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

Building Population Cap

Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Building change

Scope: Large populations of survivors and sieges

Description: This idea spawned from discussion about how it is quite impossible to have a siege at all similar to those of the early days of Malton, the ones that people remember fondly even if they were on the "losing" side. If implemented, all buildings would have a limit on the number of persons that could possibly be inside. This limit would be 50 for any single-block building and 80 for any block of a multi-block building (like a mall). Most frequently this would affect survivors trying to free run into a building. If the target building is already full to capacity, the player will get a message similar to the one they get when trying to enter a fort from any location other than the entrance: "This building is at maximum capacity, there is no room for even one more body." This can either drop the survivor outside (and cost the usual 1AP) -OR- this can keep the survivor where s/he is (and cost 0AP) **DISCUSS THIS ASPECT** The other major change from this suggestion would be sieges, where a building may potentially be at maximum capacity with survivors inside and zombies break down the barricades to get in. In this instance, 1 zombie may get in over the maximum capacity (3 in a multi-block building)--simulating a zombie(s) standing in the doorway and attacking survivors. This will naturally provide even more incentive for high-level zombies to utilize Feeding Drag (to allow more zombies to feast on bra!ns), as well as lead to new tactics for both sides in large horde-style sieges.

Discussion (Building Population Cap)

No. Just no. Because when you've got 1300+ Z's rattling on YOUR front door, and you have only 80 Survivors, you are fucked. Seriously. There's no way to achieve Critical Mass unless you actually organise it and time it, which a mallrat/trenchie won't. Add the residents if this does get implemented, which it won't, and what happens to the people above your 80 number in their now? Cookies and Cream

When you have 1300+ zeds knocking on your door, 8000 survivors won't keep them out. --Haliman - Talk 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your forgetting it is easier to defend (1 barricade level per 4 successful claws) OR escape (free running) then for zombies to get in.--Pesatyel 04:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Haliman brings up one the big assumptions with this suggestion. In small numbers, survivors are WAY better than zombies. In large numbers, zombies are WAY better than survivors. The idea behind this suggestion was to create a situation where both sides would potentially be limited to somewhere in the middle where actual numbers would mean less than coordination and tactics. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So damn broken. This basically allows anyone with enough meatshields to be immune to barricade failure for a while. Only allowing three zombies inside a mall? Populations normally get above 10 per corner in serious siege break-ins. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 12:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Only three zombies IF that particular block is full, and only UNTIL they use Feeding Drag to pull people out into the street (which isn't even entirely out of genre). If that particular block only has--say 46 survivors in it--then with this suggestion you could have up to 35 zombies in that same corner. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Horrific in every way!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Use the cap only for free-running. Entering from the street should be unaffected, which leaves sieges alone. 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So if a building is at capacity then you cannot free-run into it, as a ruin? That could work as well, using the 1AP alternative in the suggestion. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So If 50 survivors are in a building, only one zombie can enter at a time? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Scenario : 50 survivors in an NT. Zombie horde of 64 outside breaks through the barricades. Initially, only 1 zombie can get inside, until they start pulling survivors outside to make room for more zombies. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would this have been inspired by OBR about to get face smashed by MOB in Grigg heights? Anyway, This breaks sieges horribly! Zergers can shut down free run lanes by clogging them with alts. Forts will become even more broken "Whoops, even though you found a magic moment where the cades on the gatehouse were VSB there were 50 Survivors inside so... FAIL!!". So broken I could go on for miles. -Devorac 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said in the actual suggestion this was brought about by a discussion with Aichon on historic sieges compared to sieges (such as they are) now. And yes, I realize the potential for abuse by zergs and griefers, but I think any area that has 50+ zergs in it already has bigger problems than any this suggestion would create. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, one I had been considering myself actually. I was thinking more along the lines of 100 per building (which would make a 4 block Mall capable of holding 400). However, instead of making it impossible to enter, maybe the "crunch" of people would lead to attack penalties, much like a dark building. It does have some problems as others have pointed out, but maybe with a little work and some actual constructive ideas from others, it could be made to work. Will be thinking on it.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:29 7 January 2010(UTC)

Well its official, this idea is now garbage. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Attack penalties are so intangible, and already unique to dark buildings. Putting them anywhere else makes them less so. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a pro-survivor, I love it! If survivors Maximized capacity at a Hospital and only one zombie could enter then that building could hold out forever without even needing barricades! Oh wait, that is completely UNFAIR to the zombie side of the game. --YoEleven 01:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See response to rosslessness above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm no, sorry. To 'Feeding Drag' a survivor they must be at low health. 50 people in a hospital would easily keep one zombie from ever getting anybody down to that level. Or as revenant said, what if they had a zombie mascot? Then they could hold out forever in any building type. --YoEleven 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that it was you and I having that conversation, I can see where you're coming from, and, I kinda like the idea, but, as you and I also said last night, we couldn't think of a perfect solution, and I'm not sure that this is it either. As others pointed out, human zergers would be an issue, and griefers could lock down buildings to prevent legitimate survivors from entering. I like the idea of limiting the ability of the beachhead tactic as the number of survivors reaches capacity though. Maybe you could simplify it to do just that instead? Like, for instance, change the interference rate so that it gets lessened based on the survivor:zombie ratio, so, at 2 zeds vs. 2 zombies, it might be as strong as it is now, but at 2 zombies vs. 50 survivors, it might be negligible. Same end effect, less possibility for abuse. —Aichon— 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good alternate suggestion possibility. I don't see this as a perfect solution by any means (see all the zerg/griefing comments), but a possibility worthy of discussion. I know that apparently I have been visiting the wrong malls, however, because I don't think I've ever seen even 80 survivors in a single corner. But again, that is just my personal experience. Any thoughts from the other folks here on Aichon's idea to have the barricade interference rate based on zombie:survivor ratios? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was kinda thinking about this too. My thoughts were that it would depend on what kinda building it is (a stadium could hold a LOT of people). The basic benefit is that it cuts down on the mall/nt-centric aspect of the game by making people spread out. The bad thing is that it messes up Free Running (which need to be nerfed a bit IMO, but not like this). In the end its probably not going to be able to be worked out well enough to overcome shortcomings and player dislike.--Pesatyel 04:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the intial reaction that is a possibility. I still think it is something worth looking into all the same. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah. In real life these buildings can hold a lot more people than that, and the proposed mechanics are just awkward. Example: A full hospital with a zombie mascot (I've seen them) would be impregnable. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. So have we decided this suggestion is fail? Cookies and Cream 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Adding PUMP Shotguns Read Before Killing

Timestamp: --Supercohboy 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Add New Weapon, Balancing with others

Scope: Survivors and zombies, inventory(?)

Description: The concept is adding a pump shotgun that does less damage than the double barrel, but has six (or five realistically) shells instead of two that you can load. Im thinking in the range of 7-8 damage, with the same default possibility to hit(%5)or a little more (%6-7), which would be added on to with training(firarms training, shotgun prof). This would also mean changing the text of Shotgun to Double Barrel Shotgun, which may prove a pain to change, but I thought it would be worth it. Now as you see this is different from other weapon suggestions, I'm not suggesting a military-grade shotgun I mean like ones you see in *a certain game where you are left to die* where it's pump action but doesn't look military grade. If I'm wrong about that than they could just be civilian pump shotguns, like hunting ones. Tell me what you think, and I'm sure it needs tweaking somewhere;) UPDATE: Changed the way the accuracy part of the reading looks for easier reading, and look at that, my shotty here ends up being a combo of 2 that were scrapped. Does that decrease my odds then? lol...I may also tweak the damage-to shell ratio in this version or a future version if I try this again. Discussion (Adding PUMP Shotguns Read Before Killing) Okay, I fixed your formatting so there was a barrier between suggestions. One sec and I'll pull out a set of dupes. Okay done. Dupe 1 Combat shotgun, and it seems to be combined with this one. -Devorac 06:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Alright, so you want a weapon which deals 8 damage, has a 70% hit rate, and has six shells. Well then, looks like the pistol, shotgun, fire axe, and all other weapons ever conceieved are now useless.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Adding new firearms only makes all the other firearms weaker, by diluting the search odds and making stockpiling more difficult. That's before you get to this weapon being a super-pistol which renders the pistol almost obsolete. 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) *Sigh*You guys don't understand what I was saying. Its just a shotgun with a little less damage, SAME ODDS TO HIT as the other (maybe a little better by a few percent), but can carry more shells. That's it. Sorry if It was hard to understand that way. Thanks for fixing the formatting Devorac. Looking at the dupes after I write this. Thanks you for the output, but you guys misunderstood what I was saying. I'm editing it to be more clear now. Is this where I should put down replies to suggestions? --Supercohboy 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I understood perfectly. It's just a really bad suggestion.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, I understand it. It's a new weapon, and as it deals different damage it needs unique ammunition. As such, it dilutes search odds by introducing two new items to the possibilities - finding a gun and the relevent ammo for said gun is now harder, as there are three guns and three types of ammunition. It's already frustrating enough finding clip after clip when you need shells, bringing in a third (sixth) possibility makes things worse. 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) User:Grim_s/Sandbox/GunSuggestVote --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) That makes sense. Wow. Alright then. Since this suggestion has been kicked in the faced and KOed....do I delete it or does it get archived by a moderator or something? I will clean up my own mess of course but what do I do with it throw it in the trash or put it on a shelf?--Supercohboy 20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Just delete it from the page if you want. Either that, or leave it to be discussed more, and it'll get wiped after a while.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC) How about making it use 2 AP to fire (one to "fire" one to "pump")?--Pesatyel 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC) How about, if this gets implemented, we increase the odds of finding a clip. Because We can never have enough clips. Cookies and Cream 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Zombies can start fire Timestamp: Lailai 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Type: Gameplay element Scope: Zombies, Survivors Description: Currently, all you do as a zombie is: ATTACK CADES -> KILL -> REPEAT. There isn't many things interesting going on, unlike survivors (FAKs, talking, ammo, different weapons, and more). So, to make it more interesting for zombies, a new skill, under branch of memories of life: Ability to start fires with matches (new item for zombies only). Here's how it will work: Each day, 8% of the number of zombies that logged in yesterday AND have the skill required is the number of match-spawns. They will be spawned randomly outside or inside buildings. It will show "You see a box of matches on the street", etc. Zombies can pick it up if he/she have the skills. So, if they have matches, the skill, and are inside a building, they can start a fire (5AP). For every 8 people inside the building, 1 successful put out the fire are needed from the survivors. If the fire is not put out, survivors can do nothing else other than put out the fire. They have 20% chance to put it out per AP, however a new skill allows them to: a) 80% chance to put out fire sucessfully b) throw matches away if they see matches so zombies can't use them. This will: a) make people think about if they want to go with a group (more fire putouts needed) or stay with few number of survivors (8- people in a group can't be affected by fires) b) give zombies a reason to go hunt for matches c) waste 1 or 2 APs for every 8 person inside. NOT to all players, only to 1 player that is online and puts off the fire. Zombies can still attack with the fire (they don't care about dying!) and can only start a fire if they are inside the building. I'd say only 10-20 buildings will be put on fire across the whole game, since it's 8% of players who logged in yesterday that have the skill required. Discussion (Zombies can start fire) I'll point out a few issues I have: Zombies do not use objects. Full stop. It even says so in-game. Changing that mechanic seems like a bad idea. Why do matches spawn on the street of all places? Why does it take a skill to pick up matches and dispose of them for survivors? Why does it take 5AP to start a fire in the first place? Have you read the Frequently Suggested list? Area of effect actions are listed as something to generally avoid. You're mistaking complexity vs. simplicity for fun vs. boring. They aren't the same. Zombies already have more fun, if you ask me, and if your zombie isn't, you're in the wrong horde. Honestly, I just don't see the point in the suggestion, and think it introduces major changes to gameplay for no discernible reason. —Aichon— 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty much with Aichon on this one. That and the fact that I demand to know why a zombie would be able to use matches and a survivor wouldn't! Maybe I want to burn down Old Arkham and start fresh! :P --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 07:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I think it's been proven often enough that we're smarter than the harmanz in malton...--Papa Johnny 15:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to argue that fact. But the concept that someone with a rotted cerebral cortex knows how to use a set of matches and someone who has a "healthy" brain cannot defies logic. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 02:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not a fan of this skill, it's out of genre and slightly broken. Area of effect is always a bad idea. --Papa Johnny 15:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Only one word properly describes this suggestion... "What?" -Devorac 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Aside from this being an overly complex move for a brain-eater; I'm a little confused as to why survivors can't also use matches. There are death cults you know. --YoEleven 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC) How about we just no! --    Timmah!     Talk   00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC) This suggestion just sucks all over. Also: Quit stealing my font, Colonel. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC) But its nice and fancy, and I needed a nice and fancy font. I will give it back in about a month, I promise. --    Timmah!     Talk   02:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC) How about for Survivors to start a fireplace or fireworks in 4th of july, and even then that's REALLY pushin it. Also I remember zombies fearing fire, not a bad suggestion, just not quite right. --Supercohboy 05:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Kevan's English. November 5th is the best date you'll get from him for fireworks. 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) New Candy Each Year Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 15:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Type: Seasonal Item Scope: Halloween candy Description: Each year around Halloween mall stores give out "stale candy". I think it would be neat to instead give out a specific kind of candy each year. One year it would be "stale candy corn", or "stale witch-shaped chocolates", or "stale marshmallows", etc. with each year's candy never to repeat again. That way when someone gives you candy you'd be able to tell what year it's from. This is obviously a fairly unimportant flavor/novelty suggestion, but it would be kind of neat to see how long a piece of candy has been passed around, and receive an item several years old. Discussion (New Candy Each Year) I approve of this. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I still have the same stale candy from 07'... Never found anything to use it on yet :P --Haliman - Talk 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC) How about non-stale candy you can eat?--Pesatyel 05:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I think you can eat stale candy, it just doesn't use up the item. --A Big F'ing Dog 06:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) How about eating stale candy gives you an infection?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) +1^-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC) How about eating 10 or more candies in a day gives you the line "Go on a diet Fattie"? Good suggestion and +1 to the stale candy/infection comment. --YoEleven 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Hasn't this already sort of been done? This year it was pumpkins not candy. --         00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC) It was pumpkins and candy. Otherwise Mis wouldn't have candy. :( 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I like it. Good way to keep track of how old the candy is. --Papa Johnny 15:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I would like it more if it was2-3 different pieces from a year, so it feels more original. Also, who sells the same exact candy in one year? Theres a variety, but for Malton lets say only a small variety. My suggestion, its still a tasty and delicious suggestion without that. --Supercohboy 05:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Encumbrance Effects II Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 07:12 1 January 2010(UTC) Type: Improvement Scope: Survivors Description: Now you get bonuses or penalties to all Actions (except Firearms attacks) depending on your Encumbrance. Encumbrance Effect 0%-10% +10% 11%-30% +5% 31%-70% 0 71%-90% -5% 91%-100% -10% 101% and above -20% Inspired by the Travel Light, Stab Fast suggestion. Discussion (Encumbrance Effects II) No. Most of us will continue to be over 70% rendering melee weapons useless. The encumbrance rules dramatically effect survivor life, if you're going to include nerfs then you may need to rework the whole system. --Thadeous Oakley 23:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I have no problem with some sort of system like this as long as it was balanced. Right now it is a severe penalty to survivors. Maybe if you significantly raised the % increase in skills for low encumbered players that might help. However figuring out what that increase might be to balance things would be a tricky subject in itself. PLUS, why no penalty to firearms attacks? So you are saying that PKers full of shotties and shells should have no penalty like the rest of us would? Cmon man, there are two sides to this game. --YoEleven 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I thought 75% on Firearms would be too gross.-- | T | BALLS! | 01:06 2 January 2010(UTC) You don't need to give bonuses. Realistically, you can only aim so well if you factor in atmospheric effects, nerves, fatigue, etc. While most of that doesn't really equate to UD very well it could be simplified and defined as the maximum being 65%. Anything above that and realism says all those things I mentioned erode your shooting.--Pesatyel 05:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I can't believe I forgot about atmospheric effects. Anyway, fine. But Yo is right, it would make the "I only carry guns" people too gross. The Encumbrance system needs Bulk factored in.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:29 5 January 2010(UTC) I was just making comments about realism to explain why guns aren't as "benefited" as other weapons. As I said in comment in another suggestion, "bulk" is factored into "encumbrance". The problem is that Urban Dead is very simplistic. IF you were to split encumbrance and bulk, how would it work?--Pesatyel 03:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Good idea in principle but those numbers seem wrong to me. I would put the +5% on anything upto 50% (leave the +10 as is) Penalties should only be in place for those getting real close to the full load so I would say -10 at 100% load and lower it on a 1 for 1 basis (ie: 95% load = -5%) As for enc. over 100% simply preventing (or restricting ) free running seems a lot more realistic and reasonable to me as you would probably be dropping most of your gear to actually fight but can't if you are trying to flee! --Honestmistake 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC) How about we add one suggestion you make, and in exchange you stop posting them? Sound good, if so I would vote for this, it's the first thing you wrote that makes any sort of sense. --    Timmah!     Talk   22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) How about, you...fuck off?-- | T | BALLS! | 07:30 5 January 2010(UTC) Nice comeback, very original. --Thadeous Oakley 20:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I expected better, like an A/A because of my comment, how unoriginal of you Zombie Lord. --    Timmah!     Talk   21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Hit percentages are fine the way they are. --Papa Johnny 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Festering Wound v.2.1 Timestamp: Jack13 16:18, 31 December 2009 Type: Skill Scope: Zambahz Description: A subskill of Infectious Bite Cost 100xp. Skill Decription Festering Wound the advanced toxins of your Infectious Bite have a 5% chance per turn to cause an additional 1 damage per AP spent . When a Zombie with Festering Wound attacks a survivor the same text would appear as does now, i.e. "a zombie bit you for 4 damage, the zombies bite was infected!" Then after every action (other than speaking) taken the following text will be given if the 5% chance is successfull. "you lost 2hp to your festering wound." If the 5% is not successful then the normal message would appear "you lost 1hp to your infection". There are no additional variations from infectious bite, and no bonus XP Discussion (Festering Wound) it's an idea i had a long, long time ago, and completely forgot about. I've lowerd the success rates substantially, and altered the discriptive text to be more to the point. please discuss. Why is it red? and why is it just 5%? also, if someone isn't carrying a FAK they deserve to be infected. Cookies and Cream 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I do like the idea of increased infection. Here's a thought, though - have the % chance be equal to the character's level. 1% means newbies don't worry as much about it, but 40+% makes it a real tactic against established players. 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) That's kinda gimmicky, I think. Stick to a fixed percentage or something that seems to make more in-game sense. 25% seemed perfectly reasonable to me, so I don't see why it was bumped down to 5%. At 5%, it's basically worthless. At 25%, it's a nice boost, but not game-breaking, since it's mean an average of 5 HP lost per 4 actions taken, which is perfectly reasonable. —Aichon— 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) There's something similar out there in PR, though the mechanic is slightly different; it involves multiple infectious zombies biting the same target. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 17:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I like the general idea. Infection is anyway more a psychological warfare thing than a real threat (at least with half-way organized and prepared survivors), and making it less predictable aids the idea behind it. I'd even go as far and make it a save-or-die check each turn with a low chance as 1% or 2% - not a real threat if you always carry at least one FAK with you at all times and step back a minute to calculate (which you should _always_ do if you want to breath), but something that makes you think twice before you do anything but taking care of your wound - or doing reckless things as cading or shooting with zeds present without waiting for the game's output. --Spiderzed 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 5% does seem rather under-powered considering you're only adding 1 extra damage. I would say something along the lines of 15-25% seems about right. Aside from that, I like this. Simple and to the point; a no-nonsense suggestion that I can get behind. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 19:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC) you guys are great. I reduced the % from 25% to 5% because i thought the full 25% would get "overpowered" responses. Thanks also for the link to the PR, I can post the link witht the suggestion noting it's different because it involves only 1 zombie. do you guys think that 15% or 20% is fair? I hate putting things to voting just for them to get destroyed by spam and kill votes. Jack S13 T! PC 20:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC) What if you linked the percentile chance to the HP of the victim, so as the infection got progressively worse and HP is lost the chance for additional damage increases. What about 1% for every HP lost, so 46/50 HP is a 4 percent chance to take 2 damage instead of one, 20/50 HP is 30% chance, Etc, etc. -Devorac 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC) That works backwards from how it should. Even though it makes in-game sense, the gameplay of that would be annoying for players. I'd honestly just go with a flat 25%, since it really is a nice number that'd mean you take 5 damage per 4 AP spent. Seems reasonable. —Aichon— 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Fair point, but how does linking it to health make it work backwards? I've treated serious infections in animals, farther it goes the faster the infection accelerates its growth as the body slowly stops fighting.-Devorac 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Like I said, it makes in-game sense (i.e. your example of how real-life works), but it doesn't make gameplay sense, since it penalizes those who are least in need of being penalized. If it worked the opposite way, though it doesn't make much sense, it'd be a more interesting mechanic, since it would serve to take off a lot of HP, but wouldn't kill someone, making it dangerous but not lethal, whereas the way it is now, it wouldn't take off much AP at first, but then would become progressively more dangerous as it went on. It'd also give people a much more uncertain idea of how many actions they could take before getting themselves killed, which is already a frustrating experience. —Aichon— 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Devorac's idea is really amazing, but for UD adds complication where it's not needed. This kind of mechanic would be great though in a consol game. ok. well, I think there's been enough said. I'll put up the suggestion at 25% for the extra damage, and if it flops, I'll lower it by 5 and try again. thanks folks. Jack S13 T! PC 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC) XP system change Timestamp: Necrofeelinya 09:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Type: XP system change Scope: all players Description: One of the biggest problems with UD is that characters max out and then there's no point in continuing, with nowhere to further progress. There ceases to be any challenge to it. Another problem is that survivors who max out have absolutely no more incentive to engage zombies, nor to actually do anything at all in the game. They can just run around, or even sit still for that matter most of the time, and effectively do nothing. We've all heard the complaints of "what do I do with my 10,000 accumulated XP? Kevan, we need another update so I can spend it! Give us more flavor, more skills!" All this is old news, and a number of ways of changing it have been proposed, some of them needlessly complex. I figured I'd propose a simpler method, and hope this is generally acceptable: I suggest all characters, human and zombie alike, lose 1 XP every 2 hours automatically down to a minimum of 0. If you spend 24 hours without accumulating any XP once you reach 0, you exchange the last skill you acquired for 50 XP, and keep losing AP and skills until you start participating again. That 50 XP gives you a significant advantage on regaining your lost skill if you decide you want to... if you accidentally let things slide until you're at the point where you've lost a skill, you don't have to start entirely from scratch to get it back. It also means it'll be at least 5 days before you lose another skill. 4 plus change for the XP loss from 50 to 0, then another day for staying at 0 for 24 hours. If a character just sits around and does nothing to earn XP all the time, they'll eventually find they lose even their free running and construction abilities, or their lurching gait and vigour mortis abilities. Whaddya think? Decent idea, or just another futile and halfhearted attempt at accomplishing something on DevSug? Discussion (XP system change) Points for trying, but I don't think this will ever pass. Particularly because I do not think that the server keeps a record of the order in which a player obtained skills, making the skill loss thing kind of difficult to implement. Also, this seems to punish players with low XP (say you just bought a skill) and who might not do anything to earn XP for a day. What if you are walking across the city, or you are maintaining barricades during a siege? --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC) If the server doesn't keep track of the order in which a player accumulates skills, then just make the lost skill random, or allow the player to choose which skill he loses. He'll likely choose to lose them in the reverse order he accumulated them anyway. And there's a 1 day buffer period for not accumulating XP for players with low XP. As far as penalizing new players, 1) it never takes them below 0 with no skills, 2) most newbies quickly learn to whack'n'fak anyway (we really should do something to stop that) and 3) if you lack skills, shouldn't you be focusing on accumulating XP, not just running around hiding or serving as someone else's 'cade bot? In fact, if you're able to 'cade, you've got a skill right there, so you've clearly gotten on the road to accumulating XP. You must have a fire axe or something you can earn XP with. Whack'n'fak a little each day along with your 'cading, or better yet, go fight a zombie and leave the 'cading to the big boys who've already built up 10,000 XP! If you're a zombie with lurching gait, you've clearly earned a skill already, keep earning XP by clawing other zombies or better yet, kick down some 'cades and kill a survivor. It's not a perfect system, but it might work a lot better than what we have. I'd be willing to haggle over the length of time a player can sit at 0 XP without losing a skill, but it shouldn't be all that long.--Necrofeelinya 10:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC) And in this example you'll be seeing two of my characters, DY and Cloister. Let's make clear that neither has been idled for prolonged periods of time causing the other to have an advantage on XP gain/retention under this suggestion. DY has 40 levels and 999XP, amounting to 5299XP earned in the game (if my tired brain can add up correctly), compared to Cloister and his 21 levels and 6700XP, amounting to 8800XP earned in the game. Now Cloister has three and a half thousand more XP than DY, quite acceptable if you want to point out that Cloister participate for most of the Mall Tour, quite unacceptable if you realise that Cloister was created in October 2008 and DY was created in December 2007. DY has nearly a full year game time on his clock and is still down by so much. Why? Their activities. Cloister ferals his way, most of his action involve cracking weak buildings (for XP), killing (for XP) and ransacking (for XP), DY barricades (not for XP) and repairs (not for XP). Asking for more skills is old news? So instead you want to make valid and altruistic play styles obsolete by punishing survivors that don't kill zombies on the street and zombies that block RPs and hold doors open? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC) It doesn't invalidate those play styles, it just makes characters put out enough effort to maintain XP levels adequate to sustain the levels they need to keep the skills they want. By the way, would you perhaps like to also calculate how long it would take for each of those characters to lose their first skill under this system? I'm not sure my tired brain can manage it, but I'm pretty sure it'd be nearly 2 years for the one with the least XP. And that's if he doesn't accumulate a single XP in all that time. Which just serves to point out that if you want to avoid losing skills and go a long while without earning XP, you can just buff your current XP first. Pretty simple, really.--Necrofeelinya 10:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Wow! This is the best idea ever - If you are into trenching outdoor Zombies. Let me put it this way, I have 2 alts who do nothing but barricade their AP each day. If I'm lucky I get to repair a building for 2 or 3 AP, but otherwise I havent gained any real XP with them in months. Are you saying they arent useful? If you play a survivor you are benefiting from mine and other peoples cade work. I fail to see why I should be penalized for not shooting a zombie outdoors with a shotgun every day. Pfft. I'm down for new skills if they make sense. Penalties for not continuing to farm xp, no thank you. --YoEleven 10:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Well ideally, I'd like to see a system where if all you do is 'cade all day, you lose or diminish all your other skills for not using them, but I wanted to keep it simple. I think the XP system should reflect the activities you spend your time actually performing in-game, just as in real life our skills reflect the things we engage in on a regular basis. But hey, if everyone's happy with the current system (which I think it's been made abundantly clear a million times that countless people aren't), then to heck with it.--Necrofeelinya 10:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Ok, I can respect that upkeep of skills could be based upon how you play the game. God knows 75% of the skills are quite useless depending on how a person plays. However I can't see anybody going for simple subtraction of XP or skills without in turn receiving a bonus for the skills they are regularly using. Not to mention it would be a whole different suggestion if you were to word it like that. AND!!! What about Jenny farmers? How would they fit into things? --YoEleven 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) This inordinately punishes people that just earned skills. Some poor guy gets his 101XP together, buys his skill, and logs back on the next day to find that he has 39 XP and no skill. If you think about it, he could be losing XP at 2-4x the rate that a veteran player would, because he'd lose 50XP each time that happened, vs. the 12 that a vet would lose over 24 hours. That's hardly right. In general though, it doesn't matter what rate you choose for the loss, since this idea simply makes the game less fun for players by punishing them unnecessarily. You punish players if you want to discourage certain behaviors. In this case, the behavior you're punishing is playing the game itself, and you're especially punishing certain play styles that are enjoyable, productive, and conducive to good gameplay. Again, that's hardly right. —Aichon— 11:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Bad idea, it punishes survivors for playing in the most effective possible way (cading/repairing/powering). And don't nobody start wittering about XP as e-penis. I like mine, unapologetically. It's girthy. Garum 12:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This would seriously kill new players. WHYYY? I get that you want to make xp mean something after level 43, but stomping all over new chaps' progression (particularly new zombies; the zombie XP path is painfully slow) is something that the whole game dislikes. See: the old Headshot, which took away XP. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC) What if it took affect after level 43? Cookies and Cream 10:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Well the main argument that there is "nothing to do" or "no challenge" when you max out depends on who you are. Maybe the author's maxed out characters are boring. But not everyone's is. When your leveling, for a lot of players "gaining XP" is the end-all-be-all of playing. But when your maxed? That is when you can roleplay, for example. You can focus on more than just "gaining XP".--Pesatyel 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC) This is retarded. You want to make XP "mean something" then WHY would you do the opposite? As Karloth said, all this does is hurt players that haven't maxed out. The end result is to "force" players to "earn xp" every 2 hours or lose it. MOST players play at the same time every day. It would suck ass to log in at the same time I play every day and learn I've lost 12 XP and, quite possibly a skill. You must not have been around when Headshot took away XP.--Pesatyel 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "This is retarded". Is that constructive? Come on.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:32 5 January 2010(UTC) Did you bother to read past the first sentence?--Pesatyel 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Well that's sort of the point, Pesatyel. When you lead off with "This is retarded", you are shutting down constructive collaboration with unnecessary negativity that does nothing to encourage discussion, but is only off-putting. Your comments work much better if "This is retarded" is removed.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:33 7 January 2010(UTC) Good point. I'll keep that in mind.--Pesatyel 04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC) New Revive Rules Part III: The Revive Warriors Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 23:06 30 December 2009(UTC) Type: Improvement Scope: Revives Description: Now using a Syringe is treated the same as any other weapon. It costs 1 AP, but only has a 10% chance to “hit“. Any “miss” with a Syringe has a 10% chance to have the Syringe break during the struggle, effectively losing the Syringe for no effect. This is because sticking a Zombie with a Syringe should be like a combat action. Zombies don’t wait passively in line to peacefully accept being jabbed. It should be a struggle. However, now a Revived Zombie automatically spends 25 XP in order to Stand as a Survivor. If the character does not have 25 XP, they get a message: "You are permanently dead." Headshot Zombies must spend 25 XP to Stand. If the character does not have 25 XP, they get a message: "You are permanently dead." Headshot no longer causes you to spend extra AP to Stand. Some players will cry because they want to keep their extra XP in order to grow their E-penis. So, now there will be a new section on your profile that shows all XP you have ever earned underneath the XP you have available to spend. Discussion (New Revive Rules Part III: The Revive Warriors) Yeah, totally, perma-death is the way to do this. Same as below. Spam. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Perma death would rule.-- | T | BALLS! | 23:25 30 December 2009(UTC) 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Second. Again. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Attention Please do not feed the Trolls Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) See my E-Penis argument below.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 00:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry ZL,Permanent death DOESNT rule.Also,the only ones that may enjoy this will be the griefers.--Kralion 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Monroeville had permanent zombification, which caused it to go extinct. Perma-death would be much, much worse. --AORDMOPRI ! T 01:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC) ...I see, so now the game would be ruled by the people with 3 year old characters who can die in excess of 1000 times before even coming close to running out of XP? This screws. It does not screw any group in particular it just gives them all a general screw. -Devorac 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Easy fix: Total Reset.-- | T | BALLS! | 03:01 31 December 2009(UTC) You are hullarious and ZANY!!!! --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 03:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This game and its Wiki does lack...Zazz.-- | T | BALLS! | 03:25 31 December 2009(UTC) Sod that. It lack Zsasz. 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Nonsense. It actually lacks File:Zasz.gif --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Seconded. The Hive demands compliance!-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) What the hell is that? Cookies and Cream 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC) A Cerebrate from StarCraft. Greatest game evar.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I don't know... Starcraft two is looking pretty core. :P -Devorac 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I'd vote for the chance of needle breakage if you also then improve search rates. As for the 1AP/10% chance, well that just causes mroe IP hits so I'm not a big fan. I think you're on to something though. --YoEleven 10:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC) not that i'm advocating the idea, but my two cents is that you would have to update syringes to "a pack of revivification needles" much like a pistol clip. put 5, in a pack (per say), with a 25% hit rate.... maybe. I just spent 50 AP to find 3 needles, so 25% to hit and acrually revive a zed, or fallen comrade would almost completely nerf NT's at all. the idea's still incomplete --Jack S13 T! PC 16:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, that and effing with XP is utter nonsense Jack S13 T! PC 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I maxed out a while back, and I still enjoy ripping into humans, be it with my axe or my claws..btw how to I get claws right after I die? Cookies and Cream 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Because this is Retarded Dead, where Zombies don't bite, they scratch.-- | T | BALLS! | 16:35 31 December 2009(UTC) Why is this a combination suggestion? Seems like the syringes idea should be broken off from the XP idea since they don't seem necessary for each other. And given that you're changing a core game mechanic, seeing some math behind the AP numbers for syringes would be a good idea as well, that way we'd at least have a grasp for how much of a difference it'd make. —Aichon— 04:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Penalizing newbies (those MOST LIKELY TO NOT HAVE 25 XP) is retarded. Changing the syringe into a weapon isn't too bad. I think the chance to hit should be based on the HP of the target. a full HP zombie is 10%. A 1 HP zombies would be like 50%.--Pesatyel 05:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Again with the retarded. Oh well, but the whole HP slant is...retarded. :D-- | T | BALLS! | 07:34 5 January 2010(UTC) So your saying you don't think hurting newbies is bad. Gotcha.--Pesatyel 03:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC) No, you are saying that.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:34 7 January 2010(UTC) Travel Light, Stab Fast Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Type: Improvement Scope: Knives Description: The Knife Combat skill has little purpose, since maxed out knives are suboptimal compared to maxed out axes. This suggests an idea to improve them slightly, and add flavor to the game. ROLEPLAY REASONING: When a survivor is lightly encumbered they are able to move swiftly, and use a light weapon like a knife more effectively. Swinging a big heavy axe is always a good idea. Lunging with a knife is harder when carrying a bunch of generators. EFFECT: When a survivor is at 30% encumbrance or lower, the Knife Combat skill's benefit is increased from +15% to +25% to knife accuracy, bringing maximum accuracy to 60%. This is actually equivalent to the axe in average damage but has less variance. An axe's greater damage and lower accuracy means it could potentially deal far more or far less damage with the same AP, making the knife a safer bet if not necessarily a better or worse choice. I like this idea because it would give the knife and the knife skill a purpose, rather than leaving it on the skill tree like a vestigial tail. More importantly, I like anything that provides players with a choice of tactical trade offs. People could decide whether they prefer having a more predictable output of damage, or whether having a stockpile of ammo, faks, and generators is preferable. Your thoughts about the skill, and whether the numbers are appropriate (+10% at 30 encumbrance) are welcome. I picked +10% to match, not surpass the axe's average damage, and 30% seemed low enough to require some sacrifice but not low enough to be a terrible constraint either. Discussion (Travel Light, Stab Fast) WARNING This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 12 at 05:22 (UTC) I like the idea of situational accuracy, but I'd make it +5% accuracy. Knives are best for property destruction, so overall damage doesn't matter when you can take out generators, radio transmitters, etc, so much easier. 55% accuracy for successful attacks on objects is pretty damn funky. 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I too like the idea, but it is rather overpowered. I have a character who hunts down injured survivors, and all he has is a knife. I pick up about a kill a day with it. This would only overpower him and make it easier for him to work. The 50% as is, is very decent all things considered, so I suggest you accept that it is 50% chance of striking and leave it at that. --    Timmah!     Talk   17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I think it's an interesting idea, but don't see much point. As Mis said, Knives are already best for property damage, due to their high accuracy. Further increasing it would buff GKers/RKers (whether that's a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion). And the only ones who will likely reap the benefits are PKers and trenchies, since normal survivors would restock on ammo before getting that low or would be carrying a Toolbox, either of which would bump them over 30% easily. Just don't see the point. —Aichon— 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC) You are mistaking encumbrance for weight and bulk carried, and thus ease of combat. Encumbrance =/= realism. For example, you take two generators strapped to your back and a knife (42% encumbrance IIRC) and I'll take 49 syringes in a backpack and a knife (100% encumbrance) and we'll have ourselves a duel. Who'll win? Me. By a long way. Encumbrance exists to limit certain in game items, not to represent reality and therefore combat potential. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Iscariot makes a valid point of the logical fallacy that people make in many games, mistaking encumbrance for bulk. I will add the point that of all players, I think the ones that will benefit the most from this will actually be PKers (as The Colonel hinted at). Once a PKer uses up all his/her ammo (and a large amount of encumbrance), they usually just have either an axe or a knife left. If they drop any excess empty weapons *coughSHOTGUNScough* they can easily hit below that 30% and get a nice bonus giving them a reliable way to finish a kill. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Maverick is on the money. I have a dedicated PK're character, and the knife is my best friend for finishing kills. not only when i'm out of ammo, but also to save it for the next poor bastard i pick out of a crowd. Give me 55% to hit, and my axe pretty much becomes dead weight. I think for the sake of balance, the accuracy is fine. But I see the fundimental point of the idea, it's maybe just not applicable to Urban Dead. At least not in this way. ---Jack S13 T! PC 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) In this case, I think encumbrance DOES equal realism. Encumbrance, bulk and weight are all simplified under "encumbrance". I also notice your ignoring the point he made about your encumbrance must be 30% or below so the example doesn't even work. I WILL grant you that a person carrying a single generator and knife fighting someone carrying 10 syringes and a knife would be more likely to lose, but as I said, encumbrance, bulk and weight are VERY simplified in the game. I mean why does a painting or statue have only encumbrance of 20%? Those things tend to be quite bulky and hard to move on your own.--Pesatyel 05:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Even at 55% hit the knife is still slightly worse than the axe in terms of damage/AP. I'm not keeping my encumberance below 30% just so I can have a weapon that is as good as or slightly worse (or even slightly better) than the best melee weapon in the vast majority of cases. As a PKer I would keep my axe for emergencies and try to keep enough ammo in reserve that I rarely ever had to use it. Who does this help? GKers? Even if it gave the knife 65% hit rate it would still be unused by most players. An easy way around the problem of uber property destruction would be to cap all melee hit rates against generators and transmitters at 50%; though as I mentioned above, while not flawed as such, this suggestion has a very limited scope. --Anotherpongo 09:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC) New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea) Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 03:56 22 December 2009(BST) Type: Improvement Scope: Encumbrance/Search Rates Description: Ok, now the Encumbrance of all Items is doubled. But, now all search rates are doubled as well. (or tripled, whatever works better) This way you can carry less Items and it’s less retarded with the whole carrying 5 Portables Generators at once BS, but at the same time you can cycle through Items quicker so basically you have to use em up a lot faster. In a siege this could help Survivors in special areas (getting more FAKs out in Hospitals making them much cooler, same with PD’s etc.) But you would no longer be a walking fuckin Warehouse. Discussion (New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea)) What if I like carrying 20 or so shotguns underneath my trenchcoat? Now I won't be able to carry them and be hardcore zombie killer who shoots people outside buildings. I will have to rely on overcading like I normally do to keep zombies out because you nerfed my encumberance. Truthfully...I don't like it, as a Death cultist, I like to take a day or two to stock up on ammo, and once I'm out, I jump and eat people. This would limit the number of kills I can make my limiting my guns and ammo that I can carry, I understand I can find more, but carry less. Without the ability to carry, I don't like it. --    Timmah!     Talk   04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Just double the max AP possible while you're at it. I mean, if we double/triple everything, it won't fuck with the intended way the game is supposed to be played, right? It'll just make things more epic? --         04:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Hate to break it to you, but I think we're way past "intended way the game is supposed to be played". Do you honestly take that seriously? Besides, doubling the AP would just be stupid.-- | T | BALLS! | 04:43 22 December 2009(BST) Yeah, doubling AP is stupid, it's not like Nexus War did it for years.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Better to just make the 50 AP we have more effective. It would increase the "fun factor" if half your actions (or more) didn't turn out to be completely wasted and would not double the server load.-- | T | BALLS! | 16:42 22 December 2009(BST) As is simply doubling other random aspects of the game. If you actually thought the game was as broken as you claim it is; you'd go to further lengths when suggesting balance/gameplay improvements, methinks. --         04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) It's obviously just a basic idea, open for discussion. The core being making things easier to find, but being able to carry less of them. The rest is open to development.-- | T | BALLS! | 04:59 22 December 2009(BST) Well, I think it would make short-term seige gameplay much more engaging for survivors, but at the same time, well, seiges aren't what they used to be (ie. decent or long-term) since Kevan introduced Cadeblocking, so I dunno. At first I thought it would also make it a lot more difficult for survivors to pick back up after a big trouncing, but doubling search rates would also mean that the search rates would be so good that lighting buildings wouldn't be necessary so they could recover without needing a fuel and genny. Hmm. Interesting proposal. --         05:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Hmm yes, depending on how high the search rates went it could make PG's less needed for rebuilding, which I had not really considered. It makes sense though, a ruined building should not be THAT large an impediment to searches. I'd think the presence of Zombies probably should, but that's for another suggestion. I was more thinking that if PG's weighed 40% or so then you'd want to set them up somewhere ASAP instead of lugging them all over, and I like the idea of empowering the special qualities of specific buildings (Hospitals, PD's etc.) Malls search rates might need to be lowered slightly to keep them form being the Fortress of Doom and make their bonus the luxury of variety vs amazing search rates, which might lead to less Mall-centric play.-- | T | BALLS! | 05:20 22 December 2009(BST) Not a fan. However, to note something, what happens to the people who are already over the encumbrance rate if this gets implemented? E.g. My Encumbrance is 87%. This happens. Effectively, I could now only hold < 50%. Do I keep all of the junk I had before? But, as I said, still not a fan. Doubling/Halving is way too much to even consider.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) You probably get to keep your junk until you use it up.-- | T | BALLS! | 00:08 23 December 2009(UTC) I don't like this. Makes it too difficult for zombies that don't spend much time alive to go off like bombs when they get combat revived. Before the "Get Brain Rot and STFU!" types chime in, I should point out I mainly mean rotters. They do get CRed (in fact my last two CRs were suffered by this guy, and unlike death cultists or the less committed, if they want to punish the CR with gunplay they've got to stock up a lot in advance because while it happens, it's not very often, and they need to move quick before they get PKed just for having the rot. --Mold 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) But what if I WANT to be a walking Warehouse? Some of us enjoy the hilarity of holding what could be tons of stuff and still being able to even move. Cookies and Cream 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Obviously, some of you are complete pussies.-- | T | BALLS! | 17:12 26 December 2009(UTC) this final statement makes me feel that the best approach would be to completly disregard any, if not all future comments from zombie lord. Congrats ZL, congrats. --Jack S13 T! PC 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) He isn't all that bad once you get used to him, and if you reclassify all insults as banter.-Devorac 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Sorakunt was just being a asshole anyway. Hardy har, he "enjoys the hilarity of being a walking warehouse." Gimme a break.-- | T | BALLS! | 21:56 30 December 2009(UTC) K.I.S.S. It seems to me you tend to complicate things too much. If your argument is realism, as in, it isn't realistic for an individual to carry multiple generators (to use one example), why not just make a suggestion saying you can only carry one or something?--Pesatyel 05:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Too complicated, huh. Probably, but I don't like those "band-aid fixes" though. Better to try and create a system that everything just works within instead of those "situational" fixes. That's just me.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:36 5 January 2010(UTC) Well maybe not. My bad. How about just suggesting changing the encumbrance of some items? Just increase the generator encumbrance to 40%, for example. And how is making it so that you can only carry one a "band aid fix"?--Pesatyel 03:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I have suggested that before (the 40% idea). The band-aid thing is making some random declaration, without considering how to give it some internal logic within the entirety of the system. It's just that in my experience the Band-Aid approach leads to the "Unstoppable Force vs. the Immovable Object" paradox that plagues all badly designed games when it is taken too far. Best to just avoid it.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:39 7 January 2010(UTC) Suggestions up for voting Killing Blow Flavour Text Discussion moved to Suggestion talk:20100107 Killing Blow Flavour Text.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)