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

Blood Splatters for Attackers

Timestamp: Enigma179 13:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Flavour/Gameplay (if you care about getting blood on your suit)

Scope: Survivors and Zombies

Description: Simply enough, nowadays if you get shot or clawed or whatever your clothes get covered with super-stylish bloodstains, and you may crack your shades... why not give those bloodstains (no cracked shades, no-one's blood pressure is THAT high...) to the bastard who shot/stabbed/axed/set-you-on-fire/clawed you? Works exactly the same as current clothing damage system except that it applies to the guy who did the attacking too, and he can't get "tattered" "cracked" etc. descriptions from it. I mean, it makes perfect sense, giving someone a faceful of buckshot will get some blood on ya... not to mention axeing (is that a word?) him... Oh yeah, and please tell me if there's a dupe you've seen, because I'm still rather new, and this seemed too obvious to NOT have occured before...

Discussion (Blood Splatters for Attackers)

I think that'd work out.. probably better if the description included wether the stains were from attacking or being attacked, if you attacked more than you have been attacked, it reads: "a blood-smeared pair of glasses, a torn and blood-flecked black short-sleeved shirt, a black jacket, a bloodstained pair of black trousers and a blood-flecked pair of black boots from attacking zombies" otherwise, if you have been attacked more than you have attacked, "a blood-smeared pair of glasses, a torn and blood-flecked black short-sleeved shirt, a black jacket, a bloodstained pair of black trousers and a blood-flecked pair of black boots" would make sense.. star 14:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally thought of this a while back but forgot to suggest it. IIRC, as far as people can tell this is already how blood stains work for zombies. And, actually, memory from my Monroevillain, I'm pretty sure killing people can make your clothes bloodstained. If not, then I strongly support this or something like it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

agreed (in addtion to what I added ;) )star 15:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I like this. I don't think it's necessary to add the source, though, just the stains themselves. 18:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I enter a mall. I shoot someone across the food court at the limit of my effective range. How much blood is going to fly 25 feet through the air and land on me again? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Big deal. Just make it apply to melee weapons.--Pesatyel 00:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I enter a mall. I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat. Anatomy 101, how much blood splatter does a fractured skull cause? How much will end up on me? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Given you are filthy PKer scum I would guess that you smear it all over when you are done with your killing spree :) --Honestmistake 01:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can apologise for that. I don't run a single PKer. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone bashes me on the head with said baseball bat, how the hell did I get blood on my shoes? If I'm wearing a sweater and someone shoots my knees, how the hell did my t-shirt get all bloody? You can't argue realistic blood splatters under the current system. And if you hit someone on the head with a baseball bat hard enough, and enough times (as you would need to get more then one home run to score, if you know what I mean) they will have some very large cuts on their head, from which at least some blood will get on you. Same with pretty much every blunt attack weapon in the game. Hell, they might have gotten a splinter from it and that got on ya... And for ranged weapons, it's more fun to give them a birdshot sandwich at close range when you can see their reaction... and what if they ran towards you for some obscure reason? Enigma179 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You got blood on your shoes from the loss of muscle control when you died, your bladder emptied taking the blood in your urine from your internal injuries to your feet and shoes. I don't have to argue blood splatter under the current system, all I have to do is point out the false logic in this suggestion which is the advocated change for the game. The fact I can kill someone with blunt force trauma to the abdomen causing massive internal bleeding but no external blood at all demonstrates the rather large hole in this idea. That's before we get into the notion of 'splatter', the venous system doesn't 'spurt' blood, and precise or lucky strikes or cuts can easily result in death with no trauma to the arterial system or with enough inertial force to cause the spray of bodily parts or fluids. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As technically awesome as your shoe description sounds, I don't think many people think of that as a reason for their shoes being bloody upon being hit with a baseball bat. I think that most people would have the first impression of "Oh this guy obviously was whacked in the kneecaps one too many times". Yes, blood does not splatter, and if it does, it does so because of the physics behind bullets 'n things, but this is a ZOMBIE game, you must remember. I know that the rules say that you can't have unreasonable out-of-genre or fantasy suggestions, but in a virtual world where zombies have taken over (or not, seeing as survivors always outnumber them), who cares about the physics of the circulatory system? Enigma179 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people think that their soul will go and live forever with a man who was nailed to a tree, doesn't make it so. Just because people don't immediately think of reality doesn't make it go away. But to quote you, in a virtual world where zombies have taken over, who cares about where the blood from an attack goes? See how mine is just as valid as yours but means Kevan has to code less? Also, you said this: "why not give those bloodstains (no cracked shades, no-one's blood pressure is THAT high...) to the bastard who shot/stabbed/axed/set-you-on-fire/clawed you?" Why not? Well, because it seems like some pathetic attempt at a karma system where 'good' 'upstanding' people who don't kill others are nice and clean and 'bad' 'evil' people who kill others are dirty and messy. In short, this strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to make PKers change their outfits more often because you don't like being killed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, but it shouldnt just apply to PK's, as anyone that attacks anything will be covered in blood from its victim, wether you attack other survivors or zombies, the real culprits will be people who attack NOTHING, with their clean clothes and their...their ironed clothes, and gelled hair and, stupid neat things D:<. Thinking back to shaun of the dead, very little blood was actually recoiled back onto him. --star 09:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Iscariot, PKers can do whatever they like. I don't care... of course, I care a bit when my dedicated survival character dies and I have to go and get revived, but I'm not a trenchie, I don't hunt them down and KOS... in fact for the most part they can kill all they like. I don't post suggestions to penalize their AP or XP or whatever for killing fellow humans. And your karma idea, to be quite frank, is utter bullshit. One can easily get out of bloodied clothes by going into a hotel, just one of many low profile hideouts for PKers. And most PKers I've seen don't give a crap about how much blood they've got on them. Hell, with this implemented it could be a kind of badge of honour. Not to mention that one can get their clothes just as badly bloodied up by being shot at. If I were suggesting a karma blood splatter, I would also propose removing blood from people who got shot at. So take your head out of your ass and stop making assumptions. Please. And yes, you would get just as much blood from attacking those on the opposing side.Enigma179 10:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Pepper Spray

Timestamp: star 11:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Weapon

Scope: Survivors and Zombies

Description: A can of pepper spray that is used automatically (up for discussion) upon being attacked, reduces the attackers hit percentage by, for example, 50% of thier current hit percentage. Say if you attacked a zombie or survivor, if the victim carried the pepper spray it would automatically spray you, reducing your hit percentage by 50%, so if you had a 60% hit rate, subtract 50% of that, the hit rate is now 30%.. This wears off after, I'd say the user has used up 5AP. Hit percentage is retured to normal. Pepper spray can only be used once (maybe more, but once per character that attacks you?). Found in police stations. If a zombie has memories of life, they can also use any pepper spray they have on them.

Discussion (Pepper Spray)

A lot of huge problems. 50% is WAY too much. No Auto-Attacks. Career zombies, while being able to use them, won't even be able to find them easily enough for it to be useful. The idea is way too imbalanced in its current state. --

 

 

 

 

11:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Heheh, I immediately thought of pepper spray the moment I finished suggesting my spraypaints. I think it's a fine idea, but to make auto-attack is a big no-no. I think that pepper spray, converted instead to a usable weapon with low hit rate (to prevent from easy griefing) and the effect that you stated, would be possible. --Acidifiers 12:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Used to stop people running away it might have merit.... It would also be a tool exclusively useful for PKers making it a bit taboo. Oh, and zombies are dead.... why would it do much of anything to them?

Ooh, Ooh I know.... sprayed on harmanz it makes em taste nicer thus giving the zombie +20% to bite :) --Honestmistake 12:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

barbagah harmanz!!! zhaz zb!nggah zam babbarh ahn ahm! nam nam NAM! --WanYao 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The only other thought I can put in is if after you spray a character, they get disorientated..if they were to click on a northern block, they have a chance of ending up at the block north-west instead, but I dont see any positive outcome for either character involved. star 14:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pepper spray works by irritating your body until it blinds itself. It's a weapon that works on human biology. How will this work on something that's dead? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably by a zombie using the same part of its brain that it uses to identify surrounding buildings and survivors? Dont get too technical in a world where jumping from a building makes you come back a zombie.star 04:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is reflex though, not a conscious action. While my course in zombie biology was marred by the teacher occasionally attacking and eating a few of us mid-lecture I do not believe that zombies are subject to the same reflexive actions as humans. Anyway, zombies being able to use pepper spray is just wrong. If a zombie can manage to whip around, close the 25-50 feet between a pistol wielding survivor and itself, then spray them in the eyes with a can of pepper spray they should be able to use a shotgun. Auto attacks are not necessarily a no-no simply by virtue of being auto attacks, there are actually auto-attack suggestions in peer reviewed. However, I do not want the people I'm killing to carry this stuff around and auto use it... Multi-abusers and text rapists especially. If it should exist at all,it should be an on use item. -Devorac 04:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What Dev said. Pepper spray (IMS) works on the soft tissues and mucous membranes of the eyes and nose causing your body to try and flush out the irritant. This is all pepper spray does. The side effect of this causing temporary blindness and difficulty breathing is all about your body's automatic systems reacting and has nothing to do with your brain or cognition. Pepper spray will work on someone who's brain dead but otherwise alive. Zombies (in this game at least) do not have anything approaching a standard biological make-up consistent with that of a normal human. We know this through the infection mechanic covered already in the game. Infection causes loss of HP over time to people who are alive as the infection spreads and damages their biological systems. Zombies don't lose HP because, as your character sidebar points out "You are dead". With no living tissue or the subsequent biological systems, infection cannot damage zombies. It is logical, therefore, to follow that other things that can only target living tissue systems (such as pepper spray) will not work also. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

my head hurts. anyway, if getting peppered is a reflex and not a conscious action, what stops it from affecting a zombie? Being dead and not having a conscious mind, no reflex is going to give an immobile brain the ability to power a infuctional body to go abroad and attack humans, on a different note, human flesh does not contain the proper vitamins and minerals for proper brain development. No fruits and vegetables are available in this game! So, anything is possible! --star 06:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and explain it in small words so that you can understand. Zombies, dead. Zombies no have immune systems, cardiopulmonary systems or sympathetic nervous systems, because dead. Without these systems to irritate and tear up (causing the blindness) shooting pepper spray at a zombie is like shooting it at a tree, it does nothing. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cardiopulmonary is NOT a small word... But he's right, just read the Zombie Survival Guide! Enigma179 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A tree is an interesting way to describe an active zombie, as tree's don't run violently around a city, biting humans to gain experience for skills (that's not human anatomy!). For a zombie to be a mobile being, it has to: Eat Stuff; It needs to eat stuff. Excluding a venus fly trap, life looks for food (actually, scratch that fly trap). To look for food, you need two basic things;

• Sight;
• Active Brain

The brain, being active and healthy enough to process the immense information it receives, plus whats required to identify every object (and it has to be every object, otherwise a zombie wouldn't know the difference between a survivor, another zombie, or a pink hand towel with a distinctive purple perpendicular stripe horizontal to an intentionally made incision down the center of the object), I'm sure is a brain active and healthy enough to know when a chemical irritant is applied to the facial eye area resulting in a reflex. Regardless, pepper spray (if you've ever seen it, is a thick foam, please don't counter with "no it's not") will still cover the eyes - like having your eyes shut, and pepper spray certainly isn't transparent - you will not be able to see with it over your face/bark/leaves.

If a zombie doesn't have to eat anything - as I am guessing you will also counter-argument with - until relatively decomposed, we probably just discovered the most efficient power in existence, as every power source (we can collect thousands and power turbine energy off their body heat, or throw them into a pool to generate waves for hydro turbines) needs fuel (This might sound irrelevant, but counters any argument from the "they dont have to have sight or a healthy brain because they dont have to eat").

That is why I believe pepper spray would be a popular and valuable item to possess in this game, what remains is a discussion on its distribution, actual effects and in what way it would best be suited as to provide a positive outcome in the correct situation, including how much, if at all, AP is required until it wears off. Thanks for the small words btw. --star 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What's that popular zombie skill tree called? Is it the Sight tree? No, that's not it....

Tree is an accurate analogy of a living creature but with no receptors for it to affect. As I've already said, the brain doesn't need to be active for pepper spray to work, it works on a biological process. Basic pathology shows us that these process are not present on dead people. A simple tree of logic now follows:

Zombies have altered biological processes to humans as demonstrated by the current infection mechanics. This cannot be disputed as it is a current game fact.

Pepper spray does not work on the deceased due to their lack of autonomic biological systems. This can be evidenced by any reagent applied at your local morgue.

Zombies are dead. This cannot be disputed as the game clearly says on the screen of every zombie player "You are dead".

How hard is it for you to follow? Pepper spray doesn't affect dead things, zombies are dead.

All this argument about "it's the most efficient form of fuel" is completely pointless, zombies don't need to eat, again as demonstrated by the game where they don't lose hit points except for damage. Everything else you're blathering about is equally as invalid as you fail the basic logic that this won't affect zombies. Not unless you change your suggestion to be "Magic Anti-Zombie Pepper Spray".

"That is why I believe pepper spray would be a popular and valuable item to possess in this game" On behalf of the 40% of the game that are zombies I'd like to tell you that we won't find this popular or valuable, which makes this entire suggestion a one sided survivor buff, which the basic logic as outlined shows us won't work on the zombies. You have proposed an anti-survivor weapon that only the living can get hold of. The only people who are going to find this item "popular and valuable" are death cultists and PKers. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that still leaves a majority of the players (the other 60%) finding this popular and valuable. You know what else 40% of the game that are zombies (Hey I'm part of that 40%) wouldn't find popular or valuable?

Well, every item.

Say I was a survivor, I walk down the road, see a zombie, pepper spray it, attack a few but decide to leave before it dies. Zombie logs in, gets sight (I'll use that term loosely) of another player, but it's accuracy is reduced therefore gives the zombies next victim (zombie or survivor that it attacks within, perhaps 10AP until the spray wears off) a chance of not getting killed before the attacker runs out of AP, being pepper sprayed and all. That is what I am proposing. Where do the PK'ers come in at all? The most abuse this can possibly get is a player (survivor/zombie) losing accuracy for a few turns.

You say "You have proposed an anti-survivor weapon that only the living can get hold of" That's right, the living have always been the only ones to get hold of anything, but how is it anti-survivor? Shotguns and pistols are as if not more anti-survivor than pepper spray.

I think I speak for alot when I say something other than a projectile should be able to disable a zombies ability at least PARTIALLY (as I've been suggesting). This doesnt stop a zombie or anyone from attacking, it doesnt stop a zombie or anyone from moving ~ It merely reduces accuracy of whoever it is used on. A bite on survivor will eventually kill them; Pepper spray to a zombie will impair its accuracy for the next few turns. It's a god damn nice add-on and you'll like it mister! Pepper spray only affects accuracy until it wears off after a few AP have been used up. It's simple-sticks. How the fuck have you been able to counter argue this so much? --hugs and kisses for the constructive debate, though!, star 10:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He was using big words to do with real life science (which is completely correct by the way) to show that in "Real Life" against dead people, pepper spray wouldn't do anything. Of course, that's a given, because they don't do much to start with. However, turn them into zombies and you get something... The only real problem I can see with Iscariot's argument is that zombies really push the limits of what "dead" means. I mean, the official and various (but similar) definitions of dead (cited:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dead) include such phrases as "inanimate", "no longer functioning"... obviously the zombies in Urban Dead aren't either of these, or it would make for quite a boring game, wouldn't it? So these zombies bend the rules of being dead in definition, why not physiology? However, in general I still agree that it shouldn't affect zombies. Enigma179 10:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's virtually harmless (to a degree of reducing accuracy for a few AP). To have a problem with what I'm suggesting and perceive it as such a threat like it is being perceived. Of all things! Perhaps it's time to add 'weapons' to the list of Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots - I honestly think this argument is suggesting exactly that :/ ~ If a weapon as weak as pepper spray cant pass peer approval, no weapon ever will (due to the "extreme advantages" it will give survivors). --star 10:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Say I was a survivor, I walk down the road, see a zombie, pepper spray it, attack a few but decide to leave before it dies. Zombie logs in, gets sight (I'll use that term loosely) of another player, but it's accuracy is reduced therefore gives the zombies next victim (zombie or survivor that it attacks within, perhaps 10AP until the spray wears off) a chance of not getting killed before the attacker runs out of AP, being pepper sprayed and all. That is what I am proposing.
If that is your idea of the default use, Enigma, than I'm going to spaminate it out of principle. What you describe is pointless grieving and on the same level of trenchies headshotting zombies in the streets. Peppering actually threatening zombies inside your safehouse is fine, dandy and something I'd expect to happen to me when I break in as a zambah, but to get grieved while I just sway in the streets is not.
Also, this item has an clear pro-survivor bias. Survivors can just do something sensible that doesn't require attack chances (i.e. searching and cading) until the spray wears off, while zambahs have solely attack options as sensible actions most of the time and thus are most likely hampered for all the turns. --Spiderzed 12:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Spraypainting People (and Zombahs!)

Timestamp: Acidifiers 09:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Equipment Change/Improvement

Scope: Survivors and Zombies, Interface, and Spray Cans

Description: While the majority of Urban Dead users rely on guns and sharp weapons for combat, every weapon-like item is usable as a weapon in game. But there are some that skim the list of what can and cannot be weapons, such as fuel cans and beer - not to mention newspapers. But there's another that isn't on the list, and I think is just as deserving as a fuel can, and quite a lot more deserving than the newspaper. That item would be the the spray can. In a nutshell, what I'm proposing is the addition of the spray can to the weapons drop-down menu. So, should you find yourself in possession of a spraycan and your creativity floundering, or you simply wish to preserve the graffiti that is already on the block, you now have the option to spraypaint other people. Whether you're just getting a kick out of turning someone's pants pink, or using the paint to mark out known PKers, GKers, and BKers; likewise, whether you add graffiti to the walls or jot directions to the nearest revive point; how you chose to spend your spraycans is up to you. You cover the zombie in spraypaint The effects of a spray can used on a person is obvious: Any part of you in the path of the spraypaint will receive a light dusting of paint, thus coloring the outer layer of whatever you happen to be wearing at the time. Unless, of course, you happen to be naked, in which case you now have a purple skin (don't worry, it wears off). So that while clothing could previously be blood soaked and blood smeared, torn, ripped, and covered in oil, we add paint sprays to the mix. For instance, one could be wearing. "a black balaclava dusted with white", or "a blood-stained white short-sleeved shirt with a streak of black paint". Painted skin would also be displayed under the "wearing" category (yellow paint on the face, green paint on the torso). Paint color is chosen at random. Wearing: a fireman's helmet with a dusting of white, a set of rosary beads, a blood-flecked dark blue jacket coated in red spraypaint, a blood-flecked dark brown coat with streaks white, a pair of pale yellow trousers and yellow spraypaint on the face. There are some exceptions. For instance, attacking the barricades or a generator will simply yield the message "That doesn't seem to work." Zombies who attempt to use the spray can will not be able to; they'll be met with a simple "You don't know how." The Nitty-Gritty: Spray cans have a 60% hit rate. Each can may be used twice before depleting. The levels of "colored-ness" go as follows: "...dusted in <color>" "...streaked with <color>" "...stained with <color>" Completely changes the color of the shirt. "A <color> shirt." Spraypaint has a 45% chance of painting the torso and pants, a 20% chance of painting the pants and shoes, and a 35% of painting the head and torso. New paint will simply cover over old paint. A limited about of paint colors, perhaps five. Discussion (Spraypainting People (and Zombahs!)) Sounds cool, but wait for some random wiki jackass to say 'ZOMG GAMEBREAKING SUGGESTION' and use some excuse that makes them sound like their mothers where on crack during pregnancy--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 10:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Hooray, positives! *wipes sweat off brow*. I'm still not sure about the percentages I put up.--Acidifiers 10:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Do you need a list? Well.. you got one... A new and unbalanced weapon. You wanna play with big guns? Try HALO 2. Or a bath house. Pointless griefing tool. You wanna teabag, join the Republican Party. Dupe. Not sure, but I'd presume it was rightly spaminated. --WanYao 11:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Quick, to the retaliation station! A weapon with less than half the damage of the flare gun, but only half a percentage chance greater of hitting. As stated, useful to mark others with neither harm nor inconvenience coming to those you spraypaint (unless, of course, you absolutely must change out of your paint stained clothing.) Checked, with utmost tedium, not a dupe. Now, WanYao, I'm off to sell your mother some more crack. --Acidifiers 11:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC) No you're not. You're more likely off to troll 4chan or something with the one other un-funny, overdone and totally cliched meme you saw someone use somewhere on the interet. --WanYao 12:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Paint in your eyes would hurt but would it really hurt as much as being shot with a .44 revolver? Given the choice i think a bit of paint in my face is going to be greatly preferable to a knife in the ribs so your 5 damage is waaaaaay to much. Oh, and spray painting people and zombies has definitely come up before... If there is no dupe it must have been here and not made it as far as voting but I would go searching again if you really want to take this further. --Honestmistake 12:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Hurt, not neccesarily, but I couldn't think up a better way to make up for "temporary blindness" besides higher damage. I did originally decide it to be 1 damage. Would that be better? Gunna go dupe checking. Also, Wan, what's 4chan? --Acidifiers 12:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 4chan is some lame internet meme i heard someone talk about once... meanwhile, you can rest assured that this idea has come up many times before, though perhaps it never made off talk:suggestions. this suggestion, however, is very similar. while this one also deals with tagging other character, albeit without inflicting any damage or negative effects in-game. --WanYao 12:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I think you just marked the suggestion above this one as a dupe. Your second link does have some merit though; however, their suggestions makes spray paint as a weapon that lowers hit rates and writes words on you. Would it help if I decreased the hit percentage? If users want to bother people by turning their pants pink, they're going to have to waste quite a few AP searching for Spray Cans. Or instead, should the spray can be a one use attack, with a high hit percentage? --Acidifiers 12:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC) No, that isn't the suggestion above. Also, the damage is far too high. If you want this suggestion to be redeemable, make it equivalent to the damage it would actually do.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC) The first link may not be an exact dupe but its mention has merit because it's a very similar idea with a very similar mechanic: a spray cannister which causes damage. The second link is also not a perfect dupe, but it's only the details which differ: inflicting damage vs. penalising to-hit %ages. But none of these arguments over semantics change the fact that your suggestion is an unbalanced, unnecessary new weapon and a griefing tool. --WanYao 12:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid penalizing hit was one of the main things people were complaining about when they voted Kill. Could you tell me why it's unbalanced? @Yonnua Koponen, see my response to Honestmistake. The spray can is mainly a fun item, as it is already for the majority. It's similar to the newspaper or the previously passed Suggestion:20090411 Music! Music! Music!. Perhaps someone should suggest the ability automatically exclude certain weapons from the drop-down list, if they wish to reduce clutter? --Acidifiers 13:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I say just randomly apply a random colour to their clothes, a similar system to blood splatter ie. "A red t-shirt with a dusting of black" to "A red t-shirt with a black spot" to "A red t-shirt covered with black stains" to "A black t-shirt". Chances of affecting various clothes would differ with same percentages as bloodstains. I don't think that it should do any damage personally, but that's just me. And it ain't griefing, otherwise shooting people and getting "blood on my suit!" would constitute griefing as well... and whacking people with newspapers goes right out... hell why would you shoot someone? Enigma179 13:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC) AWESOME. Though I'd say take out the damage; not because it's overpowered, just to make it a bit simpler. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Wan let you off light. This is stupid. Very stupid. Republican level stupid. It's also a multi-dupe. Go ahead and put it up for voting, right now. We'll all save our time arguing here when it dies quicker that way. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Goodness Gracious Iscariot, you only need state the rationality behind your opinion to turn a random insult into usable, valuable critique! I haven't learn't a thing about my suggestion; "It's stupid, very stupid, and very very stupid, and it's worthless garbage" tells me absolutely nothing! Iscariot, how exactly do you expect me to respond to that? Do you expect me to simply say "Yes, I'm so sorry for making this worthless garbage; I should never have tried"? The second you launch a friggin unprovoked attack like that, you launch people into self-defense. Why do you say, "Wan let you off light"? Are you to say that if someone does something you do not agree with, they deserve to be punished? You are not infallible. Why be blatantly derogatory, Iscariot, when you can simply say "This is what's not good. This is why. I suggest you delete this." And before you say anything, just place in the first few lines: "Spray Paint Can Attack is stupid because _______ . Please delete.", and fill in the blanks with evidence, not flames. --Acidifiers 08:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Spray Paint Can Attack is stupid and you know it, that's why you stealthily changed the suggestion without leaving the former proposal, rendering the comments already added looking nonsensical. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Tisk tisk, you don't follow me Iscariot! - "Spray Paint Can Attack is stupid because ______ . Please delete. " And, see, now that was advice! "When implementing improvements discussed in Talk, make a New (developing) Suggestion as opposed to editing the old one" I don't think it would be very stealthy of me to delete half my suggestion and expect nobody to notice. --Acidifiers 09:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Did you notice the 'make a new one' part of the thing you just quoted? You've tagged a new one onto the discussion of the old one. Perhaps you're unaware that altering text that makes responses to it look unfounded or nonsensical gets ruled vandalism on this wiki and has got people banned for impersonation. Now go put it all back so people coming to the party late can see the great stupidity of the original 'idea' you had. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Mutations Timestamp: Zombehman 14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Type: Zombie Feature Scope: Zombie Strategy flavoring Description: This idea is a way of giving the zombies a new way of working things. Essentially, this allows zombies to mutate into different forms. Before you kill this, let me elaborate. By mutating different attributes and forms, it allows zombie players a little customisation and strategy. For example, a muatation that makes the hands change to scythe-like claws. (not exactly that, just an example off the top of my head.) You could have the Mutation skill as a purchasable skill, and the more levels you buy, the more mutations you gain axcess to. They would be ballanced with detriments. For example, the scythes would do more damage then the hand attack would, but due to their larger size and weight, cost double the AP to use. Please note two things. One: I am somewhat new to Urban Dead. Two: This is but a concept. This could be reworked if it has a chance.--Zombehman 14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion (Mutations) You want to become Alex Mercer? -Devorac 02:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC) By gum, I would love me some zombie mutations. New chap! I think this is a fairly commonly suggested thing, but go on, you may invent new awesomeness. :D --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC) This is a scythe. You want these sticking out of the end of your fingers? Let's be clear, at the end of the fingers you currently have you want six feet of wood tipped with a steel blade? And you expect your fingers to ever move again? Not to mention that they wouldn't be mounted in a way to be effective at cutting. So what you want is nail extensions for zombies that do nothing but reduce their combat effectiveness? Inspired.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Okay this is a terrible idea... And scythes? You mean claws I assume? I am almost certain this has been sugested in the past. This would as above, probably hinder a zombies combat effectiveness. I would love to see something with huge talon like hands try to work a doorknob or rip barricades apart. -Alex1guy 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC) God forbid you have to go to the bathroom, or itch your nose... Still, this suggestion might have some merit after an overhaul... (I believe he meant scything talons, not scythes on his hands.) -Devorac 09:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I believe they know what he meant but prefer to be pedantic for their own amusement. As for saving this perhaps if such a mutation added 1 damage to claws at the expense of reducing their effectiveness at barricade attacks? TBH tho I think it is dead in the water as a concept ... just a bit too resident evil for my liking. --Honestmistake 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, scything talons was what I meant. You couldn't actually tack tool scythes to your fingers. I don't know, as I said, I'm new, and at least to me, the Zombie class seems a little bland. I'm probably wrong. Bite me. And as for the rest of you... shudda up. If you don't like it, say so, but don't be sarcastic. I will expand it more before I go anywhere with it. Oh, and for you people who can't read, the scything talons were just a slight example, not something that would actually work. It was just to explain how the system would work. Calm down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zombehman (talk • contribs) at an unknown time. I was attempting to be encouraging, to help new folks survive the horror that this page can sometimes be. Still, I would blatantly vote yes on giving zombies Freddy Krueger hands. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Look Zombehman, the people on this page will chew any moderately complex suggestion up. Then they will spit it out, jump up and down on it, burn it, then hand it back with a sarcastic remark... Often for no good reason. Endure it, and you can get a suggestion through, if you let it get to you though you'll just end up looking a fool. "Discussing is an exchange of knowledge, argument is an exchange of ignorance." Take this suggestion off the page, rework until you have a clear idea of what you want, then bring it back. Bringing it to the DS room and saying "Imma be having an idea, lookie!" is a bad move. Have your idea ready to roll and then bring it here to get flamed, that way you can see where people like what you have. -Devorac 06:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC) The problem with something like this is that a) Skills should be straight upgrades (brainrot is special) and b) You gotta remember that this is a game where zombies can turn themselves back into humans... so extensive mutation is pretty much out of the question. Enigma179 08:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Not necessarily. Previous discussions involving revive have focused on the fact that zombies could be described as shot and/or chopped to pieces. Yet when one is revived, they are "whole". I do agree though that accessive mutations would be out of the question, but then those would be mocked, laughed at and ridiculed. The problem with THIS suggestion is that it is too vague. He wants mutations (plural) yet barely describes one. How much damage do the claws do? It would have to be significant if ALL future claw attacks cost 2 AP to use.--Pesatyel 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Teenage Mutant Ninja Zambahz??? No, thank you. --WanYao 11:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Smoking Timestamp: Mishimagoodness 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Type: Item Scope: Roleplaying applications only Description: Very simple. Create a new item. People IRL smoke, and it is an activity (or a vice) enjoyed by many. If I was in a safehouse and zombies were at my door I would need a smoke too. This item has the same rules as beer, found in the same places and at the same rates. Heals 1HP for 1AP, does not cure infections. This would have ZERO effect to any players around the person using the item. Cigs cannot be used as a melee weapon. As with all items zombies cannot use them. If this is the wrong place to post developing suggestions please correct me.--Mishimagoodness 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion (Smoking) And why would this heal people? 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) So, you want an item with the exact effects of beer, found in the exact places as beer, with different flavour text. Sounds like you want wine.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Why would they heal you? If anything they should hurt you. --Johnny Yossarian 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC) To that I would say how does beer and wine heal you? The effects are not written in stone. I figure using up an AP no little benefit would be enough. --Mishimagoodness 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) We've had both cigarettes and cigars suggested before (and it sounds like cigarettes were suggested a few times even before then). Yours has different effects, yes, but they make no sense in-genre. If anything, it should damage you but calm your nerves. Unfortunately, we don't have NP (Nerve Points) in the game, so I don't see how you can make it work in a sensible fashion. —Aichon— 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I thought about something like that but the only thing in game that would be affected by nerves would be what, hit percentages? I don't think my suggestion should modify . I envision them merely as roleplaying aids. Some people have a crucifix even though they give no tangible benefit. I figured if beer should have an effect (let's face it. you may want a beer but it won't help you survive in a landscape swarming with zombies and murderers) then so should these. Would it be better if they took an AP to use but had no effect at all? I don't think any item which only wasted an AP and caused you to be harmed would have anybody carry one in the first place. Thank you for ideas and criticism.--Mishimagoodness 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You think to survivor-centrific. An item that causes oneself sufficient harm would be a handy thing for any death-cultist's arsenal. Free-run into the mall, gulp the purple kool-aid and get out the claws! (Of course, being of sole use to cultists would also make it highly unlikely that this passes voting.) --Spiderzed 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) If this is purely a RPing item as you say, the AP cost shouldn't matter. Don't let it heal or hurt. Just give the option to spend an AP that gives some sort of flavor text like Johnny Yossarian lights a cigarette. Smoke wafts through the air. --Johnny Yossarian 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Only if zombies get a new item: Blackened Lungs --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC) All this discussion is pointless. And not for the usual reasons of dupeness. It's pointless for the very simple reason that Kevan will never implement any form of smoking into the game. Ever. Smoking in the UK has been under a concerted campaign to make it morally illegal for quite some time now, anything that could be considered 'pro' smoking (such as adding smoking to your browser game that can be accessed by school children) is going to give the game a whole load of negative publicity (regardless of the fact that smoking is still legal to a very limited extent, makes the smoker look cooler than a non-smoker and does considerably less damage to people and society than the other major legal, and socially acceptable, drug) from a whole load of morons. Kevan isn't Jorm. He doesn't rely on his game winning respect for doing new things, for being ground breaking, he relies on the stack-em-high-sell-em-cheap approach to this game, namely traffic. It looks good on Kevan's resume that he coded a game in his spare time that's still running five years later and has over a million registered accounts and he's not going to put that golden piece of positive career spin in jeopardy because some of us want a new flavour item in it. End of discussion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC) It would look good on a resume! Cookies and Cream 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Hooray another pointless item to dilute search rates! Instead of finding a weapon or a med-kit! I find a pack of cigarettes! What do I do? I throw it away and block the item on my searh list because using precious AP blowing smoke at other survivors is a complete waste of time! --Alex1guy 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Uh... This wouldn't dilute weapon find rates, or FAK find rates. The only useful items this would dilute would reside in auto-shops, still I don't my fuel find rates diluted. -Devorac 09:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Smoking is bad. So no.--Thadeous Oakley 22:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC) If it's a purely RP thing then role play it. The game engine does not exist to play nanny to every person's unique role-playing fetish object. There are semi-professionals with whom you can "consult" for such things.... --WanYao 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Crippling Swipe Timestamp: MikeLemmer 21:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Type: Zombie Skill Scope: Zombie's Hand Attack Description: Crippling Swipe will be a new zombie skill under Rend Flesh. When a zombie with this skill hits a survivor with a Hand Attack, the survivor is Crippled: it now costs him 2 AP instead of 1 to move to another block (like zombies without Lurching Gait). Cripping can be cured by a FAK. One FAK can cure both Infection & Crippling. Anyone (survivor or zombie) with the Diagnosis skill can tell when a survivor is Crippled; their HP will show up as brown. If someone is Crippled & Infected and you can detect both of them, their HP will show up as black. The purpose of this is to let experienced zombies make it harder for survivors to flee a break-in, making it more likely they will stand there and get slaughtered or get caught in a bad locale with little AP. With Hand Attacks' higher accuracy & lower damage, it will also be easier to affect multiple survivors and harder for survivors to choose whether to spend a FAK curing it. (Do I spend a FAK to heal 2 HP & a Cripple on the off-chance he wants to leave this block?) Other modifications I'm debating adding include: 1. Crippled prevents survivors from Free Running until cured. (Might be too powerful, but the ability to temporarily nullify a vital survivor skill could make for interesting changes in strategy.) 2. Requires Surgery instead of Diagnosis to detect. (Increases Surgery's usefulness instead of Diagnosis's; the latter is already one of the Top 3 Survivor Skills in my opinion.) Discussion (Crippling Swipe) Nerfs walking. Also widens the class divide between poor zombies and rich zombies.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Class warfare! Peasants' revolt! 22:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC) TO THE PITCHFORKS --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC) It doesn't alter the survivor's ability to escape a break-in at all, movement allows you to go into negative AP, so you can escape even if you only have 1AP next door into that nice EHB building. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You must also consider that claw attacks compete with bite attacks, and confering special conditions is all bite attacks have going for them on high levels, as the average damage of maxed claws is way higher. (And even the infection effect is negligible, as infection with its slow damage and easy cureability isn't really threatening unless FAKs are very scarce in the area, in which case the area is anyway doomed. And don't bring up digestion - it's really more a gimmick that occassionally slows getting dumped by a single gunshot, than anything to go purposefully for.) --Spiderzed 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) If this hampered a wounded survivors chance of free-running (say 50% fail rate) then it would be interesting. Sadly it would also have trenchies screaming :( --Honestmistake 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Doesn't do jack to stop survivors from running. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Don't make it a Skill. Just make it so that any Survivor that is Wounded moves for 2 AP and has a 50% chance to fail a free-running attempt(falling to the ground outside), and any Survivor that is Dying moves for 3 and cannot free-run at all.-- | T | BALLS! | 04:04 14 February 2010(UTC) Usually when a survivor dies in a break in, it is because they were asleep when it happened, in addition most competent survivors have at least one FAK on hand at all times. The break in itself would probably not have too much more survivor death than before, but the crippled survivors could become easy street candy if free running was disabled, especially sine the surrounding area would likely be paranoid and caded up to EHB. However, without disabling free running, it would be fairly ineffective as a survivor would free run into a neighboring building (as has been said before, in sarcastic fashion) -- Uberursathis bear wants honey 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Suggestions up for voting Glancing Blow moved to Suggestion talk:20100218 Glancing Blow Suggestion:20100206 Ladders