Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Further Discussion

• Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
• Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Adding a New Suggestion

• Copy the code in the box below.
• Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.

• Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.

{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}

• Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
• Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change, etc. Basically: What is it? and Is it new, or a change?
• Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
• Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
• If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.

This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

New Gun and Ammo Encumbrance

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 07:42 17 November 2009(BST)

Type: Improvment

Scope: Encumbrance

Description: Now loaded Pistols and Shotguns have more encumbrance. Pistol Unloaded: 4% Loaded: 5% Shotgun Unloaded: 6% 1 Shell: 7% 2 shells: 8% As you can see, the encumbrance of ammo is halved when loaded into a gun, representing the weight but still taking off some encumbrance for the lack of bulkiness.

Discussion (New Gun and Ammo Encumbrance)

Hmmm. This isn't as inherently bad as it could be. How about if Pistols had less than 3 ammo in them, it would round down again?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What would you hope to accomplish with this game change, other than higher encumbrance?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 09:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that is all it would achieve, not a bad idea though & its both sensible and realistic... Main problem as i see it is that its a bit odd to explain why guns suddenly get heavier, no odder than survivors waking up one day to find they no longer had an infinite carrying ability though :) --Honestmistake 09:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually quite like this. I'd suggest that there only be a loaded and unloaded weight for each weapon, not varying degrees of weight for partial loads, just so it's cleaner, but carrying less boomsticks is the kind of subtle survivor nerf that'd actually be accepted by the community. 19:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As Misanthropy, I think it should be one weight for loaded and a lesser weight for unloaded, that way it's not as tricky to understand. But I do like the idea. It would place more emphasis on fewer weapons and more ammo, rather than carrying multiple of each weapon so that reloading can be avoided easily. —Aichon— 20:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop talking to him! He has no intention of taking anything to the main system. Stop dancing to his tune! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it "Ghostbusters"? This will Never pass voting. Zombies may agree, but most survivors and definately PK'ers will vote against. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Infection resistance

Timestamp: Winman1 17:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: skill

Scope: survivors and zombies

Description: There is a new zombie hunter skill called "resistance" thats can be bought for 100xp. When you aquire this skill zombies with Infectious Bite must sucessfully bite you 3 times to give you an infection. this would be very useful if you are attacked, have low hp, are infected, and want to run away without dieing.

Discussion (Infection resistance)

No.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Still no.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just god-awful. Did you even read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? Do you even think before you post, or do you see DS as some sort of dumping ground for the abominable brain-abortions that you don't feel like taking care of your self? Most of your ideas would only take about thirty seconds (if that!) of serious consideration before their gaping flaws became evident; try to at least think about them for that long, okay? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

--Orange Talk 17:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New skills are usually a bad idea because maxed-out characters with thousands of spare XP will get them immediately but newbie survivors will take time to earn them, meanwhile becoming more attractive targets. That seems to apply to this suggestion. Infection takes about 6-9AP to cure (depending how far the harmanz have to walk to find the replacement FAK and whether the building they get it from is lit.) So it's worthwhile for zombies to infect everyone in a building (assuming they're unable to ruin it) at present because it costs only 3.3AP to get the bite. 3 bites would cost 10AP making it not worthwhile against maxed-out characters, only against newbies. --Explodey 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Easily solved by always holding a first aid kit. My issue here is that it suggests all players play the game in a certain way. Infection is bad. You might die! Dying is part of the game. It happens. And a dead survivor can do things a living one cannot. Why should we make infection weaker? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Survivors do not need any more of a boost. If anything, infection should be made stronger. 19:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Infection needs a buff, not a nerf. Winman1, might I suggest no more zombie hunter skills? —Aichon— 21:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, better, how about, he actually PLAY as a zombie for a few levels.--Pesatyel 21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NO!!!! Oh my god, no. Do you know how many bites an infection takes to begin with? On average, it takes me personally about ten tries to get a successful infection!!! Do you really want to triple that to 30? The math doesn't work out, and it just nerfs an important zombie skill that is fine the way it is. --Chekken

Maybe if you had to manufacture special Resistance Needles (with the skill required to do so) for 20 AP. Cost 1 AP to inject yourself or another. And then, only 2 bites needed to infect. Can't be stacked. Would wear off after being Infected, requiring another needle to gain the benefits again. Even so, Survivors would probably just make hundreds of "Resistance Needle Manufacture" zergs and abuse the hell out of it. Maybe if Infection was incurable through a normal FAK, but required an "anti-infection" Needle to cure it.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:24 16 November 2009(BST)

Or maybe we just say "no thank you" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:06 16 November 2009 (BST) 09:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And that intellectual fart gas grows thicker... --Papa Moloch 09:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Badsug Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LoL. Great Justice. --Thadeous Oakley 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Infection is adequate as is. It is one of the few things in the game where the AP imbalance actually tilts in the zombies' favour. --Anotherpongo 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Collapse Barricades II

Timestamp: -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:02 15 November 2009 (BST)

Type: Barricade change

Scope: Zombie Barricade Attacks

Description: If a building is ruined and unoccupied by survivors, there is a 30% chance that any successful attack upon the barricades by a zombie already inside, once it reach VS or below, will make the whole pile collapse, leaving only the doors secured (if that building has them). This in no way weaken barricades that people are hiding behind or meatshielding, only those that are abandoned. It's main use would be in mall (or other large) building sieges, where zombies break into one corner, and attack other corners from the open entry point. Once abandoned, the barricades can be pushed over from inside easier than breaking in as normal.

Discussion (Collapse Barricades II)

This seems to just be a Piñata nerf and nothing else. The condition for the attack to function (ruined and unoccupied by survivors) makes this unlikely to see much actual use in attacks on malls. Folks that already know what's up are going to be going to the opening that's actually there, and folks following feeding groans won't be directed to corners where this attack is at all possible. --Mold 09:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, something I hadn't considered. Bodies of survivors killed in the attack, that stand up inside a pinata. Any ideas about how to remove this loophole? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:15 15 November 2009 (BST)

The way I see it, if a building was ruined, it was unoccupied at some point, which is sufficient reason for the barricades to be faltering now (i.e. they don't have a structure to brace themselves against once they lose their own internal structure). It doesn't affect people hiding behind barricades, since zombies would still have to come through them (or else they're already inside...either way, it's the same as before), nor does it affect meatshielding, since zombies would still have to clear the survivors before they could ruin a building (and survivors have no reason to meatshield a ruined building). By the time a building is VSB, the building is no longer a good piñata anyway, since it's already enterable for survivors, so it's not a piñata nerf. I would, however, make this work for both zombies and survivors alike, just to be consistent. —Aichon— 09:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

…body dumping? If you're creating bodies in the process of creating a piñata then you're either a PKer or a death cultist, and in either case you should be able to get by with a little help from your friends. Can't help but think of the saying, "Friends help you move, real friends help you move bodies." ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, seeing as 1) this suggestion only takes effect at VS and lower, and b) once a piñata gets down to VS it can be entered by survivors and repaired, iii) I really don't see how this can be anything but good for zombies. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've been hanging around Treweeke Mall for quite a while now, and I could have used this numerous times in the last month. Often I find myself meatshielding a ruined corner that is still barricaded, and come back and have to find an open corner, despite the mall still being completely ruined -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:18 15 November 2009 (BST)

What are you getting, visits from the barricade-smashing faerie? Weird situation, there, I'm not sure what's provoking that. As for killing the loophole... heh, maybe you could make it a child skill of Brain Rot. Tongue firmly in cheek but hey, it might work. --Mold 09:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I like the child skill thought... will consider it more :)
Treweeke is a delicate balance. A small/medium core of zombies seem to hold the mall, and attack out to the surrounds (but retreat to the mall), while the survivors hold the suburb (more or less) and make occasional attacks (some successful, some not) on the mall, regularly barricading corners once cleared -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:46 15 November 2009 (BST)

Seems significantly overpowered.

• Benefits: A claw-maxed zombie is +5% to break a barricade while a Convert is +18% and a level 1 corpse is +13%. Not to mention only having to attack it half as many times (assuming an EHB barricade) as you normally would.
• Hinderances: Having to be alone (no survivors) in a ruined building.

Personally, I don't see the hinderances as being significant enough to compare to all the benefits.--Pesatyel 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this suggestion is that there are no XP benefits to this suggestion (in fact it reduces the AP a zombie can achieve from simply knocking down each level of barricades separately). It is designed to be only useful to increase the benefits from zombies actually holding large buildings after they've already been cleared -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:00 16 November 2009 (BST)

I don't get it though. Isn't a Pinata more useful? If survivors can't use a resource building until they both get through the barricades AND effect repairs, wouldn't that be better than tearing down the barricades? In fact, wouldn't that technically help survivors more than it would help zombies? I don't think LIfe Cultists are as prevalent as Death Cultists, but it still seems this whole idea benefits survivors more than zombies.--Pesatyel 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not shocked you don't get this...? This helps zombies, it helps survivors, it helps life cultists. It hinders death cultists and PKers. Would you like a diagram? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How does it help survivors in any way? It doesn't help to open up pinatas, which was the only thing I was concerned about -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:16 17 November 2009 (BST)

Parity. A zombie on the inside of VSB cades holds the ruin, a survivor on the inside of VSB cades repairs. A survivor on the outside of VSB cades can enter and repair, a zombie on the inside cannot. This shouldn't be just 'inside' only, this suggestion should make VSB cades enter-able for zombies while the building is ruined. Otherwise it helps survivors by ignoring the great deficit zombies face in terms of general cases, if it was pro-zombie the suggestion wouldn't be about cades, it'd simply increase hit percentages in large buildings where at least one corner was already ruined specifically. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this help zombies? I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I just don't understand. Would zombies NOT be better off MAINTAINING the barricade of a ruined resource building? What benefit do they gain for tearing down the barricades if the ONLY way into said building is by tearing them down (no free running)?--Pesatyel 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that this suggestion doesn't take effect until the barricades are at VSB. At that point, the building is no longer a useful piñata anyway, since survivors can enter, so it doesn't nerf piñatas at all. If anything, survivors should prefer to keep the barricades intact at that point, since they'll still be in place when they repair the building. It could save them ~12AP worth of barricading. Letting the zombies break the barricades down once the barricades are no longer of use doesn't do the survivors any good at all, while it does make things easier for the zombies if they happen to lose the location later. I don't see how it helps life cultists or survivors at all, and I think it benefits death cultists and PKers indirectly. —Aichon— 05:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it starts the moment there are no more survivors in the buildinng.--Pesatyel

I disagree. Go back and read the suggestion again. The moment there are no survivors in the building, nothing changes from how it is now, unless the barricades are already at VSB or lower. If the barricades are higher than VSB (i.e. they make for a good piñata), then this suggestion changes nothing and the barricades collapse at the usual rate. All that this suggestion does is allow zombies to break down VSB or lower barricades more rapidly. If a barricade is at VSB, it's already useless as a piñata, and thus useless to zombies, but it still might be useful to a survivor, since they could reclaim the building and have some free barricades on it already. —Aichon— 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the benefit of this for zombies. Is not the objective of ruin to keep survivors from using resource buildings? And as the only way into a ruined and barricaded resource building is THROUGH the barricades (ie. no free running), would it not make more sense for zombies to maintain the barricade so as to keep survivors from resuppling? Please explain how breaking down the barricade of an empty AND unaccessible barricaded building is useful to zombies.--Pesatyel 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But the building isn't inaccessible. If the barricades are VSB or lower, survivors can already enter it again by just walking in the front door, so they're useless to zombies and should be taken down. If the barricades are above VSB, this suggestion doesn't pertain to them, as was specified already in the description. —Aichon— 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is most useful in large buildings, where zombies are holding a ruin. Survivors clear you out of a corner and barricade up, but leave it unattended. You stand up, find another corner that is open and simply walk back inside the corner you just got dumped from. You can then ruin it again, and once it's down to VSB or below, collapse the barricades. And yes, I can see it will not help life cultist zombies to take back pinatas. I think it's pretty well right to go, as is -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:12 17 November 2009 (BST)

---

Additional Suicide Method

Timestamp: Chekken 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: New action, New use for firearms

Scope: Survivors only

Description: If a dedicated zombie does not wish to be revived, they then must go through a great deal of trouble to kill themselves (or they could become a PKer, which actually works against survivors). This is a simple change that I am suggesting. My idea is that we should allow survivors who are either in a hopeless situation, or unwilling to be alive, to commit suicide using shotguns and pistols in addition to already being able to jump off of a tall building. In order to do this, the survivor needs at least one weapon with one shot or more remaining. There will be a button (much like being in a tall building) that says "suicide". When you press it, a message will appear saying "You are about to shoot yourself. If you do this, you will die and awaken as a zombie. Are you sure?" When you confirm, the message will say "You place the gun to your head and pull the trigger. Everything goes dark". "You go outside, place the gun to your head and pull the trigger. Everything goes dark". This will take one AP and one IP hit. You will suffer the ordinary penalties of dying as dictated by your current skills, plus a headshot (whether you have that skill or not). To the moral people out there who are saying "This promotez teh suicidez! Oh my gawd, we will haff moral debatez!"...no, we will not. Because you can jump off of buildings to begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has gotten into any huge arguments about that recently. Therefore, my understanding is that if this were to be implemented, it would not be such a big deal. You could just as easily use the same argument to say "this game shouldn't have PKing in it because it promotes violence!" As well, to debate against those saying it could be used as a "trolling tool"...the penalties of doing this act without any zombie skills at all (note: trolls are usually level 1 to begin with) far outweighs the "high" that a troll may get from doing this.

Discussion (Additional Methods for Committing Suicide)

I like the concept, but this makes parachuting a lot easier. What's to stop a bunch of Death Cultists from running into a safe house, blowing their brains out, and eating everyone inside at much higher hit rates? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the text should instead read, "You leave the building, put the gun to your head and pull the trigger". Role-play wise, you probably would not have the courage to shoot yourself in a (sometimes crowded) room full of people. People would be trying to stop you, etc. and then the whole idea wouldn't work at all. You bring up a valid point. --Chekken 04:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see any harm in it; however, a lot of people might say "just go find a tall building" and vote it down. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

65% to hit with pistols and shotguns versus 50% to hit with claws, 60% once you grab hold of them....clearly....much higher rates for zombies. Though i do understand what you are saying, a Death Cultist is revived with 1 pistol round and he pops it in his brain so he doesn't have to search for ammo. Maybe we apply it as say a Headshot, you point the gun at yourself and take a headshot (headshot skill not needed) this ups the amount of AP it would use up and levels it much more. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but keep in mind that this skill is designed for convenience. Zombies wish to remain dead; we should not punish them for this. I mean, we don't punish survivors for wanting to be alive :P OH MY GOD I FORGOT TO SIGN MY POST. *Explodes* --Chekken 05:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Bad Chekken. Do not do the ZOMG *asplode* thing. Ever.-- SA 05:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be revived just get ROT! --Zaphord 05:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Rot isn't completely negated in the most important target for coordinated zombies to get into and attack or anything. --Mold 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but a Rot can be only revived in a NT, which the character can jump out of if they desire.--Zaphord 06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That was kind of a knee-jerk reaction from one too many discussions in which Brain Rot was slang for STFU zombies, you're not allowed to have an opinion on CRs, but you're right, in this particular case Brain Rot being useless in powered NTs is irrelevant. My mistake. --Mold 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

First, this is a dupe (I'll look for it later). Second, just HOW hard is it to NOT do anything and let a zombie kill you? And third, as pointed out, this is what brain rot is for. Considering how difficult it is to get Rotter Revive, they are easy to avoid. Don't stay in the NT. Hit the generator ASAP. Things like that. It is MUCH easier to die then to get revived. Your just not trying hard enough.--Pesatyel 07:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC) As for dupes, I found this.--Pesatyel 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Single AP deaths need to deposit the body outside, and we don't need another button for it, but rather make it part of the drop down list of targets for guns. Put "yourself" at the bottom of the list of valid targets -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:12 15 November 2009 (BST)

Agreed. If this suggestion is to go through, there shouldn't be a separate button, and the body must get dumped outside automatically. Headshots should be included, as applicable, of course, and you'd still need a warning to confirm the action. —Aichon— 09:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to discuss the purpose of the headshot suicide. Is it for realism, or is it simply to damage the player's AP (as in, the consequence of suicide)? As well, Boxy does have a point, but making "self" a drop-down target would encourage people to try to suggest ideas whereas this same drop-box suicide could be used with other weapons. At that point, this becomes too complicated of a suggestion. I like it, but I don't like it at the same time. And I realize this is a dupe (thank you, Pesatyel and Iscariot for pointing this out), but the way the other person went about suggesting this idea was absurd. I don't think he thought it through very much. I want to develop the idea further and work out all of the kinks before putting it through player-review. Maybe the drop-box idea isn't so bad after all...---Chekken 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Massive dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note: You actually used to be able to attack yourself, but that feature was removed. Also, I really don't think that one shot would be enough to do it, considering the amount of damage characters in this game can absorb… remember, everyone in this city is enhanced by the zombie virus and is much more difficult to kill than normal people. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is flawed from the very beginning. "If a dedicated zombie does not wish to be revived, they then must go through a great deal of trouble to kill themselves." I'm pretty sure that if a dedicated zombie does not wish to be revived, they will take Brain Rot. And if they get CRed attacking an NT there are likely plenty of zombies outside (bahbahs included) who would love the XP from eating him. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Even so, if you consider the suggestion itself, absent from the justification originally provided, it seems to have merit. I'll agree that the justification is flawed and incorrect, but the idea as a whole seems good, I think. Not all dedicated zombies have picked up Brain Rot yet, and some people may wish to be rezombified while having the option of returning to the world of the breathers later, which is a reasonable choice. Supporting that gameplay style with this change is both simple and not game-breaking. —Aichon— 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the key there is "dedicated". What "dedicated" zombies doesn't have Brain Rot? That's probably picking nits. As for the suggestion, all that is required is that the survivor end up outside if they kill themselves whether it be by jumping out of a window or using a weapon on themselves.--Pesatyel 07:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for this. The current system is horribly unrealistic. You can jump from a window or feed yourself to the horde but you can't shoot yourself with a pistol? Makes no sense (unlike shooting yourself with a shotgun, which is difficult in real life. So maybe this should apply to the pistol only?)
Would eliminate crap like this too. --Explodey 23:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Foraging

Timestamp: Wsmith 01:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Skill

Scope: Survivors

Description: A 5,000 exp skill to add the ability to find rare items in ruined buildings. Some of the items I am considering adding with this skill include flashlights, batteries, (for seeing in dark buildings, improving accuracy) Hiding places (where you find a niche in the building you can Hide in, after buying a Hide skill for 5,000 exp points) Vaccinations (limited immunity to infection) Iron Rebar (for heavier cading) Light tool kits (no encumbrance from tools) All these items would be very very rare, and only available in ruined buildings, and the exp cost to buy the skill would be very very high. Personally, I think we need to add some very expensive experience skills to give people something to look forward too a year from now.

Discussion (Advanced Foraging)

Have you read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? Rare=/=Balanced, multiply it by a billion. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

First, why can these items only be found in ruined buildings? What sense does it make? Second, and more importantly, no need to even wait a year, considering most leveled characters already have 5000 XP in the bank. Heck, there are even a few with 40K, 50K, and well beyond at this point. Personally speaking, I've been playing about two months, and my character with the lowest level has still managed to accrue about 2200 in that time, while my faster characters are more around 3000, and that's without ever really making an effort to level up quickly.

Essentially, you're talking about making an elite class of survivors once they reach a certain point, by giving them access to special items that no one else gets access to. While I do think it's a very cool idea, it simply wouldn't balance well at all with the way things are. As Lelouch pointed out, rare != balanced, and you needed to multiply it by a billion since it'll become overpowered in a hurry. —Aichon— 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How would this work for zombies? Many of them clear 5K no problem, my newest one in a group has about 1K built up already and he barely kills anyone. This would not become balanced for zombies at all, we would need to get revived (hard to do with rot) and then go searching for some rare item, only to jump to our deaths or be killed again and never use it. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond what was said above, ZOMBIES ARE PLAYERS TOO. Why should all the "super cool" stuff only go to survivors?--Pesatyel 07:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I buy a bulletproof head for 5,000 XP? Or complete immunity to the IP hit limit for 5,000 XP. Both once I've managed to rack up 10,000 XP. I could bullet sponge forever. --Mold 10:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about.--Pesatyel 22:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He's giving other examples of getting game-breakingly powerful shit for 5000 EXP. WILL YOU KILL THIS HIDEOUS MISCARRIAGE OF AN IDEA NOW, SC? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm requesting (as a joke, but also an example) the ability to play ?rise all day, and get 47 successful rises out of it (entering with 1 AP, standing up for only 1 AP even if headshot, and never having to slow down because I won't hit the IP hit limit if I refresh too often). Imagine having to kill me 48 times -- that is, removing 2,880 hp through a flak jacket -- to eject me from a building. Imagine the dent I could put in building defenders' AP with that. --Mold 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As well as the points made above, it's also a multi-item & skill suggestion, since flashlights, vaccinations etc aren't in the game. Avoid multi suggestions. Garum 11:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. No harm done. I was commenting on the fac that EVERY time one of these kinds of suggestions shows up, it is overly balanced towards survivors. I'm not saying the suggestion is good by ANY means, just that these survivor fanatics need to remember that zombies make the game fun.--Pesatyel 03:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How convenient, a stupid suggestion with no zombie aspects to it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Humorous (flashlights, vaccine, huge zombie nerf and also a newbie nerf for reasons explained by Aichon above.) --Explodey 13:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Inspiration

Timestamp: Winman1 02:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Skill

Scope: survivors

Description: There is a new zombie hunter skill called "inspiration" for 100xp. After getting you have the option to "inspire" 5 random survivor players for 15AP. Inspired players get +5% accuracy for all weapons for their next 50AP and are healed for 5 hp if they are injured. It would simply be useful in dire situations when, say zombies just broke in, everyone needs hp, and you need to kill the zombies to get yourself safe again.

Discussion (Inspiration)

No, just god damn no. Survivors do not need this kind of buff in any way, shape, or form. Do some fucking research and play the game from the other side to see why they don't need this buff.-- SA 02:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This idea is unnecessary and survivors really don't need this sort of help at all. Plus, what's the math for search rates on FAKs? This might actually be a more AP-efficient way to FAK people up, and it would certainly be less of a hassle. The extra accuracy idea is interesting, but doesn't really seem workable, nor does it make much sense (what did the person do to inspire them?). —Aichon— 03:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Hunters are, generally, maxed out (or quite high level) characters with nothing "better" to do, if you will, that a lot wouldn't have a problem "beefing up" other players. You just have 5 characters enter the room and get beefed up, then replace with a new 5, etc.--Pesatyel 03:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Where the fuck did this Winman1 idiot come from? Wherever it was, I wish he'd go back there and take his shitty fucking suggestions with him. --Papa Moloch 07:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Papa Moron.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:29 14 November 2009(BST)

Oh look, it appears that there's the prospect of a shit suggestions tag team. Nothing says 'retarded suggestion' quite like support from this cunt. --Papa Moloch 09:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Offer up something constructive, or shut the fuck up, bitch. No one needs to see your insecurity splashed all over in pathetic attempts to boost your ego by driving new people off.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:18 14 November 2009(BST)

Calling you a cunt is most definitely constructive, because every new player needs to know that you are a raging fuckwit whose example they most definitely should not follow. Further, slamming shit suggestions like these is also constructive, because when people like you and Winman insist upon slinging every half-arsed, pile of shit that you can think of onto this page it means that the rare good ideas that are posted here are far more likely to be missed or ignored in the fog of intellectual fart gas. And finally, accusations of insecurity and ego are pretty laughable, coming from a guy who makes constant references to other people's testicles or lack thereof. --Papa Moloch 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Immaterial and unrelated. Shut the fuck up and go to lunch. 2. Add something constructive to the suggestion at hand or shut the fuck up. Go to lunch. 3. It doesn't get more ball-less and cowardly than being an inturdnet bully such as yourself. Difference between you and me is that I only attack worthless cowards like yourself, while you prefer to attack newbies that won't be defended by your shitheel buddies. You are weak. Will you go to fucking lunch?--

| T | BALLS! | 16:20 14 November 2009(BST)

Too overpowered I think, Win. I like the concept, but maybe with a different mechanic.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:29 14 November 2009(BST)

How about, instead of this, you have perspiration? It costs 15AP to use, getting yourself all hot and bothered, and it gives 5 survivors in the area a -5% to all attacks for the next 50AP, because they're so disgusted by what they saw. They also lose 5HP in vomit. New Death Cultist skill.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardy fuckin har. Shut the fuck up, Yonnua.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:18 14 November 2009(BST)

So, for recommendingan inverse which helps zombies, who you yourself have called the weaker side, you tell me to shut up? Hmm.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop talking to both of them. We all know they'll die on their arse/get duped in the main system any way. Don't drag out the time until these sections can be cycled by adding to them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Generator Installation Notice

Timestamp: 03:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: In-game warning notice

Scope: Survivors installing generators

Description: So we all know the deal with dark buildings. When unlit, they provide a halved accuracy rate for all attacks. It's great, especially in times of increased zombie activity, high PKer presence or group-on-group war. The only problem is, quite a lot of pro-survivor groups or individuals, either unaware or apathetic to the vital service these safehouses provide everyone, will install and fuel generators in every building they find, even the dark ones - where it does nothing positive, only negative. Basically the suggestion is this - when anyone clicks on the generator in their inventory to install it in a bank, club or cinema will recieve the following notice in-game: "You are attempting to install a generator in an otherwise dark building. Powering this building will negate the bonus effects of its darkness with no beneficial effects." Anyone who then wishes to install it anyway can do so by attempting to do so a second time. This will work exactly like the notice for jumping from a window, using no AP and taking one IP hit. Fort armouries will not be affected by this, as they actually have a function outside of being safehouses. And before someone says it, yes this will no doubt aid PKers. It will also aid any survivors who actually give two shits about staying alive, as shock horror, they gain the benefits too. 99.99% of PKers don't kill in dark buildings due to the waste of AP and ammo, all but the most all-consuming hordes skip past them for the same reasons, and since the clubs, cinemas and banks offer no tactical resources, this does not hurt the survivor side at all. In fact, it would help cut down on the much-maligned GKing. Also I wouldn't be surprised if his was suggested before, but a cursory search turned up nothing.

Discussion (Generator Installation Notice)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: November 23

I don't like this. Searching for a generator takes a lot of AP. Anyone trying to install it probably has a good reason. They might just be a bounty hunter planning to kill your PKer who's hiding in there. Or they might want to use it to power a radio. Or to barricade. --Explodey 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Or to repair a free running lane, or to act as a decoy, or to do any number of other things. Completely agree. I don't install gennies in dark buildings often, but I've had reason to in the past, and I'm sure I will again in the future, and a simple warning is unnecessary since I think most people know what they're doing when they spend that much AP to locate a genny and fuel. —Aichon— 05:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you'd be surprised. I lead a pro-survivor group out in Gibsonton, and the number of times I've had people get that "Oh, never knew" moment when I explained the benefits of dark banks is beyond numbering now. If it's for something actually useful like a repair, then the warning won't stop that. It's simply diffusing more information to people who might not actually know it, since it's not reported in-game. 05:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose there are always people, but they should know, since you can't see HP levels with Diagnosis, there's a special flavor text saying it's a dark building, and hit rates are shown to be halved. But I definitely believe that many people don't know the difference. Even so, I'm not sure that warning text is the proper way to educate people to the benefits of dark buildings. Maybe just change the flavor text? Or indicate it more strongly on the minimap (bold black border, rather than appearing ruined)? A warning is a bit much, I think, since those other things are not easily reversible, while dealing with the genny is as simple as not fueling it or just destroying it afterwards. —Aichon— 05:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, for the people in the building. For the guy who searched up a genny and fuel to do exactly nothing, it's a day's AP wasted. For an IP hit, a warning would let them know it's better planted elsewhere, saving a dickload of AP on their end. 05:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing for newbies. They think they've put down a generator, they haven't, they try to attack their target, whether zombie, survivor, or PKer, and miss for about 30AP before wondering why. Bad idea.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think that this should be implemented for a few reasons, namely it would introduce thoughts about a specific type of building (In this case all Dark buildings) from the meta game and tell everyone how they should play. It also incurs an ip, which may be unimportant, but it happens none-the-less. If someone does light a dark building, well oh no, it's not as if someone isn't going to come along and destroy it when they need their nights sleep to be peaceful. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

with no beneficial effects. What? What about needing them to repair the building, or doubling your chance of successfully barricading, or finding stuff in the armory, or combat reviving accuracy? And surely some dark buildings have mobile phone masts? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Powering this building will negate the bonus effects of its darkness with no beneficial effects." As Rosslessness pointed out having the building lit has benefits, also, darkness was meant to be a penalty to survivors not a bonus. Personally I would like to see zombies gain a bonus in dark buildings so survivors are scared to go in them. --Kamikazie-Bunny 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. As for the suggestion itself, I think it woulde just give too many confusing ideas to players. Besides, is it REALLY that hard to bust a generator?--Pesatyel 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Guard the Door

Timestamp: HellFreeze 08:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: new action

Scope: survivors

Description: This is my first suggestion, so 'don't taze me, bro!' I don't know about you all, but I'm grumpy about GKers. People on my 'do not revive'and 'kill on sight' list frequently free-run into my safehouse, smash the generator, and then leave without consequence. It takes them just a few AP to destroy, but it takes me most of a day to replace. So, I propose adding an action that would post the player at the free-run entrance to prevent undesirable survivors from entering. The list of folks to be blocked would be one color code on the player's contact list. This action should cost some AP (since they cannot be sleeping or doing other things) and should also put them at some risk by keeping them at the top of the occupant list. If feasible, the AP cost should be time-based. In other words, no AP accumulation while guarding. It doesn't affect zombies at all. It only discourages griefing genny killer free-runners. So, without changing the game balance, this action would make the game more fun. I would even take the first watch.

Discussion (Guard the Door)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: November 29

Massive dupe and open to cheating with zerging alts and an auto adding bot script. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but this suggestion is going to go straight into the dirt. You are basically saying "All survivors that are not in my contact list with X color can't get in the building without removing the barricades first". WAY too gamebreaking. Case-in-point: death culting. Death cultist has no names in his contacts (or only zombies), and therefore no survivors can get into the building... likely an NT or other TRP. I understand your frustration, but maybe you should just move to another part of the city, or maybe just a building that you don't need powered to be useful? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed a word upon reading the suggestion. Still no. As Iscariot. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, I won't taze you. BUT, If you think GKers are annoying, imagine the griefing you will get when someone who doesn't like you creates 20 new characters, places them in all the resource buildings in your suburb, puts you on their contacts list and then sets those characters to guard the door so you can't get it. Booom! You just got permanently locked out of every hospital, PD, and NT in the suburb. Think about it.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Taze! Taze Taze Taze! GKers are people too, it's a perfectly valid way to play the game. Billy Forks 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain but no-one has managed to come up with a reasonable and measured way to make gking/pking etc.... carry a little more risk. Personaly I think allowing folk to spend 1 or 2 AP to defend a specific target would make sense. What you suggest though is just too easy to abuse and too strong anyway. --Honestmistake 12:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

D-D-D-DON'T TAZE ME BRO! Also, no. This suggestion is much too abusable.-- SA 15:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Open to too much abuse. All it would take is a few co-ordinated users (say, a group) and an entire mall could be off-limits for a whole shit-ton of people. Which I'd personally love, but we don't cater to death cultists. :( 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. Just what I was going to point out. If you multiply this by a billion, or even just a dozen, a group of people could effectively lock down a building or group of buildings. With a contact list holding up to 150 names on it, a dozen people in the same building could lock out 1800 people, with no way for those 1800 to get in, aside from breaking in. —Aichon— 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points everyone. I had never heard of auto-add scripts, and had not thought of nefarious abuses. It would have been horrible, with stronger instant pinatas everywhere! (This sort of thing is why I put the idea here, instead of the vote page.) Honestmistake's idea about defending a specific target seems like the better way to go. What if survivors in a building "move to block" someone attacking the generator (or other item), the same way zombies sometimes block barricade construction? --HellFreeze 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it actually be a dupe to suggest that players be able to defend against a (selected) action from anyone on his contact list only? Throw in a stipulation that it be a 1 time action (effectively a delayed action that may not be performed) and i don't remember anything that specific showing up in voting? --Honestmistake 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a god-awful suggestion that doesn't have even a bit of salvageable concept inside it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@Honestmistake, there was Protect v3 by Deyo, which sounds similar to what you said. It had some support but was unfortunately disqualified. Something like that would accomplish the same goal I had in mind, perhaps without so many horrors as my idea.--HellFreeze 08:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was removed cos Deyo was spamming the system with a new version everytime it got spammed. In any event I was thinking more along the lines of 2AP to guard the selected target against a set colour from your contact list... Hell, I might even write something up for all you good folks to abuse :)--Honestmistake 17:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

vehicles

Timestamp: Hazmat Vlad 02:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: equipment/item

Scope: survivors

Description: Perhaps vehicles could be implemented into the game,but extremely rare and needing the construction skill to repair them,also having to often be refueled with fuel cans .you could find vehicles in mechanic shops that aren't in to bad of condition and use the construction skill to repair them,vehicles could then be used to get around with no ap cost but needing to be refueled every 5 times you move a space.also vhicles could be used as weapons?and perhaps if you have a gps you can get a map or maybe track your car?

Discussion (vehicles)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: November 18

I'm going to put the Welcome Newbie template on your talk page, someone else will move this to the top where it belongs and you will lurk more before you get flamed until you are extra crispy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nein danke.-- SA 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunkoff. WHOOPS! THAT WAS NOT MEDICINE! Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let's go it. Also let's add atom bombs. 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, atom bombs suck.-- SA 02:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FINE THEN HYDROGEN BOMBS. ¬_¬ 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They suck too.-- SA 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FINE THEN YOUR MA. 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

TOO BAD I HATE MY MA OR YOU'D WIN YOU DICK!-- SA 02:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I win anyway. I'm me. 03:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Angel is teh bestest sysops evar and I wuv him and never want him to leave the wiki agains!-- SA 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're new, so I'll be nice. This suggestion isn't going anywhere for a variety of reasons. Basically, none of the details are covered. For instance, do vehicles show up in your inventory? If not, do they just stay out on the street taking up space, kinda like how decorations show up in buildings? Can other people take vehicles that they see laying around? Can zombies destroy vehicles? Do they disappear after awhile if they're unused? What purpose are they supposed to serve? Isn't 5 spaces before refueling pretty much useless, since it'd cost far less AP to just walk that far, than it would to search for the fuel can? Have you done the math to show why you chose 5 spaces? Also, vehicles are frequently suggested, so you're fighting an uphill battle here. —Aichon— 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To add to that, you need to be much more concise with your suggestions. Where are they found? At what search rates? If you want them to be used as weapons, what kind of damage would they do? No, it won't help THIS suggestion, but if you want to post more susgestions, it would help. Take a look at Peer Review and Peer Rejected.--Pesatyel 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading Frequently Suggested and Suggestions Dos and Do Nots => +0.1% suggestion pass rate --Anotherpongo 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Ignore other zombies feeding on corpses

Timestamp: Catherine Athay 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: UI

Scope: Mostly zombies

Description: Just what it says on the tin really. Add a checkbox or drop-down field to the settings page to give the player the option of not seeing the "A zombie fed on a corpse" messages. If you're waiting in a revive queue, or in a horde waiting for strike time, you can get an awful lot of these messages. It would be nice to be able to turn them off.

Discussion (Ignore other zombies feeding on corpses)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: November 18

Sounds good as it's written. I like it, and I know that I've never really seen much need to have that information, so being able to turn off those messages would be nice. —Aichon— 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why waste time suggesting this as just ignoring feeding? Why not suggest an ignore option for every type of status message in the game? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you're thinking.-- SA 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But surely that would be a multi suggestion and therefore against the holy "do and Don't" list :) --Honestmistake 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

'Option to expand ignore function'. Multi doesn't apply to shooting suggestions, even though you can use them against zombies, survivors, radios and generators.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now it exists for groans, flares, radio and barricades. Other than that, feeding is the only one I can think of that is both unimportant and frequent enough to be annoying. But yes there are already too many checkboxes cluttering the options page. Maybe I should have suggested removing the feeding message altogether (or make it visible only to the corpse that is nibbled.) --Catherine Athay 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deaths, body dumps, art installations, refuelling, adding generators and radios, even people wounding you (but I personally wouldn't include kills). Some people will never use it, though some of us (at places like MCM which are conversation happy) will welcome the removal of extraneous messages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would class installations, refuelling, GKing, RKing and TKing as "not frequent enough to be annoying". And do you really see bodies other than your own being dumped? I've never noticed it. --Catherine Athay 11:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I like Iscariot's idea. Perhaps a different settings page for toggling what you want to see, instead of cramming it all at the bottom of the current one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of an extra page. Having a checklist like the auto-discard one wouldn't take too much more space, and would be easily integrated. 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was being facetious... Frankly I see no reason not to go with Izzy's suggestion of tick-boxing all random shite excpt that it would allow NooB's to unwittingly block valuable reminders of stuff that they could do with the right skills!--Honestmistake 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could be setup that levels 1 can't change those settings?--Pesatyel 03:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to look out for stupid people; if someone turns off Feeding then they'll just have to deal with the fact that they don't see any feeding. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not even newbies? It was actually interesting to invite some friends to play and see how the react to the game. Gave me an idea or two for suggestions.--Pesatyel 05:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Air strike

Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Destruction

Scope: Suburb

Description: The 24th August, a day that passes like any other for most ordinary people, however for those citizens of Malton who remember 2007 it was the first day the external military forces began transmitting data vital for survior. Some saw it as hope, others as information to barter and use, others believed they were faked from death cultists inside the city setting traps. In truth the military were researching the city in preperation, the surviors inside mearly fortunate to hear it. The military have been preparing for 'Operation:Cold Start' and now they are in the final stages... Operation:Cold Start In an effort to destroy the zombie menace the military will conduct a co-ordinated airstrike on the suburb with the highest zombie population regardless of survior presence (The 'survivors' of malton are to be considered expendable). Date: 24th August, 2010 This aerial bombardment has one ultimate goal, complete and permanent destruction of the zombie, nothing short of complete destruction of the targetted suburb is to be expected, all buildings, surviors and most importantly zombies will be ruined and killed. At 23:30hrs on the the 23th of August 2010 two bomber wings will be launched with a fighter squadron escort, at 24:00hrs the bomber wing will drop their payload on the targetted suburb and return to base. The HE payload will contain traditonal explosives and a classfied VX22-f additive developed by a NMO, it is expected and predicted that the modified explosives will prevent the targets from re-animating, permanently. Should this fail further development on the VX22 additive will ne neccessary and bombing will be repeated one calender year later every year until the desired effects are acheived. If VX22-f is succesful 12 further bomber wings will be lauched with objective of the complete destruction of Malton for the purpose of reclamation by non-infected personel. Commander K.Davis

Discussion (Air strike)

It's a good thing this will never actually happen, seeing as how "24:00hrs" doesn't actually exist. Also, humourous suggestions is over here. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:07, 8 November 2009 (BST)

24:00 does exist:

• 00:00 = midnight, start of day
• 24:00 = midnight, end of day

You can't display both at the same time as they overlap so most people are only familiar with one version. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

24:00 in military time is technically incorrect, and does not exist. There's 23:59, and then 00:00, but no 24:00. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:24, 8 November 2009 (BST)

The Internet's Big Book of Things That Might Not Be True says that airstrikes don't use 24:00. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a tie, it does exist, but not in the military, I suppose you win though as this is in military context. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawl. I know the RRF is frightening, but you can't expect Kevan to nuke Ridleybank and perma-kill a large chunk of the RRF for you, repeatedly. --Mold 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be permakill, "Should this fail... bombing will be repeated one calender year later!" The military wouldn't waste the resources if it would fail, they expect to succeed (but it won't) so this becomes an annual event. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a fighter escort, a brilliant tactic to counter our own interceptors.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, when did we get interceptors?-- SA 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you not buy the Airspace Battle Manager skill? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait! Who's team are you on, the E.M. just want to clear Malton, they don't discriminate between Surviors and Zombies they're all infected... are we looking at the beginning of the first Zombie/Survior alliance? --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because now I'm going to get the ABM skill and learn to pilot a Titan so I can rain down fiery death upon the harmans. >:) -- SA 22:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

40K references lose you bonus points. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think "Airspace Battle Manager" and "Titan" would combine to be more of an EVE reference than 40k. 'Course, you could multi-task and pilot a Titan... in a Titan. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:43, 8 November 2009 (BST)

It was actually a Battlefield 2142 reference. :( -- SA 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also good! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:54, 8 November 2009 (BST)

I just hate the amount of vehicle spam that goes on in that game. :/ -- SA 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So everyone dies, the zombies stand up again 5 seconds later and get busy ruining every building in the suburb with no interference from pesky survivors? Brilliant! --Explodey 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All the buildings are ruined as well so they can just move on (need to mention that everyone receives an instant headshot as well, whoops).--Kamikazie-Bunny 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rediculously OP in favor of zombies; this page isn't for Humorous Suggestions. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this isn't. It's only funny because he so serious about it.--Thadeous Oakley 10:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawl.--Thadeous Oakley 08:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

	LOOK GUYS, ANOTHER ONE

--DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Center it on the NT that shows the most scans in the proceeding 72 hours and you got my vote.... of course it means the area with the most active scientists is the one that gets nuked rather than the one with the most zeds but you gotta love "military intelligence" :) --Honestmistake 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And make all the bodies stand up as survivors. After all, it's a chemical based on the Necrotech syringes. Now that's interesting: All zombies in an area suddenly revived, but the entire area ruined. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Pffft...Call of Duty 4, much? No offense, but I sure hope this isn't a serious suggestion. --Chekken 04:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

URBAN DEAD IPHONE APP

Timestamp: Meanoldrunk 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: iphone app

Scope: iphone users

Description: an iphone app for ud cause playing on the phone stinks

Discussion (URBAN DEAD IPHONE APP)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 19th November

No--Orange Talk 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"cause playing on the phone stinks " This game was designed for playing on a PC, an iPHONE is designed for making phone calls and text messages, yes it has a browser but it's going to suck for 99% of website that haven't been designed for it. If that's your only justification then I want an App for my K550i as well and my phones been around longer so it should have priority --Kamikazie-Bunny 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

People with iphones are useless posers who need to understand that the whole fucking world doesn't revolve around them and that everyone isn't going to jump to code something at their whim. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so harsh they're not useless, they are good for a laugh at! --Kamikazie-Bunny 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As a useless poser who owns an iPhone, I've thought about coding something like this up as a way to learn the iPhone SDK, but, to be frank, it'd be more effort than it's worth. It's also outside the scope of what we should expect from Kevan. Definitely a no. —Aichon— 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

NO AND I'M SICK AND TIRED OF YOU GOD DAMN LAZY ASS iFUCKERS NOT DOING YOUR OWN SHIT. You want a fucking app for your 300 dollar piece of shit? Make it your god damned self. For now, I'm just going to take my Sansa View and, you know, use it for music. Because everything else I've got a FUCKING COMPUTER FOR. YOU KNOW? THE THING YOU TYPED THIS PILE OF GOD DAMNED GARBAGE ON?!?-- SA 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I like SA pissed off. He makes me laugh ^_^ --Haliman - Talk 05:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

>:| -- SA 05:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

>:D --Haliman - Talk 05:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's jealous they didn't get an iPhone for their birthday. ;) —Aichon— 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I had one for about a week, took it back and got my View instead. It was cheeper (For more storage too) and, well, in my opinion had better functionality.-- SA 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, see, an informed decision. Just be aware that some of us also made informed decisions (or at least like to think we did), and don't think that the world is there to serve our every whim. But I do agree that many folks in the demographic that the iPhone is targeted towards seem to have a sense of entitlement that is rather annoying. —Aichon— 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know people who play UD on their phones with no problems. If iPhones suck, maybe someone who uses one will write a compatible stylesheet or whatever's needed... or maybe they'll, yeah, use a real browser. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there's really no need to. It displays the exact same on an iPhone as it does in a modern (non-IE) desktop browser, and I've used it plenty of times that way. The only problem is the slight loss of accuracy (as compared to using a mouse) if you don't zoom in far enough...which of course could be a bad thing if you accidentally click on the attack button instead of the FAK button, for instance. But really, the only thing a stylesheet might do is space the buttons out a bit more, while a native app would basically just be an uncluttered interface and nothing more. Other sites (eBay, banking sites, Facebook, etc.) have done similar things, but there's little point since the UD user base is so small and the iPhone owners amongst that group are even less. I mean, at best, we're talking about an app that maybe a few hundred people in the world would use. More likely just a few dozen, if even. —Aichon— 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I defer to your expertise, and suggest to the suggester: "Don't do that, then!" ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly expertise, but thanks for the vote of confidence! ;) —Aichon— 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

first it was only an idea and as for them being 300 they are only 100 dollars and what am i posing as? i did in fact type this on my phone not my comp MAYBE i should have asked for a mobile friendly option urban dead was ok on my old razor but unplayable on my wifes zte

Please to be signing posts. Also mobile versions of the game would take extra coding which could instead be funnelled into adding new features, not making the same ones available to someone who doesn't want to sit down for 10 minutes in the day. 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, this suggestion got shot down in Epic Fail Flames about a month or two ago for the reason that people didn't want to hear someone sit around and bitch about how they didn't have an app that they wanted. This page is for improving Urban Dead; if you want greasemonkey or iPhone apps then you're in the wrong place. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dupe (almost) --Catherine Athay 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been on DS so much it makes me fucking cry. Requesting another addition to suggestion do's and dont's. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't really get away with putting stuff on the Do or Do Nots just because I don't like it. Otherwise it'd read "Anything you can think of" and be a protected page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But if enough of us support it, it's okay right? RIGHT?-- SA 13:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Get 9 users to support you and I'll add it, after you cut down the largest tree in the forest with.... A HERRING!!! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is why I have a PDA with a stylus. You should complain to Steve Jobs for ripping you off, not to people here. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Alphabetization of Items

Timestamp: KainYusanagi 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Ease of "what do I have in my inventory?" play.

Scope: All Items

Description: Simple... Items get alphabetized. i don't know how many times I've lost track of my ammo while it's mixed into with FAKs or other things.... the buttons get really messy. Could we just get a little order to the things we pick up?-KainYusanagi 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Alphabetization of Items)

This doesn't effect the merits of your suggestion, but there are Firefox plugins like UDtool and Greasemonkey extensions that organize your inventory for you, in case you wanted this, you know, actually fixed. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if you use Firefox and have Greasemonkey (or use Safari and GreaseKit or Chrome and GreaseMetal), Midianian has a great script called UDICOS that does what you're looking for and more. Regardless, heck yes. The interface is a mess and needs major reorganization (*cough*). Alphabetization definitely helps. Even just grouping similar items. —Aichon— 22:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't run Greassmonkeys or any of those other plugins, partially due to having issues with them having caused infections in the past and partially because I'm what I'd call an "originalist"... I play games with their original UIs because that's what's provided. I'd rather the source issue get fixed over just trying to cover it up. >.>;-KainYusanagi 06:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, even if this suggestion gets passed, which it well may not, it's not likely the issue will be resolved, and certainly not quickly. Greasemonkey is virus-free, and if you're worried about infections, get NoScript for your browser and lock up your Javascript. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 13:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it pass? Granted there are better things already in Peer Review, this isn't bad nor is it going to break anything. Using "you can use scripts" isn't a reason to kill.--Pesatyel 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Because not that many suggestions pass these days, and because passing in no way means, implies, or even gives reason to hope that your idea will be implemented; it's just a pool Kevin might someday reach into if he runs low on think-juice. Granted, he's implemented suggestions before, but that was ages ago... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That has more to do with the general apathy of us wiki patrons then it does the suggestions. Why do you think the really bad ones get so much "discussion"?--Pesatyel 01:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want my items alphabetised. I want to be able to find them in the order they entered my inventory. Why should my basic user interface be changed for your sense of OCD? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would consider someone who wanted items to be displayed in the order that they were procured to have a stronger sense of OCD than the person that wanted to alphabetize items that are essentially jumbled together. It's one thing to accuse someone of having a sense of OCD if they're alphabetizing food in the pantry or some such nonsense, but it's entirely different when we're talking about buttons whose only representation is text on the screen. Alphabetization/lexicographical order makes sense here. Also, the order in the current system only functions if the user memorizes the order that they gathered the items. Since most people are not sufficiently skilled at memorization, nor have the desire to memorize such mundane details, the sensible thing to do is to put the items in an order that more players can use effectively. This can also be used to improve muscle memory to an extent, which is a desirable trait of user interfaces. —Aichon— 22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you want to change my interface from what I prefer to what you prefer for no other reason than you'd prefer it that way. Give me a good reason why this change should be made when people have been coping fine for four years. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that he didn't provide reasons in the description. As for me, I gave you at least three in my last comment: it makes sense, more players can use it effectively, and muscle memory can be applied. If you want a few additional ones:

• People are used to dealing with alphabetical order, so it should be easier for newbies to learn how to use the interface (i.e. more intuitive to learn), which is good, since we all like newbies,
• It's easier to pick up where you left off when you come back on following days, since most people would have forgotten the order in which they picked up their items (i.e. no need for memory),
• It's more intimidating to an end user when they can't make sense of the things in front of them, and grouping like objects with each other reduces the complexity (i.e. it helps to eliminate the choice paradox),
• I could also cite Fitts's Law and the fact that the current system increases mouse travel distance by not having similar objects grouped (i.e. it takes longer to use),
• If a user doesn't have the order memorized, they have to go searching for the next item after the one that they clicked on disappears from their inventory (e.g. if you need to FAK someone multiple times), whereas alphabetization lets people have an intuition for where it should appear.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons as well, and if I had my old computer-human interaction textbook, I'm sure I could cite a few case studies and whatnot. I'll grant that none of the reasons I gave are "slam dunk" reasons in and of themselves, but when an advocate for the current system is using terms like "cope" to refer to how users deal with the it, a slam dunk answer shouldn't even be necessary.

Besides, I've seen you around the wiki, and I've observed that you like to make decisions based on evidence and reason (at least, that's my opinion, though I may be mistaken, of course). While your personal experience may color your reasoning, as it does with all of us, I don't think you are honestly trying to suggest that this is a mere case of opinion vs. opinion and that there is no argument to be made for alphabetization as a superior arrangement over a seemingly-random one. I'm sure you're making the argument for some reason, but what it is, I can't fathom. —Aichon— 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the newest item you picked up put at the bottom when you get it?--Pesatyel 04:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That's what we've been talking about. —Aichon— 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the above points are all...relatively pointless. The game doesn't magically rearrange your stuff when you stop playing.--Pesatyel 07:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But unless you memorized the order in which you picked up your items, you'll have no basis for understanding the arrangement of the items when you come back the next day. That's one of the major problems with the current system. —Aichon— 14:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, it is REALLY that hard to figure out the order? That the object at the bottom is the last one you picked up? And the one the one at the top is the first one you picked up? I can see where there might be some confusion to those unfamilar with the way English is displayed (left to right and down to the next line) but it really seems like all the "points" are just nitpick justifications. 1) Its not like objects "go bad" so what does it matter the order you picked stuff up? 2) Alphabetizing isn't necessarily going to alleviate the problem of "having to move the mouse too much" when you have to just click on the object. Its not like you have to drag and drop the shotgun shell to the shotgun. Not to mention there are better ideas then simple alphabetizing. I'm not saying the idea is a bad one, just that there are better ones and that the above points seem, to me, to be overdoing it a bit.--Pesatyel 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we're on different wavelengths here. Figuring out the order is not the issue. Being able to find items in your inventory is, and an ordering based on when items were picked up is not conducive to finding them later since it relies on memorization or else just visually searching. I'm afraid I don't quite understand or see the relevance of your #1 point, your #2 one seems to miss the obvious (best example: if using FAKs repeatedly, you wouldn't have to move the mouse at all since the next FAK in the inventory would take up the exact same pixels as the previous one if they were grouped next to each other, which would be guaranteed with alphabetization, but is not guaranteed now), and the third point (that there are better ideas) should not have an impact on determining the worth of this suggestion. I'll admit that I was making a big argument over small details, but reasons were requested, so I simply enumerated a few. —Aichon— 04:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably are. I don't suppose it matters. I'd probably vote keep even though there are better suggestions already in PR.--Pesatyel 02:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of the current system, IMHO, is that disposables (ammo, FAKs, needles), get listed at the end, while the multi-use items slowly go to the top of your pile, and will always be in the same place. (Of course, for the real OCD people, empty your inventory and search for items in the right order :-) ) --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

luhlwhut? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If that was aimed at me, allow me to paraphrase and simplify my earlier point: "no u. my way is better." —Aichon— 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

o i c wut u did thur. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So... Can we get this moved to voting, or is it gonna slumber here for awhile?-KainYusanagi 14:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Meatshielding Skills

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091111 Meatshielding Skills

Arcade Machine

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091111_Arcade_Machine

Pumpkin Count

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091104 Pumpkin Count

Show Encumbrance At Top Of Inventory

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091106 Show Encumbrance At Top Of Inventory

School lunches

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091108 School lunches