Suggestions/8th-Feb-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

VOTING ENDED: 22nd-Feb-2006

Cost Ap for drop

Spammed with 7 Spams (mine was 7th) --Brizth 00:12, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)


Minor change to diagnosis

Deleted by the author after having it pointed out that this is a dupe of an accepted one here having missed it when reading through the list of accepted ones. Apologies. --Tethran 02:33, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Critical Health

Timestamp: 03:10, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: When a survivor's health has 15 or less health, survivors without diagnosis will see see the survivors health as (wounded). As for the people with diagnosis, this will not make any differnces what so ever.

Important Edit: Changed it to 15 and refusing to go any farther otherwise it will be useless. And to answer what people are saying when it's too much, not very many people are living at 5/10 health. This is different from scent blood because what the zombie's goal is different from the survivors. The medics goal is to heal while the zombie's goal is to kill. They are of 2 different class and should be considered as so. Also, they are differn't because zombies lets you see the health of your enemies while this lets you see the health of your allies. Do zombies care if their undead bretherin is dying? No. Survivors? Yes.

Votes

  1. Keep Authors Vote. People could get diagnosis when they get high in level anyways, so this would not unbalance gameplay for the zombies. It IS useful for new medics, which are clearly the hardest to level up in the game, as they need to know who is injured so they can heal them. You will STILL need diagnosis so you could heal everyone above the 20 health mark. This is realistic because a person would not be all bloody (and maybe even vomiting blood) and you would think nobody's paying attention? --Shadow213 03:10, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill Zombies need a skill to be able to see that. This improves the speed of gaining xp through FAKs, and probably helps newbies be useful in protecting a safehouse, even with no useful skills at all. As said before, zombies get no such treatment. IMO, at the very least, zombies should get the same, or the amount of hp to be "wounded" should be lowered. --McArrowni 03:16, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT) Reply to the "Re" will be in talk page. --McArrowni 04:01, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I see where you are going at, but still you DO agree that newbie doctor/medic needs faster xp gain right? We should try to think about the medics first, then we could agree on a newb zombie xp faster gain. (Beside, kevan is trying to help improve it see the claw revision? It is now .5 damage per Ap spent) Which is probly just as good as the n00b survivor trying to find med kits in the hospital, try to heal someone for 10 health instead of 5, AND trying to find who needs healed. Without knowing who needs healed, you would spend many turns trying to heal people who are already healed. Ps: It's lowered by 5 hp because of the survivors inability to smell the blood as good as the zombie with the skill scent blood, making them able to detect that the person is severly wounded easier. Also the zombies with Scent Blood is still more useful because of their hunting instincts, they're able to detect ON THE MAP which survivor is at low health, which that alone makes zombie's scent blood the superior skill to this suggestion. Crap, I messed up the templete! Can someone fix it quick please? I have no clue what I did the mess it up! Never mind I fixed it forgot the little thing. --Shadow213 03:30, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill As above, Zombies need a skill to be able to see that. This might be good if it was lowered to 5HP instead of 20 (ie, truly near-death) and the Zombies could see it also. Otherwise, you're just giving all Survivors "Scent Fear" for free - they can already get Diagnosis with only half the XP it takes a Zombie to get the equivalent, giving them this also would be too much. Alternatively, put it back at 25HP and make it a Military skill named "Combat Triage" or something, so that at least Medics could get a cheaper version of Diagnosis to make them more effective at low levels. --Norcross 20:36, 7 Feb 2006 (AST)
  4. Kill - Diagnosis represents the ability to discern survivors with life-threatening wounds (i.e., those that have caused you to lose HP) from survivors who just look like crap after spending months in a zombie-infested town without power or running water. Bentley Foss 03:51, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Too much potential for abuse by PKers and Zombie Spies. Plus once a player has diagnosis this "skill" becomes irrevalent. Lordofnightmares
    • Re - Lol you just sounded like a devil's advocate (not to be rude just saying you are saying something completely opposite from what you were saying first.) Saying at first it's going to be mistreated by pkers and zombie spies, then say that diagnosis does the same thing better. I already know dignosis would replace it, but if diagnosis would replace this "skill", wouldn't pkers rather that skill??? Also the medic type has the special abilities to perform either surgery or first aid training. These types of people do not need such a hard time to earn exp because punch does 1 damage, medic with +10 health still gives +5 exp, but still gives less healing for the extra health. --Shadow213 08:42, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep --Lord Evans 04:50, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT) Vote not justified --Grim s 05:24, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Please see the Discussion Page for debate on whether votes should require justifications. Ethan Frome 16:06, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Bentley's right, before you start to heal people, you need to know what you're doing. --CPQD 05:02, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Zombies need a skill to show people as wounded. --Grim s 05:24, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re That's because Zombies don't have the "commen sense" that survivors have. Every single zombie you seen has already looks torn up, dead, and risen. It can't judge survivors just by the eyes. If it could, then it would be killing zombies because it thought the zombies were humans. So, by the way it looks through kevan eyes (and makes alot of sense at that), it judges survivors by scent. These "scents" tell the zombies information that otherwise couldn't be seen by the survivors eyes. But these "scents" could not be obtained right when your dead. Your body has already aquired a "scent" to fix the differnce between Zombies and Humans. As you adjust to being a zombie (and as you kill people related to this game) the body picks up natural abilities. I could go on sentence after sentence about this, but we are talking about "scents". Eventually these "scents" will give the zombie more information that the newly formed zombies wouldn't know. They, currently, as us survivors know is scent fear, scent blood, and scent trail. Each of these "scents" the zombie has picked up after killing so many survivors that their scents are becomming familiar. These "scents" these zombies can smell and not survivors because the survivors relize on their eyes. That's why most people don't know that a zombie is present untill the zombie attacks them (at first). That must also explain why the zombie can see the differnce between the people and zombies. Also, with death comes along the lack of emotions. If the survivor is screaming for help and begs for you to spare his life, the zombie would not give it a second thought from the fresh taste of his brains. Because of this lack of judgement, zombies supposeable can not tell, other than by words, what a person is thinking. With both of these in consideration, the zombie, in theory can not tell by itself whether a survivor is almost dead or not unless the "scent" of blood tells them so. The people, however, has complete control of their body. They can understand emotions and the pain, they do not want mankind to die, they can tell just by the looks whether a person is going to die or not, they relize on eyes more than anything else and see the blood to tell them they must be dying. Zombies have the brute strength, but survivors if they can use it, can overpower the strength by their knowledge. In very shortened words, zombies do not have the knowledge to determine whether a person is on his last legs without a form of a scent to drive him because of the lack of knowing how bad the person looks. It is only driven by hunger by brains. --Shadow213 08:38, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I think most sane people can tell if someone is vomiting blood and missing a major limb. Rhialto 09:56, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - In real life, sure, but then how likely is it that they would stop said vomiting and repair said limb by applying some number of handy, prepackaged first aid kits? It's not about realism. --Intx13 14:22, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -to marginal, either the level of hitpoints will be to low to ever have a use, or it will nerf a skill, either way it simply detracts from diagnosis. that should be the first skill you buy if you're going to be a healer anyway. this time reality has to take a backseat for gamemechanics.--Vista 19:09, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Ditto everybody else. --Intx13 14:22, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 2 Keeps, 8 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - You are subtracting from a skill which players have bought. Oh, and 'different' is not spelt 'differn't'.--The General 15:33, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 2 Keep, 9 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:05, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Show HP In First Aid Kit Dropdown Menu

Dupe. --Brizth 20:45, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)


Lab Expertise (Revised)

Timestamp: 07:05, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors, Science
Description: This is a revision of an earlier version of Lab Expertise changed to reflect voting comments. A scientist with this skill is a more experienced researcher than the new necrotech recruits and can use Necrotech equipment with more proficiency. A zombie revived by a player with Lab Expertise comes back free of infection if they were bitten before they were killed. They are still only at 25hp though, and it still takes them the normal amount of AP to stand. The scientist can also use DNA extractors with more expertise, and is able to ascertain more information about the scanned zombie. The player name the scientist gets after extraction becomes a clickable link leading to the zombie player's profile. If they scan a zombie that has already been scanned you still receive information about them but no experience. These past few ideas about DNA extractors are already peer reviewed in old suggestions but as general implementations, this is just a way to add flavor by implementing these previously peer reviewed suggestions as a skill. Lab Expertise would of course require Lab Experience to be purchased.

Votes

  1. Kill - Giving the profile of a scanned zombie is a big no no. The skill STILL does too much. It effectively nerfs zombies only method of countering the human revive point tactic, which is a very bad thing. --Grim s 08:17, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re People can just get contact information through metagaming if they want to organize a revive. It's not like I'd add every single zombie I scan to my contact list just to revive them. I don't have enough syringes for that, believe me! Besides, I make a point of scanning zombies before I revive them just to make sure it isn't likely they have Brain Rot. It just seems silly for scans to give zombie player names but absolutely no useful info of any other kind. Why bother showing name and class if it doesn't let you see what skills they have? I don't care if someone is called NinjaMan5. --Jon Pyre 08:25, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: Way to completely miss the point. The fact is that this strips away Zombie anonymity (Our ability to be faceless in the horde, you may have our names, but you dont know which one of us belongs to it), which means you can pick out brain rotters in revive points (Completely fucking zombies over), pick out non rotters in rotter stacks for revives, identify non ankle grabbers for headshots. If they clobber you, fairs fair, you can spot which one did it (As you "saw" him do it) and clobber him back, and remember his look for later, but grabbing our details nerfs our only methodd to block the revive point strategy, and allows you to grief the newbies out of the game (There are a lot of people who would use it for this.) --Grim s 08:50, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Grim has made a point. Anonymity for the hord.Velkrin
    • Re There so many zombies at revive points that if I were to add every zombie with brain rot and focus all attacks on them I still wouldn't be able to kill them faster than they could stand up. 6AP lets a zombie with brain rot stand up multiple times a day, get even two or three and they can stop a crowd of revivers. For your of worries ankle grab griefing, who has the time to selectively attack zombies without ankle grab, which are probably easier to find anyway? I'm not going to spend time and AP just to harass newbies that can't harm me much anyway. If I'd want to headshot anyone it'd be a maxed out zombie with Tangling Grasp. --Jon Pyre 08:59, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - What if the extended DNA scan only shows that the zed has brain rot or not? It would defend anonymity for them. Anyway, good idea except for the DNA scan part... --NT 15:41, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT) Corrected - sorry, my bad. Thx to Grim s --NT 17:37, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment: - If you dont like part of a suggestion, the proper vote is kill, until such time as the suggestion is changed to meet what you like, then you change it to keep. --Grim s 16:10, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - The infection part is ok, the scan part is not. --CPQD 16:17, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I understand if the scanning is something you dislike, but as I said its already in peer reviewed as a freebie. --Jon Pyre 16:45, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: - And it got into peer reviewed before any of the Zombies actually started to watch the wiki suggestions page, and is wildly opposed by almost all zombies because it removes our anonymity and completely nerfs several of our strategies and counterstrategies. --Grim s 17:49, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - *sigh* The WCDZ has such an easier time stamping out the zombie mennace before Grim s came along and ruined it all.. :) He's right on this one - zombies need their anonymity, getting thier profile links from a scanner would destroy that. --Blahblahblah 18:25, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill -I don't agree with Grim here. zombies blocking the revive point is only one part of the zombie arsenal. and as it is targeted mainly at the weakest (sub)group in game I'm not about to proclaim that tactic holy and untouchable. It's just that this has to much in it at once, and IMO that isn't the way to do it.--Vista 19:21, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I'm pretty sure the "provide link to zombie profile on DNA scan" bit is from another suggestion, and so is the bit about removing infection. That being said...I just don't like this much, really. That's all. Bentley Foss 19:58, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - The "provide link" part IS from another suggestion.If I remember correctly,it was a peer reviewed one.I can't seem to remember the name of the suggestion though. --Penance 21:18, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill -- You didn't need to 'revisit' this idea, you need to forget it. Kill. --Jack Destruct 12:40, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 0 Keeps, 8 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Military Command

Timestamp: 07:42, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill/Improvement
Scope: Malton's two forts
Description: "The military have switched the local mobile phone network back on, after a blanket shutdown during the first months of quarantine." Why would the military shut civilians out of the mobile phone network? Perhaps to use it themselves for greater communication ease with their units in the field. The reasoning behind this skill is that the military took over the civilian network for their own use while their own communication network was being set up in Malton. The Military restored civilian use once their own network of transponders was set up. Here's how it would work:

The military skill "Military Command" would allow survivors in powered military bases to use the military network of high tech transponders, scattered across the city and relying on their own battery and solar power to keep functioning. These transponders are just backstory, players would never see or interact with them. Here's what the skill would do. A survivor inside a powered military base could send text messages with their mobile phone to any player in the game with a phone, whether phone mast power was on in the receiver's suburb or not. This is because they wouldn't be making the call over the unreliable and constantly failing civilian network but the military's secure system. To receive calls they'd still need the phone mast in the military base's suburb on, and the sender's suburb would also need to have a working phone mast. This is because incoming calls would be made over the civilian network. This would only allow players in military bases to make outgoing calls to help coordinate city-wide operations, and act as strategic centers, relaying messages to people that otherwise couldn't receive them. It's an in flavor way of making the forts unique and useful without making them more powerful in some blunt direct way like increasing item finds or giving them stronger barricades. It makes sense the forts would be used as command centers. Forts would serve an important purpose but be entirely different than malls.

Votes

  1. Kill - It's unrealistic. A phone connection is only as good as the weakest link. It doesn't matter how good the military end of the phone line is, if the other guy's phone can't pick up a signal. Rhialto 09:49, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re My cell phone is Cingular. I use the Cingular network. I can call someone using Verizon. --Jon Pyre 15:48, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - There are two kinds of suggestions I am biased towards. Flavour improvements and Fort upgrades, and you have written a good, logical backstory. However, Rhialto has made a good point. What if you were able to send messages from a fort regardless of whether there is a working mast in your suburb, but the recipient has to have a working mast? It would, however, mean the two forts can communicate. -- Andrew McM 09:57, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Arguments for kill based on this proposal being 'unrealistic' should probably be ignored (it's a game with zombies in. It's fictional. It's not real to start with.) However, there are several practical problems - if you're in a fort you would be able to send a message to "any player in the game"? Or would it be like the phones where you both have to have each other listed on your contacts lists? If the latter is the case it's also fairly likely that people who have added each other to their contacts lists are also likely to have exchanged email or instant messaging details and will probably use that over mobile phones in game due to the AP cost of using the mobiles. If it is the former is there not a risk of in-game spam? Just having someone add you to their contacts list and randomly message you from a fort with, for example, messages to join a specific group? I agree that both mobiles and the forts could do with something to make them more useful, however, I do not believe that this is it. --Tethran 12:16, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It'd work like phones. You'd still need them on your contact list. I haven't noticed much spam from cell phones already. It costs too much AP to randomly message people ads when for 1 AP you could talk to 50 people. This is only useful for sending important messages, not spamming. Besides, why have phones at all if people can metagame? This would make the forts a lot more interesting. People could contact their allies there to relay messages to people in powerless suburbs. People in the military base could share info with each other and send it outwards. It'd be great. --Jon Pyre 15:56, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • re You got it wrong when you said that kill votes based on realism should be ignored. If people say that pink aliens who barf up zombies are unrealistic, they mean that it is unrealistic with the current setting as guideline. We don't argue realism, we argue consistant nonsense.--Vista 18:10, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -"This would only allow players in military bases to make outgoing calls to help coordinate city-wide operations." I'm afraid everyone's phones would get spammed up with nonsense from players on a power-trip. Also, if these "transponders" are spread around the city, why not give zombies a chance to smash them up? --WibbleBRAINS 14:43, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Phones can already be spammed. I haven't noticed much of that. You'd still need to spend 1AP per call. --Jon Pyre 15:50, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill -Whilst this works in flavour, it is giving one of the best classes in the game a kind of mechanism that should probably be in one of the weakest (scientists). Scientists skills should handle communication, not military, because, frankly combat is such an important part of the game, that military don't need that many other useful skills, especially with them already having free running. --McArrowni 15:12, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re That's kind of a minor detail, because everyone would get it eventually anyway. Heck, my guy started off as a fireman and now he's a Necrotech scientist as well. I just couldn't think of a way to justify a skill directly related to military forts not being a military skill. --Jon Pyre 15:52, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Like the above skill, it's not horrible, but I just don't like it. Bentley Foss 19:59, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 1 Keeps, 5 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Interesting Newpapers

Timestamp: 10:10, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Flavor
Scope: Survivor
Description: Personally when I first joined I read the newspaper I found because I thought they may give some back story as to how the zombie outbreak occured. Sadly, this was not the case and after the first 10 or so newpapers I quit reading.

I propose that there be a set of different newspapers, maybe 10, that give a couple lines of text explaining the outbreak. Each one would be different and offer an interesting fact and maybe finally reveal some of the history behind Necrotech.

Votes
Votes here

  1. Keep WOOT! First Vote! I have no reason why to vote keep/kill based on gameplay, but it would be interesting if we know how in the world necrotech knew it was comming before the outbreak. --Shadow213 10:55, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep Backstory is good. Though a more detailed suggestion suggesting the newspapers would be better - perhaps a recruitment ad by Necrotech, a note on "Can Death be conquered? Necrotech CEO Kevan Potter says Yes" Or other, less awful and first thing in the morning. Ignatius Newcastle 11:53 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep This will make game much more interesting, especially for newbies --EnForcer32 13:49, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Would be interesting but only for new players, as once you've got Mall access you never pick up a newspaper again.--WibbleBRAINS 14:45, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Good --Kirk Howell 14:46, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep/dupe - It's good, but I think I heard that before... --McArrowni 15:18, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Function for newspapers, I think it's a good idea, rather than having them as a junk... Also might it be considerable that those newspapers contain some info about major events or about one main building's actual state? -Might depend on luck of course- --NT 15:53, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Some new flavor in the newspapers would add dimension to the storyline. The newspapers are getting rather dull. Maybe it could turn into a NT witch hunt, if they are the one's responsible for the outbreak, or not. Just kidding on that one. Killa Mike 14:45, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Dupe - Sorry but, theres this suggestion, with a slight deviation, In the peer reviewed section- something along the lines of user written headlines. --Dark Wingstalker 17:21, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. abstain actually there is a quite a large difference between them, Dark Wingstalker. user written headlines lets people decide what needs to be in the paper themselves through the wiki linkage. so the news whould be nonsense, funny stories or current events. this just adds more fixed background stories. without user participation, no changes, no possible current events. only the item it effects is the same. Anyway, some people will like to hear more background stories, some will want to leave it up to their imaginationm and I simple don't care either way. --Vista 18:00, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - It's sort of a given that no one knows what triggered the outbreak. Did you notice how the various newspaper stories all pointed to different things, like the bird flu, NT experiments, a comet, and other such things? I personally like the uncertainty over how it all began. Bentley Foss 20:00, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It doesn't necessarily have to be how the outbreak happened, but maybe headlines that point out that the dead are walking or that cannibalism has been a huge problem lately. Just something new and different. --Cabbage cookies 21:47, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I'd like some more backstory. Would add a lot to the game. --John Ember 16:53, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - great idea --Phaserlight 21:37, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Finally someting the papers are usefull for rather than bed lining--Broton 01:24, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 10 Keeps, 1 Kills, 1 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Actually there are 11 Keeps. Just a side note. --Cabbage cookies 14:35, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Citizenship

Timestamp: 13:54, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors, Gameplay
Description: Citizenship changes the nature of the game to more social and definedly more interresting and deeper. Some groups have already have set up their own Goverments with their own rules and members. Unfortunately I think that this doesn't really change anything in the actual game. Sure they exist in wiki.urbandead but not in the game. So I suggest that the player runned Goverments would actually be fitted to game so that they would have effect.

I'am sure that this would be fairly large change, but I think that towards good progression of the game. It would take very much time to tell all the details so I try to explain this is nutshell :

The Goverments could only be formed by fairly large group (unfortunately there is no real "group" in the game neither for now, only in wiki.urbandead). There would be certain requirements before a Suburb could be claimed as Goverment Area of certain group. First the group should have large amount of members who all agree of forming a Goverment (maybe 50%-70% of all humans in that suburb should agree of forming a Goverment). Second the area should be not heavily infested my zombies. This would fairly reduce the amount of Goverments, so most of the suburbs would still be "independent".

You are propably wondering that what does this change then? The backbone of a every Goverment is ofcourse it's citizens. When player enters a suburb under goverment he/she would be able to choose wheter join the Goverment. The player would get a discription of the Goverment. How is it ruled? by who? what are the laws? You could be only a citizen of one Goverment. Many players would propably stay as independend and have no "home suburb".

When groups are forming a Goverment and claiming a suburb as their own their leader (or parliament) should first define what kind of their Goverment is. Who able to join, is it runned by a parliament, or a dictator? Each Goverment could choose it's ministers (if it runned democratic way). This would be done by special Voting system inside the game. People could vote who will be Ministed of Defence, Minister of Health, The President, etc. The voting ofcourse would not require any AP, just a click. Also anyone in democratic Goverment is able to run as a candidate, when there is election time (chosen by the Goverment ofcourse).

What's the use of join as a citizen in a Goverment? Ofcourse well runned goverments with their own military is a far safer place to live than one's without. Some Goverments might ask something in an retinue. That might involve military service (if you are a battle oriented) or Healing & Revive service or possibly maintenance service. You ofcourse need to follow the rules of each Goverment or othervise You would loose Your citizenship. Non-citizens could ofcourse also enter the Suburb with Goverment.

Thats the basic idea of Goverments. Think all possibilities it could offer if accepted! Also I'am very sorry for the possible mistakes and that I can only give this all for you in a nutshell.

Votes

  1. Kill - Its a nice idea, but way to hard to impliment and there wouldnt be much sence in doing so. your suggestion didnt explain how it would even effect gameplay. Our current wiki system works just fine. This suggestion just doesnt cut it. --Kirk Howell 14:44, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I can see you've put a lot of thought into this, but I think this would promote more ego-trippery, more survivor infighting, more PKing. Also, "The area should be not heavily infested my zombies". Man, that would be like catnip for zombie hordes.--WibbleBRAINS 14:52, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - For one, voting a government is a horrible idea. Most governments now would be Either totalitarian, socialist, or democratically run, but still, having every tom, dick, and harry with half a mind vote a group leader, who's ideals and "power" have already been proclaimed slammed out of office by some idiot? No. I don't like this. at all. - --Kaein 14:53, 8 feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Needs work. Many groups will want to limit who joins to members of their groups or allied groups and fix the leadership to their group's leader. Also, there is very little point right now in a goverment that has no mechanical effect on the game: you might as well make a wiki group. Also you should have fewer maybes in your suggestion. And I would disagree that people vote for a subburb to get a goverment or not. Either a group seizes power or it doesn't, IMO. No one will care in a zombie apocalypse if you don't agree with the group in power.--McArrowni 15:28, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - This suggestion seems to formalize groups within the game. It's not needed and will be the cause of a lot of griefing. Also please learn how to spell government. --CPQD 16:56, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill -as any sociologist/psychologist/politician will say, all politics is meta gaming. societies/governments only exist by perpetual belief in them, we call that belief legitimacy. laws, common agreements, the bill of rights, etc. all exists only in the people enforcing them, the paper trail is simply a way to keep score, to remind and communicate to people of what they already believe in. As a government only need to exist is people able to comunicate with each other your suggestion isn't needed. Daris is a fine example of a failed attempt to establish a government. with more manpower and a bit more political savvy they might have succeeded. Your suggestion doesn't do anything that isn't already in the game.--Vista 17:54, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - "Exist"... no "c". --Intx13 05:52, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • You were just being nice by limiting yourself to only one spelling mistake, weren't you? (I just put it through a spelling checker, Aye caramba!)--Vista 19:45, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - No support for Zombie governments, which are the only ones that can actually endure. Even then, its still kill, and almost spam because its nigh impossible to impliment and brings fuck all to the game. --Grim s 17:58, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Metagaming is funner and easier. --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 18:21, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - No thanks. This already happens with metagaming. No point in bringing it into the game, when it already has a home on the Wiki. Players can check the suburb map when going into a new burb, and most large groups list themselves on the page for the suburb. They can contact whatever the largest group happens to be in the Wiki if they would like to join it. --Blahblahblah 18:40, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Something like this is almost impossible to implement in any sort of fair manner. As an example: your government sets a quota of zombies to kill in the suburb each day/week/etc. So, all the military personnel have to go out slaughtering zombies. What happens if the zombies move out of the suburb? What happens if they refuse to stand up? What happens if civilians go out and kill them first? I could go on in such a vein for a long time, but I will refrain. See the above votes for some of those thoughts. Bentley Foss 20:03, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I don't really see how this greatly differs from current, unofficial, meta-based system. And the suggestion is a bit lacking in details. --Brizth 20:42, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 0 Keeps, 11 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Search Suggestions

Deleted by author as it has been resolved see: 1 Making a Suggestion Thanks to KingRaptor --tarzom 13:47, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)


Link on Kill

Timestamp: 15:16, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Interface Change
Scope: Survivors and Zombies
Description: Upon killing a character, their name links to their profile. This would make it easier to see who you've killed and also to find their profile if you are part of a group and need to post a confirmed kill.

EDIT: This would only allow survivors to see "a zombie(linked to profile) killed you", not see names. Thank you Amazing for reiterating the point i TRIED to get across.... I was being real stupid there! The point i was TRYING to make is that upon killing a zombie a survivor only sees "you killed a zombie(linked to profile)" not their name. Tsk, silly me....

Votes

  1. Kill I think this would just facilitate griefing, and violate the faceless horde idea. --Zaruthustra-Mod 15:29, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re But if a zombie or survivor attacks you, you can get their profile with one click, also violating the faceless horde concept. This just allows you to gain more information on a kill. --Blue Wild Angel 15:36, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: - Thats recognising the zombie that slugged you one. People tend to notice when someone slashes them or bites them, and they notice who and gain a measure of their abilities. What you are proposing is a skill where if you kill someone you magically learn all about them. --Grim s 18:50, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
        • Re - And yet i can still learn everything about someone by looking at them? --Blue Wild Angel 19:05, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
          • Re: - With a human it is assumed that you ask them about their skills. --Grim s 19:18, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep I actually like this. When you kill someone, you might just have the time to take enough of a look at them to identify who it was. Unless of course you are in a specific square called pagram library right now... but that's just a rare exception. --McArrowni 15:44, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I like the hordes faceless, thank you. --Brizth 15:54, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - what zarathustra said --CPQD 16:22, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - This makes profile collection of zombies to easy. normally the punishment of being attacked and possibly killed hold people at bay from trying to collect as many profiles as possible. when you attack the link is given through your own actions, when you get killed you didn't do anything to recieve extra punishment. this will mainly be used by necro's to indentify brainrotters. while I support that cause, I don't believe this is the way to do it as it hurts the faceless horde to much.--Vista 17:37, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - The back button isnt good enough for you? (When dealing with humans). When dealing with zombies: I LIKE being anonymous, except to those who look up my profile, add me and shoot me dead (And there are plenty). --Grim s 18:00, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Once again the Kill voters aren't reading. (most of them anyway) As I understand it, this would link the name "a zombie" to your profile when someone kills you. THE ONLY WAY PEOPLE GET TO SEE YOUR PROFILE CURRENTLY IS IF YOU ATTACK THEM. This does not remove the faceless horde aspect any more than the CURRENT 'linked when you attack' feature. It does NOT let you grief people, because you ALREADY killed them. How could you possibly grief them after you've killed them? As for gathering profiles, you guys fail to realize that in effect you are talking about the ability to get the profile of every zombie in-game at which point it becomes nearly impossible to keep track of all of them in a way that would make "life" harder for zombies in any real way. The only Zombie that remains anonymous in UD is one that never attacks anyone. Ever. This doesn't make anyone more open to their profile being viewed, UNLESS that person stands around passively, never attacking anyone. Think, people.. think. -- Amazing 18:18, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    re -Amazing, I already gave a situation where there are zombies who do nothing but stand all day passively, never attacking anyone. Not only does that have benefits for them. they need their anonimaty to do it. If you want argue against it please do, but don't just accuse people of not reading this suggestion.--Vista 19:58, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    Re: - Sadly this isn't my suggestion, so your lack of research is showing very clearly. You also misunderstand (surprise) the concept that in order to have brain rot, that zombie obviously has attacked before. -- Amazing 05:55, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    Amazing? get real. take a second to distingish between fantasy and reality for a second. Even as a fully maxed out zombie it isn't that likely they know you even at the suburb you leveled up in. For all practical purposes you are anonymous if you relocate to a couple of suburbs away. Set this against the near certaincy that everybody reviver knows every zombie through this suggestion. So we have, nearly never against nearly always. Don't try to argue like it is the same.--Vista 19:35, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    Hey pud pud. Meta-Gaming allows you to post zombie profiles anywhere. Moving a suburb away doesn't ensure you anonymitiy. Stop arguing teh baloney poop. -- Amazing 05:07, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill This makes PK'ing far more difficult, and with that new message-on-kill update they already have it hard enough. This also makes things difficult for those who have killed PK'ers or other players for legitimate reasons. Unsigned vote. Remove strikeout and this message after signing. --Brizth 19:16, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - You can view survivor profiles at any time. You can't view zombie profiles unless they attack you. Anonymity comes with living in a zombie apocalypse. (Also, nothing personal, but your suggestion is not very clear at all. What exactly are you trying to achieve?) Bentley Foss 20:04, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Yeah, first suggestion i've ever made, and wasn't quite sure how to word this one. The basic premise was to make it easier to get a profile on killing a player if you needed to post in a forum for a "confirmed kill". --Blue Wild Angel 21:23 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Will cause undue griefing on the rotters. I should also point out that what you're describing in your description and what you're describing in your edited description are two diffrent things. Thus you get a kill vote for a greifing measure and for your odd description double talk. Velkrin 21:23, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Griefs the anonymity of zombies. --Mikm 21:55, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I like the idea of knowing who I just killed. --Perticus 22:13, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - for those arguing faceless horde, I think you're going to remember what the zed you just downed looked like, unless you're closing your eyes and flailing about/shooting randomly. --Arcibi 05:18, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - ^Damn zeds... they all look alike.^ Anonyminity! The last thing I want is the police station I massacre coming after me the next day. --Intx13 14:19, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - If you want to know who you're attacking, become a zombie ;) --WibbleBRAINS 14:22, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Because I can't make heads or tails of what exactly is being suggested. A little more detail next time, please. --John Ember 20:00, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - just lazy, every zombie that hits me, gets added to my contact list manually now so when I next step into a hoard of 700 I just pick my best friends and kill them over and over and over again. to be honest it would also not work as some people have been killed more times than the 150( i think) contact list max. Stoy Winters
    • Tally -- 4 Keeps, 13 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

List of the no. of Kills, Revives, etc., that you have made

Timestamp: 22:34, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Profile change
Scope: Survivors and maybe Zombies
Description: Basically, you should be able to see the number of Kills, Revives, Heals, Infections that you have performed on other zombies or survivors. Why? Well just for the sake of knowing it like the above suggestion.

Votes

  1. Keep - It would be nice addition. Maybe not healings, nor infections, because they would get pretty high pretty fast. Or maybe not just healings. --Brizth 22:39, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Dupe - You have killed X people (peer-reviewed) Mikm 23:01, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Not a DUpe in my mind becasue it includes listing so many other things. That being said, it's a kill for the same reason. Thats just too much information. --Jak Rhee 23:17, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Different because more things added. Be nice to have a listed tally, and I can't think of any good reason for me to kill. --Blahblahblah 00:30, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep Would be cool to know. --Jon Pyre 03:01, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Since when is information a bad thing? Hell I'd like it if there was some 'hiscore' list about # kills, revives, etc, just to give the end-game some more purpose. FireballX301 05:48, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Indifference - Yeah, that technically doesn't count, but, eh, I dunno. It's not an awful suggestion, but it doesn't seem like the greatest thing ever, either. But, whatever. Bentley Foss 06:11, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Sounds Sweet, id love some statistics.--Kirk Howell 14:59, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Kills and revives I support, but heals and infections? why not how many bottles of wine you drunk or how many books you dropped? or how many AP you wasted biting barricades? lets limit it to only the important stuff.--Vista 19:15, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I would like to know how many kills I have made and revives, but I don't care about any heals or infections, it just makes me feel good that I did those at least once today. --Broton 01:30, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - But keep player kills and zombie kills seperate, or don't even put playr kills for humans. That'd make it a bit too easy to find player killers. Not that I don't dislike them, but part of the game is to find them and watch out for them. --Ju Ju Master 03:28, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 6 Keeps, 2 Kills, 1 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

STFU N00B!!!

Spaminated out of existence. I am not going to even bother putting this in peer-rejected. AllStarZ 22:48, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Guy can't even get timestamps right: "16:05, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)." I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that we haven't all missed this for the past three days. --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:51, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Don't expose any limbs. Remember, zombies and n00bs alike chew on those. AllStarZ 22:53, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Fireworks

Timestamp: 23:18, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Skill
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: When a zombie hunter with this skill fires multiple flares consecutively, each consecutive flare has a +1% chance of hitting. For example, Hunter X fires 5 flares consecutively. The first has a 15% to hit. Second has a 16% to hit. Third has a 17% to hit. Etc. AP cost to fire each flare remains the same. If the zombie hunter breaks from firing consecutively (by healing, talking, reloading, etc) the bonus count rests to 0% and the next flare's to hit would return to normal.

The bonus is fairly slim and the flares will take up alot of your inventory space so game balance should not be much of an issue. The highest possible to hit for flares would be 15%+25% but that means that you're only carrying flares and have already tried hitting your target with 24 of them. This skill would make flares somewhat more useful.

Votes

  1. Kill Flares are essentially rocket launchers. They have a low chance to hit for that reason. AllStarZ 23:21, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill Flares would still be horribly ineffective. --Mikm 23:30, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill WHat they said. --Jak Rhee 00:15, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill 1 Part from the bad idea, 1 part from the thing where I don't like your unrealistic ideas (honestly, do you even play this game?!), and 420 parts electric kool-aid acid fest from my Xbox Live arcade game. --ALIENwolve 00:18, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - WHat Jak Rhee said. --Blahblahblah 00:26, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - not good enough to make a difference, and besides, flares are supposed to be ridiculously unwieldly, anyway. --Arcibi 05:19, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Balanced? Yes. Useful? No, not really. And nobody's going to spam 10 flares at a zombie when you can blow it away with 10 shotgun blasts. FireballX301 05:47, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Lots of reasons, some technical, some UD-gameplay-related. Flares are A-OK the way they are. Really, how often does somebody have more than one or two flares in their inventory? Bentley Foss 06:14, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I suspect flare guns are meant to be used as a last-ditch effort in a bad situation, not as a regular ranged weapon. --John Ember 16:03, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -Flares aren't meant to be used as weapons, If you are temped to use one in a last ditch effort in a bad situation, use the AP to flee. It'll accomplish a lot more. They are meant to be signaling devices, but unfortuneatly they suck just as bad at that as they do at being weapons. You should look into that instead of trying to make them work marginally better as weapons.--Vista 19:11, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 0 Keeps, 10 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Flares are supposed to be only used as a last-ditch effort that's why they were only included as a weapon as an after thought (they were not originaly able to be used as weapons).--The General 15:49, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 0 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:05, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements