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.

The following suggestions are currently on the Overflow page: No suggestions are currently in overflow.

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

Refugee

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	After disasters large buildings like stadiums are often used to house refugees. Supplies are shipped there to use on injured civilians. It might be interesting to have a civilian skill called Refugee, which increases a survivors ability to find resources dropped off by the government at the beginning of the outbreak. People with the skill would have a 12% chance of finding an FAK in a stadium or cathedral (unpowered). This is less than a hospital but high enough to be useful. Since Cathedrals and Stadiums are limited this shouldn't disrupt the balance of power across the city. What it would do is make the perennially empty and hard to defend stadiums and cathedrals worth fighting for. It's kind of a what-if scenario: What if malls had nothing useful but FAKs? What would those sieges be like? Now we could see. This would be a Civilian skill. Maybe first tier, or as a subskill of Shopping. And for realism's sake to reflect that there are FAKs there even for people without the skill, people without Refugee could find FAKs in stadiums at a 5% rate. They can already find them in Cathedrals at that percentage. Discuss, criticize, thank you for your feedback.

---

Scent Enemy

Timestamp:	. . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Career zombies, non-metagamers
Description:	After years of pestering by this suggestions process, Kevan finally gave career zombies an equivalent to Body Building and Flak Jackets in the form of Flesh Rot. This legitimises career zombie (i.e. a zombie that never seeks or needs to be revivified) play. This suggestion is the completion of the career zombie skill set. Scent Enemy is a sub-skill of Scent Fear (analogous to Scent Blood, Scent Death and Scent Trail), it is a second tier skill and will cost 100 experience points. Scent Enemy is identical in its mechanics to Necrotech Employment, except that it does not allow the operation of DNA Extractors. The skill allows the zombie to recognise Necrotech Buildings, they are marked on the map in the same way as they are through Necrotech Employment. The 'flavour reasoning' is that the zombie has developed their olfactory perceptions to the point where they can recognise the smell of the fluid contained within Revivification Syringes, as Necrotech Buildings manufacture this substance they can be differentiated from other buildings via smell. Revivification Syringes themselves cannot be detected (say to target a character carrying syringes over one without) as the syringes in question are hermetically sealed and do not allow the odour to permeate into the air. Therefore this is only of use in identifying buildings that produce syringes (or where they can be found in the context of game mechanics). The skill is not 'trans-mortal', a zombie that is revived will no longer be able to identify Necrotech Buildings (unless they have also or subsequently purchased Necrotech Employment). There is precedent in the current flavour (Scent Death) that the revive drug causes characters injected with it to smell differently, this merely expands it to those buildings where the chemical is present in its raw form. This is not overpowered in any way as the skill is available (as was Body Building and Flak Jackets) if a zombie gains a revive and the location of Necrotech Buildings is hardly a heavily guarded secret. This suggestion seeks to complete the career zombie's skill set for a complete set of mechanics and to reduce the need of zombies to metagame, even in the simplest form of referencing the wiki.

Discussion (Scent Enemy)

Tear apart at will. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer maybe an upgrade to Scent Death instead. Perhaps it should also color in squares with reviving bodies (I don't think it does this now right?). Then zombies could infer where necrotechs are since those are usually adjacent to or very close to revive points. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Zombies just want to have Fun

Timestamp:	tylerisfat 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Simply put, just take 1/4 off a zombies attack rates in the dark, rather then 1/2. Why? Zombies have sharp pointy teeth and claws, which really don't need as much aiming as a pistol. Try it out yourself. Go into a building and try to hit a target with a pistol in the dark. You won't hit it. Now try just running into it and flailing about. Easier, huh?

Discussion (Zombies just want to have Fun)

Logical, but in the current game climate, unnecessary. Also shouldnt the same then apply for knifes and axes? --xoxo 01:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of unnecessary. I think it makes more sense, and as far as knives and axes, no. They have a very specific blade on them, and should have cut accuracy. Go into a dark place and swing and axe around and tell me that you can do it almost the same as in the light. You're more likely to hurt yourself then something else. - tylerisfat 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of balance and RP, axes should be included too. Other then that, this suggestion is unbalanced as it raises zombie hit rates, but not survivor's. Finally, a person could get a decent idea of were their target is in the dark, by noises that it makes. Zombies are quite loud ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  01:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Zombies are loud? They can't talk. They can't search so it isn't their inventory that is clanking. Is rotting really that loud? -- #99 ^DCC 02:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Running into something? I can think of plenty of instances where zombies are quiet, or groaning/moaning.. _■^■ 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ether way, breathing in a dark room would produce enough noise. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Zombies don't breathe. If anything you've just produced a great argument in favour of the suggestion. --Papa Moloch 03:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this side discussion is purely on RP, there is no zombie movie I have seen where a zombie is quiet enough to not be noticable, dark or not. Whether if it's snarling, groaning, bumping into things with no regard, etc. -- Yungblood 21:14, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, however, I've can recall plenty of occasions where they are silent. _■^■ 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you all need to watch more zombie movies. Forget the new dawn of the dead. There are plenty of scenes that aren't action scenes, where a person is creeping around a dark house, looking for whatever it is they are looking for, and then a zombie JUMPS OUT AND GRABS THEM! BOO! But seriously. For sake of balance, is the point of this suggestion. Its addressing a situation that is, currently out of balance. I love playing my survivors, but there should, realistically speaking, be absolutely no benefit, mechanics wise, for a survivor in a dark building. At all. Human players can put in generators, repair it, and that is there state, which serves their needs. Zombie players destroy the Generators and ransack, thus that state should serve them. - tylerisfat 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This might make a useful "bonus" ability for a melee weapon. Pipes can be used for barricading, crowbars can be used for debarricading, knives are the newbie weapon, axes are the power weapon. I think the tennis racket or cricket bat (maybe the baseball bat or fencing foil) would be fitting here as they are closer range weapons than most of the others (meaning they need less swinging room than the the others).--Pesatyel 08:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure you need to come in closer to knife a guy than you do to hit him with a cricket bat. Same goes for beer bottles. --William Told 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the knife already has a extra use (its the newbie weapon). Same for the bottle (it heals and is a one use weapon). The point is to make the other melee weapons nobody uses beyond roleplay reasons more useful. People use knives, axe pipes and (kinda) crowbars) but NOBODY uses baseball bats, cricket bats, fencing foils, tennis rackets, ski poles, golf clubs or hocket sticks because they are inferior to the first 4 items.--Pesatyel 04:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If I put this up for voting, i will almost definitely not be doing anything of the sort. There isn't a need for a 'specialty' for the worthless weapons. Or, I should say, their specialty is that they ARE worthless weapons. Sometimes new characters have to use them. RP players use them. Thats all thats needed. It really has nothing to do with this suggestion. - tylerisfat 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it and see no reason why it needs balancing with a survivor version. Fighting in the dark isn't just about finding your target, a big part of the problem is in the inherent fear of being unable to see... try closing your eyes and running in an open space and you will start to see what I mean! Zombies don't have so much fear and probably don't feel pain the same way so i have no problem with them thrashing away regardless--Honestmistake 09:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is based on a very faulty presumption. Try running into something in the dark, putting a gun muzzle against it, and pulling the trigger. A good bit easier than grabbing hold and biting a vulnerable bit, isn't it?  Swiers 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

True. But then why have a hit percentage at all for guns? You could always run right up. I think, using present game play models as an example, it is assumed that it is not going to happen. And its still pretty hard to run through a dark, destroyed building and start grabbing things and trying to find where to shoot it. - tylerisfat 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a game. Don't think too hard about it :P --xoxo 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But I am in work... if I don't think hard about this i might have to actually do something ;) --Honestmistake 10:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Builder's Estimate (Or, the lack thereof)

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When a ruined building is 'dark', you cannot get an exact listing of how much AP is needed to repair it. Instead, the AP amount shown is rounded to the nearest 10 AP. If there is less than 5 AP required, it is rounded to 10 AP.

Discussion (Builder's Estimate)

Meh. Perhaps add a "Get a better estimate" button so you could get the full amount? Linkthewindow  Talk  10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why would anyone want this? Doesn't really help zombies and does nothing but make it harder to do an already unpopular thing.--Karek^maps?! 13:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You can get a rather good estimate of the repair cost simply by reading the building's decay-level description. Sure, it's only good for 0 to 60 -- it doesn't differentiate between buildings costing 62, or 82, or 202 AP to repair...but at that point, does it really matter? It's been ruined over two months, and you're going into negative AP regardless. --Jen 13:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No,not a good suggestion, It might deter people from repairing the high AP buildings, maybe someone would repair it if it was 46 AP but the est shows 50 AP and they decide its not worth the risk getting back to safety? --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 14:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the point of it being dark: you can't see well! Instead of buffing survivors, buff zombies hit %ages a little, stop all the trenchy stuff please. --WanYao 15:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that dark buildings didn't show the AP needed to repair... --William Told 06:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the wiki article about it. You can't repair it, but I'm not too sure about seeing the amount of AP. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Im pretty sure you cant see the AP till you light it up with a genny, buildings that dont need gennys show you the AP from a ruin --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't see the AP required to repair it (until you light up a genny). You can, however, see a description of the level of decay, which allows you to make a good estimate. --Jen 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with no incidation bar decay level – as dark buildings need to be lit to be repaired, you can get a quick sight estimate (as Jen mentioned) and then simply get the exact cost once you power up the genny. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, as appears to be the case already? Dammit, Kevan, stop reading my thoughts before I've had the chance to think them! *shakes fist* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I think I remembered wrong...you're stuck with the outside decay level descriptions (some time, several weeks, months). Which are still useful, just not as useful as the internal decay descriptions. --Jen 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Blood Rot

Timestamp:	MrCarver 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies.
Description:	This skill can only be purchased after the Brain Rot skill is had. If a zombie can make a fatal blood rot bite, then the victim can only be revived from inside a powered NT building. Thus Blood Rot turns survivors into zombies with temporary Brain Rot. I think this will had a fun twist to game dynamics for both players wanting to be revived and survivors looking to revive players. Survivors infected with Blood Rot will need try to gain entrance into NT buildings instead of the wait in line approach now used. When the fatal bite is given the dead survivor will see "You are dead and the taint of blood rot runs through your veins." The percentage chance for the fatal blood rot bite should be the same as a Head Shot that survivors enjoy.

Discussion (Blood Rot)

Im not an expert on the game or any of the mechanics and balances, etc. but im pretty sure this will annoy the shit out of the newbies of this game. also, with the multiply by a billion rule, many high level zombies would have this ability, tipping the scales in the zombies' favor during seiges.-- Yungblood 17:58 December 4, 2008 (EST)

Duuuuuude, you wrote this from a month ago? Can I ride in your time machine? --Pestolence^(talk) 02:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Time machines are sooo twenty-first century. -- Galaxy125 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, craap, its been awhile since i signed something, so i forgot it was december. xP I can sell u some time machine for maybe $10. All u need is some fire, and this little green bag.....-- Yungblood 7:36 December 5, 2008 (EST)

Read the Do's and Do Nots! This would force survivors to artificially play as zombies, and probably many of them would quit the game. Also an incredible griefing tool. I'm a zombie player, but this is just way too overpowered. (But thanks for bringing it here first before putting up for voting.) --Pestolence^(talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) (AARGH EDIT CONFLICTS >=[)

Agreed, im sorry but this woulden't be fun for the majority of survivor characters. If they wanted the challage they would get brain rot. Much as I love the idea of harder to revive survivors, more open NT's and the balance shift that would surely cause im against the idea. Hell I'ed probably quit my survivor characters as I play them to actually be a survivor the majority of the time, not an undead character who has to travel to a current clinic or threaten the lives of my fellow survivors just to become one. As well those who don't actually metagame would be wholly screwed as theyed be stuck to the local NT's who may not have friendly open arms. If its a minority of players it works, if its a majority we'll only have problems.--G-Man 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, learn how to play a little more before suggesting something like this. The percentage chance of a headshot is one hundred percent. If you have the skill, it automatically happens if you kill a zombie. This is, effectively, giving the target automatic brain rot and HAS been suggested before. This wouldn't hurt survivors. It would hurt the game. A lot of survivors HATE playing as zombies and suggestions that "force them to" usually go down in flames. Survivors that hate playing as zombies will either quit (at least quit playing that particular character) or play as Mrh?-Cows (which is pathetic). But if you force those Mrh-Cows to have auto-Brain Rot, they will just quit.--Pesatyel 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This may be interesting as a once-off for a limited-duration city, but I agree with the posters above me about applying it to Malton. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not force brain rot onto other people, this has in the past been considered a major bug doubtful it will become a game effect.--Karek^maps?! 13:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a say "XD"? 8161 Survivors (39%) Versus 12695 Zombies (61%). That's new shiny new apocalypse. I like it, but don't make it too shiny! This say anything? _■^■ 05:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

this is a dupe, but i CBAed to find it. --WanYao 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I liked Swiers' Cerebral Infection (You have to be FAKed before being able to be revived, if not, the revive fails-Sub-skill of Infectious bite) I believe it got to PR too. _■^■ 03:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:20080615 Brain Rot: Cerebral Infection is in fact "peer reviewed", so "blood rot" would likely be considered a dupe.  Swiers 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Feeding is Messy

Timestamp:	Midianian Big Brother Diary Room: [509,04] 09:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Flavour
Scope:	Zombies & building descriptions
Description:	This is really simple. Any time a zombie feeds off a corpse, there's a chance (half of what it's when attacking someone) that the scene will become bloodier.

Discussion (Feeding is Messy)

It's useless flavor (but then again, who cares?) In short, I like it, and can't see any problems. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for more gore!--Honestmistake 11:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Can we have napkins and bibs? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah chuck 'er in.--xoxo 11:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Why not?--Pesatyel 02:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just make this into a clothes status description effect like the other player on player actions?--Karek^maps?! 13:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hooray for blood! Chaplain Drakon Macar 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good flavour. Will get my Keep vote. --Papa Moloch 02:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'll give this a Keep. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, could you take my previous suggestion to voting? I've never put a suggestion up for voting. Though it's probably easy enough.. _■^■ 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's easy enough to do yourself-just go to the Category:Current Suggestions page and follow the instructions. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Paint the Walls! --Nny The Person 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could also create a different description (bits of gristle, etc.) --A Big F'ing Dog 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Hear nearby gun blasts

Timestamp:	Linkthewindow  Talk  11:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Weapon text change
Scope:	All survivors
Description:	Yes, there is a similar suggestion here. That one had several flaws which I hope to fix with this new one. Simply put, survivors (not zombies, for balance reasons. It would be like survivors groaning at themselves,) can hear gun blasts from nearby blocks. The actual chance of hearing the blast is based on some probabilities: Same block-100% chance One block away-75% chance Two blocks away-50% chance Must have been at least ten shots before message can trigger Three blocks away-25% chance Must have been at least twenty shots before message can trigger No blasts can be heard if they are more then three blocks away. Note that the probabilities apply to everyone in the block. Simply put, all of them hear it, or they don't. The exact type of weapon can't be determined, and nether can the user shooting the weapon (even if you are in the same block.) To prevent screen spam, the shots "add up" over time. For example, one shot would produce one message, ten another one, twenty another one(and so on.) This means after ten gunshots, you would have only received two messages. To prevent useless messages (Who cares that a single shot was shot in a factory two blocks away,) for two and three block messages, there must have been a certain number of gunshots. Here is some suggested flavor text. Of course, it is very malleable. You hear a gunshot from close by You hear multiple gunshots from close by (5+) You hear rapid gunshots from close by (10+) You hear rapid gunshots from close by again (20+, 30+, 40+) You hear a gunshot from the North (the X building) You hear soft gunfire from the North East You hear loud gunfire from the North East Note that all gunshot messages expire after a day-that is, if you idle for a week, you won't be told that there was rapid gunfire after the tenth shot. Thoughts?

Discussion (Hear nearby gun blasts)

This doesn't really add anything, just the survivors feeding groan but unintentional. Decent but really whats the point when you see "X" zombie(s) nearby or with your binoculars?Chaplain Drakon Macar 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's meant to be more passive then binoculars and doesn't use AP. Binoculars also don't show zombies inside. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There was another, this is much better than it. However, I'm skeptical, as it mostly says "Halp cleer this building" or "z0mg pkrz". _■^■ 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Inside or outside? If its outside, its pointless to have it on one block, you can see the zombies on your map. - tylerisfat 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blasts indicate combat, while the simple presence of zombies does not. I can't think of a decent RP reason to allow "inside only" blasts. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The primary problem is how buildings affect it. If both the shooter and the listener are outside, the listener would hear the shot much easier than if one or both are inside.--Pesatyel 02:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)05:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't want to make this more complex. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So you you dont get to know the name of the person doing the shooting? Still it could be useful for working out who the PK'r is and for scouting other buildings for zombie breaches to go alongside the new "building lights" flavour (though if this was implimented I would try this out in a fort and watch them go nuts trying to find the culprit!)--mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Yes, I was thinking of the "Building Lights" flavor when I thought this up. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why SHOULDN'T zombies get to hear? Why not just a significantly reduced chance.--Pesatyel 03:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, it's because it would be like survivors groaning at themselves. I'll admit I can't find a solid RP reason, but it's just balance. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If survivors can hear groans, zombies should hear gunshots. --William Told 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why zombies wouldn't hear it. Also, I think you should change the flavor text from "rapid gun shots" to something that makes sense. --William Told 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about the flavor-as I said, it's very malleable. See above about the zombies hearing it. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Runs into the issue of "Do you really want more spam text than the already large amount survivors get?". Hearing gun shots without information on how close or where they are coming from might be interesting flavor for everyone though.--Karek^maps?! 13:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The closest analogy is not groaning, it is flares. A Feeding Groan can ONLY be activated if a survivor is within the zombie's square. Guns can be fired at ANY time. Zombies being able to hear it could work to their disadvantage just as much as your "balance" reason. I do not put it past players to fire guns for no reason then to mislead. The only logical reason why zombies wouldn't be able to hear them is due to auditory degredation due to decomposition (hence suggesting the reduce chance to hear). The author also neglects to deal with the comment about being indoors or out. While I can understand not wanting to complicate things too much, that is STILL an issue.--Pesatyel 08:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually quite like the idea about using shots to confuse, but guns can only be fired at another survivor, or at a zombie. Ether way, a gun blast would indicate combat. I was tired then, and there would be no difference if a gun was fired indoor or out. Gameplay>realism. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can also fire guns at radio transmitters, generators, decorations, and barricades. --William Told 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but that still indicates combat, or at least hostility. Maybe add a "Fire gun into air" option? Linkthewindow  Talk  03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Firing at the barricades won't harm them, so it's pretty unnecessary to add a "Fire Gun into Air" option.--William Told 06:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was partially incorrect in the fact you have to have a target to fire the gun, but William Told brings up an obvious loophole around that.--Pesatyel 08:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of RP however, I would rather a "Fire gun into air" option. I might rewrite this suggestion next week-you guys brought up some great fixes/changes, and I might see how a newer version goes. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Closed search

Timestamp:	Yonnua Koponen 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	balance change/improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	As it is fairly clear to see from the map that all hell has broken loose, and further more that there are no syringes / Mall FAKs / Gennies etc. to help us, it would be a fairly basic decision to find a new way of searching which would allow Kevan to keep to the odds he has, whilst simultaneously improving them. Also, contained withing realism (No bullet dodging here, I'm afraid) I have decided upon a possible idea which could help to eradicate the problem, possibly, and also keep part of the difficulty of searching in there. This suggest would provide a simple tab on the search option, with the option of 'search normally', or 'search thoroughly'. The search normally option would simply be the present mode of searching that we have, with exactly the same odds. The other option would be a Probablity tree. Roughly a 50% chance of lower odds than normal (Half?) roughly a 50% chance of higher odds than normal (double? / 1.5x?). Logically thinking, as supplies become scarce, people are more likely to start risking their overall chance of getting something by searching thoroughly in a contained area, such as the corner of a mall. That would be what this represents. Either there's a chance you'll find there's nothing there, and the odds would be low, or there's something there, and you find it more easily. This also adds thought to the one aspect of the game that doesn't presently require any, searching. Attacking, baricading buildings, reviving, all have different possibilities, and are all more entertainign because of it. I think that this may make it more entertaining for some people, as some would use this, whereas others would remain with the classic system. I feel that one of the main uses for this would be towards the end of seiges, or in ruined buildings, where the stakes are stacked on you getting that one item. Overall the percentage breakdown is something like: NORMAL: X% CLOSED: 1/2(2X)OR 1/2(1/2X) = roughly X% What do you think? ~Yonnua

Discussion (closed search)

It's an interesting notion, but I'm leery of adding additional random elements to searches. However, I'm of the opinion that Malton is about the way it should be now: dangerous, with zombies on the loose all over the place. After years of survivor numbers consistently in the 60% range it's time to give the undead a little face time. Thus I'm against messing with things at the moment. Let's give this balance shift a little more time to play out.--Jiangyingzi 13:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been suggested on here before, I believe it was killed. Don't fix my apocalypse, I just got it! _■^■ 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, from a survivor POV, it's much more fun when the zombies are dominating the game. Let's see how this pans out and then suggest fixes later. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more fun for zombies too, less outdoors headshots. And when they do come it's almost welcome because idiot survivors are wasting ap they actually need to repair all the dead suburbs around town.--xoxo 11:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

...I don't know whether you're trying to be sneaky with this or whether you honestly don't see it - this is a search with a 25% boost to the normal chance (0.5 x 1.5 + 0.5 x 0.5 = 1.25), nowhere near the normal chance as you claim. Not only that, even assuming for the sake of argument that we tweaked the numbers so that it was the same as the normal chance...seriously, what is the point? You're just changing the distribution to give it a higher standard deviation with the same mean. I.e. more streaks of successes and more runs of failure, but with the same average outcome in the long run. Why, exactly, do we need that? It does not increase your chances of finding "that one item" at all, as you claim in the suggestion. -- User:Ashnazg 1525, 4 December 2008 (GMT)

Okay, let's assume you passed first year maths. 0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75, 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25, 0.75 + 0.25 = 1.0. Check your maths again. --Yonnua Koponen 12:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. I meant 0.5 x 2 + 0.5 x 0.5 = 1.25, considering that's what's written at the bottom of the suggestion. -- User:Ashnazg 0708, 6 December 2008 (GMT)

Also A typo. It's meant to be 0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75, 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25, 0.75 + 0.25 = 1.0. Had to go to work as I was writing it. --Yonnua Koponen 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it was intended to be the same as the previous search rate on average after all. Still, it makes no difference, really. As I mentioned earlier, if this is the case, it doesn't change anything when you get down to it, apart from the standard deviation of the distribution. Which has no real effect in a case like this. Basically, the two types of search would be functionally identical. -- User:Ashnazg 0711, 7 December 2008 (GMT)

---

Immolation

Timestamp:	CodeBlack 16:47, 1 December 2008
Type:	Weapon Effect
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Influenced by the old practice of Plague Burning, this is an additional effect to the Flare Gun. If zombification is caused by a virus, then it makes sense that survivors, in a desperate attempt to prevent the spread of the plague, would turn to burning bodies. However, regular burning of random corpses on the street would be a too much of a buff, but a burning body would continue to burn if no one tried to put it out, so, basically, should a survivor kill anyone who is Infected, either zombie (who may be infected but not be effected) or survivor, with the Fuel Can / Flare Gun combo, that person body will be set ablaze and continue to burn until they rise. Upon being revived, if they are ever, the survivor will no longer be Infected, as the plague was thoroughly burned away from their body while the corpse was lying inert. The trick is, not only is both attacking with the Fuel Can and Flare Gun of low percentage and rare to pull off, but Flares disappear after use, Fuel cans only randomly douse with fuel, and the average survivor has no way of knowing who is infected or not. In addition, this only works if the target is killed by the attack, as otherwise the target could either conceivably put out the flames or survive long enough for the virus to resurge. If this attack works, then the following message will be shown to the attacker: ... (message that occurs when the Flare Gun / Fuel Can combo works)... They die. The body continues to burn. When the dead player next logs in, they will be shown the following message: You have been killed by Blank. Your body is slowly burning, causing smoke to fill the air (regular players passing the body should not notice the smoke for a burning player, or know that a body is on fire) When the dead player wakes up, they get this message: The last few embers die down as you rise. Upon undergoing revivication, the player will not be infected if they were before dying. This also works for zombies that were infected during prior life.

Discussion (Immolation)

No. Chaplain Drakon Macar 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion makes no sense. Fire doesn't cure infections in real life, why should it do so in game?--Jiangyingzi 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not curing if the person being voided of viruses is dead, now is it? Fire, or, more specifically, extreme heat, can kill viruses and such, and a thoroughly burnt body may very well be cleared of infestation of a disease after being burned for long enough. That's why the person burned needs to be killed by the burn; if the person survives the burn, then the virus will survive with them, but a dead person will not feed the virus anymore or help it protect itself from the fire. [User:CodeBlack|CodeBlack]].
  • First off, there's no in-game proof that it even is a virus. Urban Dead seems to follow the Romero canon: the cause of zombification is not explained, and anybody who dies for any reason comes back as a zombie. A level 1 survivor who dies without ever even seeing a zombie will still rise as one. In any event, burning a body sufficiently to kill an infection would pretty much destroy the corpse, leaving that person forever dead. If you can't see why your suggestion doesn't make any sense I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain it to you, though.--Jiangyingzi 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Except we come back from having our heads blown off with shotguns, axes to the brain, bullet holes riddling the body, and things like that. Destruction and degeneration of the corpse doesn't seem to be an issue, and I've always assumed that revivication causes the body to naturally heal things it needs to survive, such as a skull, brain matter, and flesh. Also note that cooking things causes the destruction of harmful agents, so the body doesn't necessarily have to be burnt to cinders, more along the lines of slowly charred by embers. Also, Zombification may not be caused by a harmful agent, but an infection caused by a bite that can be cured with medicine certainly could/should be (and, after all, I'm not suggesting burned people are cured of becoming zombies). On one last note, try not to be condescending to people you don't know anything about.
      • But how do we measure how burned the corpse is? Is it always charbroiled to 100% pathogen-killing perfection every time? We're talking about infection on a massive scale, seeing as it can kill a healthy human being in a day and half, and since we're cooking an entire body you'll have to be thorough, right down to the marrow. What we have here is an incomplete suggestion that, even if implemented, would add little to the game. As for condescension, have you put a suggestion up for vote yet? Trust me, my attitude is mild by comparison to that pool of sharks.--Jiangyingzi 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, UD isn't much for realism, but I don't think you'd be able to stand up unscathed after your body's been burnt thoroughly enough to kill any infection. Besides, the fire wouldn't just kill the infection germs - it would also kill every other bacteria in your body, including those helpful ones in your digestive tract, which would give the survivor massive diarrhea. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I get your point, but see my above response to Jiangyingzi
  • Massive diarrhea, eh? I think I have a theme for a new suggestion Sanpedro 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, that's my idea! :D --Pestolence^(talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I read your above responses, and they're just as nonsensical as your reasoning above. There is absolutely no reason killing someone by setting them on fire would cure them. If you haven't noticed, all those times you've listed when characters take massive amounts of damage end with them rising as a zombie, not a human. --William Told 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Night

Timestamp:	--G-Man 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Gameplay Change
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Probably a terrible idea but inspired loosely on the suggestion below. For half a day (Or perhaps flipped every 2 days) the outer ring of your map display wouldn't give the building names, or zombie/survivor/dead players (Fog is an easy comparative to the effect), however a flare would light an 3x3 - 4x4 area around the space it is fired from for a period of time (2-3 hours min.). Zombies would be able to "smell" out other zombies/survivors/dead bodies and would be given the numbers, but not the building names. Note: A simular susgestion almost three years old has been found to exist here. Although this was unintenional, credit should be given to the author for coming up with the basic idea first.--G-Man 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (Night)

Obviously just a basic idea that needs alot of work, but my main question now is, is it viable? Does it even sound if it would be fun? and answers to some of the larger questions such as the time period it would work over. Perhaps it could only be random days, where day and night are counted between two different days but the majority of nights have a moon out that provides enough light to see by. Once these questions are answered we can look at the smaller details such as the area the flare could cover, and a viable zombie equivalent (the smell thing just doesn't seem fair to me).

Perhaps it should be scrapped due to the high availability of Maps in Malton, or worked out for any new maps in the future (yes I realise it could be years before we see another).--G-Man 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this would be fun at all. I know some people enjoyed it for the few days, but a few days is different to long term. Could be very cool in a new (and smallish) map, but not for Malton, it'd really damage the the fun/playability of UD.--xoxo 04:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see now that's what I was a bit worried about. As well its why I proposed it being random days in my comment above compared to all the time, so it would only happen maybe 2-4 times a month, or something along those lines and would always end in 24hrs. Would that help with the whole long term thing or is it just an "Oh damn not this again" moment.--G-Man 04:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Night that comes 4 times a month?? I'd just not play my characters on those days.--xoxo 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily night coming on 4 days a month, but night that doesn't have a moon to light the way. As well if you don't play your character then its just wasted AP considering you'd have it back by the next day..., However point made, its useless to pursue.--G-Man 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-annual Eclipses and Full Moons giving different effects would be kinda cool. See, moar corollary flavor.--Karek^maps?! 12:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a very similar suggestion here, but doesn't include the fog ability, and some other details. Both suggestions seem very similar. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I don't suggest things often and (against what i should do), don't have a whole lot of time to search for dupes. (Case in point this is the first time online since I suggested this), however things have changed and although the visuals match, the flare and zombies having a skill for use in the night is a bit different and further in depth, and would change the whole outcome of the senerio and how it works without requiring seperate sugestions to deal with something that should be in the one. I hate to say this but some of the older PR susgestions should be periodically reviewed from time to time with recent changes kept in mind (perfect example given below with the dark building update) to see if it would still have the desired effect, or if it needs a change and then proper action (I.E. a suggested change by someone once it has been posted there is a problem) should be taken to ensure it reflects the current game, not the game 3 years ago. Im sure I've seen someone suggest an alt. page for revotes before though so...--G-Man 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few issues, dupe thing aside because it would be a completely different mechanic now. The biggest one is that there's not enough detail about what night might do, for example do all buildings get Dark building status at night? Do normally dark buildings get a sort of darker comparison to the rest, like say flares can't be seen inside of them? How long of a period would be balanced and fun(12 hour nights probably wouldn't be, maybe hour or half hour cycles instead?)

This does sound like it would make the game much more interesting, if only for all of the stuff that would be able to come in relation to it like reactivation of the Power Stations, Street Lights, even, potentially, an actually useful Scent Skill(or changing one that already is) for hunting in the dark. Please, continue.--Karek^maps?! 12:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All that I was hoping to get into after figuring out what the best timeline, overall effect (I.E. the fog effect) and the actual playability of the idea. The flare and zombie thing is meant as an example of what can be done hence the reason I mentioned it was a basic idea. Lets start there, and work our way forward. The only thing I have against 1hr and 1/2 cycles is that you can literally just dodge the night system with no downside to your AP and any effects such as flares, etc. would last the entire time. 12 Hours runs into the problem with different timezones where if I always play in the morning or night, again I could get to skip out on the effect with no downside while other players would always get screwed with night. 24hrs is probably the least you push it where everyone deals with it equally.--G-Man 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Adds new depth and dimensions to the game? Check. Makes flare guns consistently useful and viable? Check. Fully developed? Not so much. You should require that zombies have scent skills in order to detect prey through the darkness. Lit buildings and the contents of their exteriors should also show up to survivors and zombies at night if they're within the 1 area radius. I also like the idea of all unlit buildings experiencing the Dark status. --The God Emperor 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

scent skills in order to detect prey through the darkness Sounds like an alright idea and fits in how I wanted that to work. Lit buildings and the contents of their exteriors showing the survivors and zombies at night if they're within the 1 area radius, may not be a good idea as there's no evidence of lights actually outside the buildings, just light slipping through. Perhaps a general description of survivors/zombies to any player, in that direction would bring the desired effect. This also brings in the thought of Spotlights as a seperate findable item...

however, as i've already mentioned several times before that this is it's early stages (First comment)..., and in the comment above what I want to address first (timeframe). I appreicate your imput but its not quite time to explore those options, as we have to know what they'll be fitting into and what effect such a change would have on the game based on how long they would be effective.--G-Man 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while awaiting the opinion on a 24hr timeframe im going to propose the basics for powerplants and half-moons. First of all, I think survivors should have less of a chance to hit in full night. A Semi/Half moon will negate the effects as would the activation of a powerplant which would activate street lights (as suggested above. Reasonable flavour could be that survivors managed to set up a dedicaded line to the street lights, as there repairs are not stable enough to power the buildings, Stephen Kings "The Stand" is what provided the idea for this, although its a bit different senerio with the P.P. having problems due to too many electronics to power up at once). The powerplant would have to be "repaired" in order to activate and would degrade in status over a time period. This would be handled through a seperate button, and would have to be approx. 75% (give or take) in all sections to work. New skill to allow this is possible. Button not aviable if ransacked, and it is inactive if one section is in ruin.--G-Man 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Alternative Flare Gun Use

Timestamp:	Chaplain Drakon Macar 21:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivor
Description:	After ages of chasing GKers and PKers about Malton I have finally begun to LOATHE all dark buildings. Well after a bit of consideration I had come up with the brilliant idea of a "small fire" lighting the building for a short while and dimly at that. Well I had considered a few alternatives to this. Actually starting a fire, well, lets all sit and laugh at the miserable failures in the past, automatic shoot down right there. I thought of making it a non-weapon skill of a sorts. Well who here really feels like spending an AP for a couple AP of light? Then it dawned on me...we have something that can be seen 10AP + away. The flare gun! Well after a few scenarios I had come up with a use for indoors. In a dark building you click your flare gun as normal or attack someone/something, it will become a lit building for say 2 minutes per flare (non-commutative). After the 2 minutes you loose your light. Firer would get: "You aim your flare into the center of the room and shoot. The flare bounces along the ground and lights the area, slowly burning out." Spectators would get: "A flare bounces across the room, lighting the area while it burns out." Outsiders would see: "A glow of light comes from inside." While it sits you would get no message but this nifty add on would come at a cost. Considering how thick headed most humans can be, it would not be unlikely for someone to aim directly above their head and hit the roof, only to have the projectile land on them. I feel that the 7.5% of shooting yourself for the full 15HP, regardless of using the flare to attack or just to try to find something, should be appropriate. Shooting yourself gets this: "You aim the flare gun above your head and shoot the roof, the flare falls and hits you for 15 HP." This was originally pitched to solve the hunting problem that Pro-survivors have but hey the desperate may find this as a way for a little item hunting usage.

Discussion (Alternative Flare Gun Use)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  13:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You can simply the part of your suggestion concerning "You aim the flare gun above your head and shoot the roof, the flare falls and hits you for 15 HP." by just saying instead that the flare has a 10% chance of ricocheting back onto the user. -- Galaxy125 22:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So the flare gun that has a 7.5% chance of hitting in a dark building now also has a 10% chance of hitting me instead? No thanks, don't mess with my accuracy (lousy as it already is). - User:Whitehouse 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that Whitehouse, that was a typo on my part, I thought it was 20% not 15%. After all not too many of us still care to use the flares unless in a mildly organized group.Chaplain Drakon Macar 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, moving on, wouldn't it be more logical to take the flare out of the gun and ignite it and then use it as a form of torch? Just seems less dangerous. Also, I don't think this should affect search rates. The light from the flare probably isn't that brilliant, at least not as good as the light coming from all the lights in a powered building. I can understand spotting larger things like zombies and survivors though. You have to also think of a way of balancing this out for when survivors are removing zombies from dark buildings. This would make it a lot easier, and many feel dark buildings already favor survivors too much. . User:Whitehouse 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on that, we'll just ignore this version and I'll see what can be managed within reason, until then though feedback is MUCH appreciated.Chaplain Drakon Macar 22:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my only concern at the moment. Dark buildings are useless for searching, so that's not a problem, but dark buildings favor survivors too much at the moment, and always have. Perhaps raise the failure rate, or only raise hit rates slightly (not fully-say to roughly 75% of the normal chance Linkthewindow  Talk  23:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar version to this suggestion here, but it is pre-Dark Buildings and only affects search rates (and isn't really a dupe.) This doesn't qualify as a Portable Light source as it can only be used once, unlike flashlight suggestions, which can be used an infinite number of times. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to keep pushing this suggestion because it can benefit both zombies and survivors to an extent, as for search rates I am HEAVILY inclined to side with Whitehouse. The back fire portion was put in because, well shooting a flare gun indoors is just not the brightest idea no matter how pretty the light is. Like I said folks give me feedback and I'll re-pitch this later on.Chaplain Drakon Macar 04:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I like this. I would say make 10% of misses hit the firer and 10% of em go out the window/door though. I would also say the flare should burn until the next AP tick over to give zeds a better chance of gaining a benefit. --Honestmistake 19:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds okay. If they go out the window/door, I suggest that it should be slightly different flavor text:

The firer: You misjudge your aim, and the flare flies out the window.

Someone within normal flare range: You see a flare X blocks north/south, Y blocks east/west on a low trajectory, like someone was trying to hit the ground. -- Linkthewindow  Talk  20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for it if the time was reduced from 2 minutes to 10 seconds. --William Told 23:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

flares are designed to burn for much longer than 10 seconds and even if they were not i would think giving it such a short period of illumination would be a risk free negation of the penalties. Think of it this way... it takes only a few mins to use a days actions and you very rarely come across anyone else who is active unless you are in a major mall siege, anything les than an AP tick means no one will see your action! --Honestmistake 01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

...I think you missed my point: I wouldn't vote for this. Dark buildings are survivor boons and I don't want to nerf them. If this were implemented, 2 flares would be all you need to PK someone in the dark, and I like hiding in the dark. --William Told 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this, like with all pro-survivor darkeness nerfs, is that dark buildings shaft zombies much more than they shaft then surivors. It's true, if you don't believe me, well, whatever. Thus, I consider anything that helps survivors in dark buildingsd but which does nothing to help zambahz to be SPAM. now, i agree: dark buildings were a zombie nerf and a PKer buff... and i think they're a pain in the ass and i'd like to see them nerfed somehow, a little. but not in a totally pro-survivor way that just shafts zombies. in any event, it's a giant waste of AP to go after PKers... use those apes to heal and revive and barricade instead... i have no sympathy for people who whinge about how hard it is to kill PKers, because the best response to most PKers is, usually, to ignore them. --WanYao 02:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering my time running about the few zombies that could be affected would be at most 1-3. you guys stand back up, yes it's annoying but lets face it. Zombies are ridiculously tough and if the flares shot and you happen to be online it's not like you cant hit the firer. It's more of a fun idea to assist combat in general. No I am not whining about them, yes they are annoying, much like the spam zombies with death rattle and the odd survivor who slaps you with a newspapar and says "NO! You do that outside!" after someone spray painted urine stains on the wall. Yes amusing but still obnoxious. Yeah I got off task there but the thought came while I was typing so, sorry. When it comes down to it searching for ammo is a waste of AP when we got knives and fire axes en masse. I figured this a good way to help us all through the dark building ages and once more, this was just the rough draft, shoot at it as much as you like, I don't see you coming up with anything better. Chaplain Drakon Macar 06:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to write a new suggestion. You came here for critiques: we're giving them to you. Anyway, survivors have traditionally had a massive AP advantage over zombies. This has been rectified with 'cade blocking and the drugstore nerf -- possibly even a tad too far in the other direction. However, that is no justification for a totally one-sided survivor buff. --WanYao 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I came for critique and I appreciate it greatly. The thing is however that you are trying to justify a "potential" no vote to a survivor tweak by saying it is only working one way. Luck could go against them, the AP is still being used and you get limited light which could in theory GREATLY assist zombies considering that you would rob a survivor/survivors of the 1AP for a little time of light, taking away that one axe chop, pistol round, shotgun shell or knife cut therefore avoiding that headshot. It does work well in theory and is not a must have but it would be in general useful. Survivor loses 1AP and a potential weapon, zombie(s) and survivor(s) gain 2 minutes of light to fight in. Chaplain Drakon Macar 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In a non-real time turn based game, 2 minutes for the probably not online player is so far removed from important as to be inconsiderable. Just for future reference. It is one sided, because it consists of a player (or a whole flipping group) dashing in and getting a very cheap alternative to generators to kill a bunch of zeds and retake a building, with little to no hassle. that nerfs dark and is absolutely one sided. - tylerisfat 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Dumping a specific body

Timestamp:	■■ 19:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
Scope:	Zombies and Corpses/Bodies
Description:	This is the same as 'Targeted Feeding' suggestion, except with bodies. I'm suggesting that a drop-down list be added to the dump button. This would allow you to dump specific corpses/bodies that are on your contacts list. Corpses being dumped would receive the message the existing message. The list would include "a body" as the default option.

Discussion Dumping a specific body

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  13:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather pointless, IMO, but I don't really care one way or the other. What would the use be of being able to dump specific bodies? --Pestolence^(talk) 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviving bodies enjoy being able to stand up in a powered hospital. -- Galaxy125 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a blow to zombie anonymity, but I think it is fairly reasonable. However, the AP cost of dumping a specific body should reflect the additional amount of time or energy you spend making sure you're dumping the right one. -- Galaxy125 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How would this hurt anonymity? You'd have to have them in your contacts list before you could dump specific individuals. Besides, it'd be "corpse anonymity" ;). --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [520,28]} 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Corpse anonymity, sure. What I mean is, if a player attacks you and then is killed by another person but not dumped (and is a corpse among others on the floor), you would be able to quick-add that person to your contacts list and dump that specific one, even though (for all intents and purposes) you realistically shouldn't necessarily be able to identify it unless you spend extra energy doing so (hence the AP cost). -- Galaxy125 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So, a random chance of taking one or two AP? _■^■ 20:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Random AP expenditures would get annoying. I'd say just up the dump cost by 1 AP. -- Galaxy125 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could make a difference in a siege if the annoying rotters get dumped first, or if reviving bodies don't get dumped so an extra AP cost sounds quite reasonable. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, if you notice someone has rezz'd a PK'r or a greifer, it could save you alot of bother and AP but if you are the griefer this will annoy you, but still the dumping of a known body does make sense--mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 21:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

interesting, yeah... mu jury is out on it, though. i think it's been suggested before. --WanYao 02:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So, should It be taken to voting? 1 AP, as with normal dumping..? _■^■ 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

IP limit change

Timestamp:	Angusburger 18:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	All players, IP limit
Description:	I need advice on this, whether it is a dupe or not. The IP limit applies to all of us, human zombie no matter. And it says you are only allowed 160 actions per day. So why does the hit limit apply to clicking options such as 'logging in/out', 'buy skills' and 'settings'. I propose that the IP limit be restricted to in game actions. Is it a dupe???

Discussion (IP limit change)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  13:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot-makers would have a field day. There's a purpose to the limit and it isn't just to deter zergers. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [520,28]} 20:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of the IP limit is to save Kevan's bandwidth. Logging in uses the same amount of bandwidth as actually doing something. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

no. fucking. way. you could travel across the city, kill 3 people, then hide. in one day. spam-o-fucking-licious. no. no. no. no fucking way. --WanYao 02:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not an AP limit change, if that's what you mean. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

aaaah.... well... donate $5 and your alt ignores the IP hit limits. simple. therefore: SPAM. --WanYao 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC) oh and isn't this a dupe of in-game effect. because you CAN change settings and buy skills and stuff when your IP limit is reached, can't you? --WanYao 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. In that case, it would only allow you to log in when you have reached your IP limit, and that limitation is there for the sake of Kevan's bandwidth. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, thank you for developing my suggestion. Now I ask, how do you remove it??? --Angusburger 13:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and you're welcome... And, it'll get cycled out by someone who's not too lazy soon enough. ;) --WanYao 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is he complaining? Really? Angus, if your going to get caught up on the fact that it says "developing" on this page, then we should probably get caught up on all the crap on here saying to read the FAQs, read the do's and do nots, read all that documentation and all that crap. It would have taken you five seconds to type 'ip limit' into the search bar and learn why there is a limit. so shut up, don't be a baby. - tylerisfat 06:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Efficient Syringe

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item\Game Change.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	This makes two kinds of syringes: Manufactured and Found. Manufactured syringes, called 'Adv. Revivification Syringes' are more efficient as they are engineered to combat the zombie virus as it currently is, instead of the regular ones which were designed to combat the virus as it was before, and as such adv. syringes bring you back with 3/4 of your health (37/50, or 45/60.) instead of 1/2. Other than that adv. sytinges have the same properties as regular ones.

Discussion (Efficient Syringe)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  13:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This would give some benefit to the currently useless ability to manufacture syringes for 20 AP. I can't see anything wrong with it. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much as what Pestolence said, and what I said to the extremely similar suggestion here the other day. Just as long as it doesn't cure infection... Linkthewindow  Talk  05:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Takes xp away from newbie survivors who go out to heal, and not combat the zombies day-in, day-out and provides more xp to zombies from those new survivors who get locked out on the street after getting a revive. As well it combines the main effect of two items into one super-item that in certain situations could be gotten for less AP (actually finding a hospital and searching for the 1-3 FAKs on top of getting the syringe), provide a better healing function when hospitals are all ruined (NT's have a back and forth mentality to them more-so then hospitals and are in higher regard to be defended) and relieve the user of several IP hits to get the items, as well as a one shot administeer process for a max of 4 items usually taken. In the end it hurts newbies more then the health drop, and buffs up senior players in mass-ruin situations. As well the move from a gauranteed syringe to a gauranteed syringe/FAK is a bit much. At least healing infection is a minor function that doesn't effect all players to begin with for several reasons.--G-Man 20:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention the drop in encumberance this would allow for dedicated members of groups who both revive and heal they're undead players. An effect felt most on those who work together in large groups, but not truly given to those who choose to go it alone. Allowing those who can do the most damage, the capicity to do so for more ammo resulting in more zombies getting kicked out of buildings easier. The change has the potential to be massive in effect even for such a little thing.--G-Man 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The people using these syringes did have to spend 20ap per syringe though. It's hardly a walk in the park, or fun game play for that matter.--xoxo 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are bitching about 20 AP when you are one of the idiots repairing 100+ ruins? WTF?-- #99 ^DCC 15:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Since when were people repairing buildings idiots? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he's calling survivors idiots not for repairing buildings, but for letting them get to the point where it takes 100AP to repair the building instead of striking quicker.--G-Man 12:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That 20AP is now overshadowed by the fact you don't have to spend 20AP to fix the hospital in a ruined suburb, god knows how much AP clearing out the zombies inside, 7-15AP searching for the FAK's regardless of the two previvous options, 8AP searching for the syringe, as well as the AP to move inbetween the two buildings and the possibility to heal an extra 15HP outside a powered hospital. As well the convinence of meeting up with the survivor after the revive to actually heal them is now overlooked to an instant heal and up to 3AP saved there to administer the FAK's. Mind you it is limited to revivies instead of alive survivors, but most of the wounded come from those revived anyway. It may sound good at a glance but the benefits it provides are insane, and it would save Much more AP in the end then it takes.--G-Man 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this retarded idea is one step away from needles you can use on your self. Just because you spend more AP on it it doesn't mean it has to be better. That's insane. So by that logic the more AP you spend searching for a bullet the more damage it will do? What's the point? (other than to shut the whining survivors up) Leave manufactured syringes as a last ditch effort like they are meant to be. -- #99 ^DCC 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea per say, but, to have even a slight chance of getting it through the suggestions page, you should point out that the manufactured syringes do not cure infections. As to G-Man's point on dedicated groups - I thought it was generally agreed that suggestions that encouraged coordination were a good thing? Sanpedro 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesnt encourage coordination. the benefit is only recieved by the reviver who would normaly have to carry more FAK's for the heal after if they act as the healer in a group, not the revive-ie who can receive the benefit regardless by needing less FAK's to heal themselves no matter what group, if any they're assiociated with as this provides enough benefits to become the main syringes used. In the end they have more space to store ammo, while the reviver has more room for ultra-syringes creating a double headed spear, further against the zombie hoard. Whats worse, thats just in the act of reviving, on top of the other benefits I mentioned above that have to be weighed with this in mind as well. Im sorry but this is rediculous in the face of whats in place.--G-Man 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OOOOHHHH!! YEAH! WEZ SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THESZ BULLETS LIKE IN WANTED!!! OMGZ!!! THEN THEY CAN BE SNIPER BULLETS SHOOTING THROUGH CITY BLOCKS AND ONE HITS KILLZ! MAKE THEM COST 10 AP! THAT MAKES IT FAIR!>!>@!@.

I Apoligize for what i just typed. Even though it was a joke... it was painful. - tylerisfat 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No DCC, it's the fact that the syringe is newer than the one you found, that'd been sitting on the shelf for who knows how long, gathering dust is what makes it more effective. A lot of medicines have a 'Best Before' date too, y'know. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That explanation doesn't fit this sugestion. The syringes currently sitting on shelfs, aviable since the start of the outbreak still do the same work, not less as that situation would inspire (With the manufactured having the current effect), or more then the manufactured based on the time having an effect on the contents. This proposed change is basicly a change in the formula to the new syringes, or else the old syringes would have to be changed as well in one way or another without the manufactured syringes changed.--G-Man 12:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your grasping at straws there. Syringes have already been changed multiple times since their initial form. For a start they used to only cost 1AP to use but be a fair bit rarer. The excuse when the AP cost changed was that the Zombies were growing immune and thus required a larger dose. Dropping the revive cost is always shouted down so the only way for manufactured syringes to be improved is to tinker with their effect and that means one of 3 options; chance to cure infection, increased stand up health or chance to work on rotters. Personally i prefer the chance to cure infection as it makes the most sense, it also further nerfs an already pretty weak skill so its not going to pass. this suggestion goes to far on the HP thing but i could see merit in it increasing stand up health by 5. Reviving rotters has never been suggested and its probably a good job too as even thinking about DCC's response makes me shudder ;) --Honestmistake 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Giving it the ability to give health, even 5 makes it the equilivant of a new users FAK on top of a revive. Two items combined into one super-item isn't always a good idea, especially when they're seperate for a reason. Health change just doesn't cut it as a viable option. Chance to revive rotters goes against the entire point of that skill, so the best option is probably to find a way for infection to be a better skill (Note to readers:That does not mean it takes away more health, its been proposed mannny times before) and then have the manufactered syringe as the main counter to the change. Even if the infection can not be healed before someone stands is a start as it often happens anyway (At least from my experience) and FAK's only have a chance to heal an infection. Or a chance for infection to kick in when someone dies by the claws of an attacker, and a slight increase to the chance to bite could be another option. Mind you each comes with its own problems, and assoiciated mishaps however I don't think it should be passed until it has a viable counter to its increase (even if its an existing one) so its somewhat evened out for a change to something thats worked for over a year (I've never run into problems with this system), unlike this suggestion which buffs the survivor population on several fronts to throw them further on top of the ladder just by sitting in there local NT instead of at least moving between there and the local hospital.--G-Man 12:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There you have hit on the nub of the problem, many feel that manufactured syringes should be better than found ones but all the options to do so could cause a significant shift in balance. I think what is needed is for infection cures to no longer be automatic... I remember discussing an improved infection (Virulent Infection?) where we wanted to give Faks a % chance to cure. Don't think we finalised numbers because it didn't look likely to pass but I would still support something on those lines because it would make for a more scary game.--Honestmistake 12:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

this a bad idea because it's a revive plus a couple of FAKs in a spiffy new all-in-one package. however, i want to point out that going on about how easy survivors have it and how hard it is for zombies, waaah waah waah like DCC (or whichever goon it is, they all look alike to me :P )... you're dinosaurs. with the recent updates, the balance has been shifted. playing the survivor hard is a LOT harder now than it used to be. which is a good thing. and the game isn't perfectly balanced. but the days of screaming about the huge AP imbalance are over. though, like bell bottoms and big hair and arena rock, i'm sure it'll make a kitchy comeback... --WanYao 15:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hilarity ensues; You've duped yourself.--Karek^maps?! 12:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Most people voted that one down because it nerfed Infection too much. This one is a revised version. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem being it was voted down because the numbers needed adjusting, but because it was ridiculous. Its way overpowered. Something should probably be adjusted, but this is not it. - tylerisfat 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Depants

Suggestion:20081125 Depants is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.

Targeted Feeding

Targeted Feeding is up for voting. Discussion moved here. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [509,04]} 09:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Dark

In the Dark is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.