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

Semi-Comprehensive Zombie Balancing

Timestamp: KCLZA 22:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Type: Zombie Boost (with a touch of survivor nerfing)

Scope: Zombies and survivors

Description: So, here goes. Zombie speech is corrected to function just as survivor speech does, but only to other zombies. No more limited alphabet. In exchange, zombie speech is limited to 20 characters per AP. Survivors still see the translated version. (I would not oppose masking survivor speech to zombies, but that may actually hurt survivors trying to coordinate.) Removing barricades works the opposite of adding them. EHB gets a +25% to hit, VHB gets a +15%, HB +5, lower barricades stay the same. Zombies can hear activity inside of buildings. A zombie standing outside a building can hear searches, speaking (but not what is said, just as mumbles), gunshots, etc. The zombie must be standing and directly outside the building. You would see "2 hours ago, you heard movement inside the building". The exception, generators block all noise but the generator running. So, a powered building would just say "you hear the hum of a generator." This should only show the most recent activity, not all activity since the previous log-in. It would not give an idea the number of survivors inside. Survivors can only repair decay up to the level of AP they currently possess. Building cost 50 AP to repair and you got 30? Prepare to wait in a slightly less ruined building. Scent Death is fixed to give actual numbers rather than the basically useless colors. Groan ranges are all increased by 1 unit/block. Now some more questionable suggestions (more nerfing survivors than improving zombies): FAKs have a 50% chance of curing infection. A message is shown after using a FAK saying either "you cured the infection" or "so-n-so is still infected." If a zombie has grabbed a survivor or other zombie with tangling grasp, the victim must spend 1 AP to break the hold before taking other actions. If the grasp must still be in effect at the time of the action. Using a non-ranged (not a gun) weapon against a zombie gives a 5% chance of getting infected during each hit (if the zombie has infection). It could say something like, "You hit the zombie for 3 damage with your axe, but get too close to the zombie. As you pull back your axe, you rake across the zombies teeth. You will lose 1 HP every blah, blah." Free running with more than 60% encumbrance give a 10% chance of falling during the run. Damage is the same as free running into ruined buildings, some times it happens some times it doesn't. The chance of falling goes up 1% for each % of encumbrance over 60 (ie. 80 gives a 30%, 100 gives a 50%). Misfire, all firearms have a 2% failure rate. There is no lasting effect, just the loss of 1 AP and 1 bullet.

Discussion (Semi-Comprehensive Zombie Balancing)

Most of these I 100% endorse. Comments/questions from section A:

• As to #1, I wish there were a way to do this without removing the flavor of zombies' limited communication.
• For #4, what about buildings that are more than 50 AP ruined? would you have to spend 50 AP, wait until you regained, spend another 50 AP, etc? Or would buildings that fall beyond 50AP be lost forever?

From section B:

• For #4, 60% encumbrance seems pretty low — as a survivor, I rarely have below 50%, and often am running in the 70-80% range. Maybe 75% as the encumbrance threshold? Also, isn't there some item which you can carry to exceed 100% encumbrance by a significant margin (pumpkins?)

Also, have any of these been suggested before? Other than that, I'm a fan. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In order:

• It would still be there for survivors seeing it. I was hoping the character limit might result is more "cades @ 10pm" rather than "tonight my zombies brothers, we attack the barricades at 10:00 GMT." More like zombies grunt words, rather than speak them. But perhaps a better compromise might be just removing all vowels (except A), so it's easier to communicate but still not 100% clear?
• They could be repaired. I picture, in my idyllic dream, it taking 3-4 coordinated survivors to retake long ruined buildings or one survivor and luck/revives. It also means that if zombies hold a building for say 1 year, it will take quite the effort/coordination to recover it (would take a single survivor about 7.5 days to repair rather than 1 second and 7.5 days of negative AP).
• You are probably right. My thought was making survivors really think about what they need/want; however, it's been so long since I've worried about survivor stuff (tool boxes, generators, fuel cans), that I may be overestimating what that allows a survivor to carry.
• Probably?

Thanks, Bob. --_K^CLZA 23:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Vouch This is excellent, well-planned material for Kevan to completely fail to implement. In any case, might want to clarify that Section A, #5 is more like, "survivors must undo repair incrementally, using what AP they do have, instead of going into negatives", as the wording seems more like "can only repair if you have enough AP", which is why Bob asked that question. The rest of Section A I like. Now, Section B, I'm against #1 and #5. Adding more unavoidable fail chances will take more fun out of the game. Having to burn one FAK after rising is reasonable, but having to go through 2-4 because Rando was on the rag is not. The misfire chance thing is also unfun, since it can't be mitigated in any way. #4, I second Bob in raising the threshold. 75% sounds reasonable, but make the fail chances increase by 2% with every 1% encumbrance, so 100% enc is still hit for 50% fail. #3, flavor text would make more sense if it was about being splashed with zombie blood (small nitpick, mechanics are fine). Everything else is good.. ---- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}00:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I did consider the blood splash for infection, but I have since decided a different path might be best to address infection. On further thought, I do agree that nerfing the FAK to infection-cure ratio is a bad idea, and my modified idea would address making infection less useless anyway. After Bob's comments, I was thinking the same thing regarding encumbrance, so I take you suggesting the same thing to mean we are both right. Thanks for the input, you radicalpenguinwhig. --_K^CLZA 21:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

With Section A, I like numbers 2, 4 (love it! though rework the wording as per the other comments), 5, and 6. Regarding #1, to me, the zombie language that's been created around this game is one of its defining traits, so even if it is a hindrance to the zombie cause, I'd rather keep it and work around it than lose something that's integral to what it means to be a zombie in UD. As for #3, I'm on the fence, since this feels very much so like x-ray vision. Allowing them to hear searches also seems like a bit much to me, but speaking and gunshots seem reasonable enough.

With Section B, maybe increase the success odds for #1 to something like 90% instead of 50%, I like #2 as it is, I'm not a fan of #3 since it means zombies are doing damage just by standing, I'm not a fan at all of #4 since I think there's a better implementation of that idea already in suggestions somewhere, and I love #5 (though they may not all be misfires...maybe "you fumble with the gun in your haste" or something). Regarding #4, rather than it being a random chance that you'll be frustrated with every free run leap you make (of which survivors make quite a few), I think it should be limited to particular leaps that players can choose to avoid if they want, such as from ruins into intact buildings, with the ruins crumbling under their feet occasionally. Doing it like that instead makes things more interesting, since it becomes a question of risk vs. reward rather than the introduction of randomized frustration, given that you can avoid it entirely, but have the option to use the ruin in an attempt to save AP at the risk you'll waste AP and take damage. It'll actually incentivize keeping more buildings at VSB, I'd imagine, which plays well with your zombie buff to barricade smashing.

One thing that's missing from this comprehensive zombie balancing is some way of addressing barricade interference, which I've long contended is in need of some more advanced balancing. Right now, the odds of interfering seem to be based on the raw number of zombies in the building, which makes very little sense if the survivors have an overwhelming presence in the building and should theoretically have no problems evicting their uninvited guests. Which is to say, with any buff to barricade smashing (which I agree is needed), we also need a corresponding (slight) nerf to barricade interference. E.g. Rather than being based solely on the number of zeds, base it in some way on the ratio of zeds:survivors in the building. More or less, make it easier for zeds to get in (as you suggested), but also easier to kick them out when there are lots of survivors and few zeds inside (i.e. take away the OPness of the beachhead tactic in large-scale events). Makes for a more dynamic gameplay and a better chance of sieges making a return, without nerfing zeds in small-scale attacks in the least. —Aichon— 16:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I do see your point on the zombie language. Perhaps a compromise might be to slightly increase the available letters to make communication easier, without making it just normal? Regarding the hearing, I can see point on the searches not making noise, but I'm afraid just making shots and talking noticeable will encourage less survivor communication. It does have the limitation is not giving a number, not telling whether there are still survivors, and since it would only show the last action, it would not give an idea as to how used the building is. I can see the x-ray argument, but I think there are enough limitations that it is not as easy to abuse (plus it actually could be used as weapon by survivors to trick zombies into attacking empty buildings).

As for the FAK failure rate, I actually agree with Whig, I think instead the solution might be to make claws and teeth cause infection, meaning a zombie attacking a survivor always causes infection, which would match with the genre's general rules, plus it mean that zombies don't have to make a different attack to infect, they can just use claws if they want (although possibly claws should have a 60% or so infection rate). Additionally, if claws cause infection, I would drop the idea of passive infection, which is really skirting the line on an automatic action. I just find infection generally a waste most of the time. As for free running, I agree with Bob/Whig, that the % should be higher. I was wanting to create a bit more resource management, as opposed to just nerfing freerunning, which to be fair a survivor can completely avoid any chance of falling by limiting encumbrance to less than 75% (rather than the original 60, using 2% increases as per whig) It seems odd that a survivor can jump between buildings with 3 generator. So, it becomes: do you limit your resources or risk an untimely fall and needing to find an EP (which the zombie cade attack bonus should actually help, since anything over VSB is less effective). As for the misfire, it would make more sense and add more flavor to have a few causes, so I agree there.

The siege issue I'm planning to address in my semi-comprehensive survivor balancing. Although I think for 90% of the game survivors have an advantage, once the cades drop, they are screwed. I do feel, as a side effect of some of these, that for example barricade hit bonus, might help survivors if less EHB building exist (plus the bonus would apply to survivors fixing overcaded buildings as well). The misfire and encumbrance limit would quite possibly hurt PKers more than survivors, since PKers use basically exclusively guns and tend to limit restocking. Thanks for the feedback Aichon. --_K^CLZA 21:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Aichon, et al, so I had an idea, I suspect it will be less popular, but I'll throw it up. Would an AP penalty to freerunning (or just movement) for encumbrance be better? Say if you are over 75% encumbered, freerunning costs 2 AP. It could be applied to all movement (like for new zombies), but that might be pushing it. --_K^CLZA 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely not a fan of anything that further reduces the amount of AP available. I do really like the fall chance much more than the increased AP cost. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, not a fan of increasing AP costs for movement. Zombies lacking Lurching Gait is already bad enough as it is. But by my count, a typical survivor will be carrying in the ballpark of 30% encumbrance in non-consumable items alone (Toolbox + Flak + (Axe or Dagger and Crowbar) + 1xRadio), which doesn't leave much room for stocking up on FAKs or syringes, let alone firearms, spray cans, gennies, or similar items, before they run up against penalties. Really though, I'm pretty much always opposed to penalties on high encumbrance.

That said, I am for making it more sane. For instance, maybe you have compartments of different sizes, rather than just a big bag with 100 slots like it is now. Maybe only one of those compartments is big enough to hold a gennie, which would limit the number of gennies a player could hold, without compromising their ability to stock up on a large quantity of small items that could easily fit in pockets or whatnot. Or maybe gennies have their encumbrance shoot up to 50%, but they also have a corresponding increase in their search rate, that way they're easier to find, but survivors have to make more trips to find them since they can't hold as many at once. Basically, don't punish players for engaging in typical gameplay. Instead, limit their options outright (e.g. compartmentalize the inventory/jack up gennie weight) or give them a risk/reward choice for engaging in atypical gameplay. —Aichon— 22:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Due to it's obviously needing corrected. Repairs would be incremental, that is you could only repair up to your current AP. You could continue repairing later or have someone else help. It would not create anything that could not be repaired. --_K^CLZA 21:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Section A

1. Zombie speech is corrected to function... Yes, I think this is a good suggestion. It makes sense that zombies would have a better understanding of their own utterings.

2. Removing barricades works... Yes, barricades inhibit interaction between zombies and survivors too much.

3. Zombies can hear... To some extent, sure, but I'm curious as to how often you think these messages should pop up.

4. Survivors can only repair... Perhaps you can repair in 10AP? "chunks"?

5. Scent Death is fixed... Okay sure whatever.

6. Groan ranges are all... Okay sure whatever.

Section B

1. FAKs have a 50%... Why? Is infection too weak? Are FAKs too strong?

2. If a zombie has grabbed... Most zombies have tangling grasp and most use claw attacks. Clicking an extra button just to do anything would get kinda annoying, first of all. What are you trying to fix here? Zombie claws have no ammo and need no searching. This balances with the higher accuracy and damage of survivors weapons that do need ammo and searching.

3. Using a non-ranged... Come on. Randomly raking your hand/arm across the zombie teeth is lame and so are free attacks just for existing. Do you think survivor attacks are too strong, and zombie attacks to weak? Axes are already weaker than zombie claws.

4. Free running with more... Survivors gain an advantage by being able to use items that have better accuracy, damage, healing powers and so on than zombies, but this is balanced by having to search for them and having a carrying capacity. Are survivor items too strong? Don't you think that randomly falling off a building would be really annoying when freerunning?

5. Misfire, all firearms... Survivors do have better weapons, but this is offset by having to search for ammo and only being able to carry so much at one time. And random effects like that would be annoying.

--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding section A3, it would only display the most recent action at the time of log-in or screen reload (like now happens against an active target).

Section B

1. Infection is too weak, however, on further thought I think tying it to claw attacks addresses the matter.

2. Actually zombie claws are better than survivor weapons, but that is ignoring the existence of barricades. It is simply nothing more a survivor AP sink, however it would seem justified by how the existing skill works.

3. I'll agree, thus claws cause infection and dropping the failure rate on FAKs. That should make it more fun for zombies without less fun for survivors.

4. I have no problem with the power of any survivor item. My problem is that the number of items carried with 0 repercussion seems rather large. Rather than limit that amount, why not just introduce a mechanic that says if you are willing to be smart with your inventory and not just sit around pre-stocked with gennies, freerunning works perfect. If you just have to carry an absurd amount of gear, you take a chance. As posed above, would a flat 2 AP cost for freerunning with over 75% encumbrance sit better with you?

5. I don't disagree with that.

--_K^CLZA 03:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with all of these bar the loss of zamgrh, which I think should just be more officially mentioned in-game (perhaps with a link to some of the wiki pages about it when you purchase the death rattle skill). 17:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but most of this is just "cheese the players off". Removing zamgrh eviscerates this game's soul. Not being able to go into negative AP for repairs makes long-dark buildings effectively unrepairable. And adding random "You got infected", "You fell off the building because you were carrying too much", and "Your FAK didn't cure the infection"? No. Not reasonable. This stuff just makes the game painful to play. Louder groans make plenty of sense, and maybe fiddling with zombie hit rates to let them kill more survivors faster might work, but adding random failure is not going to get UD any more players. Slicer (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Hide

Timestamp: Matt Aries (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Skill Name: Hide

Type: Survivor combat change

Scope: Balance game mechanic

Description: Allows for a survivor to spend half it's current AP to allow for a hiding spot. Making it less likely to be seen by others in the building. The more AP spent the better the chances of not being seen. Can only be done once every 24 hours.

Seek

Timestamp: Matt Aries (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Skill Name: Seek

Type: Zombie combat change

Scope: Balance game mechanic

Description: Able to find a hidden warm body. Due to this being unsuspecting by the one hiding, the first hit is a 100% to hit.

Info on Hide & Seek: A building can not be ruined if someone is hiding inside. The AP spent by the person hiding is needed to find the one who is hiding. If successful, only the one who spent the points can view the hidden survivor. Others inside can not attack, heal, etc. unless they too spend the AP to "find". All communications over transmitters and in building conversations are unclear. If the survivor who is hiding moves or does any action, they are visible like normal. You can spend up to 25 AP to hide / seek and can go into the negative, same as if repairing a ruined building. These two skills will assist survivors, zombies, and even PKers in the game. If someone is hiding, a zombie can still ransack a building just not ruin it. A notification of if you are found, or if someone found you will show if successful.

Imagine if you will the following scenarios:

* PKer killed someone and is running. They can spend all of the remaining AP they have and never move. Those looking to track down a PKer have to spend AP in every potential building to find them.

* Survivors gather for a typical last stand in a mall. If several of the survivors use hide, and even 1 remains hidden the building can't be ruined. Until they are all are found and killed. Allowing for more of a balance in siege situations.

* Zombie wants to take a TRP to cripple a suburb, someone is hiding inside. A group of 5 zombies break in. One spends the AP and finds the only survivor hiding, who is now infected and at 2HP but the zed has no more AP. The other four need to spend the AP to find the survivor as well or the building can not be ruined. Said hiding survivor is safe at 2HP until they are found.

* Zombie has 20 AP spends 25 to seek, finds a survivor, but now has -5 AP. Survivor is notified, and can now escape without getting attacked, but allowing the building to be safe Discussion: Hide & Seek So, theoretically, if I hide in a building and then repeatedly hide over and over again each 24 hours such that I keep spending more and more AP, no one else would ever be able to find me, since I would stay ahead of them forever in terms of the AP spent, right? If so, this mechanic could be used quite easily by zergers or unscrupulous sorts to perma-maintain buildings so that it becomes impossible to ruin them and they'll always be available for free running. Which isn't to say that I don't think it's a neat idea, since I do. But in its current implementation, I see it as being ripe for abuse, I'm afraid. —Aichon— 03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC) if you do this you will need to spend X AP every 24 hours, if someone spends the same amount of AP you will be found. However yes you are correct, and we all know if their is someone zerging their not going to care about any type of fair tactics or what is considered proper game etiquette, so they will find a way around anything set. However playing devils advocate, if someone is hiding then a zerger can spend AP on different alts to find them just as well. If someone can come up with a better means of being fair for both survivor and zombies while being balanced with a pro and con to the skill I'm willing to alter it. Not sure if I understood you correctly, but, if you are hiding in a building, you do not have to spend what you spent previously + more AP. Say you spent 5AP to hide, you can spend 5 AP the next day to continue to hide, or more then 5 AP if you wish to increase your odds of not getting caught more. Maybe have a button with different AP denominations set on there for you to spend to hide or to seek would suffice. Matt Aries (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Maybe I'm unclear on the mechanics then, so let me describe how I see it playing out as I currently understand it. For instance, had the mechanic been in place at, say, ESCAPE: some survivor would have gone to the siege location a week or two in advance and started Hiding every day for full AP, meaning that even when the 100+ zombies finally managed to break in and nom on all 400+ of the survivors who had been in the building, they wouldn't be able to ruin the building at the end of it all, just because of that one survivor. Or is there some way for them to catch up to his AP expenditure? Also, I have similar concerns to Rev, below. As the game's population shrinks, the math for barricades actually favors survivors more and more. We don't need additional mechanics to favor us. What we need is either a reworking of the existing mechanics or some additional mechanics that help to establish better balance. —Aichon— 14:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC) So, let me get this straight. I’m a typical lone survivor, holed up in my EHB fortress of doom. Let’s assume it’s EHB+3 to make the maths easier. I decide that, given there have been zombies (!) sighted in my suburb, I should take appropriate precautions, so I decide to spend 25 AP hiding. Lo and behold, my paranoia is vindicated when a crack assault squad of four zombies decides my building is going down. Given it’s EHB+3, that’s 80 AP on average to take down the cades, if they’re lucky and the RNG decides to play nice. Now, of course, the zombies burst in, only to find… an empty building. Sigh. Well, at least they can ruin– no, wait! Ruin fails! There must be some harman hiding here! Luckily, one of the zambahz had bought the new Seek skill, and… oh dear. With the cost of rising from the headshot the previous night, and moving here, they’re now below 25 AP, meaning that even if they blow all their AP on seeking, they’re not going to be able to spot the hiding harman, let alone do any meaningful damage. Meanwhile, if they give up in disgust and leave, all their damage can be repaired in a fraction of what they’ve spent. TL;DR: This skill suggestion only further amplifies the AP disparity between zombies and survivors. HELL FUCKING NO ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC) As Rev and Aichon. This is basically extra cading for survivors, and Malton needs less of that. And logically, zombies shouldn't have to "seek" for jack shit. Hiding should be undone by zombie scent skills very quickly, without the need to spend shitloads of AP to look for someone. ---- FoD PK Praise Rando!00:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Flares as more than physical damage. Timestamp: Breadknife Bill (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Type: Combat change Scope: Player perception (and health?) Description: Being a recently-returning old hand, and having noticed a number of changes but at the same time a continuation of other areas of status quo, I know there's a lot of difference between "making it realistic" and "keeping/getting the game balance". And so I propose the following tenatively, and having already tried to ensure I'm not tripping up over historic suggestions such as Suggestion:20070906_A_Taboo_Suggestion:_Make_Flares_Deal_Area_of_Effect_Damage. Flares are capricious weapons, as they have long been, even before the petrol-soaked bonus. But it seems to me that whilst they're currently useful as a 'stealth combat starter' (give one, or several, a go - if one hits that's a good HP debuff, but if they (all) miss then you can walk away as if nothing had happened), surely one would notice a flare being fired (or let off). Especially in the confines of a building. Their inaccuracy is inarguable but, regardless of whether they hit home, they'd presumably be hardly subtle. I propose that (with perhaps a marginal increase in the chance-to-hit, to counteract the disadvantages) their use in combat also takes account of their brightness, as inherant in their use as non-combat signals. In a building, and perhaps moreso in a darkened building, the flash of a flare should have visual effects upon some/all of those present. The one who fires the flare and the one being fired upon are prime targets for this. Possibly any smallarms training of the firer could mitigate their susceptibility, unless that includes "not blinking when firing" in which case it should actually increase it. Either way, optionally for a certain number of AP or a certain amount of real time after firing (a 'cool-down', regardless of how active the player concerned has been), has reduced perception (percentage-chance-to-hit) and possibly carries the same unable-to-see-HP effect from darkened buildings out into non-dark buildings, actively-lit buildings and even the outside. Perhaps (but the actual method and balance of values will need to be decided) for the immediately-following five minute period, the player's effective location in the order of Dark<<Unlit<<Outside<<Lit is (up to) three spaces to the left of where they actually are (i.e. considered Dark). During the next five minutes, it is two spaces left (anything less than Lit is Dark, whilst a Lit area is Unlit). Then one space left for the five minutes after that. But I invite adjustments. Double-checking the sight-mechanics could reveal a better order or system of implementations, if not merely adding some other subtleties (e.g. whether the Halloween "Foggy" effect could be put in there, impacting upon all but close-up sight). However, I was thinking that there'd be a chance for the firer to be affected (possibly for a 'critical hit' and/or 'critical miss' circumstance, but otherwise not at all), ditto for the fired-upon (but perhaps for near-miss-only, as it flies past them, a strike already being inconveniencing and distracting), and perhaps a straight chance (25%/75% yes/no?) that any other observer in the room happened to be facing/inclined towards the interaction whilst otherwise uninvolved and get their own particular retinal blow-back. And this chance further modified by location (external, 10% chance of the penalty, internal 25%, dark internal is 50%... but these figures also open to being massaged). I'm convinced that blindness/perception loss alone would be a big enough disadvantage that we could afford to increase the basic Chance-To-Hit of the flare (perhaps also dependant upon internal/external locations, being at intrinsically closer quarters within a building than when potentially half a block away), and yet also that regardless of who (if anyone) gets a blinding effect, the firing of a flare would be an obvious event for all those present (fired inside) and within a block-or-so (fired outside) who may be due some notification similar to that for audible groaning and visible flare-as-signal effects, dependand upon actual proximity. TL;DR; Flare makes bright flash. Makes seeing harder, temporarily. No longer 'invisible' to anyone not actually hit directly in the face/killed anyway. Otherwise, I have tried to keep this suggestion open enough to provoke possible discussion. I perceive Balance to be the biggest issue, in the possibly naive pursuit of Realism. Sirs, and madams, you have the floor. Discussion (Flares as more than physical damage.) I agree that in real life there would be a lot more to happen from a flare going off inside a building. What you were describing sounds like a lot of work to be implemented, and then a lot of work to be balanced. The blinding effect you described probably would not effect anyone but the attacker seeing as most things happen to people offline. Ido think though that alerting people that someone was attacked by a flare in a building would be a good start, seeing as someone attacking someone with flares in a building would be easy to spot.JoshCz (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC) It depends on how it's currently coded, as to how much work. "if (not(location.isdark())) then displayHPs()" might need to be "if (not(location.isdark() || location.isunlit() && player.flareblind())) then...", in one potential version of the code (copypasta where necessary, and alter accordingly), where it's potentially most complicated - in this case ignoring degrees of blindness. Code already written (or changed) to support references like "if (location.lightlevel()>2) then.." on a score-based system that gives the current behaviour could be changed so that "( (location.lightlevel()-player.blindlevel()) > 2)" globally adds in a possible adjustment. There's already something that adds (to the ceiling of 50) more AP to each player, probably based upon how many (if any) half-hours have passed since the last update, something very similar could subtract (to a floor of 0) an appropriate number of blindlevels from players at the exact same time. If the first code isn't portable (and invertable) over to fulfill the second function, I couldn't imagine to know how it was contrived. (I'm assuming there's a "last update-time" type of variable already that could be shared, unless the old code doesn't bother to reupdate once maxed-out, but then just implement a "last update-time for blindness" parallel variable that (needn't) reupdate once back at zero. Even if I'm way off, this secondary mechanism could be added without needing to risk messing up the former. One additional status-checking function call at an appropriate point in the character-status check.) As for affecting anyone. Yes, the attacker/flare-user (certainly, unless it's their last action of a session) will be affected, but asynchronicity for all other parties isn't an issue with any other mechanism. If you're injured, whilst off-line, you might get healed before you even realise you were attacked (if not actually 'deaded' before that). Being blinded whilst offline would be similar. A messages of "You (saw|were blinded by) a flare being shot by <foo>" is similar to baricade notifications, as might be anything like "You can now see (a bit better|a lot better|normally)" messages, which could also be similarly set to be suppressable in your preferences, if you so wish. The latter would be triggered by the update mechanism having decremented the blindlevel() to/past certain levels, of course. (If it wasn't already so trivial, I could point at the sufficiently similar code to do this used in recolouring "You have <N> action points remaining", whatever monitors HP (i.e. infected) drop for danger-levels and of course the click-quota-limit-from-this-IP warning.) Without access to the back-end code (chance would be a fine thing!) I can't be definite about how to implement this, exactly, but it ought to be easy. But I'm with you (as already mentioned) about the need for game balance. Without any other change, the implemention of just the blindness effect would immediately nerf flare use (with the added disadvantages primarily to the users of them). Assuming they're not considered overpowered already (I think not), correcting the balance would be the big issue. Imagine an implementation being 1 half hour for blindness-level reduction (same rate as AP restoration), so that across the various locations (from inside dark to inside fully lit) it averages to two reductions to sufficiently remove the blinding effects. For 2AP of difficulty, what bonus should we give the flare? I've run some rough numbers (gratified to find Pistol and Shotgun effectiveness-per-AP to be broadly similar and thus balanced), but I'll check them properly before posting what I think I've found about Flares.Breadknife Bill (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Random Events Timestamp: Axe Hack's Ghost (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Type: Events Scope: Game Mechanic Description: Now, I haven't been around for two years, nor have I been active for two years, but I do notice things. Like the massive decrease in player numbers. In the time I've been gone, I've played various sandbox games. Skyrim, Grand Theft Auto, Lego Marvel Superheroes...Besides flashy graphics and being single player, what made these games enjoyable? Was it the adventuring and discovering new places you've never been to before in Skyrim? Or maybe the heists in GTA? Or perhaps it was collecting all of those gold bricks in Lego Marvel Superheroes. In the past, Urban Dead had all of these events - Mall Tour, the Dead's tour, you name it, it's happened. But the thing was...All of these events (minus the Easter Egg Hunt and even the airdrops) were all planned by the player base themselves. Yes, I know. It's a taboo to suggest the inclusions of NPCs or events, or even leaving the options of what to kind of events would happen to Kevan, and heck, this is probably even a dupe, but I think Urban Dead needs randomized events. Non-player planned events. Maybe a random building was struck down by a passing horde that came out of nowhere, or you searched and found something amazing inside a random building out of sheer luck. It could even be an assassination plot, both successful or failed as you slept through the night, or even a temporary decrease in supplies for the day. Just...Anything. Anything random that would occur at server reset every day, and last anywhere from a few seconds to until the next reset. It could range from a destructive event that takes out one random building, to being able to find supplies for a day in a random building that normally would not house those items, to finding a new flavour text at a random location for the day. Discuss. Discussion (Random Events) I was trying to go for a similar thing with lottery, being like a game event. I really believe its ideas like these that can help keep the game going. I think the first step is keeping the players still here interested enough to keep playing, and stop the decay. Next would be to get the players playing together. Finally would be to getting the players playing with new players, expanding the game. Random events could accomplish the first two, and maybe even the last step of getting the game back on its feet. We'd have to brainstorm a lot of ideas for events. I have a few ideas if you want to hear some.JoshCz (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC) BIG RED BUTTON Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Type: Survivors Scope: Fun! Description: Somewhere in Malton there is a seemingly random office building... You are inside the XXX Building. A side office contains a desk with a Big Red Button. When the building is powered You are inside the XXX Building. A side office contains a desk with a Big Red Button. The button glows ominously Those who dare may choose to Push the button, You push the Big Red Button... Discussion (BIG RED BUTTON) I like thisJoshCz (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC) So there's no indication of exactly what it does yet? A ZOMBIE ANT 00:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC) I thought it was pretty obvious "You push the Big Red Button..." --Kamikazie-Bunny (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC) I like it! A ZOMBIE ANT 00:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Lottery Timestamp: JoshCz (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2015‎ (UTC) Type: Buff Scope: lucky zeds (for now) Description: In the last round of discussion of the lottery idea xyu brought up a good point that it was a very complex idea, and would be hard to implement. so to make the lottery idea actually work in the game, it should be implemented progressively adding one winner type at a time. This would also give the community a kill switch if they hate the idea. The lottery will be held at the start of the month, all lvl 10 or above zombie players can buy a single lottery ticket for 100xp or 1000xp if they have over 25000xp. There will be 15 winners. The zombies chosen will mutate into A barricade ripper that tears down barricades faster hitting the barricade 50% of the time and tearing down 3 levels of barricade with each hit. This zombie has a reduced claw attack to 2 and bite at 3, but has an increased feeding groan range to 10 blocks and has 75 HP. It can also ruin any empty building with 3 AP rather than 5. This is one of the more interesting winners and one that I feel represents the idea well. Hopefully this zombie will help with zombie organization, encouraging play between non-affiliated players. Also it would make things more dangerous and interesting for the Malton survivors, giving them a dangerous foe to hunt in the city. If the idea works we can continue to add things to it to continue the fun. Discussion (Lottery) Previous Discussions User:JoshCz/Lottery 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.