Suggestions/6th-Jan-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Rules for Previous Suggestions

  • These suggestions can only be voted on now, and only up to two weeks from the day they were submitted.
  • You can make new suggestions on the Suggestions Page.

Voting

  1. You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated.
  2. Before voting please read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested Ideas Page to read about concepts that have been generally considered unworkable in the past. You do not need to follow the guidelines on these pages but they are worth consideration before casting a vote.
  3. One vote per user. No exceptions. You cannot use multiple wiki accounts to vote on a suggestion.
  4. To Vote, use the [edit] button next to the suggestion you wish to vote for. Then enter your vote in the suggest_votes field. Please ensure that your vote is placed before the double brackets of the particular suggestion (ie the "}}")
  5. Votes must include a signature in order to be considered valid votes. To sign a vote, use --~~~~. Please remember to sign your votes! Unsigned votes will be deleted after 30 minutes or when found.
  6. Each Suggestion will be open to voting for two (2) weeks, measured from the suggestion's Timestamp, unless it is a Dupe or Spam. If, at the end of that time, there are two thirds (2/3) more Keep votes than Kill votes, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page. Otherwise, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Rejected Suggestions page.

Rules for Discussions

Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions. This page and archived suggestion pages are only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss any of the suggestions or votes here, please select a specific vote's page by clicking on its link under Current Day's Suggestions and use the associated Talk page. Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. The Suggestions talk page can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted.

Valid Votes

  • Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit.
  • Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit. If you need to discuss a rule fix, use the discussion page.
  • Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions.
Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described below in the Removing Suggestions section. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.
Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM. Spam votes will be counted as Kill when votes are tallied.
  • Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion.
Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described below. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied.

Invalid Votes

  • Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide.
  • X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote. You are voting on the merit of THIS suggestion, not how it compares to others.
  • Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote.

Comments

  • Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.
  • Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout <s></s> in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

All Caps

Try to avoid YELLING, writing in bold, or using italics, except when emphasizing a point which has escaped other voters.

VOTING EXAMPLES

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Best. Suggestion. Evar. --Bob_Zombie 04:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Good sugestion. no signature --FakeSuggester 07:39, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - This is a terrible idea, but you can totally fix it up. --NegativeGal 06:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Please be more specific about how to fix it on the discussion page. --MrSuggester 14:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re - Sure, I have detailed my proposed fixes here. --NegativeGal 23:38, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Kill - You will eat my poopie and love it! --PooEater 11:12, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Note - Inane vote removed. Defend in discussion. --DaModerator 11:13, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels is an inappropriate Survivor Class. --NoFunAtAll 09:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Dupe - Duplicate Suggestion --AnotherSuggester 05:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)



Removing Suggestions

Suggestions can be removed for two reasons:

  • Dupe If a suggestion is a duplicate of an earlier one, and has recieved at least 3 Dupe Votes linked to the Duplicated suggestion, then it can be deleted as per the guidelines below.
  • Spam If a suggestion is deemed by the community to be either not made seriously, or simply completely awful and not worthy of inclusion on the Suggestion page for a two-week period, it can be Spaminated. The suggestion may be sent to either the Peer-Rejected or Humorous suggestions pages.

Eligibility for Spamination is acheived if there are at least 7 Spam votes and the number of Spam votes are equal to 2/3rds or greater of the total number of votes, with the author vote included in all these tallies. In addition, A Sysop can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps; this includes their own spam vote. Suggestions may not be removed as spam unless voting has been open for 6 hours.

Authors are not allowed to use Re: to defend their work or correct the editor after a suggestion has been removed.

When removing a Suggestion, you take the responsibility to be mature regarding the situation. Each Suggestion is an author's child and they can be come quite passionate in regards to the Suggestion's removal. Please do the following when removing a Suggestion:

  • Duplicate - If the removed Suggestion is a duplicate, you must:
    1. Confirm that there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate.
    2. List the number of Dupe Votes received.
    3. Provide a link(s) to the Suggestion that it duplicates.
    4. Optionally note the Linked Suggestion status: Reviewed/Undecided/Rejected.
    5. Sign the removal.
    6. Be Polite and make no additional comments.
  • Humorous - If the removed Suggestion is deemed humourous, you must:
    1. State that the Suggestion has been deemed humorous.
    2. Move the Suggestion to the Humorous Suggestions page.
    3. Sign the removal.
    4. Be Polite and make no additional comments.
    5. Bring fourth a vandalism case against the user who posted it citing rule 13 of making a suggestion.
  • Spaminated - If the removed Suggestion has become eligible for Spamination, you must:
    1. List the number of Spam Votes received and the total number of votes.
    2. State that the Suggestion was Spaminated.
    3. List or summarize/paraphrase the comments/reasons made on the Spam votes.
    4. Move the suggestion to Peer Rejected Suggestions page.
    5. Sign the removal.
    6. Be Polite and make no additional comments.

It is your responsibility to be a mature editor.


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



DO NOT PLACE A VOTE AFTER DEADLINE

If the two week deadline for voting is passed, your vote WILL BE DELETED AND IGNORED.


Howl of Frustration

Timestamp: 00:22, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This goes under Feeding Groan in the skill tree. This is effectively Feeding Groan for barricades, and will work almost exactly like that skill. When a zombie is outside a barricaded building of Quite Strongly or better, it will have the Howl ability, able to summon a horde of zombies. Loosely/Lightly will have the same range as a Feeding Groan at 1 survivor, Quite Strongly same as 2, Very Strongly 3, Heavily 4, and VH/EH 5. A Howl will sound different than a Groan.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. After suggesting a Survivor skill I wanted to suggest a Zombie one as well. Is it too powerful? I'm honestly not sure. --Slicer 00:22, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Abstain - You're on a roll Slicer, it's a nice idea. Personally I would change it to anything above Very Strongly so the coding might be easier, but that's a bit irrelevent. I'm abstaining because I also believe that though this is a good idea, it's not appropriate right now for reasons detailed below. --Daxx 00:24, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. killRhialto 00:24, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep Same as Daxx, Hey Rhialto, y u so into kill today?Argus Nole 00;25. 6 jan 2006
  5. Kill - While it might have its uses, think about the amount spam this would create! Feeding groan is good because when you hear it, you know that there at least was survivors. --Brizth 00:27, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - make it available only when you have cracked the barricade down a level (say, from VH to only H, from VS to QS). This way the zombie will have to spend some AP (smashing the barricades) before hitting the howl button --hagnat 00:36, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - So, you want to make Groan as worthless as flares. - CthulhuFhtagn 00:38, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Changed suggestion a bit- should have remembered to specify this. Howling != groaning. --Slicer 00:42, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Shouting each time a building is barricaded? I'll just walk a block and find my own. I think the frustration would fit better if you finally entered a safehouse and there are no hamanz inside. Right now, I think i would ignore each and every one of those calls. --Paddy Fitzgerald 00:39, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Everything is barricaded, this would be about as useful as flares. (Opps, CthulhuFhtagn already said that, sorry) Kashara 00:40, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - To the previous two posters: This is dependent entirely on your suburb. One of my Z's is in a suburb where everything is cracked wide open and finding barricaded buildings is the challenge! --Slicer 00:42, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Picking through all the login noise to distinguish which ones are groans and which ones are howls? No thanks. Any zombie who is in a suburb that doesn't actually have any barricaded buildings has done their job, and can move somewhere else for a while. --Elderdan 00:45, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - "Howl of Frustration" is the perfect name for when that happens. However, I think there would be too many howls to be useful; it would all be screen clutter. --Dickie Fux 01:22, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -Fits nice with feeding groan. But thats already creating so much havok right that I rather wait a bit for expanding it.--Vista 01:25, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep ---Kcold 02:29, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep CAN YOU DIG IT, cause i sure can, great idea man--grassman 02:46, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - No thanks. --krupintupple 21:51, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  16. Kill - Some merit, but when I ask myself if I'd ever respond to one, I'd say no. --BurbLulls 03:11, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Too many buildings are barricaded as decoys, this plays right into the survivor's game. --McArrowni 04:00, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Feeding groan is better by leaps and bounds, as it's directly proportional to the number of survivors that the zombie can actually see. Now you just want every single zombie to start howling when they want help knocking down some barricades? No. Bentley Foss 04:35, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - This would hurt zombies so much. Think of it multiplied times a million, every zombie in malton screaming at barricaded doors. Which of the 1000 messages are you going to respond to? --Zaruthustra 06:12, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Groan is useful. This is not. If you need help to find a barricaded building you need to move to a different suburb. And I don't even want to think about the potential server stress. --Sindai 06:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - what Zarathustra said. Most buildings are heavily barricaded. Multiply this by a billion, and you get mad spam and frustrated zombies trashing empty safehouses. Not much other than knowing there's survivors in a building could make this good, and that would involves zombies that can see through walls. Mojo 09:59, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Killl - spamming, HO! - Skarmory 14:16, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - Nice idea, but I've only seen zombies howl at people in zombie films, not at piles of junk. -- Norminator 2 18:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - This skill is entirely useless. And all of those feeding groans spam us enough, without adding more due to barricades. --PatrickDark 08:57, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - Too much spam for a basically useless skill. --Seagull Flock 11:21, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill - I ...don't think the zombies are THAT smart. Yet. We've got metagaming for this. --MorthBabid

Malpractice

Spaminated with prejudice. 6 Spams, 4 Kills, no keeps. --Jak Rhee 04:54, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Skill Gain Locations

Timestamp: 03:52, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill, balance change
Scope: Survivors
Description: My suggestion is this: To gain certain skills as a survivor, you need to be in a certain type of building. It's odd how you can just suddenly become a shotgun expert just like that. Here's a basic outline of what it'd be like. Of course, you still need the XP as well.

For basic arms training, pistol training and shotgun training, you need to be in either a police station, armoury or fort.

For advanced pistol and shotgun training an armoury or a fort.

Surgery and diagnosis need a hospital.

Lab experience needs a Necrotech building.

Shopping and bargain hunting (Maybe just bargain hunting) require a mall.

All other skills don't need a building. Zombie skills don't need them either since they're physical changes after all.

My reason for this skill is to stop those whose entire game is spent camped out in a single safehouse, requiring some sort of travel to get more skills. How can you become a zombie hunting master if you're sat in a single police station your entire life? My only doubt about this idea is that it'll be attacked for it's realism values.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author's vote. My first suggestion, don't you know... --BurbLulls 03:52, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill --RAF LT. General Deathnut 04:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Wow... your FIRST?!?!? Well I shall tell the truth... I DON'T LIKE IT -_-. I'll change the vote if you tell me what is the point of this? To be honest, it stlil doesn't make sense even with that because the person just goes there for a second and POOF! MOMMY MOMMY LOOK I CAN USE A SHOTGUN! That's nice... now go play in the streets -_-. But personally also some people can't make it into some of these places because they need free running... which they need exp to learn... and we need to learn by damaging faster... and taking these away will make it muchhhhhh longer to learn some of these skills...unsigned--The General 10:20, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - The reason, my un-named good sir, is that last paragraph in the suggestion details. You know, that one. There. --BurbLulls 04:35, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -uh huh....Well to tell you the truth i've been spending my entire life siting in fort perryn fighting off sieges like no tommarrow and i'm happy with the 100 xp a day that i'm getting Drogmir 04:31, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I like how this applies to everything, everywhere. You can't learn to read unless you're in a library. You can't eat unless you're in a kitchen. You can't learn to shoot unless you're at a gun range. You can't learn to tie your shoes unless you're in a shoestore. Etc., etc. Point made? Bentley Foss 04:40, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Actually it doesn't apply to everything, everywhere. Free running, construction, Necrotech employment, first aid, tagging, body building, headshot, hand to hand combat, knife proficiency and axe proficiency are not attached to any building in my suggestion. --BurbLulls 04:49, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill The idea is that you gain EXPERIENCE hence EXPERIENCE points. The more you use pistols, the more proficient you become and thus havea higher accuracy rate. The more you use FAKs, the more efficient you become and thus can heal more with the same kit. --Mikm 04:41, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - But that's just it. You can get the EXP to learn pistol training from using first aid kits, and vice versa. Since individual experience points for each skill would be way too annoying, I thought this would be another way to simulate skills being gained accurately. Plus, as I said in the description, you still need the EXP. --BurbLulls 04:49, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - If someone is spending their game time sitting in the same building, it's their loss. --Signal9 04:52, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - If you tally up the major ways of getting exp they tally up to combat and heals. This suggestion would probably get more keep votes if the skills linked to combat and healing were taken out. FireballX301 06:14, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill Major points for creativity, its an interesting concept. But two things. One, its a lot of really irritating legwork. And two, it discourages people from playing survivors in an arbitrary way. --Zaruthustra 06:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Why do people keep voting kill on this? It is a good suggestion --Lord Evans 06:45, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Really nice idea. Gives survivors a reason to roam the maps. I'd like to see more "mini missions" like this. --Frosty 11:18, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I like this idea and was about to vote keep, I really was. It makes good sense. I thought, "Every suburb has several hospitals and police stations in easy reach, why is this such a big deal?" But then I realized, anybody who is not metagaming (thereby looking at a map of Malton) won't easily find these locations. It becomes more dangerous than it's worth. If Kevan ever introduces a "map" item in-game then I will definitely change my vote. --Carnival H 13:49, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill -Lets annoy survivors by forcing them to go to certain places arbitrarily in name of realism. and there are only two forts in the game. You don't think a major zombie horde or two would overrun them to keep survivors from getting their most important skills? and why should experience alone be not enough for survivors and be plenty for zombies? unbalancing to the max There is nothing wrong with realism per se, annoying people in the name of realism is however. Let's not force people to play the way you want the game to be played. Just deal with it. --Vista 14:01, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - agree with vista --Kcold 15:58, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - In light of the number of kill votes, it might work better if buying the skill in one of the named locations reduced the amount of XP required to buy the skill, representing access to better training facilities, but you could still buy them elsewhere for the regular cost. I think an incentive to move around a bit would be good. --Dickie Fux 16:35, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - What the heck. This could easily prove interesting. Althought sometimes I don't understand why you would need to go to a place, if you already got the material, and technically, you're not insured there's anyone to teach you anything. I still think it's an interesting idea, but it's still weird. But then, this is just a game. --McArrowni 16:41, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Nice idea, but I don't think there are enough forts etc. to justify this, people would spend most of the game hiking across the city rather than fighting, hurting group play as well. -- Norminator 2 18:18, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Usually I'd be on the fence about this, since it's not really that hard to make it to the buildings you list (just ask for directions if you're lost). But I'm in a good mood I guess. Hell it's not broken at the very least. Riktar 01:03, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - It's a valid idea, but I don't like how you have to get to a fort/armory to get advanced gun training. They are only two of 'em on the entire map, and they're already dangerous with zombies trying to get them. If you implemented this, then all zombies would have to do is grab the forts, and suddenly the survivors have an inaccessible skill. I like having to go to a hospital, that makes sense, but at least let police stations give advanced gun skills. Grim 02:35, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - I like it, need I say more - Jedaz 03:16, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - I dig, and agree with grim, but don't plan on killing this otherwise awesomes idea. - krupintupple 22:40, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  22. Kill - I agree with Grim and therefore with Dickie. CHange it so that you don't have to go to thse buildings for the skill but you get an xp discount on getting the skill if you are in one and I will happily change my vote to keep. Nifty idea. --Thelabrat 08:11, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill A pain in the keister because not only do you have to spend your downtime searching for ammo, but you have to march to "the proper place" in order to learn skills. AllStarZ 17:11, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - I like the concept, but the description here is a bit too vague. How should it be working? I gain my XPs around the city, then I go to the fort/hospital/whatever and click the "Buy Skills" button? Or should I gain the XPs in that particular place? Moreover, I agree with Grim's comment. --Seagull Flock 11:28, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - Heaven help the Free Running-less newbie trapped in a Mall or Hospital barricaded to max. --MorthBabid 08:53, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Suicide

Timestamp: 04:03, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item/Game Addition
Scope: Survivors
Description: When you click a loaded weapon in your inventory, you are given a warning as you would recieve when jumping out a window, telling you that you are about to shoot yourself in the head. If you choose to you spend 1 AP and 1 bullet/shell and are immediately a corpse. Since this amounts to a shot-in-the-head, it will cost you the extra 5 AP to stand as a zombie above your normal cost for rising.

People already have buildings to jump out of, yes -- but this would be a flavorful addition that has a clear cost (a bullet, an AP, and you recieve a self-inflicted Headshot) and a clear gain (you can kill yourself in a building full of people and rise if you aren't thrown out).

Convinced that you can't take it anymore, you raise the barrel to your temple and pull the trigger, ending your life.

  • Option: Shooting yourself in the head doesn't kill you, it just deducts a hefty amount of HP so you can kill yourself in a few self-inflicted wounds.

Votes

  1. Kill - No --RAF LT. General Deathnut 04:09, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Yes -- Amazing 04:25, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  1. Kill - Not nessary. If you can't hadle it run outside and fire a flare you'll aid the zombies more Drogmir 04:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Hurrah, let's give zombies a really easy way to run right through barricades! Wheee! Bentley Foss 04:44, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Well, you'd rise as a zombie with no more than 34 or 43 AP at the maximum, and presumably low HP. You do realize people can do this now with no AP cost through having a friend shoot them to death, right? -- Amazing 04:52, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Anything further hits the talk page. Anyway... if a friend shoots them to death, then the friend has to be online at the same time, and people get a chance to combat this by healing the person or dumping the body once the target is dead. At any rate, somebody pays a good AP cost to get the person through the barricades and turn them into a zombie. Trust me, ten or fifteen zombies free running inside a building, committing suicide, and standing up with full HP and "only" 43 AP can kill a lot of people. It would become a new preferred siege tactic and make barricades nearly worthless. This is just a bad idea. Bentley Foss 07:03, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Re: No non-author replies, please. Ugh. You make the point about dumping the body, but this can be done with suicide as well. Invalid point amongst other valid concerns. -- Amazing 18:00, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. killRhialto 04:51, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Really a thing for zombie spies at a much lower net cost than their friends killing them. Say bye-bye to all safehouses. To commit suicide, punch someone in a safehouse, or spend the night outside, or find a building with suicide windows. --Signal9 05:01, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill -- Is there a "Visciously Murder" vote? This sucks. Make it WAY WAY too easy to infiltrate barricades. --Jak Rhee 05:04, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Comment -- I believe if the suggestion was changed to only be workable outside or in unoccupied buildings (i.e. you raise a gun to your head but the other survivors in the building wrest it away), it would fly. This way it'd be a way for people to suicide without having to find tall buildings to jump out of. FireballX301 06:11, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • No it STILL wouldnt fly. COmmitting suicde shouldnt be so easy. To get revived you have to find yourself another player/revive point. You cant revive yourself, you shouldnt be able to kill yourself. --Jak Rhee 06:17, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • No, it will fly because it's already easy to kill yourself - just stand outside. --Signal9 18:13, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill the only substantial benefit I can see from this is zombie spies bypassing barricades. --Zaruthustra 06:24, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Too easy for zombie spies. --Brizth 08:56, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Great! Now I can headshot myself. Finding New Ways To Do Old Things Is BAD.--The General 09:05, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -- Asrathe 11:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Unfortunately, open to abuse by people pasting links directly to the suicide url. This happened with jumping out of buildings (it's now fixed so it can only happen in tall buildings, but it used to be everywhere). This will bring back that old problem. Anyone who visits a malicious link with a loaded gun gets caught out be the griefers. --Daxx 13:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Caught not reading. :) It says right in the beginning that you get a warning like jumping from a building, and always has. -- Amazing 17:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Comment - Sorry, you're totally and utterly wrong, and I can read the suggestion just fine. You obviously don't know how they work. The malicious links don't give you a warning, they bypass it altogether. Try doing some research before posting arrogant remarks like that. --Daxx 20:14, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Comment - Malicious suicide links were fixed properly a few months ago. Try doing some research before etc. --Spiro 03:01, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - reasons given by Bentley Foss, Zaruthustra, the rest of the WCDZ and basically everybody else too--Vista 14:14, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Sorry, makes it too easy for Covert Zombie Infiltration, Something that I have worked hard at building a network to achieve and wouldn't want slighted. --bbrraaiinnss 14:40 Jan 6 2006
  14. Kill - Yeah, as if jumping out the window wasn't questionable enough, let's not have the game promote suicide some more. I mean, I'm all for worthless people, real and imaginary, offing themselves and cleansing the gene pool, but it isn't a good image for the game now is it? There's already a way to die if you absolutely must die. --S Kruger
  15. Kill - we have already the window so throw you self if you like!--Kcold 15:56, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - It works well thematically (especially if those around you got a message saying someone had killed himself), but the potential for mis-use is too high. It would be nice if someone could think of a way around that. --Dickie Fux 16:38, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - I believe the WCDZ will order me to do it soon, anyways--McArrowni 16:44, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - promoting suicide is a bad bad thing. --hagnat 17:08, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Promoting murder isn't? -- Amazing 17:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Comment: It seems people don't realize that anyone online can dump your corpse when you kill yourself, and you rise with low AP and HP. People are also able to kill eachother to bypass barricades right now. There are valid arguments, but those I've discounted here aren't ones. -- Amazing 17:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - What about mine? I think that kills this concept stone dead. --Daxx 18:24, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: No it doesn't. Read the Suggestion. Read my reply to your vote. It's all there and it directly debunks your concern. -- Amazing 20:10, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Comment - It seems you don't understand how malicious links work. Sorry Amazing, you're wrong. --Daxx 20:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
          • Re: Hey, rule-breakin', comment abusin' wank. I do understand how they work. You're just too flipping idiotic to accept a simple concept of this being fixed. -- Amazing 03:33, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill Here's a thought. Zombie Spies could start off as scouts, freerun into a heavily barricaded building, and kill themselves. AllStarZ 18:51, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Here's a thought. Two Zombie Spies could start off as scouts, freerun into a heavily barricaded building, and kill eachother. Right now. -- Amazing 20:10, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • RE So lets not make it EASIER for them to do this stuff!!! NO NO NO NO NO! --Jak Rhee 21:03, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Pointing out the obvious Just rewrite the thing so that it only works if you're alone. If you try it indoors, you get "You decide to kill yourself, but can't bear to do so in front of all these people."--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:21, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Good idea. With people like Daxx, however, there's always the chance kill votes will be issues without reading, understanding, or thinking in any way. :X -- Amazing 03:33, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - As long as once you do this your character is deleted and removed from the game, sure. - krupintupple 22:40, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  23. Kill - Bypassing barricade issues everyone else mentioned. And no, the "another person can do it just as well" argument is not valid, as it would take the other person far more AP to accomplish the task than headshotting yourself would, AND you need someone online at the same time as you to help you out with it (unless you do it with one of your alts, in which case the zerging countermeasures take effect). - KingRaptor 04:35, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill --Thelabrat 08:15, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill Neat idea, but this would make Death cultist unstopable. Go into mall, shoot self, rise with one AP spent, slaughter/break barricades. Yikes. --MorthBabid 08:54, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Burn Corpse(s)

Timestamp: 05:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Balance change, ability, new use for item
Scope: Survivors
Description: This would allow a survivor with a gas can to burn one or several corpse/corpses laying in a square. The effect would be a loss of 5-10 XP. A corpse could be burned only once per death (ie: until it stands up and is killed again). I think this would add realism to the game and improve the feel of it. It would also give survivors incentive (other than XP) to hunt down zombies. As it is, survivors have no way to actually harm a zombie, only to delay it for a few hours. I think this solves the problem without harming zombies too much or changing the game drastically. Additionally, it could be changed to allow this only when no live zombies are present, thus allowing zombies to protect their fallen if they have the will and/or force to do so.

Votes

  1. Keep - Well I wouldn't suggest it if I didn't think it should fly, now would I? --James hexenhammer 05:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - A thousand times, Kill. This doesn't harm the zombies in any way that helps survivors, it just griefs them. Headshot was changed for a reason. -CWD 05:22, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I'm with CWD. Also, survivors have revivifcation syringes; stops one zombie indefinitely (At least until it dies again). --BurbLulls 05:25, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Revivification stops a zombie until it moves (at full human speed) to a multi-storied building, or it saves the zombies the trouble of making spies. --James hexenhammer 05:31, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: The problem with Headshot in its previous forum, beside that it made unlife tough on newbie zombies, was that it didn't hurt the high-level zombies at all. They already had all their skills, losing XP was nothing to them and survivors got no benefit. This is exactly the same: Griefs the low-level zombies, does nothing at all to the high-level ones. -CWD 05:58, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Point taken. The question then becomes: Can we find a way to spread a similar effect equally over all levels without taking skills (since that kind of thing is apparently anathema around here)? --James hexenhammer 06:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill I will have to vote kill on this one --RAF LT. General Deathnut 05:38, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Did you read the Do's and Do Not's? Did you see the "Don't Punish the Players" section? If you answered yes to both, why did you post this suggestion? If you answered "no" to the first one, why did you post this suggestion? And finally, if you answered "no" to the second one, but "yes" to the first one, it means that you should have read the Do's and Do Not's more closely. Besides, you should at least tell us what happens if you burn a revived person that hasn't stood up? If they don't die, it's stupid, and if they do, it's just more of the same griefing. --Signal9 05:50, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Visciously Murder Kill Sorry about that... my fingers slipped --Jak Rhee 05:55, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - As it is, zombies have no way to harm humans, only to delay them until they can get a revive. Why should humans be the only side able to permanently hurt the other? --Sindai 06:19, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Lets cut straight to the chase and just add a big button that says "grief zombie who probably already got headshot today". --Zaruthustra 06:25, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Let's just go back to the old headshot. [/sarcasm] - KingRaptor 06:35, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Hurrah for a new headshot! The WCDZ is pleased with your foresight. How can anyone resist the re-implementation of a despised game mechanic? Bentley Foss 07:06, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. kill - The way its written, it's not clear if its the survivor or the corpse that loses teh xp. Either way, it's bad. Rhialto 08:42, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Spam - Don't Punish The players For behaving The Way They Were Intended To Behave. Zombies are supposed to enter buildings; kill survivors; and get dumped. Anything that punishes them for doing that is a bad idea.--The General 09:14, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill it, then burn its corpse - Mojo 09:55, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill --Asrathe 11:31, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill Don't steal our hard-earned xp away. Zombie players don't like getting griefed either. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 12:-7, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill Everyone thought of what I want to say. AllStarZ 14:09, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - What AllStarZ said. --Daxx 14:12, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - What Daxx said --Vista 14:17, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - agree with all other pep ! --Kcold 15:51, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Some effect for burning corpses might work, but not losing XP. --Dickie Fux 16:40, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - Sure, and I suppose syringe-revived survivors would be only moderately inconvenienced by being put on fire before rebirth? --Hexedian 16:42, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - I must terminate this, as you are not a WCDZ member, and we can't let you outshine us on zombie griefing suggestions. And we must maintain a fa�ade of impartiality. How was that boss? --McArrowni 16:53, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - the WCDZ's idea is better. Also, this is probably a dupe. --hagnat 17:10, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - Well, unless you want to let Zombies start burning down buildings, killing all inside. In fact, that sounds like a great way to gain a few hundred XP quickly.. I think I'lll make it a suggestion... --Reverend Loki 20:12, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - And while we are at it lets bring back the old headshot - Jedaz 03:20, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Spam - When I first joined in november, everyone was all about burning Zeds like this. It's so been done. - krupintupple 22:40, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  27. Kill - "Incentive" meaning griefing. Killing a survivor only delays them a few hours too. Jirtan 04:36, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - Headshot was changed because it griefed zombies and stole their XP every time they were killed (which they can't ever really avoid). Why would we want something that was universally reviled brought back in another form? --PatrickDark 08:59, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - I really don't understand why does some players want to grief others. --Seagull Flock 11:32, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Spam - This just isn't a good game mechanic, no matter how you re-invent it. "No burning corpses" should be added to the list, if it isn't there already. --MorthBabid 08:55, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Weapons limit

Suggestion removed by author.


Weapons limit v.2.0

Timestamp: 14:24, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Flavor / mechanics change
Scope: Gun wielding survivors.
Description: Does carrying a dozen shotguns, let alone pistols, disturb you? Well, I can't says it disturbs me too often, but I still think this is worthy of consideration. Simply put, I sugest an arbitrary, optional limit on the amount of weapons you can carry - not a full inventory system (although it would be a nice idea if, say, the fire axe, although more powerful than other weapons, would take up much more space etc., but that's an idea for later), but merely a limit, in that you can carry one (1) shotgun and two (2) pistols. Maximum. What with the excess weapons you find? Well, the character would (all in one AP) pick them up, remove the ammo, and leave the empty weapon.

Votes

  1. Kill - Leave my 9 shotguns and 7 pistols alone. --SCAScot 15:14, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Do you know how inefficient it would be to have to reload a shotgun (2AP to reload it to full) with every two shots? While zombies can bite and scratch without ever having to reload? --The Brian 15:24, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - People love having 9 fully loaded shotguns cause they don't have to spend extra ap to load it. Same goes with the pistol - Vote left by Drogmir
  4. Keep - sound logic i completly agree--Kcold 15:46, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. keep - anything to clean up the inventory, this should be packaged with some sort of speed loading to minimize impact. I think it is bogus you can carry more than one portable generator as well -- Spacenookie 15:55, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Ew. Leave mah boomsticks be! --MaulMachine 11:19, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  7. Comment How is this different then your first suggestion? is this now voluntary? If it isn't then it is spam by stated reasons I gave in the vote for the identical proposal, and you should restore the orginal votes of version 1 pronto. If it is voluntary it is a kill for a lack of reason to change this.--Vista 16:32, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Better inventory management suggestions already exist. You bring up a valid problem, but the solution needs to be a bit more elegant. --Dickie Fux 16:44, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam Why Spam? Because of the change to make this 'optional.' Its optional NOW, as in if you want to limit your guns to be realistic, you can. In other words, this suggestion is sayign that we.. change nothing to the game, but just merely ask players to do this? Sorry thats spam. --Jak Rhee 17:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill --Lord Evans 18:22, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill -- This is a dupe. I'll get around to digging up the old suggestion, which, I might add, died a horrible, fiery death, later. Bentley Foss 18:32, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Carrying lots of guns is to offset the AP cost of loading weapons. While this suggestion does add realism, it would make many people rather irritated. I have to agree with Drogmir. --ScottyD 18:37, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill I suggested something like this, and no one was happy, trust me. I share your belief about this stuff, but I think (and others too) it disrupts too many players because alot of people carry more than a couple of guns and what happens if the game changes to put a limit on that? That could potentially cause problems. AllstarZ 18:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re AllstarZ, the BIGGEST problem with this is not that it disrupts palyers! It DOESNT! The word *OPTIONAL* it makes the whole damn suggestion do NOTHING! WHich means the writer needs a new brain.. a nondamaged one. --Jak Rhee 21:17, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Well you've said it all, because it's optional why don't you just throw away your weapons if you want realism, otherwise you could just hold onto whatever you want - Jedaz 03:22, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Duh, just give us all cool Urban Dead hockey bags to tote our guns in. - krupintupple 22:40, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  16. Keep - Anything that nerfs the survivors hability to store AP is a Keep! --hagnat 04:48, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT) (just kidding folks, my vote here is kill for obvious reasons)
  17. Keep - please keep it, look at the figures if you think I'm just being a jerk, atm a level 3 human can kill a zombie in 8 ap. the highest level zombie can only ever kill people in 34 ap. at least this way human would have to spend a logical amount of ap to kill a zombie. --Freakarama 16:27, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - How the hell should my Church of the Boomstick survive if I only can have 1 boomstick? No, I need, five, ten, THOUSAND boomsticks in my inventory. Besides, fun goes first, realism second --Father Gregoriy 20:20, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - ...Why am I not drunk after drinking all of this beer and wine? Wheres the realism, damnit?!? --MorthBabid 08:57, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Holy Water

Spaminated, with four Spams, two Kills and one author keep. --Daxx 18:06, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)



Different Holy Water Suggestion

Timestamp: 18:10, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Non-gettable Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: I was inspired by the suggestion above, (And I hope you don't mind. This is totally different so I hope it's cool.)

In every Church there would be a font of Holy Water. (I may be using the wrong word there) It would exist in the room and would present a button to all in the room to use it. When used everyone sees a message like this:

Chumbly dips his fingers into the holy water and makes the sign of the cross over himself.

Costs 1 AP. Fluff.

  • Question: Should people be able to tip over the font by attacking it?
  • Question: Should people be able to replace and refill it for an AP cost if it is knocked over?
  • Question: Should the message only be seen by the person using it to prevent spam?

If a font is indeed knocked over, imagine the room description. "There is a Holy Water font tipped over on the damp floor."

Votes

  1. KEEP - I was just going for flavor anyway, so this works too. My Holy Water only lasted 1/2 hour, good luck to you! DarthMortis 18:14, 6 Jan (GMT)
  2. Keep/change - Nice, but there should be at least some small effect - such as a 5% increase in the next attack made. -- Norminator 2 18:22, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - For flavor, like the crucifix --Lord Evans 18:24, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I disagree with Norminator 2 - holy water should be useless. And to answer the three questions you have - yes to all. Zombies should be able to tip it over too. --Signal9 18:30, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill -- How does this improve gameplay in the least? Bentley Foss 18:33, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Not everything exists to vastly improve gameplay. -- Amazing 20:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Oooh, ooh, *raises hand*. Ah yes, one question: WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED HOLY WATER? The Power of Christ doesn't compel 'em. Look, don't add anything thats definitely useless, and if flavour is your only reason, thats a pathetic argument. AllStarZ 18:41, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: You're coming to a suggestion that states it is fluff, and you're demanding it be defended without acknowledging it's fluff. Get real. -- Amazing 20:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Okay I'll make it more clear why I want to kill this. You should add flavour for things that are already in the game, and not add more items for flavour. Got that? AllStarZ 17:03, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - There are other much needed things that need to be put into the game first. --Daxx 18:44, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: That makes no difference. Let's pick the one suggestion that needs to be implimented the most and delete all the rest, okay? Give me a break. -- Amazing 20:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - It's flavor, but not one I think we need to add. --ScottyD 18:47, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - It would be funny if there was a priest with a water gun killing zombies that way. But i thought it only worked for vampires. Joking aside I don't think it's that praticle Drogmir 19:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - agree with other!--Kcold 19:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - This is probably the best holy water suggestion we're gonna get. --Arcos 20:06, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Mmmmmm, flavor... ADDED REMINDER: Programming difficulty is NOT a valid justification for a vote - whether ot not it is worth the time to code isn't your decision to make. --Reverend Loki 20:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill -Why add something that does nothing? don't you think kevan has something better to do?--Vista 20:23, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - This isnt worht the server effort of coding time. Its flavor and pretty much small meaningless flavor. Like so many suggestions these days, its worthless. --Jak Rhee 21:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - I don't think Kevan needs our help to think of trivial flavor additions. --Zaruthustra 22:08, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Three cheers for 'trivial flavor additions'! --Zaknrfama 03:34, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill -- Asrathe 03:36, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - As long as it stays as usefull as it is in real life, you got yourself a keep feller. - krupintupple 22:40, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  19. Kill - Why? Alternatively: I echo the sentiments of the Shooting Star --PatrickDark 09:01, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Though I wish it could actually do something. Maybe randomly heal like beer does, except with worse chances of success. --MorthBabid 08:58, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Interactive Building Elements

Timestamp: 18:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Extensive game change
Scope: All Players
Description: I would like to see Building Elements in almost every building in Malton. These elements can be attacked and ruined by players and Zombies, or FIXED by players with the Construction skill or a Repair skill below Construction on the skill tree.

There could even be a Demolition skill for Zombies that gives a small XP bonus for destroying certain items.

All these elements could be included in the room description as opposed to being tagged on where a Generator would be.

There would be an all-purpose repair button for those with the Repair skill. When clicked you would work on an item in the room. "You begin repairing a desk, and make some good progress." (basically, this could be done in levels as with building barricades, until the items are totally fixed.)

Survivors could recieve small XP bonuses for fully repairing certain select items.

There could be a chance for failure in each attempt at repair. This would be great for flavor and would give people something to constantly war over. "Someone's been wrecking everything in the church next door. I put the barricades up, let's go restore it... those bastards!"

Elements could include:

Church Elements

  1. Holy Water fonts. Zombies can overturn it and spill its contents on the floor.
  2. Altar.
  3. Giant Crucifix, hung behind the altar. Zombies can tear it down and splinter the wood.

Mansions

  1. Furniture.
  2. Staircases.
  3. Appliances.

Schools

  1. Desks and chairs.
  2. Computers.
  3. Blackboards.

(These are just three examples, not rock solid and not the only ones possible.)

When you destroy something, there could be a simple "the room" option in your attack area. When you select "the room" for attack, you would do damage to some part of the room, be it Furniture, Appliances, etc.

Some items, like the Holy Water font, could have a flavor/fluff use.

  • If I have left anything out, please let me know in your vote text and check back on this suggestion.

Votes

  1. Kill - You HAVE left something out. What's the point? Does one get XP for destroying/repairing stuff? Or is it only for flavor, in which case it would not get much attention? --Hexedian 18:34, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: CNR - Caught Not Reading. Check out the Demolition part of it for a direct answer to your XP question. -- Amazing 18:46, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. KEEP - I like it....Even better if you gave Zeds 1 xp for breakin stuff, and humans got 1 xp for fixing what they broke! Darthmortis 18:34, 6 jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill -- The WCDZ is pleased with your suggestions of adding useless crap to every building in the game. Not only will this eat up precious server resources for no gameplay benefits whatsoever, but zombies who see this implemented before their much-needed improvements will certainly lay down and die in disgust. Good job! Bentley Foss 18:37, 6 Jan 2006
  4. Kill - Questions. Why give zombies XP for destroying furniture? Why propose a major addition to the game's code which will serve only to significantly increase server load without any apparent improvement to the gameplay? Why do you give XP to zombies and not survivors? --Daxx 18:41, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: You picked "Furniture" I said for certain select items, which could be something that requires more attacking than a chair would. -- Amazing 03:41, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - good idea but... is completly useless in UD!--Kcold 19:05, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: XP, something to do, skills to work toward. Not useless at all. -- Amazing 20:01, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I know I'll suggest Bowling alleys! Humans can spend one Ap to trow a ball. and zombies get XP for being the pins! It'll make your ears BLEED so good my suggestion will be!--Vista 20:32, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. KILL - Amazing... this would be murder on the server, plus we dotn WANT to have that many little sh*t was of gaining XP. Even if it is almost no XP. This is USELESS. Players should be PRDOCUTIVE and.. This isnt even worth my time to go into any further. See Bentley's explanation on Talk for more details. He's right. You are OUT. --Jak Rhee 21:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Negligable and not neccesary. Theres so many things that desperately need to be added and this isn't really one of them. --Zaruthustra 22:05, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill Incomplete. This requires survivor uses/need for the building elements. Either a bonus for having the elements repaired or a penalty for not having them repaired (Lower search success rates, lower barricading success rate, lower to hit, etc.. Otherwise, zombies will tear it down for xp, and humans will take their shiny new skill and do absolutely nothign with it so as to not give xp to the other side for no good tactical reason. Well, except zombie spies, which I don't like. --McArrowni 23:20, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - The only reason to interact with these is the xp gain. xp for interacting with inanimate objects made sense for zombies when they were suffering from headshot xp drain, but now they aren't so it doesn't. Unless the xp gain is on a par with reading books, it would remove the focus from killing zombies/eating brains to vandalism. And if it is on that level, its a big code rewrite for a trivial gain. Rhialto 01:34, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill -- Asrathe 03:43, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Make a seperate skill, Zed Hunters only, that fixes the break this will lay on the server. - krupintupple 22:48, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  13. Kill - wreck place, gain XP, restore place, gain xp, wreck place, gain xp, restore place, gain xp. XP Farm anyone ? --hagnat 04:01, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. kill --Thelabrat 08:21, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - The flavor is trivial, and serves no purpose except for minor XP gains, which survivors really don't need at this point. And most of the ways to gain experience are actually useful in the game, too. --PatrickDark 09:05, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Neat idea, but even the ones you suggest to actually have an impact? They aren't any impacts worth having. --MorthBabid 08:59, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Capture The Cure

Timestamp: 18:42, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Game Element
Scope: Everybody
Description: Say hello to the newest game element of Urban Dead: THE CURE.


A Cure has finally been developed by NecroTech employees, but it is incomplete. It requires an unknown incubation period to become fully functional. Furthermore, it contains the plague virus (much like anti-venom contains venom) and as such is capable of infecting, rather than curing, the entire population of Malton. This makes it very appealing to both Survivors and Undead.


The Cure is housed in an impenetrable, indestructible glass and steel incubator about the size of a microwave oven. It is self-powering and self-maintaining and requires nothing else to operate it. There is no interaction with The Cure beyond carrying it around and keeping it safe. The Cure offers no benefits to the stats or skills of those near it.


It can be moved by Humans, but not Zombies. However, any Zombie that passes within a five block radius of The Cure can "sense" the plague virus within: a weak, consistent pulsing. This happens whether The Cure is indoors or outdoors. Humans can not sense The Cure, (edit) but they can SEE it if it's on the same block/in the same room on account of it being rather bulky and emitting a strange glow. They will also see WHO is holding it.


The only way to force The Cure from somebody is to kill them and take it. The Cure can also be manually dropped. If a person idles out of the game (five days without activity) The Cure drops on the ground in that location. Whole groups can dedicate themselves to the defense of The Cure from enemies or each other, so stealing it will not be so easy. Keeping it stolen will be even harder. Again, this only counts for people who WANT/CHOOSE to play this aspect of the game, so it's not really PKing if they kill each other to gain control of The Cure.


The whole point of this new item is to introduce an element of "Capture the Flag" into Urban Dead. Humans try to keep The Cure out of Zombie hands, and Zombies try to destroy Humans holding The Cure. The Cure acts as a beacon to nearby undead, so it may be dangerous for Humans to have it nearby. On the other hand, since Zombies cannot actively move The Cure around, all they can do is defend it until it is taken again.


Nobody has to care about The Cure if they don't want to, they can keep playing the game normally. It offers a "focused" goal for people who may find randomly attacking others boring. Those players who have maxed out their levels and want a new challenge can make this it. We can have a contest to see which side can defend The Cure the longest, making and breaking records, or individual Humans who can hold The Cure in their possession for the longest durations.


Should Kevan one day decide to bring a final conclusion to this excellent game, that is when The Cure has finished incubating and becomes functional. It may infect or cure the entire city according to whatever factors he deems fit. Perhaps a final war to end all wars between both sides. (Let's hope that day is a long, long way off.) Edit: This idea is tacked on to give The Cure some long-term use, but is definitely not necessary and can be ignored, so please don't vote based on whether or not you like the Cure/Infect finale scenario.


So. Who wants to play CAPTURE THE CURE?

Votes

  1. Kill - Not me. --Daxx 18:43, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill I second that and let others explain why. AllStarZ 18:48, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - What would be the point if the CURE does nothing? Drogmir 18:50, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: The Cure does do something. It adds a new goal for people who may be bored with the old goal (kill, level, repeat). Or appeals to Capture the Flag players. Or it adds a new dimension of gameplay for those who see little point in attacking others when they already have more XP than they know what to do with and see no more real challenges in the game as it is. (I'm not there yet, but I know one day I will be, so I'm planning ahead.) --Carnival H 19:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • RE - Sorry to tell you but this idea probably isn't gonna fly so try to think of something a little less dramatic in terms of change - Removed unsigned non-author RE: --Daxx 21:52, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - The WCDZ would be totally up for this suggestion if you were trying to capture THE Cure. Just imagine it: they're lost in the city after their last rockin' show, surrounded by zeds, and it's your job to find them, pick them up, and carry them to the nearest stadium. When they get there, they rock out so hard that all zombies in a six block radius have their heads explode. Oh yeah! Bentley Foss 19:01, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill ---Kcold 19:03, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill KEEP - but only cuase a Zed spy could pick it up and, since humans can't sense it, it would lead a whole shit load of Zeds towards whatever safe house they pick! Works for me now! DarthMortis 23:55, Jan 6 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: You're probably right, although the way some people talk you'd think 90% of the UD players are PKers. Maybe I haven't been playing long enough to get jaded. Anyway, I changed it so anyone can SEE The Cure if it's on the same block or in the same room. I can see that is a necessary change, whether it improves the votes or not. --Carnival H 19:36, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I see where you're coming from, but it won't work like you want it to - survivors will set up traps and zombies won't go into them, making The Cure completely useless. --Signal9 19:25, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: That also happens with Flares and Feeding Groan, though, and I don't think everybody would agree that those are "completely useless." How can it be a trap if the point is to kill whoever is defending the box? I don't mean to argue your point, but I don't think it's right to predict behaviour based on pessimistic presumptions. Let's give the players a little more credit.--Carnival H 01:04, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Doesn't hurt anything. --Sindai 19:35, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Best chuckle I got out of the page, unfortunatly I don't think it's ment to do just that.--Vista 20:39, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I for one think it's a great idea. -- Norminator 2 21:37, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Meh, why not? Though it's not a high priority =) Riktar 01:13, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Why not? Adds another thing to do. I've often wondered what I'm going to do when I get all of the skills. Having something like this would prevent me from needing to restart. It might not be a high priority, but it will add some fun to the game. Grim 03:02, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Cool. But, aren't the revivication syringes already the cure? Oh well, I like the idea. Maybe there could be some other special items added that, maybe, give some kind of slight bonus for holding (after all, someone who is holding it would become a major target). --Horje 03:03, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: This is an advanced, airborne cure/mutated virus, it will be much better than syringes/bites. I can't think of any logical reason (and I've tried to come up with one) for the Carrier to benefit from holding the box other than inventing some lame "supernatural" connection. Maybe, at best, some kind of slow HP regeneration feature? I get the feeling that adding such would make it less attractive as a concept, not more. And besides, holding onto the box is the challenge, so there's little reason to diminish the risks.--Carnival H 03:34, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Jirtan 03:13, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - I'm going to keep voting keep on things that don't do much except give players more stuff to do. More complexity and variety=more fun.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:32, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - It could be fun to see how long can you can last with The Cure on you, and how much you'd be hated for having pulsatingness coming out of big safehouses, attracting zombies. Haha. Though the band would be neat too. Badumching. --Zaknrfama 03:38, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill -- Asrathe 03:47, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. keep - Would be a fun twist in the game. --RAF LT. General Deathnut 04:59, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep --LtMile 06:48, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - This idea is very large, would be obnoxious to implement, and worse to play... However, I'd love to vote Keep on the WCDZ's suggestion. I was thinking something along the same lines when I started reading it. :-D (But I'm afraid that they would yell at me for messing with their page.) --PatrickDark 09:12, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Would be fun. --Brizth 16:44, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep Sure why not. --Thelabrat 15:40, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - I like it, but 1 - make it a mission (which means that after a certain period of time it expires); 2 - establish a goal, i.e. whoever keeps The Cure for more than 30 days gets 100XP or something like that. Otherwise it'll get boring after a few days, since it brings more problems than entertainment. --Seagull Flock 11:38, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill -- 1) Never established it IS a 'disease' in game, only suggested. 2) Doesn't sound that fun. --MorthBabid 09:00, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Flak Jacket Limit

Duplicate of Auto-Discard Infinite-Use Items limited only to Flak Jackets (and DNA Scanners and GPS units). --Brizth 23:56, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Cyborgs

Timestamp: 18:59, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Scientists
Description: This is a Scientist skill that allows survivors to build cyborg helpers with their own HP and AP.
  • First you need a dead body because it's the base for every good cyborg
  • Things needed to build cyborgs are found in junkyards, maybe four or five parts with names like "cyborg head" and "cyborg legs" and of course a generator
  • The cyborg is assembled in a NT building with a generator because you need computers for the programming.
  • The cyborg needs one can of fuel for 10 AP
  • It can be controlled by the survivor if it's five blocks away or closer.
  • A cyborg has its own AP, the survivor doesn't waste AP by controlling it.
  • The cyborg is has only 10 HP because it's pretty sensitive.
  • The cyborg can find and use things like pistols and shotguns. The weapons have the max. accuracy of 65 % because its targeting computer won't miss (often)

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. Craw 18:59, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Cyborgs are cool. --Grim s 19:01, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Excellent suggestion, very unique I like it. With survivor population dropping so fast and zombie hordes having so much more organization this is the ultimate defense! Just plop a cyborg in your favorite suburb, feed it well, and leave for work with no worries! Satisfaction guaranteed. --Tokujin 19:02, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Ok 2 things. 1. No AI controlled things. 2. This is not the movie Aliens there are no human/robot cross breeds Drogmir 19:03, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam - Huh? --Dickie Fux 19:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - agree with Drogmir--Kcold 19:08, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill / Spam / Dupe (in the sense that it's yet another NPC suggestion) - Well folks, this one's got it all. We've got NPCs, boosted attack power, free AP, and everything else you could imagine. The WCDZ is pleased. Now every survivor can kill ten or fifteen extra zombies per day. Just make sure that the cyborg can manufacture its own ammo and therefore never runs out, and we'll be set. Go read Frequently_Suggested and then give yourself 50 lashes once you understand why this is a bad idea. Bentley Foss 19:23, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I will change if you make it so it must have a remote control, and if the cyborg is stil alive when the player returns. The controler explodes and the guy who made the cyborg takes 15 damage. It is not an npc though, which is good - --ramby 19:24, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam It should also have rocket launchers, the ability to fly, and the ability to reproduce itself. It should also take double damage from Spam Cannons. After these improvements have been implemented then maybe I will vote Keep. AllStarZ 19:33, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - We could make it upgradeable and perhaps combine it with a self destruct system. - Craw 20:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I will reconsider and still say kill if zombies can bite a Cyborg and take control of it. --Signal9 19:36, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - No, wait, are you guys serious? It's actually Spam! Monstah 19:38, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - No, why? Nobody says that Malton isn't in the future. Or did you EVER see a syringe that can revive people? HUH? - Craw 20:32, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill --Lord Evans 19:48, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - Tell me why so I can make better suggestions, please! - Craw 20:32, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • RE Because you are an idiot for even suggesting it? --Jak Rhee 03:46, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - Cyborgs. Freakin' cyborgs. You have got to be kidding, please. --Daxx 19:51, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - Everybody loves cyborgs, damnit! I know you do, too. - Craw 20:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Spam - for crying out loud. are there people actively on a quest to see who can make the most idiotic suggestions?--Vista 20:51, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - I'm disgusted by peopel voting Keep as a joke. Dammit this IS spam,, you all know it is! Let's trash it or move it to humorous. Please please, dont feed the idiots who post this tripe. --Jak Rhee 20:56, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam - Oh stupid people voting keep... We definately need new voting system. ~--Brizth 21:16, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill -Torfin 21:30, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - This would go in humerous, but it's so stupid it's not funny - try and be serious next time you make a suggestion. -- Norminator 2 21:33, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Utter crap and would stress the server way to much... --Technerd 21:56, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. KILL -People voted "keep" on this suggestion should feel deep, deep amounts of personal shame for having done so. --Matthew Stewart 22:16, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - I see it's build you own zerg time.--WibbleBRAINS 22:37, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. killRhialto 22:39, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Spam - I can feel my IQ dropping just for having read it. --Hexedian 22:46, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Spam - What happened to my previous spam vote? Anyway, the WCDZ finds this to be stupid to the level of a Jason Killdare suggestion. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:10, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Spam - Wrong TheTeeHeeMonster, cyborgs are cannon in zombie movies. Like in uh, uh uh... right. What TheTeeHeeMonster said then. Whilst it's pushing in the right direction for our not-so-hidden-anymore agenda, this only makes sense in the sense of not making sense--McArrowni 23:36, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - Hold da' fone gangsta', this ain't no NPC! Just kidding, but I do like this idea. --Horje 03:08, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    1. Re I hate you. I hate you and the other other peopel who put keep and all you stand for. Sterilization would be the best course for you. --Jak Rhee 03:45, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - Also, being constructs would make them immune to necromany effects and poison and give them a +5 competence bonus on all Will saves. Sorry pal, wrong game. - krupintupple 22:52, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  28. Spam - Pirates, Ninjas and now... Cyborgs! Whats next, Transformers ? --hagnat 04:44, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Spam - First off, a cyborg is a human with cybernectic components. You're thinking of androids. Second, as everyone who's watched the Terminator series knows, only Skynet is capable of developing robots, and I control Skynet, therfore no-one else is allowed to build them. Also, the 10HP value is a grevious insult to robots everywhere and cannot be allowed to go unpunished. - KingRaptor 05:14, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT) Vote removed by voter
    • Re I see that you didn't read the suggestion and simply voted because everybody else voted. You need a dead body for a cyborg, that's in the first line. It's meant to be like a Robocop, but controlled by somebody else. - Craw 11:32, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Somehow managed to miss that part. '-.- Even still, it (most likely) doesn't count since it's a dead body (rather than a live, or even undead one), and control is fully remote, with no autonomous capability whatsoever. - KingRaptor 12:58, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT) Re: comments now redundant
  30. Spam - This is beyond absurd. Where's that Motorcycle Nun class? --PatrickDark 09:19, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 13 Spams, 12 Kills, 4 Keeps --Jak Rhee 05:34, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Make that 14 Spams --PatrickDark 09:19, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Make that a better tally. There seems to be a lot of people here who don't understand 1) don't argue realism (even in votes -- if you can have zombies, you can have cyborgs -- hell, cyborgs are probably a lot more likely than zombies anyway) 2) this isn't an NPC suggestion in any way. There's examples of people who've not read the full suggestion, such as the person who said it was an "android" and not a cyborg because cyborgs require a human body (even though the author stated you required a body in his first paragraph.) Make no mistake, this suggestion needs the ever-loving shit KILLED out of it, but moronic voters don't help improve moronic suggestions. Re-tally the votes and discard every vote that doesn't comply with voting procedures. Mojo 17:08, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep - Makes sense to me, I would love to see something like this in the game. Also you should discount the votes that complain about server stress, most of these people have no idea how a server works and I think it's a voting rule not to put that as a kill. --Qwako 18:41, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - Voting kill or spam on this suggestion makes Baby Zombie Jesus cry. - CthulhuFhtagn 18:46, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  33. Spam - You want me to vote seriously on this suggestion? Fine.
First off, assembling a cyborg isn't as simple as throwing together a bunch of parts, using a dead body as a frame (by the way, if the body is dead and takes no part in the cyborg's movement/decision making, why bother with it in the first place?) You're going to need to weld, screw or otherwise connect the various components, which isn't going to be an easy task given the basic tools available in Malton. Oh, and why would you find random cyborg parts in junkyards, let alone fuctioning ones? Then, you need to acquire sensitive electronical components which, again, are going to be rare, and assemble the cyborg's control system. Oh, and don't forget the radio; you'll need to figure out a way to attatch it to your cyborg's computers.
Ok, now you need to get a program for the cyborg (so it can follow your orders and such). NecroTech is a biotech company (sort of), not a cybernectic research or even heavy industry corporation, so barring N-Tech being a subsidiary of a larger corporation (higly unlikely), you're going to have no luck getting any kind of tech support from them. So, somehow, you're going to have to figure out Python, Delphi, C++ and the whole works, and write your own program. It needs to be better than the simple programs used for robots currently widespread; you need to make sure it doesn't trip over obstacles, can climb through barricades and such, and can get up on its own if toppled for any reason.
Finally, you have to design some kind of remote control for it, unless you plan on staying in the N-Tech building to control your cyborg. Time to get more comp parts and piece them together, then find a container so that your remote control components don't shatter if you drop it or anything.
Now for mechanics: Assuming it takes 10 AP to find one of the five parts in a junkyard (without picking up any duplicate parts), plus 10 for the generator and 10 for the fuel can, you'll spend 70AP finding the parts. Add in 2AP to find a corpse, 1AP to assemble (depsite the fact that this should take much longer, as detailed above) and 7AP for walking back and forth, you get a total AP cost of 80. That's eighty freakin' AP which you could've spent on finding guns yourself and blasting the zombies yourself instead of building a cyborg (and one that's not very effective, and more trouble than it's worth).
I don't even want to get started on server load. Assuming one third of the 30,000 survivors build robots, that's 10,000 robots running around. If they are refilled once a day thus spending 10AP a day, you've added a bare minimum of 100,000 server hits. Not insignificant.
Wait, why am I treating this suggestion seriously again? - KingRaptor 01:52, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
PS: The "cyborgs are more realistic than zombies" argument, or any argument pointing to the unrealistic existence of zombies for that matter, is completely invalid. This is a zombie game, and as such we make assumptions that zombies exist in the real world. Therfore, zombies are deemed realistic in a zombie game. - KingRaptor 02:06, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  1. Spam Suggestions like these waste my valuable time AllStarZ 17:06, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Spam - Well, you were right about one thing. I do love cyborgs! But this just doesn't fit the game. It isn't a bad suggestion, it just doesn't fit the game.--The General 12:34, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Brilliant idea! --Marluxia 16:57, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill I just. No. --MorthBabid 09:01, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Um... what happens to the owner of the dead body? --RAF Private Spudd 23:26, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

TYRANT CLASS

Um, is there maybe something missing here? --Brizth 22:04, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT) Author Screwed up in properly making a description of this and never filled the space someone made for himDrogmir 22:08, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

They must have realized that the WCDZ would have spammed it to death anyway, so just gave up after the title. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:05, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

actullaly i didnt it was mu 1st go


Tracking 2

Timestamp: 20:32, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors, PKers in particular
Description: The one thing Malton lacks at this moment is a way of finding other players unless you use out of game communication. This can be a big no-no if you want to seriously role-play, or it could be hard if you want to find a particular person to get revenge on after they killed you.

So, I propose we should get a way of tracking survivors. In the Science skill group, there should be a skill that lets you find anyone with a GPS unit that you have met before provided that they are in a 2 suburb radius of you. This way, you can get revenge on that person who PK'ed you, or just find people you know and have worked with before.

EDIT: I'm not trying to promote griefing, I'm trying to let people get their own back on people who PK'ed them. Also, make this action cost around 5 AP or something like that, so you can't randomly track a ton of people and grief them.

Edit by Brizth: Changed the name as there's already 'Tracking' on the same page.

Votes

  1. Kill - I might vote Keep if you put in something to stop griefers, like mutual contacts. --Daxx 20:33, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit: Sorry, not far enough.
    • Re: Wouldn't that rather defeat the point of getting revenge on someone who PK'ed you? Spawnofebil 20:54, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • - Better than getting griefed. --Daxx 20:55, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - you want to promote Pk'ing? no.--Vista 20:55, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re:Sorry, I should make my point clearer. I wanted to give people a chance to track people who killed them. Suggestion changed Spawnofebil 21:17, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re No I fully understood that you don't want to promote Pk'ing yet this is wat will happen with it. A PK'er will focus on a certain survivor killing him many times and finding him with this. I fully believe that you don't want that to happen, I fully believe that you suggested it with the best intentions. But as it is and will continue to be in most forms it is a skill a griefer would use to find it victims more then then a skill used for good intentions.--Vista 21:40, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Because of griefing. And yes, I did read the edit. Still no. --Brizth 21:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I for one like it, survivors need something like this to stop out of game communication taking over. Mobile phones went someway, but not all the way. -- Norminator 2 21:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill If you want someone to meet you send them you coordinates with a mobile phone and wait. Tracking specific people in an highly trafficked urban environment hours after the fact is exceedingly difficult / near impossible. Also a GPS won't help you unless you already know their location. What you are suggestion is a tracking bug not a GPS, and you'd have to put it on them. This is a zombie apocalypse game not an elite covert operative game. --Matthew Stewart 21:47, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - it would lead to griefing. Vista stated it perfectly. i see what you are going for - and perhaps you could achieve it with another suggestion, but not this one. --Firemanstan 22:13, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. kill - Would lead to griefing, plus where are you getting the tracking bugs from. Rhialto 22:41, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill -"The one thing Malton lacks at this moment is a way of finding other players unless you use out of game communication." yep totally true, the cellphone is just a totally piece of flavor that Kevan hasn't bothered implementing..... wait a second.... --Bermudez 03:32, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Lame, load-intensive, ... -Torfin 03:39, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - What's with the taking vengence thing? What's with the overloading the server thing? What's with the "we need communications" thing? I don't think that this is needed. --Signal9
  11. Abstain - Maybe if you could only track someone who killed you it would be used more for revenge than PKing. --Father Gregoriy 20:33, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -- Figure out your player IDs for contact info, which can be done in-game. Use a mobile phone and GPS Unit. --MorthBabid 09:02, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Change Diagnosis

Duplicate Suggestion. Good Job Matthew Stewart for pointing that out.

Personal tools
advertisements