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

Survivor Health

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 04:14 19 May 2011(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Survivor HP

Description: Here's one the Survivors will love. All Survivor HP should max out at 25. What?! Yeah. See this even HP thing was ok before Barricades but really should have been changed when they came into play. See Barricades basically ARE an HP boost for Survivors and once they are gone, it should be easier to kill some people. More 10 point bonuses for the baby zombies and such. Zombies should be "tougher", being able to absorb damage that would kill a living being. It makes more sense anyway. 5 pistols shots or 3 shotgun blasts to kill a person just makes more sense than 10/5. Plus, this makes a PKer/Bounty Hunters life less pointless. Right now being a PKer/Bounty Hunter is just REAL dedication to being an asshole, since its one of the most inefficient ways to spend your AP. Body Building works the same...for now. Stuff not included in this suggestion, but could be used later if it was implemented. Body Building: could be made less idiotic as well, trading extra HP for being able to carry 125% encumbrance or something. You know, something BB would actually do. Headshot: might be able to be altered as well, giving a Survivor like a 10% or 20% chance with each attack to just totally wipe out a zombies health to 0. (and minus the 15/6 AP to stand crap) Flak Jackets: Could have 25 HP all their own, and once out of "HP", they are discarded as useless. This way Survivors could still get that 50 HP thing for a time, as far as PKer/BHer attacks are concerned.

Discussion (Survivor Health)

I like this, actually. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:17, 19 May 2011 (BST)

1. In principle, I actualy kinda like this because survivors really shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with zombies and mass breakins will normally result in death whatever your HP is. However, I really don't think that survivors need a nerf right now.
2. BB increasing carrying capacity does makes more sense than the current implementation.
3. Multiply by a billion: Headshot insta-killing zombies would be horribly broken because it has the potential for one survivor to wipe out a breakin single-handedly.
4. Flak jackets degrading has been suggested before: It's not actually fun for the players, is a pain to code and adds quite a bit of server load.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:22, 19 May 2011 (BST)

I agree on the change to body building. About headshot, I thought of this a while back what if headshot, instead of giving you a possible insta kill ,just gave you a percentage boost to accuracy against zombies while keeping the 6/15 ap to stand up. Although if we nerfed survivor HP down to 25 an instant kill(10-20% chance) thing might not be a bad idea. Flak jackets degrading just takes away the fun and they don't really provide much of a boost. Sadly this will never go through in an actual vote. I'd suggest you do the body building change by itself assuming its not already been suggested as it is the only part that really has a shot at being peer reviewed.. Unless you can get a bunch of goons on your side :P       13:15, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Not directly a dupe, but still relevant. And this was actually a comparatable tame version that just reduced HP by 20 across the board for both zombies and survivors. Still, peer-rejected by zombie- and PKer-hating trenchies. Go figure. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 17:23, 19 May 2011 (BST)

If only we had more wiki active zombies instead of trenchie survivors.       18:03, 19 May 2011 (BST)

---

Max Axe

Timestamp: Ronarprfct 17:19, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Survivors above a certain level

Description: I suggest the adding of a new skill to the military skills-I like the name Max Axe, but whatever-with Axe proficiency and hand-to-hand as prerequisites-perhaps also some minimum level prerequisite. This skill would boost the accuracy of the axe by 10% so that it would be 50%. I don't think this is unreasonable at all. It would then make a human with an axe equal in damage per AP to a zombie without the effect of tangling grasp but with Vigour Mortis, Death Grip, and Rend flesh. I think it is only fair that the damage we can deal with our axe be equal to the damage they can deal with their claws. They would still be able to do more damage with tangling grasp, but I've personally never seen tangling grasp work all that well for me when playing as a zombie. If you look at the XP leaderboard, most of the leaders are characters who play as zombies because of the greater damage of their hand attacks. I don't think this would unbalance the game-one axe wielder still couldn't kill as many zombies in a session as a gun toter. It would just make things fair for those who like or are forced to use melee. Also, it isn't unrealistic to think that an axe could do at least as much damage to a zombie as the zombie's claws could do to a human. If anyone feels this would make the knife useless, you could add a new knife skill that would take it to 60%, thus making the knife do as much damage per AP as the axe now does.

Discussion (Max Axe)

the axe has lower damage per AP than a maxed zombie for the simple reason of balance.... remember that the zombie has to get to you before he can start clawing and biting and you have barricades to prevent this. for every AP most zombies spend attacking a survivor they will probably spend at least 10 (lots more for ferals) on trying to get to them. --Honestmistake 17:37, 17 May 2011 (BST)

This would also make the knife nearly worthless. It has its niche compared to the axe by having the higher to-hit % and by costing less encumbrance. By making axes as likely to hit, the knife would be reduced to a poor man's axe that only has encumbrance as redeeming feature. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 17:45, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I address the knife in my suggestion-apparently you didn't read it. As for balance, if the game is so balanced, why is most of Malton red or orange? Sure, survivors have barricades, but zombies have ruin, salt-the-land, 1 AP to be back up and at full health with ankle grab, no need to find a place to sleep ever, easy recourse should they become revived while we have to wait forever to get revived by needle with rotters clogging up the revive points, etc. It isn't going to break the game or even allow humans to win(The Dead number 1700+ against the largest human group of a couple hundred). It would just make things fair melee damage wise and give people a somewhat acceptable option besides guns. Humans are already royally screwed in this game and will probably remain screwed, I'd just like the screwing to be a little more fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronarprfct (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 May 2011.

~ _{18:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}

Humans can't...win. In fact, there's no winning at all in this game. There isn't 'fair' or 'balanced', either; most of Malton is red because there are a *lot* of active zombies, not because one side is inherently more powerful than the other. sannok^{(talk)(kilts)} 23:21, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I would argue that the knife is never worthless, even if other weapons eclipse it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:29, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Offensive weaponry should be the LAST of your concerns right now.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:16 17 May 2011(UTC)

+1. Get outta your trenchcoat and become a massive prick instead. If just 10% of the survivors would go all-out crapping, The Dead would have no chance given the current search rates. Sadly, most survivors will instead look how to power up their favourite mall and collect shotguns. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 21:59, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Ya know, I am already dirtnapping one of my characters and will be with some of my other 43 level characters. I even looked at The Big Prick and have given some consideration to joining. That said, this suggestion is important to me and I'd like actual discussion about it rather than advertisements for other things. I know I can't be the only one that supports this redress of an unfairness in the game. I don't think a 50% hit rate for the axe would be such a huge deal and it would make us melee even-except for tangling grasp, which I don't care about anyway as I never had much success with it.

Learn to sign your posts for one.. And secondly survivors do not need and buffs in this game its at the perfect balance for a "zombie apocalypse". Lastly the axe need not be buffed for the simple reason it is an easy to find weapon that will last forever. Where as guns earn their high hit rates because you have to constantly find ammo for them and typically that takes a fixed up PD or mall with a genny to do well(consider the AP exhausted to do all that). Now if axes had a chance to break that might warrant a higher hit percentage but that's doubtful.       23:52, 17 May 2011 (BST)

“	Those who live by the sword axe get shot by those who don't.	”
—Proverb

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:25, 18 May 2011 (BST)

I am all for survivors thinking they can kill their way out of a war where the other side's one, singular benefit is that they can stand up after being killed. Makes my job a heck of a lot easier. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 18:09, 18 May 2011 (BST)

I would personally be in favour of banning all outdoor combat until the survivor:zombie ratio has been improved. Either that or feeding all trenchcoaters to the zombies in the hope that it will give them indigestion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:34, 18 May 2011 (BST)

The axe is carefully balanced because:

• it requires no ammo
• it requires very few skill points to make effective
• it can kill people behind barricades

Making it more powerful would only boost PKers (which I'd personally love) and insult zombies, who require many more skills to have a similar attack that only works without barricades about. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:57, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Give zombies free running! That solves all the issues! :D        13:21, 18 May 2011 (BST)

If my suggestion were implemented, the axe would require exactly the same number of skills purchased as the zombie does to do 1.5 damage per AP, three: Hand-to-hand combat, axe proficiency, and Max Axe vs Vigour Mortis, Death Grip, and Rend Flesh. The axe would then be just as balanced as a zombie's claws. Guns can also kill people behind barricades-there is no difference except that way less AP would be required with guns than with an axe under my suggestion. Zombie claws also require no ammo and apparently don't degrade with all that debarricading either. Zombies have more than that one singular benefit-and it is by itself a powerful one. They get to stand up for 1 AP as the class they like playing. Humans have to expend tons more AP to get back to human. You can't honestly think PKers would want to expend all that extra AP when they could just shoot someone and get away!Ronarprfct 21:48, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Your missing the point. Zombies are suppose to be natural killing machines. A person wielding an axe should not be able to equal the killing prowess of a zombie it's illogical. Zombies in Urban Dead are considerably weaker than they should be but that is another topic all together..       22:36, 18 May 2011 (BST)

What zombie movies have you been watching? Zombies aren't natural killing machines-they are actually inferior to humans as killers, being rotting corpses and slow and the like-the only advantages they have are defensive or passive ones like immunity to most damage and no need to eat or sleep to keep going. Killing prowess? It is only their overwhelming numbers and single-mindedness together that enables them to defeat humans-besides their lack of dependence on things humans need. You talk about them like they're lions on the prowl when they are just shuffling corpses with a taste for human flesh. I bet you money any man with an axe can do way more damage than a single zombie without one.Ronarprfct 00:34, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You my friend fail. Now go get eaten by a shuffling corpse while carrying 20 shotguns, 5 gennies and your invincible axe not to mention all forms of military weaponry. Enjoy.       02:35, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Ron, you're just being retarded now. One of the bases of the game: zombies are effective without AP investment, survivors require an AP investment but are much more efficient overall. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:21, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Where, exactly, does Kevan say that is one of the bases of the game? You're full of it.Ronarprfct 19:16, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You think half the player base should be mooks who get regularly bitch-slapped by random trenchies with axes? Zombies in this game are run by players too. Don't take away one of the few advantages the game grants them (which is the better and more AP-efficient melee attack). Survivors easily make up for that by being able to potentially dish out much more damage in a brief time window by using guns. You can come back with your idea as soon as my zombie can search for missiles for his rocket launcher. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 19:59, 19 May 2011 (BST)

I was under the impression that this page was for developing suggestions through constructive criticism so they could then be voted on-not voting on them. Maybe you death cultists could do that.Ronarprfct 21:00, 19 May 2011 (BST)

We tend to get a tad hostile to people who continually miss the point. I'm not sure if your aware of this but until the recent return of The Dead zombies were greatly out numbered by survivors the ratio hung around 60:40 survivors:zombies. This one hints at less people wanting to play as a zombie or two survivors being stronger. In either case this meant zombies needed improvements to solve either problem. Honestly they still need those improvements, survivors do not.       21:34, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You know what, he is right, an axe really should do more damage than a claw or bite... but then a firearms should do more damage too. But (and these are big buts) zombies should be almost unstoppable without headshot,infections should always prove fatal, survivors should need to search for food and shouldn't be able to freerun with more than a minimal load, oh, and revives shouldn't exist. Why doesn't the game work like this? Because it would not be much fun to play! --Honestmistake 22:24, 19 May 2011 (BST)

---

New City (To be named)

Timestamp: Peter Mason 18:11, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Type: New City

Scope: Urban Dead players

Description: I think that many people are getting bored with Urban Dead as it is. Monroeville is dead and Borehamwood is on its way. Kevan should make a new city. This could either be a city where you can't be revived like Moroeville, or a new map almost exactly like Malton. There would be the same building types and there would be revives. It would be like Urban Dead had started all over again. And the old cities would still be there! Malton is pretty much dead because 90% of it is zombie ridden and pretty much unchangeable. Is anybody else with me on this? It's been a while since a new city was added. Please vote yes if YOU want a new city! Maybe Kevan will see and make a new city.

Discussion (New City (To be named))

Malton isn't dead..It's just turning into a real zombie apocalypse.. On the note of a new city I'd be supportive of a temporary either real-time city or one that has considerably more AP per day than current UD. It could be reset brand new every 2 weeks or however long and wouldn't even have to be as large as Malton, in fact smaller would be better. Maybe only a limited number of people could sign up then it would lock out like he did for the other 2 cites.       04:16, 16 May 2011 (BST)

HELP ZOMBIES ARE IN MY ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE GAME! WHAT SHALL I DO? QUIT AND MAKE A NEW GAME --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:16, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Well I think my suggestion is better than what the guy above this guy above me is saying. We get to keep Malton and make a new city. The person two comments above me agrees with my thought of making a temporary no revive city. Monroeville is over, so it's time for a new one! Constructive comments only please!--Peter Mason 12:46, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Just to note I meant keep Malton and have an extra city or two to play in as its not going to die we always bounce back..       13:29, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Zombie apocalypse. If you don't like it you need to find something else to do. --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:34, 16 May 2011 (BST)

You know, I might not want a new Malton either. I'm just spit balling here! I'm thinking that now that because Monroeville is over people migh want another challenge city. It's not quitting because I really want survivor to bounce back in Malton. The old cities would still be there. Were you this worried when Monroeville came out. You didn't worry that Malton would be over. Why should you now. I'm trying to ind a compromise and suggest an idea that everyone coul like. Don't just trash ideas if you don't like the way they have been put online. Try to help! Make it better. Isn't that what the discussion section is all about?--Peter Mason 22:59, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Unfortunately I stumbled across UD after the quarantines so I never had a chance to visit Monroeville or Borehamwood. I certainly wouldn't mind having the chance to play a new city with a few differing rules in place. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 14:14, 17 May 2011 (BST)

New cities are full of win, the first scramble between sides is great fun. Previous new cities didn't get the balance quite right but were fun none the less. --Honestmistake 17:41, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks for the support! Let's hope Kevan makes it so! It is really up to him so we have to show that we would like a new city.--Peter Mason 21:48, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Balance Idea I've got.

No name for it yet, but it might help balance the number of survivors-zombies.

Timestamp: Danny Williams 16:40, 14 May 2011 (EST)

Type:Balance

Scope: Every character on UD.

Description: As of writing the  % of standing surviors is 14% against The Dead's 'deal with it' attempt to break the game. I was thinking off possible ways to deal with these supergroups that are just trying to ruin the game for other people in a fair and balanced way. This is what I've come up with. Every character will get a +1 max HP for every 1% their race is down (this would only include standing characters). However if one race has a higher% they receive no bonus or handicap. EG zombies out number survivors 55%-45% so a new level one Zombie would have a max health of 55 HP instead of 50. Over the next few days the balance is changed with standing zombies equalling 60% of total standing chars, so all zombies would lose their max HP bonus, and survivors would get a plus 10 bonus. As of writing surviors would get a massive 36 extra max HP, but as the game begins to balance again that advantage would fade untill an even 50/50 split is restored. I have no idea about you would explain this change in story terms, but this litrally came to my head about 10 mins ago and I really wanted some feedback before making it more specific.

Discussion

Terrible idea. Have you not searched any buildings? If you haven't then try it and you'll see balancing measures in place. Besides this is a zombie game and survivors shouldn't be winning it.       20:09, 14 May 2011 (BST)

How would this ever be beneficial for zombies? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:13, 14 May 2011 (BST)

To Mazu, I've heard nothing before of increased search rates (I'll asumme that's what your getting at, I'd appreciate any material you can give me to read on this. 1. If it's a zombie game why can we play as survivors? Surely if the game was made solely for zombies there'd be no point playing as a survivor? 2. Where have I said survivors should be winning this game? Personally I believe that nether side should have a clear advantage against the other, a sort of yingyang to suit every player. To Karek, it's not beneficial to ether side, although as far as I know, throughout most of UDs history survivors have had the larger % of active players, so you could argue that this boosts zombies more then survivors. Danny Williams 21:50 14 may 2011 (EST)

Syringes ignore HP, claws don't. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:23, 15 May 2011 (BST)

“	Yes, this is just a simple built-in balancing mechanic, triggered by the overall state of the game - at the other end of the scale, search rates drop when survivors greatly outnumber the undead. If you want a thematic reason for it, the pickings are richer for an individual survivor when there are fewer of them around to do the looting, and when the suburbs are getting too comfortably repopulated by the living, it's harder for them to find something that's been overlooked by everyone else.	”
—Kevan, via email

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:52, 14 May 2011 (BST)

HELP THERE ARE ZOMBIES IN MY ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE GAME FOR ONCE QUICK TO THE WIKI TO SUGGEST SOME BULLSHIT FIX TO RETURN IT TO SURVIVORS AND REVIVIFYING SURVIVORS HURR --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:18, 16 May 2011 (BST)

You should have put more than ten minutes' thought into this. Then maybe you'd realize how stupid it is and not have posted at all. --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:36, 16 May 2011 (BST)

---

Prognosis

Timestamp: Cyrus Hanley 15:40, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Survivor Skill

Scope: Survivors

Description: A sub-skill of Diagnosis. Survivors with the Prognosis skill will be able to distinguish infected survivors from uninfected survivors, much like zombies with the Scent Blood skill.

Discussion (Prognosis)

Only if Prognosis has a button with a drop-down menu listing every Survivor in a building with you, and it costs 1 AP to check one of them.--

| T | BALLS! | 15:43 14 May 2011(UTC)

Why? Cyrus Hanley 15:45, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Massive dupe, even with the exactly same name and already one that was kept at 28 of 29 votes back in the days before the current suggestion system. Another item-based infection detection suggestion has been rejected, while skill-based infection detection still crops up every now and then. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 15:55, 14 May 2011 (BST)

YNTGOM.--

| T | BALLS! | 16:01 14 May 2011(UTC)

? Cyrus Hanley 16:05, 14 May 2011 (BST)

What we tell you here is that precisely this suggestion already exists (a "dupe" as we call it, short for "duplicate"). If you would enter your suggestion, it would be removed, since it has already been suggested and has already been under community vote. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 02:01, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I knew that, what I didn't know was what "YNTGOM" means. Cyrus Hanley 04:09, 15 May 2011 (BST)

You Need To Google Our Message. ~ _{00:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)}

---

More Talking

Timestamp:  Swiers 16:56, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Type: improvement

Scope: everybody

Description: instead of a flat 1 AP cost to say something, talking would only consume an AP a certain percentage of the time (say, 25%), randomly determined each time you talked. This would encourage role play use of talking, while still discouraging people from talking much in tense tactical situations, since they can't be sure it won't consume AP they need for other things.

Discussion (More Talking)

Makes sense because in relaxed situations, you realistically are more free to talk.  Swiers 16:57, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I like reducing the cost of speaking, while still attaching a cost to it to prevent flooding. What about gestureing or broadcasting? And what about spraypainting or defiling graffiti? -- Spiderzed█ 18:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)

The other modes all reach more people or persist longer than speech and, IMO, would defy the point of this suggestion. It should definitely cover both zambah- an harman-gab, though. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:36, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Abzaragrah - zambah zbaagh !z zbaagh!  Swiers 04:25, 6 May 2011 (BST)

So, speaking (both zombie and survivor) and gestureing would be what is affected by that? Me like. Particularly since I see the issues with cheaper graffiti/defiling/broadcasting Rev mentions. -- Spiderzed█ 13:11, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I hadn't considered gesturing, but yeah, why not- its basically a form of speech. IMO survivors should be able to gesture too- probably the only reason they can't is it would be largely redundant with (non-zambargh) speech.  Swiers 19:47, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I all for more talking. You could do something such if there's a zombie present inside the building or in the square with you that forces it to take 1 ap per speech but I'd hate to over complicate the simplicity..       03:00, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, by keeping it to a simple random number you avoid introducing a new database call (which would be needed to detect the presence of a zombie in the location with the speaker). I'm guessing grabbing a random number is faster and easier to code, although I suppose speech processing already requires checking if the speaker is alive, prone, or walking dead.  Swiers 19:47, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I reckon it could be done without an extra database call: it'll already have to check to see if there are any zombies when it loads the page so it can just check the variable whenever someone talks.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:39, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Don't discriminate zombies. There are few enough survivors to talk to zombies as it is. Even if it just trenchie trash talk like "SUCK MAH SHOTGUN FUCKING ZED", it is more fun to hear than 20 "RandomTrenchie117 shot you with a pistol for 4 damage... and again... and again..." messages. -- Spiderzed█ 23:06, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not: I thought the point up for debate was the practicality of making it only cost AP to talk when zombies are around and was saying that it wouldn't cause any additional server load. Am I misunderstanding?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:17, 6 May 2011 (BST)

“	December 21, 2005: With nearly a thousand in attendance, Whetcombe is so crowded that it is hard to do anything. Stanstock organizers ask participants to spread out to soundstages and refreshment stands in adjoining streets. To reduce server load, Kevan limits conversation broadcasts to the fifty nearest.	”
—Stanstock

I'm wondering if the fact that speech was already limited for server load purposes gives this suggestion really any chance of a future. Speaking is good but seems unlikely.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:03, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Of course, that was end of 2005 in the heyday of UD. With today's player numbers and the overproportionally growing server load for speech actions (the more people there are in the same place, the more people load the speaker speech), things might be different. -- Spiderzed█ 20:35, 6 May 2011 (BST)

You'd think thered be a way to streamline speech and make it have nearly no server load.. Make it so to have free speech you gata be with less than 20 people under the guise of having to "yell" over everyone if there's too many people around :P       02:35, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Not entirely. The way it works is that: Every time someone loads a page the game will query the database to retrieve any speech that's happened at your location since last time you logged in, obviously with larger queries causing more server load. This happens every time someone takes an action so the load is effectively multiplied by the number of people active. So, if there are 1000s of people active in a location and they're all using their AP to talk then the server is having to make thousands of large database queries to retrieve text and likely also having to make thousands of queries to store new speech in the database (possibly 1000s of queries per line of speech).

The only way to solve it is to limit the number of queries that can be made by (as Kevan did) by methods such as limit the amount of characters who the message is sent to (thus limiting queries). So, yeah, limiting 0AP speech based on the number of people present would be a reasonable solution.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:26, 7 May 2011 (BST)

You know though, all that aside I'd still vote for this. There are certainly ways Kevan can limit it but, ultimately that's up to him. Speech shouldn't be a trade off with useful actions like attacking, it should definitely be easier. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:10, 15 May 2011 (BST)

So would I, actually. Votes are supposed to be based on the merits of the suggestion and not on potential server load (because only Kevan is really in a position to make a judgement on that), and I like the suggestion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:59, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Then lets get her put up for vote with some of the modifications proposed :P       13:27, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Who decides to put it up for a vote because they really should.--Peter Mason 00:03, 16 May 2011 (BST)

If I remember correctly the creator of the suggestion just throws it onto the real page. I doubt if there's any formal procedure..       04:09, 16 May 2011 (BST)

---

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.