Suggestions/2nd-Dec-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

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.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

Slight Mall Change

Author Removed- People didn't like the fact that it gave zombies a boost in a siege or that it nerfed Shopping.--Grigori 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Car Park Modifications v2

Timestamp: Lord of the Pies 11:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Empty Block/Building Change
Scope: Survivors, Car Parks, Not the Free-Running Network
Description: As they are now, Car Parks all seem to represent open car parks rather than those with multiple floors. However, given that Malton is (or was) a bustling city, it seems a little unlikely that all car parks would be like this. They would probably have to accomodate many visitors and some modern car parks tend to be large, multi-storey buildings. As such, I propose that 1 Car Park in every suburb that has one becomes a Car Park Complex - in some suburbs they would be able to be chosen randomly, but in others they would have to be placed deliberately to avoid greatly affecting the Free-Running network (note: they can't be Free-Runned most of the time anyway, see below for details).

Car Park Complexes would be ordinary buildings that have no doors (because, well, they have no doors). External description is You are standing outside a car park complex, a stony grey building or alternatively You are standing outside a car park complex, the barriers at its entrance smashed and destroyed. Internal description is You are standing inside a car park complex, the skeletons of the remaining cars hidden in the shadows. If the Car Park Complex is powered the external description remains the same, but the internal description changes to You are standing inside a car park complex, the few remaining cars dented and wrecked. Barricading messages consist of You push a [insert vehicle type e.g. hatchback, van, sports car etc.] up against the barricade, You push a dumpster up against the barricade and You add a rubbish bin to the barricade and the appropriate messages if the attempt fails. Items to be found at Car Park Complexes would be Fuel Cans at a search rate of 2.5%, Newspapers at 1.5%, Beers at 2%, Spray Cans at 1.5%, Crowbars at 1% and Lengths of Pipe at 0.5%.

One point about Car Park Complexes is that, most of the time, they cannot be Free-Runned into (note that they couldn't be Free-Runned into or out of in the last suggestion, contrary to several votes). Additionally, because there's only so much that you can do with the few cars that are left and dumpsters that will just roll away if zombies push them hard enough, Car Park Complexes can only be barricaded up to level 10 of barricades, otherwise known as VS+2, approximately half as high as most other barricades are built. Anyway, onto the Free-Running...Car Park Complexes cannot be Free-Runned into or out of, except into Buildings (including NecroTech Buildings). As there would only be one Car park Complex per suburb (if any) and as Free-Running is restricted, it woudn't greatly change the Free-Running network.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - I kinda like the idea of a car fortress. I have seen a few car garages in Rochester that would be awesome for such a task. Good flavour, well thought out percentages. No extra fuel sources necessary though. --Ev933n 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. I'd rather not have to worry about whether or not a car park is a building or not when I'm moving about, unless it was very clear. If you have a way of doing that, please expand on it. Also, if by the last paragraph you mean only buildings called "The xxxx Building", that's even worse. I'm also unconvinced of the need for another fuel can source. --ExplodingFerret 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. kill no need for change. I avoid these places anyway. Asheets 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Worse than the first version. And Pesatyel brings up a brilliant point (albiet a realism argument, but still brilliant): what stuff is there in a parking place to use as barricade fodder? --Wikidead 01:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. kill - No --Poopman9 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. So, let me get this straight: You're going to use cars to barricade an area whose entries (they tend to have several) are wider than cars. These car barricades are only going to be as difficult to remove as barricades made of tables or chairs. And you're gonna be able to fit 10 cars there. No. I support your attempts to make currently useless areas have a purpose, but this doesn't make sense. --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. kill - Reaper did the 10 count...Your Knocked OUT--Wbleak24 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill - I like the idea of a building that can't go above VSB, but we need a way to tell they're actually buildings if we're not standing in front of them. --Zap 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill - Car parks are usually filled with large openings...they'd be nearly impossible to barricade. I think this suggestion just creates more buildings with little point or added flavor.~I am
    Struck vote, not signed properly, see your talk page for details -- boxy T L PA DA 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Happy with current system. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. As of now, you may think car parks are one floor, but what you don't know is this: some of the car parks may be multi-floors, but unbarricadable. Trust me. There are car parks like that. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Heh, that sounds unlike a fun or game balance related point, and more like a realism point. --Ev933n 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [non-author --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 22:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)]
  3. Spam - I fail to see any reason for this, I don't think it helps the game to change a few more square to indoor squares. Also, as Axe Hack, but I'd go so far as to say most multiple story car-parks would be virtually unbarricable (unless you were really determined, and brought it plenty of outside material). --Rgon 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - I just don't see the point.--Gage 17:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam - I don't see any point. There wouldn't be enough stuff to erect a barricade for starters. Most multi-level parking garages are very open air and there needs to be room for the cars to both enter and leave at the same time. How would you block that, especially since cars cannot be used? And what Axe Hack said.--Pesatyel 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Increased XP Amount for future Skills

Spaminated with 7/9 Spam votes.--Gage 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Online Status

Timestamp: Lonewolf17a 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Improvment
Scope: Everyone
Description: Okay this is more explantion than what needs to be said for this because it's really quite simple okay... what this feature would allow you to do would be to check your Contacts list Online status Example: You go to your contacts list right then the people who are online have checkmark by there name and the people who aren't online have an X by there name (oh when i say online I mean who are currently playing the game)

Anyways thanks for your consideration and time out reading this...--Lonewolf17a 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Votes

  1. Author Vote- I vote for this because I dont think its a huge altercation to the game and might even help out groups and other things...P.s. i dont know how to fix this format if anyone would help it would be mucho appericated--Lonewolf17a 19:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Only if it applies to people not on contacts list also.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re - Yeah i guess in theroy it would and could...--Lonewolf17a 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - But I have no idea how someone could mess up spelling and formatting this badly.--_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re - I suck badly at this shit lol--Lonewolf17a 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - But only if you never say "lol" again.--Labine50 MH|ME|P
  5. Keep - Mutual Contacts only. No stalker tool should be added to the servers. Several similar sites allow you to know if a user is online. An option should be added to be able to hide your online status. Checking your contacts list should count towards your IP hits per day. OOOHHH! A way for Kevan to make a little bit of cash! Donations for messages or email or similar services. Maybe add it in with the $5 donation business. --Ev933n 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep But as said, ONLY MUTUAL CONTACTS. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 22:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Reluctantly, a keeper that still needs a few modifications. I agree with Canuhearmenow's and strongly disagree with Ev933n's comment about IP-taxing contact hits. I also disagree (though not strongly at all) with Conndraka's mutual contacts idea because it could potentially be an invasion of privacy (if you know someone is online, you can automatically tell you are in his contacts list). --Wikidead 01:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - I like it--Zombie Spray 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - yes --Poopman9 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - How do you define online? Active in the last minute? As has been mentioned, this should not give your info to people you don't want it to. I still don't really think it's necessary. --Burgan 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - This is dangerous and could work against you, even if it only worked for mutual contacts. Imagine you put an enemy on your contact list (so you'd recognize them) and they did the same to you. This is very bad! I would suggest, however that if you want this kind of benefit within your group, try getting your friends to use ICQ or some other instant messenger. --Uncle Bill 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I could see if this was maybe limited to one color.--Pesatyel 04:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. I would rather this work only for mutual contacts... And learn to wiki, dude. Its not that hard... --GhostStalker 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill Generally unnecessary feature, plus seems like a coding headache for Kevan.Nosimplehiway--Nosimplehiway 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Revise - first Kevan decides second Needs idleing time players inactive for 3 hours considered inactive or 25 hours? or what There should it be, it just may be a headache--Wbleak24 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill - There's no way to explain in game how you know whether or not the person is online or even what being 'online' means. There isn't even a definition of what being online means out of game, like how long they have to idle before the check mark disappears. It's a nice idea but it doesn't make sense. --Wfjeff 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - No. Also, fixed your formatting a bit. --Joe O'Wood TALKCONTRIBSUD 19:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re - I appriecate it...--Lonewolf17a 19:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Meh... maybe if it was a mutual contact, but not just anyone on your contacts list.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - as Anime Sucks.--Gage 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re- Hey i hate anime as much as the next (if not more) but why spam this?--Lonewolf17a 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re - cause you're an idiot and your suggestion sucks?--Gage 20:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re- Fuck you then what did I do to you?--Lonewolf17a 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Akira's good, though. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. People use contact lists for things other than friends; and maybe you don't want someone to know you're online. Unless you want this to join the legion of peer rejected 'mutual contacts' suggestions we've had recently. Also: how do you tell if someone is online? Maybe they moved, then closed their browser immediately; however, the site can't possibly know when someone has done that. Plus, this is some kind of magical communication ability when thought of in game terms. We already have ways of tracking each other within the game (zombie scent skills, contact recognition, radio) as well as out (forums, wiki, IRC, other meta-gaming stuff); so even if you made this mutual contacts -- I'd vote no! Yay for overly long votes. --ExplodingFerret 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re-Yeah i guess i see your point anyways i appriecate tha vote...--Lonewolf17a 20:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - As Anime Sucks. And lonewolf, Gage was referring to the user Anime Sucks whom voted above him not anime itself. Read carefully next time ok?--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 20:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re-Okay i see your point on that but why did you spam it then?--Lonewolf17a 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re - They spammed it for the same reason as AnimeSucks. "Meh... maybe if it was a mutual contact, but not just anyone on your contacts list." is I believe what they were attempting to reiterate. --Ev933n 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    You are not the author.--Gage 21:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re - I spammed it because of what Anime Sucks says. It should be mutual contacts and not just any contact. Otherwise it could lead to some long-winding abuse and griefing.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. This is not MySpace. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Generators and Ransack

Timestamp: Bassander 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Ransack skill modification
Scope: Survivors attempting to use a ransacked site.
Description: Currently in the game, a generator may be placed in a building that has been ransacked by zombies. This seems a little counterintuitive, because the purpose of the ransack skill is to deny survivors the ability to use the site. Specifically, this is important to Necrotech facilities because a generator in one could allow the survivors to use the NecroNet within a ransacked building with zombies standing in it. Another application would be to combat revive zombies who have the Brain Rot skill, yet have ransacked the NT site to prevent survivors from manufacturing/finding syringes. This seems to be a small omission in how the ransack skill works, and ought to be fixed somehow. Either zombies with Brain Rot may not be revived in a ransacked NT site (Nor may the NecroNet be accessed), or generator and radios may not be placed within a ransacked building.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Vote- I believe this is a necessary change to help prevent a possible abuse to negate new tactics developed by zombie groups such as the Shacknews Horde.--Bassander 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - He does have a point there. I mean, what use is Ransack for a rotting zombie if they still can be revived if they sleep in a ransacked NT building. Firstly being able to revive rotters is really nerving rotters assaulting NT's and when they do finally manage to get all survivors out and ransack it they still can be revived. One big keep - Nine 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - It's a simple modification that limits a clear loophole for abuse and is realistic. Barricading a building would, in real life, be much less inhibited by it being ransacked than the much more precise technical challenge of setting up a generator and connecting it to the building's power system. Also, it's trivial to set up a BR clinic first, then have the zeds go in and get revived.--Dedboy 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    Gotta have a timestamp--Gage 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - The power for a single survivor to walk into a ransacked NT with 3 rotters, set up a generator, fuel it, revive and dump them all and put 'Cades to EHB in one day goes completely against the idea and strength of ransack. --David Suzuki 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - As above. Prothero 03:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. this gets "the Joe Pesci seal of approval" because humans should have to clear it before they can take it!--Zbmainiac 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - It's pretty non-sensical to have the computers and machinery work in a building where they're all strewn about and generally described in non-working order. It makes far more sense to be able to barricade in a ransacked building (hey look, building materials!) than to be able operate the infrastructure of one. And one can't do that.--Insancipitory 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - <Same as Insancipitory>. --ZOMBIEKILLER 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Brain Rot Revive Clinics will be harder to run with this, but it will still be possible. It will just require more de-barricading. Regardless, preventing the possibility of combat reviving brain rotted zombies in a ransacked NT is much more important than keeping things easy for BR clinics. Besides, unless you're absolutely positively sure you will never want your character to be a survivor again, you shouldn't be purchasing Brain Rot in the first place. --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Powering a ransacked building seems like an oxymoron to me. It should not be possible. Jambalaya 19:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep - As Jambalaya. As for brain rot clinics - I don't know if this was an accident by Kevan - setting gennys in ransacked buildings - but it sure as hell is not in the flavor of the game. If you've got brain rot, you're a zombie and that's the end of it. I hope people could see the difference between making the game more playable for survivors and griefing zombies. --Fisu 17:12, 5 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think this idea makes sense. I don't really like the idea of being able to combat revive rotters, though.
    Struck vote, not signed properly, see your talk page for details -- boxy T L PA DA 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill If survivor wants to drag a Genny into a Zed occupied building, dragging the Genny through trash et al and fire one off, then so be it. Now lets talk about how with 1 ap you can ransack (or clean) a building beyond use. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 22:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill--Ev933n 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. As Conndraka. Also, this screws up the brain rot clinics (which are nice), and generally remain ransacked so that griefers can't barricade it up so easily; and also need to be powered. Generally this is OK as-is anyhow. --ExplodingFerret 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Both Conndraka and ExplodingFerret have made excellent points. --Wikidead 01:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill As per Ferret. --New Coldness 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill - As ExplodingFerret. Brain rot clinics are nice. --Rgon 05:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Impossible to run a Brain Rot Clinic if this passed. Arainach 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Brain Rot Revive clinics?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Rot Revive Centres! --EwanHale 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Kill - No --Poopman9 22:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Kill - We need Brain Rot Clinics! Skybro 09:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Kill - Ransack doesn't make much sense period. But if it's something that can be fixed entirely by un-ransacking the building, then it's at least as easy as plugging in a power cord. Given that unransacking is something anything can do, not just skilled technicians, they could ignore the rubble intuitively. Emily Quinn 11:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Kill - Rotter Clinics - --David Copperfield 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Kill It is not unbalanced to search a gennie, fuel, syringes and set them all up, compared to the 1 AP needed to ransack.--Nosimplehiway --Nosimplehiway 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Kill - Just read the kills they bash it out everytime.--Wbleak24 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Kill - Kill this as it would kill Rotter Revival Clinics.--Gafgar December 7th 2006
  17. Kill - I don't think it's such a big deal that brain rotted zombies can be combat revived in powered NT buildings. That's still the ONLY place they can be combat revived and they can always destroy the generator. Besides, it's not keeping things easy for brain rot clinics unless brain rot clinics have it easy right now, which I don't think they do. --Wfjeff 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Kill - If it can instantly be cleaned up by anybody, then it should be easy to set up a generator in a ransacked building. This would only truely apply to rotter revive clinics and combat revives on rotters anyway, the former of which has it rough enough as it is, and the latter of which can be solved by jumping out the window of the NT building. --Zap 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Kill - For the reasons above. But also, I consistently ransack NT buildings and have yet to be combat revived. --IrradiatedCorpse 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Kill - If someone has the ballz to try and Combat Revive rotters in an NT building, good luck to 'em! Daniel Hicken 19:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Kill- As Conndraka. Ransack & Clean up should use (near enough) the same mechanics as Barracade / Un-barracade, IMHO. docdead 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. As Conndraka....but much more spammy. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools
advertisements