Developing Suggestions
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.
- With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.
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
Assisting Survivors
Author: Adrian Niles 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Suggestion Type: Survivor Interaction Scope: All Survivors Description: This action is not a skill that needs to be purchased with ExP. It is used by survivors to assist others that are injured by holding them and carrying them from one point to another. There is only 1 way that this action is available, and that is when another survivor in the same block as you has their HP reduced to half or lesser (30 for survivors with the Body-Building skill, 25 for those without it) and they are either logged out or have run out of AP. Example: John Doe is standing outside St. Mary's General Hospital. Also present is Jane Doe. Jane Doe ran out of AP right when she got outside St. Mary's, and her health is at 16HP. Jane does not have Body-Building. In the box where a description of your surroundings is, there will be a line saying Jane Doe is currently in need of assistance. or something like that. When this line is shown, a box will appear saying Assist next to a pull-down box listing injured survivors. John then clicks on it to Assist Jane. After assisting a survivor, it will cost 2 AP to carry them, and the Assist button will be replaced with Let Go. It does NOT require AP to Grab or Let Go of survivors. Survivors being carried will not lose HP if they are infected and no additional AP will be lost. While still holding a survivor, it is impossible to attack zombies, search for items, and everything else except speaking until you Let Go of the survivor. You can not Free-Run with injured survivors between buildings. I see 1 way that this action can be abused by players: When someone carries an injured survivor out into the street and leaves them out there to the mercy of wandering zombies. Other then that, I think it's a good action to have that builds teamwork and encourages cooperation amongst survivors. Adrian Niles 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Barricading outside
| Timestamp: | Swordy 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Improvement to construction |
| Scope: | All Humans with Construction |
| Description: | What this improvement idea does is it allows humans with Construction to erect Barricades around a building. These Barricades could only be brought up when the interior of a building is not barricaded because; lets face it no one could drag a desk or other Barricade material over a giant mound on junk... The Barricades on the outside could only be brought up to Very Strongly not Extremely Heavy due to realism issues. Case and point, would you honestly in a real outbreak be able to make Barricades out side your house so tall that no one could get over them? Just using material lying about barricades that high would be very unlikely… That is the main reason that the barricades only go up to VSB but the other reason is that due to over barricade in some suburbs new players are left out in the streets unprotected and die very often. These outside Barricade could be clambered over by Survivors and used as an outside save haven, while still serving a use to defending buildings if used.
This is my first suggestion so sorry if it is wrong or hard to understand.
Evil Swordy |
Discussion (Barricading outside)
Moved up to the top of the suggestions que (it was posted at the bottom.) Please post at the top in future. Linkthewindow Talk MCM 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This is something that has been suggested before, and has been shot down based on the premise that it is wildly over powered for survivors. Remember that those playing as Zombies are players too, and you can't be perfectly safe. They have to be able to get to you, and as it is it can take a Zombie his full daily 50 AP just to work the cades down... and not even make it inside. - tylerisfat 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Overpowered? Not really. This suggestion allows you to choose maximum barricading level, you can either have cades on the inside of the building (the way it is now) which can go up as high as possible, or you can have them on the outside where they are limited to VSB. The point of this is simply to halt over-barricading (actually that is rather powerful in some sense). All this suggestion does is enforce VSB by starting the construction on the outside of the building which disallows the building of cades inside. You'd be told that there are cades there, and that (if you are a survivor) you can scramble onto the inside of them to relative safety (relative because while on the inside of the cades you are still outside the building), but you'd be visible from other blocks. It wouldn't hinder movement, it'd just function as blocking zeds from entering the building and attacking survivors in the same block as long as the survivor has opted to be on the inside of the outdoor cades. In fact, this slows survivor movement if they want to enter a building with outdoor cades, as you'd need to scramble over them, and then enter through the doors. That's how I read it anyhow. - User:Whitehouse 23:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
To use the words in the suggestion: "...would you honestly in a real outbreak be able to make Barricades out side your house ...". Who the fuck would DO that?--Pesatyel 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Emigration
| Timestamp: | Pastor Rob 16:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Improvement |
| Scope: | Re-engage maxed out characters |
| Description: | (This suggestion uses Borehamwood as the example, but Monroeville would work equally well to the same effect.)
I think that Borehamwood should become accessible to characters that have maxed out their skills in Malton. Make it an option that characters can emigrate to Borehamwood. They would then start anew as a Lvl 1 in the new city. (No transfer of any weapons, items, etc.) If you get head-shot in Borehamwood then you would get sent back to Malton and have to start all over again. In which case you would spawn in a random place in Malton as a level 1 newbie all over again. Access gate(s) to Borehamwood should probably be located only in one, or possibly two restricted sites on the periphery Malton. The lack of Necrotech facilities and revives definitely changes the dynamics of how people play the game. There would not longer be a need for people to generate alternate characters to regain that new feeling to the game. It would be built right in. This could add a new dynamic to the game. Many characters loose interest in the game after maxing out in Malton. This could renew their characters and give them something to struggle for. I think this could really cure some of the stagnation in the city. Another advantage of this is that it would really take time for a player to progress all the way through, no one could do this overnight. If someone is not willing to risk starting all over again, then they never have to leave the confines of Malton. Hence emigration is optional for those that fancy a different challenge. |
Discussion (Emigration)
Of course they could always just start a new character instead --Honestmistake 16:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Kevan has indicated in the past that he doesn't want characters moving between cities. No free ride for you. --William Told 20:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You can't just create a new character why??--xoxo 05:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
DNA extract another zombie?
| Timestamp: | --Kez0 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Improvement |
| Scope: | Survivors especially revivers |
| Description: | This suggestion is to possibly add another button when DNA extracting zombies that are in groups. Right now you can only DNA extract the first zombie you see, and sometimes its either a brain rotter or a known PKer or GKer. You may want to scan another zombie but it will come up with the same result as before and scan the same zombie. Just recently I scanned a know PKer and I heard that I shouldn't revive him. I killed the zombie but it turned out not to be the PKer and therefore have accidentally killed a zombie waiting for revive.
What I suggest is, after scanning a zombie and checking the zombies details, there should be an extra button placed saying 'DNA extract another zombie'. Therfore you can pick and choose which zombie to revive and avoid brain rotters and PKers. |
Discussion (DNA extract another zombie)
I am certain this is a dupe or at the very least something that was on this page not too long ago. While it makes logical sense this would destroy a rotters ability to block revive lines which is a very valid and useful tactic. As for Pkers etc... they don't actually block the line and once scanned you can scan again and get a different zombie unless someone has already scanned em all. --Honestmistake 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
When did DNA extraction change? You DO know that you can keep scanning zombies in a stack, right? If there are 5 zombies in the stack, you can scan all 5. If the 3rd zombie in the stack is a zombie, you can keep trying until you get a sucess, then you can scan zombies 4 and 5. The only thing that will stop you is if some of the zombies in the stack are already scanned (in which case you keep getting the same zombie) OR if you get sick of failures on a rotter. In other words, this is already IN the game.--Pesatyel 04:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Victory Locations Can Move!
| Timestamp: | ShadowScope'the true enemy' 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Improvement |
| Scope: | "Top Secret Victory Location" |
| Description: | You know the problem I have with Iscoriat's sig? It's too short. This suggestion to the game can fix it.
In Boreville, there is a building known as Big Brother House, which I will classify as a "Victory Location". One of the main goal of the game is to find this "Victory Location", spend an AP to write in the logbook, and then wait a while to 'Profit'. The problem is that once you find out this "Victory Location", there is nothing else to do. So, instead, I state for Victory Locations to be moved every once in a while, to provide a challenge. Example: Say, in Malton, some stupid NecroTech system operator accidently linked a Library computer up to the NecroNet system. Surviors and Zombies rush around to find this specific Library. Once somebody stumbles into the Library, this person spend 1 AP to access this Library Computer and receive a special message from the NecroTech system operator (to be determined by Kevan). After a while, the NecroTech system operator finds out his error, and shuts down the link to the Library Computer, but in the process, opening up another link at a random NecroTech building. So, there is a chase with differnet people trying to find the next Computer to find more hidden messages. So, moving Victory Locations. That should make Iscoriat's sig bigger.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
Discussion (Victory Locations Can Move!)
 |
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A fascinating idea, but impractical, and I don't think buildings in Malton should move around. --Pestolence(talk) 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- He's not suggesting the BUILDINGS move, but that whatever is in the building moves. His computer example in the suggestion can be any school and can be changed from school to school.--Pesatyel 02:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Ideas like this have been suggested before and weren't though of that positively.--Pesatyel 02:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Iz this a joke? If not, get cho hands off my Malton! I like it how it is...new cities are where novelty gimmicks belong.--xoxo 03:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Pin
| Timestamp: | Kamikazie-Bunny 22:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Zombie Skill. |
| Scope: | Zombies and their victims |
| Description: | Pin is a new zombie attack available after purchasing the skill "Pin" which is a sub skill of Tangling Grasp. It has the following stats:
When a zombie successfully attacks it is assumed to have knocked the survivor over and pinned them to the ground. A zombie who has pinned a survivor down can only use bite attacks on that survivor, interacting with any other object/moving away/death releases the survivor (the survivor is then classed as knocked down instead of pinned). If another zombie Pins a pinned survivor they replace the old zombie (it should be assumed the zombie has pushed the other zombie away from the food).
|
Discussion (Pin)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's a type of headshot. Now, about the zombie and survivor that are down on the ground, can they be attacked normally by other survivors and non-pinning zeds? Or does a zed have to pin to be able to attack, meaning that survivors who are on the ground are only vulnerable to bite attacks, and possibly what the survivors will do to them. - User:Whitehouse 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Zombies can be attacked as normal by any other player. As for pinned survivors... well it's up for discussion, having them only vulnerable to the pinning zombie makes a kind of sense however it is probably easier to have them vulnerable to everybody (it would prevent zombie armour and other abuse) however it is up for you lot to help decide upon.--Kamikazie-Bunny 23:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This has the potential to be a griefing tool, draining AP if used in realtime.. ■■ 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't fuck with my ap!! Nice flavoury and improved gameplay(ish) idea but this can really screw over survivors, just to stand up would be 5ap. And before the zombie brigade kill me, while a surivivor is in its natural habitat defending a building it could be constantly pinned and targeted. It takes massive effort to headshot a zombie, like 20ap +++ this seems to cost 1ap...--xoxo 00:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Real time battles may not be a major game feature, but they ARE fun when they happen, especially now that they are fairly well balanced via barricade build blocking etc. The "Infection" skill already does most of that this skill would achieve, without being so overpowering or greiftastic.
Swiers 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ruins anonymity, you don't get a message telling you which zombie opened the door (thus giving you the one with MoL to shoot at) why should you get it with this? -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you could say that the zombie that uses this skill pays the price of losing its anonymity. However, I also think even with this "cost", a 5:1 AP ratio is rather unbalanced in real-time combat. Maybe put a timer on how often it can be used? (P.S. I think someone may be pretty excited about Left 4 Dead. Just a thought. :P) -- Ashnazg 1523, 14 November 2008 (GMT)
Death Knell
| Timestamp: | MrCarver 20:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Skill |
| Scope: | Zombie |
| Description: | [UPDATED VERSION]I changed the name of the skill from Rage to Death Knell by definition is as follows as it's more fitting. "A harbinger of the end, death, or destruction of something." I don't want it to be overtly complex, but here is my thinking. It can only be purchased from zombies after Brain Rot skill is purchased. Once the death knell skill is purchased the zombie can no longer harmanize. The zombie also can deliver a death knell blow _only_ to level 20+ survivors. If a death knell blow was successful and enough to reduce the health to zero, then the dead survivor would need an additional 5 AP to stand up. So this skill is to reward dedicated zombies and get zombies to go after more advanced players, but not inflict any new damage on lower level survivors. I appreciate any and all comments. They have been very helpful.
[ORIGINAL VERSION]This is the equal opposite of the Zombie Hunter skill for the Headshot. Now zombies with this skill can inflict their rage against survivors, requiring survivors an extra 5 AP to stand up. I suggest that this skill can only be gained after the Brain Rot skill is purchased as the final death blow to the body of a dedicated zombie. Once the skill is purchased the character can no longer be revived. |
Discussion (Death Knell)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Firstly. Welcome, and well done for taking this through developing suggestions and not just straight to voting.
Unfortunately this is a dupe of a previous suggestion, called Mind Munch way back in 2005. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks I didn't catch that. Unlike the original version, my suggestion doesn't take away XP from the victim and it's the final death knell for a dedicated zombie character. I read the suggestions carefully and originally I thought this should only apply to dedicated zombie players as a reward and not dual characters that have both human and zombie skills. But the suggestion says to keep suggestions simple. I'm not sure of the additional complexity this offers. So even though my suggestion is a pseudo-dupe, it's slightly different, and is that enough to progress, or is it to close to the original? Lastly, my original intention for the Rage skill was for the final transformation into a unrecoverable zombie and to have the ability to run/move faster than a human. Just like in the flicks were zombies have great speed/rage over their human counterparts for long distances. But I couldn't figure out a simplistic way to do so that fits with UD's AP design.--MrCarver 22:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
For a first timer on this page that is a really well balanced and thought out suggestion. I disagree with Ross about that dupe, this is significantly different as it prohibits a zombie from harmanising again. The name isn't great because it duplicates a feature from Borehamwood. My only real concern aside from that is that is people accidentally leave their game open and rather than just getting rot they get this and can't get revived but thats not really a reason to not have something in game...--xoxo 00:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The "dupe" suggestion is THREE YEARS OLD. That's ridiculous. The problem with the suggestion has nothing to do with "dupes". The problem is that this hurts newbies to much. Newbie converts have it even harder than starting Corpses.--Pesatyel 02:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- hurts newbies how? --xoxo 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Standup cost of 15. Yes, low level zombies have that already until they get Ankle Grab, but converts (survivors turned zombie) do not even have Vigour Mortis to start with, meaning their attacks are very weak. A lot of killed survivors do not like to play as zombies. We do not need to make it MORE difficult for them, not to mention headshot equivalent zombie skills are retarded because they DON'T HURT SURVIVORS. They hurt other zombies.-Pesatyel 07:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The 'dupe' would not have XP loss, that's a relic left over from the original headshot, any addition of a zombie style headshot skill wouldn't have that. There are other dupe out there. I dislike the notion that you have to be dedicated to zombie play in order to get this, as you don't to buy survivor headshot. The overpowering section of this suggestion is the no revives ever criteria, it gives no hope to sieges as the NTs will always be targeted first and they'll be reduced to being 'just another building' to the attackers whilst being prime defence objectives to the defenders, although I despise combat revives, it is a balance in the current game climate. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think many people would actually buy this though, i mean there'll be a few but even a lot of rotters like being able to harmanise whenever they desire.--xoxo 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
What the fuck is "harmanize"? Zombies don't sing. And you never said how it WORKS.--Pesatyel 02:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
My main problem with this is that it hurts the zombies in the overall AP war, becase A dead human might become a zombie but of course, a lot are mrh? cowers, so I don't really know, but whatever. maybe if it delayed the time before they could be revived. but I would not get this skill even if I had brain rot. --Destor 05:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Fluorescent paint
| Timestamp: | --Pestolence(talk) 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Item |
| Scope: | All |
| Description: | Blake's paint can suggestion below me gave me an idea for a suggestion. This suggestion would add a new item, Paint Can, to the game. When using this item, you would have a 50% chance to cover the target in fluorescent (glow in the dark) paint.
The paint would not cause damage to the target. Its effect would be: If the player covered in paint goes into a dark building, where the chance to hit is usually halved, chances for other players (PKers or zombies) to attack the player successfully would be the same as if the building was lighted. (Example: Player X is in a dark building, where the chance to hit him with a fire axe is 20%. Player Y throws glow in the dark paint on Player X. Player Y and any other players in the building now have a 40% chance to attack Player X successfully.) Possible flavor:
The paint would have no effect in lighted areas or outside. Some issues to be worked out:
So does this idea have a chance, or should I ditch it now? Are there any improvements anyone can suggest? |
Discussion (Fluorescent Paint)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
amusing but insanely out of genre. I mean people walking around glowing the dark?? That sort of genre warping stuffs belongs on Halloween.--xoxo 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
For realism, a way to get rid of it? At least sooner, rather than later? And you would be to be outside, in a lit building, or perhaps anywhere but a dark building. (That paint needs to be 'charged' first. Would it come "pre-charged"? As in, if someone were already in a dark building and covered in paint in a dark building?) ■■ 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I like the idea of paint but its just a one use way to kill someone in a dark building... As is you would just need to carry a can and then for 1 AP you double your chance to hit (dark is half to hit?) Perhaps if the labels were missing or obscured (or in chinese?) and only 1 in 10 paint tins were glow in the dark?
- Anyway i think having the painted victim leave a trail "Someone covered in blue paint went North" would be a better option (though if the paint is flouresent why not both?) As for removing the paint have each action tested as if the thrower was using a spray can... paint runs out and they get a message saying they managed to get the last of the wet paint off. Clothes should probably be ruined though for it to make sense and that is going to get people complaining. --Honestmistake 09:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
There should be chance of the person using the paint getting it on themselves. One thing though, how about a person can remove the paint if they change clothes?--Pesatyel 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Griefing tactic. Go outside, scan the horde, paint every zombie with no harman skills for revive teams. Way to kill zombie recruitment. Survivors will bitch and whine that their precious clothing that they trekked half way across Malton for now has to be replaced. This is going to cause 'player' grief, meaning people will wonder why they bother with the game and leave. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Good points about griefing, Iscariot, and yeah, I guess it is out of genre. While I really don't give a crap about survivors and their precious clothes, I know that half of Malton does, so yeah... I guess it might be better to dump this now. Thanks for the constructive criticism, everyone. --Pestolence(talk) 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Paint can
| Timestamp: | Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Weapon |
| Scope: | All |
| Description: | Found in hardware stores at a rate of 8% for unlit, +4/-4 for powered/ruined respectively. Melee weapon, counts as a scavenged weapon and as such civilians can be found with one.
25% accuracy, 1 damage. Special functions are that you can use a paint can to cover graffiti in rooms. Using it uses up the paint can. Plus, when you swing it, there is a 25% chance the target will be covered in paint. Getting covered in paint has no effects, other than listing them differently, e.g. "There are 15 zombies here. 4 of them are covered in flourescent paint" No, the paint does not glow in the dark. |
Discussion (Paint can)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't see any blaring issue with it, except you might want to change the flavor text. Florescent generally means "glowing in dark" Linkthewindow Talk MCM 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
A useless melee weapon which has one (possibly) redeeming feature, the ability to cover zombies in paint. Somehow I doubt this would pass. It just doesn't really add that much, not that it wouldn't be funny to run across some zombies drenched in paint. :P - User:Whitehouse 10:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I did go for the humour with this one. --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You can already cover graffiti in rooms with a spray can, with only the usual chance to use up the spray can. Fluorescent paint might be a laugh, but IMO this suggestion as written would never pass voting due to being use-impaired. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty pointless and a massive dupe of ingame with it's main function (covering graffiti), the other stuff is flavour and irrelevant, no one'd use it anyway for 25%...--xoxo 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- How about 50% then? --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You can already use a spray can to cover up graffiti, so that's a dupe (is it? if an effect is already ingame then it must be a dupe), and the rest is pretty funny (who wouldn't want to drench a zombie in paint?) but fairly useless flavor. If I want that damage, I'll just punch someone. Although fluorescent paint might have an interesting use... --Pestolence(talk) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but don't you need to write other graffiti in order to cover graffiti? This saves the hassle of having to make up something just to over-write what's already there. --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- If your intending to write graffiti (if even to just cover over what is there) you already, most likely, have something in mind. If not, you can just type gibberish. So big deal, it is a non-issue.--Pesatyel 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you can just paint " " (a space) and the game will tell you You spray a blank rectangle. and clear the location of any graffiti. --Midianian Big Brother Diary Room: [510,12] 10:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is every single one of your suggestions survivor biased? I don't see any sharp edges on paint cans, that makes them a blunt weapon, can zombies use this? How do you get rid of this paint? Incomplete. Blood Smear is the skill that needs to pass to get rid of unwanted graffiti, not another item to ruin search rates. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not all of them.. Oh, and as for your remarks, yes zombies can use the can. The paint (on clothes) can be gotten rid of in the same way that blood stains can (changing clothes) and by death. --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 08:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hobo Stick!
| Timestamp: | Nequa 12:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Borehamwood flavor. |
| Scope: | Humans, zombies. |
| Description: | If you have played Borehamwood, you know about the rail road tracks there. I sugest we add hobo sticks so you can go and find them. You would find them with a 13% chance at railroad tracks and they would pretty much do the dame thing as a regulare blunt weapons. This only adds flavor to the game, and serve as RP tool for some people.
If you dont know what a Hobo stick is, type it in on google. |
Discussion (Hobo Stick)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You want Kevan to code for a new weapon on a temporary map just so you can role play? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
As Iscarot. Borehamwood will be dead pretty soon. At least make this a typical Malton blunt-weapon, or don't suggest it. Linkthewindow Talk MCM 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Just put it in the description and RP it there. - tylerisfat 23:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Beyond the "temporary nature" of that map, the game does NOT need more melee weapons. Nobody uses 80% of the weapons currently IN the game.--Pesatyel 05:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Shotgun Speedloaders
| Timestamp: | JX 18:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)JX |
| Type: | Skill. |
| Scope: | Zombie Hunters. |
| Description: | This Skill would allow to reload shotguns quickly during combat, but require them to spend more AP prior. When a survivor with this skill enters a Police station or armory, there would appear a button labeled "make Speedloads." The survivor would turn two shells into a clip that reloads a shotgun instantly. But in order to make a speedload, you'd have to spend an AP a shell. The reason for the locations is that Police Stns. and armories could reasonably contain the sort of equipment required to make this sort of thing. |
Discussion (Shotgun Speedloaders)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days. |
--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Dupe. Look here. Suggestion:20070710 Shotgun Speedload --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Peer Reviewed suggestion is vastly superior to this one. This suggestion doesn't save AP; although it arguably lets you store it up at a 1:1 ratio, that just means you spend even longer stocking – rather counter-productive for a "speed" suggestion, don't you think? – and as there is no mention of encumbrance, I presume it doesn't save any inventory space, either. It's a decent idea, but it's been theoretically done better, and firearms haven't been changed in practice for a long time now. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Definitely dupe. And would be voted down anyway. Firearms don't need a boost right now. Remember that last update? That would kinda indicate that Kevan thought survivors and their pesky firearms were too good already. Thus: leave it. - tylerisfat 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Night vision goggles
| Timestamp: | 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Item. |
| Scope: | Survivors. |
| Description: | This item would help survivors look for items in the dark and help them with fighting in dark buildings. You would find them in mall tech stores, and forts. The goggles would increase your success rate in finding items in the dark, but they will not replace generators, one reason being that it would be unfair to zombies and for realism sake since night vision goggles are not as good as a well lit room.
Things I need help on: What should the likely hood of finding night vision goggles in tech stores and forts be? What should the increase in finding items be? What should the increase in hiting a target be? Should they have a battery life? Others questions that need to be answered? |
Discussion (Night vision goggles)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds okay... The increase should not be too high though so it doesn't replace generators. Would this also increase the chance for a successful attack in a dark room? That's kind of the implied use. --Pestolence(talk) 19:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Been suggested before. Been spectacularly killed before. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
To Pestolence, yes it would. Also, Iscariot could you give me the link to the dupe? Nequa 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds pretty dupey, but meh. Shouldn't be too big an increase though, so it doesn't take over generators. Linkthewindow Talk MCM 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is a nightvision clothing item already in-game, but it doesn't do anything, so it's not a dupe of this. Other then that, I (surprisingly) can't find a dupe of it. Linkthewindow Talk MCM 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Really? That is surprising, do you think it could work? I still need to work out some details but I think it sounds like a good idea. Nequa 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The night vision goggles you can put on in forts are broken to prevent any perception of potential usefulness. There have already been suggestions for increasing hit rates/search rates in dark buildings using a variety of methods such as flashlights/torches, and your suggestion is only different in that you say, "night vision goggles," instead of, "flashlight." Your suggestion will fail because it would turn dark dark buildings from zombie nerf to unbelievably overpowered zombie nerf. It would take away almost all of the drawbacks and totally skews the balance of the game. There is also not a single PKer or (reasonably intelligent) PKer target who would vote for this, as it takes away from the safety that dark buildings offer.--William Told 00:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Your acting like I want to have the night vision goggles replace generators completely. They would only give a small boosts to fighting and finding things, generators would still be extremely important and since you can only find night vision goggles in two places, and the likely hood of finding night vision goggles would be small. But if this is a dupe I cant do much can I? Nequa 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with a small boost for survivors (maybe a zombie skill to balance,) but night vision goggles should never replace generators. Perhaps make them breakable (say, a 25% chance on breakage with a successful strike?) Here are some flashlight suggestions. Although your suggestion is similar, there is enough chance for modification to make it not dupey. Linkthewindow Talk MCM 01:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest losing your goggles if you die. But yeah, William Told brings up a good point with this: There have already been suggestions for increasing hit rates/search rates in dark buildings using a variety of methods such as flashlights/torches, and your suggestion is only different in that you say, "night vision goggles," instead of, "flashlight." User:Pestolence
I still need to work some stuff out, If I don't give a clear idea of what this does, there going to tear me a new A hole. If anybody has ideas on developing this further, it would be appreciated. Nequa 01:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please put your timestamp on the same line as the rest of your post. --William Told 02:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
K Nequa 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It never got off of the talk page. It died. ■■ 16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you need to give us YOUR thoughts on the numbers. We are here to discuss YOUR suggestion, not make it for you. And for those who bring up it having been suggested and killed before...circumstances have changed.--Pesatyel 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dark building ones have been killed before, too.--William Told 06:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Depants
| Timestamp: | --Gus ThomasSpartaZHU 20:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Type: | Skill |
| Scope: | Zombies |
| Description: | Upon purchasing this skill, zombies will have a 4th "attack" option to interact with humans. Just as with the three attack options currently used, the attack dropdown menu will allow the zombie to "attack with depants". However, rather then doing damage to the human (as do bite and claw options), the zombie will simply drag the target humans pants/skirt/kilt down.Additionally, a zombie is able to use this skill against zombies wearing pants as well. Zombie will not gain some cyrptic method of identifying targets wearing pants, and the player will have to rely on a targets profile to tell if they have pants on or not. Similar to the human ability to attack with a 100% chance to hit with a newspaper, zombies with the depants skill have a 100% success rate (as with Feeding Drag). Finally, once a zombie successfully depants a target, the target is thus in a state of pantslessness until they go through their settings and put a new pair on. Zombies, of course, would have to be revived before they are able to do that. As the zombie brain is limited in its state of undeath, the zombie is unable to distinguish between pants, skirts, kilts or shorts, and all its flavor text will refer to these items of clothing as merely "pants".
|
Discussion (Depants)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Trousers. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Win, win, win, win, and more win.--/~Rakuen~\Talk 
I Still Love Grim 01:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
WTF CENTAUR - Epic win. --Haliman - Talk 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Attacking a human with no pants shouldn't cost AP. Drag doesn't have a penalty for trying to drag harmanz over 12 HP, neither does a normal attack on an invalid target, using an item on a dead body, etc. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Changed, thanks for pointing that out Rev. --Gus ThomasSpartaZHU 02:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
No because I want my zombies to be brain craving fiends not pants snatching perverts--Honestmistake 09:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd vote keep, just because it's funny.--Studoku W! 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
While this will never get implemented, I will gladly vote keep if you put it up for voting.--JaredV 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless Wedgie is introduced I won't vote Keep on this.--– Nubis NWO 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm voteing keep to this, this stuff is good and could add a comdic moment in battle. --Ltpotter 15:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This is hilarious, I'd vote yes. --Fiffy 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
My name is Dongs and I approve this suggestion. UD is a game. Games are meant to be fun. UD is competitive, yes, but above all, UD is FUN. APPROVE DEPANTS.--Drugsanimudongs 12:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions up for voting
Watch
Suggestion:20081110_Watch is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 10:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Flak Jacket
Suggestion:20081105_Flak_Jacket_Update is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.
Ignore this Voice
Suggestion:20081115 Ignore this Voice is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. Linkthewindow Talk MCM 07:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
