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

---

PVP Deaths

Timestamp: Bustersquash 18:42, 17 June 2010 (BST)

Type: PVP Deaths

Scope: Players killed by other players

Description: Ok I hate getting killed by another player and coming back as a zombie. I proposed we are given the option to come back as a human by spending more AP.

Discussion (PVP Deaths)

Put down the crack pipe.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:56 17 June 2010(UTC)

Doesn't make sense, it would make more sense if you didn't come back at all in that case. :p - User:Whitehouse 19:08, 17 June 2010 (BST)

What the fuck is this shit this would put me out of a jorb. 21:57, 17 June 2010 (BST)

Would turn NTs completely pointless. Or sieges and PKing in general. And that's just the tip of the ice berg about what's wrong with this one. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:25, 17 June 2010 (BST)

I loled. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 22:52, 17 June 2010 (BST)

OP is a F&%%@T. /b/ memes ftl! Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:58, 17 June 2010 (BST)

You're an idiot. -User:Alex1guy 06:58, 18 June 2010 (BST)

---

Tangling Hold

Timestamp: Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:17, 16 June 2010 (BST)

Type: Skill Change

Scope: Zombies with Tangling Grasp

Description: Idea: Why not prevent survivors who are caught in a tangling grasp from running away, or even block them from performing actions at all? As a response, we would also have to allow any attack to disable tangling grasp; this would let you punch a zombie off you and run off. Addendum: Any actions on the attacking zombie will proceed unimpeded.' Discuss.

Discussion (Tangling Hold)

No. Most of the time, the player will not be online to "break away" from this hold. Also, limiting your opponent's actions isn't gonna go well with most of the players. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (BST)

It would make it more difficult for harmans to just run away from zombie sieges when they're injured. Is that really a bad thing? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:10, 17 June 2010 (BST)

I'm rather neutral to this. I don't see it having a huge effect really, only on live combat. - User:Whitehouse 00:42, 17 June 2010 (BST)

The thing is, if you log off with a tangling grasp, your victim has to punch you (or damage in some way) off before he can run. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:10, 17 June 2010 (BST)

I understood as much, I just think it would be a rather rare situation and as such it doesn't really bother me. It adds a little flavour in my opinion, which is a good thing. - User:Whitehouse 01:17, 17 June 2010 (BST)

Right? In zombie movies, having a zombie on you is a big concern; you don't just brush off its hands and jump to the next building over. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:33, 17 June 2010 (BST)

This is pretty much how Tangling Grasp should be in the first place. I mean it seems a little weird that you can lose your grip on a, technically, "non-moving" target. As Whitehouse says, this only really affects survivors on the "live" end. If your not logged in, it doesn't really matter. Your NOT going to escape unless the zombie gives up. On the zombie end, it would save some AP from the "you lose your grip" results.--Pesatyel 05:11, 17 June 2010 (BST)

As above; I approve. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:23, 17 June 2010 (BST)

Tangling Grasp Immoblization, Death Grasp, Addenum to Tangling Grasp--

| T | BALLS! | 19:44 17 June 2010(UTC)

First uses a low percent chance and the second has a 2AP "escape cost". The 3rd is the closest and most problematic, but I believe my addition of preventing any other actions differentiates this suggestion significantly. Thank you for bringing those to my attention. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:44, 17 June 2010 (BST)

---

Ransack/Ruin XP Buff

Timestamp: CorndogheroT-S-Z 05:32, 14 June 2010 (BST)

Type: makes ransack more attractive to non-max-level zombies

Scope: Ransacking, non maxed zombies

Description: Basically, I think a few changes should be made to ransack. Two-click ruin. One click of the ransack button ransacks the building and gives 1 xp. The ransack button then changes to a ruin button which costs 5 AP. XP for each AP of ruining. Clicking the aforementioned ruin button yields a reward of 5 XP in addition to ruining the building. XP for destroying decorations is included in the ransack. Currently, zack can destroy decorations individually for 1ap and 1 xp each. While decorations are also destroyed by ransack, I do not believe the XP is currently given for such. When ransacking, a zombie would gain the 1 xp for ransack, in addition to 1 xp for each decoration that the ransack destroyed. Part one of this idea overlaps with a suggestion that is currently in voting. Part two overlaps with an Idea I have previously brought up on the DS page. Part three is original as far as I know. It is my hope that this suggestion being implemented would make ransack more attractive to lower level zombies, and would also give zombies at least a halfway-decent reward for breaking into an empty, caded building.

Discussion (Ransack/Ruin XP Buff)

The last part seems overpowered (so to speak). Your allowing a zombie to earn 18 XP for 5 AP. I don't think there is anything that safe and efficient by comparison.--Pesatyel 06:02, 16 June 2010 (BST)

---

revoluvor

Timestamp: Shizzlenautz 19:56, 13 June 2010 (BST)2:53

Type: TYPE weapon

Scope: SCOPE revoluvor

Description: A revoluvor would be found at a police dept, The revoluvor would do 8 dmg and have 5% chance of hitting the target, How ever the shells to a revoluvor would be much harder to find then a pistol.

Discussion (revoluvor)

So a shitty weapon that does less damage and has less accuracy than a flare gun is invented to dilute search rates for normal weapons and just generally screw over gun-using players? Why? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:10, 13 June 2010 (BST)

incomplete. How much does it weigh? Are those accuracy figures affected by having firearm skills? Also, someone throw up grims, no more guns template? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:59, 13 June 2010 (BST)

Or we could solve this with a simple statement of fact: six bullet pistols loaded with 'clips' and not 'magazines' point to one conclusion - they already are revolvers. 21:07, 13 June 2010 (BST)

As Misanthropy said moonclips would be a better choice but i think the base accuracy should be a bit more since Revolvers can be quite accurate (depending on range of course) User:Boomer Australia 10:48, 14th June 2010 (EST)

No, no. What I'm saying is that the pistols in the game already are revolvers. 02:31, 14 June 2010 (BST)

They are? i thought they were like Glocks or Colts ok it makes sense since you get 6 rounds the equalivent to a revolvers User:Boomer Australia 12:32, 14th June 2010 (EST)

That's what I'm saying - six round clips (instead of 12-13 round magazines) indicate that they're revolvers. 03:38, 14 June 2010 (BST)

Ok im on the same page now User:Boomer Australia 13:01, 14th June 2010 (EST)

---

Eating

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 15:36 12 June 2010(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Survivors

Description: Now Survivors have a new attribute called Hunger. This is tracked much like AP with a range of 0 to 50. For every action a Survivor takes (regardless of the AP cost, even if it is 0 AP for Dropping Items) they lose 1 Hunger point. Once a Survivor reaches 0 Hunger points they begin to lose 1 HP for each action they take. When a Survivor is inside an unruined Mall, Club, Arms, Warehouse, Hotel, Cinema, Cathedral, Church, Fort Storehouse or Mansion they will see a new button called Eat. Performing the Eat action costs 1 AP and fully restores Hunger to 50. The Eat button will also appear while in the presence of any non-reviving Dead Body...sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do... Zombies have no Hunger attribute to worry about. Standing up from a Revive will set a Survivors Hunger to 25.

Discussion (Eating)

No. We don't need a pointless AP-sink--for either side. If you want survivors to "eat", then maybe you should just spend time with some survivors who actually use that Speak button. You might be surprised how many of them "eat" (and spend the AP you don't want them to have) for the sake of roleplaying without a bogus mechanic. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 17:19, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Just doesn't seem like much fun really. - User:Whitehouse 18:40, 12 June 2010 (BST)

I've seen this type of thing fail at voting over and over. Dupe--V darkstar 19:32, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Why don't zombies get hungry? Isn't that, essentially, the "deal" with them in all zombie genre? Zombies EAT poeple.--Pesatyel 06:01, 13 June 2010 (BST)

Not in Kevan's world. Malton zombies are mainly into scratching.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:57 17 June 2010(UTC)

---

Decayed Ruins

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 14:03 12 June 2010(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Ruined Buildings

Description: Now you have a 1% chance to fail to fix a Ruin for each AP required to fix the Ruin. Max 25% chance to fail. Failing to repair a Ruin still consumes all the AP required to fix that Ruin. So if you fail to fix a Ruin that requires 20 AP to fix, you still lose the 20 AP. Once a Ruin reaches 25 AP to repair it becomes a Decayed Ruin. A Decayed Ruin requires a powered Generator to fix it, just like a Dark Building.

Discussion (Decayed Ruins)

You know, I don't think the fail in this suggestion even requires a logical response. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 17:20, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Hmm, different levels, different prerequisites is interesting. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:25, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Interesting if the actual numbers had more sense behind them and there was ever actual intention to take a finished product to voting. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:21, 15 June 2010 (BST)

I'd say get rid of that % to fail stuff, the penalty for not repairing ruins quickly is already factored in the AP cost. Requiring a genny for very old ruins would be interesting, though: it's justifiable, it is a challenge for the people who do suicide repairs, yet applies only in a situation uncommon enough to not hurt most survivors. I think I'd vote for it. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 18:39, 12 June 2010 (BST)

---

Toolbox Change

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 13:52 12 June 2010(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Toolboxes

Description: Now Toolboxes come with an "ammo" of 10 when first found. Each time you use a toolbox this "ammo" level lowers by 1. Once out of "ammo" the Toolbox can no longer be used. A Survivor may refill their Toolbox "ammo" level fully to 10 by spending 1 AP if they are inside an unruined Mall, Auto Repair Shop, Factory, Fort Vehicle Depot, Fort Storehouse, or Power Station.

Discussion (Toolbox Change)

My first question is: Why? This is a pure nerf for survivors with only indirect and mild gain for zombies, so I'd better want to see some rationale behind that. Especially as I have a dual nature ghost town reclaimer who'd get massively annoyed by being forced to make a trip back to Greenville after each repaired row of ruins. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:03, 12 June 2010 (BST)

It would be more challenging. Besides you would not always have to go back to Greenville as long as you saved 1 "ammo" in your Toolbox and used it to fix a nearby Toolbox resupply building. You could also start carrying multiple Toolboxes to extend your repair capability.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:12 12 June 2010(UTC)

It would also let you stand out by specializing if you fancy yourself as a "repair expert". No longer could the average Survivor pick up one Toolbox and be just as good as any other. No, the person that really devoted themselves to repair would now have the ability to show their above average dedication to this area by carrying several toolboxes. You'd be that "go to" repair guy. There might even be groups that would spring up devoted to the profession.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:42 12 June 2010(UTC)

Yeah it may happen, I do remember a couple groups specialised in keeping the phone masts working, which is this job precisely: get heavy, hard-to-find supplies, then haul them to where they're needed. That said, I really don't think ruin needs any buff. As things are, zeds can ruin an entire suburb in a couple days, and survivors can't do faff all about it, but at least places can be cleaned up quickly. Under this mechanic, it would take longer to recover, which would make it even more frustrating. Not that I'm against making survivors work harder, mind, they bloody need it, but this is asking them to put in hard work without giving them any way to defend it, all that effort can still be undone just as quickly. I can only see this adding to the whole "why bother" feel that IMO survivors already face. So I don't like it, I'm afraid. And two minor nitpicks: I really dislike the "ammo" term, tools don't use ammo, best call it "wear" or something; and I don't think it makes sense for tools to wear off, at least nowhere so quickly ("aim for believability"). --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 17:53, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Im sorry mate but im totaly against your idea unless you develop it more it need to be worked on but i have to agree with Spiderzed here you need to work on your idea and it would become more then annoying User:Boomer Australia 00:11 13 June 2010(AEST)

As Spiderzed, this is pure survivor nerf in an area where I really don't think it is needed. You might be able to rationalize it as running out of nails or screws or something, but then by the same token flak jackets should wear out, and at some point everyone should have permadeath from all the headshots we all take. Then again, this is meant to be a game: which means that realism isn't necessarily the goal. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 17:24, 12 June 2010 (BST)

---

Variable Attack % against Barricades

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 13:44 12 June 2010(UTC)

Type: Improvment

Scope: Attacks against Barricades

Description: Now your attack % against Barricades depends on the Barricade Level as follows: EHB:25% of normal attack % VHB/HB:50% of normal attack % VSB/QSB:75% of normal attack % LB/Loosely:100% of normal attack %

Discussion (Variable Attack % against Barricades)

I understand what you're trying to do here (I think), but you are too effectively screwing zombies over with EHB buildings. I think you should take this suggestion down, do some research and number crunching and bring it back with numbers you've worked out rather than just some nice round numbers you picked to see what the community thinks. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 17:26, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Under these numbers, unless I screwed up my calculations, it would take a full-skilled zed 80 AP avg to destroy an EHB+4, 24 AP to destroy a VSB. Not unreasonable, IMO, but I think a single adjustment in cade to-hit ratios, like the one Mis proposed elsewhere, would achieve something similar in a simpler way. And I like my own suggestion even better, just increasing hit rates on all zed attacks, because that would help them kill survivors as well. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 18:22, 12 June 2010 (BST)

... which doesn't mean I'd endorse this change, I haste to add. I'd vote against any nerf to barricades unless it comes with an alternative boost in survivor's defence, for reasons I won't harp on any more here. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 18:47, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Interesting shift in balance. EHB remains unaltered, VSB becomes weaker. Makes a lone ferals life easier. I'd vote for it. - User:Whitehouse 18:55, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Actually EHB becomes twice as strong. 19:44, 12 June 2010 (BST)

I meant the total AP cost. As in it still takes 80AP to bring down an EHB building, but now takes less than 40AP for a VSB building. - User:Whitehouse 19:54, 12 June 2010 (BST)

---

Lower max barricade levels

Timestamp: CorndogheroT-S-Z 03:57, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Type: Barricade adjustment

Scope: pretty much everyone, barricades are a central mechanic of the game

Description: So, there's a discussion below about how to make zombies stronger. One Idea I like from the discussion there is the overall reduction of barricade levels, so that VSB is the highest level, and then QSB is required to be able to enter from the street. I like this idea, because it doesn't really buff strike teams (who distribute a barricade's AP draininess among themselves so they feel the effect less, and have a perfectly decent level of power), while at the same time making it so a full-clawed feral can break into a building every day, and even get in a lot of attacks if it is an entry point/newbie haven, which now must be QSB (giving a zombie an average of 12 more attacks once he breaks into that building.) Note that I am not proposing this as a final suggestion; my main intent was to separate this from the discussion below, as I feel it has merit. One change I feel might be good is to slightly increase the failure rate for all barricade levels if this goes into effect. Not quite to VHB or EHB levels, but more then they are at currently for QSB and VSB. Your thoughts?

Discussion (Lower max barricade levels)

+10% on to-hit with cades, -10% to all cading attempts, upward limit of VHB, with VSB still being the cut-off. That way it's harder to put them up, easier to take them down, and the limit is 16, not 21, which should see ferals being a bit more powerful (about 20% roughly). 04:19, 12 June 2010 (BST)

I'd rather there still be a decision to make with barricade levels, so there isn't just one "best" level to have--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 10:41, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Having followed the discussion that spawned the idea, I'd rather go with Mis and put the emphasis on increased hit chances against cades. What makes cades most frustrating is the low success rate, and the quirkiness of the RNG regarding low chances, which easily gives a worse rate than 1 removed cade level per 4 attacks. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:17, 12 June 2010 (BST)

Apologies to mis for my misunderstanding of his first post, I thought he said VSB twice. Now for a few thoughts. I'm personally kind of against decreasing the cading rates too much as a primary means of balancing, due to the fact that a lone zombie or small group likely will not experience any direct benefit from such a measure, creating more of an AP sink for one side for no purpose. However, in large scale, long term engagements such a measure would favor hordes, who really do not need to be buffed.

I'd rather not assume that the actual hit rates are anything other than what we are told they are, or that the RNG is faulty, or anything like that, because if our official source of information is incorrect, why should one player's experience be more correct than another player's? We would be arguing about something we can really get no definitive answer on.

As for how to balance barricades, I'd rather not implement all three ideas of decreasing success, lowering the levels, and increasing the hit rate against cades, in the interest of not taking it too far. Out of the three, I probably most want to see the maximum barricade levels reduced, because right now, UD is a massive boring grind against barricades, and decreasing the AP spent on both sides of the cades leaves each side more AP for fun things. And since the goal behind my arguments is to free up AP for fun things, I would rather see cades take less AP for zack to break down, than them taking up more survivor AP to erect.--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 11:32, 13 June 2010 (BST)

One nice thing about this suggestion is that it makes the maximum enterable level and the absolute maximum level adjoining, and so makes overcading less attractive. I could see a lot of organized pro-survivors who could gladly accept that as a zombie buff that has also a smaller buff for them in it. I'd probably make that rather VSB/HB, though, as a.) that makes it easier to see at one glance if something is enterable (strongly/heavily) and b.) keeps the old maximum entry level and so creates less confusion when that update is introduced. To offset that light improvement, you can make decading a tad bit easier (like the +10% that Mis proposed). -- Spiderzed▋ 12:17, 12 June 2010 (BST)

I could get behind this one--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 11:32, 13 June 2010 (BST)

As Mis. Maybe not exactly, but along those lines. Kev needs to get rid of whatever bonus he gives the Loosely level too. That last level is always the most stubborn for some stupid reason.--

| T | BALLS! | 12:58 12 June 2010(UTC)

Really? My zombies seem to have no special trouble with that level.--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 11:32, 13 June 2010 (BST)

What about just making the over VS levels harder to do?--Pesatyel 06:11, 13 June 2010 (BST)

That does nothing for the feral who is surrounded by barricades he has no hope of breaking; it just makes it take slightly longer to fix the tiny dent he creates. A decrease in cading rates alone would benefit hordes exclusively, which does not need to be done. And, the most important reason, it makes the game less fun, rather than more fun, by increasing, rather than decreasing the overall AP spent on cades.--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 11:32, 13 June 2010 (BST)

How does it make it less fun? It forces survivors to do more than just cade all the time. If survivors want to spend so much time barricading JUST to get it as high as possible, more power to them. How can you say that isn't fun? They choose to do it. Yes, that was a bit of sarcasm, but the inherent problem is how easy it is to barricade relative to breaking them down. So what are the options? Lower the max barricade, as suggested (which a majority will spam), make them easier to break and/or make them harder to make. It isn't JUST zombies that have to worry about it. What about survivors? It makes little difference between being level 1 and level 40, your still stuck outside having to break the barricade to get in. Or simply allowing zombies an increased hit against barricades would be good too.--Pesatyel 05:54, 16 June 2010 (BST)

---

=

Generator Damage

Timestamp: Warbird108 02:10, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Type: Generators should be altered to create a variety of logical, albeit not yet implemented, effects.

Scope: Survivors and zombies, buildings

Description:
Generators are like candy to zombies. Aside from drinking up AP to destroy them that could just as well be used to down survivors, there are absolutely NO detrimental effects to zombies as a result of attacking generators; likewise to any destructive survivors (I've witnessed single survivors take down an entire mall's generators in one AP cycle, for whatever reason, with no repercussions whatsoever). I propose that generators, when reduced to damaged status, should have a chance to douse the attacker or attackers in fuel (if fueled up), with an x% chance to do so. In addition, when destroyed, the generator would have an x% chance to explode (again, it would have to have fuel in its tank), dealing 5 points of damage to all attackers still present in the building, or 15 to any attackers doused in fuel. Supplementing this change, any generators damaged beyond dented would, instead of showing a solid yellow color on the building block, would have a striped yellow/light grey color, to indicate flickering/intermittent lights. This would be a red flag for survivors with toolkits/FAKs to alert them to a recent zombie incursion, and let them know that aid is probably needed/there is hostile zombie activity in the area; it would also let zombies see that their brethren most likely recently led an attack on the building, and that there are bound to be injured survivors/weakened barricades at the designated block.

Note: A problem that has been noted with this is where to set the cutoff point of how much time afterwards will the generator harm you? If you attack it, but don't destroy it, and a day later, someone else comes along and destroys it with you inside, would you take damage? I don't know how you'd set an exclusion on damage for this without people exploiting it.

Discussion (Generator Damage)

So, this is the exact same suggestion as your current suggestion? If you're going to discuss it here, it'd be best if you withdrew the current suggestion first. Anyway, you seem to have gotten hung up on auto-attacks. Let's review some of the pitfalls that you claim are not issues:

• If you make those changes, would the game be fun for the attacking side?
  • You say "Not Applicable", but I would suggest it would reduce fun for the attacking side, since it means damage where none exists now. Gennies are already a massive AP sink (10-20AP), especially so if there are active survivors. You ignore the fact that they're an AP sink, which is frustrating enough as is, and then make it more frustrating by punishing those who attack them.
• Zombies hardly care about HP anyway.
  • You say it helps your argument, I say it applies the same to yours as it does to everyone else's. You haven't differentiated why it would help yours when it wouldn't help everyone else's, telling me that you don't quite grasp why this is an issue in the first place.
• Why let the computer do the fun part of the game?
  • You make a rambling argument about budgeting resources, while I would say that it's all about having fun. Survivor players should be the ones that kill zombies, not generators, of all things.
• It would be less fun to attack people if you were being automatically attacked back.
  • You say "Not Applicable", I say that it's not only applicable but is entirely true (except change out "people" for "generators"). Much less fun.

Furthermore, you haven't dealt with the multiply it by a billion issues that were raised in the votes, nor have you dealt with the area of effect stuff yet. And those are just the issues with the Frequently Suggested page. We haven't even gotten into stuff such as lacking a solid reason for changing it, nerfing the side that's at the disadvantage in that situation, lack of necessary details, the HTML issues I raised regarding striped buttons, etc., none of which you have even attempted to address at all. —Aichon— 01:05, 9 June 2010 (BST)

I think his "note" pretty much explains it all.--Pesatyel 05:30, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Give every attack that damages a generator beyond dented a small (1%?) chance of making it explode causing 10 damage (reduced by flak/fleshrot) and destroying the generator. No headshot possible, No XP gained and NO area effect! That adds a little risk and a possibility of saving a few AP to make it worth the risk. --Honestmistake 09:29, 9 June 2010 (BST)

---

Give 1xp for each step of ransack and ruin

Timestamp: CorndogheroT-S-Z 11:47, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Type: small XP change

Scope: ransack wielding zombies

Description: Currently ransacking kind of sucks xp wise; you only get 1xp total for up to 6 AP. This would change it so zack gets an XP each time he clicks the button. Not overpowering by any means; it would still actually kind of suck, but less so. Perhaps maybe even buff it to 2 XP per step of ransack?

Discussion (Give 1xp for each step of ransack and ruin)

Is swear its a dupe, but I can't find it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:50, 6 June 2010 (BST)

If it weren't a dupe, could you get behind this?--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 11:51, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Yip. Ruin costs 6ap, and can be undone in 1ap. This balances it up a bit. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:55, 6 June 2010 (BST)

This is not exactly a dupe but it IS relevant to the discussion.--Pesatyel 07:28, 7 June 2010 (BST)

---

Barricade Interference Ratio

Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 22:57, 5 June 2010 (BST)

Type: Balance

Scope: Everyone

Description: Zombie interference as it currently sits is IMMENSELY powerful. A great mechanic, but as it currently sits I think it is far too powerful. Regardless of how many zombies are in a building, zombie-blocking is roughly 50% (i.e. 50% of the time you would have gotten a barricade level added, the zombie blocks it). I propose that this percentage is variable based on the number of zombies:survivors in a building. The ratio I am thinking of is a 1:10 ratio to lower the Z-block percentage by 10%. Thus, if there are two zombies in a building, there need to be 20 survivors to lower the Z-block percentage down to 40%. This is stackable, but never lowering Z-block to less than 20%, regardless of the number of survivors. Some example figures: 4 zombies: 30 survivors = 50% Z-block 4 zombies: 50 survivors = 40% Z-block 6 zombies: 120 survivors = 30% Z-block

Discussion (Barricade Interference Ratio)

Shouldn't 6:120 be 20%, or am I missing something?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:40, 5 June 2010 (BST)

Nope. 6:60 would lower the Z-block by 10%, so 6:120 would lower it by 20%. 50%-20%=30% --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:51, 5 June 2010 (BST)

I assumed you mean 1:10 did nothing, and each further ten beyond that lowered it by 10%.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:27, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Well as you know I want interference removed entirely, but if it is to be kept, then I'd suggest making the block odds equal to the number of zombies in the building, regardless of survivors (5 zeds = 5%, 50 zeds = 50%, 100+ zeds means it's impossible to raise barricades). Easier to compute, and for people to grasp mentally. In any case, you're not giving zombies anything to compensate them for this nerf. What's in it for zeds? --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 00:34, 6 June 2010 (BST)

This isn't really meant to give anything to either side so much as balance a mechanic that is currently a little on the overpowered side. The best way to do this (based on previous incarnations of this suggestion that I've made and input from both career zombies and survivors) without significantly hurting ferals is to make it ratio dependant. The sticking point always seems to be the exact ratio and the Z-block reduction. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 00:54, 6 June 2010 (BST)

(EDIT CONFLICTED)Hashk's suggested numbers make more sense, however it would be very difficult to get up to 10 zeds in through the doors if they were hardly making any impact to the barricade rates. Maybe there is a baseline % like 10%. Dunno. And if cade blocking truly is overpowered, then it can be nerfed without any compensation. That's the whole point of nerfing really.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:57, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Yup, and god knows I think interference is overpowered. Grossly so. However, I also think zeds are too weak just now--quite the paradox, that. So I can't see me supporting anything that weakens them further, no matter how fair it may be. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 01:09, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Here's an idea. When a bunch of zombies break into your building, use 1 AP to step into the next building. The zombies will have to spend 50 to 100 times the AP to get past the new cades there. It's called surviving. You might even splurge and spend 4 or 5 AP to get even farther away. Kevan has given you every advantage in the game and you're whining because you can't have a particular building at all times. BOO HOO. There's nothing "IMMENSELY powerful" about cade blocking. I'll tell you whats "IMMENSELY powerful": The ability for survivors to effectively teleport from building to building (carrying hundreds of pounds of equipment) for a single AP and escape what took zombies probably 100 AP to achieve. And what did they achieve? The "honor" of maybe being able to attack a survivor a few times. If they even have the "skills" to open the fucking door, that is.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:18 6 June 2010(UTC)

For a zombie "lord", you seem pretty butthurt. You are telling me that when over a hundred survivors are dealing with three zombies, that they should see a rather significant decrease in their ability to erect barricades. I'm sorry, ZL, but that is just a plain LOGIC FAIL. Also, please keep in mind that this is an effort to balance 'cade blocking, not remove it entirely. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 01:36, 6 June 2010 (BST)

If your 100 survivors cant handle 3 zombies, then that's just FAIL on their part entirely. It's more than "balanced" as it is. Survivors already have a retarded advantage on cade building vs. cade breaking and if that does not work survivors can just teleport away. Whats next, reverse cade blocking? More survivors in a building exponentially decreases cade breaking %? Besides this is Urban Dead, logic does not exist in this universe as anyone can plainly see my 500 pounds worth of equipment toting teleporting friend. Kevan has babied you all enough.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:44 6 June 2010(UTC)

Zombie Lord, you might have a look at some of the discussion in Soph's other suggestion below. You are correct that survivors can teleport away for 1AP. And what Soph is saying, if I may paraphrase, is that there currently isn't any incentive for survivors to stand and fight when they can just teleport. Essentially, people are saying that we are being robbed of continued conflicts between survivors and zombies. Survivors don't want to fight because they feel they will lose, and zombies are deprived of a fight for the same reason. Instead you get to spend your AP munching through cades to find an enemy that evaporates the moment you finally engage them.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:04, 6 June 2010 (BST)

How about a base rate of 25% + 5% per zombie modifies down by 1% per survivor. Cap the block rate at 25% min and 75% max. Gives a good level of fluctuation and allows huge survivor numbers a better chance than at present meaning we might actually see a reason to stand and fight occassionally. --Honestmistake 09:41, 9 June 2010 (BST)

I could work with that kind of a fluctuation. My only concern (and someone who understands coding please verify/correct me) is that the ratio already appears to be coded in at roughly 50%. So whereas my initial suggestion was to simply add variables to what is already there, your alternative would require re-coding how the blocking percentage is calculated. I don't know how difficult that is. Question on yours: will a single zombie now create barricade blocking, or is this working under the current assumption that you need at least two zombies (thus making it 30% + 5% for every zombie beyond two)? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:15, 11 June 2010 (BST)

---

Make zombies stronger than survivors, but not invincible

Timestamp: Sophie ◆◆◆ CAPD 22:07, 31 May 2010 (BST)

Type: Balance chance

Scope: Survivors and zombies

Description: The whole suggestion is this (updated): I propose increasing accuracy of zombie attacks, to 75% for claws and 45% for bite, and removing barricade interference altogether. The rest of this text is a long boring explanation for why yours truly believes this change would be advantageous for everyone. Background Disregarding for a minute the game theme, and role-playing aspects and such, Urban Dead can be seen as a competitive game where two factions fight each other; while the game is open-ended, this is the main source of conflict, and conflict means excitement, suspense, drama, and lulz. I submit that the current game mechanics, while playable, encourage avoidance, rather than confrontation between the factions, which takes away this important source of entertainment. This makes UD a dull game—more so for zombies than for survivors, but frustrating for both, really. Under current game mechanics, lone zombies are underpowered and generally lose (as in: they fail to achieve what they set out to do, viz. nomming brainz), while organised zombies are unbeatable and always win. The former is clearly due to zombie attacks being too weak, this hardly needs elaboration, and it should be obvious how this suggestion addresses the issue. The latter is a more subtle effect, but still easily explainable (I hope). In Urban Dead, players who are online attack players who are offline, whose characters take damage passively. The main difference between survivors and zombies is how they deal with attacks: Survivors can reduce the risk of being attacked by erecting barricades, and Zombies suffer little or no penalty for dying. These are the pivotal, game-defining traits; the trade-offs; the strengths that make each faction competitive against the other. Everything else—attack odds and damage, skills, weapons, etc.—are refinements and qualifications on top of these main "faction advantages". Zombie groups are invincible because barricade interference allows a few coordinated zombies to take away survivors' vital faction advantage, turning a potentially interesting pitting of different combat styles into a plain fight to the death where one of the sides doesn't care about dying. While this may be entirely fitting and proper, in-genre like, I submit that, in a competitive game, it sucks goats arse. When a comparatively small team of players can consistently wipe out multitudes overnight, there is something clearly broken. A hundred zombies shouldn't be able to take on 400 survivors, at least not without a long, bitter fight. This, however, doesn't mean survivors are the side that suffers more. On the contrary, it's zombies who have it worse. Interference is not a game breaker because survivors can work around it easily, by the simple expedient of avoiding confrontation with zombie groups. Survivors don't need to fight zombies. Naive survivors will still try, every so often, and become frustrated; more clever ones just spend their AP role-playing, cleaning up after the horde once it's moved on, harassing weak zeds in green suburbs. Or killing each other, of course, which is fair and fun, sod the silly zombies. So survivors have several viable options open for them to enjoy the game. Many will just abandon, though, having come here expecting to fight zombies, and realising that that particular sort of conflict is strongly discouraged by the game itself. Zombies, on the other hand, don't have the prerogative of occupying themselves in other things. They are forced to either make a kill every blue moon, which is well frustrating, or joining a horde for guaranteed victory without challenge, which may be satisfactory for some but (I would think) boring for most. Plus, from my experience participating in the community, and developing metagaming tools: there's a significant segment of players who can't or won't metagame—a majority, in fact. And the "unchallenged certain victory" option doesn't apply to them. So the "leaving the game" alternative seems even more attractive for zombies. In sum, the assumptions here are: Zombies are being forced to choose between certain defeat, which is frustrating, or certain victory without a challenge, which is arguably boring. Further, zombies are being forced to metagame in order to aspire to victory; otherwise it's frustration for them all the way. Survivors are being forced to choose between certain defeat, which is frustrating, or a number of activities which hardly involve zombies at all, which is silly in a zombie game. When survivors opt for avoidance, the main source of conflict in the game is lost. Which is a bloody shame and makes the game dull for everyone. And the expected outcome is: All this sucks and many players will leave the game. More zombies than survivors. For some sort of experimental confirmation, refer to Survivor-Zombie_Imbalance#The_Graphs. Which of course doesn't mean this theory is correct; only that it doesn't contradict observable facts. As a further observation: while there are reasons for survivors to team up in groups, there really are no tactical reasons for such, at least none involving zombies. Creating large groups for the purpose of fighting hordes is pointless, since hordes can't be beaten no matter the size of the harman group, and lone zombies can be beaten without any coordination at all. [1] Rationale What this suggestion seeks to achieve is to make zombies stronger than survivors, to increase their numbers, and to bring back conflict between the survivor and zombie factions. Think of: Scary feral zombies that can break into a building and kill a survivor in a single AP-cycle. No more complacent harmanz headshotting ferals on the street, then going back to sleep safely in their green suburbs. Survivors should be always on their toes. It's good for them. More players willing to play as zombie, since there'd be more action and killing for them, even without going through the hassle of coordinating with a horde, which is not for everyone. Zombies are already at a disadvantage here, most players seem to prefer human characters; the game really doesn't need to discourage a large portion of players from playing zombie. Survivors that actually stand a chance to defend against a horde. Viz.: massive, fun, fair, proper sieges. A meaningful reason for survivors to team up in groups.

Discussion (Make zombies stronger than survivors, but not invincible)

Remove interference, add +2 damage to both attacks (to 5 and 6 for claws and bite), and add a +15% to-hit bonus for zombies attacking barricades, which is replaced by a -15% penalty when there are X or more zombies on that same square, X being negotiable. Allows ferals to take down cades easier but stops it being a complete cake-walk for hordes. Rationale is that a few zeds can work unhindered, a large horde means infighting, lack of manoueverability, etc. 22:14, 31 May 2010 (BST)

Cheers Mis, yup, this sounds reasonable, although I'm not sure complicating calculations of the odds. I will wait for more input here, will try to run some numbers as well, may very well end up modifying it to resemble this. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 00:39, 1 June 2010 (BST)

As a feral player, I agree with Mis basically. The one big letdown for ferals are barricades, and they should be the primary thing that should be dealt with. Needing 40AP (VSB) to 80AP (EHB) just to get in is just madness from the lone feral's PoV, especially as the enemy can conveniently cade up with just 10AP to VSB and then headshot the intruder at his leisure, unless the feral gets lucky with his feeding groan. At the same time, I think that a penalty for hordes, while not a bad idea, is effectively pointless. Timed strike teams don't care about the penalty, as decading anyway takes up a minor amount of APs on the individual level for them. Anything that would be sufficiently painful would just encourage salami tactics where teams who are just big enough to don't trigger the penalty move into the square, attack, move out and let the next team hit. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:25, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Fair enough, this is good stuff. Would you be agreeable to, instead of buffing zeds by increasing damage, increasing their accuracy to say 150% of current values? That's 75% for claws and 45% for bite. From Aichon's numbers here, I believe this would mean a full skilled zed could destroy a VSB+2 in 26 AP, an EHB+4 in 56 AP, and kill a bodybuilder in 23 AP. With those averages, ferals at full AP can realistically break into a VSB and kill a harman by themselves about half the times they try. Timed strike teams don't care much about cades, indeed, and they would deal a lot more damage this way, but without interference, this doesn't mean the whole horde gets in behind the strike team. So survivors have a fighting chance. How's this sound? --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 22:04, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Sounds fair enough at large. (I'd yet think that the upper end of barricades needs some nerfing so that a lone feral has a considerable chance to get inside within a single AP cycle, especially as about every freerunner prefers to sleep in them. But that's another can of worms that would make the suggestion even more far-reaching and invasive than it already is.) -- Spiderzed▋ 22:20, 1 June 2010 (BST)

I hear you, this is already too disruptive, slim chance to pass muster, that's why I want to keep it as simple as possible. Anyway, consider that, with these odds, killing a harman with claws becomes nearly as AP-efficient as a combat revive. Plus ferals have groans going for them, it isn't that hard to find a building with low cades, full of hurt harmanz... --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 22:58, 1 June 2010 (BST)

You people are underestimating ferals. Tompson and Marven Mall have, more often then not, been under zombie control since the MOB came through, quite a while ago. The zombies' woes should not be shifted from cades to meatshields. Up the damage of both attacks by 1, and leave cades alone. --VVV ^RPMBG 23:25, 31 May 2010 (BST)

Heh. I'm not certain about Tompson, but funny you mention Marven, because that mall is one of the reasons that moved me to suggest this. Marven Mall is most certainly not being held by ferals, but by a very impressively well-coordinated pack of about 10 rotters, who are able to tear down the barricades, get inside and squat, all of them together, in 2 minutes flat, every day. This group single-handedly defeated survivors out-numbering them by at least 3 to 1, very likely more, and including at least three well-coordinated survivor groups (forums + IRC) plus a largish population of "feral survivors" floating around the mall. For all I know, they are still struggling; I gave up as a pointless waste of my time after a month of this. Do let me know if you'd like screenies of these zombies working together, we have tons of them, and these guys are really, really good (kudos, santaria). This is not unlike Clubbed to Death holding Blesley Mall, or the Butthole Surfers holding Joachim, when they did.

And btw, this was quite the surprise, for CAPD at least, since we just had defeated some 30 actual ferals who tried for several weeks to break into our HQ. We assumed, like you just did, that Marven was being held by ferals who remained there after the MOB. One of silliest mistakes I've seen us make.

In any case, I respect your opinion of course, cheers for your input. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 00:39, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Not a fan. I follow your logic, but we seem to have different opinions on what we want out of the game. I had a lot more typed up, but can summarize it as follows: this game can be balanced in a number of different ways, based on what it is that is desired, and right now, I like the fact that it's balanced around small scale encounters favoring the survivors while large scale ones favor the hordes. It makes RP sense and keeps the game interesting (including for feral zombies, I believe, since I get plenty of eats when my dual nature character is dead, even though she doesn't follow any hordes around). I do think that zombie interference is overpowered, but I don't think that removing it entirely is the answer, especially so if you couple it with a damage increase, since that would just pressure people to join strike teams. —Aichon— 00:23, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Understood, thank you. Indeed, what each player wants out of the game is a personal opinion. I'm sure my good Cap'n Sednik's expectations are a lot closer to yours than mine. Personally, I don't mind if the game favours hordes in certain scenarios, but I believe survivors having absolutely no chance in those isn't healthy for the game. I'm not sure I follow your comment about strike teams.

My feral manages a break-in rather often, perhaps once every two days. Kills however are much rarer, I'd say it's probably once or twice a week. This for a full-skilled rotter. Considering that BHing I average about a kill a day, I really think feral zombies could use more hurt power to be as fun to play as a survivor. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 09:52, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Regarding strike teams, my thought was that if we eliminate interference and increase damage, strike teams will be far and away the best way to get food even more than they already are, I mean). Not only will the strike teams be leaving behind less scraps for ferals, but they'll also be incapable of holding the doors open. Right now, we have three types of zombie play: strike team, feral in a horde, and lone feral. This change would make the second one much less meaningful since groans wouldn't be as useful (given the lack of interference) and they would find less food when they did get in. That may be a way of lessening the strength of the horde, but I see it as a bad thing, since it incentivizes strike teams (this, coming from someone who has led zombie strikes) while discouraging a type of gameplay that should be fostered. I do appreciate where you're coming from, and you take a logical stance on it, but we simply seem to differ in opinion on what is the desired state of things. —Aichon— 23:20, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Ah, I see it now. Yup, I agree, this would encourage strike teams, and would make unlife harder for horde-ferals. I would only add at this point that, at the same time, they would benefit from the increased rates, along with every other feral. And I also agree that you and I expect different things out of the game heh. And to be perfectly honest, I really believe your stance holds more weight than mine, since I don't do much survivor or zombie play any more, lost interest in both already. In UD, I play my feral casually to fill time, but mostly keep to killing people with guns. And well, just trying to make harmanz and zombies more interesting here, for my tastes of course :") --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 06:52, 2 June 2010 (BST)

Very good point. I haven't been around before the introduction of cade blocking to see it first hand, but to see the cades rising again to EHB 2 minutes after a strike should be frustrating to a feral, to say the least. Also, from a survivor RP PoV I like that that makes attacking zombies a priority, rather than the sign of trenchieness as that it has been laughed at before. Some form of cade-blocking should be retained, although the current numbers are too extreme. -- Spiderzed▋ 06:39, 2 June 2010 (BST)

I'm sure there was a recent suggestion about making interference dependent on survivor (or zombie) numbers. I'll look it up when I'm back from work, maybe something like that would work here. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 06:52, 2 June 2010 (BST)

I had posted a suggestion here to that effect a couple months back. Currently reworking it before I bring it back here for more bashing and maybe a little more support. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:22, 2 June 2010 (BST)

As Aichon, I understand what you want to do but I don't think this is the way to go about it. Removing zombie interference entirely is asking for a revert of one of the most powerful changes to UrbanDead, and your increase to damage creates too many new problems (notably, does a Flak Jacket reduce the damage from a zombie (under current mechanics, it should)? And if zombies are doing more damage, and ferals are perfectly strong on their own--what incentive do survivors have for hanging around and engaging in seiges instead of running away (like they already do)? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:43, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Also thank you, Maverick. Indeed, this is reverting an important change introduced to make zombies more powerful. My point is that, in achieving that, hordes became unstoppable and, in that sense, if you allow me to abuse a math concept, the game has been "solved". Meaning an infallible winning strategy is available, and is simple enough to be implemented. Think tic-tac-toe, which is trivially solvable by all but the most naive players. Now I'm certainly not arguing that Urban Dead as a whole is "trivially solvable"; I'm arguing that a very important part of it is, and that detracts from the game's enjoyability.

I don't think I agree that "ferals are perfectly strong on their own". But in any case, the buff I propose for zombies is so extraordinary because I'm well aware that removing interference would weaken them a lot. Do you see why I think adjusting odds or damage are a change of a very different nature than interference? I believe fiddling with the numbers affects balance linearly; interference destroys the core survivor advantage in the game, making the actual numbers pretty much irrelevant.

The incentive I foresee for survivors hanging around is: once interference is removed, large-scale sieges become once again winnable by survivors. Perhaps very hard to win, but the possibility would exist. I believe survivors run away because it's been quite thoroughly demonstrated that, under the current mechanics, a large-scale siege can not be won, so what's the point in staying? (and before you or Ross come here to remind me of 404 feats: I'm well aware of those, and I also believe those are not reproducible by mere mortals :P).

As for flaks, I think they shouldn't have any effect. I'm trying to keep changes to a minimum: flaks should still make no difference against zombies, XP gained should still be the amount of damage inflicted, half XP for zed on zed, etc. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 09:52, 1 June 2010 (BST)

While logically you are arguing that the game has been "solved" to the point where zombies will inevitably win, have you forgotten that survivors continue to maintain a significant advantage of numbers? Look at your own links above. With the notable exception of The Dead, zombies have been fortunately lucky to just hit a 1:1 ratio with survivor numbers, let alone surpass them. You have to keep in mind with suggestions like this not only the actual numbers and mechanical effects, but the biggest variable in the game: HUMAN NATURE. People as a whole are very ill-inclined to change their behavior unless they have a damn good reason to, and I do not see this suggestion presenting that reason for survivors to congregate en masse for a large-scale siege with MOB or the RRF. In fact, I see your suggestion doing even more to "solve" UD than you already propose because now you are essentially saying that zombies can maul survivors twice as fast for half as much AP. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:04, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Hey Mav. No I'm not arguing that the game has been solved for zombies! Quite the contrary: as those numbers indeed show, zombies barely stand a chance. I'm arguing that the game has been solved for hordes, a minority of zombiehood; but survivors can and do bypass this very, very easily, simply by refusing to fight hordes. They run away, indeed. What I'm saying is that this is boring, both for survivors and zombies alike.

I believe this change could bring large-scale sieges back--or maybe not, there really hasn't been a large survivor victory since ruin was introduced--but in any case, I don't think it would be as you seem to expect, like, people reading this and going "oh, let's stand up against the MOB now". I think it would be more like: some survivors eventually win a wee siege, realise it can be done, maybe organise themselves better, try a bigger one next time, etc. Survivors can, and used to fight, some still try even now. I honestly believe they just need to know they have a chance to win.

As for you last comment, what I take from it is that I haven't made myself clear, I'm sorry about that. Perhaps a mental experiment would help me get the point across. Think of a horde attacking a well-populated mall. Say they strike with 10 zeds, decade and get in, kill 10 harmanz and squat inside. The rest of the fight takes place between un-coordinated players: more survivors wake up in the following hours and kill the zeds, but at the same time more zeds wake up as well, get inside the open building, kill more survivors and keep the doors open. This goes on until the mall is empty.

With this change, I expect things would go this way: strike team decades and gets in, kills 20 harmanz, but then the next bloke who wakes up seals the building. Then more survivors wake up and kill the zeds, more zeds wake up too but they have to fight against barricades again, not just walk in and kill. Who will win in the end? Who knows. The zombies, quite likely, because they'll be even stronger than now, but they won't win overnight. And if there are enough survivors, and they're organised well enough to keep reviving the dead and barricading, survivors might just win. And meanwhile, ferals are wreaking havoc all over town, making those smug survivors work hard for their green 'burbs. That's the vision, at least.

The point being: I think damage or rate adjustments benefit all zombies, and make survivors work harder but not necessarily defeats them; interference benefits mainly hordes, and it disables survivors, regardless of rates. Buffs of different natures. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 06:52, 2 June 2010 (BST)

Throwing in my 2 cents. Ignore 404 completely. They will never be repeated. Mostly because they were created by the current imbalance. 30 players who learned how to play UD by being hyper organised zombies just transferred what they knew to being survivors. World wide membership meant that cadeblocking hardly ever happened. There is no survivor alternative for this learning experience. Survivors don't need to be good at surviving. It just happens. Thats one of the reasons long term players start drifting towards the zombie side. Its more challenging. As for removing cade blocking? Seems a good idea, but I'd throw in some other bonus. Personally I'd double all repair costs. But then I'm massively biased. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:36, 2 June 2010 (BST)

Halp! Nerf! This man wants to nerf survivors!

Heh. I actually have a highfalutin theoretical explanation and model of how 404 could do the things they did. I'll spare you the pain. Just, yeah, not applicable generally. Question: would this other bonus be instead of the buff to zombie attacks, or in addition to it? See I already broke quite a few guidelines here, especially No Stopgap Balancing Measures, so I'm going very carefully. I wish I had the time to rig up a simple simulation, you know, run some numbers through a Computer, because I'm already afraid of my buffed up zombies.

... which maybe isn't bad, that's my point after all: I can't remember the last time a zombie killed me, I mean, without me deliberately exposing myself for them to do so. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 22:03, 2 June 2010 (BST)

Exposing yourself to zombies? Thats the definition of 404. Throw up your 404 explanation over on the DSS forum, I'd be massively interested. As for the bonuses, it all depends what you want. Feral life is more challenging, but its also very reflective of genre. Current Siege mechanics are pretty much pure Romero circa 1970's. Its a bugger to get in, but once you do its time to head for the helicopter. If you really want to have fun with survivors, why not Cap Barricade levels at VSB? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:52, 2 June 2010 (BST)

And that's DSS as well, but it gets old. You've seen it, we resort to silly games to keep us interested. Last siege I was involved in, out of loyalty to my other group, frustrated me so much, the sheer pointlessness of it all, that I ended up quitting and idling a character I was really fond of. Tbh, the only thing keeping me in UD is killing people, that's a fair game where you can actually win or lose depending on how good you and your team are. Zombies? Sigh, much as I love the genre (and I agree, UD is quite in-genre now), man, as a game, I just can't be arsed. And I know I'm not the only one.

Oh well. Heh okies, I'll write that up asap in the forum, just gimme a couple days cause work is hell these days. And, um, well the "rationale" thing above pretty much says what I want. Action! Things happening with uncertain outcomes! Fairness! And noo the hell you mean capping cades at VSB? I want to have fun with harmanz, not exterminate them! :P --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 09:03, 3 June 2010 (BST)

I can actually get behind Ross' idea of capping cades at VSB, and would also set entry points lower at lightly or QSB to keep an trade-off. That would very elegantly solve a lot of barricade frustration for ferals, while only marginally boost strike-teams. But good luck getting such an one-sided buff through the the voting system, even if you'd nerf or completely remove cade-blocking along with it :( -- Spiderzed▋ 11:40, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Actually, I hadn't thought it through. See, if I were to suggest capping the cades, then of course I'd forget about any hitrate buff, that'd be too much. So (again from Aichon's numbers) a VSB+2 would take a full-skilled zed 40 AP avg to tear down, which is the current cost, and which isn't that much better than the 56 AP required for an EHB+4 under my revised rates. But getting VSB+2 is so much easier for survivors than EHB+4. Plus, killing the meatshields would cost zeds exactly what it costs now: a lot.

So if I were to suggest "cap cades at VSB and remove interference", that probably would be much easier on survivors than my current 150% rates. You sure you'd still back this? :D --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 12:11, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Just said that I can get behind the rationale (as it makes sole use of what is already in the game and so does what it does very elegantly), not that that is the 100% perfect solution. On second thought, it would also take a lot of sting from overcading and pinatas and so also weaken the zombie side.

So I'd rather go with increased hit chances against cades for zeds (especially as that would make attacking cades more reliable, rather than seeing often that you put 20AP into attacking cades and than just get 1 level removed with only marginally bad luck.)

But what would be really needed is a massive linked suggestion all of a piece that deals with the roadblock of cades by increased hit rates against them especially, nerfs cade blocking without completely removing it (see Aichon's point about ferals following striketeams), increases damage output by raising hit chances and/or damage (so that the lone feral has a serious chance to break in and kill or at least drag one fully healthy survivor) and also increases revive costs to make kills more meaningful, without making CRs and therefore also death-cultists senseless. But I'd need to run some math through by myself before suggesting actual numbers for the points above. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:39, 3 June 2010 (BST)

I hear you, again. Indeed, the reason I only play my feral half-arsedly at best, is because his whole game is a grind against barricades. And yes Aichon's point is noted, horde-ferals won't benefit that much from the strikes, and I've been trying to think of something for them, but can't seem to find a solution. But really, would it be all that bad? By definition, "ferals following a horde" means large concentrations of zombies hitting a target, and these are zombies that can tear down EHB+4 in little more than 50 AP. The chance of just waking up to low cades would be quite high.

Meanwhile, think also as a survivor. Survivors are currently overpowered offensively, but that means squat in a siege, because in a siege it's zeds who play offensively, and harmanz play defensively. It's zeds offensive capabilities vs harmanz defensive, it's about balancing those. And the only harman defence is barricades. And a few coordinated zeds have a way to completely disable harmanz defence--no wonder they're unstoppable.

Survivor life is just a dull grind of a different kind. They lounge all over town just doing nothing, best bet for entertainment is murder and RP. They're just there to wait until a horde chooses to visit, so the horde has something to eat while they're there--and when that happens, they're forbidden to put up a fight. Survivors are being asked to wait doing nothing until they can provide entertainment to the hordes. In a sense, we are all playing UD just so a few coordinated zeds can get laughs. That doesn't sound fair, doesn't sound fun, and to me it's no wonder the game is losing players. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 20:57, 3 June 2010 (BST)

This is a really good discussion. I can agree that something needs to be done to encourage zombie vs survivor conflict. The lack of survivor vs zombie is the cause for player attrition, in my opinion. I can see both sides of the argument here and I'm not sure there is a clear answer to the problem. Something needs to change though. I wish we had a test city to try out some different ideas.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:14, 6 June 2010 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

One Click Ruin moved to Suggestion talk:20100611 One Click Ruin

Feeding Drag Change moved to Suggestion talk:20100531 Feeding Drag Change

Increase variety of useful melee weapons moved to Suggestion talk:20100519 Increase variety of useful melee weapons