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

Useful Flare Idea

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Flare guns
Description:	Here's a modest change that provides a real use for flare guns. Allow them to be launched inside buildings. The message others receive would look like "A flare gun was fired 5w2n from the roof of Henley Hospital", while one fired outside would be the same old "A flare gun was fired 5w2n." But, only allow a flare gun to be fired indoors if the building is not ransacked or ruined, since ruined buildings have limited roof stairway access. This makes flare guns a way of announcing the repair of a building, or to advertise intact resource points/safehouses to wandering people.

Discussion (Useful Flare Idea)

How does shooting a flare from a rooftop make the location any more visible to people far away than shooting it from street-level? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see rooftops for potentially several miles. Unless all of Malton is shrouded in eternal mist it would be illogcal to think that people can't see more than the 3x3 map view. The map view just represents what your immediate area is, and where you can move, not what characters can see from a roleplaying/logic perspective. Also, this doesn't necessarily mean that the rooftop is visible. Just that you know it was fired from a roof, and that your character knows what building is there. --A Big F'ing Dog 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to see the actual firing of the flare for that, which is quite unlikely as the majority of observers would be inside, unable to see most of the cityscape, most likely looking in a direction other than where the flare was shot from. No, when you get a notification of a flare, you're seeing the flare in the sky, not the firing, which makes it irrelevant whether it was fired from the roof or from the street. And if you actually do know what's 3e7n of here, the game doesn't need to tell you what's there. If you don't know, then the game definitely shouldn't tell you what's there. Either memorize your surroundings or use a map. This isn't something the game should be telling you. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A flare fired from a roof would go higher. So you could at least distinguish whether it was fired from the street or the ground that way. --A Big F'ing Dog 00:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of distingusing between the flare "Looking" like it was fired from a roof or the ground, and the ability to fire from inside a fully repaired building only, but the exact locations name is a bit much.--G-Man 06:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? Because this is yet another stupid suggestion you've decided to waste everyone's time with on this page. The flare gun is a weapon. It has high damage, but with a low accuracy rating to balance this. You see how this game works, a benefit is offset by a cost. Another benefit of the flare gun is that it may be used for signalling. To offset this benefit the cost you have to pay is going the fuck outside the building you want to signal from. Benefit, cost, how hard is it for you to grasp this basic concept? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

When did you last pay attention to a fired flare with the intent to help, not kill? Or bothered using one as a weapon? Currently its pretty damn useless except as a last ditch effort or position giveaway. Not only does this provide the specified use, but a flare desinated as being fired from a roof has the potential to draw more zombie players to that location as well, so theres your cost. Its a damn good idea, as an aid in green/moderate, and diversion in red, yet it still has a downside.--G-Man 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether the cost is too high or too low is always open to debate. This suggestion does not remove all costs from the flare gun - it still has to be searched for, takes up inventory space, is a one-use item, etc (if you think these don't count as costs, then please take a look at the Flak Jacket on a survivor and tell me what other costs it has). I think that giving the ability to fire flare guns from inside isn't too much of a buff, and increases its usefulness without making it overpowered. Although I do agree that the function of showing the location name should be removed because it doesn't really make sense. -- Ashnazg 1021, 24 December 2008 (GMT)

Everyone is right. Showing the location names is overpowered and nonsensical. I don't really think going outside is an intended cost, just a nod to realism. I mean, there's a roof there. Of course you can't fire it from inside the building. If you're on the roof though, or even launching from a high window or fire escape, a flare could be launched. And if it's launched from one or two stories off the street then it would travel that much higher, distinguishing it from ones fired at street level. Here's what I'm thinking for the final version of this suggestion - 1. Distinguish flares from indoors by this "A flare was launched from a building 5w2n." No building name, just noting that it was from a building. 2. Flares can't be launched indoors if a building is ransacked/ruined. This lets you signal that a building is functional, if survivors know where resource points are relative to their current position. --A Big F'ing Dog 18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I can see people shooting off flares demonstrates that they are more than just high variance weapons: they're for communication. Howevever, this fact that I can see them means they're already doing what this suggestion wants. The suggestion just wants to make spammishly easier to do so.... --19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Few, if any survivors pay attention to fired flares anymore because they're generally a waste of time as a signal, and are saved as a last ditch weapon or trophy kill. The only players that currently stand to benefit from a flare fired to bring someone to your position are zombies, its a better idea to just stand there and wait it out. However with feeding groan even they don't pay as much attention as they used to. This stands to bring a use back to using flares as an actual signal in green suburbs, and a diversion in red/ruined suburbs.--G-Man 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Iron Sights

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A new Zombie Hunter skill. Iron Sights allows you to use the iron sights on any firearm (Pistol, Shotgun and any that are implemented later) for a 10% accuracy boost. Purchasing Iron Sights adds a new drop-down menu, called Aim. There are two options in this menu, Pistol and Shotgun. Clicking Aim will increase the accuracy of the selected gun by 10%, and deducts 1AP. The percentage is lowered again following the player's next action, meaning that the accuracy boost is only available for one shot.

Discussion (Iron Sights)

Dude that is actually a good idea... but in order to put ironsights on you should need to get some item in like mall gun stores and Fort Armories... or you could just have it be that ironsights are already on the guns... i dont know just my 2 cents... oh you could also have it relate to Aimed Shot..Link ^_^--Swordy 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron sights are built into the gun from the get-go, you don't need to put them on. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply, Iron sights are already in use. _■^■ 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One could assume, however it could now be reasoned that they weren't before, the suvivors just pointed and fired in what would be a tight situation, and after years of combat aren't as afraid of the zombies and are now slowing down to aim. I've just effectivly countered your arguement. How? Theres nothing that truly saids the iron sights are currently used and thats based on speculation, based solely on the way people are taught to fire when not faced with an enemy trying to eat there brains in close quaters. your reason is no reason for that system to not be changed.--G-Man 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, however, see Wan's comment. _■^■ 21:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe we could speculate that also, no one has used their left hands! but after years of living in an apocalypse, they decided they should, so now double ap! - tylerisfat 15:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said I supported the sugestion, I said your arguement was useless. Why isn't it a good idea? Because ethier two things would happen, it would be ammo and AP saving, or AP wasting. To figure out which you would have to look at the actual numbers, however one you don't want to do, the other isn't needed. Thats a bit more indepth as to why it would be a buff to guns (or just a stupid idea), which are already powerful enough as is. Thats an example of the arguement to use Dr Cory Bjornson. Speculation alone is no reason to kill a susgestion. Common sense, I.E. the use of the left hand comment above me, however is. Of course we would be using our left hands, otherwise the whole Malton population would be Right handed, that just doesn't make a lick of sense.--G-Man 03:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the Left hand one was meant in the context of using your left hand to help steady the gun.... not that we are all Right handed...--Swordy 03:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From the way it read, I'ed say it was a joke at my expense, and meant actually having 100AP. I was joking, as well as using it as an example in my response as to when such an arguement could be used. Reasoning has to be used to back an arguement, however theres no need to be serious 100% of the time. In a CQB with an enemy hell-bent on trying to eat you, chances are higher that your not stopping to aim, then stopping to aim as taught when shooting targets, or a normal person. Why aim at point blank range when you can't miss? However when it comes to zombies a more well aimed shot has a better capitity to do meaningful damage to zombies. As things stand it seems you just have a better idea of where to generally aim the weapon with a steader hand, not actually stopping to aim while the zombie lurches for your neck. Thats based on both how the system currently works, and how people would react in that situation, not people firing in a calm or distanced senerio.--G-Man 04:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Guns don't need buffing. SPAM! --WanYao 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Will be spaminated by trolls, sorry, also this lowers the DPA for guns anyways. --Diablor 23:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful for when you have low ammo and really need to hit though. - User:Whitehouse 23:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

---

multi target shotgun impact

Timestamp:	Johnny wings 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Survivors with shotgun.
Description:	if zombie hordes (+10) are inside a building and a survivor fires a shotgun chances are it will do damage to more then one zombie. So when a survivor fires are a horde the first zombie target is hit as normal (e.g10% without training) then then next 9 in queue are skipped the the 10th has 5%hit chance, 11th has 2.5% 12th has 1.5% and at 20 or more zombies everyone else has 0.5% chance of getting hit. This will dissuade huge masses of zombies gathering and attacking together giving survivors no chance. Of course exact figures might need to be modified by experiment but that's why I'm putting it here.what say you?

Discussion (shotgun multi zombie damage)

It can't just cascade exponentially like you are suggesting. There are only so many pieces of shot that could hit. However, based on the significant damage the shotgun deals, one could assume that it utilizes a slug, not shot, and as such there would not be this spread you are suggesting. I don't think it is a good idea, although I would appreciate more balance for survivors. Faranya 03:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated (I mean WHAT? I don't get it at all) and I think it's been suggested before.--Pesatyel 03:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It's also covered here, as it is very similar to an area-of effect ability (assuming I understood it right.) Thanks for posting it here first, and not taking it straight to voting, however. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was composing a whole rant in my head about the idiots who post this kind of thing without taking it to developing suggestions first, but then I noticed that this was developing suggestions! :) Yeah, anyway, this is unrealistic because one shotgun blast isn't going to have a chance of hitting every zombie in a huge horde. Besides, splitting HPs opens a whole new can of worms that I really don't want to get into. --Pestolence^(talk) 04:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearms are already very powerful -- they don't need a buff. Also, how come this only shafts zombies? Why wouldn't it apply to PKers strafing others? And it's realistic (within the genre conventions) for zombies to all mass together -- and then when they do, you're screwed! How many times in the movies have you seen some idiot shooting wildly and uselessly into a hoard with his shotgun or AR or whatever... only to get chewed to nifty little bits... Part of the zombie genre's schtick is delighting in watching those idiots getting munched...

Or... the short version: Just say no to trenchy gun buffs. --WanYao

This comes up so often I should make a template. Suggestion assumes those 10 zombies are standing around on the opposite side of the room from survivors, like shy schoolboys at a dance. Truth is, they would most likely be in INTIMATE contact, and so shotgun spread as likely hit other survivors as other zombies. Also, this suggestion totally ignores survivor on survivor combat; why is it assumed people would be shooting zombies?  Swiers 01:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As Swiers, why are these bullets so smart that they only target zombies? The question you need to ask yourself is: Do you want my death cultist coming over the barricades and blasting you and your trenchie rent boys at the same time because of this suggestion? Because I would, and will. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Bloody Scene has an Effect

Timestamp:	G-Man 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Effect Change
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Survivors would be taken back by a bloodly scene created in the areas of battles and murders, and have a -5% chance at attacking or building barricades while the blood is evident in such an area. All other actions are unaffected.

Discussion (Bloodly Scene has an Effect)

Just a random thought I had, thinking of how someone might react coming across a massacure, even when in a daily violent atmosphere.--G-Man 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Don't frack wit ma rates. Blood is pretty much everywhere and it was introduced as pure flavour. I enjoy the blood and my survivors never clean it, don't make them have to.--xoxo 01:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine enough, although I think blood should be more of a sign of zombies and pkers, not an everyday "Yeah, its just there" kind of thing. However the simulation of the effect of a slaugther such as this would make it grab your attention.--G-Man 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aww, I'm kinda with J3D on this...I like seeing blood everywhere, and like that it's just pure flavor. Don't make me clean it! Realize that what this will really end up doing is giving zombies an marked advantage once they manage to establish a beachhead...you can't clean levels 4 and 5 (and possibly 3) of blood if there's zombies standing in the room. Meaning perpetual -5% hit rates, until they zombies are kicked out. Either that, or it'll mean that we never get to see those awesome-high blood levels, because survivors will clean up the blood as soon as the first spatter falls, to prevent the negative hit rates from happening. :( --Jen 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So my Gore Corper walks into a room of fresh faced newbies, slaughters them indiscriminately until it's nap time and then the moronic bounty hunters get minuses to hit? Fucking awesome! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically you'ed only get away with ~one kill, then you'ed hit minuses as well, and the bounty Hunter can clean it up for 1AP leaving them ~49AP to attack you. So if your going for 2 kills your on an even playing field, and if your going for 3, your the one outta luck.--G-Man 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me, an anti-pk/pro-bounty hunter suggestion will not make it through the system whilst I still have the ability to log on. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It would still aid you to kill one person..., you only hit negatives at three.--G-Man 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't anti-PeePeeKayR/Boontang Huntar: it's anti-trenchcoater. In theory I effen love the idea of nerfing guns. However, in practicality.... No. It doesn't make sense: it's been 3 years or someting, we're quite used to blood and guts now... --WanYao 03:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion is retarded. 3 years in a city with the walking dead, where death is a daily occurrence, and pretty much everyone has died many times, and the survivors are so fainthearted that the sight of blood affects their ability to shoot their weapons (which, by the way, they've had three years to practice shooting)? --Pestolence^(talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Were not talking just a little blood here (Yes certain situations in the game would only cause a small amount, but to be truly even noticable in this situation it would have to be more). You walk into a room, theres body parts strewn about, blood covering the walls, and you just suck it up? This isn't the same as a couple bite wounds or a gun-shot wound, and is in effect, a person with there inards strewn about. In reality its not something you shrug off, and woulden't truly be a daily occurance at this point in the outbreak. Post-Tramatic Stress Disorder x5. Your going to break down sometime.--G-Man 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So we're just talking level 5 or 6 bloodstains here, not 1 or 2? Ok, that makes more sense, but still, this penalizes every survivor, and not every survivor would break down (in fact, some would thrive). --Pestolence^(talk) 02:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Realisticly Yes, but urban dead isn't all about realism. Some things have to be generized for the effect that would be recieved by most, not nessicarly all. Fire-arms are a prime example where some people would learn to be marksmen, others would suck no matter how much practice, yet we all shoot at the same %rate as long as we have the skills purchased.--G-Man 02:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This would make sense affecting newbies. Problem with that is, all things considered, you don't really wanna do that. What might make things interesting is if players could toggle things like this. When they first create a character, they have the option to toggle this on (but if they do, it remains "on" until they reach a certain level).--Pesatyel 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kind of a challenge thing eh? I like your style, although it should still be optional after that level is reached, as the game would still only get less challenging, and its the older folks who would be looking for some spice.--G-Man 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just my Two cents but what if instead of the gore aspect of it freakin people out what if you hade the Blood and Gore and body parts like trip people or make them slip? --Swordy 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the in-game effect should be that there's a 1% chance that you'll slip on fresh blood and get a concussion, making the screen blurry for the next 50 turns and putting your character into a coma if you AP out. --William Told 01:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Or it could give you AIDS. --William Told 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And the Aids make Infections do more damage like say...3 Hp per action maybe? --Swordy 18:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Retuning radio AP cost adjustment

Timestamp:	Serpentine Green 12:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Tuning a hand held radio receiver currently requires 2 AP. 1 AP is taken when the radio is selected, and 1 AP is taken when the new frequency is entered. Retuning a radio transceiver on the other hand requires only 1 AP. I can't see any reason for this discrepancy (though I'm open to enlightenment) and I suggest that tuning a hand held receiver should only require 1 AP.

Discussion (Retuning radio AP cost adjustment)

Almost certain this is a dupe, but I'm not going to hunt for it now. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmh, yeah it's a dupe. Also here. --Janus ^talk 23:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The wiki is your friend. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a dupe because it ought to have been implemented years ago. sigh --WanYao 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I smell a Greasemonkey coming up :). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 11:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mid :). Linkthewindow  Talk  22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And there it is! --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Collateral Damaged Generators

Timestamp:	tylerisfat 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Minor attack change.
Scope:	More or less everyone.
Description:	I am posting this very much in mind of having a discussion, rather then me having a super finished thing. Through various different discussions on here and other wiki pages about the nature of cades, some of the general conclusion is that its not just a pile of junk in front of the door, but cading the whole building. So my suggestion is this: When the cades in a powered building are knocked all the way down, by anyone, inside or out side, there is a %50 percent chance that the generator will receive damage. The flavor would be something about collapsing rafters hit and damage the generators or some such.

Discussion (Collateral Damaged Generators)

I can't really see much harm to it (if zombies are inside, then the genny will go anyway,) but it's also giving the zombies something for free-if it's only a one-zed breakin, then that extra genny damage could become quite important. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Generators are a pain to maintain in a building under siege. Don't make them any harder (And as above if there is a genny a zed goes for it first alot).--Diablor 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This something for free. And generator scrounging is one of the only things that is bona fide kind of hard for survivors. This makes it harder. So.. nah. -- WanYao 03:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, all. - tylerisfat 05:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Walkie Talkie

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Firestations, survivors
Description:	This idea of walkies isn't new I'm sure, but I hope the specifics will be different enough to avoid being a dupe. Radios are great as a game-wide chat room between people in safe suburbs. They're really bad for people trying to coordinate with others in a small area, those in small groups or by themselves, far from malls, perhaps hiding in ruined buildings or scattered by the fall of their safehouse. Walkie talkies would be found commonly in fire stations, and rarely in police stations and mall tech stores (they've just been looted more by now). They let you broadcast, like a radio transmitter, but with a range of two blocks, a 5x5 area in total. There would only be one channel and mostly importantly a generator, or even being indoors, is not needed. People in your location would hear what you say, walkie talkie or no, and everyone within range with a *powered* walkie talkie would hear you. Now let me explain how power would work. Your walkie talkies can be powered or unpowered. Each time you broadcast a message there's a chance one of your powered walkies will become unpowered, much like a spray can getting used up. If you have no powered walkies you can't send or receive transmissions. Unlike spray cans, powerless walkie talkies stay in your inventory and can be recharged. Another item, commonly available in firestations and rarely in PDs/tech stores, would be a walkie charger: http://acsspirit.com/motorolabusinesstwoway/chargers.htm Chargers could be set up just like transmitters. When inside a building with a working generator and a walkie charger you'd be able to click unpowered walkies to charge them again. Since it takes a while to charge this would cost 10AP. Walkies would be very useful, but sharply limited. You'd have to be sparing in their use, powering walkies in advance and saving them for when you really need them. They would have different uses than radios. To sum up their respective pros and cons: Radios: Unlimited range and usage (AP permitting) makes it good for recruiting and announcements, also causes spam and unimportant messages. Multiple channels allow for privacy or dedicated topics, also prevent everyone from getting your message. Need for a powered transmitter makes it a lot easier to broadcast from secure safehouses. Walkies: Limited range makes it bad for announcements/recruiting, good for local communication. Limited usage prevents spam, but also stops back and forth communication or follow-up messages. Allows you to broadcast from unpowered buildings, but requires a significant AP investment ahead of time, as well as increased encumbrance if you carry spare walkies. Lone channel makes it great for reaching everyone in your 5x5 area, but quite bad for sharing anything secret - remember, nothing prevents a zombie from carrying a powered walkie...

Discussion (Walkie Talkies)

People don't generally use ap on one to one communication in the game. They're better off using an IM or something. --Diablor 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And the link. - User:Whitehouse 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Walkie talkies are peer reviewed. So I guess the focus of this suggestion isn't the broad idea but the power recharge aspect. Perhaps Kevan hasn't introduced them because they are too powerful in that suggestion. This could be one way of doing it that ties them to generators - in the suggestion I believe there is no limit on broadcasts or need for generators at all. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no secret that Kevan doesn't like coding. That could also be why. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't blame him. But he does make updates if he likes an idea enough. I'd like to make walkie talkies as appealing as possible. No point getting it into peer reviewed if we don't keep improving it (when possible) until it's worth his time. --A Big F'ing Dog 04:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What would happen if someone killed you before the WT was recharged, or indeed the genny was killed part way through the recharging? Is there a metre for the WT to show the charge? Is it able to work on part charge? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg so I think its a overly complicated item to maintain which makes it of limited use to people. --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Recharging is a one click action, like manufacturing a syringe or fixing a ruin. So a generator couldn't be interrupted mid-charge. And there would not be a partial charge, either it would have power or it wouldn't. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What Diablor said. It would be rather redundant as most groups use IRC to communicate. I could, however see a small use in communication by groupless groups of survivors, but it's a dupe anyway. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I address whether it's a dupe above. This obviously is unneeded for a metagaming group, but it would be useful to talk to groupless survivors or those in different groups. It'd also help stragglers meet up with each other. In ghostown suburbs a survivor looking for company could broadcast "Anyone out there?" and wait for a reply. Or they could warn people about nearby breaches, and trust that survivors will come to their aid before a zombie with a walkie talkie hears it and attacks. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

TL;DNR ... However, radios are very powerful tools: use 'em. Or, hit IRC or IM if you really need to coordinate. --WanYao 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As the author of the above linked PR suggestion, I obviously see the merit in adding WTs to the game. WTs would do a lot of good things that IRC does not; saying you could just use IRC instead is like saying IRC makes "feeding groan" pointless. The whole point is that its AREA SPECIFIC communication, not group specific. Even the "powerful" radio is largely group specific (lots of frequencies, only way to know which to use is via metagame) and not area specific (city wide range means its not).
The above suggestion is probably a bit better than mine (simpler to code due to fixed range, nice touch with limited power / recharging) although I do think having a 10 channels ads minimal complexity and would be worthwhile.  Swiers 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, sweirs, the radio freqs in my experience that tend to get the most use are area-specific already. Some of them are mall freqs or burb freqs, and some of them are "run" by the larger groups -- but in fact used by everyone in the area... These freqs are all over wiki and easy to find in-game. So I don't see the point of WT's. --WanYao 07:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, radios would be better for dedicated groups or coordinated survivors. Walkie talkies are an ideal way of survivors becoming coordinated. You can use WTs to find other people, and working together maintain a generator and transmitter. Today talkies, tomorrow radios and metagaming! -- There would still be some uses to mobility obviously even for large groups (for example, maintaining a transmitter at an HQ and having scouts report back with walkies), but a walkie talkie is especially useful for someone who doesn't have a forum of people already working with them.--A Big F'ing Dog 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wan- yes, a small bit of metagaming organization does allow people to use radios in an area specific fashion, but they are not INHERENTLY area specific. More importantly, the current "area" usage sucks sweaty dog balls. There's a HUGE difference between listening to radio noise from a 5 suburb "cluster" (500 blocks, most often not centered on your location) and listening to a WT that only picks up conversations from a 25 block area centered on your location. Hell, you can easily be on the border of 4 of the current "radio zones" - should you then listen to / broadcast to all 4? That's 20 suburbs worth of noise.
And no, a finer grid of frequency allocations is NOT the answer. Having to look up what freq to use and change your radio each time you move 5 blocks would suck even bigger, sweatier balls... pig balls, maybe. The fact is, there's really no truely good way to make radios area specific because, by design, they are NOT area specific.  Swiers 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just use a mobile phone. That's my contribution and what my vote would be if it came up, if there's nothing here that doesn't make that a legitimate rebuttal then the suggestion either needs work or death.--Karek^maps?! 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mobile phones require mutual contacts. They're only good for contacting people you already know, and only one person at a time. They're also designed for use just in secure neighborhoods with powered masts, not good for somebody on the go, battling in new and exciting places.--A Big F'ing Dog 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have described a Radio Transmitter as your optimal. It is already in game, you win nozzing!--Karek^maps?! 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean? --A Big F'ing Dog 14:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it...a survivor equivalent of feeding groan, if you will. Area-specific communication IS something that's not there, for survivors. --Jen 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be the flare gun, which they had first.--Karek^maps?! 08:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC

Flare guns though are devoid of meaning. Feeding groans have a meaning programmed in. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Flare guns have as much meaning as you want to give them. Doesn't hurt that they're rarely used either.--Karek^maps?! 05:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

True. But you need to agree with whoever you're signaling what the flare guns means. Which brings us back to it only being useful for organized players. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Drag to safety

Timestamp:	Faranya 20:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Survivor Skill
Scope:	Survivors, likely medics
Description:	During an attack, zombies who get into a building can drag dying survivors into the street, but if that person is not online at that exact moment, they have approximatly zero chance of not dying. Because the other survivors for some reason are not capable of pulling them back inside. Which makes little to no sense. If a skill could be purchased that allows for survivors to drag wounded or dying survivors into the realitive safety of a building, it would do something to balance things out. This could also apply to those who wind up trapped on the streets, that a generous soul could potentially take the time to pull them to safety. This would only work on buildings that could be entered regularly anyways. Perhaps with increased AP cost for more heavily barricaded buildings. Logically, you can't pull someone into an extreamly heavily barricaded building. Something along the lines of 2 AP to pull into a non-barricaded to light barricades, 3 for quite to very strongly barricaded, and 4 for heavily to very heavily barricaded. AP amounts are tentative.

Discussion (Drag to safety)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  03:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New suggestions go at the top of the list, it's not like we put that in big red letters or anything...

Also, massive dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. I'd be willing to pull survivors to safety for 5-10ish AP, and I'd be dam glad if someone did that for me when I needed it. please UD mods use this one, best I've seen all day -- User:Johnny wings/Signature 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the concept of fellow survivors pulling you back to your safehouse moments before the zombies munch on your brains. But this is kinda free lunchie. Maybe if it depended on your AP, not HP. As if you are too exhausted to do anything. --Turtleboy412 21:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The dupe is fireman's carry isn't it? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, is this on FS? Linkthewindow  Talk  02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems so --Diablor 22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DUPE-O-RAMA. And: "but if that person is not online at that exact moment, they have approximatly zero chance of not dying" ... not true. I've survived and helped others and seen others survive drags... It's rare, yeah, but mainly because of a lack of survivor coordination more than anything. 'Sides, revives are easy to come by if you have half a brain, so death is not a big deal. --03:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it had been mentioned before. I just hadn't seen it. However, just want to clarify that the previously suggested one seemed to allow for carrying between blocks, where this is just dragging them inside. Zombies can't drag someone from one block to the next (as far as I know), they go from inside to out. So this is just outside to in. Faranya 17:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, I'd be willing to pull survivors off the street for 5-10ish AP. Would help when Zed's attack AFK players. YOu get my Kudos, please implement UD mods!!

---

Construction Supplies

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	This item would be a buff (but not an excessive one) for survivors trying to fix long ruined buildings. You can do a lot with your toolkit, just fixing a ruined building with whatever supplies are on hand. But it becomes easier if you bring some fresh lumber, nails, paint, and other similar home improvement components. Construction Supplies would be an item available in warehouses at a rate of 15%. To prevent survivors from stockpiling them they would have an enormous encumbrance: 30%. If a survivor has Construction Supplies in their inventory when they repair a ruin, the Construction Supplies are used up, AP repair cost is 20% less than normal. This is always rounded down, so for repair costs from 1-9 Construction Supplies only save you 1AP. Hardly worth it. You wouldn't want to bother heading to a warehouse, searching for Construction Supplies, and lugging them around to fix a recent ruin. But at higher levels it could prove crucial to fix a building and have AP to limp to safety or throw up a hasty barricade. For example, a 60AP ruin would cost 48AP to repair with supplies. Just enough to freerun next door or throw up light barricades. More extreme ruins would still put you into negative AP, but you'd have a better chance of waking up before a zombie found your defenseless unbarricaded building. For those opposed to freebies, this isn't really a freebie. It's just the opportunity to prepare. Construction Supplies would only save you 5AP on a moderate 25AP ruin, probably less than you spent searching. And at higher numbers where the supplies start saving you more, I think a survivor deserves a little bit of credit for tackling an impressively ruined structure. Saving 16AP during a suicide mission to repair an 80AP ruin doesn't seem particular unbalancing. What do you think?

Discussion (Construction Supplies)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  03:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed title for you. I think the encumbrance is still too low. Have you ever tried walking around casually carrying a load of lumber? I suggest that the encumbrance go up to at least 51%. -- Galaxy125 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm worried 51% might be a little high. A generator, which is really damn heavy (I had to lug one once), is merely 20%. It's about the same weight, maybe heavier, as a car engine block. --A Big F'ing Dog 21:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's about right-couldn't you simply just limit it to one per ruin (so the ability doesn't stack? Linkthewindow  Talk  22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I never meant it to stack. If you have more than one set of Supplies you only use up one of them. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Encumbrance isn't necessarily weight. Its ease of movement. And with technology the way it is... (http://www.consumersearch.com/portable-generators/honda-eu1000i) is much easier to carry then lumber - tylerisfat 02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but that generator is recommended for electronics. It couldn't power an entire building. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean 'power an entire building'? the only effect setting up a generator has is turning on the lights and making it easier to see to search. granted, theres RP stuff like music in clubs and movies in theaters, but most commercial large generators you see are meant to power heating units and tv's and ovens and huge other things that people in residential centers cant live without in case of a power outage. the generators in UD are for lights. i would say they would be not much larger then the one i provided the link to, and the primary reason for that example is to show that generators are not 100 lbs, but some are much much smaller. large peices of lumber, however, are not going to get any smaller. - tylerisfat 09:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of a 'lump' item to do this. I'd prefer a smaller stackable item. Something like:

• Construction Materials - 3% encumbrance, find rate and locations to be determined - Construction Materials naturally 'stack' in your inventory, if you find a second lot of Construction Materials then you will still have a single entry in your inventory that will read Construction Materials x 2 (or to whatever number you have). If the Construction Materials are clicked in your inventory whilst in a ruined building, all your construction materials are used up and the repair cost of the building is reduced by 1% for each piece of Construction Materials in your inventory, fractions rounded down. This reduction only applies to your next action, it will not change the cost for any other player and will return to its original cost if you perform another action which is not repairing the building. Therefore someone with Construction Materials x 33 attempting to use them to repair a 10AP ruin will find that cost reduced by 33%, 3.3AP, which would be rounded to 3, leaving the building to be repaired as the player's next action for 7AP.

This, I think, continues the tradition of allowing survivor players to 'bank' their AP (perform actions for no immediate benefit that will cause considerable savings down the line) and both assist in the repair of the 100AP+ ruins whilst not significantly nerfing the smaller AP ruin totals. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

icariot you're a good kid, ya know that?--xoxo 04:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Pointless. I mean it makes so little difference, why bother? Just stop whinging and deal with the game. It's not all that hard, not really. And, until you've actually DONE some Extreme Repairs, you've no right to whinge about how horrid they are. I've done lots, so has J3D, and many others to.. And we don't whinge about ZOMG it's SO UNFAIR gimme a game-buff... We just do 'em... and the more annoying of us claim our bragging rights by posting spiffy templates on our profiles.... :D --WanYao 08:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wan. I've also done a number of high AP repairs, and its really no more difficult then any other task. find local survivors, let them know where you'll be so they can help, or join a group. - tylerisfat 09:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And as per usual, I don't support nerfing decay in way, shape or form. It's been one of the best updates K has made since I started playing UD. There only two reasons that repair costs ever get unwieldly: either because survivors are totally negligent, or because zombies are being totally awesome at keeping the survivors out and holding buildings. In either case, the result -- high repair costs -- is completely justified. Also, just as a point of interest: I survived maybe 40% of my suicide-repairs (going to -100 AP and below) without even a scratch! Because most of the places where I did them were abandoned by both harmanz and zambahz... Other times I got friends to cade around me and/or heal me up... Then, some other times, I died... ah well. --WanYao 11:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Sometimes i would wake up and wonder if i was remembering correctly that i had 'suicide' repaired that building, gone completely unnoticed, and just stepped into the next ruin over and repaired it too. - tylerisfat 01:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  10:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Not really. As I said, the information is already there, this just makes it easier to get. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Its helpful to lazy players like myself so I think its a great idea :-P --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Laziness aside, it saves IP hits and server load. Just have it say "You heal X hit points, bringing them to X out of 60." --A Big F'ing Dog 04:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

you can save the ip hit yourself by opening the players profile in a new window or tab.--xoxo 06:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Or just hitting the back button, assuming your browser doesn't refresh the page. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I prefer "You heal X hit points. Your patient's massive muscles give you a raging erection." -- Galaxy125 19:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense. I'm sorry, it really doesn't. Kevan has enough pay from ads, its not like he's hurting from even more IP hits. just keep your eyes open and click profiles when you need to, or add an extension. Logic wise, its not like a doctor gets a message when he puts a bandaid on someone that says "Hey, this person is extra resilient to attacks!" So i say no reason. - tylerisfat 11:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Extensions should never need to be added for something that should be in game, so the "Add an extension!" argument doesn't make much sense. As I've said, this is a timesaver, and I never intended to use it to save IP hits, and finally, in real life, you could probably tell, bigger muscles, etc. Not that realism ever mattered that much (gameplay>realism.) Linkthewindow  Talk  11:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is, it is in game. If you heal the person and it just so happens to heal exactly to 50 and you want to heal them again, then check their skills. Thats in game. If you want it any different, add an extension, because any more then that is adding something that is currently available. Thats why there isn't inventory sorting in game, because it doesn't really matter to the whole game. If you personally want it displayed different and think it helps, then use an add on. This, however, will not help anyone, realistically. Its giving more information then realistically it should. All that said and done, if this goes to voting i won't vote kill on it, but i also probably won't vote keep. I don't care. So don't think i'm opposed, or what have you. - tylerisfat 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity: I heal X and get the message. Then I give an aid kit to Y and one to X again. Do I get the body building message when re-healing X? --Janus ^talk 13:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you only get it once per heal-that is, if they get damaged again, the message will reset. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't see the need for this. I just click on the person's profile link and take a look if I want to know if they have bodybuilding. This doesn't cost me any AP to do, so I don't understand why this would be necessary.--Lois Millard 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pointless. Just open the profile, ya lazy fuck. Or use Viktor (Russianname)'s profile viewer, it rawks. --WanYao 09:00, 17 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)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  10:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

A bottle of propane with a torch attachment would burn off the skin, but to actually burn the body you would need a lot more heat. You could make it so if the body stood up it would get a damage per action debuff and let them spread it to other people and buildings. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone really care if their body is fed on while they are dead? It doesn't do anything to you - you still are revived at 1/2 health, regardless. (unless I am mistaken) This seems pointless to me. --Lois Millard 15:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally be more inclined to eat bodies if they had been set on fire - it's been ages since I've had a hot meal in Malton Sanpedro 23:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Barbagah harmanbargarz... NAM NAM! --WanYao 09:02, 17 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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  03:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree the basic idea IS pro-survivor. But that doesn't mean it is unworkable. And I have to agree with Link that PKing being a "third side" is debatable. Kevan DOES allow it but I believe he has also stated it is not to be promoted or demoted.--Pesatyel 04:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have a Borehamwood player and no Monroeville player, so I have no stake in this particular debate but I WOULD have a stake if we presume that whatever happens to Monroeville will probably also happen--or will help establish what happens--to Borehamwood. I agree with the original posters' fundamental premise: The non-NT side-cities need some kind of end game. Without the ability to revive or permakill, both cities are doomed to become boring and redundant, with survivors hopscotching from ruin to ruin, and zombies wandering aimlessly with literally nothing to do. The simplest end game is for Kevan to just terminate the cities and thank everyone for playing, but that isn't very interesting. Some sort of "dash for the exit" scenario would be cool, as would a scorched earth marine invasion. I agree with dissenters who think the zombies should have an equal opportunity to "win", perhaps by thwarting the rescue. It seems to me that this discussion is moot. Has Kevan given any indication that he is interested in changing the fundamental operating premises of Monroeville and/or Borehamwood? If not, I don't see much point in speculating on this topic. If he HAS indicated that this is something he could pursue, please link me to that discussion. Someone below said that Kevan described the two end games already: add Necrotech or put all the survivors in Malton. Any reason to think that has changed?--Saburai 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Show Item Encumbrance

Show item Encumbrance is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.

---