Developing Suggestions

NOTICE

The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process. However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions.

Shortcut:
DS

Developing Suggestions

This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.

It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.

Further Discussion

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

Resources

• The Frequently Suggested List
• Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

How To Make a Discussion

Adding a New Discussion

To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.

Adding a New Suggestion

• To add a new suggestion proposal, 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.
• The process is illustrated in this image.

{{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.
• 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 month may be cycled without notice.

Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Encumbrance/Search Tweak

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 23:22 22 March 2011(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Encumbrance/Search mechanics

Description: 1. The Encumbrance of all items is doubled. 2. New Survivor Civilian Skill: Scavenging. Scavenging gives a +25% chance to find items for ANY search. This would be more fun for Survivors I would think. Afterall, who really enjoys searching a non-Mall for 50 AP and turning up with only a handful of items? 75% of which was shit you probably just automatically threw away. Basically, while you would be able to carry less, you would be able to find things a lot quicker. You'd just cycle through items faster, and being able to find what you want when you want would lead to less "spending my entire day searching for one fuel can" or whatever. You might be better able to find items in an emergency, like say if your PD is being overrun, you could pull up ammo a lot quicker and maybe turn the tide in your favor. Might help counter that zombies holding the door open effect. Might be able to win a Mall siege again, who knows. Would make Malls even more disgusting, but with some decent search rates away from the Mall, it might just lure a few people away from them.

Discussion (Encumbrance/Search Tweak)

I kinda prefer the system as it is now with some minor tweaks. Things like basing the number of certain items you can carry at once off their weight. For example you could only carry one 20% encumbrance item(I think that is gennys, artifacts and the like) but you could carry as many pistol clips as you can find up to the 100% weight limit.       11:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Humans don't need to be able to have a wildly significant bonus in finding items. As a human, it is rare for me to not kill at least 2 zombies per day, whereas as a zombie, it is rare to even get inside a building by yourself. And as the humans greatly outnumber the zombies now (and have for awhile), I hardly see a reason to just give humans such a great bonus.--Gerald Studabaker 22:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't think only being able to carry half the current encumbrance changes anything?--

| T | BALLS! | 23:01 23 March 2011(UTC)

It'd basically mean they'd be able to kill and restock in the same day because of the higher search efficiency. Instead of the current system where normally a survivor can kill one zed maybe wound another one depending on the RNG and their load out and then restock for a day or two. So in a sense your suggestion would make survivors almost more effective.       10:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It would, as long as their area was well off. It would hamper those that like to stock up and go off into dangerous areas. Basically my aim is to limit their range more realistically. Keep supply lines shorter by not allowing them to carry a warehouse on their back. Of course the search bonus doesn't have to be as much as +25%. +10%, +20% or whatever would work best. I'm sure Kevan would change it anyway, probably tweaking it up and down until the best balance was found.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:06 24 March 2011(UTC)

Should really just get rid of Shopping altogether. Going to a specific store in the Mall is a Skill? Sort of idiotic. Then just replace Bargain Hunting with Scavenging.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:43 24 March 2011(UTC)

I would agree with getting rid of shopping as it is an insult to common sense. An over all double of encumbrance wouldn't work as some things need to stay the same. Things like pistol clips, knives, newspapers, most other 2% encumbrance items would stay at 2%. Pistols could be upped to 5% and shotguns could be 8-10%. Fuel cans at 15%. Tool boxes get moved up to 20-25%, Gennies and most other large items would be moved up to 30-50%. A comprehensive list could be made if this moves on to voting. I don't like the idea of making searching easier by very much if at all but I guess the cake always needs a little frosting on top. Have scavenging be the prerequisite for bargain hunting(reduce bargain hunting by at least the percent boost scavenging gives). Scavenging would provide a bonus to over all searching on any building how much of a bonus? I'm not sure. However I foresee the changes I'd like making many of those survivors who carry a small store on their backs angry and this suggestion unpopular.       01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Shovel, Revised

Timestamp: Gavriil 21:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Weapon

Scope: Survivors

Description: So, yeah, after I submitted my suggestion I realized it was one heck of a dupe and I forgot to put in a lot of details. So here goes. The shovel is an alternate melee weapon (instead of the axe) for high-level survivors. It would come with a very low search rate, so that only those with the time and strength to search for a while could find it. However, it would have a potent 3 damage and quite high starting accuracy (~15%). The reason I think it should be this high is so that it feels like you're carrying around a potent weapon, without the burden of a "Shovel Training" skill. Also, to make sure the Axe and other weapons don't get outmoded, it would have a high encumbrance (because it would be a pain to lug around a 5-foot-long shovel) and possibly reduced damage against barricades. And honestly, it won't be as powerful as the Axe, it's just something a little different. Please let me know what you think.

Discussion (Shovel, Revised)

What would you put the encumbrance as? I'm all for more unconventional weapons though.. Oh and make it able to beak like the pool cue because of it's length.       11:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I was thinking 6 to 8%, but I want to know if that would be to much or too little. Also, I was looking for this to be a long-term weapon like the axe, but breaking could be added as some more balance. --Gavriil 19:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Would certainly be good to have super-rare items scattered around --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to play devils advocate here... what is the point? If it hits like a fire ax, and the only difference is that it is heavier, why would I want to carry it? As a practical consideration, I would not want to carry a weapon that does nothing but add encumbrance. John Ibans 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, it's a cosmetic thing, but it would have a higher base accuracy. That's a good point, though. I might have to cut down a few things. --Gavriil 07:19, 27 March 2011 (BST)

---

Encumbrance + Freerunning

Timestamp: --Anarchomutualist says: The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order. 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Mechanic

Scope: Free running

Description: Once a player goes above 75% encumbrance If a player is holding "heavy equipment" (Christmas Trees, Generators, Museum pieces), free running has a chance of failure. (Failure would be akin to jumping into a ruin - land in the street and lose 5 HP.) If encumbrance is <50%, then the chance is 5%. If encumbrance is >50%, then the chance is 10%. The message for a failed freerun would be The weight of your equipment bears down on you, and you fall into the street. The logic here is that it becomes more difficult to perform parkour when you're carrying portable generators and shotguns. Consider this a "lite" version of Zombie Lord's suggestions.

Discussion (Encumbrance + Freerunning)

I can't find a dupe anywhere, so you're clear in that department. However, I do recall that a few players of previous generations (like mid-2006 early 2007) considered "Freerunning" to be a system of bridges. But that aside, I would probably change this just a little. Perhaps a set percentage of failing to freerun? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But carrying three shotguns and five generators while leaping between rooftops is both believable and balanced! You can't change it! You're just trying to help those evil, smelly, zombie things, when they already control the entire city! blaeeegh!!!!11 --VVV ^RPMBG 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense from a realistic standpoint, but this is a game, we should be aiming at making it more fun. Does this make the game more fun? I can't see how. - User:Whitehouse 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

^This. It would also make it extremely hard to run bounty hunters (who need a lot of guns and ammo and one genniefuel at the same time to do their thing at all). -- Spiderzed▋ 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything that makes freerunning less uber than it is can only be a good thing. Oh and I am one of those who don't see freerunning as being Parkour.... It seems more likely to represent breaking and entry combined with a bit of rooftop/fire escape athletics to me. --Honestmistake 11:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more a fan of the "A wizard did it" explanation. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

--VVV ^RPMBG 01:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The last time I suggested this the Survivors all cried at the thought of losing their ability to fly like Superman with 1000 pounds of shit on their back.--

| T | BALLS! | 13:44 18 March 2011(UTC)

This would be realistic, but when it comes to a game, it doesn't really matter. This wouldn't change much, just make the game more of a chore and the playerbase is dying enough as it is. If it was implemented earlygame, sure. But those who don't like this will quit, so a chunk of the playerbase gone. We don't need that. The survivors use the hand of Kevan to free run, as you've shown Zombie Lord XD Shadok ^{T Balance is power} 03:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe an extra light version. You only have a chance of failure if your carrying excessively large objects. Such as Christmas Trees, Generators, Museum pieces, etc. In this form it is not nearly as tedious as having it above 75% encumbrance and this could possibly be a stepping stone to the original suggestion. Ease the players into it while still making free running more balanced..        01:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't even be opposed to someone carrying a bunch of heavy equipment having a 2 AP per square penalty for movement. This would apply to zombies as well, as they still have the same junk in their undead pockets. That, or to stick to free-running only, make it a 2 AP task to free run if you are <75% encumbered but you always succeed, just because it takes a little bit more out of you. --Gerald Studabaker 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd support this idea as well. How ever I wouldn't apply it to zombies since they are stronger than us. An interesting idea would be if you die you drop all large objects (genny, museum piece, etc) just a thought though.       10:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The last time I suggested this the Survivors all cried at the thought of losing their ability to carry 1000 pounds of shit on their back while dead. Also everyone knows zombies have a use for 4 or 5 gennies.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:01 22 March 2011(UTC)

---

Syringe Woes

Timestamp: Gerald Studabaker 01:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Considering combat revives or reviving people in ruined NTs helps overpower syringes as is, it doesn't really make sense that a zombie would hold perfectly still while someone tries to jab a needle in its neck. When it is possible for a zombie to miss an attack on a completely stationary makeshift generator, one would think it should be possible for there to be a possibility of missing a moving target that is trying to kill you with such an intimately accurate attack.

Scope: Considering that recent changes to humans make it a breeze to get resources more easily, syringes are practically given away now, so it is too easy to clear a ruined building with a couple of syringes and 20 AP. This way, even with a really high percentage like 70-75% success rates, humans would occasionally miss and it would keep the syringes from being so overpowered.

Description: Zombies are getting wise to being revived. In order to keep on a mission for brains, they are learning to dodge attempts to be revived. Using a syringe now has a 25% chance of missing its target outright and having it knocked out of your hand. You still lose the syringe and expend the 10 AP escaping the zombie's thirst for your brains.

Discussion (Syringe Woes)

Well, I agree that combat revives are pretty op. I think this might work better as a skill zombies can pick up. Something down the chain of skills which make it more difficult to get reved anyway. I have been playing a zombie for years now, and combat revives are the biggest thorn in the side of attacks. They are way too game changing, and players who want to stay as zombies should have more skills to make it so. --Zarak Goldleaf 02:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to get revived, get rotted. Simples. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 14:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What recent changes to humans? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called brainrot. Next. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tie something like this to a sub-skill of brain rot. That way it still has practical zombie use for NT sieges whilst appeasing the "dur brain rot stop combat revives" crowd at the same time. 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

10AP for missing? Seems too high. - User:Whitehouse 18:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New skill. Under Brain Rot. If you are in a powered NT, and someone tries to revive you, there is a 50% chance of failure. That way, one guy with a genny and fuel can't clear out five zombies in one go. --VVV ^RPMBG 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the Syringe is the most cost effective, efficient, and powerful weapon in the game. Stupidly so. As such it should be treated as a weapon. I support making it a 1 AP cost to use, but 10% chance to hit weapon. Agreed, Zombies would not passively accept this procedure. I don't expect Kevan to stop pampering the Survivors anytime soon though.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:27 8 March 2011(UTC)

Uh, no. They're tools. Not under Brain Rot, either. People who have Brain Rot hardly get needled anyway. Perhaps a prerequisite of BR, not sure if that's work. But there's still more about this skill to be hammered out: how much AP would it cost if you miss? and would it waste a needle? --Espemon333 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

10%? Too low. After all, it's a medical procedure done by trained professionals. BTW, what about these guys? ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't count. 01:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

10%. So 1 in 10. So 10 AP average. So, same as now minus the automatic hit and insane speed. As for the Mrh Cows, the revive cycle is already too cheap and easy. I'd go farther, it should cost the reviving body extra AP to stand. 6 to 10 AP at least. Spread the cost around. Makes it so those revive alt zergs that Survivors love so much don't get to absorb all the cost.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:26 9 March 2011(UTC)

Well 10% would be too low if we're making it an attack. They do have to search for syringes just like ammo and they at least get 65% with ammo, so if we're making a syringe a stock attack, I would say 5 ap instead of 10, and you get a 65-70% chance. I actually like the idea of it being a sub-skill of someone that already has brain rot. The idea is you despise resurrection so much that you are adept at dodging even in a powered NT. As per the other person's question, the recent changes are that humans can just hang out in a building and get additional searches so long as they don't die, so finding these automatic-success syringes is easier, whereas a brain rot zombie trying to hold an NT is just as prone as a level 1 zed is. This severely interferes with my ability to eat brains.--Gerald Studabaker 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Read this. Scout Safehouse is a worthless skill. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

less than worthless ~ it's total shit ~ easy to hide tho --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 10:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're hanging out in a powered NT and get combat revived, that's your fault for not destroying the generator. Kevan's not "catering to survivors" by allowing Combat Revives. Zombies seem to forget that they can kill a survivor in a much more AP efficient manner than any other player in the game. Now, back too the skill, howsabout we try this: Survivors with NT Employment have a 50% chance of hitting with a revive. Lab Experience upgrades you to a 75%, then another skill, like, 'Advanced Lab Experience' or something allows you a 90% chance to hit with a revive. --Espemon333 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC) EDIT: If you miss, it wasted 1 AP and a needle.

Bullshit. You can argue semantics all you want about the CR not "killing" the player, but the end result is the same: The player is being taken out of play. A single zombie can take 1 fully healed Survivor out of play in 50 button presses or so. With the same 50 AP a Survivor can take 5 Zombies out of play with 5 button presses in a matter of seconds. Who's more efficient again? In most instances a single Survivor is generally about 3 times more efficient than a single Zombie. Which is bad enough, but when it comes to Combat Revives it gets into the realm of utter stupidity. So of course Survivors cry and whine any time someone suggests they give up on their game of kick the cripple.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:31 18 March 2011(UTC)

I think the point of this isn't that zombies are hanging out in powered NT's, but more that a group of Zombies who have captured an NT and smashed the genny and ruined it, can easily be destroyed by a few guys with some fuel, a generator, and a few of syringes. This skill might be unnecessary if you just remove generators in a ruined building providing power for revives.--Zarak Goldleaf 03:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What's with the hate on combat revives? I find them to be a crucial part of practicing Dual Nature. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 01:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Zarak is exactly right. It isn't that zombies just leave generators around, but even if they did, the building is entirely ruined and ransacked. You shouldn't be able to just pop in a genny and easy-peasy revive zombies while it is still ruined. I mean, why bother ruining any building at all if you can just ignore the supposed drawbacks of them? --Gerald Studabaker 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm undecided whether I like this suggestion. In it's current for I'll say no. Maybe if developed I'll have a better opionion. I guess the only feedback I have right now is to point out that there currently exists a mechanic that affects the to-hit percentage of needles. Revivification inside a Dark building has a 50% success rate. Failed attempts cost 1AP but the needle is not lost. You can build off that, I suppose. ~ _{05:47, 11 March 2011}

Rotter revives during NT attacks are fairly rare but only because there is only a small chance that anyone inside is awake and active when you break in. More frequently what happens is that you only get in with enough AP to groan and some smart ass jabs you before help can arrive.The bigger problem is indeed that, even ruined, a powered NT means my poor rotter can be dragged back to the land of the mouth breathers while resting up after the brawl--Honestmistake 17:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with this suggestion is that it makes revive points impractical, since it doesn't distinguish between rotters who are trying to stay dead and survivors who want to return to life. You're doubling the AP costs for all the RPs around Malton, just to get rid of the rare occurrence of a survivor carrying a generator, fuel, enough syringes to clear the building, and enough AP to do so. In any case, if you're that desperate to deny an NT to the survivors, there's a simple solution: Put 4-5 zeds inside the building, and there's no way a lone reviver can empty the building, repair, and barricade all at once. --Beleester 04:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a skill under Brain Rot called "Resistance," that would allow to to choose to stay dead. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Both the zombie and the survivor in me are telling me that this is a bad idea. Just stick with Brain Rot, m'kay? --Espemon333 20:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The zombie in me says "yes please!" I do not want to be revived while sieging an NT and buying the Rot was supposed to prevent just that. Sadly along came an update and flushed that all away. Combat revives are great if you want to play dual nature but for most dedicated rotters they are an un asked for pain in the ass that take away fun. Lets have someway to at least defend against the 1 shot kill that is zombie rape via syringe :( --Honestmistake 16:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a MOB zombie and I've been revived and thrown out the door. You know what I did? I got up, walked back through their amazing VSB cades and jumped out the window. IT COST ME AN EPIC 4 AP to rejoin my side. It cost the SURVIVOR about 15AP to find and use that needle. This worked out better than a headshot. This seems more like it's just a whine from someone who decided that camping in an NT was a smart idea. The general idea is that if you camp the building, then you KNOW that odds are, you will be CRed. It's the ONLY way survivors can get us out of the building. Play one for a week or so and try clear NTs with 3 or more zombies, especially when those zombies are zerging. There's no way for them to do it with a pistol or shotgun, not without help. Remember, a dead survivor can't turn back to their side, a revived zombie CAN. The game HAS to help the survivors. Otherwise, the zombies would just kill them all and we'd have nothing left to eat. I'm sorry if this seems overly aggressive, but I've watched this suggestion grow and it seems like it's not considering the survivor side of things, nor remembering that needles are MEANT to be used offensively as well as defensively. So just get up and let a bahbah eat you or get up and do some base jumping without the parachute. It's not that hard. Now, I await the rage at me for daring to go against the BARHAH -.- Shadok ^{T Balance is power} 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Guess you weren't around for The Dead. Even they couldn't do what you're suggesting. I think you underestimate the power of Dirtnaping, CRAP, Pay it Forward policies, etc. CRing is the most efficient and overpowered weapon in the game as far as taking players out of play on one side. Nothing else even approaches it. I know we'd all hate for Survivors to actually have to work at something, but you know. Besides, if it gets bad for Survivors Kevan will just up the Syringe search rate to 90% and lower cade building failure rate to roughly Lighty across the board for all levels, like he did when The Dead were at their height.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:46 19 March 2011(UTC)

May I ask what those policies do to aid your point? Those are all pro-revival policies, for the sake of reviving those who WANT reviving. They do not affect rotters at all. The only one which affects pro-zombies of those is CRAP, and that one fails more often than not with rotters. No, I was not around for The Dead and perhaps it's a good thing. I'm looking at things as they are now, not grudging against what happened in the past. Syringe rates aren't 90%, I've had a survivor search for 40AP and turn up nothing but a few GPS and a DNA extractor. Survivors can fail to barricade at any level with zombies in the building (try barricade a building with two zombies in it). If this suggestion said "Rotters can resist needles, but in exchange, survivors now can absorb the effects of the necrotech syringes, allowing them to inject themselves prior to death and rise again as survivors", it would be killed with fire. But that's the only way to balance it out. Because Necrotech buildings would be impossible to be recaptured by survivors. Endgame. I play both sides, so if you can convince me that my zombie is hard done by, then I'd happily support this. But right now, I cannot see how this would make the game any better. Shadok ^{T Balance is power} 03:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you missed out then, because it was the only time being a Survivor was fun or challenging. There is no endgame scenario. You do know that Ruined NT's can be searched right? There are more than enough Revive Alt Zergs scattered around the city Dirtnapping with a full compliment of Syringes, trust me. My point is that revival is so cheap and easy that death basically means nothing. Survivors obviously don't need the ability to inject themselves prior to death, but something does need to be done about the cost of life and death in this game. And no, I don't buy into needles being designed for a dual role as offensive and defensive weapons. I don't credit Keven with that sort of foresight or thought when it comes to Urban Dead. And this jazz about never being able to reclaim an NT is just wrong. You know how many NT's there are in this city? And how many Zombies? Not going to happen. Even the Dead couldn't have done it even without Kevan saving the Survivors for them. If a horde is coming or camping in an NT near you and you just sit there trying to hold it or reclaim it, you're not being a "Survivor"...you're being "A Fucking Idiot". MOVE to another NT. It's not complicated.

As I say, death is meaningless. If the dead Pro-Survivor is actually an honest player and waits for a real revive and through some miracle can't get one he can always just go a life-cultisting. Get enough dead Pro-Survivors together and you can get an NT cleared pretty quick with a little zombie on zombie violence. Same way the zombies got the NT in the first place, so suck it up and get your hands dirty.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:19 19 March 2011(UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

The following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below.

No suggestions from here are currently up for voting.