing with pinata's, and although I like the susgestion, I would rather see a larger time period then one level per-day. Seems like it'ed make it a bit too easy to take back the suburbs long behind zombie territory, as starting from inside a green suburb supplying without AP wasted on conflict, it'ed already be well on its way by the time you arrived, considering the current system. It would however help those on site a bit better.--G-Man 06:12, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I could go for a bonus to hit, or maybe better, all hits destroy two levels. And that would be ALL hits, both from survivors (lessing the impact of pinatas) and zombies (making emptied malls easier to clean up).
I don't see how the decay of 'cades would make re-taking zombie held burbs easier. Its not pinatas that stop survivors from moving in and setting up camp in Riddleybank...

Swiers 06:44, 25 August 2008 (BST)

A good idea. Don't like the bonus hit thing, it benefits all the good guys and doesn't screw over anyone. Balanced and good. Another quality Swiers suggestion.--x o x o 07:02, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Swiers = Suggestion gold.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 09:48, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Why one earth is everyone trying to nerf pinatas? Even you sweirs?!?!? The end truly is nigh... Couple of points re: pinatas

They are actually quite hard to actually pull off in practice. They almost always require 2 or usually more people to coordinate closely.
At most you're dealing with maybe 10 barricade levels to get a pinata down from EHB++ to VSB++ ... Meaning it's not that bad.

This anti-pinata trend is just survivors whinging -- and trying to nerf some small but sometimes useful zombie tactic/mechanic -- because they can't do everything all on their oddy knockies. Again. And people wonder why the "trenchcoater" label keeps getting tossed around... --WanYao 11:40, 25 August 2008 (BST)

For a maxed survivor it takes an average of 50 AP to take down 10 levels of barricades. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:55, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Just to clarify, that doesn't mean I want Piñatas removed. The 50AP can easily be spread over several days and it cannot be increased by anyone in the meantime. Just saying that it's not a small cost to fix them. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:08, 25 August 2008 (BST)

WanYao- trust me, I know exactly how difficult it is to establish a pinata, and how little obstruction they are to survivors reclaiing an area (if you do the math, they arguably HELP survivors). That's one of the main reasons I'd favor a logical nerf to them; it would discourage zombie players from wasting time on them, and reduce survivor whinging abut unrealistic zombie tactics. Instead, this suggestion gives them the REALISTIC advantage of FREE BARRICADE DESTRUCTION on ruined buildings! That means any "not quite pinata" that was only VSB+++, or any mall corner that zombies didn't tear down the barciades on, would now require MORE effort for survivors to reclaim as a well 'caded fortress.

Swiers 19:06, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Personally I don't find Pinatas to be that great. Funny little prank and that is about it. Now, seeing as barricades are oddly enough on the outside of buildings (doors are the last to fall..) it makes sense that they are supported by the walls, and that when the walls begin falling and crumbling that the barricades would suffer too. Either instability (extra levels falling per successful attack) or simple decay (levels falling over time). - User:Whitehouse 11:59, 25 August 2008 (BST)

The only good and realistic anti-piniata suggestion... It makes sense that as a building collapses the things on the outside (the barricades fall of). --Kamikazie-Bunny 12:19, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I don't like the message this gives to survivors. The message being "waiting is good". Every day you wait, the average cost to fix a piñata would drop by 4 AP (5AP saved per barricade-level dropped, 1AP increse in ruin-repair). This makes fixing piñatas now instead of later a bad tactic. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:43, 25 August 2008 (BST)

And what, allow survivors to keep their counterpart to pinantas? I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. This is only going to make one of the most difficult tactics even harder to chew. I've accidentally found myself in pinatas before, and I actually like being a little prize sweet. What I don't like, though, is not being able to bring up the barricade levels to annoy the survivors desperately knocking at the very defenses meant to protect them. I suggest barricade decay applies to all buildings. At one level per day, it won't be a big difference to survivor communities, but it'll reduce the effectiveness of both pinatas and barricade strafing. And let us remember, a pinata is the harder one to pull off, not cade strafing. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 18:43, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Computers

Timestamp:	Nequa(Link:http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Nequa) 5:01 (central time), 24 August 2008
Type:	improvement.
Scope:	Humans.
Description:	As most people know. When you enter a NT building you can acess the necro net if you have the right skills. So why not have regular computers? I belive having a computer would be great. People would be able to send emails to other buildings across Malton. Another possibilty would be the ability to store info (EX: in police stations the Malton Police deparment can have a computer and allow people to see a in game rogues gallery and check for Pkers in the area). Computers could also have security so only people with a password can enter, that or you have the hacker ability which allows you the chance to hack the computer. To balance things out, computers would need power (obivous one), a internet connection for emails, they can be destroyed, they could have a viruse and thats all I can think of right now. If you have any sujestions on how to improve this idea, you know were to put them.

Discussion (Computers)

Explain to me exactly how a city under military quarantine, sparsely powered by Portable Generators, and under constant attack from Zombies, has city-wide internet access? What's more, You haven't told us what problem in the game your suggestion solves, or why it needs to be done. This is a zombie apocalypse, not a quaint modern city with a small problem with the undead. This suggestion is just never going to pass in any way shape or form. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I'd vote keep, assumig you could also play World of World of Warcraft. Swiers 23:38, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I dont know, explain to me why the necronet works? Any way you only need the internet to email people. You can still store stuff on computers without the internet. User:Nequa/Sig 5:53 (central time), 24 2008

How would the password be set? Could the hacker change the password? What skill tree would the hacker be under? How would zombies disable this? If disabled how would one repair it? Would there always be computers or would you have to set them up? If so, where could you find computers? How much ap would it cost to use them? Questions like these you must answer fairly quickly before you get spaminated. But as for your suggestion it's a possible dupe, however I do like the idea of computers. --Diablor 01:30, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I think this is a fine idea but like Diablor said you need to flesh it out some. My main question is; what is the hacking for, is it like radio operation and is required to use the computer or what?--Ninja13 03:12, 25 August 2008 (BST)

No, its for bypassing the security. My idea alows you to have security so no spies can see what you have in ther TO easly. User:Nequa/Sig 9:23 (central time), 24 2008

Necronet, I believe, is a hardened mainframe computer inside the necronet buildings. From what I can read of your suggestion, this is merely another, uncessary, form of communication. Granted it IS ingame communication, survivors already have enough to not need this overlycomplicated way of doing it.

And, lastly, if your going to sign your posts, just add ~~~~ at the end.--Pesatyel 03:58, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Necronet is less of an internet sort of thing and more of a database. Plus, patchy radio makes more sense for an apocalyptic setting. --Shawn O'Hara 20:43 Aug 25

Tracking

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 20:31, 24 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	More things to do!
Scope:	Scientists/Zombies
Description:	A recent software update by Necrotech has enhanced the NecroNet to enable tracking of tagged zombies. (Ingame justification) As every good scientist knows the NecroNet is very handy for tracking the local zombie presence. This update now allows Scientists with NecroNet Access to attempt to locate known tagged zombies... In addition to the current actions in NT buildings a new button labelled 'Locate' next to a drop down list of the users contacts is added. When the user selects a contact and clicks Locate a response is generated with either of the following response: "Error: Target not found. Subject may be out of range/untagged. "Target located at (xx,yy) - (location name) - (suburb)" In order for a contact to be located it must be dead, tagged and in range of the NecroNet (that means within the 9x9 grid of a powered NT building).

Discussion (Tracking)

I'd like to point uot some huge problem with it, but (aside from dubious flavor logic) I don't see any. At worst it maybe allows PKers to be located a little to easily (when dead.) If anything, that might encourage them to hang out in the NT dead zones as zombies. Nice tactical challenge.
Of course, there's always the griefer angle. Somebody could use this to track down your character every time you were waiting for a revive (especially if you were in a group that never left a certain area) and kill you as a zombie before you could get revived. Ugh. Swiers 23:46, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, Seems pretty Grieftacular... Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 00:09, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Not so much so I don't think it shouldn't pass. --Diablor 01:33, 25 August 2008 (BST)

It makes since to me as I never quite understood the point of DNA extraction in an of itself. Question I have is what are the chance of success?--Pesatyel 04:01, 25 August 2008 (BST)

You don't understand the point of DNA extraction, WTF??? Are you for real????!

Why oh why didn't I just stay away from this page? like i said i would......... --WanYao 11:45, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Wan... was WTF for me/idea or Pesatyel? Either way don't suppose you have any improvements to suggest. Damn EdConflicts! --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:55, 25 August 2008 (BST)

That was for me. I KNOW what the extractor does, I just don't see the logic behind it, from a roleplaying/realism perspective. I see a zombie and use the extractor....then what? I get his name and I know if he has brain rot or not, so I see the gameplay application, but what does it DO exactly? From a "realism" perspective, the infromation is being sent to the central NecroTech computers (seeing as how if I scan a zombie, YOU can't scan the same one as the information has already been processed). So what is the point of collecting the information?--Pesatyel 02:07, 26 August 2008 (BST)

I was thinking of a guaranteed success and 1AP cost, all it does is provide a location which a scientists still has to spend AP getting to and even then there's no guarantee the target has not moved on.
As for the grief aspect... as far as I'm aware you become untagged the moment you drop below 1HP (death is such an inappropriate word for a zombie) so griefers would still have to seek out their targets to tag them or hope that someone else does it for them, but please correct me if I'm wrong. --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:51, 25 August 2008 (BST) Huh, I cant really see any problems with it. Sounds like a pretty cool feature. --Nitro378^{T JNL} 12:05, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I think you are partly wrong. Yes, somebody would have to have scanned the zombie, but the Necronet seems to track their actual location even after they move, so for valid (tagged) zombies who are in range of your NT building, this would in fact always give the actual, current location.
How about a zombie version of this, that gives a zombie the location of any contact within scent death range, IF that contact is a zombie or corpse?

Swiers 19:14, 25 August 2008 (BST)

What I meant was even if the target is scanned, by the time you've walked to their location they may have moved on. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:44, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I see. I think that's unlikely (it essentially requires you both to be actively online at the same time) but it does happen, yes. Anyhow, thanks for the inspiration on the zombie version, ie "Dead Reckoning"!

Swiers 23:25, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Sewers

Timestamp:	Nequa(Link:http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Nequa) 9:31 (central time), 24 August 2008
Type:	New way to get around.
Scope:	Zombie, and Humans.
Description:	What happend to Maltons sewers? They did not dissapear. I am wondering if it would be a good idea to be able to have sewers for Malton. Humans and Zombies can use it to escape the streets and use it for escapes or attacks where teh enemy is weak. Here is a chart I came up with. 1. Humans would need ether a new skill (sewer training) or a new iteam (gas mask). That is becase there are alot of dangerous gasses in the sewers and you have to be smart to live. Since zombies dont breath they dont need anything to go down there, but I think they should have a movment penalty to balance things out. 2. If you shoot of a gun you have the possibilty to set of a explosion. Those sewer gasses are deadly. Just use knifes and other hand weapons. 3. To get inside the sewers you need to open a man hole cover which would cost 1 or 2 AP. Also I am wondereing if zombies would be smart enough to open a man hole cover so I will need to hear some input on that. 4. Searching for iteams. I really have no idea what you could find in the sewer, but maybe you would be able to find everything undear there but the likly hood of it is not so good. I am open to suggestions so if you have any idea go right ahead.

Discussion (Sewers)

It's been suggested before. Not only has it (I believe) been voted down, but it violates Hiding of the Frequently Suggested Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 15:59, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Yea it's been voted down but it doesn't really violate hiding as it's just another level of area. --Diablor 19:44, 24 August 2008 (BST)

If you shoot of a gun, theres a chance of an explosions? survivors would need a skill and a gas mask to get down there? methane would explode if there was enough of it there, and there was an open flame or a decent spark but not from a gun shot. why would peopl need a skill to get down there? its a sewer, you open the hole and climb down. a gas mask? excessive much. it'll stink, but you could still breath. those are the main things that dont work about the suggestion itself, besides the fact that its a dupe.--Themonkeyman11 21:05, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Sorry my friend, but your wrong. here is a incerp of what I found.

Sewers are among the most dangerous locations to explore owing to extremely high risks of poisoning by build up of toxic gases naturally found in all sewers (commonly methane and hydrogen sulfide). There have been large numbers of fatalities from around the world through being overcome by toxic gases from sewers and the only safe way to enter a sewer is if the atmosphere has been tested by a working monitoring device and other confined space entry procedures followed.

Also, I meant a skill OR a gas Mask, NOT both.--Nequa, 4:58 central time, 24th August 2008.

Clear!

Timestamp:	Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 14:31, 24 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Faintly Ridiculous Item.
Scope:	People.
Description:	Right. Its a defibrillator. Encumbrance 8% Found only in powered hospitals, replacing newspapers in the search rates. Can only be used by people with diagnosis. (Doctors know how they work) Relies on hand to hand accuracy. Does 5 damage regardless of flak (not designed to stop electrocution) Same chance of running out after each use as spray can, at which point automatically discarded.

Discussion (Clear!)

Defibrillators are incredibly bulky, and most have to be pushed around on carts or in ambulances. 8% doesn't do this justice. What's more, 5 damage doesn't really seem like it'd be all that worth it (especially if you increase the incumberance). Up the encumbrance to around 30%, the damage to 10 and add a max accuracy rate of 40% with HTH (only loses a charge when it hits of course) and I'm sold. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:08, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, kind of made the figures up entirely. Also, has no effects on barricades or decorations. As for radios and gennies, Im sure I can think of something crazy. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 17:15, 24 August 2008 (BST)

i like it, but what exactly are you aiming the defibrilator to do? being used as a ombat weapon? i was think more along the lines of medical things, as an alternative to using a syringe but the dead body can only be 2 hours old at the most, or it can be used to revivify dead bodies on a fixed success rate. its a good idea, and yes it would be reusable, unlike a syringe. i really like the idea, add a little more to it! 13:15 24 August 2008 (EST)

Too difficult to implement. What if they stand up after one minute?, it would also be ridiculously cheap compared to the cost of revives. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:20, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Techerizer is wrong about defibs being bulky. The old school ones are, but modern portable ones are about the size of a 12 pack of soda cans. Unfortunately, they also are designed in such a way that they need to be held against the skin long enoughto monitor the heartbeat, and then will only trigger if the heartbeat is abnormal, in order to prevent accidental triggering on people who show the symptoms of cardiac arrest, but have some other problem. Of course, that means they might work OK against zombies....
But as the suggesstor says, this is largely rediculous, and mostly makes sense as a homage to the recent Romero film. I'd expect to see glass jars of acid (1 shot weapon, HTH / melee skill, 10 points damage, no flak) as well, if this were deployed. Swiers 19:55, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Perhaps a defib could be used to bring a corpse (read: killed survivor, not killed zombie or revivifying zombie) back for just long enough to FAK 'em? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:41, 25 August 2008 (BST)

No, because that would force the person you defibbed and FAKed to stand up. There's reasons they may not want to do so, a primary one of which is they may WANT to play as a zombie. It also would HUGELY buff the "FAK packer" defense tactic; currently the only way zombies can outpace an active healer is to put survivors down for good (although zombie cade blocking makes such defense slightly less relevant these days).

Swiers 23:50, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Free Speech

Timestamp:	--G-Man 06:06, 24 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Pro-Survivor
Scope:	Those who want to chat ingame.
Description:	Suggestions to have speech free before have been mentioned, and this is not quite one of them. For 3AP you can send an invite to another survivor in the same building to chat, they can accept for one. Declining is as simple as doing any other action, no IP hit required. The invite box will be added beside your normal speechbox and will include a drop-down menu listing the 50 closest names of other people in the building. If the other person accepts then as long as you or the other person does not leave the building, a speech box will replace the invite drop-box, with the drop-down menu only saying the other persons name, and "end conversation". Any speech put in this box will not cost any AP, but will only be heard by the person you are chatting with. Only one person can be invited to a conversation at a time, and the conversation must ethier be ended, or you/other person must leave the building to start a new one.

Discussion (Free Speech)

Yeah, not the clearest, but im tired at the moment.--G-Man 06:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Not one that I could vote Keep for. Survivors already have a gigantic in-game communication advantage and this would make that even more powerful. --Papa Moloch

Limiting chat to one person, and costing 3AP already cuts down on any massive damage, and would only truly aid people who like to bicker back and forth, as it'ed cost less to ask for help, request people to join a group, inform of Pkers or inform of zombies. Unless you felt informing one person by spending 3AP to send one message that requires time spent in the building is a good tactical desicison?--G-Man 12:46, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Isn't that what metagaming is for? You only get so much "game time" and can, probably more easily, just use a "normal" chat program for that. Also, look for past suggestins like whispering.--Pesatyel 08:06, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Using outside chat programs, tools etc. shoulden't be encouraged if it can be done ingame without "wasteing" (loose term, as it changes from p2p) too much AP. As well what would chat programs do for RP? As for past susgestions, would've looked but didn't have time yesterday.--G-Man 12:47, 24 August 2008 (BST)

so we have:

this - Different Speech Types
this - Whisper
thia - Free speech idea (FINAL version)

so far, although, except for whisper (not actually "there") They are different so far, and i've got to go. I'll continue looking later.--G-Man 13:00, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Since most people do not spend much time being logged in, this would be mostly useless. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:27, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Don't find new ways to do old things Suggestions Dos and Do Nots. Why would someone pay 3 AP when they can IRC for free? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:02, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Because for some users, IRC programs are not user friendly. An online browser based text game shouldn't assume that all its users own and know how to use IRC. And for the record, this is a huge survivor buff, and shouldn't be passed. Whispering to someone is the only viable one.--CyberRead240 16:05, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Wtf is with people always saying "this is a huge survivor buff" to something as small as this. How is this a huge (As in OMG GAME BREAKING NOOB) survivor buff? --Diablor 19:50, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Whilst I do agree with this being a huge survivor buff with regards to unlimited chat for 3AP it is by no means game breaking... If all players human AND zombies only communicated via in game systems then it would be game breaking but as many players know quite a lot of people don't because of IRC and forums and such... however I feel Gs' on the right idea of making in game communication a more viable option. I would be in favour of a basic shoutbox somewhere on the screen that enables ALL players to communicate no matter where for free as it would help newbies and role-players alike. This thing however is too complex. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:33, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Face Rot

Timestamp:	Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.
Scope:	Zombies with Brain Rot.
Description:	The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise. In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if. He stands up Destroys barricades/equipment Kills or injures. His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)

Discussion (Face Rot)

Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)

I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)

How would this work when they're alive? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Then their profile just states they look like Gary Busey --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Bloody Brilliant!!! --BoboTalkClown 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - User:Whitehouse 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)

A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions and have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)

In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Gun Bashing

Timestamp:	23:23 August 22 2008 (EST) --Not completely terrible(Apparently who suggested this --Diablor 06:08, 23 August 2008 (BST))
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors, Possible Zombies
Description:	When I first played this game as a level 1 civilian with a shotgun and pistols and all this ammo but a 5% hit rate, I was annoyed, plus because I wasn't able to get a fire axe for a while. I think the shotgun and pistol should be able to be used as a melee weapon once out of ammo, or with ammo. Either one. It's a small change but I do think it will help new players as well as old players. Pistol Whipping someone would do 2 damage, and hitting someone with a shotgun would do 3-4, and will have a 10% base accuracy rate just like all other melee weapons. Zombies could also use these for melee weapons. Its be kind of interesting to see that a zombie killed you with a shotgun ;).

Discussion (Gun Bashing)

It's not like I dislike the idea, but It's been suggested before. If no one finds a precedent before tomorrow I'll fetch some, but I'm too tired to go looking atm... Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 05:15, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Geezis... a) format it properly. b) sign it for fuck sake c) yes, from what i could figure out reading the gawdawful mess above, it's dupe-o-rific . --WanYao 05:44, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Also... Don't be a trenchcoater. The best ways to level up are FAKing, DNA scanning and "missing with an axe" (if you start up as Firefighter). --WanYao 05:51, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Re You're an angry dude, WanYao. The guys just making a suggestion. Relax. --Shawn O'Hara Aug 25 20:51

Fixed your template and yes this has likely been suggested before and is probably gotten as far as undecided. Nonetheless this isn't going to pass as it would be simply another useless attack when compared to the ax or knife for melee. I suggest knifes for newbies in fact my self. --Diablor 06:08, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Find a melee weapon. That is what they are there for. Look for the knife, it is specfically designed to be the "newbie" weapon (base 20% chance to hit). The main problem with the suggestion is that it nerfs melee weapons. No "dual purpose" weapons. Why would you waste encumbrance carrying a melee weapon if your shotgun or pistol does the same job? That's an extra clip/shell or 3 for said gun.--Pesatyel 08:10, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Sleeping Bags

Timestamp:	8:06 PM 22 August 2008 USA EST
Type:	New Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I think we should add a new item. The sleeping bag. If you have a sleeping bag in your inventory, you will gain 2 action points per 30 minutes. Because basically what you're doing while not playing is resting. Sleeping bags are no doubt more comfortable than sleeping on the floor of Stickling Mall. Sleeping bags can not be used in the streets, because who wants to look like a hobo anyway? You can only carry one sleeping bag, and they take up a minimum of 50% of your encumberence.

Discussion (Sleeping Bags)

Good idea. But there should be a downside to it... such as getting out of the sleeping bag consumes 25 AP. :P

But seriously, increased AP recharge is currently categorized as a big no in the Urban Dead FAQ, read it up:

The limit of 50AP per 25 hours is to keep the game balanced and to stop too much from happening overnight; if we doubled the recharge rate, it'd mean people getting in a hundred AP's worth of actions while other players were offline, which is enough to cross the city or deal an easily fatal amount of combat damage.

So, unless you find some way to balance this for everyone, this suggestion isn't gonna work out. --Aeon17x 01:11, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Read it yourself: There may eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same.--Pesatyel 08:13, 24 August 2008 (BST)

well this sounds like good idea to me as long as the number of AP it is possible to have cannot go over 50. heres an ideac for balance, if a zombie finds a survivor in a sleeping bag and they get them with tangling grasp they have like, doubled chance to hit or something.--Ninja13 01:35, 23 August 2008 (BST)

This is a horribly one sided survivor buff that violates the most basic tennants of Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, Leave Other People's AP Alone. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (BST)

That arguement should be used with an understanding of it, its a guideline not a rule, and suggestions can still be made. Unfortunly the AP system is set up as it is for a reason as explaned above, and as well this would screw zombies as there's no benefit for them, what would stop someone from getting this when they have 98% encumberance, and dropping it when they resupply only to repeat?--G-Man 03:56, 23 August 2008 (BST)

I dislike the suggestion too, but I believe you quoted the wrong principle. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 06:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I'd maybe support this on one condition; getting inside a sleeping bag reduces your HPs to 2. That means any attack (except a punch or newspaper swat) will kill you with a single hit (punches take 2 hits). Because really, how hard is it to kill somebody who is sound asleep?
See, survivors ARE doing something besides sleeping when the payer is offline; they are defending themselves. Swiers 05:16, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Oh, and another condition; you have to spend AP getting inside the bag, at least 10 or so. Free AP just for having something in your inventory? Hell no.

Swiers 18:30, 23 August 2008 (BST)

For fuck sake... Read what Kevan's FAQ says about extra AP. Like, do the most basic homework humanly possible ... first... BEFORE posting here. --WanYao 05:46, 23 August 2008 (BST)

If you want this to have even a 5% chance of passing you would have to give some kind of bonus towards zombies for attacking survivors in sleeping bags, such as a x2 damage (Which pkers would love as well) or have damage go to the sleeping survivor's ap as well as their hp, ex. bitten, lose 4 hp and ap. --Diablor 06:12, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Also your suggestion lacks something very important. The actual place you could get one and the search rates. --Diablor 06:14, 23 August 2008 (BST)

If you have a sleeping bag in your inventory, you will gain 2 action points per 30 minutes. No. Fucking. Way. No matter what you do -- even if you give zombies ooze-powered hover-skis that double their movement, too -- this is a no go. Period. You can't double AP regeneration. Period. It's utterly, spam-fucking-tastically game breaking. Period. Did you not read what Kevan himself wrote in the FAQ, which I linked to??? Please don't feed this completely broken and utterly unworkable idea with comments like, "Well, do something to make it ok for zombies". Sheeeeeeeeeesh... spam is spam. Period. --WanYao 06:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)

If you have a sleeping bag in your inventory, you will gain 2 action points per 30 minutes? YES FUCKING WAY! THATS EXCELLENT. ILY.--CyberRead240 07:00, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Re The more I read the suggestions section, the talk section, what have you, the more I dislike you as a gamer and as a person. Also, you said period too many times. Lost it's punch. --Shawn O'Hara 21:37 Aug 25

I clearly remember it being said that having no AP does not mean you're sleeping. By association, that means that this suggestion is illogical in how you want it to work with the mechanics of the game (along with being bad in other ways as described above).-- Unsigned

A tent that forces you to use it outside for the effect, (not inside where in a moderate suburb in a random building your unlikly to encounter a zombie inside in the first place) would probably be more legimate. Useful for getting AP to get inside, but mostly useless for long hauls (green suburbs may vary on this rule) and encourages survivors to leave there AP more to the wind. Positive effect for zombies and survivors on a low basis.--G-Man 03:36, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Having the tent destroyed if your hit outside would help too, so its not a permanet item, and greater hit percentage before the next AP you use, even if the tent is destroyed between that time period. (your still wrapped up in the fabric.)--G-Man 03:40, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Just because THIS idea doesn't work, doesn't mean AP altering ideas won't work at all. So given what Kevan said in the FAQ, maybe we should be looking at skills instead.--Pesatyel 08:13, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I was thinking the same thing Pesatyel. It could be for both zombies and humans, and...I don't know, maybe not available until a certain level? It could be called "Power Nap" for humans and "Still as the Grave" for zombies or something. --Shawn O'Hara Aug 25 21:07

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)

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

Delete on 30th --Diablor 21:06, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Should this be moved to the whitelist suggestion's discussion section?--Kolechovski 20:31, 28 August 2008 (BST)

...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, or * for unnumbered bullets. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 19:58, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Oh Em Gee. This is stupid. I'm a big fan of lulz from cock but seriously just put a space between the C and the O (like so: C ock).--x o x o 00:23, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Or use the zero-width non-joiner, which gives you a "c‌ock" that doesn't get censored. Really, the whole wordlist is pretty much pointless. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:33, 21 August 2008 (BST)

The suggestion is rather unnecessary to be honest... I just don't think Urban Dead users need the word 'cock' uncensored at all, how would they really benefit? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:09, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Well it would help spreading ALiM propaganda...--x o x o 04:15, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Why not just ask for a whitelist on 'Cocker'? --Aeon17x 05:18, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Remove your cock from ... from what??? Oh, right, the banned words list... Hummn, yeah... okay. --WanYao 06:26, 21 August 2008 (BST)

It's not just the Cocker Museum. There are actually 24 locations throughout Malton which contain the word "cock". (I could make a list, but that'd be rather pointless. =P) I Am Sabbo 11:35, 21 August 2008 (BST)

POINTLESS??? POINTLESS!!!! POINTLESS!??!?!??!?!? Surely good sir has not stumbled across the genius that we at UDWiki call ALiM!--x o x o 11:43, 21 August 2008 (BST)

And I thought we had 'em all...--Nallan (Talk) 11:46, 21 August 2008 (BST)

A quick grep, pointless or not:

(90,5) Club Cocker
(54,9) Hiscock Alley
(78,13) Cocker Boulevard Fire Station
(19,16) Hiscock Walk

(53,19) the Hitchcock Building
(22,28) Cockle Street
(23,31) Willcocks Grove
(47,31) Laycock Grove

(47,32) Silcock Row
(67,37) the Cocker Museum
(59,38) Peacock Road
(42,52) the Hiscock Arms

(44,52) Silcock Auto Repair
(33,54) the Locock Building
(99,55) the Silcock Building
(99,56) the Alcock Building

(41,60) the Mycock Building
(48,61) the Willcocks Building
(42,65) Tancock Park
(96,66) Tancock Walk

(49,68) Cockle Cinema
(75,71) the Cockell Building
(10,91) Cockburn Plaza Railway Station
(52,91) Cockayne Grove Police Dept

Garum 12:27, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Funny you should mention Mycock, as it is actually ALiM's current featured lolcation!--Nallan (Talk) 13:08, 21 August 2008 (BST)

How about a whitelist on all those places? --Aeon17x 16:05, 21 August 2008 (BST)

You put this suggestion here to be evaluated, well I'm evaluating it: This Suggestion is not going to pass. if you want to represent a location, just use directions or the coordinates system. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 15:52, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Not everyone has a GPS, or even a bookmark to an online UD map. And these are legitimate locations in the game, some of them are even TRPs. Would you like it if there was a four-block building named Cockadoodle Mall and you can't name it on the radio? --Aeon17x 16:05, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, because then I could just say the Mall SW of here, or the Mall at (xx,xx), and not have to sit through moron after moron spam the radios in it with cockadoodle jokes. I'd be glad that people couldn't say it on the radio. Also, there's nothing stopping me from calling it Doodle' Mall, or if my audience is extremely thick, C0ckadoodle Mall. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:11, 21 August 2008 (BST)

People are going to be jerks no matter what, live with it, besides as you just pointed out they could just put c0ckadoodle and such variances if they wanted to use it, if this passes and is implemented the only difference is people can actually put the location name and you would see less 0's among the spam of whatever radio station no one can be bothered to re-tune. Personally it's got my vote and no faults. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:49, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, a good idea. Thumbs up.User:Not completely terrible/sig 20:34, 22 August 2008 (BST)

It's sad that this should even have to be suggested. Absolutely should be implimented. --BoboTalkClown 22:33, 23 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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days.

--Diablor 01:34, 25 August 2008 (BST)

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)

Oh. I feel dumb. I think that i was seeing it in reference to movement, which would not repeat an action, and wouldn't be a problem. I suppose then its a reasonable suggestion. Although i don't see a need for it, as why just sit there refreshing without doing another action? Maybe its just me. - tylerisfat 22:13, 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)

Or just a regular bookmark. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 00:04, 21 August 2008 (BST)

A reguar bookmark doesn't let you use the back button, does it? If it does, then sure, a regular bookmark to http://www.urbandead.com would work.

Swiers 20:06, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Of course it lets you use the back button. Why wouldn't it? Oh, and it should point to http://www.urbandead.com/map.cgi to be useful. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 20:26, 21 August 2008 (BST)

so if most of you are in agreement should i put it up for voting?--Ninja13 04:00, 21 August 2008 (BST)

if you want. The general view seems to be not really needed but the code would take about 2 seconds so why not. Yeah put 'er up.--x o x o 04:06, 21 August 2008 (BST)

No, Peer Reviewed already. - User:Whitehouse 19:00, 21 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)

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

Delete on 30th --Diablor 21:05, 25 August 2008 (BST)

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 as many as 4 or 5 survivors in them simply by standing up each day and munching. It took multiple days to do, but the result was always the same; every time I managed to get in; I eventually managed to ruin the buiding.

Swiers 19:13, 20 August 2008 (BST)

So the simple way of putting it is that dark buildings allow for ninja zombies... Yet... all it takes is one generator and poof! no more ninja-zombie-monsters hiding under your bed! The way I see it, the scenario you're describing is yet another example of pathetically stupid survivor gameplay! I mean, all it'd take is for someone to say ZOMG we have a problem, then get on a radio and broadcast the location and explain what needs to be done... then someone does it. If they're not doing this, they deserve to be eaten... There is a reason that areas with smart survivor populations try to keep barricaded potentially dark safehouses lit, whenever possible... However, I'm gonna let this suggestion die, anyway, because -- although I don't 100% agree with your reasoning, swiers -- I do get the gist of it... --WanYao 03:03, 21 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)\

Jesus, Okay, DDR, that was stupider than yer "100 days in UD" or whatever video... and in no way funny or true, grow the fuck up. Mick, nobody gives a shit except for yer BeatBox Homiedawgs. Techercizer, you don't grasp basic gameplay: survivors can drop a genny and fuel, they get better accuracy and damage, they can heal each other back to full health in around 20 ap tops (counting time to find a FAK or four). Zeds on the other hand? They have unlimited ammo... yaaaay--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 19:41, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, what they said. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 20:02, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Dear Techercizer, from your comments, I can tell you haven't been here for very long.--CyberRead240 05:51, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Dear Read, from your comments, I can tell I don't give a crap about anything you have to say. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Lol that doesn't even make sense. Niiiiice one ;)--CyberRead240 17:00, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Dear responders, from your comments, I can tell none of those replies are relevant to my comment. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 17:02, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, pretty much. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 17:18, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Dear J3D, from your comments, I can tell that YOU FUCKING RULE LOL!--x o x o 07:54, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Please stop making the talk page into a forum for flaming people. We all know most of us are Trolls, especially Wan but this is getting out of hand. Please let this suggestion die. --Diablor 19:28, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Are you kidding? Wan is like the Anti-Troll. Regardless, it's kind of hard to appreciate your crackdown on off-topic discussion when it is in itself posted as an off-topic discussion... Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 19:33, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Lol Wan is the biggest suggestion troll around. I guess you wouldn't have learnt that yet.--CyberRead240 06:31, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Makes some sense in flavor terms, absolutely needed in gameplay terms. No Dark Fortress! No Dark Fortress! --BoboTalkClown 22:40, 23 August 2008 (BST)

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days.

--Diablor 01:35, 25 August 2008 (BST)

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)

Well I see this is going no where,but to be quite honest I didnt know there was a way to move between suburbs in the game.-werewing.

Research man, you've got to do research before you post suggestions! Try getting some game experience first, that will help you be able to judge what things are already in-game, and what things would be way out of balance. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 15:56, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Suggestions up for voting

Dead Reckoning

Moved to Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning as suggestion is up for voting. Swiers 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth

Moved to Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth as suggestion is up for voting. Swiers 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Nurse

Moved to voting, under the new name of Doctor's Clinic

Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

Further Discussion

Please Read Before Posting

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Cycling Suggestions

Suggestions

Display player name with broadcasts

Discussion (Display player name with broadcasts)

Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark

Discussion (Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark)

Dump dead bodies from dark buildings

Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)

Group Bonus

Discussion Group Bonus

Restaurants

Discussion (Restaurants)

Brain Rush, aka Insomnia, Final Draft

Discussion (Brain Rush)

Add encumbrance section to the FAQs

Discussion (Add encumbrance section to the FAQs)

Insomnia

Discussion (Insomnia)

Bandoleer

Discussion (Bandoleer)

Doors on the outside

Discussion (Doors on the outside)

No More Piñatas

Discussion (No More Piñatas)

Pinata Decay

Discussion (Pinata Decay)

Computers

Discussion (Computers)

Tracking

Discussion (Tracking)

Sewers

Discussion (Sewers)

Clear!

Discussion (Clear!)

Free Speech

Discussion (Free Speech)

Face Rot

Discussion (Face Rot)

Gun Bashing

Discussion (Gun Bashing)

Sleeping Bags

Discussion (Sleeping Bags)

Remove “cock” from the banned words list

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

Refresh Button

Discussion (Refresh Button)

Tangling Grasp Negates Dark

Discussion (Tangling Grasp Negates Dark)

A new way to revive

Discussion (A new way to revive)

Suggestions up for voting

Dead Reckoning

Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth

Nurse

Navigation menu

Search