Suggestions/9th-Apr-2007

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


New zombie skill tree

Spaminated with 10/10 Spam votes. (Reason: not a game suggestion.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:53, 9 April 2007 (BST)


Headshot change

Timestamp: Nucleon 03:50, 9 April 2007 (BST)
Type: special AP penalty under specific conditions
Scope: Zombies
Description: In its current form the Headshot skill is nothing more than a minor annoyance to zombies with the Ankle Grab skill in regards to its AP penalty. That being said, any change to Headshot that would unilaterally nerf the Ankle Grab skill or make Headshot even more of an annoyance to those zombies without Ankle Grab has virtually no chance of being implemented. My suggestion is a compromise of sorts; it will make it cost 25 AP for zombies to stand up after having taken 10 headshots; while most of the damage inflicted by the previous headshots was either repaired or of no consequence, a small amount of damage did not repair itself each time and this has resulted in the compounding of the damager inflicted by this particular headshot.

As stated above, this penalty would only be applied to a zombie after every ten headshots, and in addition to this would be the total cost for standing up rather than an additional (and unfair) AP penalty to the normal AP cost for getting up. Survivors would not gain the ability to tell how many headshots a zombie has already taken, which would minimize the ability of zergers and griefers to abuse this penalty.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep I think I've covered all my bases. --Nucleon 03:50, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Keep Makes sense to me, and is not a serous nerf of the Ankle Grab skill. --Kamden 05:11, 9 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Headshot is more than just a minor nuisance. Those 5 AP can mean the difference between breaking down a barricade and just coming up short. The idea is to slow zombies down, not take half their AP for the day.--Bluish wolf 04:34, 9 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re - Did you read my suggestion carefully? If you did, you've have noticed that the 25 AP penalty is only applied once every 10 headshots and would be the total cost to stand up rather than an additional penalty. --Nucleon 04:55, 9 April 2007 (BST)
      • Re - Yes, I read your suggestion. You get 50 AP a day, (48, actually, but that's beside the point) so 25 would be half your day's AP. Sure, it would only happen once per every ten headshots, but 25 AP is way too much even when considering that.--Bluish wolf 05:12, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Kill - Just the strictly math aspect means that you're halving the AP loss inflicted by Headshot. If the 25 AP after ten headshots were IN ADDITION to the normal penalty, then I might play ball. --Heretic144 04:44, 9 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re - You appear to have misunderstood me; this is a penalty that would apply to every tenth headshot and nothing more than that. The mechanics of Headshot would otherwise remain unchanged --Nucleon 04:55, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  3. 6AP is significant. --Jon Pyre 08:58, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Kill - no thanks, headshot is ok and doesn't need tweaking --Duke Garland 09:46, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  5. kill - What about the zombies without ankle-grab, this really screws them over for two whole levels.Padfu-Zomfu 14:06, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Kill - When it comes to the AP-efficiency department, zombies are already screwed over by barricades, since none of their advantages (higher dmg/ap, minimal death penalties, etc) mean squat unless and until they get through the barricades (which would be an impossible task if survivors bothered to do a little bit of metagaming and always made sure there was someone maintaining the 'cades). There's no need to make things worse for them (or the newbies without ankle grab, as they have it the worst). I tried a "compromise" like this once (where I reduced the default standing costs and the ankle grab bonus to minimize the "newbie-nerfing" without changing a maxed-out zombie's strength), and it failed. As much as people complain about the minimal stand up costs for zombies, it is absolutely essential unless there is a corresponding change to barricades. --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:35, 9 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re - I'm glad to see that you've explained the reasoning behind your vote; it makes it a whole lot easier to respect your decision. --Nucleon 23:05, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  7. Kill - Makes the game considerably less fun for zombies. PEOPLE, STOP SUGGESTING THINGS THAT TAKE ZOMBIES' AP AWAY. --c138 RR - PKer 17:04, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  8. Kill - Headshot works fine already. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 20:48, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Kill - Headshot is finally at a point where it doesn't completely screw over zombies. Leave it be. --Dread Lime 22:05, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  10. Against Penalties are to stiff. --Poodle of doom 22:44, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  11. Kill - screw my hatred for zeds, if i get headshot while walking around as a zed as i may sometimes have to do, i don't want ot have to waste 25ap just to get the fuck up, hell, this is as bad as the old exp penalty of a head shot, hell, head shots in the real world woudn't even kill a zombie!--Darkmagic 22:47, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  12. Kill - Ugh, in my opinion this is a HORRIBLE idea... Requesting to take away half a day's AP to stand up is ridiculous! --Riko Tanizawa 23:39, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  13. Kill - Unlike this suggestion, urban dead zombies can't be killed. Survivors don't need a better headshot- in fact, that would be counter productive, because it encourages killing zombies. Instead of wasting AP's searching for ammo and shooting zombies, survivors ALL need to start spending AP reviving people and building barricades. PS- for a logical and useful headshot suggestion, haw about simply "all the survivors attacks do double damage on zombies, but earn normal XP", with NO ap penalty to the zombie. Instead, it reduces ammo spent by survivors, with no real grief to the zombie, since zombies stand up so easy. THAT would have some tactical utility, because it would make clearing buildings easier. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 23:45, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  14. Kill -We should focus on replacing AP removing headshot with something else not making it more potent.--Vista 16:17, 10 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. spaminator maximus - Oh, please - how would you like it if half your daily allowance of AP was taken away from you? You wouldn't. So, don't suggest it for other people. Plus, if it's an extra 20AP to stand up after 10 headshots, what you're really saying is that it should be 7AP to stand up, not 5, as it is currently. Headshot is powerful enough, especially against zombies without ankle grab - there's no need to overpower it. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:01, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Spam - Hey, lets make it so it costs survivors 100AP to make or find a syringe! See how ridiculous that is? It's not fun for anyone. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 08:15, 9 April 2007 (GMT)
    • Re - Read the description again; this penalty would only apply once every ten headshots and while severe is hardly deserving of such a ridiculous response. --Nucleon 22:59, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Humorous - So stupid, after laughing my head exploded. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 02:02, 10 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re - My suggestion doesn't seem as humerous as your response... maybe you missed the part about the penalty only applying once every 10 headshots. --Nucleon 02:19, 10 April 2007 (BST)
    I think you missed the part where this completly nerfs the zeds Nucleon. --Poodle of doom 05:34, 10 April 2007 (BST) Non-author reply struck. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 20:52, 10 April 2007 (BST)

Cleaning Kits

Spaminated with 7 Spam and 1 Kill vote. (Reason: survivor nerf.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:03, 9 April 2007 (BST)


New Skill:Drag Out of Complex

Removed as a Dupe of Fort Body Clearance with 5 Dupe votes and 1 Spam vote. (The zoo part didn't make sense, as the zoo has no entrance, and no impenetrable border.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:25, 9 April 2007 (BST)


Show %Encumbrance in Drop Menu

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 10:31, 9 April 2007 (BST)
Type: improvement
Scope: The drop button
Description: When freeing up space it'd be nice to know how much encumbrance something uses up without having to consult the wiki constantly. I suggest next to every item's appearance in the menu next to the drop button it show the %encumbrance. So it'd look like this:

"Spraycan 2%"

Note this would only be inside the drop menu, not next to items in your inventories.

Keep Votes

  1. Author To see how much space it'd free up before you drop it. --Jon Pyre 10:31, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Keep - Sure, nice, simple and makes sense. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 09:43, 9 April 2007 (GMT)
  3. keep nice idea, worried that it might clutter the inventory a little but still a good plan.--Honestmistake 10:45, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  4. keep - why not? It's info. that you can work out with simple arithmetic, so it's not as if the inner workings of the game are being revealed too much. In the meantime, here's a link to my Encumbrance Calculator. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:09, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Keep - that would be handy... --Duke Garland 11:54, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Keep - It would definately help to balance inventories.Padfu-Zomfu 13:57, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  7. Keep - Why not? The Hierophant. 14:04, 09 April 2007.
  8. Keep- It should have been like this to begin with. --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:26, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Keep - No problems here. --Preasure 18:11, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  10. Keep -- Sweet --Lord Evans 18:58, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  11. Keep - Makes sense. --Kamden 20:06, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  12. Keep - Helpful. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 20:51, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  13. Keep - Yep. --Gm0n3y 20:53, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  14. Keep - How can I not say yes? . . . Yes! JD 21:34, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  15. Keep - wondering why this wasn't implemented in the first place. --Storyteller 21:55, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  16. Keep - I'll join the yes-train. - BzAli 22:26, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  17. Keep - As long as it isn't cluttered! --Poodle of doom 22:45, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  18. Keep - Also, maybe re-arrange Inventories by type of item. Something needs to be done to them anyway, to make them easier to keep an eye on --Seventytwo
  19. Keep - All aboard the keep train! Choo Choo! --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:56, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  20. Keep - Sounds good to me. --Veri745 06:19, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  21. Keep - No reason not to have this. --Ashadoa 13:29, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  22. Keep - seems fine.--Vista 16:24, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  23. Keep - It's helpful when restructureing your inventory.--goebiLfs team 17:01, 13 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here


Air Strike

Spaminated with 11 Spam and 1 Kill vote. (Reason: total destruction of several suburbs not considered reasonable.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:29, 9 April 2007 (BST)


Border flavor text/Kill flavor text

Timestamp: Chris' 'Redfield 18:45, 9 April 2007 (BST)
Type: Flavor text.
Scope: Everyone.
Description: ok. The Border of Malton in my opinion is a bit dry, and needs updating.

I suggest that the border of malton be shown on the map and be able to click on it. When you have clicked on it, instead of moving a player there, you will get one of these messages. Also, kills are a bit bland, "you get a headshot" or "you kill polysaurous". this would work best with the "bloodstains" suggestion.

Humans:

  1. A large blockade of what seems to be: Cars, dead bodies, and barbed wire, blocks your path. You reconsider your escape.
  2. Seeing an opening, you dash for a small exit in a smaller blockade. You suddenly are on your back, as you were frightened by 3 warning shots by what seems to be a few soldiers perched on a barricaded tower. going any more would result in death.
  3. You peek over a Large wall seperating you from escape. you see 2 large electric barbed wire fences, and a small platoon of soldiers, with a helipad and an extremely large M1 Abrams tank, you jump off of the wall and hope they didn't see you. you reconsider.

Zombies:

  1. You begin to walk onto what seems to be a road that leads out of malton. But are stopped by a Large deserted Blockade of random things. you cannot pass.
  2. you walk into what seems to be a large fence. a large bullet passes by your head, and you decide not to progress onward.
  3. A large Makeshift military wall stands in your way, you can't pass.

Kill Flavor text just add something like it rips them in half or something...

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep -yep I like it, but the kill text needs some work.Chris' 'Redfield 18:46, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Keep -- Cool, I got confused when I could wander no further south on my first day in the game, I got eaten, but I was confused --Lord Evans 19:55, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Sure. I like it. Good for newbies, too. -Mark D. Stroyer SoH 20:01, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Keep' I like it. --Kamden 20:09, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Keep - Good descriptions. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 20:54, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Keep - I don't really like the descriptions (maybe its just the spelling/grammar mistakes), but the idea is sound. --Gm0n3y 20:58, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  7. Keep - Strange are the ways of the NT. --Abi79 AB 21:02, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  8. Keep - anyway flavor changes cannot hurt, right? --Duke Garland 21:18, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Keep - Expansion is the only answer! But this suggestion is cool as well. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:35, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  10. Keep - Definitely. Yummy flavour makes cheese good. -- Cheeseman W!ASBTalk 22:14, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  11. Keep - Sounds very good. - BzAli 22:27, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  12. Keep - Unnecessary server strain? Where did you pull that big one out of, poodle? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:57, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  13. keep yes for the border text but resubmit the kill text on the talk page so we can get something to vote on! --Honestmistake 09:10, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  14. Keep - This text tastes good. --Ashadoa 13:33, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  15. Keep - Don't like flavor texts, but an other version of text will be helpful to mark the edge.--Vista 16:28, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  16. Keep - Good idea, but please finish the kill flavor text. -Downinflames 23:57, 11 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Against - I think its not needed. --Poodle of doom 02:40, 11 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - I like the border flavor text, but not the other suggestion. You really should avoid suggesting two things at once. If you change it so that this is only one suggestion, then I'll change my vote.--Bluish wolf 01:15, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Incomplete - "just add something like it rips them in half or something." While the first part of the suggestion is good, the second part (more flavor text for kills) is incomplete. This is, of course, not to say that this is not a good suggestion; it is a really great flavor text suggestion, although I think it should be refined a bit. Also "this would work best with the "bloodstains" suggestion" - would you mind providing a link to that suggestion? Or at least explaining what it is. --Saluton 01:17, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Spam - After reading the above spam votes, I agree this needs to be split into 2 suggestions and have changed my vote accordingly. --Gm0n3y 18:10, 10 April 2007 (BST)

Familiar Zeds vs. Non Familiar Zeds

Timestamp: Poodle of doom 21:35, 9 April 2007 (BST)
Type: Improvement to game mechanics.
Scope: Everyone who ever wished to differentiate between a zed they don't know, and a zed who is their fallen comrade. See below for details.
Description: I think that it would be wonderous to be able to differentiate between a zed that you are familiar with, and one you aren't familiar with. As it stands right now, the game will say "You recognize [insert name here]". However, if you were going to attack some of the zeds in that spot, you have no clue who your shooting at. If there is a zed that you recognize, you have the option of targeting them directly. However, the opposite is not true. This is what my suggestion pertains to. I believe that it would be helpful to be able to chose not to shoot a certain zed. Instead of firing randomly, and finding out later, you shot someone in your group, or your best bud, I think that a game improvement is needed here. One that allows you to differentiate between zeds, and be capable of targeting unfamiliar zeds, rather then zeds at random.

The mechanic I am addressing is that you can't choose not to attack a specific zombie when you attack a random zombie. For example, that when you attack a group of zombies, the specific zombies that you recognize should be excluded so that you don't accidentally hit a zombified teammate. It would be an "Unfamiliar Zombie" function. Example: "I have three known pker's in this stack of zombies, 7 people I do not know, four syringes, and want to actively avoid sticking the guys I do not want to revive."

Basically, this would allow you to target individuals specifically without having them in your contacts list. Make sense?

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - I've come up against this and it's frustrating. Don't forget to vote for it yourself, Poodle. -- Ramarez 22:39, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Keep - It would be nice to kill the greifers at the RP's instead of having to mow threw three of your buds first just to get there. --Poodle of doom 22:50, 9 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Keep - It would also be useful when hunting down a certain PKer/GKer.OmishWarrior 01:40, 10 April 2007 (BST)OmishWarrior
  4. Keep Why force people to shoot their allies? --Jon Pyre 02:46, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Enthusiastic Keep - I think I voted kill last time, because I didn't really understand what you were suggesting. For the benefit of anyone out there who's still confused, let me give an example. You are in a building with 5 zombies, one of whom you recognize as your friend Fred (he's in your contact list). If you want to attack zombies, you can choose to aim at either Fred or "a random zombie." The problem is that Fred is one of those "random zombies" in addition to just being Fred, so if you aim at a random zombie, you have a 20% chance of attacking a guy that happens to be your buddy. --Uncle Bill 02:55, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Keep - Good idea. "A zombie" should never "accidentally" include contacts; the only way to affect a contact who is a zombie should be to directly select the name when using the attack / item / whatever in question. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 04:10, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  7. keep a fairly minor sounding change that could have huge cosequences... Why is this not a dupe??? --Honestmistake 09:13, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  8. keep - would stop the accidental attacking of contacts - very useful for those dual-natured groups who do not want to attack their own members. A contact should only be attackable by specifically selecting them in the drop down list. –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz T 16:48, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Keep - It doesn't really make sense to shoot your own group member. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 20:54, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  10. Keep - Hm, i wasn't aware of the problem, but i belive Uncle Bill... yes, please, this is good.--Duke Garland 21:40, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  11. Keep - It would be useful for groups who ZK or point to infected people when they're zombiefied. --Toejam 15:34, 11 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

Change - I like the basic idea, but the implementation (or at least the write up) is overly complex. A much simpler version would simply be that you never take any action in regards to a zombie who is a contact without specifically selecting that contact. In other words, actions against "a zombie" would always go against the first zombie in the stack WHO IS NOT A CONTACT. This would apply to DNA scans (it's generally a waste of time to scan a contact), attacks, revives, and any other actions you can take in regards to zombies. It would also apply both to actions by survivors, and those by zombies. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 23:54, 9 April 2007 (BST)
Re: I wish to inform you that this is the second go at this suggestion. The first was killed for being to vauge. Funny thing about that is,... it was written similarly to how you wrote it yourself. Sorry it seems complex. Could I get you to change your vote? --Poodle of doom 01:49, 10 April 2007 (BST)
Sure - changed --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 04:10, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  1. Kill - Don't see a need to change the current system. --Kamden 02:22, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Kill - Doesn't this completely counter zombie anonymity? What your saying is that, once you have the name of every zombie in the group, you can target them individually at your discretion. The only way I can see this working is if the characters are mutual contacts and/or if the colors meant something. But as it stands now, this doesn't cut it. I mean either you want to be able to target a particular zombie or you do NOT want to.--Pesatyel 04:50, 10 April 2007 (BST)
    No,... Actually it doesn't. What your saying can already occur now, if you had the name of everyone in the group. You'd just need to add them to your contacts. The difference is, and if you read what I said carefully, you'll see that it implys that the anonymity of the zeds in the said location would remain intact, except for those already in your contact list (which weren't really anonymous to begin with,... now were they?). --Poodle of doom 05:23, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill - Now, server-strain and coding complexity aren't good reasons to vote against a suggestion - it says that up in the "rules" section of this page, and yet you're using that reason to vote against a bunch of other suggestions on this page. Therefore, I'm voting against your suggestion because it would increase server-strain and take up coding time. You stop being unreasonable, I'll stop being unreasonable. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 07:47, 10 April 2007 (BST)
    • Yeah, but I used it in situations where it could cause undue strain (On strike anyone?) Now, I voted the way I did based upon my opinion.... your voting like you are just to be an @$$. --Poodle of doom 00:10, 11 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Kill - I do not usually use realism as an argument, but I will in this case. Although a survivor may temporarily be undead and not actively attack other survivors, passively that player is still a zombie and should be represented as such. That horde shambling over to eat you includes your dead friend who you are trying to revive. The present mechanics of zombie anonymity simulate this. With your change Kevan might as well remove zombies from the game entirely and rename it UrbanLiving --SporeSore 13:36, 10 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Kill -Thats whats the contact list is for. --Vista 16:41, 10 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here


Personal tools
advertisements