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

Gloves

Timestamp: --10:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Jack Kolt Talk|Chars

Type: Clothing addition

Scope: humans, mostly.

Description: Post-quarantine, Malton seems like a cold place. Be it the ridiculous amounts of fog, 3 months of snow every couple years, or the fact that you have to augment your corpse to make it rot. well shouldn't survivors keep their hands warm? well now they can, with gloves. damage: blood flecked,stained,soaked/ripped,torn types: A pair of <color,> nylon gloves A pair of <color> leather gloves A pair of <color> gloves A pair of <color,special> mittens A pair of rubber gloves A pair of fingerless gloves A pair of latex gloves color tags: <color> pertains to the colors: White,Black,Gray,Brown. the "special" tag adds the colors: Blue,Red,Purple,Green,Yellow,Pink all the glove types can be found in malls, except for the normal and latex gloves, which can be found in hospitals

Discussion (Gloves)

This really belongs in Clothes/Suggestions Enigma^talk 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, before you submit that blindly over there, there's even a current suggestion about gloves: Clothes/Suggestions#Gloves --Spiderzed 12:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sawed-Off Shotguns

Timestamp: Enigmatalk 06:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Type: Weapon

Scope: Survivors

Description: First off, tell me if it's a dupe if you know please. Anyway, sawed-off shotguns are a lot like normal shotguns rules-wise. Take 1/5 of the shotguns you would find in police stations and arms (not armouries or anywhere else though), and replace them with sawed-off shotties. They're in PDs because they're illegal and confiscated, and they're in Arms because pubs aren't places of shining legality. Mall gun stores and armouries wouldn't stock up on the sawed-off variety, they are civilian made and improvised. In addition to this, a survivor with a toolbox and a normal shotgun could change the shotgun into a sawed-off shotgun for 1 AP and no XP, because I can assume toolboxes have hacksaws in them for cutting down the barrel. Now for the nitty-gritty. The sawed-off shotgun would have an encumbrance of 4% (same as pistol, 2 less then normal shotgun), and would operate off shells, holding two shells (dropdown list next to shells with loading into shotguns or sawed-off). This means that you could carry more sawed-off shotguns then normal ones. You would pay for this with accuracy. Starting accuracy is same as shotgun, but with all other skills, it is the shotgun accuracy minus 10% (so 20% with basic firearms, 45% with shotgun training, 55% with advanced shotgun training). This represents the shorter barrel being less accurate and reliable. This means that for 24% encumbrance, you could carry 6 sawed offs or 4 normal shotguns. You would do a total of 66 damage over 12 AP on non-flak jacket targets, or 52 damage over 8 AP with your normal shotguns. In this way, you would have a higher-variance, lower encumbrance weapon or a lower variance and higher encumbrance weapon. PROS Lower Encumbrance means less inventory space needed for your shotguns Greater carrying capacity means more damage per encumbrance. Higher variance (if you really care about stuff like that) Sawed-off shotguns are cool CONS Less Damage per AP Harder to find, or you require a toolbox and a shotgun to make one Takes more inventory space (but not really a problem)

Discussion (Sawed-Off Shotguns)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070919_Sawed-off_shotgun is not a dupe by the way, he had a completely different effect from this one. Enigma^talk 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just from the link you provided, I found three additional suggestions for sawed off shotguns. Whether the effects are the same is open to question, but the idea is by no means new. I gotta say, even if it's not a direct dupe, sawed off shotguns are a very tired idea at this point. —Aichon— 07:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

3 different sawed-offs and 3 different effects... I guess everyone interprets what a shorter barrel should mean differently. Just out of curiosity, if I put this up for real suggestion, would you vote dupe because of those? Enigma^talk 08:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Memories of Life - Necrotech recognition

Timestamp:  Adward  22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Type: Skill Tweak

Scope: Zombies with Memories of Life.

Description: When a zombie purchases Memories of Life, they will gain the ability to tell Necrotech buildings from ordinary buildings, as if they had purchased the Necrotech Employment skill. However, if revived, they still cannot use scanners, syringes, or any other Necrotech equipment until they have purchased the Scientist skills. Basically, zombies can now tell NT buildings from the street, but nothing else.-- Adward  22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (Memories of Life - Necrotech recognition)

I tried to get this through with the scent tree once. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference, from what I can see of the spam votes, is that it's not an entirely new skill.-- Adward  22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, though flavor-wise, it doesn't make sense, since it would imply that every zombie used to be able to identify NT buildings (i.e. they were all Scientists). If we dismiss the flavor concerns though, I tentatively like the idea. I believe in having the skill trees being largely self-contained, and this is one example where they're not. This suggestion would help that. —Aichon— 23:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Flavour could be something such as your zombie gaining knowledge of certain buildings, such as in Iscariots suggestion.-- Adward  22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't work though, since MoL's flavor is that the zombie is remembering things from when they were human, not learning new things. That was my concern about flavor. —Aichon— 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Aichon on this one, the flavor is messed up all to hell. (Why should reactivating a dead region of the Hippocampus give you access to memories you never had???) That aside I kind of like the idea... I just have this nagging feeling that there is a better way. -Devorac 23:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just make it a new skill off the MoL tree. As for flavor, you mean to tell me that, eventually, NecroTech is going to "higher/employ" everyone in the city?--Pesatyel 19:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would make it a dupe, and a skill that only gives the ability to see NT's is retarded.-- Adward  22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tie it to Memories by making it a vague description, not the precise marking of NT Employment. Something like "You are standing outside the Building Building. A chemical smell hangs in the air", or "You are standing outside the Building Building. A strange logo hangs over its doors". That way, the intelligence idea is preserved, but the concerns for flavour are addressed. The description, whatever is chosen for it, would only be added to NT buildings, so it does add a modicum of acumen to the zombie with Memories, but not as much as NT Employment would (the 3x3 map wouldn't be affected, for example). Kosher for everyone? 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This idea works (especially the "chemical smell", I think). It's a bit worse than the human skill, but gives the zombies a new, relatively low-value, aspect to MoL while preserving flavor. I'd get behind this idea. —Aichon— 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The chemical smell ties into the flavor perfectly, with that change this a definite keeper for me. -Devorac 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one quick thing, the door one wouldn't work out because from a flavour point of view, any survivor would notice that too, with or without being employed.

I'd keep with "Chemical smell" (seems quite plausible). But if that's the case, then this wouldn't go under Memories of Life. --Acidifiers 06:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Consistent Nonsense

Timestamp: RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Type: skill tweak

Scope: Anyone with ears.

Description: If I'm standing outside a building and someone inside emits a feeding groan, I receive a message "You hear a groaning from somewhere nearby." If I'm inside a building and a zombie also inside groans I get a message that says "You hear a groaning from somewhere nearby". If I'm standing outside a building and a zombie that is also outside groans I get the message "You hear a groaning from somewhere nearby". Simply put. If I'm standing Inside a building and someone feeding groans directly outside I want to receive a message that says "You hear a groaning from somewhere nearby. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (Consistent Nonsense)

Errm... is this really an issue? --Honestmistake 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not hugely game breaking, but simply a tweak. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I know its a simple tweak but is it really a worthwhile tweak? How often does someone groan outside while you are inside.... Don't get me wrong, I would probably vote keep but as is I just can't see it getting any actual usage. --Honestmistake 13:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just for consistency I think. I mean, how often would a zombie scream street treats instead of eating it itself before it got away? And if you're both inside, then uh... thanks captain obvious. The only one of the three examples that probably could be useful would be hearing one inside from out. Enigma^talk 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I get the consistency argument, but I think this is a matter of it being unnecessary. If you're in a siege and zombies are dragging folks outside, you hearing the groans of the zombies outside is entirely unnecessary and completely distracting (especially in malls). Same goes for street treats: groaning for them is counter-productive to the zombie cause, since you'd be pulling zombies away from actual targets. I think it's a simple matter of practicality that we don't hear them already. —Aichon— 17:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but say Im inside a dark building and someone drags another survivor outside, they can groan to let me finish the job for them. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd see a situation like that and would identify it as the prime example of why this suggestion is unnecessary. At least with the MOB, when we drag a survivor outside, we generally don't finish them since it's a waste of AP for us to do so. Ferals or zealots (members of MOB not in strike teams) will finish them off in a matter of minutes anyway. If they groan, that's just irresponsible of them, since groaning is supposed to lead to a source of food, and a single, almost-dead survivor is not a good source of food for a group of zombies. —Aichon— 18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No. But to a level one zombie a survivor on 12hp is XP gold. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Very true, but I just don't think it matters. Let's go through the scenarios.

• If a zombie is in a strike team, either they're not a lowbie or they're gonna get fed by the team (most hordes have this policy). Getting fed is better XP than an injured street treat (sustained 100+XP/day at times).
• If they're feral, then they're probably not inside the building anyway, but are instead following groans, so they'll kill the street treat on the way in.
• If we assume they are in the building already, then they have no way to tell the indoor groans from the outdoor, since the message you propose is the same as what's used for indoors currently.
  • Also, even if they did, they'd have no way of knowing if the street treat is still alive, since zombie anonymity would keep them from being able to tell if the zombie that dragged is back indoors.
  • Complicating matters further, due to zombie anonymity, the other zombies outside wouldn't know if there was a lowbie inside anyway, so they'd have no reason to groan in the first place.

I just don't see a scenario where a zombie would need it. All it would do is cause screen spam. Older zombies have no need for the XP, ferals kill these targets in mere minutes anyway, and lowbies can't be identified unless they're on your contacts list (i.e. in your group, basically), in which case they're already being tended to. —Aichon— 19:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell not? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not... Enigma^talk 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually following your suggestion, I'm guessing you were tired when you wrote it. Why don't we just have it as "Groaning nearby" is the location you are in when you receive the message and add a new qualifier to messages in the same block but elsewhere as regards the doors, "You hear a low groaning outside/inside"? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Picking Up Items

Timestamp: Acidifiers 12:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Gameplay, Survivors

Scope: Gamechanging, to a certain extent.

Description: Alright! Are you read-ey for this? Big long absurd groundbreaking gamebreaking suggestion. One of the biggest problems with suggesting any new items that aren't strictly necessary for gameplay is that, while they may be fun, they're all but useless. They decrease search rates for more valuable items, and for no good reason. Yet the current set of items seems a tad lacking in flavor, realism, and complexity. However, what if there's an item right in front of you? After all, do you really need to search a whole building to find the wine bottle that's on the table next to you? What I'm suggesting is a second way to get items. That is, in any given block, your character will have a certain chance of seeing an item. Thus taking note of where it is, for 1AP, said character will then have the choice to pick up an unimportant item with the use of a drop-down menu, without searching for it. "Pick up [such and such]". Theoretically, you should see something like this: You are inside Suchandsuch General Hospital, its emergency room in disarray. The building has been extremely heavily barricaded. Also here are Bob, Billybob, and Billybobjoebobsally. A portable generator has been set up here. It is running. One of the wards has been decorated with a conceptual painting. You notice a plastic bag, a stethoscope, a cardboard box, a first-aid kit, and a newspaper on the ground. Since your last turn: You notice Billybob drop a first aid kit. (8 hours and 9 minutes ago) Possible actions: Here, you would include a button, labeled "Pick up". After that is drop-down list including a plastic bag, stethoscope, cardboard box, first aid kit, and newspaper. What you can pick up changes as you move from block to block. Therefore, "minor" items cannot be found be searching, but you will always have a chance to pick them up. In this way, minor items can be implemented into the game without reducing search rates for the necessities. Much like clothing suggestions, minor, "take" items could be suggested frequently, with limited uses. These could be little roleplaying items, or items with a small use, but more necessary items will have to be found the usual way of searching. There may be a tiny, decimal-percent chance of finding a minor item while searching, or perhaps none at all, to avoid complexity. However, I still haven't addressed the "You notice BillyBob drop a first aid kit". If a user drops an item, there is a very minute chance that another person on the same block will see the item being dropped and be able to pick it up. The more people that are in the building, the more likely that at least one user will see the item being dropped, and the more likely it is to be picked up. The taller a building is, the larger the building is, and therefor the less likely it is for someone to see you drop an item from the other room. Likewise, you cannot pick up or notice items dropped in the dark. Seeing an item drop in a ruined building has a chance of yielding the message "You notice Billybob drop a first-aid kit, but you lose it in the rubble." If "drop giving" is to be done on purpose, it would have to be done in a small, lit, crowded building, and even then, there's no guarantee as to who will receive the item. So that in a very limited way, this would allow people to "give" items without the risk of zerg abuse. For instance, a user could now freerun into a crowded mall and drop FAKS for the group, thus allowing the inflow of supplies in a siege situation. If said user does not yet have the Diagnosis skill, he or she can give first-aid kits to those who do, rather than having to rely on shouts of "I need a FAK ASAP!", or simply trying to heal everyone in the mall. If it's simply that danger is eminent, but nobody is hurt as of yet, he or she can quickly supply everyone with a kit for their use later. The same for ammunition. If you don't want the item, you may pick it up and drop it someplace else, for somebody else to find. This change, plus the sudden influx of new items, should also yield a few new XP purchasable skills. A military skill, perhaps dubbed Instinct or Reflex Training, should allow you to notice item drops more easily. Athlete, a miscellaneous skill, should allow you to take better aim when using sports gear for weaponry. And the like. But of course, I don't want to forget the Percentages and other Technicalities. If you've got the gist of it, it's not necessary that you read on. But if you wish to critique, or are simply interested in, the details, then by all means: The base "notice rate" for most buildings would be 5%, with a 15% chance of losing an item in ruin rubble. Dropping an item outside has a notice rate of 9%; balanced out, I think, by the fact that a large gathering of survivors outside is very rare. In small churches, banks, junkyards, pubs/arms, railway stations, and auto shops, the rate would be 7%. In a tall building, hotel, or tower, notice rate is reduced to 3.5%. A noticed dropped item will be available for you to pick up as long as you are on the same block. Leaving a block and returning to it later, you will not be able to take that item. Should multiple people notice the same item, the rule of first come first serve applies. The latter user will receive the message "Billybobjoebobsally picked up the First-Aid Kit you noticed earlier", and it will not be included among the drop-down list of pick-up-able items. However, if one user picks up the item before the other user refreshes his or her screen, and the second user tries to take the item without knowing that user one had already taken it; then the "...picked up the First-Aid Kit you noticed earlier" appears on his or her screen, and the item is not taken. Dropped items can be noticed by zombies, but they will not be able to pick them up. That said, dropping an item with zombies around decreases the chance that a survivor will be able to take the item. Minor items you notice lying on the ground as you enter a building increase in number the more AP you spend within a single block, and return to the normal of 1 or 2 upon entering a new block. Within ruined buildings, you may notice bits of debris such as a brick, a broken wooden beam, (more rarely) an iron rod. Numerous books laying around should be seen within libraries; garbage cans and debris can be found within dumps. Each block type has it's own unique items, which I'd list a few, except that I don't want to add to the already ridiculous length of the suggestion. So, discussion? *crosses fingers*

Discussion (Picking Up Items)

While it does break the rules of "no trading" this does it in a way that zergers (the main problem with an idea like this) would find it inefficient to rely on... so I'd go for it. Enigma^talk 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're only considering individual zergs, I think. What about zerging groups that don't care so much which individual character gets the boost as long as the group gets some advantage? I'm not going to name names, but you know certain groups would suddenly open up new sections for "procurement officers" if this got in. --Mold 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. Realistic? Yes, but really bad for the game. --Papa Johnny 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But... but... it's totally unrealistic and fixes 3 of UD's inconveniences! You... I mean... you'll never accidentally find a newspaper again! Newbies will have small items to help them out! I... I mean... *looks around disheartened* And... new items! And zerg free group giving? :(

Right. Here are some things im not clear about.

• Can you see multiple dropped items from several players, or from the same player?

• If I'm in a room with 100 survivors, say an NT, will there be literally 100's of DNA extractors all over the floor?

• Would search rates be lowered to accomodate the items dropped by this system?

--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see dropped items from any player, as many times as possible. In a 100 survivor NT building (a tall building) the notice rate for each player would be 3.5%. So if everyone in the building dropped an DNA extractor, it'd be probable that everyone in the building will notice 3 to 4 DNA extractors beings dropped. It could be that search rates would have to be lowered for some items, depending on the details, but I doubt it.

I originally figured that if a group of alts holed up in a school building and began drop giving, they'd run their IP limit before they'd be able to take enough. You'd then have tons of characters with maybe 49 unused AP, AP that could have gone to searching a police station for a lot more than just one or two pistol clips/shotgun shells. Then, the only way you could purposefully give an item is in a coordinated movement of a group into a hideout with, as Mold called them, "procurement officers", nearby. I figured that would be a legitimate way of giving your group supplies; everyone starting off their day with some extra pistol clips. Now that I rethink it, it might be too reliable.

How about a 25% chance that your item drop isn't noticeable?. Perhaps there'd be a cap on how many of one item you can notice; perhaps you can only notice 1 of any item. High encumbrance items could be more likely to be noticed, and low encumbrance items less likely.

Originally, I'd started with very very low notice rates, as an anti-zerg measure, of (1%-7%), but then I thought that noticing a drop "accidentally" would be too rare. Maybe it wouldn't.

--Acidifiers 04:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Decreasing search rates for valuable items" is a poor excuse. Why? Think about the resource buildings. NTs (syringes), Hospitals (FAKs), Malls (nearly everything), PDs (guns/ammo), Firestations (fireaxe; at least until you get the mall skills), Autorepair (fuel), Factory (generator). According to the wiki, EVERYTHING but the syringe can be found at the mall. So how do you include new items without "decreasing search rates"? There ARE other buildings. Cathedrals, Churches, Mansions, Power Stations, Stadiums, The Zoo, Banks, Cinemas, Clubs, Hotels, Junkyards, Libraries, Museums, Pubs, Railway Stations, Schools, Towers, and Buildings. That is a whole 18 locations (21 if you include Street, Wasteland and Park) that aren't used for any "valuable items". New items could EASILY be accommodated at any of those locations. As for the suggestion itself, are you suggesting we can pick up "junk" items?-Pesatyel 04:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No no, I'm saying that it's silly to search for a brick. My opening refers to a common argument against implementing new items, one that I personally don't agree with, but figured others would. Apparently those people aren't here today. Yes, I am in fact suggesting we can pick up "junk" items, though as the saying goes, one mans trash is another mans treasure. To those who do not roleplay, roleplaying items will be useless, except the choice to take them will not depend on the RNG anymore. --Acidifiers 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Roleplay is lousy argument too. Why? because if I pick up "an umbrella", ONLY I CAN SEE IT. It takes up space in my inventory and provides NO value whatsoever in game terms. If I could give it to someone or display it ("Bob is standing here leaning on an umbrella") or something, then you might have something. But as it stands all that can happen, roleplay wise, is I can SAY I have an umbrella. That's it. Want a better example? We already have the crowbar, baseball bat, cricket bat, fencing foil, golf club, hockey stick, pool cue, ski pole and tennis racket. Those are all roleplay weapons (you could probably include the pipe since most people only use it for barricading, if at all) since the axe does more damage and the knife has a higher hit percentage. The only reason people use them now is because the "murder weapon" now shows when you kill someone. Otherwise nobody uses them.--Pesatyel 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Click on the item to use it.

Geez luise, you sound almost exactly like Iscariot! It is impossible to obtain a minor item unless you want to. Also, do you think that the minor uses for these items would be too insignificant? Is that why you think that the only use for them would be roleplaying, or are you just only addressing the example this time? And the last thing; you say that these items are useless and therefore should not be implemented, but at the same time you hold that they should be implemented as search-able items within "Cathedrals, Churches, Mansions, Power Stations, Stadiums, The Zoo, Banks, Cinemas, Clubs, Hotels, Junkyards, Libraries, Museums, Pubs, Railway Stations, Schools, Towers, and Buildings."? You're contradicting yourself, Pesatyel! --Acidifiers 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not contradicting myself. The suggestion was for a new way to include new items without diluting the current search rates for the current necessary items. My counter was that we already have more than a dozen locations in which new items can be found that would NOT dilute any search rates for the current necessities because those locations don't HAVE any necessities currently found in them. As for the rest, the suggestion does not say any "minor uses". Tell me what the in-game uses are for a cardboard box, stethescope and plastic bag (to use the 3 items included in the suggestion). In other words, WHY would I want to pick them up?--Pesatyel 05:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused, Pesatyel. In your first statement I thought you were okay with implementing new items because they won't dilute search rates for the necessities (as long as they're only available in your aforementioned list of buildings). In your second statement it appeared as if you were strongly against implementing new items because they're worthless. Oh, and I almost forgot! I've been checking the Suggestions for items suggestions that were killed because they were deemed pointless (or passed despite that they were pointless...), and added revised versions to a basic list of take-able items. Most of them were crap, but I did find a few good ones. Get ready for another big long list.

Possible items:

• Umbrella: Opens umbrella; closes umbrella. When open, protects against 4 zombie bites; Breaks with claw attack. Non-stackable, like flak jacket.
• Bricks and Wooden Planks: Role-playing, Weapon, Barricade; A collection of these can be used to reinforce a barricade; can be a weak weapon. Reinforces barricade +1; does 1 damage and removes item from inventory. Found in Ruined Buildings.
• Antibiotics; for Newbies. One bottle contains 1-12 pills, to help keep a newbie alive long enough to find or recieve a first-aid kit. Each dose suspends infection for 3 AP, including the AP used to take the pill. Found in Hospitals, Mansions, Buildings. Non-stackable; Courtesy of Jordan Salafack.
• MP3 player + Earbuds; Flavor/Roleplaying. Probably not; I think I'm being affected by the one I'm listening to right now.
• Pepper Spray: Defense. Allows one use if PK attacked, on a survivor who is in the same block and is not already blinded. Each can of pepper spray can be used 3 times. If attacked the victim sprays the attacker, temporarily blinding them. Attacker's screen shows "... blinded you with pepper spray." Button is shown labeled "Clear eyes", for 1AP. Until pressed, no other actions can be done. Found in Police stations. There is no effect if you're already blinded; can only be used once per set of attacks.
• Cigarettes: Previously passed, flavor item. Found laying around arms
• Length of Rope: 1 use escape from a VS+2 or higher barricaded building. Allows you to get outside of a set of highly barricaded buildings without being forced to freerun out to the street. Courtesy of Werewolf32. Found in forts, factories, fire stations, and malls.
• Blanket/Quilt: Roleplaying, Health; Found in some buildings and displays a flavor message. You curl up under the blanket for 1AP. Every 50 consecutive AP restored while you spend under the blanket grants you 1 HP.
• Instruments. I find it unbelievable that it got passed, but since it has, they may as well be lying around a school or arms. Flavor text, and apparently a small amount of XP too.
• Toys; Scattered outside and in buildings and schools. Displays really important text like, "One of the wards has been decorated with a glass table. Somebody has set up display of Barbie having a tea party with a stuffed cat." You know? I mean, just think about it! It would jus - ... okay... sheesh.
• Stethoscope (and other medical equipment): Newbie item, Health. Used on other to detect recent attackers and as an unreliable form of Diagnosis for those who don't have it already. Those who have have recently attacked will have a high heart rate; those with HP below 10 will have a very low heart rate.
• And of course, a bunch of the stuff in PR Equipment New. Primarily Money, Ear plugs and Cigarettes.
• Candles/Matchbox/Flashlight(Torches); Shadow Puppets! - I mean... Roleplaying and Searching. Displays flavor message and returns search rates in Dark buildings to 70% of normal. Matchboxes run out of matches, flashlights run out of batteries, and lighter run out of fuel. Courtesy of so many people. Found in Mansions, Arms, and Malls/Police-stations/fire-stations, respectively.
• Balls. No, not those. Football, soccer, baseball, etc. Roleplaying items.
• Crucifixes: No longer searchable; now just laying around in a church. It'd be nice to add flavor text to this or something though.
• Newspapers. Also no longer searchable; now free for any newbie to pick up and read.

Of course, all the other fun suggestions too. What's make searchable and what's make simply pick-up-able, or what's made both, is really something of balance. --Acidifiers 11:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rule number one. Don't ever accuse nice people who are trying to help you of sounding like me, it might actually summon me to notice your 'idea'. Now, are you paying attention? Trading is a zerger's best fucking friend. You have not designed a system that is free from abuse and so I will have your idea spammed out of the system as a warning to anyone else who's dumb enough to think like you. Even Jorm, the anti-zerg and patron saint of fair play couldn't prevent zergers abusing the trading system in Nexus War, a game one twentieth the size of this one with an active developer and dev team. Go play a round of Travian (no, seriously, it lasts a year, go away for that amount of time, please) and once you've got the hang of it, play a couple of speed servers. Then you can come back here and understand what happens when a zerger abuses a trading system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh god Iscariot, I almost thought you'd died or something. Good timing; I was hoping you'd be back. This is my attempt to fix 3 of UD's more noticeable inconveniences simultaneously (inability to give items, lack of items, searching and finding a newspaper, something only useful to newbies). It's not perfect, but it's an attempt.

Anyhow, you're right. It's probably not a system that's free from abuse, and there'll probably huge exploitation of it's loopholes left and right if it's tried. However as of now, I'm unsure where those loopholes are, and I need to fix them; if those holes aren't fixable, then my idea is just out of the question. But, first and foremost, Iscariot, I need the specifics to the loophole(s) you've already found. Could you explain those more in detail? --Acidifiers 11:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Learn about indenting properly, it's annoying to have to clean up after you. Let's look at your language in your last response to demonstrate how flawed your perceptions are:

• "This is my attempt to fix 3 of UD's more noticeable inconveniences simultaneously" - Do you know what's inconvenient in this game? Death. That's it. That's the only thing inconvenient in the entire game.
• "inability to give items" - How is this inconvenient? No, seriously. This limit exists to prevent cheating and serious power levelling. In NW trade was OK, I did about 10 levels in three days and we weren't even trying to optimise the XP gain. In UD each player can only advance based on their own success and time spent getting items, if we introduce trading I could get a newbie to level at least 250XP every single day with a small group of players. One zerger could do this himself. Of course if you don't have friends it becomes a lonely and difficult trek while those around you with friends advance in ways you can't imagine. This was another of NW's major flaws, lack of a fair chance for ferals. The apocalypse in fiction is the great leveller, everyone's equal and can fall, no trading cements this into the engine.
• "lack of items" - Lack of items? What lack? When did I miss the Great Needle Drought Of 2010? There are (I think) three entire items that can no longer be found, and only one of those is better than its replacement. Items are findable at fair rates that are adjusted based on conditions in Malton, for instance when The Dead were in full force the search rates for needles in ruined NTs were awesome. I know more about the game than you, Kevan knows more than me and he controls the find rates, there is no lack of items. There is, however, greed on the part of some players.
• "searching and finding a newspaper, something only useful to newbies" - Completely strawman. If you are looking for something and have your preferences set to autodrop or just don't want the item you find, tough. Them's the breaks after the end of the world. There are no well stocked stores of everything you want. I'll get someone to write you a GM script if you want that will change any find with an autodrop into "You search and find nothing" for you if you like.

None of these are problems/inconveniences, they are the facts of the game. The apocalypse is not supposed to be easy! None of your proposals address the current problems of alt abuse or zerging. If the current measures in the game can't stop this practice, all you are going to do is make it easier for them. Try and understand this very basic fact. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

1) I think these things are problems in Urban Dead. I think there should be abuse-proof item giving; I think that there Urban Dead would be more enjoyable with more items; I think that items with little use should be always available. I think that without these things that Urban Dead is not as enjoyable, and therefor putting a suggestion.

2) The reason that trading is not allowed is because it can be abused by zergers. Picking up items is an alternative to trading that cannot be abused by zergers. If you find a way that it could be abused, please tell me and I will fix it. If it is not fixable, then I will delete my entire suggestion.

3) Should new items be banned from suggestions?

4) I want to remove newspapers and crucifixes from searches. I do not want an increases nor decreases in search rates for valuable items.

5) This system does not make the game easier.

"Picking up items can be abused by Zergers by __________"

I swear to you, give me a good reason and I will delete this suggestion.

--Acidifiers 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I distinctly remember telling you to learn how to indent....

To follow your own numbering system:

1. I think Cristina Scabbia should blow me and this should be funded by the game. I think the fact that this isn't already implemented is a problem with the game. See how we can both have useless opinions? The difference is I backed my last set up with concrete examples from this game and similar, you have responded with beliefs. These are as valid as beliefs in a Jew nailed to a tree are in a scientific debate.
2. This isn't an alternative that is zerger proof, in fact I already know that this isn't zerger proof based on game evidence. I know zergers can occupy the same building without tripping the flag, I know they can attack the same target without tripping the flag, I know they can search in the same building without tripping the flag. QED I know they'll be able to see items being dropped and pick them up in the same way that they currently get around the flag by cheating.
3. No, but I don't see what that has to do with zergers abusing your little system.
4. I want to make newspapers useful and remove crucifixes from reality. You were the one wanting increases by removing current game dilution and by talking about a lack of items which doesn't exist.
5. Erm, yes it does. In a massive way. Example A, I have a friend of mine join the game. Right now I'd have him join as a Private, under your system I'd have him join as a Doctor. I'd have him join as a Private now, give him basic instruction in what to do and let him come back to me in a month with 18 levels. Neither myself, or my meta-game group would be able to do that much to increase his XP gain. Under your system he'd be doing two levels a day, at least, every day. This is because he'd be in a nice non-descript building that isn't a TRP and he'd be given 48 FAKs everyday by my group (one for every AP he can get in a day) and his job would be to sit there for and spend his game time learning about the game from guides whilst healing the same character 48 times after we stab him after each heal. He'd be safe from all but the most serious large horde and earning 5XP for each heal regardless of how much he actually heals. So, at 240XP every day, and 250XP for his starting day, by the end of his starting AP he'd have Diagnosis, Free Running and Body Building. The end of day two he'll add the entire NT tree to his skill set. Now we could continue to boost him, perhaps get him another tree, but in two days under your system he has six skills, max HP, Free Running, the ability to see HP values, the ability to gain alternate XP via the NT tree. So tell me, how is this not easier for him? That was another major problem with NW, you never had to leave the stronghold to max out, there was no challenge if you played in a certain way.

Are you ready for that blank to be filled now? You're just going to ignore me and I'll have wasted my time but everyone will see you arguing in the face of flawless logic. Picking up items can be abused by Zergers by the same methods they use to currently cheat the system. Your system has no extra safeguards in place, it's already annoying for them to keep having to change IPs and the other methods used to get around the flag, you just give them another potential benefit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your friend would need to pick up the items to be able to use them. Second, in ideal circumstances(in a small building 1 block from a hospital), you would need about 53 people searching for and dropping FAKs to do this with only 24(the optimum amount for XP gathering in your system.) Finally, these reasons also show that this isn't a viable alternative for zergers. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Darnit, you got here before me! I was about to blind Iscariot with science! Em, I mean mathematics. I got around 57 accounts to try to abuse it, but I'll go with your 53. --Acidifiers 08:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So true, yet UD can't get you laid, but UD can have features added to it. Iscariot, you think there's no need for new items?--Acidifiers 09:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus H. Me. Do you remember when you said:

"give me a good reason and I will delete this suggestion"

Because I then gave you:

"Picking up items can be abused by Zergers by the same methods they use to currently cheat the system. Your system has no extra safeguards in place, it's already annoying for them to keep having to change IPs and the other methods used to get around the flag, you just give them another potential benefit."

So we'll ignore the fact I was tired and went into NW addition and this by the way point about adding useless items to the game, when exactly are you going to delete this as you said you would? It's not like I predicted this:

"You're just going to ignore me and I'll have wasted my time"

Fucking typical. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"So we'll ignore the fact I was tired and went into NW addition" xD Sure. Lets just ignore the fact that this can't be abused like Nexus Wars and delete it anyway. Let's ignore the fact that using Nexus Wars addition as your reasoning means that your reasoning is illogical and false. "But I was tired!" xD

"2) The reason that trading is not allowed is because it can be abused by zergers. Picking up items is an alternative to trading that cannot be abused by zergers. If you find a way that it could be abused, please tell me and I will fix it. If it is not fixable, then I will delete my entire suggestion." You didn't give me a good reason; therefor, I won't delete it. If you still believe that somebody will find a way to get fifty-three accounts into the game, move them all to a central location, and use them to give their one character an advantage, then I'll make the maximum notice rate to be at 5%. Then even if you have above average search luck, you will still need 101 accounts to abuse the system.

But there's something else that I didn't notice, and I should have noticed quite a while ago. You and I have been talking about completely different things in terms of "new items", haven't we? I couldn't get what the hell you've been talking about all this time with the "Great Needle Drought Of 2010", and why you were talking so much about find rates. When I said "lack of items" you interpreted it as a request for a greater abundance of current items, when I was arguing against you about a lack of different item types. I couldn't get why you thought that all item suggestions are just a matter of "greed on part of some of some of the players", and that "there is no lack of items" for new item suggestions to fill. It seemed as if you're against any and all new item suggestions, so I was this close to asking you why you didn't just petition to have all new item suggestions removed. I now realize you've been arguing against an increase in current items.

However, I don't know why. If you read my suggestion, then you would realize that it makes no sense if I wanted a greater abundance of current items. That wasn't what my suggestion was about. Or do you actually think that people will be dropping FAKs and ammunition so often that this would cause a huge game-breaking change in the current amount of items? You spent all that time telling me "The apocalypse is not supposed to be easy. Try to grasp that basic fact", which tells me you did think that I wanted items to be more easily findable. I don't know why else you would say that. Then again, you also said "There are (I think) three entire items that can no longer be found", which might mean you did know that I was asking for new items, but due to a flaw in logic you only addressed it once and proceeded to spend the rest of the paragraph telling me about about search rates and how smart you are.

I don't know what to say to you, Iscariot. You either didn't read or didn't understand most or any of my suggestion and you thought that I was asking for a greater amount of current items. If that's the case then I find it appalling that you thus proceeded to double the size of discussion arguing against a suggestion you barely/didn't read/understand. Or did you simply had a lapse in logic and thought I really was asking for a change that was against the current state where "items are findable at fair rates that are adjusted based on conditions in Malton". Then likewise, Iscariot, I find it appalling that you that you would believe this to be an effect of "Picking of Items", and then boast about your "flawless" logic. You're one of the most interesting people I've ever met, Iscariot; I have never met anybody who will willingly stand in front of another and say "I'm flawless" at your face. --Acidifiers 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm against adding worthless items. Who wouldn't be? Were you around when Wirecutters were part of the game? Probably not. When the game first started, certain locations (junkyards) had fences around them and you had to find wirecutters to get in. Eventually though, all the fences were cut so wirecutters became completely useless. There were a lot of suggestions to make them useful again but none that could really be balanced. So they were ventually taken out of the game (though there may still be older players that have a pair). The problem, now, with your suggestion is that it is now a multi. Your suggesting a new way to find stuff AND new stuff to find. Multis are bad because we would be voting on the WHOLE suggestion. What if I don't like umbrellas? How do I vote? The other problem is, now, you have to BALANCE all those new items. New items aren't voted against because they would dilute search rates or because we don't need more items. But because they are very difficult to balance.--Pesatyel 01:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye, the reason I didn't bother to include possible items is because I knew people would be against some of them. The main thing was a new way to take items - not the items themselves. I'll have to remind myself delete the cardboard box garbage from it. Newspapers and crucifixes, though, should just be pick-up able. Free for the newbies as it's a tiny instruction manual on how to not die immediately, and as it's a humor item for everyone else, just lay it on the ground for anyone to pick up. I was reading a suggestion for "Money", findable in banks. That was passed, and those who reviewed it also opted for other "fun" items (so, not everyone is against adding worthless items). I happened to be browsing the Clothing suggestions, and I figured humor items could be added just like clothing. But they're just humor items, so why not make them non-searchable? Sigh. Anyway, yes, balance would be a big issue, but the UD community would decide the items: the unbalanced would be shot down; those that work passed. With enough of these small items, people will have to start picking which of these they actually want to keep in their inventory, what they'll need. Say, pepper spray. Should I keep it to ward off PKers? Or is the chance of actually catching them in the act way too low? Is carrying a blanket worth the encumbrance? And do I really need to carry a guitar when I'm off fighting zombies? That kind of thing. That is, the idea is just a bit... big. It would require lots of new items, a new suggestions category, a truckload of coding and balancing and tweaks, a bit of testing, and I figured that'd be the main reason it'd be criticize. Turns out, zerging and balance are the bigger problems. -_-

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat my confort food. *mixes up an avocado smoothie* Hmm... needs more milk. --Acidifiers 08:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I gotta side with the naysayers on this one. Any system that allows item exchange is open to abuse in some form or another. Making it a game of percentages and probabilities mitigates the problem, but doesn't fix it, nor does it make any sense at all in terms of the way that the rest of the game plays out. It's an extremely convoluted and complicated system that doesn't feel at home with the mechanics for the rest of the game. —Aichon— 23:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Crack Heads

Timestamp: Cookies and Cream 12:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: Skill gives Zombies 40% chance to do extra 1 damage while biting by cracking open the skull. Also heals 1HP if successful. Any bite attampt after this has a 10% higher chance of gaining the head bite. As usual, can be fixed with FAK, like everything else.

Discussion (Crack Heads)

Are you saying that a player with a cracked skull suffers 5hp damage from all bite attacks? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that, once cracked, a Zombie has a 50% chance of doing 5HP damage from connecting bite attacks. Cookies and Cream 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Kind of like a specialized tangling grasp for bite? --Honestmistake 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. It sounds like once a zombie bites, subsequent bites have a chance of doing +1 damage.--Pesatyel 04:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What I had intended was that, firstly, the zombie has to get a successful bite attack. Then, they have a 40% chance to crack the skull. If the skull is cracked, the zombie does 1 extra damage, gets 1HP, and raises the chance of cracking the skull to 50%. Then the cycle repeats, except subsequent bites don't raise the crack chance. Cookies and Cream 06:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a real hard time understanding it. Can you give me an example. My Zombie ALAN managers to enter a autor repair shop and sees NEWB1 standing there. I click bite. What happens Next? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm having real hard time trying to find an explanation!

• Alan's first bite is rolled at 40% chance and succeeds, initiating a secondary roll which also has a 40% chance of hitting.

• The secondary roll fails, Alan does 4 damage.

• No changes occur, next bite is rolled just as the first one.

• The secondary roll succeeds, Alan does 5 damage and inflicts "cracked head" upon Newb1.

• Subsequent attacks against Newb1 have their secondary roll at 50% chance due to Newb1 suffering from "cracked head".

I hope that helped, I don't know why but I found that really difficult to explain. - User:Whitehouse 12:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Does tangling grasp alter this in any way.?

is cracked head a condition, like being infected?

If another zombie bites NEWB1 between my attacks do I lose the bonus. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's like infection, because he said it could be fixed with a good FAKing. Enigma^talk 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this (or something easier to understand but similar in effect) was implemented it would have to cause 4+1 damage rather than a straight 5 or flak would just make it pointless! --Honestmistake 13:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. What Whitehouse has said is correct. That is the way I wanted it to be like. Probably should have provided an example. Cookies and Cream 13:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what Honestmistake said. XP is based on damage actually caused, therefore the only people that are going to suffer the extra damage are non-rotten zombies and newbies who haven't found a flak yet. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Simplify it down to just being a child skill of tangling grasp that means all successful bites while grasping cause an additional 1 point of damage. I've not done the maths but I would not be surprised if maxed claws were still better in the long run but still. Remember though, to make it meaningful it must be an extra point rather than a flat 5.--Honestmistake 12:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Annoying Half of Malton.

Timestamp: RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Massive Game Breaking Change.

Scope: Malton

Description: So anyway, Ive got my 404 alt over in Grigg heights. The order of the black rose had pretty much bored the local zombies to death, then the mob had run through and decimated everyone. That was three weeks ago. For the last 4 days ive been repairing 4 or so 15ap ruins a day. The last one each day leads me in negative AP. I go away for 24 hours and come back. So far, no zombies have come and eaten me, even though Ive spent most of the last week in repaired DWO buildings. I've escaped with barely a scratch. But anyway. Back when I started UD Zombie numbers were well above 10,000. Which works out about 1 zombie for every malton square. Now its about 6500. Simply put, any suburb with organised survivors can hold out ferals for eternity. The big zombie groups can destroy anything, but as soon as they move on, survivors can river back in and reclaim. Simply put Malton is too big. We need to concentrate fewer players into a smaller area. To be massively drama-istic, I suggest shutting the Western half of the city. The border would move 5 suburbs east. At the time of the change all players in the western half would simply be moved 5 blocks east, relative to their initial position. As for reason, just say a massive military push has been organised, as zombie numbers were falling, the military seized the initiative for a blitzkrieg attack. Survivors fled ahead of the onslaught and the zombies sensing all their prey heading east, followed them. Hell, you could even just split the city in two. Having a thin border between the two, perhaps having separate lower IP limits? After all that might even cut down on zerging? (As if this idea wasn't spamtastic ENOUGH) Anyhow, Savage.

Discussion (Annoying Half of Malton.)

Idea one: Destroying half the city: As someone in the East half of Malton, this sounds like a fun change. However, a few points. I'm inside a building. This is implemented. 50 blocks east of me is a park. How do we account for the fact that I'm no longer inside? Alternatively: I'm inside a mall seige. I'm a zombie. I finally break down the barricades and call for my zombie brethren to follow me in. We decimate the SW corner. Then, this happens. We're displaced to four squares half a mile away. We've now only breached one square, whilst before, we'd breached four.

Idea Two: A Tale of Two Cities: Splitting the city might work, but I don't see how it would combat the problem you mentioned. Unless we physically cut it with a line, preventing travel between the two. In which case it'll end up with one side with a lot more survivors, and one with a lot more zombies. For example: The dead / mall tour / big bash rally hundreds of zombies, who attack caiger mall. Now, all of the zombies are in the West half. Bang, split. The East half is safe, the West half is dangerous.

Oh, and the RRF will have a fit because you're cutting their territories in half. ;) --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea 1. Yep. It would screw people up for a few days.

Idea 2. Having a large zombie group in one half could cause a massive issue, but yeah they could always create alts in both halves. I don't know. Maybe a wizard could fix it? Or maybe a line of border with a few gate squares in them, to allow passage between, say one in the north and one in the south? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The gates sound better, but you could change it to a river, and bridges. But that would be a dupe of PR. So... Yeah.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Justify it as a military push and use radios and leaflet drops to warn everyone of the impending D(estruction) day. On the aforementioned day the army invade and contract the border by a few blocks... repeat on each following day until the area is reduced to a suitable size. Anyone daft/unfortunate enough to be caught up in the advance is dead and stands up to find they have been dumped on the streets by the new/current border. Makes sense, has the same effect (just takes longer) and gives people plenty of time to move if they don't want to die! --Honestmistake 00:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

I kinda like this version, I would vote for that... but that just shows how prone to suggestion I am. Enigma^talk 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear god, its a LOGICAL SUGGESTION to make the game better. Wow. I haven't seen one of these in ages. And i like Honest's version. Cookies and Cream 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Some other people have even brought up cutting the city down to 8x8 as a potential solution. See the discussions on those suggestions. --Papa Johnny 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the lack of zombie activity in the Grigg Heights area has been rather non-apocalyptic. Whether that can be solved by constricting Malton or some magical PR campaign bringing tons of new people to UD... I'm behind any logical idea that stands a chance, so you've got my vote. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the southern half instead of the western. After all, the best mall (Caiger) is in the north. The best fort (Creedy) is in the north, and the best groups are either mobile or in the north already (note: this claim is unsubstantiated and baseless).

In all seriousness though, why not just shrink each suburb, that way people can keep their suburb of choice, while maybe just losing a few blocks. For instance, we could make each suburb a 7x7 or 8x8, which would reduce the size of the city to 49% or 64% of its current size, respectively. Sure, there'd be no real explanation for why the suburbs shrunk, and it'd require more work, but we'd probably also lose less people, since you wouldn't have as many people leaving the game after their favorite suburb simply ceased to exist. —Aichon— 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the "favorite suburb" argument, but at that point wouldn't it just be easier to wipe Malton and start over with a new city (or a smaller Malton, as you suggested)? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it just comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of whether the risk of losing loads of people outweighs the possibility of bringing in more money by making the place seem more lively. The problem though, is that a chain reaction may start, wherein the initial group leaves because they don't like such a significant change, leaving the city with few enough people that it still doesn't feel lively after the change is in effect. As a result, more people leave, since the city still feels empty, which simply makes a cycle that spirals downwards. —Aichon— 06:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the fact the game is still so heavily centered around malls and NTs?--Pesatyel 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. We need more zombie activity even if that means having to erase half the city.--Kralion 05:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I pretty much agree with this suggestion. It really is quite spamtastic. xD. But I see your point; I haven't seen much zombie activity; yet, I don't want half of Malton to disappear either. Quick thing though... how much would a smaller map help? --Acidifiers 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Less room = Less hiding for survivors, more concentrated packs of Zombies. Cookies and Cream 13:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this seems daft, but doesn't that also mean more concentrated survivor defense, and less revivification hiding for zombies? With zombie populations so concentrated, and survivors in Necrotech buildings also so concentrated, those without brain rot will be getting revived left and right. This would help make buildings harder to repair, since a lot of zombies will likely start accumulating inside them, but it could also make buildings a lot harder to knock down in the first place. Oh gosh; I feel like I'm taking Iscariots job, LeLouch. --Acidifiers 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes harder to defend, harder to destroy. But also remember, half of all those NT's would be gone. Do you really think that would lead to an increase in combat reviving? Not that combat reviving isn't a bad thing..... --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone else *cough Iscariot* will come in and find an assload of flaws in this suggestion, but for now it does seem like an acceptable solution to a decreasing zombie presence. My only concern is that this "stopgap measure" violates the D&DNs. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How about, rather than cutting one half or another off, bringing the map down from a 100x100 grid to a 90x90 one? Essentially cutting out the very top (or bottom) row of burbs, and the leftmost (or rightmost) column, displacing survivors either ten blocks vertically or horizontally as needed (or both for the corner burb getting wiped out). Justify it as a pincer attack from the military or whatever. Keeps the square grid, which would be handy. I like squares. 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "maximizing" ruin? In that if a building remains ruined long enough, it is no longer inhabitable?--Pesatyel 05:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, zombies will start focusing on one building, shoveling zergs in there, waiting for it to get maximized, and then moving on to the next building. Too dangerous.

Your forgot to sign your post. I'm aware of the potential abuse so there would have to be very strict rules on it. But I think it would be interesting if WE, the players, decided rather than just arbitrarily losing parts of suburbs.--Pesatyel 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shrinking Malton seems like too risky of a fix; How about a change in the way buildings are repaired? Perhaps the requirements for fixing a building should be Construction, Toolbox, and spare material from a nearby junkyard? Maybe you are can't go past your AP limit, so that a building will require multiple "construction workers" to fix it. --Acidifiers 11:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Kevan actually starting to advertise urbandead on the web? With some form of marketing, to attract new players, and getting the game popular again. Malton's population has been on decrease for so long, we should look for ways to increase, which unfortunately lies mainly with Kevan. If you're going to cut the city in half now, then 3 years later the population will be so low that there will be suggestions to cut it in half again, rendering only a quarter of the original Malton playable. --Thadeous Oakley 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, lots to comment on here.

Cutting it in half? How? Down the middle? Shall we keep the left or right? Or the top or the bottom? Or shall we just cut a half shaped chunk out of somewhere? The wiki won't ever agree and therefore there will be people crying over Kevan getting rid of their favourite suburb.

I hear talk about lack of players... then go and find some people. Seriously, LUE, The Dead, The Many, Nintendorks and every other external group started with a single forum post. People have been whining over facebook for years, go start the first ever facebook group. Simply put, less whining, more working.

People seem to be suggesting Kevan do things/advertise. There are two things to remember, UD is open beta, its not a finished game and the age old problem of money is the other. Go ask on Kevan's page how much it would cost to get a map built to your own specifications. Seriously, cashy money was paid to build Monroeville and Borehamwood for promotional purposes, ask for a quote for your own little sandbox and an hourly rate for each subsequent update. Then take up a collection. Either Kevan can give you a price that you can do a car wash and a bake sale for, or he'll tell you to sod off, which should tells you he's only going to give us token updates to keep this as a nice note on his resume.

Did I miss anything?

Personally I'd like a colony drop button for entire suburbs, put fort walls around entire suburbs and no entrances. I could remove half the playing area, create maze like routes and get to press a button that destroys entire suburbs. I'd be well happy. It'd just be a question of which suburb first, Dunnel Hills or Ridleybank....? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dunell Hills. Ridleybank is awesome.-- Adward  18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of crooketown. And there are LOADS of facebook groups out there. Its how I found the place, I think Extinctions got one, although its only got like 4 friends. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I could do Dunell Hills, Ridleybank, Santlerville and Dakerstown and get rid of all the drama whores at once. It'd be epic. There are loads of forums out there in the game, few are effective, go make the effective facebook group. Alternately make preparations to bring mass hordes of children in during the summer holidays, it's a classic for a reason. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont forget the forts! The military would definitely want them back. Hmm. How could I entice children? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lolipops! --Honestmistake 14:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Highly Theoretical XP Reform

Timestamp: OnlyKillingZombiesIsRacist 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Levelling Structure

Scope: Survivors and Zombies

Description: Getting started in Urban Dead as fresh, never-been-dead (or freshly dead) meat is hard; you grind away for XP, you scrounge for vital supplies or a decent-sized horde, and you either stick it out until you have a few skills and the gameplay becomes fun in and of itself or you quit without seeing what UD really has to offer. Waxing lyrical about how much you love building new characters or pointing to meta-gaming are not solutions to this problem, gentlemen. The fact is, counter-intuitively, as you advance through Urban Dead gameplay becomes easier, not harder, irrespective of tactics or skill. My highly theoretical part-remedy is skills that would cost a character 100XP would cost 25XP x Level, skills costing 75XP would cost 20XP x Level, and skills costing 150XP would cost 35XP x Level. Character level would need to be considered seperate between zombie and survivor skills for this purpose, and starting skills do not count towards your Level. (Obviously, this may need to be first implemented in a new city to prevent inevitable whining over XP refunding or other ways of implementing this in Malton.) Therefore, a starting Level 1 NecroTech Lab Assistant pays 20XP for his second science skill, or 25XP for his first Civillian skill, or 35XP for his first Military skill. A Level 5 NecroTech Lab Assistant pays 100XP for a new science skill, or 125XP for a new Civillian skill, or 175XP for a new Military skill. A Level 20 NecroTech Lab Assistant pays 400XP for a new science skill, or 500XP for a new Civillian skill, or 700XP for a new Military skill. You get the picture. This garners a sense of fun and payoff for hard work and fast advancement at lower levels, a longer and more rewarding 'campaign' towards becoming an omni-badass jack-of-all-trades or superzombie, and greater specialisation between characters as the impetus is on getting vital XP-gaining skills in areas of gameplay you wish to work in before they become expensive. I appreciate this is far from perfect, and welcome all suggestions.

Discussion (Highly Theoretical XP Reform)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 8th March

Not terrible. I'd perhaps bump it to say (level+1) multiplied by X XP. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it, the mechanic could need a tune up. Most older players will see this as unfair on newbies but suggesting they get rest to lvl 0 would upset them even more. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me. Always found it odd that gaining levels becomes easier as you level up. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, wouldnt happen --Chicken 03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than taking 4225 XP in the worst case (i.e. Scientists), it'll now take 12600 XP in the worst case (i.e. Scientists making non-optimal skill choices). Once I thought about the details you laid out, it wasn't as bad as I initially thought, but it'd still mean that some newbies might take as long as a year to reach max level, even with playing regularly. That doesn't sit right with me for Malton, but for a new city, sure, it'd be a fun experiment. —Aichon— 05:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hurm, I'm just thinking about all the little zerglings that get abandoned because it takes so long to level a new character. In the end, the XP system might be the only anti-zerg measure that actually works in this game.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 06:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I see with this is rather obvious, and it's that doing this would first off screw up the entire current XP system, which I (and many potential voters, I'm sure) wouldn't appreciate, as one of the guidlines is "Do not reset the game" or something along those lines. However, a new city solves this. The other problem is that in the long run it will cost more, and I'd say that you aren't a newbie once you reach level oh I don't know, 8. Someone more experienced could probably give you a better number, but with this system you start paying more then you currently do at level 5. However, from a logical point of view (and that of other RPGs) the higher costs make perfect sense, and it would be nice to not have as many zombie hunters as zombies...--Enigma 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the higher long-term expense as a bad thing necessarily, mainly due to the vast number of maxed-out zombie hunters toting around thousands of spare XP, and also the fact that levelling usually becomes faster and easier in UD at the moment as each skill expediates XP gain in one way or another. I think the general feeling so far is for slightly lower cost in the long run than I initially proposed, which sounds good to me. OnlyKillingZombiesIsRacist 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Brainrot would have to be a free option for zombies for me to give this any serious consideration.--Honestmistake 12:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not free, but perhaps avaliable after only Level 5? Free would be a bit much, I think, as with the inclusion of the Flesh Rot skill, taking Brain Rot is a bona-fide upgrade for a dedicated zombie player instead of a trade-off.OnlyKillingZombiesIsRacist 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I look at it to be a survivor requires no skills whatsoever.... merely surviving is your goal, as such being killed is a failure (albeit an inevitable & temporary one) on your behalf. To be a zombie means death is not a failure... life is and nothing short of taking rot will protect against life. In short remaining a zombie without the rot is mostly luck (or being in the middle of a big horde) while remaining a survivor requires only an avoidance of risky play. Even as the game stands now anyone choosing to play as a zombie should have the option of beginning play with ROT for free... in a system where it will cost you a very healthy chunk of game time to earn I would that its being free would be a must! --Honestmistake 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Except there is a huge difference between brainrot and simple surviving. Simple surviving can still be interfered with at any location, by any character. Once brainrot is bought a zombie can only fail if they break into a NecroTech building. Thus I do not see the justification for it becoming a free skill. - User:Whitehouse 23:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Zombies can still be interfered with at any time and any location and usually that interference takes the form of a headshot and its potential 15AP leech. 'Fail' doesn't really apply to zombies tho as they simply cannot be blamed for their numerous re-births as they really can't do anything to prevent combat revives except avoid combat until they get rot! --Honestmistake 00:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your missing his point. Your comparing Brainrot (the ability of a zombie to not be revived) to the survivor's ability to survive (the ability to not die). A survivor's ability to survive can be interfered with at any time. The only way to revive a rotter is if they are going to stay in an nt. You can't revive a rotter at "any time" like you can kill a survivor "at any time".--Pesatyel 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but a survivor can never be taken from full health to down in a single click. interfering with a survivors survival is a slow process that involves getting past the barricades in the first place and thus probably involves several zombies and 100+AP... thats a pretty serious impedement to "interfering" your non rot zombie on the otherhand requires a single syringe (which almost always cost less than 10AP to find) and 1 click. Giving starting zombies the choice of having rot for free would make it a damn site better for zombies (it would also be a Z zergers wet dream but still)--Honestmistake 13:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone ignore the fact that for a rotter to be revived they also have to be IN an NT building with a working generator? For a rotter to get revived they have to either want it or they have to be barricade interferring (which is actually a dumb thing for a rotter to do in an NT). But if the latter, odds are the rotter is doing more than "just standing there". They would take out the generator first thing, for example. So if your going to factor in attacking barricades and such, your going to have to factor in ruin, finding and installing a generator and the possiblity of barricades....just to revive the rotter.--Pesatyel 04:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? My rotter broke into the same NT 3 times in a week not long ago. 1st time he was revived before I even damaged the generator and the last one active revived at least 3 of us before we did more than groan! At the very least rotters need a mechanism that allows them to dodge Needles while they are active as the current mechanism is grossly overpowered in survivor favour. --Honestmistake 12:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, there's a way to avoid being CR'd as a rotter... DON'T BREAK INTO FUCKING NTs. Not in small numbers, anyway. Enigma^talk 13:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for resetting the clock on this dead discussion to add your 'great wisdom'. Fuckwit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like this idea, but I've played too many other games with similar ideas, and the sense of moving forward diminishes the farther I move into the game. It's more of a psychological offset to me. And I'm afraid to do so, but I'm pointing at meta-gaming. Urban dead does not offer a game with tons of rewards; the basic concept of gaining experience to level up seems too repetitive and serves no purpose till you find the wiki and become all but addicted. It would be nice experiment, though, to see this tried out in a new city.--Acidifiers 12:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

• Blood Splatters for Attackers moved to Suggestion talk:20100225 Blood Splatters for Attackers
• Glancing Blow moved to Suggestion talk:20100218 Glancing Blow