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

Message when healing someone with Body Building

Timestamp:	Linkthewindow  Talk  23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Minor improvment
Scope:	All medics and doctors (survivors who heal other survivors.)
Description:	When a medic uses a FAK on someone with body building the first time (ie: subsequent heals won't show the message,) they get a short message advising that their pateient has body building. At the moment, in order to check (and to see if you have to apply that final FAK,) one must go into their profile, and then manually check the skills list. This will save a bit of time for doctors. No skill would be required-if you are getting close enough to heal, you could probably tell that they are that little bit stronger anyway.

Discussion (Message when healing someone with Body Building)

Its free info but if limited to heals that take the target over 40 (or even 45) HP's i would vote keep--Honestmistake 00:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Burn Bodies

Timestamp:	--Diablor 20:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Dead bodies
Description:	Older survivors have begun to notice that burning bodies aren't fed upon by zombies and have begun to burn many bodies in the street. This suggestion is incorporating a skill and an item to go with it (Because shooting a flare gun to light something is fucking retarded). Skill: Body Burning Tree: Zombie Hunter Cost: 100 Description: Player may use a lighter to burn dead bodies to prevent zombies from eating them Item: Lighter Search Percentages: Clubs 3%, Police Stations: 2%, Hotels/Motels 4%, Arms/Pubs: 6% Uses: 4-8 Purpose: Every use of a lighter is used to burn a single body The reason this will require it to be a zombie hunter skill is because it would be pointless to burn a revifying body. Anyways this would allow you to burn dead bodies so zombies couldn't feed on them for hp. It would not affect the dead player AT ALL. You would burn 1 body at a time for 1 ap

Discussion (Burn Bodies)

You'd need more than a lighter to set fire to a body. Make it require a fuel can and I'll agree to it, if only because it's a colossal waste of survivor AP. --Papa Moloch 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If the zombies had clothes on, then the lighter could set fire to them, and then set fire to the body, but admitidly, it's a long shot. A fuel can would make more sense. And yeah, this would be a massive waste of APs. Real zombies don't care about their HP. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Zombie Revive Avoidance and Brain Rot Buff

Timestamp:	Swiers 20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Change
Scope:	zombies and revivification
Description:	Zombies can "lurch" in front of people building barricades, and can "wander away in the dark" when being revived, but still can't generally choose to walk away from a needle wielding reviver. I propose that there should be a toggle setting in your profile which would allow you to try to avoid being revived. Attempts to revive "resisting" zombies would have a 75% chance of failing, with a cost of 1 AP and no lost needle, as when failing to revive a zombie in the dark. Such an attempt (regardless of results) would bump the zombie to the bottom of the "revive stack". Scanning a "resisting" zombie would be no more difficult, but would give an appropriate flavor text along with the current info to indicate that revification would be difficult. Now, people will say this nerfs brain rot. But it doesn't - brain rot is much better because it blocks scans, AND breaks needles. However, I suggest that brain rot also be buffed so that when somebody DOES successfully scan you, all they get is a message saying the target has brain rot and the option to attempt a revive - they do NOT get a link to your profile! Viva zombie anonymity! Barhah!

Discussion (Zombie Revive Avoidance and Brain Rot Buff)

I think this falls along the lines of more of an unneeded auto-defense, it's not gonna cost that much ap to get killed and turn into a zombie again and also if a zombie doesn't want to be revived it would probably be a good idea to get away from an NT or just put something up in their profile that says don't revive or something along those lines. --Diablor 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an auto defence in the same way shotgun hit percentages against a sleeping target are not an 'auto defence' you retarded trenchie futher mucker. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I do like the second one, but then the profile of a zombie with brain rot would never be seen unless someone looked it up on the database. Maybe make it an option when buying rot whether to have your profile shown during scans? Also, I think the "resisting" option should be bought as a skill, instead of just getting that ability for nothing. Just my two cents. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You could still see a rotter's profile if it attacked you, or if it killed somebody else, or if it broke a generator, or ruined the building you were in (you'd need to be a zombie for that), or if it spoke / performed a gesture. In fact, rotters who want revives generally talk quite a lot, specifically so that people CAN see their profile.  Swiers 21:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Brain Rot already does this, essentially, does it not?--Pesatyel 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Only if survivors get a 75% of falling on any syringes they are carrying upon death and injecting themselves. No I don't think survivors should have that, nor do I think zombies need further ways of avoiding revivification. - User:Whitehouse 22:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's odd.. it just occurred to me that zombie accuracy against cades is 25%... Anyhow, still not the same. As for your brainrot buff. Doesn't that take away the whole reward for DNA extracting in the first place? I have a character who doesn't DNA extract to revive, he extracts because I am looking for rotters to add to my contact list. - User:Whitehouse 22:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would make that tactic inviable. Then again, that tactic was only made viable as an update to scanning.  Swiers 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't go far enough. As I've been saying for years, if survivors insist on using syringes as weapons, they should be forced to hit with similar percentages to any other weapon. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but unworkable... unless you assume every zombie is resisting revivification... which is logical... but... Actually, you can think of the 10 AP cost is an equivalent to attacking. I mean, if you make reviving an attack, then does it now cost only 1 AP like every other attack?

In anyway event, back to the suggestion... It duplicates Brain Rot. If you wanna avoid revives, get Rot. Right? --WanYao 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack in anyway. The current cost reflects the need for precision when making the injection, unless entered into the brain stem through the back of the neck the revivification drug cannot combat the undead state before the infection renders it inert, the very reason the revivification drug cannot be administered in aerosol form from helicopters.

If it was an attack then the cost would go down as character increased in proficiency, i.e. gain higher skills in the Necrotech tree. My idea no more assumes that zombies are avoiding revivification than the hit and heal tactic does on consensual survivors. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but unworkable... unless you assume every zombie is resisting revivification... which is logical... but... Actually, you can think of the 10 AP cost is an equivalent to attacking. I mean, if you make reviving an attack, then does it now cost only 1 AP like every other attack?

In anyway event, back to the suggestion... It duplicates Brain Rot. If you wanna avoid revives, get Rot. Right? --WanYao 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn;t assume every zombie tries to avoid revives- that's why its an optional setting in your profile! And the ATTEMPT to revive costs 1 AP, because that's how "long" it takes to realize the zombie is wriggling away. This already exists as a feature (in the dark) and also you only spend 1 AP to break a needle on a rotter. Its only SUCCESSFUL needle use that currently currently costs 10 AP, and I think that's fair. As for duplicating brain rot- yes and no. For a dedicated zombie, its far weaker, because it doesn't waste needles, and you can't "block the stack". Its mainly intended for death cultists and dual nature players who want a temporary break from combat revives.  Swiers 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I may be unused to the new changes, but how would this change affect survivors' attempts to seize NecroTech? I remember that in the past, people would place gennys in NTs and pump out revives so as to reclaim the building from zeds. If ransack/"dark" buildings prohibit people from placing generators inside NTs, then sure, this change really wouldn't affect that. However, if it is the other way around, I'd have to go against. Nerfing the survivors' attempts to seize control of NTs would lead to a temporary imbalance until survivors larn how to adapt, and will severely cause survivors to whine and cry until they actually do adapt (by realizing that all that really happened is that you raised the cost of Combat Revives from 10 AP to ~14 AP), and I don't want that to happen. (There is also the problem of resisting zombies blocking revive queues, but I strongly suspect surviviors have already adapted, so I don't really care)

Quite frankly though, while I do like the idea of making sure brain rotted zombies don't get your profile link, the rest of the suggestion I don't like personally...if only because I find "Combat Revives" incredibly funny and enjoyable. It's part of the "Urban Dead" flavor, like death cultists, coordinated zombies, and revive points.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Actually, doesn't this nerf DIRTNAP too? Now, you could just reviving and reviving and reviving all the time, without caring for WHO you are reviving (except for brain rotters, but hey, just 'skip' them and revive other people)...but if this change is implemented, you have to actually start caring who you are reviving, so you don't accidentally waste a couple of AP accidently reviving resisting zombies. I understand DIRTNAP makes survivors super-powerful and there is no counter to it, but...I prefer a less...blatant...attempt to correct it.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The resisting a revive setting is basically a non-permanent Brain Rot. While my non-rotter career zombie would definitely benefit, I'd still have to say no. Dual-natured players and death cultists purposefully place themselves in positions that are subject to random revives and should deal with it. Buy Rot if you don't want revived. If you don't want revived at the moment, but would like to be revived in the future, you can buy Rot and go to a Rot clinic later or just deal with it. As for the Brain Rot buff, no me gusta. I'm all for zombie anonymity, but the entire point of scanning is to get a name. --William Told 23:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Level Limit

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Diversity
Scope:	All Players
Description:	As most players are probably aware once you reach level 43 (unless your rot free) you become exactly the same as everyone else... Varying XP costs encourage diversity for lower level characters but that soon becomes redundant once players begin accumulating XP with more ease. A level limit would help encourage higher level characters to focus their skills and be suited to particular roles. The level limit should not be high enough to penalise players who prefer different tactics or dual nature so a limit of 10% of the maximum possible skills should be acceptable. So I'm suggesting a maximum level based on the formula. Maximum Level = Skill Count - (Skill Count x 0.1) In order to prevent current players gaining an unfair advantage/losing skills I'd suggest the current limit be capped at lvl45 and this not be brought into effect until the Skill Count = 50. I am aware that this is not likely to happen for a while but I am putting this up for discussion now as opposed to in the future when the level cap would need to be higher.

Discussion (Level Limit)

No. Don't mess with other people's XP or choices. They worked for them. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like that any player can do anything. I just wish there was more to do! --A Big F'ing Dog 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

'Leveling up' is not the point of this game. Role play. That will give you an infinite amount to do. Stop hiding in the malls and try to run a Rotter Revive Clinic. Have a zombie who goes into the middle of green suburbs and destroy buildings on your own. Repair ruined buildings. There are plenty of challenges beyond leveling. - tylerisfat 08:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant and redundant as there already IS a level limit. Once you acquire all the skills (that you want) in the game, you have reached the limit. What you REALLY seem to be arguing is that Kevan shouldn't include more than 50 skills total. Or your suggesting there be single choice skills or something. I cna't tell becuase this suggestion is stupid.--Pesatyel 04:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to simplify it for you as you can't seem to grasp the concept; two examples:

• When 50 skills are available the maximum amount you can have is 45.
• When 100 skills are available the maximum amount you can have is 90.

What this should mean is that when you have maxed out there will still be some variance amongst the top level players. Granted 5 out of 50 skills isn't too much of a difference when you consider that for quite a few players the ROT tree would make up some of those skills and there will be a core set (free run/barricade/lurching gate), but it would still promote a little variance. This has nothing to do with limiting the skills available in game, only the ones your character can make use of. The level cap till 50 was suggested to prevent problems if it was implemented now. As the game stands now imagine you were limited to 39 skills instead of 43, everyone would be almost identical but with slight variations making them better suited for certain tasks. At least I hope... --Kamikazie-Bunny 12:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That DOES clarify things, thanks. The problem is is your limiting what skills that can be included and you don't take into account zombie skills. You also can't limit it that way. How would it work anyway? The only way it would work is if the next 7 skills are all included SIMULTANEOUSLY. Othwerwise you would not be able to dictate the limit. Once we hit 50 skills, HOW would you enforce the limit if everyon has 49 and the limit doesn't kick in until 50? To use your example of current mechanics, if I were limited to 39 skills instead of the full 43, players would be LOSING skills to meet the limitation and nobody would do that. I DO like the idea of diversity, but not THIS way. Not where players have to lose skills they aleady have.--Pesatyel 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What might work better is to make it cost more to buy more skills. Say the first 10 are normal cost, then the next 5 cost double, the next five x4, the next five x8, the next five x16 (thats up to level 30 there) and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swiers (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

Hell no. This wouldn't change anything for the characters who only play one side, but would be a severe blow to dual nature characters. Also, the "encourage higher level characters to focus their skills and be suited to particular roles" thing is already done quite well by the limited inventory space. If you want to encourage it further, suggest a smaller inventory. The current limit is ridiculously high anyway. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [518,13]} 18:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Go find another way to sneak through a zombie nerf. You can have this when we all get un-buy skill. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

He also doesn't say what happens to the people who already have said skills. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Monroeville Endgame

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Scenario
Scope:	Monroeville characters
Description:	I think it's pretty safe to say that Monroeville is dead. Or, more accurately, undead. Thus, I propose the following 'endgame' scenario. The first stage of the endgame is to un-hide every character. Idling out no longer hides characters. In the same vein as Night of the Living Dead, the military is called in with the task of eliminating everything that still stands, burning the bodies as they go to fully eradicate the infestation. Eliminating a zombie is done the same way as in the movie: pile up the bodies and start a bonfire. Bonfires are started by use of a fuel can and flare gun. One fuel can will douse all bodies in an area, one Flare gun blast will ignite all doused bodies in an area. New characters can be made, but they will all be of the same class: "Marine". Marines start at Level 5 with an Assault Rifle, a pistol and an extra clip for each. Their starting skills are Basic Firearm Training, Basic Pistol Training, Radio Operation, Free Running and Headshot. Their task is to eliminate all the zombies in the city. After two weeks, no more marine characters can be made. From then on, the game has two possible outcomes: Marines win or Zombies win. Marines win if the only characters that are still alive are of the class Marine. Zombies win if all the characters still alive are of the class Zombie. In either case, once one of the two Monroeville Endgame outcomes is reached, the city is deemed officially over. All characters within will be deleted and we will finally be done with it.

Discussion (Monroeville Endgame)

The endgame already happened and zombies won. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,12]} 11:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I guess we need to end Monroeville someday... Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What about those survivors still alive?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the only real problem with ending it now, but I can't really see a compromise. As Kevan said somewhere (I can't find the quote,) ether NecroTech sets up in Monroeville, or we simply transfer all characters to Malton. Personally, I don't like ether (NT-we don't want to split the player base too much, and people would expect the same for Borehamwood+future cities, and Malton, don't want to have a forced ending.) But that's just me. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How many horror movies have you seen where the military gets called in to save people from zombies? None. They either kill everyone to ensure the virus doesn't escape, or they are there from the initial outbreak. Consider that a combined Survivor/PKer victory. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That could create an interesting alliance between zombies and the "other" survivors. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the zombie's victory means that everyone has to be a zombie, the survivors included. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What I think would make a good end game would be a "scenario" style thing. All remaining survivors have to make it to a a given point within a given period of time to "escape" the city. If the the survivors can get to the location(s) and stay there for X amount of time, ah helicopter will rescue them. The military will send a radio transmission to anyone listening to the frequenc(ies) telling them the coordinates of up to 4 locations in the city and a period of time of, say 3 days, to start say 2 weeks from the first broadcast. Any survivors that can make it to one of those locations AND survive for, say 24 hours at the location will be "rescued". Also, if the player fires a flare from a clear location (ie. not one of the 4 coded locations, but clear, like a street, park or other space for a helicopter to land) there is, say, a 30% chance of rescue. Somthing like that.--Pesatyel 04:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

THAT is a cool use for these old cities. Totally! --WanYao 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Unlike Malton, career zombies in these new cities (zombies who have made the game interesting by starting as the undead) don't have access to radios and so it's a fucking cake walk to a 'survivor victory' that we, who (in the case of Monroeville) sacrificed our chances of winning the shiny prizes to make the game interesting, will never hear the end of that we 'lost'. Things like this need to be coded in from the start with hints given in game and in the sanctioned background in order to work. All three sides need a chance of 'victory'. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Its just a very basic idea. Of course there has to be a way for zombies to acquire the information. That's a given. That's also why it was a comment to a suggestion and not a suggestin itself since it needs to be thought out more. And also, what is "all THREE sides"?--Pesatyel 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The basic idea is narrow-minded, the same that didn't allow the zombies to be in with a chance of winning prizes in Monroeville, even though our presence and actions allowed others to win shiny prizes. I'm quite sure what idiots would consider our 'whining' after Monroeville caused Kevan to allow us to enter the competition in Borehamwood. The three sides of the game are survivor, zombie and PKer, three distinct play styles allowed by the game and Kevan. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PKing isn't a side its a lifestyle choice! You might as well say that Rotters form a fourth side, everyone can do it but most choose not to!--Honestmistake 09:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Pking is a third side" is very much up for debate. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In a matter of days we're going to have 2 pretty much identical cities. BHM and MV are going to be zombie infested wastelands. At which point im sure kevan will Dupe one. After all If a fourth city was created (with different rules) IP restrictions would stop some people even playing it.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Kevan stated previously that it's just as easy to leave old cities open? Linkthewindow  Talk  22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Helicopters

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 18:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Ok, I know vehicles have been suggested before and it's generally a bad/ridiculous idea but here I've tried to write a working idea for helicopters in game. Let me know what you think please. This suggestion has a few elements so I'll try to explain it as simple as possible. Helicopters would allow single survivors to travel between malls and forts, being the only places with large enough flat roofs or a helipad to land on. There would be a limited number of helicopters and obviously you could only use one if one is present. In mall squares or in the fort armory when a helicopter is present the room description would say "A helicopter is upstairs on the roof" or "X helicopters are on the roof" if there is more than one. If a helicopter is present survivors that purchase a "Piloting" skill would have a dropdown display. It would list every mall and both forts. If they have a fuel can they can fly to the location of their choice. Flying moves them, and the helicopter, to that location and deducts the fuel can from their inventory and lowers their AP by 15. I think a good number of helicopters would be 10 throughout the city, starting with 5 at each fort. Over time these would spread out and transfer between the 20 malls and 2 forts however survivors use them. Nothing prevents someone else from taking a helicopter you've used or plan to use, so it's impossible to reserve your ride. Such is the apocalypse. Helicopters are a communal resource and easily stolen, for good or ill. Helicopters cannot take off from ransacked armories or totally ransacked malls since there is no roof access. You can still fly to those locations though, but the helicopter will be stuck there until repairs are made. WHY INTRODUCE HELICOPTERS? You can't use it to reinforce or evacuate a location because it can only transfer the pilot. And if a pilot takes it for someone else to use that strands the pilot there. It has two uses: First is that it creates is a better network of communication and intelligence between the malls and forts. Pilots could land in, survey an area, and then tell other malls and forts in detail what they saw. "Hello Calvert. Just swung by Pole and Bale. Pole is ruined and has about 30 zombies inside, lucky one corner was empty so I could fix it and take off. Bale has about fifty survivors. No unruined NTs nearby though." Allows more precise information than the suburb mall status map, and would also help with updating it. Second is that it could let pilots drop into held territory, behind enemy lines as it were, and then escape. They could repair a building and withdraw, or fly in with FAKs or syringes from an unruined building across the city. What keeps this from getting too overpowered, in addition to maybe getting stranded if their destination is ruined, is that if the pilot wants to escape they can't use too much AP, and they've already taken 15AP to get there. So a pilot landing in dangerous territory has 35AP at most. Even if they fly back at 1AP and return home -14AP they can probably only revive two people. And to revive someone in dangerous territory they've already wasted 30AP to transport themselves, rather than find more syringes or revive people. Useful? Yes, sometimes. Overpowering? I think not but please, give me your feedback. Thank you for reading my long suggestion.

Discussion (Helicopters)

Sorry, but no. Leave the helicopters to the military. And come to think of it, all choppers would be shot down instantly by the military who don't want the virus to escape the city. - User:Whitehouse 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why there wouldn't be an option to fly outside of the city (besides there not being an outside of the city). Going past the border would result in getting shot down. But within the city the helicopters operate without military interference.--A Big F'ing Dog 21:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But logic wise how would that really stop you, or them? You have a helicopter, youre in a desperate situation, how many people do you think would take there chances?--G-Man 11:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it falls into the "No Free Lunch" trap. Although these would be rare, in most cases, lowering your AP to 15 would be much better then a 15 day trip. At best, this could be an interesting scouting tool. At worst, it could make walking for long distances obsolete. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That system has the problem of giving different travel costs. For example someone with 50AP would spend 35AP for a trip while someone with 40 would spend 25.

I don't think it's really free per se. It requires 15AP, plus a fuel can which takes a handful of AP to find.

As for making walking obsolete, the problem of taking the helicopter prevents that from happening. It doesn't allow the entire population of one building to travel the map because the copters have to be brought back. So maybe one person manages to escape the falling mall, or reinforce the building under siege, but that strands everyone else. A few individuals might be able to move quicker for personal reasons, but it wouldn't change a suburb's population by more than +-10. Hardly significant in the long run. Also, the number of working helicopters at any given point is probably going to be less than 10. A lot of them will be trapped on ruined buildings. Many flown there deliberately by death cultists.

Perhaps though travel costs should be higher, to discourage casual hops. 20AP maybe? What do you think?--A Big F'ing Dog 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

AP cost is irrelevant. It could cost 100 AP and this suggestion still wouldn't work. Why? Because its teleportation. Remember, zombies are players too. If you can instantaneously travel across the city (essentially) without having to deal with zombies at all, that's overpowered. Yes, it can be argued that the same can happen but quick clicking through squares or by free running, but even there zombies still have the chance to get in an attack or can follow.--Pesatyel 02:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pesatyel brought up a good point-this is insanely pro-survivor. The author tries to fix that by making it "rare," but that doesn't help a thing. Just means that the survivors that can use then would have an advantage. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While free lunches taste best, this will be dead in the water. --William Told 07:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Any air traffic from inside Malton would be shot down instantly before it had the chance of getting anywhere near the border. Remember, the people in the quarantine zone are to all effects and purposes invincible, they cannot be permanently killed. If they waited until some moron tried to fly over the wall to shoot it down all they'd get is a mini horde emerging from the wreckage, all it takes is for one of those to have infectious bite for the quarantine to be broken. The military wouldn't even wait for such a vehicle to take off, it'd be pre-emptively hit when noticed by the satellites or flyovers. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if the military didn't shoot them down immediately after taking off, anyone stupid enough to try and fly a helicopter without any training would either be unable to get it off the ground, or crash the thing in less than a minute. Does this look like something you could learn on your own? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 14:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending the suggestion (I already said my piece). I'm merely pointing out that the suggestion DOES list a new skill (Piloting). And if I can learn how to perform SURGERY on my own or how to mix chemicals in the right combination to create revival syringe, I can learn how to fly a helicopter.--Pesatyel 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the people come back to life so you've got an infinite supply of patients to practice on :D! Most of the syringes are found, and manufacture could be fairly automated (just got to know which buttons to push), while (as the suggestion says) there'd only be a limited amount of helicopters you can crash while trying to learn before you run out :). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I'm definitely not submitting the suggestion as is. What are your thoughts on these possible changes: 1) Only allowing helicopters to fly between the forts. The flavor text can say that if they stray from the path between forts they'll be shot down. So rather than something that connects malls it could be something that only makes the forts more relevant to each other. 2) Making flying just a way of scouting. The helicopters can't take you anywhere, they just let you get a necrotech map like look at a suburb of your choice. Then you return to the fort to avoid being shot down (the character never actually leaves though, the flight is just flavor text and the map view). --A Big F'ing Dog 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should be able to RP as a Helicopter. Speak this ingame- *FOOP FOOP FOOP FOOP FOOP FOOP FOOP FOOP FOOP FOOP FOOP* until someone asks what the hell you are doing. Then reply with something like *FEEDBACK HISS* "CITIZEN OF MALTON STAND BACK FROM THE HELIOCOPTER!" and repeat the *FOOP FOOP FOOP* thing. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Rope

Timestamp:	Athur birling 14:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I am suggesting the introduction of rope as a survivor item. It would apply to survivors. The length of rope will allow players to exit buildings they are barricaded into and cannot leave it would also allow players to scale down buildings without the risk of injury from the Jump from a Window option. The locations I am suggesting are fire deptartments, factories and warehouse. I am not experianced enough with search rates so I leave that to the proffesionals to decide the right search rates. The AP cost would be 2AP to exit the building. This includes scaleing down from lower floors.

Discussion (Rope)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Transplanted from the main page. Someone else can fix the formatting. Also, it's a dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What Iscarot said. Has anyone informed the author that his suggestion is now here (if not, I just did it anyway.) Linkthewindow  Talk  02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Iscarot informed him. Not much else can be said about this. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed formatting as best I could. Also, bad idea that solves a non-existant problem. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On second reading, yeah this makes no sense. Why not just exit the building? Linkthewindow  Talk  04:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he has noticed that you can click the area next to your current location and just move there regardless of cade level! Probably used to Nexuswar or similar... --Honestmistake 10:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he means when you are in a EHB building and you cant just leave, you need to move to a adjacent square so its a nice idea but the cost of 2 AP would be the same as if you clicked on to the adacent square and then moved back making it a pointless item/skill, but if it was 1 AP then maybe... --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 12:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Additional Firearms

Timestamp:	7:09 AM December 9
Type:	ect.
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I'm fairly new to Urban dead, so researched on what type of things you could do, thats when I noticed their is only 2 actual firearms. Yes, anything beside a shotgun or pistol is unusual but, your bound to find something unusual in this place. I'm just suggesting 2 firearms to put into the game, maybe a SMG, Damage 5 points (4 against a flak jacket.) Base accuracy 5% Capacity 6 Bullets from Pistol Clip or 30 Bullets from SMG clip Locations Armories (3%), Police Departments (2%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?) Encumbrance 8% Special Fires 3 shots in 1 attack Assault Rifle Base Accuracy 10% Capacity 15 from rifle clip Locations Armories (2%), Police departments (2%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?) Encumbrance 25% And personally I believe that these weapons would make a great addition to the game.

Discussion (Firearms)

Look here, scroll down til you see SMG and Assualt rifle. Also go up to the military weapon section, that's also applicable.--xoxo 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a quicker link and also sign your posts. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The military weaponry bit doesn't mention SMGs--xoxo 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

SMG's have passed into PR however. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And personally I believe that these weapons would make a great addition to the game. How does having a wider range of guns make the game any better? Either it makes survivors more able to kill (more guns = easier to find) or less able to kill / more frustrated (more types of guns = less likely to find the ammo you currently need) - but neither makes the better. And in fact, even the former doesn't really help survivors because revive / healing rates, not zombie killing power, are what enable survivors to do well. It would really just encourage trenchcoats and PKers.  Swiers 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been playing with a rifle that uses shotgun ammo as a compromise, but Swiers' arguments really kill any new gun. Sorry. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the page history, the user Monxer made this suggestion.

Actually, I've been considering suggesting a new starting class that starts with an Assault Rifle and an extra clip. However, I was thinking that neither the Assault Rifle, nor the ammo clips for it should be findable in Malton. That would balance the suggestion somewhat as this makes the weapon have a limited life span. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well some rifles make fine melee weapons ;) --Honestmistake 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Flares are also firearms. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, Blake, but then what's the point for Kevan coding for a new weapon (which I think would be a pain in the ass,) just so newbies can use it until they run out of ammo? Linkthewindow  Talk  08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, level 1 players have very few ways to gain XP, given their accuracy ratings and such; a high-power weapon they can't restock might be just the thing to get them a level or two. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but it's no secret that Kevin doesn't like coding, and to stop people spawning heaps of lv1 accounts as zergs during an attack (since they have a new, powerful weapon.) If you want to continue this discussion, please make a new header. We are in danger of going off topic :). Linkthewindow  Talk  09:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to think simplistically. The pistol is medium damage medium capacity, the shotgun is high damage, low capacity. All that really leaves is low damage high capacity. But that is already covered by the SMG suggestions.--Pesatyel 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Low damage high capacity is covered by the fire axe and knife, which have INFINITE capacity.  Swiers 03:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely that leaves room for low damage, high capacity, high accuracy? I don't know, just a thought since we seem not to be factoring in the accuracy. - User:Whitehouse 03:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The accuracies are much the same, 40% for an axe, 65% of the guns but less when you consider the ap spent searching for ammo.--xoxo 03:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Melee is a different category. I was talking about guns.--Pesatyel 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Other then flavor text, there is no real distinction between melee and firearms. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with ammunition. A fire axe has 6% encumberance and can be used for every attack, 1 AP per attack. A shotgun also has 6% encumberance... but shells also weigh 2% individually. So a guy with an axe can attack 50 times, successful or not, for only 6% enucumbrance. A guy with a shotgun could attack 34 times but it would take 70% encumbrance to do that (a guy with a pistol 42 times for 20% encumbrance). Not to mention finding ammo.--Pesatyel 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

Adding more colour to the map is problematic, we had no end of problems getting Scent Death to work for the colourblind. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

you made scent death work for the colourblind??? How, i never use it cos i can't make sense of of it :(--Honestmistake 00:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Originally the shades of colour used were too similar if view greyscale (representing colourblindness) they were altered to make them clearer even when viewed this way. Swiers wrote a decoding Scent Death piece somewhere that explains about the display. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Limiting it to zombies is inconsistent as Scent Death's strangely smelling bodies do carry over to survivors. If it's the same fluid you can recognize from the corpses in small amounts, you should definitely be able to recognize it in the huge amounts an NT building would have. What's the point of making it zombies-only? It's not like getting this skill instead of NT Employment would be sensible for survivors as this is more expensive (2nd tier) and less useful (no DNA extracting, must buy NT Employment anyway if you want the subskills). --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [518,09]} 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Very true, that sentence was there to stop trenchies whining, I never saw it as a problem if it was trans-mortal, but you have to consider your audience. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I can't find a dupe. What Midianian said has a point though, and limiting this to zombies would be inconsistent (should NT Employment's bonuses be limited to survivors, then?) Unlike Dog, however, I would just prefer it to branch off the "Scent" tree like other zombie skills. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't find a dupe of something I've brought to this page? Colour me shocked and amazed :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that zombies should be able to recognize NT buildings. I'm not sure why you want this skill not to be "trans-mortal" though, since zombies with the NT Employment can identify the NT's. --Janus ^talk 20:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The lack of trans-mortal application was purely to stop trenchies whining. The downside is the lack of Extractor use IMO, as it doesn't seem to be a sticking point I'll remove the section about it not being trans-mortal on the revised text. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I appreciate what you'e trying to do, but I really don't think this is skill-worthy. As you said, the locations of NT buildings are hardly secret. Also, it's currently entirely possible to identify a suspected NT building ingame without NecroTech Employment or any metagame resources: if a building has a high number of zombies outside and a large number of revived bodies outside or adjacent blocks, it's likely, and can be confirmed by breaking in and seeing whether it has the NecroTech logo inside. Heck, even the fact of meeting a defense makes it likely to be an NT, because normal buildings are virtually worthless. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Graffitti is skill worthy, but that's a whole different rant about useless survivor skills. The difference is that anyone who's been revived probably has NT Employment, and thus there are no 'suspected' NT buildings to them, this just allows players wanting to be exclusively zombie to gain the same benefit. It's a skill because the survivor analogue is also a skill. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting that NecroTech Employment is required to use a DNA Extractor, an excellent source of easy XP and useful source of intel. Identifying NTs is pretty much a minor side benefit. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can they smell someone who is carrying needles? - tylerisfat 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. As is mentioned in the suggestion text, syringes are sealed, zombies with Scent Enemy will not be able to distinguish between survivors with and without needles using this skill. This only allows the identification of NT buildings using similar flavour to Scent Death and the mechanics of NT Employment. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, missed that somehow. Late night. - tylerisfat 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

udtoolbar or whatever shows them differently, it's a nice touch and i wouldn't oppose it, but i don't really see the need.--xoxo 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's all about giving career zombie players equal abilities in the game mechanics without forcing them to play outside their chosen (and genre true) play style. Yes they could use plug ins, but people constantly go on about plug ins not working on different browsers (although personally, anyone who doesn't use Firefox is a Philistine and should be shot), also it should not be required for any player to use a single plug in. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate giving career zombies equal abilities, but I don't think that necessarily implies identical abilities (with all due regard to Brown v. Board of Education). Zombies' scent abilities tend to allow zombies to know extra information about their current map location, and (with AP expenditure), extra information about their surrounding area. I would make this suggestion with this paradigm in mind: Scent Enemy should allow zombies to determine NT if they're outside it, and should place an asterisk within NT locations on the Scent Death mini-map. -- Galaxy125 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This fits better under Memories of Life. --WanYao 10:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

They don't remember the NT buildings, they smell the chemicals, hence Scent tree. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Just as zombies shouldn't have to become human to get 60 HP and a flack jacket, zombies shouldn't have to become human to get the NT-identifying ability. Also, the more information provided IN-game (vs. having to look in the metagame for it) the better. And no one should be forced to use plug-ins. --Jen 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll vote for this when survivors get their own version of ankle grab for standing up after a revive, and when they get their own version of scent death for identifying reviving bodies. Personally I don't wish to encourage playing for one side only. - User:Whitehouse 20:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It further validates the career zombies, and there's no reason I can think of to not vote for it. --William Told 07:13, 14 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)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

So, the general consensus is... some people think it should apply to melee weapons, some people don't... voting or no? - tylerisfat 22:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's simple: negate dark penalties if and only if your zombie has a Tangling Grasp in place. I'd accept this even if only applied to bites. --WanYao 10:58, 10 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)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  08:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  08:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Are you suggesting that this would only affect clothing? I don't really like that :P. Besides, attacking is also a player on player action, which is where the bloodstains normally come from. However, making it so that there's also a chance for getting blood on the clothes... What do you people think? --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [519,09]} 19:00, 9 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)

---

`

Suggestions up for voting

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.

---