Suggestions/22nd-Feb-2007

Closed Suggestions

1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.

Targetting different zombies from the same group

Timestamp:	Aguyuno 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement/balancing issue
Scope:	Survivors, mostly
Description:	There isn't much to say about this, since the title really says it all. It's just that I recently made a "NecroTech Lab Assistant" character and was thoroughly annoyed by the fact that, even though I'm standing in an area with 4 zombies in it, I can apparently only brain scan ONE of them, because the other 3 remain impossible to target until I've killed the one 'in front' of them. I only really realised this issue when I played as the scientist character, however this problem DOES plague _all_ the survivor classes. Basically, it means that if you're a zombie and at like 3 HP, but you move back a square so that you're standing "Behind" another zombie for whatever reason, that survivor attempting to kill you now has to blast through that 60hp zombie before he can so much as SCRATCH you. If this was a problem for both classes, I wouldn't care. However, as a zombie, if there's multiple characters in the vicinity that are survivors, you can select whomever you want to attack from the pulldown menu. Ergo, I think this is an annoying... bug, I guess you could say, that comes with the fact that zombies don't have names and so the game simply picks up "a zombie" every single time - since they all have the same name, it doesn't write down every single one in the list, since that'd be a waste. To avoid this issue, why not just attach "Zombie #1, zombie #2..." etc. etc. so that when you press the pull down list in a horde you can attack different characters. That, or just make it so that people's names appear still but it says (zombie) or something infront of or at the end of their name - this fixes the OTHER issue, of when some obnoxious zombie attacks you (a fellow zombie) and then runs away, you can now find them again a lot easier. Because as it is currently, there's no defense against that if they run away - you simply have to take it, or risk attacking every single other zombie you see who probably isn't even them before you find the one you want. And that's pretty much my entire suggestion, methinks. I hope it doesn't get completely rejected...

Keep Votes

1. Keep I think you should have to scan every zombie with brain rot in a revive queue, but not have to kill everyone zombie with brain rot in a revive queue. Remember, these scientist characters often don't have any combat skills. Scanning a brain rotted zombie already takes a lot of AP, making someone with 10% accuracy fight a zombie to use their science skills just seems unfair. --Jon Pyre 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep Make it a science skill (sub-skill of NT employment..), that only affects targeting zombies with your DNA scanner, yeah.. people will vote keep. Change it so it's exactly that. MrAushvitz 07:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - Doesn't nerf zombie anonymity (since you still don't know who the zombie is), but it does prevent zombies from being cheap and moving themselves lower in the stack so that they can become practically invulnerable while they attack you. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

1. Your obviously new to the game. Your "problem" is called Zombie Anonymity. The way it works is that the zombie at the top of the stack (the one most active) is "the" zombie everyone attacks/scans/etc. The problem you faced, as an NT, was when you scanned the 4 zombies, 3 of them had already been scanned, thus you had only one to actually scan in the first place. Had, say 2 only 2 of them been scanned, you would have been able to scan the other two, but subsequent attempts would have just popped up the second scan's name repeatedly. First of all, learn how to play the game a little better. Secondly, you might want to move this to the discussion page (there is more to discuss than what I've already said).--Pesatyel 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - *Frowns* I fail to see how it having some random name changes anything; and I'm aware how it works, though yes I will admit I'm new to the game. Still, is that not exactly what I just described? Your explaining it ("Zombie Anonymity", I mean) again doesn't change it being annoying :/. Additionally, I know you're wrong about the NT bit, because I've tried that already - I was in a group of 4 zombies, scanned one (it worked), then pressed scan again and all that came up was a DIFFERENT zombies' name repeatedly saying "he's already been scanned" (Not by me, mind you). So, clearly, you don't get the same name repeatedly from this. If you're right about the ones who haven't been scanned appearing automatically when you use the DNA thing, fine - but I've been in multiple large group of zombies to try this by now, and everytime it's the same issue. So I doubt that _everytime_ it's simply been a case of only 1 out of 6 of the zombies being scannable...--Aguyuno 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   I belive you misunderstood what I said. You run into 4 zombies (Bob, Joe, Tom and Dick). Unknown to you, Tom and Dick were already scanned at some other time and are in the NT system. You scan Bob just fine. You scan Joe just fine. But since Tom and Dick are ALREADY in the system, when you make subsequent scan attempted, you keep getting Joe because he was the last "available" zombie to scan.--Pesatyel 01:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Kill - Pesatyel is right: what you consider a "problem" and a "bug" is just zombie annonimity. If you want to attack a particular zombie on the stack, you should add him to your contacts first. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 09:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - You said "this fixes the OTHER issue, of when some obnoxious zombie attacks you (a fellow zombie) and then runs away, you can now find them again a lot easier" But that's a nonissue - a zombie that attacks you gives up his anonymity, the link to his profile is right in the attack and you add him to the contact list from there. This would just add a bunch of needless clutter to the game. --Mold 11:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - Oh! If you add him to your contact list then you can seek him out personally? Okay, I didn't know that, so I'll remove that part from my over all complaint. --Aguyuno 12:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Mold and Pestayel said it all. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill I do believe contact list effectively killed ombie anonomity. So it's allready a non-issue. - BzAli 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - DNA scanning zombies cycles through the zombies already, why would this be needed? --Gm0n3y 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - A simple mistake by a new user. --Anotherpongo 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - As well, everyone else. -- 05:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re Yeah, you're all right; I made a stupid mistake. Sorry, guys. I'd delete the 'suggestion' as a whole, but I don't know whether or not I'm supposed to do that myself.Aguyuno 02:02, 23 February 2007
     • Re As for deleting the suggestion: "It is preferred that you remove your own suggestion and resubmit a new version with changes, if changes are needed." Remove the thing and leave a message as to why you revoked the thing, I'd say. --Jay Clarke 10:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
       

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Variable Building damage

Timestamp:	—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meh'Lindi (talk • contribs) 08:44, 22 February 2007.
Type:	balance change
Scope:	Zombies and survivors equally
Description:	The suggestion is to be able to (variably) damage building integrity. Basically the opposite of barricading. Intended for zombies and wilful survivors. That you can destroy the integrity of the building entrances, windows, doors, making holes in fences, walls that have levels in the same way as barricades. Thus you'd get "the entrances to the building have been lightly damaged" "heavily" "very heavily" etc. In order to make the building barricadable it must be repaired first as normal - but each level of damage must first be repaired one at a time. This is to change the ability of someone to walk into an empty building and "repair building damage (1AP)", and then barricade to "quite strongly" with only a few more APs One of two ways I think of it as working: * In the same way that you can "attack" people or things, you can "attack" the building entrances. * In the same way as the zombie skill 'ransack' but available to all classes. (For reference, I have five characters who do things in different areas of the map, three are level 41, and I do prefer playing them as survivors not zombies - I'm suggesting this as a challenge)

Keep Votes
For Votes here
Kill Votes

1. Kill - Zombies shouldn't be territorial beings. As for survivors doing this, should we really encourage griefing like that? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - Ransack is enough. - BzAli 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - As Ali up there. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill Super ransack, burning buildings, all these suggestions forget the game is about attacking people, not infrastructure. --Jon Pyre 11:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - I'm all for getting rid of barricades, but adding negative barricade levels - which is what this change would effectively work out to - rubs me the wrong way. I disagree with Matthew there, but if zambahz want to keep territory they should do it the old-fashioned way - kill everything that shows up in their front yard.--Mold 11:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
6. It's called...Ransack. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - This, or suggestions similar to it (i.e. ransack levels), has been suggested before and shot down. Add a new element to the game, not zombie barricades. This is just a waste of AP for both sides. --Gm0n3y 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - Too overpowered. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
9. I think this a dupe (some kind of "Advanced Ransack" that did just what this suggestion describes) but I don't feel like looking it up right now.--Pesatyel 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - We don't need a super ransack. Regular old ransack is powerful enough. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Ummm... -The opposite of barricadeing is called "attacking the barricades". --AlexanderRM 3:35 PM, 22 Febuary 2007 (EST)
2. Dupe - Pesatyel is right- its essentially a dupe of a (rejected) suggestion I made called raze building. Which wasn't that great idea at the time (hence its rejection) and is quite pointless now that there is a "Ransack" ability. --S.Wiers ^X:00 02:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Dupe - A duplicate of Swiers' suggestion. -- 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Increased XP for scanning rotters

Timestamp:	BzAli 13:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	small XP change
Scope:	Scientists.
Description:	Now, we all know that you have a smaller chance for succesfully scanning brain rotted zombies than you have of scanning non-rotters. We also know that this can be used to annoy revivers. However, this often annoys ordinary scanning scientist as well. A newbie just starting the game runs around, happily wawing his DNA Scanner at the largest group of zombies he can see, is often forced to scan the same zombie 3-4 or more times before he is able to move on. What I suggest is simple: Increase the XP for scanning brain-rotted zombies to 6. It's 50% more than non-rotters, but rotted zombies takes on average far more than 50% more AP to scan. This would help new scientist feel less frustrated when they encounter rotters in their scannings, and makes sense from a RP-view as well: NT is more interested in those who've been zombies longer.

Keep Votes

1. Author keep Obviously I like it. - BzAli 13:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Error. Cortex damage. Do not attempt to vote kill or spam. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep Zombies finally got XP for beating on barricades forever and ever, so I feel generous. Besides, this means more survivors stepped outside for once! Besides, scientist characters need the extra XP. MrAushvitz 07:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill. One of the points (not the only point) of being a rotter is that it is harder for those guys in lab coats to whip cheap XP off you. This effectively subsidises people for their extra AP spent. --Anotherpongo 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - I don't think this is necessary. A better and more powerful way would be to have a button that appears after an unsuccessful attempt to 'skip zombie'. That way it helps out both newbie scientists AND revivers but still allows rotters to be somewhat annoying. --Gm0n3y 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill Lets see, brainrot isn't really important to prevent combat revives (those cost 10+ AP and turn you into a PKer), can be temporarily reversed in a powered NT center, and doesn't really clog up revive ques (people can revive contacts or anybody they scan). How can we finish off the nerfing of this once useful skill, so folks who bought it "way back when" feel totally screwed? Ah, yes, by voting "keep" to the above suggestion. While we are at it, let's make sure you get 10 xp when you use your shotgun on a zombie wearing a flak jacket, eh? --S.Wiers ^X:00 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - Swiers is right - this totally nerfs brain rot. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - I think that brain rotters are supposed to give revivers trouble. -- 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill Brain rot shouldn't aid survivors in any way. --Jon Pyre 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill Maybe if it allowed a reviver to ignore a guy they scanned who had brain rot, but this hardly is relevant. Skip Zombie would be far better. It's kinda rubbish someone wouldn't have enough common sense to try to revive a guy after a "do not revive" warning. --Jay Clarke 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above guys that brain rot should not potentially benefit survivors in any way. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Doctor and Medic Starting Skill Change

Timestamp:	Anotherpongo 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Starting Skill Change
Scope:	New Doctors and Medics
Description:	I think Doctors and Medics should start with the diagnosis skill, not the first aid skill. Two reasons: The only way to tell who needs healing (other than active players) is through the diagnosis skill. The first aid skill lowers the XP gained per HP healed when healing other players. It means that while first aid kits go further, the same person can only be healed half the number of times for the same amount of XP. This suggestion would help new medics and doctors gain XP slightly more easily.

Keep Votes

1. Author keep. I am the author, and I am entitled to one vote on my own suggestion. Obviously I believe that my suggestion belongs in-game. --Anotherpongo 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. keep I am all for this... it makes no sense that medical personel can't see who is wounded! Another solution would be an asterix next to the wounded if you have 1st aid, sadly this has been shot down before as apparently it nerfs diagnosis!!!--Honestmistake 17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep Somebody has to back this up, you can't even "see" who is hurt. What kind of doc/medic are you? MrAushvitz 07:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Not for both of them, maybe for one or the other. -- TheDavibob ^LLL 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Above. Also, the First Aid skill saves FAKs, despite the lower XP gain. And there's an easy way for Doctors and Medics to level up...it's called a guessing game. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill. Doctors starting with Diagnosis is allready in Peer Reviweved. And Medics getting a 150 XP out-of-class-skill would just point the fingers at their stupid scientific counterparts and laugh. - BzAli 16:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: Medics already get a 150XP out-of-class skill... --Anotherpongo 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   re: And it is thus lucky that is not that usefull an skill for them. - BzAli 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Kill - I would dupe this, but I don't feel like finding the link. I'm pretty sure this has already been suggested and duped at least 4 or 5 times. --Gm0n3y 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill This would arguably make doctors and medics better starting classes for zombies than the "corpse" class is. --S.Wiers ^X:00 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - the idea for the doctor is already in PR, so that part's a dupe - the idea for the medic - I disagree - on RPing grounds. --Funt Solo 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - Otherwise they would be too good. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - The doctor part is already in PR and I think the medics should stick with first aid. -- 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - As all the above. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---