From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search



If you wish to reply to something that is archived in one of these pages, make a heading with the same name as what you are replying to and link to the relevant section in the archived page.

  • Archive1 -- Archived 04:48, 16 Oct 2005 (BST)
  • Archive2 -- Archived 22:22, 28 Oct 2005 (BST); 03:09, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive3 -- Archived 04:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive4 -- Archived 23:02, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive5 -- Needs to be worked on. I'm not entirely sure whether I should just dump everything from December in this page or not. As you may have guessed, I just dumped everything from December (which hadn't had a reply this month) on this archive page. Everything should be there, but someone was editing the main discussion page during my archiving..I don't think I messed anything up, though. Bentley Foss 21:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Archive6 -- Archived 00:30, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT). Not all of January, but the page was horribly long and clogged with old stuff.
  • Archive7 -- Archived 01:09, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Archive8 -- Archived 07:02, 26 March 2006 (BST) -- Moved the majority of March into it as well. Velkrin 20:40, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  • Archive9 -- Archived 06:07, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Restore could somebody restore the active suggestions that were on this talk page when it was archived, i would do it but i dont know if im allowed?--xbehave 22:14, 16 April 2006 (BST)
    • If you have a specific one in mind I'm sure no one will care if you move it back here from the archives. Remember that as long as you make edits in good faith it's almost impossible to get into serious trouble on the wiki. --Sindai 03:11, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

These suggestions are currently at vote. Please hold any extended discussion about them here.

Rifle (Again)

Timestamp: 21:53 (GMT +3)
Type: Weapon
Scope: Survivors
Description: Rifle which is same kind as shotgun or pistol but it's max accuracy is 50%, it starting accuracy is 2.5%, with Basic Firearm Training it's 22.5%, whit Basic Rifle Training 42.5% and whit Advanced Rifle Training 50%. It can be good if it found per cent is 2% and ammo 5% with out bargain hunting and with bargain hunting accuracy is 8%. Damage is 7 and agains Flack Jacket 5. Max accuracy needs Advanced Rifle training which is sub skill of Basic Firearm Training. Good magazine size would be 4 and rifle is bolt action rifle. It is same kind load like shotgun and ammo can find in Armory or Mall gun store (bargain hunt effects only this) and weapon can only find in Armories.


Hunting Rifle (Final version)

Yikes, the votes are flowing, and a suggestion like this usualy requires a good talk page discussion for the math to be done correctly. Before starting, It should be noted that the hunting rifle would be less affected by the flak jacket as the other guns. This is because it goes from 7 to 6 instead of from 5 to 4 (or 10 to 8). 1 out of seven is less than 1 out of 5 or 2 out of 10. This analysis does not take this into account.

First off, counting loading times but not search rates, this weapon deals LESS damage than the shotgun or the pistol over the same time in AP. That is, once you have the ammo but didn't load it, it's more efficient to load and use pistols or shotguns instead of this. More to be followed--McArrowni 01:18, 27 April 2006 (BST)

AP battery. Allegations of this being a very powerful AP battery have been said. Let's look at this. Once searched for and loaded, the weapon can deal a total of 7 * 7 * 0.7, or an average of 34.3 damage, for 7 APs and 4 inventory spaces. Under the same circumstances a single pistol deals 19,5 damage, but for 6 APs and 2 inventory spaces.

We'll compare with a fireaxe, which is the best attack that doesn't use an "AP battery". The fireaxe deals 1.2 damage per AP. So each 1.2 damage dealt is worth 1AP's worth of merry hacking. So I'll convert from damage to APs, then substract the number of APs used to fire the gun (as those are the APs you need to use later the same effect as the gun's worth of stored AP, and are thus not saved). Now, AP batteries also have to have a place in your inventory, and idealy, that's as small as possible for as much AP stored as possible. Guns take more than one inventory space, so to have the number of AP saved per inventory space, I need to divide the total AP saved for a full gun by the number of inventory spaces it takes up. For each gun: (the higher, the more axe-swinging rounds each inventory space of a gun is worth)

  • Generic: ((DamageFromFullGun / AxeAverageDamage) - #ofAPtoShootFullGun) / #ofInventory spaces
  • Rifle: ((34.3 / 1.2) - 7) / 4 = 5.4 AP stored per inventory space
  • Pistol: ((19.5 / 1.2) - 6) / 2 = 5.13 AP stored per inventory space
  • Shotgun: ((13 / 1.2) - 2) / 2 = 4.42 AP stored per inventory space

The rifle thus stores your up to 5% more AP than the pistol. I don't think it's a big deal, myself.

IMO all of this is a bit of a moot point, since it all depends on search odds, and where you search, and you always get a mix of ammo. As a reminder, it's always more efficient to your damage/AP calculation to shoot the ammo found Ammo found (even the humble flare gun!), as long as you have basic firearms training and pistol training, and that you get the occasion to shoot them. Thus the real factor in gun balance is the overall balance of all ammo found when searching over a certain amount of time. I'll address this issue next if I have the time --McArrowni 01:53, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Well, addressing the whole issue is a bit hard, because the formulaes are frakking complicated. I apologize in case anyone was waiting for it. Let's just put it this way:

  • Existing search odds for old ammo in mall gun store= X
  • New ammo search odds in mall gun store = Y
  • Total search odds for both old ammo and new ammo = X + Y
  • (in other words, You get more ammo, for free, game balance possibly changes, zombies not happy)

Conclusion of that small and honestly not very deep analysis, a future version should probably either refrain from powering up existing search hot spots, or lower, say, shotgun percentages accordingly (or at least mention that it should be done). However, considering that zombies are now more equal to survivors, balance changes aren't as dangerous as they were (though it may lead back to that), and I have no clue of how much of a difference it would do. --McArrowni 02:15, 27 April 2006 (BST)

K9 Companion

A few examples that make me call this a mode of automated defence. Gun turrets and bunkers are used for defence. Your goverment probably have a minister or secretary of defence. If you are attacked you may fire back in self-defence. Defence doesn't mean non-violent. It means that you are the one being attacked, and you have means to deter that attack, either by reducing the effects of the attack or making it more costly to attack you, including costs in lives, health, or risks to life and health. In short, anything used to oppose attacks. Wether or not you believe it is a defense is a moot point though, because what the other voters are referring to is probably the precedents on this wiki. Including other skills that dealt damage on attackers (or in certain cases on people who interacted with a zombie).

Finally, I didn't address this in my vote, but your suggestion is quite complicated. So far, the core of the game is kept relatively simple. So complicated suggestions tend to have less chances--McArrowni 19:07, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Unload/Fury Claw

  1. Doesn't mess with AP at all. If you're relatively competent, you'll make sure your weapons are loaded anyways. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 22:35, 25 April 2006 (BST)
    I currently have 3 pistols with 6 shots, 2 with 5 and one with only 2 on my main account. You don't always find pistols fully loaded or empty, and a lot of people don't want to waste what's in the gun by reloading partly loaded pistols. Thus the option exists to for human players to spend more AP than they should, while having no counter measure for Zombies. Changing the suggestion to using 6 shots from more than one pistol would make the suggestion overpowered and out of character, thus I don't see any way to fix this issue - so Spam vote. Don't mess with AP. If you want to discuss this further, we should take it to the talk page. Clearly your cry of "Caught not reading" was erroneous, and you are not the author of this suggestion and therefore should not be replying to my vote. I am, however, happy to talk about this in the right place. DavidMalfisto 22:45, 25 April 2006 (BST)
    Bah! Messing with AP shouldn't even be a valid Spam reason. Let's start that discussion up again. --Pinpoint 03:35, 26 April 2006 (BST)
    AP is the central mechanism of the game. Suggestions that mess with that mess with the fundemental game balance. Not to mention everything else wrong with this particular suggestion. Note how the suggestion above this (one AP cost for firing an empty weapon) is on the way to being killed and this suggestion is 6AP for Unloading an empty pistol. Zombies don't get any extra penalty for these multiple attacks and are free to multiple attack barracades. DavidMalfisto 10:21, 26 April 2006 (BST)
    Messing with AP is perfectly legitimate as Kevan has done it several times. It's a delicate balance, but it is not, in fact, a valid spam reason even if the rules say it is. Having it there just helps people to not think. I'm not really defending the suggestion. And I will never agree with you that it's 'messing with AP' when all it does is allow a person to click and attack something six times, spending the normal AP and IP hits. If they simply weren't prepared to be able to do it six times, that's not the fault of anyone other than the person themself. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 11:04, 26 April 2006 (BST)

A More Balanced Set of Hand-to-Hand Reforms (the remake)

Like Tangling Grasp, Nubis? -Wyndallin 08:45, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Not quite. Tangling Grasp has a chance of loosing your grip per miss. The only way you can loose the 5% Bonus with this suggestion is with the target actively removing the blade, which will not happen unless in a live combat situation. – NubisAW! 10:08, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Personal Traits Redux

See below the discussion for the actual suggestion (it was removed as per rule 10, for having been edited after voting had begun) --McArrowni 06:03, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Here goes, my personal critique of this suggestion, which IMO has a few flaws, but is otherwise a quality one. Let me begin by saying that somethign similar, but tied to classes, was in the works (but seeminly abandonned), on this page before it was archived. It's now here. Of course it's very different (no con, no choice per class, etc.) Anyways, that's my intro, now each of my concerns, and possible paths to a better suggestion

  1. In addition to ideas already expressed, this ties into this discussion because part of my beef about the personnal traits suggestion is that it completely ignores character classes, which in most games that feature them, is the first step in character specialization. Now that would probably easily be solved (maybe some traits would require the character to have a specific class, or a specific skill).
  2. Quote "By spending the EXP, you can drop, change and take traits as you see fit, IF YOU WANT TO ... Buying a trait costs 50 EXP, while dropping a trait will refund you 25 EXP.". This I have a problem with. First, if you start with two traits, you can drop them at lvl 1 for 50 xp. Second, I'm in the school of thought that thinks that a penalty is only really a penalty if you don't get to decide when to lose it. I'd actually charge 200xp (at least) to drop a trait, if not limiting it to one change per level. Think about how hard it is to lose an habit (especially bad ones). As written, you allow high level characters to almost always have the traits that advantage them most when they need them. Whilst they would still suffer the con, in theory, in practice, they'd find ways to make sure it would barely matter (like not doing whatever actions it is they are penalized for doing).
  3. As I said in my vote, putting suggestions for traits in this suggestion, and labeling them as "suggested traits", was a mistake. I won't retype the whole thing here. Note that I have stuff to say on some of those traits, but I won't unless you ask me to, because the discussion should be about the system, not the trait examples.

This was written in the purpose of being constructive criticism, and I hope it proves useful--McArrowni 17:04, 19 April 2006 (BST) 09:34, 20 April 2006 (BST)

I agree with McArrowni, mostly. I would take point 2 even further, by completely removing the ability to change and remove traits. I think it would make for far more interesting game, and personalised characters. Overall, good idea, needs some more work. --Brizth W!M 17:24, 19 April 2006 (BST)
Actually, thinking about it, I also agree with Brizth, the best could be to have no way to change and remove traits. --McArrowni 18:54, 19 April 2006 (BST)
This ideas is more or less a rip off of the fallout games - you can start with upto 2 Traits which have a bonus and a detriment. In Fallout you may buy a "Perk" every 4 levels. One such Perk, Mutate, allows you to swap one Trait for a different Trait. Thus I think you should have to buy a skill in order to change a Trait. My last piece of input would be to use this talk page to come up with ideas for Traits. DavidMalfisto 18:57, 19 April 2006 (BST)
I understand where you are coming from. In hindsight I think I should've not put in the XP refund for dropping a trait. I think the charge for dropping a trait should be closer to 100XP though, maybe 150XP, if not, yes, just one drop of a trait per level. The cost for buying it, however, should be about 50XP. The main reason for not having your class affect your trait was two-fold: first, it would add coding complications and secondly, the traits are supposed to be about your personality. People can learn all kinds of skills, but their personalities are harder to change or develop (hence why I agree with your idea for XP costs for dropping traits). Your personality may make you more suited to certain tasks more than others, but you can still do other tasks (being naturally trusting by very nature may help you be better at matters of teamwork but not at security, for example, but that doesn't mean you can't learn how to work security). Hwever, your crictisms were the most constructive I've heard so far and I'll edit my suggestion to reflect that. Thank you, McArrowni. November7

09:51, 20 April 2006 (BST)

WHOAH THERE, wait a minute! stop! Quote: "EDITS MADE 09:56 19 April 2006 (BST): --Took out all the suggested trait examples, no-one seemed to like them. --Modified the trait costs so dropping a trait gives no EXP refund. --Clarified the concept a bit more.". You are not supposed to edit a suggestion on which the voting has begun. The reason for this is people have already voted based on the old version of the suggestion, and might not come back to check on the suggestion in case it has changed. Quote from the rules: "Once you have posted your suggestion, it is considered complete. Altering the suggestion mechanics after voting has begun nullifies existing votes, and is considered an abuse of the suggestions page. Doing so will result in your suggestion to be moved to the discussion page, where you can work out the details and resubmit later if you desire. It is preferred that you remove your own suggestion and resubmit a new version with changes, if changes are needed. ". Your suggestion should either be returned to it's original form or moved to the talk page (in fact, right now anyone can move it to the talk page since it's in violation of that rule. --McArrowni 13:10, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Nice critique McArrowni. My only comment is that, in Urban Dead, classes are USELESS. If you want to get technical, we only need 2 classes (zombie and survivor). But then, with class specific traits, as you suggested, it would go a long way to make the "classes" better.--Pesatyel 03:45, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Personal Traits Redux (full version)

Timestamp: 04:40, 19 April 2006 (BST)
Type: New but optional feature
Scope: All players
Description: Okay, now I've fixed the bugs in my orginal idea. Let's try this again.

Put simply, when you start a new game and/or click the new "buy traits" next to the "buy skills" button, you can pick and/or drop up to two traits which are, put simply, a buff and a weaken. Each trait gives a bonus or advantage while also giving a disadvantage at something else. You DO NOT have to pick ANY AT ALL AT ANY POINT IN THE GAME, YOU ARE FREE TO JUST IGNORE THEM IF YOU DO NOT CARE FOR THEM. These are simply options open to players to add a more specialised approach to the game and added flavour.

Also, Zombie can have their own set of traits. The set of zombie traits and human traits will be separate and you will not have zombie traits while human and vice-versa, e.g. a zombie trait you chose can not affect you if you are revived but you can get human traits, when/if you die, your zombie traits will take over and your human traits will not be active.

I don't think any of these should affect skills cost, as that pro/con would then vanish once the character has maxed out. You'd then have a character with a con and no pro, or worse for game balance, a pro and no con. No trait should affect the EXP number needed to buy a skill, this has the upside of forcing the player to make good decisions on what skills they buy, as so they will be advantaged by a trait more then they are disadvantaged.

If you want to modify your traits after starting the game, you have to go to the buy traits menu, like the already existing buy skills menu. TRAITS DO NOT COUNT AS SKILLS PURCHASED OR A LEVEL GAINED. After you hit level 7, you can gain an extra 3rd trait, due to the fact the zombie crisis has made your personality more extreme. By spending the EXP, you can drop, change and take traits as you see fit, IF YOU WANT TO. Gaining levels past 5 can also open up new, more advanced traits to get, with new traits opening up with level 6, 7, 8 and 9 and such. Buying a trait costs 50 EXP, while dropping a trait costs 100 EXP.

Any extra or decreased damage inflicted as a result of your/your target's traits do NOT influence the amount of EXP you gain. The EXP you gain is the same as if you and your target have no traits. Unless specified by the trait description. Also, hit rates for firearms cannot be raised above 75% or lowered below 5% by traits. Similarly, melee weapon hit rates max out at 85% and bottom out at 10%. Zombies attacks all max out at 90%, can't go any lower than 10%. Pro and Cons of Traits would (ideally) affect combat and secondary activities such as tagging, reading and certain item usage mostly. The basic concept of traits is that they are your character's personality and they affect your character's ability to learn and function in relation to certain tasks, both positively and negatively.

If this is implemented, you can suggest traits as well, in a similar style to skills.

EDITS MADE 09:56 19 April 2006 (BST): --Took out all the suggested trait examples, no-one seemed to like them. --Modified the trait costs so dropping a trait gives no EXP refund. --Clarified the concept a bit more.

Any more suggestions would be appreciated.


  1. Keep - Shameless author vote. -- November7 04:40, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill Although I appreciate your thoughts and work on developement, I would think there is a necessity for a considerable larger number of skills (Both Survivor and Zeds) before taking this step. I like the Idea, but not now. Conndraka 05:56, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - 1) You labeled your post KILL, not I HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS. 2) Traits could in fact fill in for skills in some areas. Having a few traits could serve to make the game more deverse and THUS MORE FUN. 3) Who says we need a larger number of skills rather than, say, a tweak to the mechanics? What skills do we need? Didn't Kevan himself say he had plenty of ideas coming in? Simply saying "the game doesn't need this now" answers none of these questions. --November7 13:11, 19 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re "I HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS" is not a Valid vote choice, Only Keep,Kill or Spam. The Game isnt ready for it, and the suggestion needs tweaking in the best of scenarios. But I do think it has general merit, so I dont qualify it for a spam vote. Conndraka 07:38, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - This is basically your post with a rebuttal of a semi-non point of my rebuttaltacked onto it. You haven't answered my questions about WHY you think my idea shouldn'e be implemented at all. --November7 15:49, 19 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - OK, I know I'm not supposed to "Re" in someone else's vote, but he did answer you. Read the top of the page - especially the part that say "If you only want the suggestion to be kept if it's changed, vote Kill". Don't take it personally, he just wants his vote to be valid. --Norcross 22:33, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep My only concern is what "traits" we have to start with. Perhaps come up with, say 1 or 2 trait per "class" to start. But other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the BASIC idea. It would make characters more diversified and give people other avenues to spend XP on, not to mention RP elements.--Pesatyel 06:27, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - I don't realy have much of a problem with this. The only problem is that there isn't much of a choice realy. Come back when you have about 10 traits so there is more choice. - Jedaz 06:37, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Like I said in the suggestion, you can suggest new traits on this wiki if this suggestio get implentmented. Relying on me to think up all the traits is a compliment to my brain/creative power, but it is also lazy. Why don't you think of some traits, huh? --November7 15:47, 19 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - This page is for voting on the merits of the idea and what it has, not brain-storming ideas. If you want people to help take it to the discussion page and put it under Developing Suggestions and just ask for some help. - Jedaz 04:36, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill Somebody here is a fan of Fallout. I'm not sure how well this would work (not saying it couldn't) but I don't really think the traits you listed work, and aside from that I don't have enough specifics to vote on. --Jon Pyre 06:45, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I may be a fan of Fallout, but that is besides the point. And how come the traits listed here as examples don't work? How much more spefics do you need? What do you want me to clarify? --November7 15:49, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep Shweet. --Cerebrus13 07:16, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep I think this isn't that great as is, but its right on track. If we could get this implemented, then we could freak out and come up with some really, really great traits to get put in, rather than the scant few listed here. I don't mean its bad as is, its just a little thin, but better simple than a mile long. -Banana Bear4 07:51, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Exactly, that's I'm saying. Thank you for understanding. --November7 15:49, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep-Freakin Sweet. These seem to be awesome AND balanced.--Mpaturet 08:24, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  9. kill - I think this would force players to stereo-type. Even if more ballanced traits were added, which given how many bad skills there are for each good skill is unlikely, they will continue polarize players. Dont mess with other peoples hit rates, dodging attacks is not part of urban dead and never should be.--xbehave 09:03, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - I love this. Adds pleanty to the RP value, but I am giving a kill as not enough options --Private Chineselegolas RAF 10:03, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 5 Keep, 5 Kill, 10 Total.--The General W! Mod 10:06, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  11. kill - I like fallout too, but lets not forget what works there doesn't nessersarily work here. the flavor is different, the mechanics are different. and despite what some voters think, these skill aren't very balanced. Learning from books whould still be useless, while an extra AP for speaking would be quite a burner. Healing an extra point and getting 2 extra XP would raise your AP/XP to 1.5 more XP per spend AP then fire-arms any way. the distinction between firearms and melee I can understand for flavor, but makes no sense in mechanics. raising the health of a zombie to effectively 71.5 (65 with a added 10% bonus of damage that just doesn't hit) is not offset by a slight reducement of the secondary attack. etc, etc. The problem is that fallout is a very good game, wich is espescially tailored to have specialist Being very good in one area and useless to reasonable in another. the mechanics doesn't not only allow such a system it build to actually support it. Urbandead is set up to have generalist, everybody is reasonable to quite good in all skills, its mechanics are keyed around that. for your suggestion to work you'd have to set a lower baseline for every skill to create a need for specialist. by simply just adding on a minor contra you just end up with super characters that are incredibly skilled in one area, reasonable to good in all others, except for one minor skill wich they would use to begin with. specialism only works in games if there is a need to specialise, otherwise it is just an unstabalizing bonus--Vista W! 10:25, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - I'm voting kill for three reasons. First you say traits shouldn't effect XP, then suggest a trait that gives XP. Secondly you didn't suggest "Mutate" as a perk skill. Thirdly... either rip all the fallout traits for a complete suggestion, or don't suggest sample traits. DavidMalfisto 10:53, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - To rebutt: 1) Traits shouldn't affect XP COST FOR SKILLS, not what you can gain XP from or XP recieved for actions. 2) "Mutate" is just an ignorant assumption that I just ripped off this idea from Fallout without converting the mechanics of it to Urban Dead properly, which isn't true. 3) I AM NOT TRYING TO RIP OFF FALLOUT COMPLETELY BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME KEY DIFFERENCES IN GAMEPLAY MECHANICS BETWEEN THE TWO. --November7 18:24, 19 April 2006 (BST)
      • RE - First off, what's the point of effecting XP gain but not cost for skills? When you're level 35-37 would you care about your trait effecting XP gain any more than you'd care about it effecting skill cost? Secondly, negative skill modifiers are almost never a good idea and you don't seem to understand the voting process - if a suggestion needs change you vote Kill, if it's perfect you vote Keep - and you're OVERLY FOND OF SHOUTING. This doesn't show you've really thought about the conversion. Lastly, yes there are some key differences between Fallout and UD (actually I've been working on the Zombie Mod for Fallout to make Malton - expect a working UD Fallout Mod sometime in '09 as I plan to release at the same time as FMF) but your suggestion for adding traits is obviously based on Fallout. You have given us 4 example traits (all of which look heavily influenced by the Wasteland - Vegan Zombies?) and expect us to say this is a good idea. Either give us something to sink our teeth into (such as a dozen or so traits converted from the Fallout games), or better yet use the discussion page to come up with good traits - then resubmit with a completed suggestion. DavidMalfisto 11:40, 19 April 2006 (BST)
      Comment - I love the way vegans are percieved to be healthier than the rest of us. If anything you should have lower HP due to the fact that your diet contains little or no protein. --Matson Jade 11:33, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Adds an unecessarly level of complexity to the game. And it doesn't have enough pirates. Or kittens. Or pirate kittens for that matter.--Mookiemookie 12:06, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Seems pointless to me, we allready get buffs when we level up. note - Don't RE this to death. And if you do Re, take off capslock. --Porgon 12:12, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 5 Keep, 9 Kill, 14 Total.--The General W! Mod 12:51, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - 10% bite nerf isn't a skill or a benefit, also, stop spaming the RE command, and use bold text not caps lock.--Bermudez 13:40, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - This is unnecessary and pointless. I agree with most of the Kill-reasons that were already said... G F J 15:00, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - I really, really like the overall idea. Gives players the option to specialize. However, some of the traits are problematic. As mentioned, 2 AP to speak is ouchie and getting extra XP from books is not so hot. Also, you've got a passive auto-defense trait in there (-10% on attacks against the person) and that sort of thing is usually frowned upon. What I'd suggest is re-submitting this with traits more in line with existing UD character classes: healers, certainly; but also think about what it would mean to really specialize as a scientist, or as military, or as a firefighter, and so on. Your best bet is probably to minimize combat buffs and nerfs; there are lots of places to play with numbers. Search rates, success chance in scanning rotters... I could see a "tank" set of traits where the guy becomes hardier (more hp) but has a harder time getting through barricades and can only enter through Quite Strongly cades or lower. Great idea, just needs more work in the specifics. Don't give up. --John Ember 15:19, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - Good, nay, great idea, but come back with a complete set of traits first. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 15:31, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - Good idea, but I see one possible flaw (or at least a way to make it better) design-wise (see talk page) and your examples of traits aren't very good IMO (which would lead me to suggest to you not to make any suggestion of traits yet, unless you want to move this to the talk page for a collective project with others, for a long, long time... at the risk of it never being implemented by Kevan at all if he doesn't like the core idea! Thus I think you should label any example clearly as only examples (as opposed to "suggestions for traits", as they are currently labelled), meaning that our votes would not carry favor or disfavor to those example traits and we would be hands free to vote on your trait system itself for what it is. --McArrowni 16:38, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - See above. Also, check Talk:Suggestions#Personal_Traits_Redux. --Brizth W!M 17:25, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 5 Keep, 15 Kill, 20 Total.--The General W! Mod 18:03, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep -The sample suggestions aren't that strong, but otherwise the outlying general idea is flawless. I like the idea of more options for character customization.--Xavier06 19:07, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - The basic idea is nice, but it's too much of a "something for nothing". For example, my character has healed a lot of people, but practically never uses melee (only firearms). Therefore, "Empathetic" would give a large benefit for no cost. Likewise, "Past Vegan" gives a large benefit to zombies, but does not affect claw attacks (the most effective zombie attack) at all. --Norcross 19:26, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - It's not such a bad idea. The example traits are pretty wildly over- or under-powered, but I want character specialization. Also, stop using so many capital letters. I almost voted kill for that alone. --Sindai 21:29, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - needs more awesomeness before we can put it in the game, but keep working on it (I voted keep so it stays around and can draw attention). Hell, I'll vote double-keep if you submit this again with a "pagan" characteristic (you worship Odin and you don't fuck around)! --Ron Burgundy 21:59, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill Well, for starters I think Interplay would come over here and shove a broomstick up Kevan's ass if he ever implemented it. Its a good idea, its just not ours. Secondly, I think this would overspecialize humans in some cases. The game is so simple that the limited number of bonuses and penalties you could apply would basically just pidgeonhole characters into the uber doctor or gunslinger. Redraft and show me some examples of creative skills and I might buy it. I'd say move it to talk and get input from people. --Zaruthustra-Mod 22:14, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill - unnecessary. that's all. --Bulgakov 00:48, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  • TRANSFERED to talk page Because it is breaking rule 10 of suggestions rules (which is not to edit a suggestion whilst it is in the process of being voted on). Some time here can only help it, anyways. I'm guessing we're keeping the votes even if the suggestion is no longer on the main page? They do offer a wealth of feedback after all, even if they take up a lot of place. --McArrowni 05:57, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Necrotic Compulsion

  • Help!

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to ask this, but I was hoping I could get some help from either a moderator or a more educated Wiki user here. I've made a suggestion following what I thought were the guidelines (suggestion can be found here), but from the comments and votes I've been getting I'm apparently still falling short. I'm a bit confused and at a loss...could I get some help here? Perhaps review whats been said and what I've done, and tell me what I've done wrong, if anything? This didn't seem to fit in the 'current' settings as this idea has already gone through there (Check The Archives) and had feedback, but the 'Further Discussion' section seemed even less apt. Feel free to move it if I'm mistaken. Thanks. --MorthBabid 00:12, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Necrotic Compulsion

  • I like the Necrotic Compulsion, but I don't think it should be under Brain Rot. What about under Memories of Life?

I originally really wanted to put it under Memories of Life as something like "Impulse Items" for flavor, but I felt that doing so would be a game mechanic nightmare. I felt far too many zombies with item useage would be overkill in a "Multiply It By a Billion" situation. I could be wrong. Making it a subskill of Brain Rot as "Necrotic Compulsion" seems more mechanically sound while still keeping in the 'something is going on in this funky dead brain' motif.

  1. re I think this may be whats needed to make playing as a zombie intresting for people who like playing as humans, instead of starting up an alt or just waiting for a revive(a long wait atm i think), so id put it as a very easy skill to get. if it was implemented like that, it would contrary to the invalid votes be a pro human suggestion.--xbehave 14:03, 18 April 2006 (BST)

I'd post the suggestion on the talk page. Make it shorter. Put in bold that survivors don't lose anything. Link to LotD to show that Z's can use guns. Put in bold that Zombies would be able to learn skills to make blunt weapons better. Then after getting input here, then resubmit it. Then I think it will pass. Also Suggestions/18th-Apr-2006#Necrotic Compulsion. DavidMalfisto 19:03, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Hmm. I did have a rough-rough draft of this idea posted here. Should I remove my idea and re-submit it on the Talk in a more clear and less "OMGDIDONTWANTTOREAD" manner, and then move THAT to the suggestion main page? How would I go about removing my current suggestion properly without being accused of spamming an old idea? I'm getting quite a lot of spam votes, apparently. --MorthBabid 20:30, 19 April 2006 (BST)
No need to remove anything. Simply rewrite the idea here in a more clear way and get people's opinions. Once you've won people over here, then resubmit on the main page. If you're getting a lot of spam votes then look at what people are saying, and either fix your suggestion if it needs chnge or if they simply don't understand your suggestion then put the relevent parts in bold so they won't make the same mistake twice. DavidMalfisto 21:16, 19 April 2006 (BST)
Can you make it clear that this allows Zs to get items but it not use them (that would need other suggestiongs), and possibly make a point that it would encourage survivors to play as zombies to get stuff instead of sitting in revive ques, well if you more it to under memories of life. Also please add a list of items you could find with apropriate probabilities (is this based on what the survivor has). Another good point is that just like survivors dont want to be 'forced' to play as zombies, zombies are being forced to play as survivors to get flak jackets, this would remove that.--xbehave 10:50, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  1. bad votessome of the votes on this suggestion are really full of rubish, so as im not alowed to re them ill just mock them here--xbehave 14:03, 18 April 2006 (BST)
"Players who take this skill will have to drop all the useless/unneeded items, using up IP hits and making it harder for them to play multiple characters." < if youre playing multiple characters then dont get this skill
"Don't mess with my inventory. If you took, for example, Sigfrid's book, he'd be freakin' pissed"< the idea dosent even mess with your inventory although, i would vote keep even if it did</br>
"I swear I thought MrAushvitz posted this" is that just a personal attack, because i think your pretty retarded to consider that a valid vote -Mpaturet
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah Waaaaaaaaaaaah :'( Somebody on the internets don't wub me! Waaaaaaaaaah! I went ahead and slapped a see above/below on my vote--Mpaturet 16:04, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Advance NecroNet Training

  • Re - This is actualy designed to be a round about way of dealing with the 10AP cost that was slaped on NT guys for reviving Zombies. - Jedaz 09:23, 17 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - And since the game isn't in a horrible state of disrepair because of that change, why do we need to change it? -Nubis A.R.S.E. 09:33, 17 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - How do you think this would make the game go back to it's broken state as I am baffleed to how you came to this conclusion. This wouldn't make it that much easier, only what, mabey once every 9 days NT's would be able to revive 4 Zombies. Thats fair enough I reckon because you have syringes wasted on brain rotted Zombies. - Jedaz 09:41, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re - It is generally assumed that messing with the revive rate is bad, and dropping the total cost of syringes (minus the variable of movement) by 16% (30AP to 25AP) is an extreme measure. About Brain-Rots: open an interior NT revive clinic and see how it goes: 100% revive total helps majorly! --Karlsbad 18:51, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Death Cultists

These suggestions are currently at vote. Please hold any extended discussion about them here.

      • Stealth, PKing... No, not at all *Roll eyes* BuncyTheFrog Talk 00:55, 8 April 2006 (BST)
        • I don't think of this as PKing, rather a third, unique char set built to work with zombies. My Stealth skill doesn't allow either for rest OR actions during "invisibility". --Bachmaner 01:00, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Don't think of it as something built to be used by the players in a certain way defined by you. Think of it as a certain something defined by you used by the players in whichever way they find it is most convenient. The problem is you mererily expect players to want to hack through barricades as zombies when they can just pick up allmighty death cultist skills then stealth in (which is better than freerunning!), infect with better % than a Z, hack away with almost the same claw attack (except for tangling grasp), or just blast with shotguns... All the while being able to gain xp from healing zombies at a rate that dedicated medics can only dream of (since they don't get 10xp from healing other humans). The only thing that barely looks good in there is dark piper... and it really doesn't help for discussion that all of those individual suggestions are all lobbed into one big suggestion-McArrowni 04:27, 8 April 2006 (BST)

    • Re - Ok i make a charcter go to a building crack its barricades, drop the character...Thats y u never give crowbars at start let em find it!Killer < 00:55, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Um, that's why organised multiple chars are against the rules, remember? --Bachmaner 01:02, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - They dump em, How do u think on the stats page thr r 6000+ Dead Bodies?They use em take em away and the account gets Dumped.Killer < 01:08, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • So you're saying in a game with almost 400,000 players you expect there to be less than 6,000 dead at any one time? --Bachmaner 02:25, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - 400,000 signed up 49k are active...

Active Characters : 47236 Standing Survivors : 21005 (53%) Standing Zombies : 18578 (47%) Dead Bodies : 5470

Players active in the last day: 30227 Players active in the last hour: 2569 Total players in game history : 492227Killer Talk 02:30, 8 April 2006 (BST)

    • Okay, try this: "So you're saying in a game with almost 50,000 players you expect there to be less than 6,000 dead at any one time?".... uh, yeah, I still win. --Bachmaner 02:49, 8 April 2006 (BST)
      Re - Uh were we playing I dint now about lol?I was just pointing out that it will encourage dumping characters i think its called zerging...--Killer Killer|Talk 11:20, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    No, you already lost when you put up that suggestion, thank you for playing though. please try again! and remember: there is never is a need to think!--Vista W! 11:15, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Zergers who let their zergs die will probably not log on to them again, thus they'll rotate out to the 90% of characters that are inactive. Of which we have no idea how many are zergers, and frankly don't care, since it's probably not the best way to see how zergers are still around, so this discussion is probably just missing the point. Still, measures have always been taken NOT to encourage zerging. Just because the rules say not to doesn't mean there's an instant-detector-annahilator or that people will refrain from doing it. --McArrowni 04:27, 8 April 2006 (BST)

In response to Xavier's vote:

  • Re - <trying desperately not to break author-only Re rule, and failing> In future, please make your votes at least readable. --Cyberbob240 CDF 13:21, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re - Hay guys I can Reply! Lookit!!11!--Mpaturet 18:43, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • First off, Cyberbob, I found Xavier's comment very easy to read. I have no idea what you're reffering to. Mpaturet, that's just total spam. BuncyTheFrog Talk 19:18, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Sorry about that but I was a little annoyed how this guy replied moret han the author(Who's only response was a cockboat)--Mpaturet 19:30, 8 April 2006 (BST)
      • Yeah, yeah, I know this is a graft from the suggestions page, but since this is the discussions page, I thought I'd discuss. I'm not sure what you mean by "readable", CB240. My vote posts can be many things--long, rambling, even very occasionally tinged with humor--but they are alway, as far as I can tell "readable". Perhaps I should post in another language (I can always feed the text into Babel Fish and see what I get). Perhaps I should try and post it so it can be "seen" in frequencies outside the visible spectrum. There is some validity, some method to the madness, to the length of my vote text, though. When newbie (or simply oblivious to sense) suggestion authors don't take the time to workshop their baby in discussion, they effectively turn the Peer-review into the discussion area. Why should I pretend otherwise?--Xavier06 21:29, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • This Suggestion isn't quite at that point yet, but I think it's a fairly good reason to implement alternate Spamination rules - say, if an entry has 20 or more responses and 50%+ are 'Spam', then perhaps it should be considered. Perhaps the number of required responses could be lowered, but it would be something to look into. -Wyndallin 21:52, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Echoes of Gunfire

  • Kill - Ridculous amounts of message flooding. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 11:52, 9 April 2006 (BST)
    • No more so than Feeding Groan. If the text was generic, and shorter (maybe: "You hear gunshots echoing x blocks away"), this would be a lot more serviceable. --Cyberbob240CDF 12:00, 9 April 2006 (BST)
      • I'm open to suggestions, though I'd prefer that there be a message for those with APs at the time and those without (there's something about the roar of gunfire waking you up before you quickly black out again). However, the message could be shortened like you said. Perhaps:

Awake: "You hear gunshots echoing x blocks away to the [direction]."?

Asleep: "Gunshots wake you up, echoing x blocks away to the [direction]."? --Lord of the Pies 12:31, 9 April 2006 (BST)

  • Re - Groans have a range of six blocks and require a human presence. Also, you are severely underestimating the death rate that this game experiences, and how common headshot is. The spam would be unbearable, especially when a horde attacks an area. --Grim s 12:27, 9 April 2006 (BST)
    • Flares have a range of around 15 though, besides which the Headshot, like I said, wasn't such a good idea. That would bring the effective range down to 3 blocks away, half of the maximum Feeding Groan, and I doubt that the death rate is so high that you would be hearing more than five or six gunshots a day (in a three block radius?). --Lord of the Pies 12:39, 9 April 2006 (BST)
      • Understand that this is just an estimate judging from the number of corpses on the ground, but to my thinking about 18,000 people would get killed a day (Mostly Zombies and newbies). Even if we say that only a third are caused by zombies (And that we have to do because the zombie numbers have practically stabilised for the time being at 48%), thats still 1.2 people getting killed on each block in the game per day. A 3 block radius would be 7 blocks by 7 blocks (Three in each direction plus the players location). As a result there would be an average of 58.8 deaths a day within that range (Some may be caused by axes, but very few people use those against zombies because an axe doesnt guarentee a kill). Furthermore, since the location is included in your spamathon, these messages will not collapse into the "And again" spam reducer very often. This gets far, far worse when you deal with a large horde rampaging through the area as teh death rate on both sides dramatically increases in the area, so you would probably be dealing with about 2-3 hundred messages in such circumstances per day. Please not that the numbers are based on estimates, and i feel they are reasonable, though they may not accurately reflect the actual state of affairs, but they must be pretty close. --Grim s 14:17, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • Ok then, maybe setting a limit on how many gunshots you can hear? That could defeat the spam problem. It would, however, still give you an indication that something is going on. (unamed author, please sign your comments on talk page)

Possible solution to the spam, although it woudn't help with the server strain and has not been tried before, and is pretty complex to describe. Since they are echoes, maybe they could be less precise than, say, flares and groans. How this would work would be each square in position to you would be assigned either N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW. When you log on total noise level and general proximity is showed for the 3 loudest directions (so you don't have 8 entries each day). However my adaptation would be pretty complicated though for a suggestion that is only ever heard by survivors outside (I'd allow zombies to hear that version)--McArrowni 22:52, 10 April 2006 (BST)


  1. Kill - The metagame counter to Pkers is pretty damn good as it is, this is just excessive when combined with that and would leave us with no chance to survive such an action at all. Why all the hate against us, its not like death has really meant much these past few months, and even now, its still not that hard to get a revive if you know how (MY pker character is getting revived all the time). --Grim s 06:15, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re If there's some unbalance, suggest a fix to that. Bypassing zombies entirely and playing as a PKer (basically just a zombie that uses guns and walks through barricades), detracts from the game. This is Urban Dead, not Urban Shotgunwielding Raiders With Some Zombies Outside. If Malton need have PKers, fine, but they should be part of the game, not an oversight. --Jon Pyre 06:18, 11 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - If pkers were the result of an oversight kevan would have REMOVED the ability to pk, not make grant half xp. The fact is that there ARE psycho's and murderers out there in real life who would cheerfully kill you (Or me for that matter). It is perfectly reasonable to run a character roleplaying that you are a person driven mad by the constant fear of zombies to the point where you almost worship them and act on thier behalf (Something Akin to Stockholm syndrome) slaying humans. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to be driven mad by memories as one of the undead and start slaying those responsibvle for his torment (Scientists). It is completely reasonable for there to be serial killers who are taking advantage of the lawlessness in the city to continue thier horrific killing sprees. Murdering psychos are in genre, perfectly reasonable, and actually adds to the depth of the game, as you always have to watch out for other humans, who may be plotting against you or planning to off you (Which is also perfectly in genre). --Grim s 06:28, 11 April 2006 (BST)
        • Re Which is why I am not suggesting to remove the option to attack other survivors, but suggesting a flavorful Vigilante skill that's in character, fun, and logical. It gives both murderer and lawman goals and parameters...essentially, a game. I don't oppose PKers existing, I oppose the game being set up for them to have essentially no consequences to their actions. Right now if PKing were banned and Kevan set up a script to randomly kill 50 survivors with a lightning bolt each day, it'd have the same effect. That's not a game, that's random griefing. If you want to talk about this further, let's do it on the discussion page. --Jon Pyre 06:33, 11 April 2006 (BST)
          • Re - With this skill you may as well be removing Pking from the game. This skill, Multiplied by a billion, would see the end of Pking as no one would be able to hide after the killing. You would be destroying an important part of the game, and a good deal of the fear associated with it. --Grim s 06:38, 11 April 2006 (BST)
            • Re What fear? It only inspires annoyance. "Why look, I've been killed by a gameplay strategy I have no way of countering, regardless of my skills or planning. What a fantastic game this is in which choosing to grief has absolutely no counter whatsoever. I hope Kevan gets rid of zombies altogether because these PKers are far more effective. I don't like the zombie genre anyway, I want Urban Dead to become a Halo deathmatch with me using a sniper rifle" --Jon Pyre 06:41, 11 April 2006 (BST)
              • Re - There are a couple of counters, you just dont like them and are therefore ignoring them: Track down the pker and shoot him dead. Repeatedly. Without a nifty tracking skill. I used to do it all the time when i played as a bounty hunter (Before i fell to the Dark Side, if you will, and started my rampage across Malton). Use Metagame PK lists and shoot known offenders dead when they turn up, neither of these are perfect, but they are effective. Oh wait... this requires work, just like police have to work to keep them from hurting people in real life. Gods forbid you would get up off your arse and do something to stop it yourself, instead of crawling to Kevan screaming for them to be nerfed so bad you never need to worry about them again. They add to the game. The more you complain about Pkers, the more they will kill you. If you take it like a man then blow thier brains out, odds are that they wont bother with you again. Furthermore, your own experience does not equal everyone elses experience, and furthermore, the fact that it hampers your style of play does not make it invalid as a form of play in and of itself. --Grim s 06:52, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                • Re The fact is, it's not the way the game was designed. If bring a gun to a tennis match and shooting the other player was a legal tactic that doesn't mean the game is fine. Zombies get plenty of nifty enemy finding skills because they need them. If humans need them against PKers, they should get skills too. But let's stop this argument because I know I'll never convince you that PKing is unbalanced because it's in genre and provides fear and is a valid playing style yada yada yada, and you'll never convince me because bypassing every defense and easily hiding without consequence is unfair blah blah blah. --Jon Pyre 07:24, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                  • Re - To be perfectly honest i think you are just a whining baby with regards to Pking. Its not like its likely to happen to you with less than 500 of us wandering around (Unless you bring it upon yourself with displays such as this one). Also, i agree to stopping this discussion, because i will never be able to get you to form a coherent counterargument to any of the points i have raised. You respond with rhetoric, rather than points. You ignore defenses i have listed, and you avoid the most obvious escape: Move to another suburb. --Grim s 07:30, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                    • Grim your defense to Pk'ing is more Pk'ing. And more over the defences you propose are basically: shut up and take it like a man, you bitch. Or run like a baby, you pussy. So basically it's fine for other people to be crammed in their playing style as long as it isn't PK'ers? The people who dislike PK'ing far outnumber the people who think it's fun. And all your solutions require all the work to be solely done by the victims. Who all have to start metagaming and devote almost a larger chunk to patrol, catch and deal with Pk'ers then against zombies. And surprise there is already an enourmous amount of work going into trying to keep PK'ing down, and yet they don't succeed. At which point are you ever going to consider the fact that perhaps Pk'ers have to make some extra effort? Look I know that a large chunk of them are very dedicated players, who've been around for ages, and make extremely valuable contributions, like yourself. And I wouldn't want to remove Pk'ing from the game. Put please, PK'ers aren't a persicuted minoraty, and they sure as hell aren't the ones being griefed. In fact there are quite a few who do the griefing. If people want to Pk fine, but then they should also be the one paying most of the cost for it.--Vista W! 17:04, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                      • Pkers already do have to go to greater efforts to survive. Ive resorted to throwing myself out a window on my last ap to avoid being shot dead Every. Single. Day (Just to rob the people of the satisfaction of killing me). Humans have all the communication advantages so it makes sense to use them to spread the word of who is a pker, and post up thier profiles for scientists in necrotech buildings so they dont revive them. This requires no metagame effort, just a willingness to use a days AP to spread the word and the willingness among humans to build up the kind of community that the zombies have going. All it takes is a little effort and so far all that i have seen is that the people are petrified of making an effort for themselves and want some built in protection for them that makes them safe and secure, without realising that if that happens then the pkers themselves are getting fucked harder than the zombies ever were. The best defense against a killer is a strong community who are dedicated to protecting each other, looking out for known bad elements, and and hunting down said individuals. If someone attacks you, fight back. If that someone is too skilled for you, you run away. Fight or Flight. Thats all it boils down to. Im giving you a realistic defenses and you say you want more. Honestly, the whole pker "problem" is blown entirely out of proportion. The fear and paranoia associated with it is ridiculous, and the people who complain about it happening to them repeatedly bring it upon themselves by making themselves into such great targets. Sure, the occasional newbie gets shot and killed a couple of times (Hell, i picked off the same level 2 NT twice in 5 hours once (The second was because he had 25hp and i knew he didnt have a flak jacket).) but it isnt as big a deal as people think it is. Personally i think its just bruised ego's talking when they say there is a massive problem. Yes, it would be a major problem if another 2000 people started doing it, and if there were that many i would probably support some extra defense against them, but at the moment it is a tiny minority of the total population who practice it, and they are known by thier actions and terminated regularly through the existing metagame methods. If such a measure were implimented now, with pking at these levels, it would spell the end of that style of play except for the most stubborn and wrathful of people (In which case i would uess that there would be less than a dozen pkers). --Grim s 18:15, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                    • Grim, if PKing is acceptable in the game, and is valid because it creates fear, is in genre, and all the garbage you constantly spout on the topic, explain to me this: How is Zombie PKing in-genre, valid because it creates fear, or any of your usual rhetoric? If you can successfully explain this to me, I will vote kill on any future suggestion of this sort. If you cannot, I will continue to vote to oppose anyone who even seems to suggest that PKing is a valid playstyle. -Wyndallin 09:58, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                      • Hey Homey, I'll handle this one. First, you are speaking of ZKing, secondly ZKing featured prominently into a zombie comic put out by IDW a few years back. It was called Remains. After the human flesh got scarce, the fresher Zeds started to eat the weaker ones. When they ate brains they got smarter and quicker and started to mutter, Mmmmeat, and even use simple tools as clubs. While ZKing is not present in all zombie mythos, ZKing is clearly present in some. -Banana Bear4 10:04, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • I enjoy having PKing in the game. I enjoy it the way it is now. If there were a way to kill someone without being seen by everyone, I would even consider this idea of tracking being decent. However, as it stands now, there is a balance. If you get PKed, chances are it was one of two types of PKers, either a random drifter who will be perhaps, half a days ap away, and will after you get rev'ed you will not see them again. Secondly, it could be someone after you or your group on purpose, in which case you can find them as easily as they find you if you move a bit. There is nothing really wrong with the way it is now for me. I like bad people in a zombie apocalypse. Like when all those soldiers and that guys were doing some serious PK fun to each other in 28 days later. Or when that old lady shot the dudes zombie baby and then he PKed her, and then all the other people in the mall PKed him in retaliation in that remake of Dawn of the Dead. The fact that PKers could not be tracked by hardened military experts made the climax of 28 days later totally sweet. PKing fits in genre, and in this game. -Banana Bear4 08:19, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Also there is some precedent set for suggestions not passing if they support or discourage PKing. There seems to be knee jerk reactions from both camps. -Banana Bear4 08:36, 11 April 2006 (BST)
  • Grim, your response if anything proves that PKing is highly unbalanced: "its likely to happen to you with less than 500 of us wandering around (Unless you bring it upon yourself with displays such as this one)". Basically you admitted that PKers can swoop him at any time and hit anyone anywhere without difficulty. And they do, I've heard of people being killed repeatedly just because they have a famous name, or are recognized as leader of a group. PKers shouldn't be invulnerable assassins, it discourages roleplaying and group formation because anything that attracts attention attracts PKers. And search for them? Unlike you Grim I don't have a highly organized forum board. If search just the area within 5 spaces of the building that's over 100 potential places the person could be hiding!!! And that's just if they move 5 spaces away. There's no way to catch them, how can you search an area far greater than the AP of several players? --Jon Pyre 13:06, 11 April 2006 (BST)
  • Analysis of the Statistics Behind This Suggestion - Since there is some confusion about how the math works out on this, I'll try and explain here. First off, the 5% chance of failure itself means nothing for our calculations, but the 95% chance of success is where we need to direct our attention. In order to sueccessfully track, you need enough successive .. er, successes to make it there. If they are only one block away, then it is a 95% chance. 2 blocks away, the chance for success is (.95*.95), which is .9025, or 90.25%. 3 blocks away, this is (.95)^3, which is about 85.74%. 5 blocks away, about 77.38%; 10 blocks away, about 59.87%; 20 blocks away, about 35.85% percent chance of successfully tracking this far. And if anyone is interested, chance to successfully track 50 blocks is about 7.69%, and 0.59% chance at 100 blocks. So, it never drops to 0%, but eventually the odds fall in favor of the PKer (a distance of 14 blocks puts the cumulative chance to track at about 48.77%). All in all, it looks like a well balanced chance to me. --Reverend Loki 16:45, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Factor in barricades. And headshotters. And the fact that they can easily outrun the odds by simply staying on the move to drain you of your AP. Tracking down your killer as a zambah is rarely, if ever, practical. --Undeadinator 00:59, 19 April 2006 (BST)
      • ReRe - Er, I think you misread the skill. This wasn't meant for Survivors who were just killed to track down their killers as Zeds. It's for when one Survivor "witnesses" a PK. Say survivor A and survivor B are camped out in the same building. While they sleep, survivor C comes in and kills B. When A next logs in, then with this skill he will have the option to try and track down C. So, barricades can be a potential problem, but C would have to take specific steps to "break the scent", such as entering a building at VS or lower, barricading it above VS, and then free-running to a hiding spot. They can be safe(r) from being tracked down, but it costs more AP. Where this skill would be most useful is when you have an organization camping out in the same building - one member can actually help watch their buddy's back, with the threat of vigilante justice helping to deter at least some of the PK attacks. --Reverend Loki 17:48, 25 April 2006 (BST)
  • Frankly, I love this idea on all levels. I don't find the idea of walking into a building, unloading my shotguns into somebody, and walking five blocks south and one east to be an exciting style of play. However, if other survivors had this skill and I could knock somebody off, run across an empty block, and barricade a VSB building up to heavily, stranding my pursuers outside, I might consider that style of play. As a survivor, I want to be able to follow the guy who killed my buddy. As a potential PKer, I would enjoy the challenge of a cat and mouse game that this suggestion would provide me with. Because frankly, if you avoid the PKer lists and the bounty hunters now, you were just lucky. No skill, really, they just didn't happen to stumble across you. But if you can consistantly break a trail you leave and get away from those tracking you time after time, that is skill.--Guardian of Nekops 17:23, 11 April 2006 (BST)

People are missing the point I think. The suggestion doesn't STOP PKing, it INHIBITS it in a certain way. And Banana Bear4, a single comic book is hardly evidence of ZKing.--Pesatyel 07:21, 12 April 2006 (BST)

So, uh, question: who cares, anyways? It saves zambahs AP. If anything, ZKing should be encouraged. So. I think that the problem here is the rest of my beloved PKers haven't grasped the basic concept of the suggestion. They see the words "police report" and they freak out. Relax. Be calm. Let me explain something to you: THIS SUGGESTION IS NOT ANTI-PKER. It's pro-fun. How long have you guys been PKing? Myself, I've been doing it for a long time. I mean, a loooooooooong time. When I started, it was great. Y'know? I would fill somebody with buckshot until they keeled over, spout some pseudo-apocalyptic banter, and then run half a suburb away and cross my fingers. It was a blast. Time of my UD life, really it was. But after a while, it kind of got...boring, you know? Same old same old. It started to feel like a job. Find a trenchcoat, babble a bit, kill him and leave. The fun went out of it. Why? Because after a while, I realized that there would rarely, if ever, be real fear of reprisal. Sure, I could get put on the A.R.S.E. list. But so what? I never read that rag anyways and, quite frankly, having the CDF goon squad on my tail wasn't exactly an intimidating thought. I never got busted. The fun in PKing, at least originally, was that it was like a little game of cat and mouse. And, after having your kicks, you were the mouse. That was fun as hell...while I still bought it. What I'm trying to say, without writing an entire fucking novel about it, is that this puts the thrill back in PKing. Saying "PK PARTY YOU LOZARS" isn't thrilling: being hunted like a wild animal is. Everybody, on both sides of the PK fence, should be voting for this. --Undeadinator 00:59, 19 April 2006 (BST)

On the note of ZKing. Dawn of the Dead (orginal). The dead eat the dead. I rest my case. DavidMalfisto 19:48, 19 April 2006 (BST)
Really? What scene(s)?--Pesatyel 05:28, 22 April 2006 (BST)

===Bounty Hunter=== Suggestions/10th-Apr-2006#Bounty_Hunter

Why is the idea of survivors being able to fight back against saboteurs and murderers so repulsive? It wouldn't eliminate PVP, nor would it completely wreck the lives of people who want to engage in it - that's a kneejerk response that comes from not thinking it through. If anything, this would enhance the PVP aspect of the game. Currently, the game mechanics for PVP are grossly unrealistic and entirely one-sided. I can walk into a mall with 200 people, kill 2 of them with my shotguns and blow up the generator, and then run 10 squares away and nobody from that mall is likely to find me. When I say that, I mean mathematically their chances really do suck - a 10 square radius in this game translates to a 21x21 block area in which you could hide: That's over 200 possible locations(assuming that only half of the squares have buildings to hide in). I know that I can get away with this because I have done it myself, in Caiger mall of all places. There's really no effective way for someone who wants to be a PKK to set himself up, aside from metagaming. But if you cite the effectiveness of the metagame as a reason why this sort of mechanism shouldn't exist, then your premise is faulty: the metagame is only substituting for a deficiency in the normal game!

The bounty hunter idea is certainly realistic enough. If you are in a safehouse with a bunch of friendlies, and someone shows up and opens fire on someone else, why shouldn't you be able to follow them stealthily, if you have the skill? One might argue that it's unrealistic because you are supposed to be 'asleep', well that's absurd because a loud noise obviously should wake you up, especially if you are as paranoid as a veteran survivor should be. You might argue that you should be able to track people who've attacked you as well, so that it doesn't make sense. Well it does make sense: how well can you follow someone who's just shot you? The recovery time implicit in a combat situation could preclude the possibility of shadowing your assailant, although adding that functionality probably would not make much difference anyhow.

The best sounding counterargument to the realism of tracking other survivors is that there's no mechanism for it. Well actually, there are many conceivable ways of tracking someone through a zombie-ridden city: you can network with other people who saw them, you can follow footprints (which would be a lot more prevalent in a zombie apocalypse scenario, what with all the blood and gore flying around), you can get on top of buildings and watch where a person goes, and most importantly of all, you can just be shadowing them the whole time. "No!" you might say, "That's absurd! You can't have shadowed a person while you were logged out! The timing doesn't make sense!" Stop and think about it. The timing already doesn't make sense, because we are working in an action point system. Does it make sense for a person to be inactive for 23.5 hours and then run half the length of the city in 30 minutes, only to collapse and go to sleep again? The action point system already presupposes that you are taking varying amounts of time, at varying points during the day, to engage in your various activities; so in the context of this game, the timing argument is absurd. Finally, I should point out that many of these arguments could equally apply to the zombie skill, scent trail. Scent Trail doesn't tell you a 'direction', or have a wear-off time. It doesn't give a convincing mechanism for a zombie to have followed a survivor who's roof-hopping a distance of 30 blocks(which ought to be several miles, and ought not leave a trail on the ground). The bounty hunter skill is every bit as realistic as the skill it was modelled on, so any arguments against its realism are entirely inappropriate.

My intention from the beginning was for this to be a high-level skill, because I know what an impact it would have if everyone had it. I would make it require level 20 to purchase - according to the stats page, only about 27% of players would be eligible to buy it. Only the max-level survivors would get it, basically. Other measures could be added, to make it easier for PK's to escape - like a limit on tracking range or a time limit after which a trail is lost - but I think such changes would only complicate the situation, trying to fix a problem that isn't there. PK's would still be able to operate, and the fear of someone murdering you will still be there, it would just be shared more evenly. My biggest mistake with the suggestion was probably just not writing it carefully enough, to anticipate the more obvious responses. If you read this essay all the way though, then thank you. If your objection to the idea wasn't covered here, then please post it. --MLF 07:41, 11 April 2006 (BST)

  • there is some precedent set for suggestions not passing if they support or discourage PKing. There seems to be knee jerk reactions from both camps. -Banana Bear4 08:36, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Furthermore, the current metagame solutions already provide an effective answer to the "problem" without making it overly difficult to perform. At the moment it is fairly effective against us Pkers. Its still very dangerous for us (Especially considering the notifications people get), meaning that we get killed by both people and zombies. Our lives are far more dangerous than the average survivor. You non pkers assume we live it easy, but we are all walking a knife edge, with varying degrees of success. A Pker is actually, by far, the most difficult chaarcter to play. This just makes it far, far more difficult, to the point where managing it and surviving is utterly impossible. --Grim s 09:29, 11 April 2006 (BST)
      • And yet I've heard you repeatedly say how easy it is to get revived, so what if it is dangerous? getting killed is means what? a 30AP burn for the reviver, and a few movement points for the Pk'er revivee. Wauw, you get killed a lot. Getting killed a lot in a game were death means close to nothing isn't what I call 'walking on a knife edge' unless you really care if you live or die, and if you're truthfull how large a percentage of Pk'ers cares about that, other then as a way to keep score?--Vista W! 17:20, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • I mentioned the metagame thing already: metagame is not a solution, in fact I consider it part of the problem. This change could increase the level of chaos by quite a bit, since disorganized individual players who aren't involved with the metagame will go around killing people for their own reasons. Hopefully, the ease of use of this skill will draw people away from bounty-hunter boards. Survivor vs. survivor would become a lot more dynamic, as not only will PKK's appear, but also PKKK's and PKKKK's etc. I think that might even make life easier on "first-order" PK's who just murder at random, as the bounty hunters kill one another. Right now, those wacky possibilities are just not there. My suggestion doesn't come from the standpoint of someone who wants to get rid of PKing, but rather it was intended to make things better than they are now. --MLF 10:11, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • I think it's just overdone, plain and simple. Every PKer is now trackable for every act he commits of the kind, nothing he can do about it, short of dying before he is caught. Sure, getting PKed is annoying, but considering what Grim said about the difficulty of playing a PKer being already high, I see no point in upping it some more. --McArrowni 16:07, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Mark Inactive Contacts

Banana Bear4 apparently overwrote my suggestion when placing his own. I have reinstated it where it would be, with all the votes it had at the time. I took it from this version, the last by Mpaturet. X1M43 05:19, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Looting: A Balanced Search X Times Suggestion

  1. Kill - Oh dear, i cant rapid search in the same building as the zombie, ill free run to the PD next door, rapid search there, then come back and gun it down before it can finish its meal! No. Real time, searching is balanced by its slow pace. --Grim s 06:45, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re So the zombie will face a survivor with depleted AP both from searching and from travel back and forth. As I said, it's a pretty minor problem to begin with. Considering the benefits in convenience and server load reduction I think that concern is pretty trivial. Especially considering how rare it usually is to come on as a zombie is actually feeding. --Jon Pyre 07:03, 14 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - You just dont get it. If a zombie broke into a building and was killing a person, this allows another survivor to run to another building, search up some FAK's speedily, then run back, and wheras before, if the person had to search manually, the zombie would have killed the human, with this it wouldnt happen, The survivor who leaves would get some FAKs (With your speedysearch) and rush back in the time it takes a zombie to take three or four swings. Thats just not right, or fair. The slowness of search balances it in real time combat. Speeding it up grants humans a massive advantage in real time actions. --Grim s 08:38, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • re There's one thing you're not thinking of. Even after the survivor gets ammunition and loads it all, it still takes them time to attack the zombie in your extremely rare fast paced real-time scenario! So the survivor comes back with 30AP and some pistol ammunition, and while they're firing for 4 damage 65% of the time the zombie already should have time to kill whoever they were already attacking. I have never once tried to "outsearch" a zombie. If I don't have ammunition guess what I use: an axe! Considering the extreme rarity of your nightmare scenario balanced with the fact this could save HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of clicks each day. The server would thank us all. Seriously 100s of 1000s. --Jon Pyre 13:47, 14 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Rare? It happens all the time in big sieges. Real time combat is the norm when large amounts of both side clash, and you only referred to the shooting part of my complaint. I notice you handily ignored the healing part. Oh dfear, could it be that youa re ignoring that which you cannot find a reasonable counter to? --Grim s 14:21, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re I still think it's a pretty unlikely problem. I've never tried to out search a zombie, ever. Searching costs AP. Attacking costs AP. If I search enough to get a significant hoard of anything I won't have enough AP to use it. Besides, most survivors keep ammunition and first-aid kits on them. And first-aid kits can be found manually. If I want to heal 20AP I can probably search up two FAKS and get back in time, using Search X to get 5 is overkill. Your problem exists only if there's a real-time scenario, the survivor is unprepared, the zombie breaks in right next door to a resource building, the zombie hasn't started attacking anyone yet, there's only one zombie inside....a whole lot of conditionals to meet an scenario that really wouldn't change much even if it did happen, weighed against the convenience of thousands of players and the lack of server load caused by clicking over and over. --Jon Pyre 14:40, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Figured I'd add my vote comments from the suggestion page. I understand the kill reasonings, but what about a minimum number one has to use for the skill as well? And what about if the person "begins" searching when a zombie enters? With the syringe, you click the button and 20 AP is deducted. With this would it be "search 10 times" with 10 AP deducted automatically, or would it be that the next 10 interactions are searches (ie. the computer hitting the "search" button for you)...does that make sense? It seems to me if the 10 AP is automatically deducted, zombies wouldn't be able to interfere, even if the suggestion were implemented.--Pesatyel 02:54, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Hunting Rifle

  • For a fuller explanation of my math on the firearm averages:
Pistol: about an 11% chance of finding a pistol clip (rounds found already in guns adds a small bonus) in a mall with Bargain Hunting. That works out to be 9 AP per clip, or 1.5 AP per round. Add 1/6 (0.16667) AP for load and 1 AP for fire; total is 2.667 AP per fired round. Each round has a 65% chance of doing 5 damage -- 3.25 average. Thus, overall average damage is 3.25 hp per 2.667 AP, or 1.22.
Shotgun: about a 16% chance of finding a single shell (including those already in shotguns when found) in a mall with Bargain Hunting. Works out to be 6.25 AP per shell. Add 1 AP for load and 1 AP for fire; total is 8.25 AP per fired round. Each round has a 65% chance of doing 10 damage -- 6.5 average. Thus, overall average damage is 6.5 hp per 8.25 AP, or 0.79.
Hunting rifle: 9% chance of finding a 10-shot box in a mall with Bargain Hunting. That works out to be 11 AP per box, or 1.11 AP per round. Add 1 AP for load and 1 AP for fire; total is 3.11 AP per fired round. Each round has a 75% chance of doing 7 damage -- 5.25 average. Thus, overall average damage is 5.25 hp per 3.11 AP, or 1.69. --John Ember 04:42, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Sweet, I'm glad you went to all this trouble, a lot of people want to see these stats before they vote. Obviously the accuracy of this firearm gives it an excellent HP per AP. However, this requires 5 skills to be able to pull it off (fireaxe, not so many, and no ammo.) If push comes to shove and the suggestion makes it, but we still have reservations, we could make very careful modifications to the search percentages, without modifying the weapon itself. (I like the 75% to hit, but unlike the pistol it's fire all your rounds and what you finsih the zombie off with may be another rifle you have on you. Or maybe you pull a pistol or a hand weapon. That's what I see with this weapon. --MrAushvitz 05:32, 23 April 2006 (BST)

  • Re - Sure, but I think you'd have even better luck by increasing the AP per fired round. The pistol takes 2 2/3 AP to find and fire a round; the shotgun takes a hefty 8.25. Currently your hunting rifle only takes 3.11, just a bit over what the pistol takes and well below the shotgun. Bump this up by putting less ammo in the boxes, reducing the search odds, or both; and you can hit that in-between HP/AP rate that you seemed to be aiming for. --John Ember 03:13, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Requiring 5 skills is not a measure of balance IMO. Rare does not equal balanced, it just makes the high-levels that much more powerful than the others. --McArrowni 15:32, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Rare does not equal balanced is usually used when regarding search percentages. There's nothing "rare" about having to spend more XP to max. out your guns skills on what may end up being the deadliest gun in the game. But it's not a "quick xp" weapon like the pistol, or an ammo search intensive weapon like the shotgun. This one is made different because it is different. Why shouldn't the high level characters have a decent weapon to spend XP on? Keep in mind the efforts of those high level characters are what tends to keep the newbies alive, and their safehouses intact and/or useable or searchable. All players in the game deserve a choice. This is firearm choice #3 (#4 if you count the flare gun.) --MrAushvitz 01:06, 24 April 2006 (BST)
The problem with this is there is no such thing as "firearm choices". When you search at a location, it gives you any kind of ammo for any gun. Once you have them, even the humble flare gun is more effective to use than it is to search for another type of ammo (or even than the fireaxe). Thus any ammo found for any gun raises your damage per AP later on, because you've already paid the biggest price of those shots: the time spent searching for a random type of ammo. The only "choice" is in the skills you invest in.
Note also that even if this wasn't the case, search time counted in, your hunting rifle does twice as much damage per AP than the shotgun, and more than the pistol. Read John Ember's math. Also, rare does not equal balanced used to be used to also refer to the fact that if only rare individuals can get a skill, it doesn't make it balanced, it just makes them that much more powerful than everyone else. Newbie survivors might be protected better, but newbie zombies certainly aren't. I'd also woudn't be surprised if more people than you would expect took those skills anyways. Military is probably the most popular class, and maxing their gun skills is what many of them do. --McArrowni 05:04, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Electronic Voice Phenomena

Please explain your kill votes here!

Andrew McM - I totally respect your right to vote Kill. However, I would have thought that the author of such a funny suggestion as Pets, and the critically underrated Vehicles would give a little more constructive criticism than just a lame attempt at humor. Looks like you mean the tenents of the Project Welcome in name only, and not in spirit.

John Ember - You have a valid point. However, this was my best shot with the game mechanics. Could you suggest a workable way to implement a call for help when you have died? I'm just trying to help the game and I know I would enjoy this skill for my living alt.

    • Re - Sure. I would suggest some kind of "deadman's switch" linked to the cell phone or (probably better) GPS unit. The dying player's contacts would receive a message such as "you receive a distress signal indicating a location 3 blocks west and 5 blocks south." I would actually vote for such a suggestion, as it would make revive points much less necessary. It's also less paranormal (yeah, I know, zombie apocalypse) than EVP. --John Ember 04:29, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Electronic Voice Phenomena can't happen in Texting... end of story --Teksura 05:16, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Perhaps you've never been stuck with Sprint, I used to get some fairly inexplicable messages. Then again having worked in electronics repair I've seen a lot scarrier things come out of a TV than EVP... --Spraycan Willy MalTel 10:39, 28 April 2006 (BST)
Why not?--Pesatyel 05:23, 22 April 2006 (BST)
something like this could happen 1 of 2 ways here. #1. you call someone and they hear you die (Text only sorry) #2. You become a ghost and go all the way over to where your contact is to make the phone create some noise, then head all the way back to your body and wait to stand up as a Zombie. 2 is just insanely stupid Malton is not haunted. 1 is not possable because you can't establish a connection. I have been replying to this baised on the realistic view of how this happens (#1) rather then the insane way of how it happens (#2)--Teksura 05:43, 22 April 2006 (BST)
Because there's no such thing as dictation software. Ever. Anywhere. -Wyndallin 11:55, 22 April 2006 (BST)
You should take a minute or two with Google before making such absurd declarative comments. --Spraycan Willy MalTel 10:39, 28 April 2006 (BST)
What does that have to do with it? There are people that claim they go into a trance and the spirits send messages through them. The person holds a writing implement to a piece of paper and the spirit uses the person's hand to write the message. I forget the "technical" term for it (but I can try and look it up if you want), but basically, can see something happen here. Or, simplier, while the zombie is "dead" their spirit is free to possess the person's cell phone and leave a message before returning to the body when the zombie stands up.--Pesatyel 21:14, 22 April 2006 (BST)
OK, sounds like there may be a grain worth working on in this concept. Let's discuss it here before re-submitting. How about something like Dead Mans Switch - skill - when player dies, automatically sends a message to the first person on their mobile phone list indicating "you receive a distress signal from <Agazman> indicating a location <3 blocks west and 5 blocks south>". The player must have (1) a GPS, (2) a mobile phone and (3) be in an area with a powered phone mast. If the first person on their list doesn't have their mobile phone in a powered area, then the message doesn't go through. Maybe, the role-play (RP) rationale is that the skill allows the player to rig their phone to transmit a text message unless the button is pushed every 10 minutes. Please comment, remember this is NOT official voting, just suggest improvements that would allow you to vote Keep for this idea. Any improvement is fair game, including (but not limited to) renaming the concept, changing the mechanics, changing the RP rationale, or where the skill should be in the skills tree. Thank you! --Agazman 14:17, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Voting Now! Looks like I missed the boat. John Ember has entered this idea as ["Deadman's Switch v2" ]. Looks like the Keep votes outnumber the Kills. Way to go John! --Agazman 13:53, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

These suggestions are here for comments/changes before they go to formal voting.


well basically i like this idea [[1]] but i think the icon thing isnt quite right, unfortunatly removing this from the suggestion required an entire re-write.and while i was at it i came up with various alternatives to parts. i hope the author dosent mind
Summary: Survivors can call in to the local police station and report their PKers. Others can access the PD computer and find who is "wanted" in that suburb.

Reporting: murders 1)as in the original you can only report a PK when your revived
2)you can Report any murder you see 1st hand
or both 1 and 2

  • reporter has a cell phone
  • The suburb has cell phone coverage (the mast is powered)
  • optional(may be needed to balance the other parts): Police station must be powered

Hacking: A new civilian skill, Hacking, allows players to discover access the police database. looking up reports
looking up brings up a list of Names each with a profile link, you are then free to do whatever you want with this list.

counter measure
As a Pker with hacking can walk into a police station and delete reports, however anybody in the police station will see "<profile> accessed the computer system then it crashed". however this could lead to use of alts to delete it so
i) this is not included at all
ii) this costs a high amount of AP
iii) this is fair
iv) upon seeing this a player in the police station can use the system to report it to every powered police station in malton, he would then be added to the top of every report page for X days

In the original you would lose your PKer status after 3 days, however under this new system, this would not work, however it could be implented by
1)nothing the counter measure sounds good enough
2)a 7 day limit after which all murders are deleted
3)a 2 day limit after which all murders are deleted
4)only the 50 most recent murders are shown
5)only the 10 most recent murders are shown

Bonus for bounty hunter, in the original you got full XP while attacking PKers
a)This is not needed
b)Same, the XP bonus only aplies while the victim is on the local police stations system.
c)No bonus, but imunity from being reported

OK so at first it looks alot more complicated, but given that if i suggest an alterd version it would only carry 1 of each of the alternatives, and wouldnt need icons next to player names, i think that this alternative would actually be simpler

  • Looks good, I like the idea of a Pker being able to delete the datebase.--The General W! Mod 17:23, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Well i think that reporting assaults would make PKing too hard, however you should be able to spend an AP to report a murder you see.As a Pker would have to live in the police station or spend xp to go there specificly to erase the list i think there shouldnt be any penalty at all( also some suburbs have 2 police station so the PKer is really gunna have to try hard to get outo that 1). im not sure how long the reports should last but aparently PKing is hard so id go for only reporting last 10 murders. i think no bonus is needed but the imunity would be nice--xbehave 17:47, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Just for clarification, PK reports don't expire in 3 days under my version. The Enforcer's memory does. This was just to force people to revisit the PD regularly, without complicating the list mechanics. E.g., if you have to check the computer to see all the new PKers since your last check, the coding involved could get very messy. Nonetheless, a "statute of limitations" could make sense here. I like your idea of eyewitnesses reporting murders; you'll want to think about the UI for that. PKers hacking the database sounds great. I would lose the assaults idea, as getting beaten to within a few inches of one's life usually isn't that big a deal in Malton. Just step into hospital and wait for a heal. Finally, good luck getting this through. People get really polarized about even perceived attacks on PKing (which my suggestion definitely wasn't). --John Ember 22:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Same big concern as stated in vote-text: make it one kill to absolution. Ditch the assaults and make the hacking a more uneven business, like searching. I do like the idea behind all of this. Smooth it all out and we're cool.--Xavier06 23:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • I really don't like this suggestion now. It completley eliminates PKing altogether now that there's 2nd hand reports. Even the hacking is useless as once you've been seen hacking you're screwed. Maybe with the addition of a wipe when attempting to access the list it would work. Say person X accesses computer. It crashes and data is deleted. The people around him would see this and they might think that he did this on purpose. THus there's a risk to an incredibly overpowered suggestion--Mpaturet 07:10, 21 April 2006 (BST)

GPS Modification

Timestamp: 00:53, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Type: GPS Modification
Scope: Survivors
Description: Well the GPS unit at the moment is not very useful so...

The GPS would be modified so that it can actualy tell you the route to your safe house like the firefox extension, still most people dont use firefox and this would be helpful as it will be incorporated ingame....

Also maybe it could store the location of 5-10 places you most use. Maybe useful if you move within a few suburbs or only in the around them.

At the moment it only show`s co-ordinates which arent that usefull unless you have the map from the Wiki.


Ok heres the Details:

Costs you a IP Address Point to save a loaction BUT doesnt require AP to use it...

If the list is full the last location is removed to make place for the new one

or stand on the new place you would like to add and keep the place you want removed selected on the GPS unit,

click the GPS button to replace it.(Refer to the image for better explanation)

To get Directions just select a saved location from the Drop Down list, Click the White Button and it`ll show you the directions. This does now cost AP Neither uses a IP Point

And please some tell me how to create a hyperlink to this image rather than it staying here like this or please create a hyperlink for me ...

Was was it moved to April 6th I edited it and put it to revote on 7th.



  • Due to the suggestor, Killer, breaking the 10th suggestions guideline, this suggestion has been removed from the archive and placed on the talk page.
  • So, is this going to be resubmitted or what? I'm not sure about the limbo it seems to be stuck in here in discussion (or what to do about it).--Pesatyel 05:21, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • I left a note on his talk page concerning the removal. Since it wasnt submitted a long time ago the person will eventually return and resubmit, or he wont. --Grim s-Mod 13:32, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Ski Masks

Timestamp: 04:53, 21 April 2006 (BST)
Type: New Item
Scope: PKers and Gkers with honest reputations
Description: Well, here I go jumping on the "let's change PKing" bandwagon. Thought I'd put it here for discussion to test the waters a bit.

The gist of the suggestion is this. A new item, called Ski Mask, would now be findable in Banks for search chance of 15%. In the inventory it would have a button like all the others, which could be clicked at any time to put on or remove the mask for 3 AP. Your status near your name would tell you when you are masked.

Now, whenever the mask is put on or taken off, every player present except for dead bodies would see the message, "(Character Name) put on/took off a ski mask. (timestamp)" While the mask is worn, others see you only as "A masked stranger," and any kills, speeches, or generator destructions you commit will not provide a link to your profile, just a third description written like your zombie and survivor descriptions. If you can take off and remove your mask in a private place, you can get away with doing almost anything.

The downside to this, of course, is that anyone who is online will assume you are up to no good while wearing a ski mask. If you get stuck with one on, or caught by someone taking it off, it is likely that you will end up with a face full of holes. But if you're stealthy about it, a ski mask could allow you to sleep in the very same shelter you just PKed someone in without anyone being the wiser.


  • I don't think anyone would go for this, but as a question out of curiosity, would scent trail still work? - Jedaz 05:24, 21 April 2006 (BST)
    • I have yet to actually trail anyone, so I'm unsure how it works, exactly, but I see no reason why not. You'd just be tracking "A masked stranger" instead of whatever his name is. Although why you'd put on a mask to attack a zombie is a mystery to me.--Guardian of Nekops 06:39, 21 April 2006 (BST)
      • Why not have an "unmask" option as well? --November7 01:16, 22 April 2006 (BST)
        • You mean, let other people get a skill or an innate ability that lets them take off your mask? Realisticly, that would be very easy for an armed man to discourage, and I think it would make the masks useless. After the masked one is dead, though, sure.--Guardian of Nekops 01:36, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • The "lets change PKing" bandwagon is specifically making it HARDER to do. PKing DOESN'T need to be made easier. The only good thing about the suggestion is that it gives banks a use. With this, eventually, EVERYONE would be wearing one. In addition, this "third description" would obviously not be part of your profile necessitating a whole new section of storage (of profiles) to the game (or however it works exactly).--Pesatyel 05:19, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • I disagree, I wouldn't wear one. But I'd axe to death anyone I caught wearing one. -Wyndallin 11:57, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • If this suggestion gets put up for real voting, I can virtually guarantee a Spamination. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 12:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • I'd have to concur with Cyberbob on this one. Helping PKers == not good. On that note, it seems that punishing PKers also == not good. So therefore, PKer suggestion == not good. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 13:06, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • Froggie, with things like that, there's gotta be some give. We give them something like this, they give us a way to track them, it evens out. Makes PKing fun by giving us hope to get back at them, and giving them a way to do it anonymously. Hell, I'm completely anti-PK, and give me a ski mask and I might just kill one person in their sleep. Maybe. -Wyndallin 13:34, 22 April 2006 (BST)
      • Well just in an RP sense, a ski mask would help them get away easier without anyone knowing who they are right? So how would that help us track them? It would be pointless to say "only if they're not wearing a mask," because everyone who PKs would go out and get one straight away. Just my two cents here. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 13:49, 22 April 2006 (BST)
        • How does anyone track anyone else without actual facial appearance? Footprints, disturbed grass, blood trails, things like that. I don't think someone who axes someone to death in a PD is going to take the time to have a bath or even necessarily wipe the bottom of their shoes. -Wyndallin 13:54, 22 April 2006 (BST)
          • I think someone's already put up a similar PKer tracking suggestion, based on footprints etc. Didn't go down too well. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 13:57, 22 April 2006 (BST)
            • That's because there isn't enough anti-PK support. As a general rule (with exceptions, of course), PKers will support suggestions that support PKers, and anti-PKers will not. Also works in reverse. Of course, there are exceptions, myself being one of them. I support this, and I'm very against PKers. Not quite foaming at the mouth, but getting there. Honestly, I think so long as the resolution isn't vaguely worded, and the idea has merit at all, it should get a keep. Not because ZOMG THIS WILL INCONVENIENCE ME. This is a good resolution, and frankly, I'd like to see it in-game. And honestly, when someone's on the run, how much time are they going to spend cleaning their clothes, shoes and whatnot. Wet, bloody footprints are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, for at least the first five blocks. -Wyndallin 14:02, 22 April 2006 (BST)
              • Keep in mind that, in Malton, half the people are covered in blood already. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 14:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)
                • Yes, but the thing is, it's not necessarily fresh, wet blood. Blood dries fairly quickly, which is why I only said five blocks, not some outrageous number like ten. -Wyndallin 14:07, 22 April 2006 (BST)
                  • Point taken. Unfortunatley, it would take a lot for me to approve a suggestion like this in any case. I don't like the prospect of anonymity in a game such as this. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 14:14, 22 April 2006 (BST)
                    • Well, other than the anonymity that being a zombie gives you, yes, I can understand where you're coming from. I only support this in the context that we have some way to track these people. -Wyndallin 14:17, 22 April 2006 (BST)
                      • As far as it's needed, zombie anonymity isn't a big deal. If one attacks you you can see their profile, thus making it easier to track them down later (due to the fact that they can be placed in your contact list). When you're attacking, it doesn't really matter what zombie you attack (unless one is activley attacking that is), as long as you're clearing the place out. But yes, a suggestion like this would need reprocussions from the other side as well. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 14:24, 22 April 2006 (BST)

See, that's my point though. Sure Wyndallin wouldn't wear one (and I'm sure there are others), but the majority, whether they PK or not, WOULD since it provides such a great benefit. ANYONE looking at your "profile" doesn't really get your profile, thus it would be zombie anonymity only for survivors. In addition, would would stop a zombie from wearing one? Putting it basically, since everyone would be wearing one, it would do nothing to help "identify PKers," not when you walk into a hosptial to find 50 "masked strangers."--Pesatyel 21:00, 22 April 2006 (BST)

  • Well, on my read, there are two reasons this will not happen. 1) People likeWyndallin, and myself, who will shoot you in the face for wearing a ski mask. Although admittedly, if I walked into a safehouse with 50 "masked strangers", I'd run out of bullets pretty quickly. 2) The fact that wearing a mask makes it MUCH harder to form any sort of relationships, which are quite helpful in-game. Being known as the guy who builds the barricades and guns down the zeds when they get inside can be very helpful when you need some FAKs, or a revive. (end point 2.) However, I definitely see the problem with having everybody wearing these things all the time. How about if the mask got automatically removed, with the appropriate demasking message, once you'd gained 20 AP since you'd put it on? In ten hours, real time. The message to you could be something like, "The ski mask you're wearing finally becomes unbearably hot, and you remove it." while the others in the same building would simply see that you took it off. I'm betting that people wouldn't put the thing on every day just for the spotty protection that it would give you. --Guardian of Nekops 18:17, 24 April 2006 (BST)
    • Sure, I wouldn't use one either, but WAAAAAAAAAAAY to many people WOULD, even if stipulated automatic removal. Besides, PKing does NOT need to be helped in ANY way. Guys like Grim (no offense) say it is already "too hard" when people suggest nerfing it some, so why make it easier?--Pesatyel 05:16, 25 April 2006 (BST)
      • The thought behind it is this: Grim argues, correctly, I must assume, that there is already a sufficient metagaming counter to PKing, and to add an in-game counter like tracking would be redundant to the point of crushing the life out of PKers. However, I and others would like to incorporate PKing into the game, having both its strengths and its counters contained at least mostly in the interface. With this suggestion metagaming could be used to try to determine the identity of a killer, or to broadcast it if it was found out, but the metagaming counter would be effectively broken, requiring the setting up of an in-game counter (ie, tracking). My goal is to have both suggestions (tracking and ski masks, or whatever equivalents there may be) implemented at once, like ransacking and generators incrasing search odds were.--Guardian of Nekops 01:01, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Irrelevant Chatter -Wyndallin 14:57, 22 April 2006 (BST)

  • Uhh... I believe that when you say "animosity", you mean "anonymity" Animosity is similar in meaning to hostility. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 14:26, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • Simple mistake, probably best taken to his Talk page, seeing as how to the best of my knowledge, English isn't his first language. (Apologies if it is, Buncy.) -Wyndallin 14:30, 22 April 2006 (BST)
      • You'd be correct there Cyberbob. Heh, been a while since I've done some heavy reading... Must get back to books! And Wyndallin... *tear* English is my only language! What would make you think it wasn't? My grammar is (mostly) always good, and as far as I know my spelling is (mostly) always good. (note for my IQ: changed those to the proper word.) BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 14:38, 22 April 2006 (BST)
        • Several reasons, really... One, I'm tired. (Always a good excuse.) Two, I have several fluent, but non-English friends, and they occasionally mix up similar-sounding words like that. Three, for some bizarre reason, I could have sworn you mentioned something similar in our correspondance over my first suggestions but couldn't be arsed to look. Truly sorry for any embarassment. *pats on the head* -Wyndallin 14:44, 22 April 2006 (BST)
          • Let's get back on topic, shall we? And for the sake of readability, let's start again with the indentation. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 14:46, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • I actually don't have anything else to add unless someone brings up a new point, so until later... BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 14:55, 22 April 2006 (BST)

A Workable Trade Suggestion (Barter?)

Timestamp: 16:10, 22 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Trade
Scope: Survivors Lv.3 or higher
Description: Whatever goes in here, the Trade ability will probably work something like this:

Barter will be a skill, purchaseable with a minimum level of three (that's the magical number where people who are going to quit have most likely already quit by). In practice, the skill should work like this.

Person Y offers Person Z -item- for -item2-. (Costs Y 1AP)

Person Z is notified that Person Y wishes to trade them -item- for -item2-.

At this point, if Person Z has -item2-, and accepts the trade, it costs Person Z 1AP to do so.

If that trade is not acceptable, Person Z can change -item2- and Counteroffer, which costs him 1AP.

Person Y will be notified of the Counteroffer, and will be able to accept (for 1AP) or Counteroffer (1AP).

This will continue until both parties are either satisfied, or fed up. It eats up AP and IP hits, making it less desireable than simply searching for the object yourself, unless it comes to an early conclusion. (The AP costs are, obviously, negotiable.)

In addition, it would also use the IP tagging on people trading.

So far, there are four anti-zerging measures here - one-for-one item requirements, AP costs, minimum level, and IP tagging. It's not really enough to discourage hardcore zergers, but not a lot will be. Input? -Wyndallin 16:10, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Zerg Blocking, like already implemented w/ combat and FAKs, etc, from CyberBob240 -Wyndallin

Barter skill would fail on targets without the Barter skill - fifth anti-zerg measure; from me. -Wyndallin

I know people don't like the idea of trade. What I want is the people who don't like it to tell me what they would want to see in a trade suggestion, to make it more palatable to them. -Wyndallin 16:10, 22 April 2006 (BST)

  • A block for zergers would be appreciated. It could work exactly like the automatic thing already in place. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 16:17, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • Also, the recipient would have to have the Trade skill as well, or the trade would fail. -Wyndallin 17:14, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • Tentative name: Barter. 'Trade' might be a subskill, allowing people to trade multiple items. -Wyndallin 17:43, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • Oooh, I'm not sure about that name. I think there's been another trade suggestion before by the same name, so you may be duped. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 17:45, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • All I need to do is show that the methods - if not the premise - of the idea are suitably different from the original skill. If I manage that, I'll call out any dupe I see. After all, you can only get so creative without raping a thesaurus. -Wyndallin 17:48, 22 April 2006 (BST)
      • You raise a good point. I hereby withdraw my previous comment. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 17:50, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Rifle (again)

Timestamp: 21:53 (GMT +3)
Type: Weapon
Scope: Survivors
Description: Rifle which is same kind as shotgun or pistol but it's max accuracy is 50%, it starting accuracy is 5% and with Basic Firearm Training it's 20%. It can be good if it found per cent is under 5% and ammo 5% with out bargain hunting and with bargain hunting accuracy is 8%. Damage is 7 and max accuracy needs Rifle training which is sub skill of Basic Firearm Training. Good magazine size would be 5 and rifle is bolt action rifle. It is same kind load like shotgun and ammo can find in Armory or Mall gun store (bargain hunt effects only this) and weapon can only find in Armories.


  • The ammunition should only be able to be found where the weapon is found, and a better magazine size would be four, to offset the high damage. Furthermore, I feel a 2% find rate for the gun would be better. Finally, I feel that the accuracy should be lower without training; approximately 2.5% without any firearms training. With firearms training, I could see an accuracy rate of 22.5% (below-standard 20% increase), increasing to 42.5% with rifle training, and 50% with advanced rifle training. Other opinions? -Wyndallin 20:44, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • That would be better idea I just porpose, but just made an example how it can do. But if you want that can be with out anything training 2,5% and with basic firearm 22,5% how ever you want. -User:Mosqu 12:11, 23 April 2006 (GMT +3)

Dead Free Running (aka Zombie Pile)

Timestamp: 20:09, 23 April 2006 (EST)
Type: Alternate Breach Method / Dead Free Running?
Scope: Zombie
Description: Right now Survivors have an incentive to keep the surrounding buildings around a heavily fortified building (IE, headquarters) at a low barricade level. This allows the ability to enter this building and use Free Running to get to the HQ.
I submit that a crowd of zombies could pile up, forming a sort of Zombie Pile that would allow zombies that have successfully entered a surrounding building to Dead Run (an extra Zombie skill?) and enter the HQ above the barricades by entering an open surrounding building and walking across the pile. This not only adds a level of zombie crowd attack strategy, but adds a skill to the Zombie side that doesn't directly involve damage boosting. It also makes the Survivors inside a fortified HQ be more aware of their nearby building radius, and encourages that surrounding buildings be barricaded up at least partially. Zombies are given a further incentive to knock down minimal barricades around obvious HQ buildings. This provides an interesting counter-balance to existing free-running tactics, yet would be relatively rare in practice since it requires large(r) crowds of zombies, at least some with Dead Run, to work.
I welcome suggestions as to how a Zombie Pile might form (Minimum # of zombies on a HQ/Surrounding, Minimum # of zombies on the HQ AND Surrounding, Minimum # of Zombies with Dead Run, etc). Survivors inside the HQ could be warned if a Zombie Pile has been created outside.


Overpowered. Not having to smash barricades makes it too easy for hordes to get in! Also, barricades aren't really walls, per se, but more like things blocking the doorway to prevent zombies from opening it up and getting in! I suppose it might make sense for something like junkyards, but it doesn't really work for actual buildings (and I'm not sure how many sleep in junkyards, anyways). --Volke 16:14, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Think of how this would work in Caiger after you Multiply it by a Billion. Zombies could instantly break in and there is nothing Humans can do to stop them. then the exact same thing happens at every other mall and then 'cades become pointless as people create accounts just to add to piles. Soon we find ourselves uo to our elbows in zombie piles with no place that is even worth Baracadeing because zombies can get in any building useing the piles of Zerglings everywhere --Teksura 03:58, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Check it out!

  • Brand spanking new development on my talk page. The eternal critic finally puts something up for review. Feel free to stop by and make me cry by telling me how much it sucks or pump my ego and tell me how brilliant I am. Or just split the difference and give me some honest constructive criticism. I crave your input/attention! Not much there yet, but keep watching for more to come. That is all...--Xavier06 11:05, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.

Proper Placement of Humorous Suggestions

I can’t help but notice that, as of late, we're not treating humorous suggestions with the respect and care that they deserve. We have a Humorous Suggestions archive for a reason, yes? So, just out of curiosity, why are all the “Humorous Suggestions�? being Spaminated and deleted? This isn’t so much a discussion of policy as it is of implementation. Personally, my thoughts are this: we have a system for archiving funny suggestions. We wrote out a procedure for putting these gems of comedy where they belong, and all of a sudden we just stopped using it. I propose to you that suggestions that are humorous—-and are CLEARLY identifiable as such, whether or not you think kung-fu zombies are funny—-should be Funninated, rather than Spaminated, moved to the appropriate page, and linked, whereupon they can be admired and enjoyed by future generations to come. We already have a policy on this shit, so let's see some adherence to it, eh? --Undeadinator 22:35, 16 April 2006 (BST)

I thought we had a place specifically for humorous suggestions? You know Humorous Suggestions. Or am I totally not following what you're saying? --Mia K (sotss) 23:14, 16 April 2006 (BST)
Correctomundo. However, Humorous Suggestions may--by the Suggestion pages own rules--be placed on the regular Suggestion page itself, originally, and then moved. I'm bitching because we're not following the rules here: funny suggestions found on the regular page are simply being Spaminated and deleted, not moved and linked like they should be. This is already a part of policy, I'm just pointing out that's it policy we're ignoring. --Undeadinator 23:42, 16 April 2006 (BST)
You are certainly welcome to move any suggestions that you find funny to the Humorous Suggestions page. --RedKnight 02:45, 17 April 2006 (BST)
Not the point. I can't exactly shift a suggestion to the Humorous page if somebody's already deleted it, now can I? --Undeadinator
Yes you can, that's what the page history is for. --RedKnight 03:45, 17 April 2006 (BST)
The pain in my ass should be compounded because it's easier for somebody else to just ignore the rules? --Undeadinator 20:23, 17 April 2006 (BST)
See, the thing is that you're accusing people of ignoring rules, but offer no proof. Who said the spaminated suggestion was humorous? Was there general agreement that it was humorous? I know I didn't. So yes, it might be a pain in the butt, but you're going to either have to use the history page, or watch something you think is humorous to see if it is going to get spammed, and move it before it gets deleted. --Pinpoint 22:58, 17 April 2006 (BST)
Have you read half the shit on the Humorous Suggestions page? Anyways, aside my point. It is not the responsibility of the public to determine whether or not a given suggestion was written with humorous intent--that's the author's responsibility. If you want to post a vote saying "Undead John Holmes isn't a funny suggestion", that's just your opinion. But when suggestions are clearly intended as comedic--such as the above example--then you do not get to arbitrarily delete it because you don't think zmobie porn is "funny". I'm not talking about a specific Humorous suggestion here, I'm talking about an over-arching policy. And again: asking me to be a 24/7 Suggestions page watchdog because nobody else wants to follow the rules is irrational and unfair. If I happen to find something with plainly humorous intent in the history, I'll move it and link...but I can't spend all day and all night camped out in front of my computer because some asshole from the internet can't take a joke. --Undeadinator 02:06, 18 April 2006 (BST)
My point is that I didn't find it humorous, so there's no way in hell I was going to move it. Same with anybody else. If you want it moved, you move it. --Pinpoint 06:13, 22 April 2006 (BST)
My point is that henceforth, any submissions of yours to the Wiki I arbitrarily decide to be offensive will be deleted with no explanation. You have a responsibility to the author of the suggestion and to the Wiki community to act with a modicum of responsibility. Deleting suggestions (or pages, or whatever) because "I don't like it" is bullshit, and furthermore vandalism. --Undeadinator 00:28, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Amen. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 03:26, 25 April 2006 (BST)
Well, considering I didn't delete it... Besides, nothing says you have to wait until after it gets spaminated to copy the suggestion somewhere. Then it's just a simple paste job into humorous. If it's obvious that something is going to get spammed off the board, make it easy on yourself and copy it before it gets deleted. Lot's of people didn't like this suggestion, and since this is a page where people's opinions are the most important thing, lot's of suggestions get deleted because people "didn't like it". If someone else had thought it was humorous, maybe it would have ended up on the humorous page. --Pinpoint 21:22, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Well, now that we are openning this up, i think i could use this to discuss my BIG edit on the humorous suggestion page. You see, i made a template and a rating system for that page, that is currently not working that fine... it sux... hard!. I would like to ask opinions from everyone else here about a way to improve that thing, or just revert to the previous state before any template was added to that page. OR, we could simply ignore some variables of the template until Kevan decide to upgrade the mediawiki engine (When and IF he does that). I could work the template out to just show the description of the humorous suggestion and hide all other info. --hagnat tw 02:53, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Really the templete seems overly complex with the current usage. With the humorous page you really only need 3 categories: Humorous, Satire, and Stupid. Humor for the suggestions made to be funny (and actually are), satire for the satirical, and stupid for the things like 'Pandas with lasers', wherein the description is generally about as long as the title. As it stands you have a great deal of types: Zombie skill, satire, Item, stereotype, etc. I suspect you may have based that off the peer reviewed page. The problem is that the page doesn't need to be that organised currently and I fear the day when it actually needs that sort of organization. Anyway, I'd also keep the miscellaneous section as it is now, since it's rather unsorted. The Suggestion's discussion page is also good place for advice of this nature, due to a greater amount of experience with templates. Velkrin 09:23, 17 April 2006 (BST)
To stress the urgency of this issue, I think I should direct people here [2], since Talk:Suggestions seems to be the best place for what's going on on Talk:Ron Burgundy (if it's not, let me know). It seems that the suggestion page people are so frustrated with the rules that they've just abandoned them! I know I sorta started this with my nonsense, and I'm not trying to be self-righteous by continuing it. The thing is, the rules that are in place and the frustration on the suggestion page seem to contradict each other, and that should be fixed if we want a happier wiki. Why not just suggest people vote "spam" when something isn't worth a damn and "humorous" when it is? Or maybe insist that a few lines of text are completely inconsequential and should be treated as such? Get a grip on yourselves, suggestion page people! The world is very large. --Ron Burgundy 19:56, 17 April 2006 (BST)
I'm personally still sticking with my philosophy of people following the Wiki rules we already have. --Undeadinator 20:25, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Oh yeah, before I forget:

*'''Humorous''' - If the removed Suggestion is eligible for Spamination,  but is deemed humourous, you '''must''':
*#List the number of '''Spam''' Votes received.
*#State that the ''Suggestion has been deemed humorous''.
*#'''Move''' the Suggestion to the Humorous Suggestions page.
*#'''Link''' to the Suggestion on the Humorous Suggestions page.
*#'''Sign the removal.'''
*#''Be Polite and make no additional comments.''

From the Suggestions page. --Undeadinator 20:26, 17 April 2006 (BST)

*Sigh* Right, might as well get this over with. First off, is there the exact text for the rule change you're going to suggest, because I can't seem to find it. Second was it really necessary to bring this inanity over here? (That one is rhetorical) Third, if you have a point, make it, otherwise be off. Velkrin 22:58, 17 April 2006 (BST)
You know, I can't tell you how long I've waited to say this: do you actually read the shit you respond to? I'm not recommending a change of policy: I'm pointing out that a policy IS ALREADY IN PLACE to move (not delete) Humorous Suggestions, and that we are quite obviously ignoring it. Are you done being an insipid ass, or should I re-type this in ebonics and send out Aushvitz for a read-a-long? And that was rhetorical, you pretentious schmuck. --Undeadinator 02:06, 18 April 2006 (BST)
We all knew that was coming, just too hard to resist with a setup like that. Now on to my actual reply. So why exactly did you wait anyway? You could have just asked on my talk page. Onto the next bit, le quote: Policy Discussion: This area is for formal policy discussion concerning policy votings to be opened on the subject of the suggestion page, as per the rules for changing the rules. Further Discussion: This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories. In other words wrong section if you're not suggesting a change. Judging from your reaction I'd say I wasn't insipid at all, and I manged this entire post without insults. Wow, tact, what a concept. Velkrin 03:28, 18 April 2006 (BST)
The conversation was moved here from here. --Ron Burgundy 03:36, 18 April 2006 (BST)
The key is that the rule says, "Move the suggestion to the Humorous Suggestions page." That is, there's a procedure in place to move humorous suggestions after everyone has either had their laugh or pouted in the corner. Furthermore, humorous suggestions are to be moved to the Humorous Suggestions page; they do not originate there. The fact that this rule was quoted from the Suggestions page proves that humorous suggestions were originally intended to be written and submitted next to serious ones. The policy that is being enforced now is not part of the rules, as voted or written. That is to say, it is the preference of those agitated enough to speak, be they minority or majority, which makes the Suggestions page so humorless and flammable, not the rules. It is illegal and, I think, misguided. That, Velkrin, is the point.  :) --Ron Burgundy 03:36, 18 April 2006 (BST)
High-five. --Undeadinator 03:44, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Oh, you want to quote the rules? #13 Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and treated appropriately by moderators. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page. Which technically went into effect April 2nd. You have a problem with people not moving the 'humor' suggestions, take it up with a mod, not the suggestion's page. Finally, I'm moving this to the correct section, before the irony of it not being properly placed kills someone. Velkrin 04:14, 18 April 2006 (BST)
The rules are contradictory. This goes to my argument. --Ron Burgundy 04:57, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Oh shit, Velkrin, you couldn't possibly be talking about that suggestion which you yourself claimed to be a failure? Now, I don't mean to be snide or anything, as you and me are BEST INTARNET BUDDIES, but doesn't this kind of seem like you just lost the argument to yourself? Ouch. That's gotta hurt. But hey: at least you can still fall back on a career in mathematics, right? Hoo boy. I kill myself sometimes.
Really though. As you are correct, and as that vote failed to achieve enough of a majority to pass into the rules...I hereby move that "Rule" #13 be stricken from the Wiki, and the previous rule pertaining to Humorous Suggestions be followed, with any violations thereof henceforth considered vandalism and cause for a moderator warning. High five, Ron. --Undeadinator 05:04, 18 April 2006 (BST)
And if you had bothered to read a little more, you would have noticed I miscounted, as Grim pointed out. The vote did achieve a majority. Oh the irony is free flowing today. Velkrin 05:14, 18 April 2006 (BST)
2006 was a fine year for irony. I can already smell this becoming one of those long, drawn-out Wiki wars. I would bring the jury's attention to two things. First, my change of vote occurs in-text, within a re; this, I believe, renders it invalid. The main Suggestion page makes it quite clear what the valid format for submitting a vote is, and I equally clearly did not follow it. Not only did I fail to cross out my original vote and replace it immediately thereafter with a Keep--as per Wiki rules and custom--I also made my change of vote conditional upon certain representations of the "rule". Specifically, I put forth the pre-requisite that "(I will change) my vote to a long as (the 'rule') remains more a moral condemnation of joke suggestions than an outright measure to prevent them." This condition has quite clearly failed to be met, as this very debate would show, invalidating my vote on no less than two levels. --Undeadinator 05:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Edit - Oh, right, the point. As my vote stands as a Kill, Velkrin's original calculations of 65% Keep--or 1 and a half percent lower than is necessary for the 2/3 majority--remains valid, rendering the vote a failure and bringing us back to my earlier post which pointed out "rule" #13's disqualification. --Undeadinator 05:38, 18 April 2006 (BST)
So those seem to be the rules. Very well, why not universalize them and remove the old template for humorous suggestions that started this confusion? Also, with such a slim success, how about we vote to change the rules back? What's the procedure for that sort of thing?  :) --Ron Burgundy 05:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Oops, looks like the Undeadinator's hanging chad vote was misread! Maybe we should throw the vote and try again! --Ron Burgundy 05:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Antonin Scalia can't help you now, Velkrin. --Undeadinator 20:53, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Since i was the one who spaminated both your suggestions ron, allow me to say that none of them were deemed 'humorous' by no one else but you. I deemed them 'retarded' and moved on. --hagnat tw 04:35, 18 April 2006 (BST)
The nature of my suggestions is beside the point; it's a matter of taste. I'm talking about a contradiction in the rules that are written and the policies that are enforced. --Ron Burgundy 04:57, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Hagnat, you always prove my points. Have an AMP'D, champ--you've earned it! Undeadinator 05:04, 18 April 2006 (BST)
By the by, this isn't some petty "I'm pissed because my three sentences worth of suggestion was deleted" thing. I honestly think that hatred comes from misunderstanding and that fixing the problems in the rules, pointed out above, would remove a big source of misunderstanding. Hence the happy emoticons. Oh, but don't confuse me for a Utilitarian! I ain't one of those. --Ron Burgundy 05:10, 18 April 2006 (BST)

So, I was just surfing through here, when I noticed that rule 13 is struck through! What's up? Is there somewhere I can read more about it, parties I can influence, or is it the result of this thing here? --Ron Burgundy 21:57, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Quite weird that it was struck through. The vote and mods decision can be found on Talk:Suggestions/archive8#Voting_For_Rule_Banning_.22Humorous.22_and_Satirical_Suggestions. --Brizth W! M T 10:24, 23 April 2006 (BST)
Velkrin and Undeadinator are looking for a response from The General on whether or not the vote actually passed due to the fact that Undeadinator originally voted against, but voted 'for' afterwards without a strikeout (which means that his original vote stays as 'against'). -Wyndallin 10:31, 23 April 2006 (BST)
Heh, actually he already made his decision, today, on the page I linked. I didn't look at the timestamp, I though he posted at the same time as others. But in the end, the vote passed (14 out of 20). --Brizth W! M T 10:39, 23 April 2006 (BST)
My bad. Well, that's unfortunate. -Wyndallin 10:40, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  • I should point out before anyone starts to whine, The General did not vote on the rule change, and thus was a neutral party. I could have easily gone through Grim. On another note: Vindication! Velkrin 22:19, 23 April 2006 (BST)
    • A hollow political victory != Vindication. I'm still contesting the above vote; if the General still rules against me, I'm opening up another vote on the issue. --Undeadinator 00:32, 24 April 2006 (BST)
      • A single user cannot "contest" a vote. You show your disapproval by voting kill. Also, you cannot open up a second vote on the same rule just because you don't like the result of the first one. My desicion stands, any attempts to strikeout the rule in question will be considered vandalism.--The General W! Mod 20:47, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  • Well technically he can open a rule to change the rule, it would just be shot down. Velkrin 22:35, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  • I can contest the validity of an individual vote, per Suggestion page custom. That aside, tomorrow I intend to start a vote to the effect of reversing the rule change to the placement of humorous suggestions. Thank you. --Undeadinator 04:47, 25 April 2006 (BST)
I know i am entering this discussion late, but i must agree with Undeadinator and Ron. People who want to post humorous suggestions shouldn't have to put them on the humorous page, lest it soon be filled up with things that one person thinks is funny and force whoever mods it (not really sure) to do a lot more work. I have fond feelings for the humorous suggestions page, as it was the first part of the suggestions page i read and is what keeps me coming here (even if i rarely post) and i would hate that someone could be turned off of a page by stuff that could have been avoided if the entire community, not just whatever fraction frequently checks the humorous page, would have followed the rules. --HamsterNinja
Actually the Humorus Suggestion's page is undergoing a revamp. One of the more recent changes is a tally for the humor suggestions, and if any suggestion reaches -10, it's removed. This is to prevent the 'panda sharks, et all.' stupidity from cluttering. Most of the work is being done by Hagnat and I'm throwing in advice and little things. - Velkrin 08:48, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Invalid Kill Reason

I suggest that another invalid reason for voting 'Kill' should be 'but it will harm metagaming', for the simple reason that the people who are going to seek out community do, and those who do not... don't. If someone wants to metagame, that's great, but characters in-game aren't psychic and the game should be fairly self-contained. If metagaming is everything, Jon Pyre's question is valid: 'Why have a game at all?' Discuss. -Wyndallin 07:58, 20 April 2006 (BST)

  • I agree, but i think it needs to be worded better. moving stuff over into the game will make the feature fairer and allow limits to be added, because if you can get the feature in the game less people will be botherd enough to go to the meta game--xbehave 10:34, 20 April 2006 (BST)
    • I agree as well. How about "Metagaming is not a very good reason to kill. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Players should not be forced to rely on 3rd party products to get the best out the game." Thats the best way I can think about wording it - Jedaz 15:43, 21 April 2006 (BST)
      • Like it. -Wyndallin 01:51, 22 April 2006 (BST)
      • I like the wording and idea on that. --Brizth W! M T 10:43, 23 April 2006 (BST)
        • The only thing I'm concerned about is the stunning lack of commentary from a varied number of users here - if it receives this sort of turnout in the policy vote, it will fail. -Wyndallin 10:48, 23 April 2006 (BST)
          • Most suggestions that get this as a kill reason are ideas that attempt to suggest some kind of in game protection or sanctioning to a metagame feature such as revive points or PK retaliation lists or something. I think this rule is not needed.--Mookiemookie 04:30, 24 April 2006 (BST)
            • Look at the last vote here, your own vote here, vote #4 here, and vote #16 here. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 03:43, 25 April 2006 (BST)
              • In response to Wyndallin, if we post a notice on the front page, or even the top of the suggestions page then there will be more people who view it. So I doubt it will fail because of a lack of turnout. And to what Mookiemookie said, even with this rule you can still vote against them without basing the vote off metagaming. However I don't think there is realy a nicer way to reword it, I'll have a think about it and see what I can come up with but I'm not making any promises - Jedaz 14:55, 25 April 2006 (BST)
                • I completely agree with your wording and I see no reason to change it. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 15:08, 25 April 2006 (BST)
                  • This is true, you can come up with many other reasonings behind your votes. I just am of the opinion that the fewer the rules on valid votes, the better. It almost seems like people are being bullied into voting a certain way by taking away their options on what constitutes a "valid" vote. --Mookiemookie 18:31, 25 April 2006 (BST)
                    • God, it seems like wikis are anarchists' dreams. Odd Starter is opposed to having moderator-originating punishments for harassment, you're opposed to the game, essentially, and a large, extremely vocal minority is against law and order. What the hell, that's all I have to say. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 19:08, 25 April 2006 (BST) I don't see how making something that isn't in-game stop affecting suggestions for in-game skills, items, et cetera, could possibly be anything less than common sense. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 19:35, 25 April 2006 (BST)
                      • And I don't see how you're getting all bent out of shape over someone's opinion. Sorry I made it known. I will refrain from any further comment.--Mookiemookie 21:08, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Invalid Kill Reason #2

Furthermore, I suggest that 'there's already a FireFox extension that does this' become an invalid 'Kill' vote reason. Not everyone has FireFox; not everyone wants to use FireFox. Using FireFox might give people an advantage, in-game, but saying that something shouldn't be implemented into the game because it can be done through FireFox is senseless. That's like saying that 'well, advanced features of the Wiki can be used through Opera, so I'm voting 'no' on this policy suggestion'. Rubbish. Discuss. -Wyndallin 07:58, 20 April 2006 (BST)

  • Im not so sure about this, there are features that get suggested that would be quite hard to implement and take alot of time for cosmetic effects. These suggestions dont actually affect the gameplay at all, and so your asking kevan to do substantial coding, because you cant be arsed to download firefox.--xbehave 10:29, 20 April 2006 (BST)
    • If UrbanDead was non-browser-based, I could see downloading a program to access it. Downloading a new browser, just so I can get the best features on one specific website, is ... stupid. I don't care for FireFox, and I'm sure there are others out there like me. I'm not asking Kevan to do anything. I'm saying that 'well, FireFox already does this' is invalid for two main reasons. One, simply because you use FireFox doesn't mean that it's your place to be condescending and tell me 'tough beans'. And two, not every suggestion that passes will be chosen by Kevan to implement. As such, if he doesn't want to do the extra coding, he won't; but if he does, he will. -Wyndallin 10:41, 20 April 2006 (BST)
    • But there will be many suggestions that screw up the extensions used by those Firefox-using members. Careful here, Wyndallin. Don't want to say something that you just condemned (saying "tough"). --Cyberbob240CDFArb 10:44, 20 April 2006 (BST)
      • Wouldn't dream of it. If the coding is implemented, the FireFox plugins can be simply turned off, if I'm correct. There's no 'tough beans' to that. If it's so wonderful and great, why can't it be built into the server instead of the browser of a fraction of the players? -Wyndallin 10:46, 20 April 2006 (BST)
      • OK, that sounds reasonable. However, the suggestions would HAVE to be of equal or higher quality to the extensions. Also, the suggestions would have to be checked carefully. Some scripts may disable unrelated Firefox extensions. --Cyberbob240CDFArb 10:48, 20 April 2006 (BST)
      • Some website force users to use IE to view them at all (not the web developers choice but a cunning microsoft trick), and nobody is being forced to download firefox, you can get it on CD :P, to play the game, the game plays fine without firefox, only if you it to look a certain way would you need firefox, its YOUR choise to want it to look different that it does, YOU should be the one that has to put the effort in to get it to look different. OFC if 2/3 of the community want it to look different then kevan would have a reason to make it look different but people with firefox extentions, and probably those without too think it looks jsut fine as it is. Also the load time is considerable increased by the extentions, because it addes a whole layer of prossesing everytime you click an action and so i wouldnt want to force lower bandwidth players to be screwed by moving an optional feature to a compulsary one. Kevan can decide is already an invalid vote, so in summary a firefox can already do this vote is really, a firefox lets you choose this and choice is good, vote--xbehave 11:04, 20 April 2006 (BST)
        • There was some coherency there for the first half of that comment, but it sorta trailed off. My rebuttal on what I could understand: I was rude, sorry. Don't know for certain that English is your first language. I apologize. 'Other websites are worse, but in another way!' Um. Big f---ing deal? Moving on... Next point: Yes, I want it to look different. I'd like things to be, at the very least, alphabetized or sorted by 'type'. If Kevan nipped something like that in the bud now, when he finally gets around to implementing more items, it'll be that much easier. I'm fine with it as it is, it's just slightly annoying. Next point: If the sorting is done server-side, how does that change bandwidth usage at all? Next point: I'm making the 'but FireFox does it already' Kill just as invalid as 'It's Kevan's choice', because they're both invalid. If Kevan doesn't want to change it, he won't. If I don't want to use FireFox, I won't. My decision to not use FireFox in no way impacts what he is going to do with the server, unless he actually decides to take one of the suggestions for actually coding a FireFox improvement into the server, in which case it's completely his choice. I fail to see how someone could be *against* my point. Your point is based on calling non-FireFox-using players 'lazy asses', essentially, and complaining 'on Kevan's behalf' that it would make more work for him. I'm simply suggesting that 'don't give Kevan more work' is invalid as that's the whole point of the Suggestions page. -Wyndallin 11:13, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  • Agreed. I get to use Firefox at home as do a number of the Posse' but those that are stuck using the Harding suplied computers, or the Labs (Mac or PCs) Cant use Firefox even if they want to. Its one thing to say "This Game is Optimised for Firefox" its another thing entirely to say "Don't bother if you don't have Firefox." Conndraka 13:35, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  • I agree with this. I don't use firefox because it has thus far been proven to be inferior to IE without all of the downloadable extras, and neither it nor IE can hold a candle to Opera. I dislike the tabs feature, and when I tested the speed of the two (clicked the same link on the same page, first one with Firefox, then with IE with as little time in-between as I could make), and despite the headstart it had, Firefox usually lost the race. I don't want the best stuff in this game to require me to have to download a browser I don't really want, and I'm sure that many will agree with me! --Volke 18:38, 21 April 2006 (BST)

The more we can do "in-game" without having to metagame or use extensions or whatever, the better. We've seen a lot of player drop of lately, so adding in "just get Firefox" or whatever just to keep up with longer term players means people aren't going to want to play as much. I'm not that impressed with Firefox myself and one shouldn't HAVE to use it. And, as for being "equal or higher quality" to the extensions, you KNOW that the people that make those extensions will improve upon them anyway.--Pesatyel 22:13, 20 April 2006 (BST)

I agree. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to put that up to a vote. What do you think about this:
"If a suggestion replicates the effects of an existing extension for Firefox, or any other supplementary program, you may not vote Kill or Spam for that reason alone. Voting is based on the value the suggestion would add, and as many players cannot or will not switch browsers just for conveniences in Urban Dead value would still be added to the game on their behalf." --Jon Pyre 23:38, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I'd suggest a change of may not to should not. Sounds less overbearing and people are going to vote with metagaming as an excuse anyway. Velkrin 08:34, 28 April 2006 (BST) Edit: Whoops, wrong word. Was up too late. Fixed it. 02:18, 29 April 2006 (BST)
I'm with velkrin--Vista W! 23:45, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Making a specific suggestion guidelines page per type

I guess we've all seen the hunting rifle suggestion, and older voters have seen countless other new weapons being suggested, often lacking sensitive information or where a simple detail (such as stacking the % chance to find on top of existing ones)

So I was thinking of making a weapon suggestion guidelines, or at least a checklist, so that people making these suggestions would not do something horribly overpowered, or just forget an important detail (as weapons are generaly much more complicated than they seem, especially those with ammo)

I was wondering, before I start a new page, if anyone thinks it's a bad idea, or if anyone can think of other types of suggestions that could use the same treatment (anything with a lot of required details, where the details are always the same). --McArrowni 15:52, 23 April 2006 (BST)

  • I'm a little confused, but that could be because I'm tired. If you're going to do that sort of thing, you should do it for *everything*. Survivor skills, zombie skills, weapons, new items. Those four in particular. You should link each category to at least three successfully peer-reviewed suggestions to make sure that they know what they should try to attain. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 18:58, 23 April 2006 (BST)

I'm not quite sure I'd know what to put for skills that isn't put somewhere else already. Not that it matters, once I start the page, if anyone wants to do that one, they'd be free to do it. If it's still unclear, it would basically be a list of everything a certain type of suggestion usualy needs to be complete. For example, for an item, where found and % chance to find per place. And some comments at the end could give common considerations when thinking about these factors. For example, in search % for ammo, it would be wise to mention that just adding the new weapon in the same area used to search for older gun's ammo will result in a net increase of survivor ammo find rate, only in a language that can actually be understood (as in not something I typed when I was tired). It woudn't be an official guideline, just an memory help for those trying to make those kinds of suggestions. --McArrowni 04:04, 24 April 2006 (BST)

  • /support -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 04:05, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  • An intriguing idea, I can see only two problems with it. One, that it will take a bit to produce, which is really a minor problem that gets taken care by group input. Two, the newbies will ignore it. Not much we can do about that other then yell at them. Sounds good. Velkrin 05:29, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I started work on it. Right now i started work on the weapons part. Anyone is free to add other sections if they think there are enough details in there to be remembered I mean enough details that needs to be remembered. --McArrowni 20:14, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Thinking about it, it may be better as an add-on to the suggestion do's and don't. More people would see it, and it's basically a suggestion "do". --McArrowni 15:21, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Bad cycle

suggestions on the 17th of april (closing today) were cycled along with the suggestions for the 16th of april, i have moved them back to the correct day so that they can be voted on. i just though id make you aware of this as there are few votes on the 2 suggestions Revival Candidate Selection Beatdown have very vew votes.

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal policy discussion concerning policy votings to be opened on the subject of the suggestion page, as per the rules for changing the rules

*OLD* Suggestion System

This is more a check than a suggestion, atm is this whats happening

  • Previous suggestions are closed (locks)
  • Tallies are added to the previous day suggestions
  • Suggestions with more thatn 2/3 keep are added to peer_reviewed
  • Once added suggestions are marked as added so that theyre not added twice (well ive started doing this and i think its a good idea, sorry if its not suposed to be done)
  • suggestions with more than 1/2 keep are added to undecided (erm is this even happening)
  • suggestions with less than 1/2 keep are moved to peer rejected (im sure this isnt happening)

atm im on holidays but im working though from the 1st of january, however what i think is more important is that we start doing the process on or near the day that suggestions closed.--xbehave 19:33, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Invalid votes?

why do we have a guidline saying votes must be explained, if its constantly ignored

  • Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote.

yet today i saw the following votes in the same suggestion.

  1. Kill - --Legom7 01:46, 25 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Um....yes --Frosty 15:49, 25 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - No - Shenron 01:53, 25 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Nope --Steel Hammer 03:16, 25 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - User 03:50, 25 April 2006 (BST)

i personally think that giving opinions in your votes is important even if all you say is 'what some1 cool said' or 'what grim said', although sometimes the resons are so obvious its not needed! does the rule need enforcing, removing, just changing to

  • You SHOULD justify your vote.

--xbehave 17:33, 25 April 2006 (BST)

I agree that giving a reason for a kill, spam, or dupe vote is important. Most of the users of this wiki do provide a reason. The rule is generally followed, and as such I think it works pretty well. Most of the votes lacking a justification are appropriate within the context of the suggestion. I don't see a need to change the rule, which most people would just ignore anyway. Strict enforcement of the rule would be annoying and subject to abuse. --CPQD 21:15, 25 April 2006 (BST)
It should remain the way it is, and in addition, I suggest that users be able to strike out any votes that do not include reasons, regardless of whether or not the striking users have mod status. After all, that would go right along with the moderators' desire to push the responsibility for stuff back onto us. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 21:19, 25 April 2006 (BST)
I agree. Mods are only supposed to have special tasks that require their extra powers. Anyone can write strike tags --Sindai 21:26, 25 April 2006 (BST)
Whilst in this case I woudn't oppose it, I generaly dislike anything that allows a user to strikeout someone else's vote (unless those votes are doubles). Slippery slope towards censure and all that. This looks decent though, as long as it's kept to unexplained votes (I still think you shoudn't have to explain votes, but since the community has accepted that you need to, might as well be consistent)--McArrowni 23:30, 25 April 2006 (BST)
The rules also say that you shouldn't Re if you're not the author, but we do it anyway to remind people of the rules (ironically). There is a diffrence between what the rules say, and what the community accepts. With some things, it's rather asinine to require that they should explain themselves. Example: 'I voted dupe because the link provided above by another user is close enough that I think it's a dupe.' Velkrin 03:10, 26 April 2006 (BST)
If you think it's a dupe, and a previous voter already posted the link, 'See Vote #xx' would be sufficient. So long as there is something. -Wyndal (talk)-(W!)-(SGP) 15:15, 26 April 2006 (BST)
Although I do see the issue that people are bringing up these people are saying that they don't like the idea, which is justifying their vote. However I do reckon votes such as "Kill - SOmeGuy 04:42, 30 Setember 1987 (BST)" that isn't realy justifying it to any strech of the imagination. - Jedaz 15:10, 26 April 2006 (BST)

May I point out that the community never actually accepted this rule anyway, it was added by Librarian Brent as a stopgap measure while the Spam vote rule change was being voted on. It was designed to stop people voting Keep just to annoy everyone else, by forcing them to give a proper reason. Now that a single Keep vote cannot save a suggestion from spamination, trolling with keep votes is less important I also think that allowing users to strike out each others vote would lead to abuse, whereby one person strikes out the votes of the people they don't like but not of people they do like, or when an author strikes out Kill votes that aren't justified but don't strike out Keep votes.--The General W! Mod 19:26, 26 April 2006 (BST)

It's not like people can't just un-strike incorrectly struck votes. Yes, this can turn into an edit war, but so can anything else anywhere on the wiki. That's why we do have mods. --Sindai 23:02, 26 April 2006 (BST)
If mods were paid I'd agree with that statement, however they're doing it on their free time and so they shouldn't have to deal with the weekly idiots fighting on the suggestions page. Speaking from experience having to deal with two idiots fighting over and over on the internet is not fun. Velkrin 01:12, 27 April 2006 (BST)
I don't think changing the rules to let everyone strike things out is going to cause extra conflict provided that what should be struck out is defined clearly in the rules. --Sindai 01:21, 27 April 2006 (BST)
trust me it will lead to enourmous edit-war fuelled dramas, you'll get people who'll strike out the 20th kill for "yeah, what the others said" authors who'll cross out spam claiming you didn't get it. And clearly defined rules on the content of votes? Do you have any idea how hard that is? We've had millions of people trying to define what's art in the world for centauries , and so far we haven't got a clear definition. I doubt that we can come up with a system with no room for intrepration that works for both the first kill and the 20th spam vote. Look, sindai don't forget not everybody is as mature as we'd like. It only takes one overzealious user to create drama that'll includes forty.--Vista W! 23:37, 29 April 2006 (BST)
Having this rule is pretty pointless if "I don't like this suggestion" is a valid vote reason. And it is. The difference between "Nope" and "I don't like this" is marginal. --Jon Pyre 23:29, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page.

Personal tools