Talk:Suggestions/archive13

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Handgreen.png Archive Page
This page is an archive page of Talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the Suggestions page do so at Talk:Suggestions.

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

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

AP Gain Change

Moved from SuggestionsBob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:09, 19 June 2006 (BST)

In response to

  1. Kill - IP hit limit would render this spectacularly pointless. Sorry, Mia. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:07, 19 June 2006 (BST) Edit: The thing is, the IP limit's there for a reason. You might be able to play twice as often with this, but it'd be twice as slowly. Besides, I really don't see the need for UD's pace to be accelerated dramatically. Yes, NW's AP system works well - for NW. Let UD be UD. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:29, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re: "Let UD be UD?" Excuse me, but aren't we discussing this on a nest of pages meant specifically to make changes to UD? -- Mia Kristos 06:34, 19 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re: This suggetion would fundamentally alter the slow-paced character of the game. Are you honestly trying to tell me you didn't know what I meant? --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:45, 19 June 2006 (BST)
        • Re: Nah, I just found the statement horridly ironic. -- Mia Kristos 06:48, 19 June 2006 (BST)
          • Re: I find that peculiar, given that what I said was that you should leave the character of the game intact, not that UD is 100% perfect as is and must preserved in it's current format for all posterity. I don't know if you know this, but killing something for not being in keeping with the desired "feel" of the game is a common and well-accepted practice. Whatever, though. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:54, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re: Only if you play several alternate characters. I never had a problem with the IP limit when I only played two characers. -- Mia Kristos 06:10, 19 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re: That's because then you only used slightly over 100 IP hits a day (the limit is 160). With this, you'd be burning a minimum of slightly over 200. You're right that this would affect players with fewer characters less (I play four, myself), but unless you want to restrict people to playing a single character the IP limit would still hit this. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:15, 19 June 2006 (BST)

New Zombie Hunter Skill: Horde Recognition

Moved from SuggestionsBob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:03, 19 June 2006 (BST)

In response to

  1. Kill - Nice idea, but as a former horde coordinator I can tell you that the element of surprise is essential. Even if humans can't predict exactly which building the horde is going to hit, if they see that the RRF/CotR/MotA/whathaveyou have moved into their suburb in a big way, they're going to be on the alert. --Ember MBR 14:46, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re But as a person playing a survivor now I can tell you that it doesn't change the way you defend a suburb. Sure, you might be more alert if the horde was directly outside your building, but if there are 20 non-grouped zombies there you'd check in all the time anyway. If you told me there was a group of 30 zombies from X group standing 8 spaces away that information wouldn't change how I play at all, except I might doubt survivor ability to hold the suburb. --Jon Pyre 15:16, 19 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Technically those 20 zombies could be survivor players waiting for revives. If you see they're mostly RRF, though, you know that's not the case. Your suggestion works for the largest hordes -- they get additional notoriety and it's not going to throw them much -- but for medium to small hordes you're giving an advantage to the humans. If you add in some kind of group size threshold (only works for groups of 100 or more members, that sort of thing), I'll keep. --Ember MBR 15:33, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - If secrecy and stealth are your bag, you'll be using certain tricks that would render this pointless anyway. To be honest, I'm neutral on this suggestion. - Nervie 15:57, 19 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Such as leaving the group field empty perhaps? That breaks feeding groan for coherent hordes, and would be an awful sacrifice to have to make. --Ember MBR 16:34, 19 June 2006 (BST)
        • Re - If operational security is that important, you'll already be so coordinated that feeding groan is only needed to attract ferals. Besides, you can only sneak attack a target once, you know. - Nervie 19:59, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Non-combat Experience Reajustment

Moved from the suggestions page

  1. Kill - For pete's sake. First of all, this utterly kills several classes. Second of all, zombies are much better at killing people and getting XP from it than humans are, even without recent events (which I'll get to in a minute). Third of all, the point of EXP is to reward you for doing what you're supposed to do by making you better at it. Fourth of all and finally, you really want to nerf survivors more after the ransack upgrade? It's gonna be hella hard staying alive as it is. You tell all those newbies that all their healing skills and so one are funcitonally useless, and then dump them in a world where they're dying every day, you think they'll stick around long?--'STER-Talk-ModP! 03:59, 18 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - First, i didn't say anything about healing, neither did the original author in his version: healing is a main point on survivor cooperation and must stay as it is. Second, zombies newbies and survivors newbies WILL die, a lot: you want to make them invincible? go on. Third, anything that gets on Peer Reviewed is a resource for Kevan to look trough and implement as he wishes WHEN HE WANTS TO: maybe now it isn't the best moment to do so, maybe not , maybe he will implement it later when the balance leaves some space for changes (and i don't know why survivors are making so much fuss about the last upgrade, it's just a day and you already feel defeated?). BTW in the last point i did NOT say that is up to Kevan if he likes the skill: i completely hate that kind of argument. Fourth, zombies ARE better at killing, but they must go trough barricades first: given enough time, even a survivor only with a maxed axe can make more experience than a zombie with maxed claws (remember barricades? theyre hard to tear down). And lastly, if experience is a way to reward users for doing what theyre supposed to do, why barricade killing doesn't give zombies experience? why PKing and ZKing does? why reading a book does?? Your argument lacks of sense. --Matthew Fahrenheit 04:39, 18 June 2006 (BST)
    First, fair enough. Second, no, I want to give them some reason to stay. The game is off-putting enough at first as it is. Third, yes, that is in fact exactly what you said. All suggestions are applied to the gamestate as it currently is. If you think it'd be more appropriate some other time, submit it then. Fourth, standing up for 10 or even 15 AP plus maybe 20 ap to break in to a building (in the worst-case scenario with no skills, a headshot, and no tasty harmaz lying around) still gives you 5 ap to work with. In the current gamestate, survivors are going to die so often they'll waste that much lying around waiting for a revive. And lastly, attacking cades giving experience should give experience as has been peer reviewed for ages, pking and zking doesn't in an effective way compared to the other options (and shouldn't really at all), and reading a book doesn't, not really, not in any useful way, and again shouldn't really at all.--'STER-Talk-ModP! 05:32, 18 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - About your Re to the 2nd point, fair enough ^_^. About the suggestion's time of implementation and level of opportunity, i suggest we drop the issue as there isn't any official document that inclines for neither of our sides. About your Re to the fourth point i made, lets suppose your calcs are right, so zombies have 5 AP to work with. Survivors only need to get out of their safehouse, find a zombie to kill, and go back to a safehouse. Let's say that you need 5 AP to exit your safehouse and find a zombie and 10 AP to find another (or the same) safehouse. Survivors have 35 AP to work with... that speaks for itself. And in response to the last response you made, if you state that im making suggestions for the game "as it is now", then as it is now barricade smashing STILL doesn't give experience, so i can't take a "should" in account because its subjective and doesn't fit the current state of the game. --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:05, 18 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - Quick interjection. 'STER, I don't know if you play any zombie characters, but from my experience, and that of all the zombie players I've heard talk about this, a zombie has to be very, very, very lucky to spend only 20 AP breaking into a building, and that's with skills. Figure something more like 30 to 40 AP for a skilled zombie, assuming the building's only QS or VS barricaded. If it's at any of the Heavily ratings, a single zombie isn't going to be able to break in at all. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:15, 18 June 2006 (BST)
    Very true. The most i could tear with my zed character (i have 2 characters, 1 maxed survivor in the Yagoton Revivification Clinic and 1 feral zombie) with full 50AP was from Extremely Heavily Barricaded to Quite Strongly, and thats the biggest lucky run i had. --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:24, 18 June 2006 (BST)
    I have one career zed and three survivors who spend most of their time as zeds (one of which is only a survivor because he got every zed skill). When they're zeds, they each individually bust into a safehouse about once a week. Whenever I log on there's at least one or two groans within the past few hours, and if the building isn't still open with goodies inside then i can bust down the barricades there or on some other building nearby. The zed life is not that hard. It's a lot harder for a survivor to stay alive than for a zed to get food.--'STER-Talk-ModP! 20:05, 18 June 2006 (BST)

XP gain for First Aid

Moved from the suggestions page.

Dupe - What's that I smell? The copy/paste function? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 10:32, 17 June 2006 (BST)

  • Note - Invalid vote. Remove strike when a link is provided - Jedaz 11:00, 17 June 2006 (BST)
    • Note - What's this? Not one, not two, but THREE dupes? Damn, Jedaz! And to think you yourself replied to the latest one! --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:21, 17 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - I'm just on your case because it's a bit of a contradiction that you make everyone else follow the rules so closely and you don't follow them just as strictly. And was it really that hard to provide links as per the rules? - Jedaz 11:30, 17 June 2006 (BST)
        • Re - I knew there were dupes, and I was working to find a few. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:37, 17 June 2006 (BST)
          • Re - Fine, but I do think that 30 minutes is a reasonable amount of time in which to provide at least one link. Maybe next time you should say that you are actually searching for the links so that this doesn't happen again. - Jedaz 11:43, 17 June 2006 (BST)
Straws.PNG STRAWS LOL
Anybody see somebody reachin' for straws say "Yeah!"
Cyberbob  Talk  11:49, 17 June 2006 (BST)

Re - Nice broken template Bob. You know I have a point anyway because you just can't go around breaking the rules. - Jedaz 11:53, 17 June 2006 (BST)

What? What? The break is gone? Oh dear! No rule was broken, silly. Cyberbob  Talk  11:57, 17 June 2006 (BST)

Only because I pointed it out and you changed it. I'll just leave you in your own denial now
Straws.PNG STRAWS LOL
Anybody see somebody reachin' for straws say "Yeah!"

(it is a handy template) - Jedaz 12:02, 17 June 2006 (BST)

How is that grasping at straws? It always appeared correct to me - don't you think, that if I could see the error, I would've fixed it earlier? Make sense, silly. Cyberbob  Talk  12:08, 17 June 2006 (BST)

Unh hunh, yes, your denial = trying to avoid loosing the argument = grasping at straws. Anyway it doesn't change the fact that you made a broken template, you should always consider everyone when you design it. Makes sense, silly. - Jedaz 12:20, 17 June 2006 (BST)
Heh. How was I ever to know that anyone saw it as broken if no-one commented on it? Retard. Cyberbob  Talk  12:24, 17 June 2006 (BST)

Ooohh, you are such a big man for calling people names. It's not that hard to get it right the first time. You used <nowiki> instead of </nowiki>. Seriously it's an ending statement, it's not that hard to get right. Geeze anyone would think that you don't know how to use wiki code properly. - Jedaz 12:34, 17 June 2006 (BST)

First time in... how many templates? Everyone makes mistakes sooner or later, Jedaz. Of course, you'd know about that more than most... Cyberbob  Talk  12:39, 17 June 2006 (BST)

Ladies, ladies, stop fighting. I'm getting sick of this, no really, I am. Could both of you shut up and go do something useful? –Xoid STFU! 12:40, 17 June 2006 (BST)

"Yeah I do. Anyway I'm done with arguing/discussing, I had my fun and it looks like we are done." Thats what I was going to say before I got the edit conflict. But I guess you won't belive me, but oh well. - Jedaz 12:45, 17 June 2006 (BST)

If you say you're done, and continue to be civil then it really is done. No problem there. –Xoid STFU! 12:48, 17 June 2006 (BST)

Ear Plugs

  • Note to All - This is the link. It is a changed version of this. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 08:21, 12 June 2006 (BST)
    • Struck out invalid note. "Note is used by moderators to invalidate trolling-based votes", this is not a trolling based vote. (just like how you can't have Illegal Re's) - Jedaz 09:05, 12 June 2006 (BST)
      • Removed strike. It wasn't in reply to Pinpoint specifically, it was to show everyone the link. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 09:11, 12 June 2006 (BST)
        • It doesn't matter who it was to, your dupe vote is the place to provide the links, not a notice. For example by your logic I could have a Note to all saying "Don't vote keep because this suggestion isn't needed". It's not in response to anyone and I could have just placed in inside my vote. - Jedaz 09:18, 12 June 2006 (BST)
          • Fine then. Cyberbob  Talk  09:21, 12 June 2006 (BST)
            • He has a point Cyber. This is why you shouldn't be anal retentive about illegal re's that actually have an extremely good and valid point. Someone else might do the same. –Xoid STFU! 09:32, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Rearrange Scent Skill Tree

"What was Kevan thinking when he placed Scent Death first?" - I don't know if Grim's "completely useless, unless" is deliberate hyperbole, but Scent Death was moved to the root of the branch because it helps roaming, feral zombies to find a group to shelter amongst when they're out of AP (feeding groans only being useful when you first log in), and also gives them a direction to head in if they find that they've wandered into an unfamiliar and empty-looking part of the city. Both of these help a new zombie keep busy and on its feet, and seemed more immediately useful than Scent Fear (which is less efficient for XP gain than it was in the early days, when survivors wandered the streets en masse and it was possible to kill a wounded one first, then burn spare attack AP on the healthy survivor in the same block).

I'm open to feedback, though, it's important to get the skill tree as useful to lower-level zombies as possible. --Kevan 08:22, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Grim s made a series of excellent points on your talk page. I just can't see any benefit to placing it first, Scent Death seems to work better as a utility skill for a zombie just starting to hit the mid levels, not a, um… 'fresh' one. –Xoid STFU! 09:03, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Grim made a series of excellent conclusions based on his opinions and experience, but I tend to disagree. Maybe his anecdotal zombie was in a more populated, stupid suburb where the survivors roam like bison used to on the plains, but where my zombie (un)lives, if you can't break a safehouse you're out in the cold with no supper then straight to bed like a good little boy. Scent death encourages newbs to hoard, this is a MMORPG, after all, there should be more multiplayer action. Mostly, the humans have monopolized communication up to this point, because zombies can't figure out if a radio's controls mean 'volume', 'frequency', or 'electrocute', but scent death gives zeds something survivors are born with: a means to easily get together and beat up on the other side. I think it's more important that newbs can go somewhere where they can get kills and level fast, as well as see how the big boys chow down. For the record, I've just purchased scent death, but I won't be getting any other scents until my combat potential is maxed. --Burgan 01:01, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Ah, my nemesis, we meet again! Scent Death as a hording tool is completely useless unless that horde can communicate and move, especially when it leads to corpse piles outside closed buildings, empty buildings sacked by zombies, and the ubiquitous revive points. Until such time as zombies can talk to other zombies with something beyond "RAM BANANA !N HARMAN AZZ!" such in game developments are utterly useless. Scent fear, back in November, was pretty much useless as a skill as well, but with the advent of feeding groans, a zombie could lurch to a building, and with his scent fear he could pick out wounded survivors from the rabble and take them apart. With this, there is an essentially useless skill blocking the highly useful scent fear and scent blood skills from view of new players, and slowing progression. --Grim s-Mod 02:46, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Talking to me? A nemisis? Sweet! Anyways, after playing with my death scenting zombie a little longer, yes it does have some limitations. However, this suggestion doesn't do anything to address them, it's just putting them out of the way for the present. There is a suggestion that refines Scent Death's capabilities, and I'm happily supporting that one for now. It addresses the limitations quite nicely and I think it will make it more useful.
I can see what you mean with the communication, but in order to maintain the flavour and atmosphere of the game, zombies should have alternate means of communication. Feeding groan is a good start, this scent skill is another good addition, I think now we need to find more ways that zombies might communicate. I would support death scent giving you a colour-coded readout for four squares in each direction as a revamp to make it more useful. I'll expound on that idea when I get some more time though.
Feeding groan itself doesn't do enough in my experience; I check in only daily and the odds of a pertinent groan coming my way are pretty poor. I think if we can work out death scent it will be a much better skill for newbies to use. I can only speak from my experience as a newb, but priority skills for me were being able to hit things better and move faster, since you get XP for each damage. If you just go law of averages on it, you can think that for every weak survivor out there that the health scent gives you a kill bonus for, someone else didn't get a kill bonus for the first batch of damage dealt, so the kill bonus doesn't factor that greatly as I see it. --Burgan 22:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I was talking to Kevan. If i was talking to you i would have collapsed it down so that it appeared beneath your text in the manner this comment does. Groans are pretty damn common. Just look at the groans and their directions, remember the position of the two most recent, head to the most recent, and there is a huge chance you will find food there. If that fails, head to the other. If you dont get food, whoops, tough luck. Just wander into another suburb and repeat the process. My suggestion is not intended to address the problems with scent death itself, just the problems its position in the skill tree cause. This scent skill is about as useful a form of communication as semaphore flags are for toddlers. There is no way a toddler can send a message with it, and even if he could, the other people wouldnt understand it anyway. Scent Fear can dramatically increase your efficiency. With my former Pker, when he died in Yagoton, he mauled some people, and as his third zombie skill he got scent fear. Following groans and tearing new holes in people he found with them that were wounded got him two levels every three days. Your reasoning regarding the kill bonus is silly when we are discussing individual progression. A Zombie that gets the kill bonus more will advance quicker. Its quite simple. Scent fear gives them a far greater chance of getting that bonus. As such, it is logical that zombies with scent fear will progress quicker, and scent death stands in the way of this progression. What Kevan is failing to recognise is that scent fear is as useful indoors as it is outdoors, and he has based his position without recognition of that key point which, sadly, topples his entire previous argument like a house of cards in a gale. --Grim s-Mod U! 02:26, 10 June 2006 (BST)

And, consider this suggestion implemented! -- Tirion529 23:57, 16 June 2006 (BST)

Vomit

Re: As i said. Once you do Multiply it by a Billion its still less then claws. if you want to tell me on the talk page how you can get more kills by doing less damage you're welcome to. I'd also like to take this moment to ask everyone to explain why they are voteing Spam on the Talk page. I think this is one of those knee jerk things where you don't look at the numbers. --Teksura 10:04, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Just be thankful we're not looking at the author JK. Also, please stop Re'ing every kill vote. It's counted as vandalism. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 10:07, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Just saw this comment and had to ask: it's true that Re'ing kill votes can get you on vandal banning? Try to link us to that rule please. --Matthew Fahrenheit 10:15, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Re'ing every kill vote can. I believe it falls under the "Spam" rule. Ask Xoid for the exact link; he's better at finding this sort of crap than me. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 10:17, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Ok, i just asked Xoid, you may want to see what did i tell him. --Matthew Fahrenheit 10:56, 7 June 2006 (BST)
See my answer, you idiot. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:00, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Just because people don't bother reading the rules… rules that are clearly marked out… rules that are on the suggestions page itself. (Well, the call to the template that has them is, anyway.) doesn't mean you need to be testy. I'm locked in a basement, let me out so I can flame him! Be sure to kill my polite imposter while you're at it.Xoid STFU! 11:07, 7 June 2006 (BST)
I just can't find a way to reply that fits my poor knowledges of english language. Anyways, im not Amazing, insult me away and i wont behave like a prick. Just note that i didn't in any moment take this issue as personal or in a childish manner, neither did i insult you. And, yes, Cyberbob240 was right, there's the rule; i'll think of some way to improve it. As a final comment, Teksura didn't reply ANY Kill vote, he did comment on Spam votes, so don't treath people like that. --Matthew Fahrenheit 11:15, 7 June 2006 (BST)
...you keep digging your hole deeper and deeper, so I'll lay it out for you.
1. The rule doesn't need improving.
2. I was being insulting because you couldn't be bothered to actually read the rules.
3. That kill and spam difference... I'm speechless with confusion. SPAM VOTES IMPLY THAT YOU DON'T LIKE A SUGGESTION. For the sake of convienience I was referring to both Kill and Spam votes when I said "kill".
There. That clear it all up for you? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:19, 7 June 2006 (BST)
1. Any written rule has room for improvement, and i stated i'll think of some way to do it, as long as i use the existant channels to do it im allowed to try.
2. It was my mistake, i admit it, im sorry. No need to be insulting.
3. Spam votes don't imply that, they imply that the voter thinks the suggestion is ridiculous or extremely unbalanced. There was plenty of times voters said "i like the suggestion, bus as it is utterly unbalancing i vote spam". And if "For the sake of convienience I was referring to both Kill and Spam votes when I said 'kill'", you can't tell me that because is your personal opinion, the rule states only kill votes, and that can be discused endlessly until someone changes the rule so it states "Kill, Spam and/or Dupe votes" (and this proves my point on the rule needing improvement).
Spam votes are mistakingly being used as strong kill votes even when such a thing is forbidden by the rules. Re'ing them has become a necesity as most spam votes lack of content, sense or even the bit of humor they ought to have. When you vote Spam, you're encouraged to give a valid reason to do so (or at least everyone that doesn't find "WTF CENTAURS" funny tried to do so), and if the author sees it fit, he should be able to oppose every Spam vote with a Re asking for a valid reason or an explanation.
And lastly, in your last reply to Teksura, it sounded like you just rejected reason and shielded yourself in your hard reply. If you think the suggestion fails the "multiply by a billion" rule, prove it (and do it on Teksura's part of the discussion, not mine), your attitude resembles a lot the one of the church towards science centuries ago, but thats just my opinion. If it does not, you don't lose anything, i apologized for my mistake and i think everything on me is still in their proper place. --Matthew Fahrenheit 11:52, 7 June 2006 (BST)
"Tally is used to provide a count of votes up to that point and should be formatted like this: # Keep, # Kill, # Dupe, # Total. Note that Spam votes are counted as Kill votes and may be tallied as such, and Dupe votes, which are not counted, should be separate.", as well as COMMON SENSE dictate that Spam is an implicit Kill. Just like Speedy Delete is an implicit Delete. Damn, now I'm going to say this; you are thick. Use your head. –Xoid STFU! 12:05, 7 June 2006 (BST)
A note: Spam votes are implicit kill votes — a spam vote is like saying that the suggestion is so utterly ridiculous that it doesn't deserve to get killed properly — it deserves to get cans of SPAM thrown at it until it simply disappears.
About your implication that I was insulting you; I was merely showing both my sense of self deprecating humour, (i.e. acknowledging the fact that I'm often such a bastard that even my relatively unpolite comment could be considered too polite to have come from me.) and my irritation that we still get people who don't bother reading that giant slab of text. Does it seem like a bit much to ask that people memorise every single bit of it? Maybe. But is it too much to ask that people learn the rules that we [suggestions regulars] absolutely loathe being broken?
(Why am I being redundant here? Because I already wrote all this, stupid edit conflicts…) –Xoid STFU! 11:40, 7 June 2006 (BST)
I didn't feel insulted by your comment (at least not too much, as i looked at the funny side of it), i was mostly referring to Cyberbob that blatantly called me an idiot. And don't missunderstand me, according to your lines im more one of the guys that failed to memorize every bit of the suggestion rules than one of these that didnt't read them at all, and probably the fact that my first suggestion is going to Peer Reviewed with 40+ keep votes (and yeah, im proud of it) can prove that. --Matthew Fahrenheit 12:02, 7 June 2006 (BST)
I put special emphasis on the "absolutely loathe" part due to the fact that if you've ever had to scroll through seven screens (because someone Re:ed every vote) then I'm sure you understand why Cyber would be pretty pissed off that it looked like someone was heading in that direction. (Which is why he cut them off at the pass and all that.)
He was also probably frustrated that Teksura failed to see the implications that hitting multiple targets at once brings — 50 or 75 zombies doing that at once could instantly kill a survivor who was not being specifically targeted. Yeah, the maximum damage from claws is higher, but you with this skill you are still doing semi-decent damage and have the possibility of an insta-kill. Couple this with infection and light to medium-ishly defended Malls could fall to hordes of equal or smaller size than the crowd of survivors defending — even if every member of both sides is online and the survivors are playing smart for once. The fact that it is a theoretical possibility alone speaks worlds.
The reason why it's a possibility? By spreading the damage out over a larger percentage of the population, especially in conjunction with infection, would mean that you could tax the survivors FAKs so heavily as to prevent any possibility of healing. As the numbers start to equalise it would become an impossible battle — and far more quickly than a regular siege.
(Feel free to pull apart my reasoning if you can, I'd be interested as to what flaws I've made in my arguement.) –Xoid STFU! 13:26, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Provided you don't use them on people near to full health, a first aid kit heals a fixed amount of damage. This is true whether the damage is spread over a large number of people, or focused on a few. So, the suggestion in question, which spreads its attack damage around, would not create any extra strain on first aid kits. (Assuming they are only used on people not near full health). --Toejam 20:58, 7 June 2006 (BST)
My flaw with your argument, Xoid, is that if 50-75 zombies break in at once, you've got a serious problem without this, and I don't think this changes it. What it will do, assuming we're all equally likely to get hit during a break in, will decrease the amount that specific survivors recieve, by spreading it out.
I see what you mean about the FAKs, wasting 10hp worth just because someone's taken 2 damage from a spray, but my response would just be that it changes the dynamic a bit, and makes you not waste them on 58 HP characters.
You also mention infection a few times, and I'm not sure what you're going for there; vomiting does not cause infection, and since I don't think this is any more potent than one zombie hitting three survivors once each with claws, I don't see the relevance there.
As food for thought, what would you all think if zombies would get a 'stomach counter' or something, so that when using the bite attack with the vomit skill purchased, they store biomass which is later used for vomit? That counters one of the problems someone voted on, I think it'd make it fun, and possibly justify upping the damage a little bit. --Burgan 21:36, 7 June 2006 (BST)
I wasn't implying that vomiting caused infection, merely that using the two skills together would really start to sap the defender's strength. With the FAK's, I was thinking that sooner or later, the damage would accumulate to the point where there are a bunch of survivors with <= 40HP as well as the grieviously wounded who were quickly getting pulled down. It's a snowball effect in my mind's eye; once the first few start to fall, the death rate will increase in frequency.
I admit that it may very well fail to work out like that, but I'm still uneasy about the suggestion, all in all. –Xoid STFU! 00:51, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Just about time to retire this Re: tunnel, but I would rather less individual damage spread over more people, keeps it more manageable and means that I'm less likely to be dead if I get hit during a break in, the damage per AP is less so the net influx of damage should be less. Makes defense and healing more of a team effort, there's an incentive to group together and keep people healed. I think this not only adds another tactical option for zombies, but also helps out survivors in sieges. Unless, of course, 50 zeds come in, but that's about when I bail anyways. It might also be an incentive for zombies to work together and try and breach safehouses so they can use their cool new skill, instead of just wondering the streets and picking off the odd survivor.
I admit that you may well be right, but I'd like to see this in action, at the very least it'll make zombie players happier for a while, until we can balance it. --Burgan 05:46, 8 June 2006 (BST)


(Moved from SuggestionsBob Hammero ModB'cratTA 10:18, 7 June 2006 (BST))

(In response to)

  1. Spam - Multiply by a Billion. 'Nuff said. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 09:25, 7 June 2006 (BST)
    Re:I thought of that. but your claws are STILL more effective then the vomit. a horde of Zombies will get more kills if they all Claw then if they all vomit. Overall Claw is 1.5 damage per AP (not counting grasp) this maxes at 1.4 damage per AP. Doesn't matter how many Zombies are vomiting, they would still get more kills if they all Clawed. Can you please tell me how this fails Multiply by a Billion but the more dangerous and more effective Zombie Claws doesn't? --Teksura 09:30, 7 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - This is only less efficient per individual zombie. Collectively, a few dozen zombies using this attack would score many more kills than with Claws. Do you even understand the concept of "Multiply it by a Billion"? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 09:43, 7 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - Yes but they are still doing less per AP then claws. Lets go ahead and multiply it by a billion right now. A single zombie with maxed claws (lets ignore grasp) will do 75 Damage with 50 AP. Lets make a horde of 25 do this and it becomes 1875 damage for the whole horde, or 37.5 non-bodybuilding kills. Now a single vomiting zombie will do 70 damage in 50 AP, in that same horde of 25 they now do 1750 damage for the whole horde or only 35 non-bodybuilding kills. You can call Multiply it by a Billion anytime. But in this case when you do Multiply it by a Billion it is still less then Claws Multiplied by a Billion. --Teksura 09:49, 7 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - I'm getting sick of arguing with you. You're obviously being deliberately stupid, so there's no point in it. My vote stands. PS: I'll be watching you to see if you Re every kill vote. Because that's vandalism. But you knew that... didn't you? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 10:03, 7 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - Watch all you want. I only Red people becasue they needed reing. Thats why we have Re for when people base their votes off of things that are not accurate. Still don't see how it fails it becasue everyone keeps danceing around exactally how this is more dangerous then claws? yes, if 50 zombies get in and all attack people near each other they will add up to some kills. but if 50 zombies break in and all attack the same people, they add up to even more kills. I'm not argueing I'm simply asking how its mathmatically possable for less damage to yeild more kills.--Teksura 02:26, 8 June 2006 (BST)
  1. Teksura is correct. If the average damage done with claws using one AP is 1.5, then with a billion AP the average damage done is 1.5 billion. If the average damage done with vomit using one AP is 1.4, then with a billion AP the damage done is 1.4 billion. Clearly, this is not overpowered. It's irrelevant whether the attacks are coming from a billion zombies attacking once, or one zombie attacking a billion times. This suggestion passes 'Multiply it by a Billion'. --Toejam 21:19, 7 June 2006 (BST)
    Yeah... I can't see it either.. It only causes damage to spread giving survivors more time to escape. --Niilomaan 21:27, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Lurching Gait Change

Ok, Bob, please explain why you think it's confusing - Jedaz 09:27, 7 June 2006 (BST)

I can't. That's how badly written it is. Can you give me (and all those other people who will undoubtedly be just as confused) a brief, clear summary? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 09:32, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Hmm... Ok, basicaly when a new Zombie rises (new Zombie being either from a new player or Survivor dying) for the next 10 times they move it costs 2 AP. This does not affect a Zombie who died who just risen up. The reason lurching gait should become barricade smash is because the Zombies can start moving so fast they can smash into the barricades. Does that make sense? (I should take it down and make it clearer and submit it in a few days time...) - Jedaz 09:36, 7 June 2006 (BST)
That does nothing for me... I'd seriously advise getting someone else in on helping you with wording it. Although I suspect it'll get shot down... so it may not be worth the effort. Oh and one more thing:
Ralphchocolate.gif SPELING LOL
Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!
You need to work on that. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 09:39, 7 June 2006 (BST)
*sigh* I know, I'm working on it. I think I'll retract it before it dies any further. - Jedaz 09:54, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Blood Smearing

(Moved from SuggestionsBob Hammero ModB'cratTA 21:47, 5 June 2006 (BST))

(In response to)

  1. Dupe - Defile --Mookiemookie 18:22, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Aside from the obvious difference (ability to leave a coded message), a major difference between Defile and Blood Smearing is that the latter erases graffiti. Given the huge metagame that survivors have built up using just tiny-urls to forums and wiki articles, this skill is a lot more useful than it may superficially appear. --Rheingold 18:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - The Defile author was wishy washy about that part anyways. I voted dupe on the basis that it's a suggestion that says "zombies should have a version of spraypaint that works with blood for 1 AP and 1 HP." Dupe's don't need to be exactly the same. --Mookiemookie 18:39, 5 June 2006 (BST)
        • Re - Quote: "Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions". So yes, they do need to be exactly the same or so close as to have no viable differences. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 22:11, 5 June 2006 (BST)
          • Re - Exactly: "very close." You've said nothing different that what I've already stated. --Mookiemookie 23:16, 5 June 2006 (BST)
            • Re - Actually, I said that "very close" meant "no viable differences". There are, clearly, several significant differences between these two suggestions. If this suggestion were a dupe despite its significant differences in implementation because it has the same basic goal as another suggestion, 99% of the suggestions that come through here would be dupes. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 23:44, 5 June 2006 (BST)
              • Re -"very close" does not mean "no viable differences" it simply means that the suggestion is not considered to bring any changes that needs extra consideration--Vista 12:21, 7 June 2006 (BST)
                • Re - Vista, with all due respect, you just gave me the dictionary definition of "no viable differences". --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 00:05, 8 June 2006 (BST)

(In response to)

  1. Kill Messages would stay up for all of five seconds. 1 zombie could spread dozens of messages up in a single 50AP cycle. Spraypainting is limited by the fact survivors need to search for cans, about 25AP searching might give them 3 or 4 sprays. Here every zombie could smear gore whenever. When you spray a message it's likely to stick around for a while...zombies shouldn't even bother. Zombie STREETS could cover 25 spaces daily. --Jon Pyre 20:07, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - IMHO it should be easier for zombies to control the message on the streets - that's where they live. Survivors are under siege, holed up in the 30-40% of significant real estate. The only real place where they should be able to leave reliably permanent messages is inside barricaded buildings. Now if I had the opportunity to revise, I might switch the 1 HP cost for 2 or 3 more AP, as zombies care little for hit point pinging. I agree with the other comments in this thread re: the cost being too small, and the message being too short. --Rheingold 20:46, 5 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re You're missing my point though. My problem with it isn't about zombies having it easier than humans, it's that if zombies can "spraypaint" messages essentially anytime that zombie's message will be overwritten too quickly. One zombie will write "Harmans an har!" and ten seconds later another will write "Gangbang gramma!", diluting the use of this for zombie communication. --Jon Pyre 21:47, 5 June 2006 (BST)

(In response to)

  1. Kill I don't like the fact that humans can't decipher it. All things in this game need a counter-balance for the other side. Humans go outside to fight zombies, they can be trapped outside to be eaten alive. Humans can put up spraypaint messages, zombies can read them as well. Zombies can make feeding groans to call other zombies, humans can hear them as well and go and barricade up the place. Humans can use the radio and zombies can smash the generator/transmitter. With this, zombies get something by spending HP, which is effectivley nothing for zombies, that humans can't read.
    Non-Author RE You need to sign your vote. And zombies CANNOT hear the radio. (Strike this out if you have to mods.)--Pesatyel 21:21, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    Non-Author RE SO how about all those other survivor overpowered stuff? I really don't think you know anything at all. Plus zombies can't read it, its not like zombies can read normally, but survivor can't.--Changchad WTFW!SGP 21:33, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    I hate to say it, but with my radio equipped zombie I can hear the radio. I was working off the wonderful information my DEM friends gave me over the airwaves as to where I should chow down. –Xoid STFU! 02:02, 6 June 2006 (BST)
    I figured as much. Someone mentioned it at desensitized that a zombie could NOT here the radio. But since desenstizied shutdown, I couldn't find anything else. Course, it doesn't make sense zombies COULDN'T hear the radio, so I'm not sure WHAT the hell I was thinking (D'oh!). Oh well, whatever. As for the suggestion, it isn't unreasonable to have a "zombie only" form of communication, given the circumstances.--Pesatyel 02:49, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Expensive Broadcasting

(Moved from SuggestionsBob Hammero ModB'cratTA 07:04, 5 June 2006 (BST))

(In response to)

  1. Kill - Just because I could waste all 50 of my AP in one shot (well presuming you can write up 500 characters) - Jedaz 06:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re See my clarification, please. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 06:38, 5 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - None the less I think theres like a 256 character restiction (correct me if I'm wrong), thats blowing about half a days worth of AP for one message. - Jedaz 06:57, 5 June 2006 (BST)
        • Something like that, yes. But I could do the same thing right now in any other number of ways: saying "hi" over and over again, walking back and forth, punching a zombie 50 times, searching over and over again, or anything else. I'm just saying, it's my responsibility whether or not I blow my AP, and this would obviously discourage frivolous talking. But our opinions can differ on this. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 07:07, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  • "...obviously discourage frivolous talking..." isn't THAT the point? The radio has unlimited spam potential because it doesn't JUST affect the first 50 people in a building (as talking would), but ANYONE listening on the frequency used. On one of the forums I read, someone posted their "since your last turn" messages which consisted of 2 FULL pages of nothing but radio spam (and a single person's speak message). Like with revives, the idea is to make it more difficult to do, but not impossible.--Pesatyel 07:24, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    • Exactly. And that's exactly what my suggestion does: makes it more difficult to do. You want to say "everyone, I want to ruin this game by sending tons of spam"? Fine, but it'll cost you 6 AP. Reasonable messages however, like "retreat!" (1 AP), "caiger under attack" (2 AP), or even "fall back to NE and revive" (3 AP) would be less expensive, but still not just 1 AP each no matter what. Shouldn't long messages be pricier, since they are delivering more information? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 07:51, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Scent Blood Upgrade To Improve Zombie Coordination

(Moved from SuggestionsBob Hammero ModB'cratTA 08:30, 4 June 2006 (BST))

(In response to)

  1. Kill - The scorecard bit sounds like fun, but this seems like it would overlap too much with Feeding Groan, as well as being overpowered. The scan function of Necronet - what you're comparing this to - only allows you to see zombies from a set, powered, location, and then only those that have been recorded with DNA scanners. This'd allow you to see all zombies without exception from a mobile grid. As such, this'd be a huge boost to zerging survivors, who could easily use this to monitor zombie levels in a large area. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 07:14, 4 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re What exactly would they use that info for? If a survivor wants to level up finding a zombie requires no outside help. Zombies stand right back up. If you aren't trying to level up the 6AP spent headshotting outdoor zombies isn't worth the many more AP plus ammunition it'll take to kill them. And if a survivor wants to report horde positions they can do so easily by walking to safehouses and talking, or using cell phones/radio. This would just help zombies. As for Feeding Groan, this fufills other purposes. This would help you pick targets that aren't being breached and don't have Feeding Groans coming out. For instance if you saw a horde but no bodies that would indicate they're laying siege to a building but not killing people, meaning they could use your help. --Jon Pyre 07:32, 4 June 2006 (BST)
      • As you yourself noted, this would make it very easy to track and follow hordes. With an effective daily IP limit of 320 by playing before and after the reset, 1 IP hit to log into an account, and 1 IP hit to use this skill, a single player could theoretically monitor 800 blocks - 80% of the map. One player. One day. Obviously, something this extensive would be extremely difficult to set up and use, for a variety of reasons - but the fact that it's possible at all is disturbing. And they wouldn't even need to take it to anything resembling these heights to gain a significant unfair advantage for themselves and/or for their group. Further, I'm unconvinced this would give the zombies much of anything that Feeding Groan doesn't already do better. Yes, you could locate unsuccessful sieges with this. Goodie! I don't know about you, but Caiger-esque parking lots aren't exactly my idea of fun. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 07:48, 4 June 2006 (BST)
        • Re Several zombie players have expressed concerns that radios let survivors send distress messages to each other, call allies, and send messages about zombie movements. This would give zombies all that and more. I think this is quite useful. --Jon Pyre 08:13, 4 June 2006 (BST)
          • "All that and more"? This would barely give us any of that. I don't even understand where you're getting distress messages or calling allies from. As for monitoring horde movements, not unless you've got a zerg system set up as outlined above or the horde never moves more than 5 blocks at a time. Otherwise, it's just "here they are" until it's "here they aren't". It doesn't tell you where they're going from where they were. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 09:10, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Advanced Communication

(Moved from SuggestionsBob Hammero ModB'cratTA 06:14, 4 June 2006 (BST))

(In response to)

  1. Kill I'm certain I've seen this before. And if not zombies that are able to talk would reduce much of the character of the class. They'd basically just become survivors that spend most of their time outdoors. Hordes would exchange messages like "Zombie Mr. T pities the fool!" or "Post ZK screenshots at www.geocities.com/stopzkers!". Very out of genre. I agree zombies need a better form of communication but I'd rather it be some organic instinctive thing like Feeding Groan rather than something this blunt and unbalancing. --Jon Pyre 05:18, 4 June 2006 (BST)
    • As it is, zombies already say those kinds of things - they're just forced to metagame in order to do so, as well as to say anything useful. Right now, zombies are crippled, and they need a fix for that. And speaking of out-of-genre spam, didn't you make a suggestion for radios predicated on the assumption that the requirement of a skill would result in greater maturity? The level restriction I have here would do what your's did and then some. Finally, pick a vote. If you wanna make a dupe vote, you have to find the specific suggestion that this supposedly duplicates exactly and provide a link to it. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 05:30, 4 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re It's not the matter of mature messages, it's the fact that there would be a message at all. If we're going to let zombies talk why not let them use items too? Survivors and zombies could both take shelter in safehouses and build barricades only their side could pass through. Speech is the single greatest advantage survivors have and their primary defining trait beyond barricades. If zombies get speech the game would become wildly unbalanced. Unless the cost to find and use a syringe got reduced to 6AP this suggetion is gamebreaking. --Jon Pyre 06:09, 4 June 2006 (BST)
        • It's funny how the only evidence anyone has found to give that this is unbalancing is that it will somehow automagically cause Kevan to implement a bunch of incredibly obviously bad ideas as well. Stop strawmanning my position, stop using slippery-slope fallacies, and please just reply to what I'm actually suggesting. The primary difference between survivors and zombies is not speech - it's not even in the top five. Survivors can barricade - zombies can't. Zombies can stand up as the same class when killed - survivors can't. Survivors can use weapons - zombies can't, meaningfully (blunt weapons don't count). Survivors can heal each other - zombies can't. Survivors can move freely right off the bat - zombies can't. All of these are as - and most are more - important of distinctions between survivors and zombies than being able to speak freely to some of those in your immediate area are. And what's more, almost all of them are in favor of making the game more fun for survivors - and there are more that do that besides the ones I named, too. Given that my suggestion wouldn't even completely equalize the playing field on immediate-area speech, given that only high-level zombies would be able to talk (and they are, I believe, a significantly smaller proportion of the zombie population that high-level survivors are of the survivor population, showing how fucking hard it is to play a zombie into high levels right now), I'd say that this was very very very far from unbalancing. What it just might do is actually finally balance the game somewhat. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:31, 4 June 2006 (BST)
          • Re Too much zombie coordination would unbalance the game. Instead of zombies coming together on their own and attacking when convenient zombies could plan "Hey everyone, let's attack at 4pm EST". Then the barricades would fall instantly and the whole horde would move in at once since the zombies would have a focused attack time while survivors would just be logging in randomly across the whole day. The current system where zombies log in randomly to attack and survivors log in randomly to search/attack/defend is balanced. That isn't. Also it's very very very very very out of genre. "My undead bretheren, let us storm Caiger Mall with the fury of a thousand fists! I am reminded of a quote from the Art of War..." doesn't sit right. --Jon Pyre 07:07, 4 June 2006 (BST)
            • Please, indent your responses correctly when replying. Fixed it for you this time, but I'd appreciate it if you'd keep an eye out yourself in future. Now, for the reply: ...Assuming they somehow got the word to "everyone" and then equally magically got them all to keep that date, and with a further sprinkling of pixie-dust kept any zombified survivors from overhearing. This wouldn't make zombies any more effective at in-game co-ordination than survivors are, it would just finally give them a chance to try co-ordinating in game at all. Also, please see my the bits taken from my conversation with Ron Burgundy on his suggestion for my reply to your out of genre concerns. I believe I've established in the skill description that the concept of the skill itself is not out of genre. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 08:28, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Okay, since this disappeared from where it was, I'm reposting here. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 08:43, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Relevant bits taken from Burgundy's original suggestion voting area:

[...] Also, damnit all to hell - limited talking does not make you a survivor. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 07:58, 4 June 2006 (BST)

  • Re: Yeah, but the thought of high level zombies entertaining philosophical conversations in game is just too much for me- and you know that's what they'd do! --Ron Burgundy 08:01, 4 June 2006 (BST)
    • You're right - I'm absolutely certain that there would be zombies who would do out-of-genre stuff like that. I'm just not really comfortable with crippling them in order to keep everything 100% in-genre. For crying out loud, Burgundy - you're out of genre yourself. Yeah, this'd give zombies a chance to be silly and have fun too. I can live with that. It's one thing if you think the skill itself is out of genre - it's another entirely to vote it down because it could potentially be used in an out of genre manner. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 08:12, 4 June 2006 (BST)
      • I don't know if I'm quite out of genre; zombies can strike anywhere! I do, however, agree that keeping zombies in-genre at the cost of crippling them is problematic. The thing is, the zombies always seem to win in-genre, so why the hell are they losing now?! We shouldn't have to sacrifice bits of the zombie theme to make zombies work like zombies- I just don't think we're at that point, yet. --Ron Burgundy 17:04, 4 June 2006 (BST)
        • Well, with regards to you being out of genre... way classy though Ron Burgundy undoubtedly is, he's not exactly a staple of zombie flicks. That's not to say I don't think you should be part of the game - just the opposite. I think zombies should be able to have fun like that, too. I do take your point about zombies winning in-genre, though I also have a couple of objections to it's relevance to UD. First, we don't really know if the zombies would necessarily win under classic genre conditions - the directors wanted them to win, and so that's what they made happen. Second, the current conditions in UD are not classic genre conditions. Under classic genre conditions, there would be no revives, Infectious Bite would be incurable and deadly, and headshotting a zombie would kill it permanently. UD's already got a long, rich tradition of sacrificing bits of genre for more fun. Third and lastly, in-genre zombies really are the walking, near-mindless undead they look like. In UD, each and every zombie has an actual human player behind it. They want to socialize and have fun too, and if they can't do that they will, sooner or later, simply quit. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 20:33, 4 June 2006 (BST)
          • All very true and convincing. The thing is, I just think there are better ways to make the game more fun for zombie players without crossing the genre line too much. Machine guns and chain saws would be fun too, but they just conflict with everything. I think we agree in principal but disagree on degree. That is, you can't say that sticking to a zombie theme 100% is any good, but there is a question of how far you should leave it. --Ron Burgundy 05:29, 5 June 2006 (BST)
            • Yeah, I think that sums it up about as well as it can be done. I think the game suffers from depriving zombie players of in-game communication and that fixing this is worth bending genre conventions. You think (from what I can tell) that yeah, zombies need a communications fix, but what I proposed simply went too far in the trade-off with in-genre concerns. Agree to disagree? --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 05:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)
              • Precisely! When in Rome! --Ron Burgundy 06:35, 7 June 2006 (BST)
                • Whoa, thought for sure you'd forgotten this. Anyway, it was a pleasure discussing this with you. Well argued, Ron. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:45, 7 June 2006 (BST)
                • Totally likewise! And I did forget it- many times!  :) --Ron Burgundy 03:10, 15 June 2006 (BST)

Make Broadcasting Require a Skill

Something rather odd has happened. A suggestion was put in place before the vote ended. Infact it was put in place the same day as the suggestion was made, so the issue is, does it really need to be voted on? If it's already in place, there's no real reason to vote on it (IMO). - Velkrin 07:31, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Good point but this allows the author to see what the UD Community thinks of the idea. Leave it on for a day rather than 2 weeks and then imortalise it in the new, Suspicious Coincedence Suggestions section. :) -- Krazy Monkey W! 07:52, 3 June 2006 (BST)
I think it should not be voted on, but rather it should be moved here along with a note that it was implemented about 1 hour after after the suggestion was submited. If the suggestion had anything to do with the feature is a moot point. --Teksura 07:54, 3 June 2006 (BST)
I reckon we just leave it and let it cycle through the processes. - Jedaz 09:56, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Expert Specialization

Here are my comments on each skill, one by one, as promised:

  • Marksmanship: Looks ok. It removes a bonus the other worked for, but it only does so when facing a single type of opponent. Possibly a common one, but I don't see it as overpowered.
  • Medic: I dislike it. Makes surgery useless, and healing doesn't need to be any stronger than it already is.
  • Scout: Meh... It's borderline. Possibly too strong, yet it is limited by how many people want to be scouts. My problem with it is that it removes a major limitation in the game, and also reduces the food available to newbie zombies.
  • NT: BAH-ROKEN. Don't mess with revive rates
  • Doctor: Meh. Not too horrible. Whilst healing doesn't really need to be any better, restricting this to hospitals makes it not as bad as the Medic ability, IMO. Of course, others might disagree. After all, the healing/AP rate must be absurdly high (haven't had the time to count, and I might change my mind if I do...)
  • Cop: I'm not sure we want to see that kind of combat effectiveness increase.
  • Firefighter: We don't need a 1.6 damage/AP melee attack, no thank you. Zombies should remain king of melee combat IMO (given that they must first strike down barricades AND have less versatility). Stick to boosting % to hit with melee weapons.
  • Consumer: Increases ammo, FAK and syringe finds by 30%... Hell no. That's most of the time used to fire a gun, revive a zombie, or heal someone reduced by 30%
  • Corpse: Isn't it unfair to zombie players who started with another class to have absolutely no benefits as zombies? IMO, this should call for: 1. more zombie classes 2. A default skill for non-starting zombie, which any other zombie may learn IN PLACE OF their class skill. So they'd still only have 1 class specific skill.

The skill itself is also strong. Possibly too much.

Basically, if you took the weakest of these, and gave it to everyone, it would either increase the pace of the game too much, or it would break a major limitation of the game. --McArrowni 02:57, 31 May 2006 (BST)

I think you misunderstood the Consumer change. It wouldn't boost the search rate by 30%, it would boost it by 30% of its current value. --Bob Hammero TW!U! 03:03, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Yes, 30% faster to gather items, and gathering items is the limiting factor in: Shooting guns, healing people, and reviving people (if you actually search for syringes, which is more AP efficient already)--McArrowni 03:05, 31 May 2006 (BST)

  • Thanks for the extensive feedback, McArrowni. I kind of wonder if you're reading the NT skill as a reduction in the revive AP cost, which was definitely not the intent. The skill is just there to bring Manufacture in line with searching -- more of a convenience than anything. --Ember MBR 14:50, 31 May 2006 (BST)
    • Nah, I'm reading the reduction in syringe rarity (that's what it is) as a reduction in the AP required for those people to acquire a syringe, and by extension to use it (you can't use a syringe if you haven't spent AP to find it before, thus finding the syringe is a sort of AP cost to using it). --McArrowni 22:52, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Linear XP

Moved from Suggestions:

(Responding to)

  1. Kill - Yes, I think the skill system needs to be revamped, but not in this way. It wouldn't make things more interesting for me to have to work even harder to get skills that I've already used before. It would just make me lose interest more quickly. I think that new skills should be added under this system, however. I'm sure there are plenty of peer reviewed new skill ideas for Kevan to implement that would allow us to double the number of available levels, so I don't think we need to wipe everything out and start again. Also, minor nitpick: I think you mean "Linear XP," not "Exponential XP," since it sounds like it's growing linearly, not exponentially. --Bob Hammero TW!U! 20:36, 30 May 2006 (BST)
    RE:Hmm, good point. The original version had it exponential, until someone pointed out I'd screwed up the math and it'd take several years to get everything. I'll just change the name then. that doesn't count towards having to restart the vote, does it?--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:41, 30 May 2006 (BST)
    Don't ask him, he's in U! It shouldn't restart the vote unless you change something big. This is just a mistake. --Ron Burgundy 20:44, 30 May 2006 (BST)
    As I say quite clearly on my user page, the Project UnWelcome thing is a joke. No one takes it seriously. --Bob Hammero TW!U! 21:15, 30 May 2006 (BST
    I know.  :) --Ron Burgundy 22:01, 30 May 2006 (BST)
    Okay, just making sure. I brought it up because some people have actually questioned that in the past. --Bob Hammero TW!U! 22:43, 30 May 2006 (BST)
    Sounds like the history of the WCDZ all over again, but more amateurish :P... --McArrowni 22:58, 31 May 2006 (BST)
    RE: to vote 7 corleone- While this is a bad idea...If you think the game is fine and don't want to see changes made, why are you participating in the suggestions page? Killing suggestions won't prevent Kevan from making changes, it will just prevent him from seeing the changes other players may like to see. The reason for your kill vote is insufficient, IMO. These pages are for distinguishing the good(or popular, at least) suggestions from the poor ones, NOT to prevent changes all together.--Raystanwick 21:35, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Counting Coup

  • If your reviving, then eventually you have to kill zombies due to the presence of rotters. And if you dna scan them first and find they are rotters, then never have to worry about them not healing/reviving you. --HamsterNinja 05:56, 30 May 2006 (BST)
    • You don't have to kill rotters to do revives. You can just revive exclusively via your contact list, your actual contacts plus those you've gotten on the list with a revive-request tool. --Dan 14:48, 30 May 2006 (BST)
  • I'm guessing you want to be able to tell, in game, which are Brain Rot zombies and which are not? Wouldn't that be counter to zombie anonymity? What I usually do is just DNA extract. Then I know if the zombie is a rotter or not.--Pesatyel 06:59, 30 May 2006 (BST)
    • You can already tell what zombies have brain rot, by scanning them or by looking at their profiles when they take an action. You can also see their profile if someone spends an AP talking to tell you their profile number. --Dan 14:48, 30 May 2006 (BST)
      • So, what was the point of the suggestion then?--Pesatyel 08:01, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Barricades improvements for both sides

Re "Mall siege" isn't a descriptive way to tell me how my suggestion fails the "Multiply by a Billion" rule, it's just a creative way of trying to sound cool. Be descriptive, enlighten me. The unfair thing i mentioned is the time that a zombie needs to level up compared to the time a survivor spends doing it. Read the suggestion again, as it says everything i needed to say about the wicked ways a zombie needs to follow just to level up his first levels. --Matthew Fahrenheit 09:24, 30 May 2006 (BST)
Re - If you can't think it through properly, I don't think I will, as I've decided that I'm just a little offended by your insult. I don't actually have to explain my opinions to you. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 09:28, 30 May 2006 (BST)
Re - Its fine, im sorry if you felt insulted but i did as well. Anyways, tomorrow after i had some sleep i'll move this suggestion to the talk page to see what kind of fixes i can make. --Matthew Fahrenheit 09:39, 30 May 2006 (BST)
You felt insulted over one Kill vote out of how many? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:11, 30 May 2006 (BST)
It was the content of the vote, I believe. He contends that a mall siege would actually benefit from being able to barricade to EHB+8 –Xoid STFU! 13:13, 30 May 2006 (BST)
Oh...right. Still, I fail to see the potential insult value. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:17, 30 May 2006 (BST)
I did feel insulted by the tone of your first reply, not your original kill vote. But, as opposed to people that is so used to be arguing, never ending drama and trolling, i think my point of view may be kinda naive for you. Next time i blame you of insulting me i'll have to make sure to gather all kind of proofs, or at least enough to start an arbitration case, as that seems to be the only thing actual wiki veterans respect. And Xoid, people with my suggestion will be able to barricade to "EH+10", not +8 only. --Matthew Fahrenheit 18:15, 30 May 2006 (BST)
You're going to start arbitration cases over single insults? You know, arbitration is really only meant for edit wars. It was decided last week (?) that this should be so. Users are expected to solve their own arguments. And I can pretty much guarantee you that veterans won't respect someone who starts an arbitration case every time he's insulted. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberbob240 (talkcontribs) at an unknown time. at 22:37, 30 May 2006 (BST)
What is needed is a more reasonable suggestion; this one is simply way too much. It does suck that new zombies level so slowly because gaining XP is so difficult. Even the 1XP per cade level drop is too much. A few XP(2-5) for completely removing a cade would be better, IMO. And perhaps 1XP for ransacking a building, though this would only help midlevel zombies with the skill.--Raystanwick 22:03, 30 May 2006 (BST)

New and Improved Radio

(Moved from Suggestions):

(In response to)

  1. SpamKill - Some changes needed, like "where do you find radios?", "at what rate?", "where will the 'broadcasting' skill be placed?", and i wuold like the radio message to be broadcasted only in the same suburb you are, and not 9 as it is a bit extreme. Everyone that is voting keep is voting a half made sugestion. Just resubmit more detailed and you have my keep. --Matthew Fahrenheit 02:53, 27 May 2006 (BST) changed the Spam voite, i must confess it was there just to catch the eye of everyone who was voting keep. I wont do that again. --Matthew Fahrenheit 03:59, 27 May 2006 (BST)
    Re: So...why not kill? Why spam? MaulMachine U! 03:51, 27 May 2006 (BST)
    You cant Re other guy suggestions. --Matthew Fahrenheit 03:56, 27 May 2006 (BST)
    I dont think there was much of a reason to move this, but anyways: Dont worry MM, i changed my vote and told my concerns to the suggestion's author. --Matthew Fahrenheit 05:43, 27 May 2006 (BST)
Well, for radios, well, mall electronics stores, maybe PDs, Motels and Hotels (they usually have radios in rooms) etc. As for power. Well, the simplest radio can be made, eg. out of a razor blade and a graphite pen, needing no electricity. Only problem being capturing the right airwaves. There could be a solar panel, or a lever to spin a small generator, youknow, the things you find in survival packets (usually meant for earthquakes, floods or other similar crisii, but Zmobbageddon works too). Off course, they could require batteries, which could be found in malls, maybe schools, etc.--William Raker 18:07, 27 May 2006 (BST)
Screw the batteries, they complicate things. Cellphones and GPS units could use bateries too, and they dont. Its not the Radio use that needs balancing, its the broadcasting ability tht needs some tweaking. I wonder why a community that spamminates almost everything to oblivion is voting keep in a half-made suggestion... --Matthew Fahrenheit 18:18, 27 May 2006 (BST)
Probobly because it has a way to solve a problem in a suggestion that has been suggested dozens of times before and makes it very useful. Search rates are delicate things that frequently kill suggestions by making them a pain or too powerful. In some suggestions they are more important than others, such as guns or other one shot deals, but when its something that you only need one of, its not quite as important in my opinon. HamsterNinja 08:00, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Searchable profiles (improved) talk

Trying my hardest to keep chatter down: Please don't call realism on this, if you want to toss realism entirely, then give me my ti-barreled shotgun and cross-country-killing rail gun, thank you, else-wise, I'll vote based on my preferred reality. I'd rather not have a search in the game, that's just my opinion, it maintains my preferred flavour. If you forget to use your back button, then that's your fault. What happens if you forget to take out the trash or wash your dishes? --Burgan 23:02, 6 June 2006 (BST)"

"The problem with "Ti-barreled shotguns" and "cross-country-killing rail guns" isn't merely realism, it's that they affect game balance. My idea does not.

I don't think realism is a relevant issue to consider vis-a-vis the entire game system of profiles and contacts lists. The whole set of mechanics is an artificial construct designed to make up for the fact the game has has only a very limited means of representing the real-life ability of people to recognize each other - it will never be "realistic." IMO, the only things that matter when considering changes to the system are the effects on game balance and usefulness to players.

I understand what you're saying about taking out the trash and washing the dishes, but those are red herrings. It's not the job of a game mechanic to make you life easier that way even if it was possible for it do so. If we take the "It is the way it is, tough luck," approach with the game, then can we ever justify the numerous changes to the game based on convenience to players made since the game's birth? -CWD 23:29, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Sure, we can change, there are plenty of things to change in the game. I just don't want this one to change, and think it works nicely as is. That is my opinion that I am entitled to vote on. I apologize if I got combative, but I get defensive when I feel people are trying to strike me down because I'm arguing realism; I felt I was arguing flavour to begin with. I like the limited contacts, and with the garbage/dishes quote I was just trying to point out that if you're PKed/revived, you should remember to check who it was before you log off, and as that was a point brought up as motivation, I aired my problem with it. I wouldn't call realism on laser guns if they were balanced, or on the mutant zombie suggestions (especially the super zombie running around destroying everything type suggestion, I love that!), but I think keeping the realism of a society in the panic and confusion of zombie-fest malton is good.
Still, I only meta-game when I've been serial PKed/tired of waiting for a revive, but I can see how you could use this to further communication within urban dead and steer a little away from all the meta-gaming. I can see some merits there.
And by the way, it was supposed to read 'tri-barreled shotguns', but I suppose titanium barrel shotguns could be used as mean melee weapons or something... --Burgan 03:40, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

This section is for suggestions which have not yet been submitted, and are still being worked on.


Sense Horde Movement

Timestamp: 16:46, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie
Description: Zombies players who don't meta-game need a skill to help them keep up with a horde. I suggest that a better way of allowing them to follow along without being told the next target, is for them to be able to sense which block most of the zombies from their block have moved to since their last turn.

Similar to Scent Trail, if two or more zombies that were present last time the player logged in have since moved to another square together, a message appears telling them where the greatest number went...

Since your last turn:
6 zombies from here moved to 6 west, 2 north.
A zombie killed Flameboy. (2 hours 55 minutes ago)
You heard a loud groaning from very close by. (1 hour 40 minutes ago)

Votes

  1. Comment: Workable? Any ideas about improvements? I'd put this skill somewhere in the tree where it could be bought early (even below Scent Death) --Boxy 16:46, 11 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Comment: I like it. I had a similar idea, but I think yours is better. Where the horde goes, there is usualy food :) --McArrowni 17:05, 11 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Comment: Good, just as long as it's not a dupe (I haven't seen anything similar, but it's so hard to search. I'll put it up tonight, or tommorow I guess. What do I do with these development discussions on the suggestions talk page? Should I delete the last one I made (down the page), now that it's been voted on, and moved to the archives? Or does it get moved to the archive talk page? --Boxy 02:42, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Journals

Timestamp: 13:56, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Perhaps to give further insight into the backstory/storyline of Malton and the proceedings leading to its current state, journals could be added as a findable item, and can be found in most locations. The reason being that journals found from a certain locations are written by a person who is likely to have left it there. For example, if one found a journal in a hospital, it would be written by a hospital staff member, and those found in NecroTech buildings or mansion/buildings/school/hotel would be written by a NecroTech employee and civilian respectively. To prevent it from causing the same annoyance as newspapers, the search rates could be somewhere at 0.5%(?) considering the fact that not everyone has journals, and even so, they would probably be kept more carefully than most things.

Players spend 1 AP to read a page from the journal, and the reading of the pages/entries would be in a random order. Every time it is read, a message saying "You read a page from the journal" will appear, followed by the date of the entry and a few paragraphs of text written from the appropriate point of view. The journal entries would, of course, be written during the time of the early outbreaks.

The reading of journals does not affect or result in XP gain, its more for those who would like to know more about Malton's story.

A couple of problems would be: - Negative impression due to newspapers. - Creating a canon version of the story behind Urban Dead and presenting from several points of view ...and of course, this item being useless and not worth implementing

It’s my first time suggesting and using a wiki, so feel free to point out stuff/rules that I might have overlooked. The timestamp might be a bit weird though, as I'm not familiar with BST.

Otherwise…fire away.

Votes
Votes here Well, I have no problem with flavor items. But the majority here DOES, so I doub this would pass. What would help is if you (okay someone) actually WROTE the story. Take a look at the newspapers in the Nexus War game for ideas too. Basically, even if a suggestion doesn't pass, the MORE work YOU do, the less KEVAN has to do. He's been known to implement ideas the wiki community killed.--Pesatyel 19:35, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Hmm...my writing skils are not exactly good, and its quite a big project to write that many articles. If enough people were interested, it could be made into a community project where the main outline of the story behind Malton is agreed upon, and different people write from the different roles. However, it would still be fan fiction, and whether it is accepted (and implemented) as in-game canon is a different matter.--Daishii 02:49, 11 June 2006 (BST)
I would suggest that you take a look at the Outbreak Lexicon. It's a user run attempt to flesh out the back story of the game, and some of the entries are formatted as journal notes. --Darth Sensitive talkW! 16:59, 11 June 2006 (BST)
I can see it now: "4. Itchy. Tasty." -- November7 08:37, 13 June 2006 (BST)

View Radio Operators

Timestamp: 12:40, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: Other people in the building with a radio transmitter can tell who sends a message from their location, and what the message was. The more annoying, repeat spammers would be PK'ed pretty quickly less likely to get healed next time they're in trouble. As it is, the totally anonymous nature of the radio means there is absolutely no come back for griefing the radio network.

I'd be surprised if no-one has suggested this before, but I can't find it, which is why I put this here. Hope the formatting is alright, my first suggestion.

Votes
Votes here Could work. It's likely the suggestion would get Killed though: for some reason people around here hate PKers. A real pity, the guy who sent vaginavaginavaginavagina… etc. deserves to get griefed IMO. –Xoid STFU! 13:13, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Really? Some people are just asking for it… anyway… maybe that edit may be more... ummm, palitable? Boxy 13:21, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Palatable? Can't stand the taste of pussy? (I am so seriously gonna get flamed for that.) –Xoid STFU! 17:19, 4 June 2006 (BST)

This is a good idea. As for the PR portion, I wouldn't even bother mentioning the possibility of backlash on spammers. This just makes sense within the current speech rules. Why on Earth should you be unable to hear someone because they've got a transmitter in front of them? --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 19:53, 4 June 2006 (BST)

I would probably vote Kill on this for two other reasons:

  1. Don't babysit. Let the player's play. If people want to grief, they will grief. Don't try to rubber-pad everything.
  2. The insane amount of spam from seeing everything said twice would be unbearable.

Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 19:56, 4 June 2006 (BST)

I've no problem with griefing... just as long as I (or others) have the opportunity to know who the arse is that's doing it, and I don't see why people in the building would have to hear transmissions from their building twice. You don't hear the messages twice if you've got a transmitter and a portable tuned in to the same frequency Boxy 09:52, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Once you break the total anonymity of radios, it becomes much more like speaking in front of a lot of people and so a bit scary instead of mess-around fun. --Toejam 04:30, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Exactly Boxy 09:52, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I still think the easiest/best way to cut down on spam is to have it cost more AP per message. And, for the above suggestion, what about the LISTENERS? THEY can't see who sent the radio message.--Pesatyel 06:08, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Well that's why this would make the radio more realistic. People in the room (the 50 nearest anyway) would be able to hear, and see, who was transmitting. Listeners wouldn't Boxy 09:52, 5 June 2006 (BST)
I understand that. I guess I can't really add much to the discussion not having had much experience with radios yet.--Pesatyel 21:26, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I love this suggestion :) --McArrowni 18:09, 5 June 2006 (BST)


Heinous Infection

Timestamp: 08:39, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: In the quarantined city of Malton, life goes on for the weary survivors. Living in constant fear, and ever in peril of joining the legions of the undead, it seems as if entropy will succeed eventually everyone will succumb to the zombie plague. However, as life gets worse for humanity, it continues chugging merrily along for the various maladies and viruses that plague humanity. One such ailment is the Heinous Infection harbored by certain especially putrescent zombies.

This skill requires Infectious Bite to learn. Survivors who die from the bite of a zombie with Heinous Infection, or from the Heinous Infection itself, will act as if temporarily Brain-Rotted when they stand up. The only way to revivify a zombie suffering from a Heinous Infection is to use a First-Aid Kit on to cure the infection, and then the Revivification Syringe. The only way to identify a zombie suffering from the Heinous Infection is to use the DNA Extractor; Revivification Failures read the same as if the subject truly had a rotten brain.

Zombies cannot bite themselves to give themselves the Heinous Infection.

Author: Would this overpower the already rather strong zombie bite? Perhaps if I made it independent of the "infectious bite" and made it an ability that required a special attack in and of itself? Maybe call it "vicious dismemberment", which would also require first-aid before revivification, but instead be linked to the hands?

Votes
Votes here

I <3 this idea. I don't think anyone else will though. It'd serve as a way to make DNA extractors even more important for scientists and revivers. It would really lessen the chance of combat revives — who the hell is going to revive someone when you can't even be sure that a non-rotter can actually be revived? This has so many minor anti-survivor side effects from it that it might actually make the game balanced again. –Xoid STFU! 13:19, 4 June 2006 (BST)

With all due respect to Xoid, this is very much overpowered. It's about as clear an example of this as you can get. It also definitely fails Multiply by a Billion, griefs human players that get hit with this, and would require a multi-step fix, which may violate the no multi-step suggestions rule. I admire your intent in trying to aid the zombie population, but this idea is, from what I can see, unworkable at it's core. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 19:49, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Also, under current game mechanics, it would be all but impossible to scan, heal, and revive one specific zombie in a stack unless they were on your contact list. I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be that hard. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 19:51, 4 June 2006 (BST)

As I said, I don't think anyone else will. I wouldn't mind my survivor characters getting shafted if it meant that those who only ever play survivors also suffered. (When zombies suck for so long, you tend to get bitter about it.) –Xoid STFU! 20:03, 4 June 2006 (BST)
I believe I've actually been playing zombies for rather longer than you have, so yeah, I definitely know what you mean about the bitterness. The way to fix the game is to make zombies not suck, though, not to make survivors suck too. Mutual griefing does not a fun game make. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 00:10, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Jimbo Bob speaks the truth. Heed him. David Malfisto 22:09, 8 June 2006 (BST)

  • I like this a lot, and I've voted Keep on similar suggestions before. I would just suggest tweaking it a bit to make Jimbo's stack issue less of a deal-breaker. Perhaps you have to get scanned, then stuck, or stuck twice -- since getting scanned and stuck are things that happen to zombies anyway, it wouldn't require a single reviver to perform a customer operation on you. You're just waiting at that revive point a bit longer. --Ember MBR 17:37, 15 June 2006 (BST)

Horde Leader

Timestamp: ~~~~~
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Throughout the course history it has always been the individual genius, the heroic man, that charismatic someone that has brought about change and revolution. For zombie-kind it is no different. Among the ravening, ever famished hordes of the undead there are kings and princes, zombies who, through some dark design or quirk of necrotech, hold sway over their compatriots and lead masses to their next meal, herding the pitiful mortals in their wake.

This skill would require the zombie to be Level 10. Upon logging in, or whenever their AP replenishes by one point (with a threshold of only one such message being displayed in the log in either case), all zombies will receive a message to the effect of "Your cold, dead brain stirs slightly and directs you to go X blocks by Y blocks towards Horde Leader *name*", which will inform them of the location of the closest horde leader. Furthermore, a Horde Leader can spend 1 AP to give a zombie in a stack a "Rallying Groan", which would give +15% to their next attack. The attack bonus applies against survivors and barricades, not other zombies. Successive uses would first go down the stack of zombies to "charge" them all up. Usage on a fully "charged" stack will "load up" the zombies, giving them +10% to their next two attacks. Each zombie would be able to store three rallies at most. However, rallies disappear if either the zombie or the Horde Leader moves out of the block or into a building.

Rallying Groan would not be an experience gaining action.

Revision: Previous version gave a passive +5% to all zombies within a block, current version forces use of AP to give bonus to individual zombies in a block. Furthermore, requirement changed to Level 10, reflecting the eminence required to be a luminary of the dark-sent horde.

Revision 2: Changed attack bonus to affect only survivors and barricades. Although hordes are ravening and can be prone to autophagia, the point of a horde leader is to lead the apocalyptic crusade against humanity. You down with entropy? (yeah, you know me!)

Votes


If you want this to have any kind of chance, give it a level req, and a steep one. Level 10 (or even 15) would be my preference. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 07:50, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Does the + 10/15% bonus apply to attacking barricades and humans? I think it should.--Toejam 05:00, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Something else to consider is that we have two types of hordes. The official hordes like, the Seagulls and the unofficial ones where a group of ferals all happen to coordinate in some way at the same time.--Pesatyel 06:15, 5 June 2006 (BST)


+15% to attacks? A 75% accuracy claw attack?! I think not. I'd vote with a strong Kill. David Malfisto 22:11, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I would almost defenetly vote keep, the 75% accuracy is good to balance off the 26 + ap needed to bring down moderate defences. A single human can hurt a feral zombie bad with construction it only makes sense that zombies can hurt humans bad when they get through the ades. Playdo effect ahoy --ramby T--W! - SGP 14:19, 12 June 2006 (BST)


Newbie Quickstart

Timestamp: ~~~~~
Type: Improvement
Scope: Newly created characters
Description: Reviewing the Stat-tracking page, I stumbled across a disturbing fact: about 50% of all level 1 players quit before reaching level 2, and about 50% of those players quit before reaching level 3 (at which point it levels off). In other words, about 75% of all new players in the game quit almost immediately - something that undoubtedly contributes to the crashing total number of players of this game, which has recently dropped by more than 5000 players. Why shouldn't be hard to decipher: as of right now, playing a newbie sucks almost unbearably. You can't do anything very well, and you're ignorant enough to be very easy prey. So, I thought I'd come up with a suggestion to try and at least partially remedy this without unbalancing the game.

My suggestion is simple: all characters should be created with 100 XP. This wouldn't affect any existing characters. It would simply permit new players to immediately purchase any available skill (skills under skills they don't have would, of course, be off-limits) of their choice upon starting the game, enabling a bit of customization, and helping them through the steepest part of the learning curve for the game. The skills of Construction, Lab Experience, and Radio Operation, however, would not be purchasable with this XP, in order to dissuade zergers/spammers from abusing this. These skills could still be purchased normally after the new character has earned another 100 XP, however.

As before, if voters don't like this version, I'd appreciate it if they would note what, if anything, I could do to fix/improve this suggestion in their votes. If I get enough input, I'll take this to Talk for a rewrite and then resubmit it.

Votes


  • Changes in bold. Please suggest further changes below this if any occur to you. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 07:31, 4 June 2006 (BST)
  • This would have more chance if it just came up with a screen at the start and you could select the skill you want rather then giving 100XP. Well thats what I reckon any way. - Jedaz 11:48, 4 June 2006 (BST)
    • I'd have to agree, though I do like the limitations on Construction and Radio Operation. But it would also make classes useless. Granted they ARE useless, this would just make it worse.--Pesatyel 06:26, 5 June 2006 (BST)
      • Alright, I can change it to a screen at startup, if that's what people want. My thought was that this way would be easier for Kevan to implement, but implementation's up to him anyway. Also, yes, this would render classes less unique, but as you yourself noted they're already meaningless. As for "worse than useless"... I fail to see how this would be harmful, which is what saying that implies. Care to elaborate? --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 22:57, 5 June 2006 (BST)
        • Well, for starters, I believe we SHOULD have class differentation. Give each class something special that the other classes don't get. But, of course, THAT is another suggestion entirely. As for my comment, at the time I was thinking of the whiny NTs who went on strike. They CHOSE to play a "difficult" starting class when they could have easily taken a class like Fireman, for example, to level easily then buy the NT skills as soon as they could. While all classes are, eventually, the same, having a player pick, say Cop as his class and then the skill he picks is Free Running to start...why wouldn't he just START as a Scout? Of course, something that needs to be clarified is WHAT skills can we take? Can my character START with Advanced Shotgun Training or Necronet Access (the same way the Firefighter starts with Axe Proficiency) even though they have prerequisites?--Pesatyel 03:06, 6 June 2006 (BST)
          • I agree that classes should be more differentiated, but as you noted that's another suggestion altogether. To answer your question: You can only pick skills with no prerequisite, or that have your class's normal starting skill as a prerequisite, and not Construction or Radio Operation under any circumstances. Hope that cleared things up. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:55, 7 June 2006 (BST)
            • It does, but it doesn't mean a while lot. It just leave Hand to Hand Combat, Tagging, Body Building and Diagnosis as the only "alternative" skills.--Pesatyel 07:07, 8 June 2006 (BST)
  • This would be very good for new zombie characters. Humans already have plenty of differentiation with the various classes; zombies only have one class. Encouraging more zeds would be a good thing.I think part of the problem is new players don't read all the newbie guides scattered across the the wiki and boards before making a character. A single, detailed guide linked right on the UD home page would help avoid the initial confusion and frustrations of new players. The best of all would be a clear guide thrust in a n00bs face, and 100XP for beginning survivors and 200XP for new zeds. Just my two cents. --Raystanwick 02:45, 6 June 2006 (BST)
    • I'm not keen on the idea of favoring zombies with this. Yes, they need the help, but that's more of a stopgap solution than a genuine fix. A guide sounds like a fine idea, though it seems like one that'd work better as a seperate suggestion. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 06:55, 7 June 2006 (BST)


The build for a starting NecroTech Lab Assistant will probably become Necrotech Employment + Lab Experience straight off the bat. I see inevitable problems with this. –Xoid STFU! 15:01, 7 June 2006 (BST)

  • Good point. Revive-bots would be more-or-less inevitable with that build. Adding that to the list of forbidden skills. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 00:15, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Expert Specialization

Timestamp: 02:00, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Class-specific skills for veteran players
Scope: All players
Description: Reading the Linear XP suggestion, I realized that I would like to see class-specific specialization -- but with new, class-specific skills rather than an overhaul of the existing skill system. So here's my proposal.

Each character class is provided with a new skill that only players of that class can purchase. Cops will never get the specialty fireman skill, and vice versa. If you want to try a skill for a different class, you'll simply need to create a new character in that class and start leveling.

Additionally, in order to become eligible for the class-specific skill, you must acquire every other skill available to your class type. Medics will need to acquire every human skill in order to have the option of purchasing their skill; corpse-class zombies will need to acquire every zombie skill. Class-specific skills also cost 200 XP for all class types.

The skills are listed below. These are powerful additions -- don't be fooled by the small numbers. Each one would seriously impact the game. However, only the most veteran of players are going to be able to attain these skills, and no character will ever be able to possess more than one.

Private - Marksmanship: You are able to target areas of the body not protected by a flak jacket. All successful firearm attacks deal full damage regardless of flak.

Medic - Triage: You are skilled in field medicine. Player's FAKs heal 15hp everywhere, regardless of location or powered building status.

Scout - Shortcut: You are an expert in getting in and out of fortified locations. Can enter and exit heavily (but not very heavily or extremely heavily) barricaded buildings.

NT - Advanced NecroNet Access: You know the most intricate secrets of NecroTech equipment. Syringe manufacture costs half the AP.

Doctor - Intensive Care: You are experienced with hospital equipment. Player's FAKs heal an additional 5hp over Surgery in powered hospitals, for a total of 20hp.

Cop - Veteran Firearms Training: You're one of the sharpest shooters on the beat. Firearms accuracy is increased by 5%.

Firefighter - Strong Arm: You're built like a tank. All melee and punch attacks deal an extra 1 damage.

Consumer - Scrounge: You know how to find those buried bargains. All search odds increased by 30% over their normal values (5% search odds become 6.5%, 30% becomes 39%, etc.).

Corpse - Petrified Limbs: Your hardened arms pack a terrible wallop. Success in breaking barricades is increased by 5%.

Votes


  • Interestingly, when I first put this up for a vote commenters found the same skills both "underpowered" and "overpowered." Really I have tried to limit the effect of every skill, while balancing them with each other. At the same time, I haven't worried too much about making every skill equally powerful. The Scout, for example, is kind of a tricky class to start with, so I felt freer to give him an extra-cool skill at the max level. NecroTechs are already pretty effective IMO, so their end skill is more of a convenience than anything. Feedback is welcome.

FYI, Marksmanship makes the pistol's MBR vs. flak 1.71 (roughly, new search odds data still coming in), while Veteran Firearms Training makes it 1.47 vs. flak. --Ember MBR 14:46, 31 May 2006 (BST)


Few questions. Would a Medic possessing Triage then be able to heal 20 HP in a powered hospital, or would Surgery now no longer work for them out of balance concerns? And if the latter, how would you justify that? Would the Firefighter's Strong Arm skill carry over to zombie attacks? If so, would it cover both claw and bite attacks, or only claw?
Also a couple of comments: Consumer search bonus should be a flat boost. What you've got now results in some ugly-looking numbers that just look like they should be rounded off. Also, the solitary zombie boost looks mighty underpowered next to all the different crud the survivors get. In particular, Marksmanship and Advanced NecroNet Access would skew things very strongly in favor of survivors, and a 5% boost to barricade breaking would not go a long ways towards compensating for that. Requiring players to purchase every skill on their side of the tree is unfair to zombies, too. They'd have to get Brain Rot, something many many zombies do not care to do for obvious reasons, while survivors would face no such price for getting their class skill.
In summary: I like the idea of class specialization - a lot, actually - but this still needs a great deal of balancing. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 20:08, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Defense

Timestamp: 6:27 pm 15 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Resting Characters
Description: Characters can defend themselves while players are offline. Before logging off, a player may check a box,

"Defend until next action." If the character is attacked, it counterattacks once each time it is attacked. Counterattacking uses 1 AP, the same as if the character were attacking normally. If the character runs out of AP, it can't counterattack. Counterattacking does not award XP to the defender.

Votes


I posted this on the 'suggestions' page, and it was spaminated within several hours. Xoid said the general feeling was that it was "utterly absurd," with no further comment. That's interesting, because when I started playing the game, what struck me as "utterly absurd" was a character getting attacked 20 times in a row and not noticing it. Perhaps he's engrossed in a book? As a new player, I can tell you that this is a major obstacle to new players getting involved in the game. The idea that your character will just stand there like a vegetable while a zombie eats him is extremely baffling. Auto-defending would seem like such a basic idea, I'm unclear on why it hasn't been implemented before now. --Gathercole

First of all, imagine playing, then logging on the next day to find you have no AP because it was all spent on auto-defense. Secondly your suggestions was terribly incomplete. "Defend until next action" would mean defending ONCE (the next action being the "defense" action). What form would the counterattack take? Logging on to find out you used all your ammo would suck even worse than not having AP. The main problem is in the "free action" idea of it. Yes, you use AP, but the basic idea is that with each AP one spends, they choose how to use that AP. If you wish to spend the 20 AP to manufacture a syringe, that is YOUR choice. THIS suggestion takes away that choice. In addition, the game does not differentiate between "online" and "offline." Also, that is part of the point of the game. You have a limited amount of time to do things AND still find a safeplace to hide.--Pesatyel 21:46, 15 June 2006 (BST)
I made no further comment because of the fact that, if you read the suggestions page's rules, you aren't supposed to. Apart from everything that Pesatyel said think of it this way, you're sleeping, a zombie grabs a hold of you and keeps ripping into you. Alternatively, zombies aren't exactly bright, even those with Memories of Life. (Hey if they were smart, they wouldn't have a fixation on grandmothers or gangbanging bananas.) There you go, RPing problem solved. Good day. –Xoid STFU! 03:51, 16 June 2006 (BST)

Thank you for your comments, I'll try to address them. Re:running out of AP/ammo: As I said above, the player checks a box if he wants to defend. He doesn't have to check it. Re:online/offline: I agree the game should not distinguish between online and offline. That's why having characters that are in a catatonic state of helplessness 23.5/24 hours does not make sense. Currently, the difference between online and offline is literally the difference between life and death. Re:sleeping explanation: Again, humans are not awake for 20 minutes and then asleep for 23 hours. Also, a character who has 40 AP is not asleep... unless his player is offline? I think this is an artificial distinction that doesn't need to be made. Re:balance/hiding: Auto-defense would not make hiding unnecessary. Far from it; When the defending character runs out of AP, he's fair game for anyone. It would still be much, much better to find a place to hide. The only difference would be that a 35th level character wouldn't stare into space while he's killed by 4 different 1st level zombies over the course of 10 hours. Thanks again for your comments, I hope to continue working on this idea. --Gathercole

Wouldn't you want to have a good long sleep after running through half the neighborhood to unload a shotgun at some ravenous zombie, only to run back? Or after spending serious amounts of time laboriously digging through rubble, looking for a few shells? Moving rubble and running through many a city block is bound to tire someone out. Especially anyone who is carrying a bunch of shotguns and a box of shells. Or an axe. Or two garbage bags full of FAKs. It's not unreasonable or illogical when you think about it. –Xoid STFU! 05:02, 16 June 2006 (BST)
Way to obfuscate the discussion.
  • Re:running out of AP/ammo: As I said above, the player checks a box if he wants to defend. He doesn't have to check it.
Ignored what I said. Checking the box has NOTHING to do with it. What if I DO check it? WHAT weapon is used in the counterattack? It would really piss people off to CHECK the defend box and be out of ammo when they log back on.
  • Re:online/offline: I agree the game should not distinguish between online and offline. That's why having characters that are in a catatonic state of helplessness 23.5/24 hours does not make sense. Currently, the difference between online and offline is literally the difference between life and death.
Well, a distinction WOULD help your suggestion.
  • Re:sleeping explanation: Again, humans are not awake for 20 minutes and then asleep for 23 hours. Also, a character who has 40 AP is not asleep... unless his player is offline? I think this is an artificial distinction that doesn't need to be made.
It is a balancing issue. And why are you arguing semantics?
  • Re:balance/hiding: Auto-defense would not make hiding unnecessary. Far from it; When the defending character runs out of AP, he's fair game for anyone. It would still be much, much better to find a place to hide. The only difference would be that a 35th level character wouldn't stare into space while he's killed by 4 different 1st level zombies over the course of 10 hours.
What ARE you talking about here?
  • Thanks again for your comments, I hope to continue working on this idea. --Gathercole
What would work better, perhaps, would be if the person had to ALLOCATE x amount of AP to "defense." Say a person with 40 AP allocates 10 to "defense," which only activates AFTER the person has 0 AP left. The 10 AP is considered spent. After reaching 0 AP, the next 10 attacks against the person are counterattacked (using a random MELEE weapon or punch if no melee weapon). An 11th attack would NOT trigger a counter since the "defender" only allocated 10 AP to it.--Pesatyel 21:04, 16 June 2006 (BST)


My comments below... it's a pretty big read... sorry 'bout that --McArrowni 02:30, 17 June 2006 (BST)

The thing that needs to be known about auto-defense skills is that they have been suggested since the beginning of the suggestion system. Whilst this doesn't justify the statu-quo (which is basically auto-defense = auto-kill or auto-spam) on it's own, it means that there is a big amount of discussion which was made on it before.

The conclusions seemed to indicate that people found all mechanics brought forth so far to be inelegant (too many loose ends), and that they prefered the current playstyle. The problem with auto-defense is it rather complex to do without leaving loose ends and would change the entire game. For survivors with combat skills, especially those with headshot, not using it would be like playing handicaped, because the AP lost will frankly probably be less than the AP to get to a revive point, for someone to make a needle, find them and inject it (or at least I hope this takes a good chunk of AP, otherwise it's no wonder survivors outnumber zombies). People prefer to take the whole situation with a philosophy of KISS (keep it simple stupid)

Problems I see with auto-defense, beyond the fact that people don't like how it would change the game:

  1. The game needs to know which attack to use. A suggestion would need to give an answer for it.
    • This includes many variables, such as ammo for survivors, best average damage available, etc.
    • It also includes variables of: use bite for special abilities or claws for more damage. The game needs to judge which is more advantageous of a zombie to use...
    • Lemme guess. Offline fight orders? simple right? Well, aside from the fact that the only RPG game I've seen using it had it buggy as hell, and the fact that it would need to be able to adapt to multiple situations (see point #2), and probably be a nightmare to code, for a Kevan who states most of his upcoming features are not coded yet because of lack of time to implement them...
  2. Zombie bites you, you are now infected. Each time your offline defense skill makes you attack, you lose 1 hp... Then the zombie attacks with claws, increasing his damage by 1 per attack, possibly wether it hits or not, because you kill yourself with infection. Or will infection disable your fight-back capabilities. Or make you immune to infection? Thus nerfing the zombie's special attack? Too much or too little, seems hard to balance
  3. Frankly, logging on with your newbie zombie, whilst losing 15AP to stand up after that headshot, and getting headshot AGAIN by a guy who's offline in the streets, ya know, your only chance to get a victim, because he's lvl 30 and you're not, just sounds plain frustrating... And if offline combat can't headshot, ankle-grabbing zombies will just thank you for the full heal... Too much or too little, seems hard to balance.
  4. Scientists will want the love too. Are we gonna accept offline FAK useage contingencies, as well as self-defense combat revives, or are survivors going to be more of a pain to play than their military brethen. By which I mean, even more than they already are?
  5. If I have a slow connection, does that mean I'm better off logging off in a fight?
  6. Honestly, survivors already have an offline defense skill. It's called construction, and it drains 4 or 5 AP off some zombie you haven't even met each time you use it. I think that's pretty good already

Thus, I call my best offline defense suggestion ever, the "Keep the pace slow" voting/suggesting guideline. It just consists into not letting combat accelerate to the point where seeing some guy when you are online instantly fries him into dust (or insta-revives on sight, like it nearly was in the old days) (disclaimer, this statement may or may not be exagerated). (which, unfortunately, isn't that popular of a philosophy yet, and Kevan doesn't seem to have noticed my wittle crusade yet)

Of course, if you think you can find an elegant, preferably simple, solution to all the problems stated above, you are welcome to suggest it. --McArrowni 02:26, 17 June 2006 (BST)


McArrowni, thanks for your comments. It makes sense that auto-defense has been discussed before, based on the reaction I received. Still, I think there might be more discussion to be had about the details. One thing I would like to suggest is the auto-defending NOT AWARD XP. This would remove a powerful incentive to do it all the time, and make the decision of whether or not to do it an economical one, based on the AP cost of dying.

  • For now I'll present my findings on survivor weapon selection and ammo usage. I agree that weapon usage algorithms would be too complicated. The player should probably just choose which firearms he wants to defend with. If no firearms are selected, or if a firearm runs out of ammo while the character is auto-defending, the character would switch to the highest average damage melee weapon.
  • How much ammo should a survivor be willing to spend on auto-defense? Since finding ammo takes AP, the answer depends on the assumed AP cost of dying. For calculating the optimum amount of ammo spent on avoiding death, let's assume death costs the defending survivor an average of 70 AP (10 to stand up as a z, ~50 to find a revive point, 10 to stand up as a survivor). Let's also assume that an attacker begins the attack with 50 HP and will attack the offline survivor until either the attacking zombie or the defending survivor are killed. Since death costs 70 AP, a survivor is willing to spend up to 70 AP avoiding it.
  • With the pistol: One pistol attack has an AP cost of 3.2 AP (factoring in searching for ammo, loading, and firing). For the amount of AP that would be lost by dying, a survivor should be willing to expend a maximum of 70/3.2= 21.8 attacks to avoid death. Is that enough to kill an attacking zombie? At 30% accuracy, 21.8 attacks does an average of 32.7 damage, which will not kill the attacker. At 55%, the average is 60 damage, and at 65%, 70.85 damage. Therefore, a survivor with Basic Firearms (accuracy 30%) should NOT auto-defend with the pistol, as the AP cost of fighting off the attacker exceeds the cost of dying (assuming dying costs 70 AP). A survivor with PT or APT, however, should auto-defend.
  • With the shotgun: One shotgun attack has an AP cost of 16 AP. That means a survivor should be willing to expend up to 70/16= 4.38 attacks avoiding death. At 30% accuracy, 4.38 attacks do an average of 13.14 damage. At 55%, 24 damage, and at 65%, 28.47 damage. None of these are able to kill an attacker. Therefore, no matter what skills a survivor has, it is never economical for him to auto-defend with the shotgun (once again, assuming death costs 70 AP).
  • With melee weapons: Assuming death costs 70 AP, it is economical to defend with the Knife (only with Knife Fighting) and the Fire Axe (With Hand to Hand Combat or Axe Proficiency). If death is assumed to cost 100 or more AP, then defending with the Knife (with Hand to Hand Combat) or Length of Pipe (with Hand to Hand Combat) becomes economical. Only if the cost of death is assumed to exceed 125 AP does defending with the crowbar (with Hand to Hand Combat) become economical.

I hope this analysis has cleared up some questions about the effect of auto-defense on the game. As you can see, it is a fairly modest one, but I think it the benefit of making the game more fair, more logical, and removing the "kill on sight" nature of combat that McArrowni mentioned. --Gathercole 20:18, 17 June 2006 (BST)

No, it hasn't cleared ANYTHING up. And I'm glad you ignored everything *I* said. And what is this "willng to spend" stuff? According to your suggestion, which I see NO change here, the "defender" doesn't get to choose how much AP they spend "defending." If I log off after spending my last AP, then 12 hours later I get attacked 25 times in a row (and don't die), not only have I lost all the AP I had accumlated over the last 12 hours I've also counterattacked 25 times without my control. Why do you keep ignoring those factors? Here's an idea, how about we throw in an "auto stand up" (maybe any auto-Mrh?) when dead and eliminate the need to ACTUALLY play the character at all?--Pesatyel 22:01, 17 June 2006 (BST)

Pesatyel, I'm taking one thing at a time. My last post showed when it would be economical to use auto-defense, with which weapons and which skills. The analysis is based on comparing the AP cost of successfully defending (with a certain weapon or skillset) to the AP cost of getting killed. For example, attacking with the shotgun is so expensive in terms of AP that it's more economical to let yourself die than to enable auto-defense with the shotgun (assuming it costs about 70 AP to get revived). From your comment, it seems like you don't understand the analysis. Do you understand what it means to say that a shotgun attack costs 16 AP? Also, why are you so rude? I'm sorry about not getting to your comments, but I will eventually. --Gathercole 23:03, 17 June 2006 (BST)

This only scratches the surface, I'm afraid. I'm also unsure about the math (If shooting the pistol is worth it, why isn't the shotgun worth it, since finding shells is a by-product of searching for pistol clips, or vice-versa. If you search for one, you'll get the other one "for free" and all AP used to search for one is automatically used to search for the other.

But that's beside the point. This discussion has made me realize the following

  1. Newbies would be majorly hurt by such a change. Newbie zombies would constantly die even when online (in addition to their offline deaths) until they take the digestion skill. Well... unless they kill those who can't attack back... Meaning the human newbies
  2. Scientists would be majorly hurt by such a change. Scientists run when their safehouse is breached. Auto-attack doesn't give them anything until they are close to maxed out and have started to take combat skills. This means that zombies will see a scientist and think "food" whilst another survivor would be spared.
  3. You realize that a high-level dead zombie stands back up and keeps killing you, don't you?
  4. Are you suggesting only giving humans the ability to counterattack when offline?

The fact is, having no offline defense is a staple of online games, because it's convenient for game design. It's very hard to implement otherwise. I think you already know that, but I'll remind you that there is still most of my previous message that you didn't even begin to answer to. This will be a lengthy discussion if you choose to go through with this (and I have no doubt that we would find that an Urban dead with auto-defense would be either a totaly different game, or totaly broken)--McArrowni 01:51, 18 June 2006 (BST)

McArrowni, this discussion has also made me realize the same things that you mentioned. Auto-defense would have many effects, but the most significant effect would be increasing the gap between high and low-level characters. Right now, attacking high and low-level characters is exactly the same difficulty; auto-defense would change that. I was thinking too much of the marginal benefits to low-level characters without thinking of the much greater benefits to high-level characters. Right now, what we should focus on is making the game less frustrating (not necessarily easier) for low-level characters so we can retain more players. I do have to defend my math, though :) Although you search for clips and shells the same way, when you find a clip you're finding a lot more damage than when you find a shell. This, combined with the greater amount of AP spent loading the shotgun, results in a large difference in economy. So now that I've come around... should we leave this discussion up, or delete it? --Gathercole 6:44, 18 June 2006 (BST)
Leave it, at least as long as the page doesn't get too big too be viewed. It will be archived eventually. And eventually other people will make the same suggestion and we might have forgotten what we discussed here if we delete it --McArrowni 16:20, 18 June 2006 (BST)
My bad, guess I was a tad testy that night. I think there is SOME potential (if it can be figured out). But if you want to continue with the idea, try doing it on your user page (in fact, I might).--Pesatyel 04:52, 19 June 2006 (BST)


Objective Race

Timestamp: 16:32, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Balance change, improvement
Scope: Urban Dead, the dying game
Description: I never come up wth nothing good, and most of my ideas look like MrAushvitz crapped them out, so they usually don't turn up here, rather they end with me, but this thing is so good I had to say it.

So the suggestion. Remember in the days of yore, when the game was just starting? There was a contest about spraypainting. No, I a not suggesting we bring it back, it would cause too much Street is Watching spam. But organizing events ingame would help to revive Urban Dead, pardon the pun.

So what is this about? Incentive. Nothing has happened since Mall Tour '06 failed to kill Caiger. Some malls were attacked, but certin groups stopped the fun for the zombies, and the zombies were not as "Classy" as them as they said. We can't just give out zombie caterpults, so what do we do?

We make events by having them, organized by the game, for the game. We have an objective, such as control of an area, or place, and give rocket launchers XP to the winners. Odd occurances will happen in these areas, such as odd success rates, and messed up search rates. And news will be posted about it, on the wiki. Yes, Kevan will have to work, but the creator sometimes needs to tend to his creation closely.

Here are some example events:

  • Take back Riddlybank - Battle for control of the doomed suburb. Win Condition, In two weeks, if 2/3 or more are human, they win, if 2/3 or more are zombies they win. XP awarded to winning side - 15 XP each
Bonus - There are no standing combatants of the other side. 20 XP
  • Take Ackland Mall - Battle for control of the Mall. Win Condition, In two weeks, if no zombies are in the mall and humans outnumber zombies outside, they win, if zombies are inside, they win, if no humans are inside, double bonus, if zombies outside outnumber survivors, no win. XP awarded to winning side - 15 XP each
  • UD celebration - on the fifth of July, the human who fires the most flares, seen by the most people, gets 75 XP.
The zombie who says the most Death Rattle to the most people gets 75 XP.

These are only example events, but the main point is events.

Votes
A co-ordinated NT tour could wreak havoc on Riddlybank in a few hours, and a few zombie spies with crowbars would take down a mall in time for the rollover. If such things were to be implemented, I would suggest they need points on a king of the hill time based system; e.g. every hour on the hour the sides are examined and points awarded. --Burgan 16:42, 19 June 2006 (BST)

I like the idea of time-limited quests, but I'd rather see some sort of badge system than simple XP awards. I.e., if you are one of the humans inside Ackland Mall when the 2 weeks are up, you get the "Food Court" badge. This would show up on your profile page only. That kind of system would add a lot of replay value to UD, but would definitely require ongoing oversight from Kevan. (And Jon, the objectives could all be survival-oriented, just tied to particular times and places.) --Ember MBR 16:47, 19 June 2006 (BST)

I've been thinking of something like this, it shouldn't be hard to automate a good range of randomly-generated missions from a stock set of components. Unspecified durations ("be on the dominant side in the Norgan Building when the supply helicopters arrive some time on Thursday") could be an alternative to king-of-the-hill conditions, and would stop people from pouring in during the last few minutes. There's a slight theme problem with how players would find out that these things were happening, though - there could be an otherwise-blocked military/NT radio frequency that announces events, but that's a bit harsh on zombies. Would be good to see some more thoughts on this. --Kevan 03:18, 20 June 2006 (BST)

I'd vote Spam since this promotes griefing of areas. It should be 2/3 harman in a zombie controlled area. There are a lot of suburbs with more zombies than harman. New Arkham for instance. Also, making it more fun for harmanz isn't the point. It's supposed to be for zombies since they're outnumbered. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:22, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Since Kevan's requested more thoughts, here they are, in no particular ordering: I like the idea of special events/quests. A lot. As for communicating new missions to players, I'd like to see it done the same way as game updates, to ensure that nobody would be left out. I like the badge system suggested by Ember as an addition/alternative to XP awards, too. Intra-race contests (who can use feeding drag the most times, for example) should definitely be a component, as well. Something you'd need to look out for there, though, would be groups getting together to game the system. For instance, with the example I provided, a human group (or a bunch of revived zombies) could get together in an open building and attack one another until they're all below 13 HP, enabling a designated player who's been charging AP outside to simply step inside and drag them out one after another. Unspecified durations would be superior both to set times (Hail Mary last-minute attacks) and king-of-the-hill systems (in sieges, in particular, zombies spend the vast majority of their time locked outside, even when they're eventually victorious - most successful sieges I've participated in as a zombie I never spent the night indoors).
Anyway, just my semi-coherent two cents on the issue. I'd reorganize this to read better, but I'm actually in the process of packing to leave town, which I really ought to get back to. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 07:04, 20 June 2006 (BST)

If I may add a suggestion of an event:

  • Overdose of Trouble:

- Flavour: NecroTech is getting serious now. It's had all its employees in the field take some newly developed serum in hopes of roadtesting a cure for the virus and getting this little matter settled. Helicopters have also used an airborne version of another potenial cure on the zombies while flying over Malton. Two problems: the serum administered to the humans has disasterous effects. And the zombies aren't cured by any means, merely disorientated and PO'd to the n'th degree.

-Gameplay: All players with NT Employment have their hit rates reduced to 5% for firearms and 10% for all other weapons. They heal 2 less HP when using a FAK on both themselves and other players. They can not be infected by bites and lose 2 HP for every action other than speaking. Zombies have all hit rates reduced by 10% and are immune to revive syringes, though if stuck with one without having Brain Rot they go down and it costs them an extra 5 AP to stand up as zombies. Diagnosis skill revels the number of "overdosed" humans and zombies present in the room description for all players, i.e. "There are X overdosing humans and X overdosing zombies here."

-Rewards: "Overdosed" Humans recieve 20 EXP for using a revive syringe on a zombie, 10 EXP for healing others with a FAK and recieve 1 EXP for every 1 AP used (NOT SPEAKING) while their HP is below 20 during the event. Using a FAK on an "Overdosing" human gives you 10 EXP no matter how much HP you heal. "Overdosed" zeds recieve double "damage dealt" EXP on humans and triple the "kill" EXP for every killed "Overdosed" human. --November7 11:51, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Its nice to see Kevan comment every one and a while. Anyways, We have three types of events; skill useage, king of the hill and dominants. We also have three awards, XP, items (zombies would have troubles useing this), and badges or some sort of trophy that you could "use" by clicking, and it would show itself of to some people nearby. As for events, I'm sure the hardest part is annoncement, and I think they should all be announceded a week before they happen in game news. What do you guys think? -- 343 U! 15:41, 20 June 2006 (BST)

New ideas. Remember the Malton Iditarod? Lets have anotherone organized in game. All who wish to participate put Malton Iditarod in the group line in their profiles. The first three will get trophies for winning, and anyone, perhaps even zombies could join. I also propose, that the top three of last years Iditarod get medals as well, saying something along the lines of Malton Iditarod '05.

And a new zombie event, Brainstock '06 could be implemented as well. We could have a huge horde go around and hit suburbs, and eat brains. Or perhaps even a Mall Tour '07? Any zombie horde event would require that the zombies attack a survivor or baracade in an area to be counted, and the zombies would have to be in the horde for at least 75% or the time or something. Anyone want to expand on this or comment? -- 343 U! 01:54, 21 June 2006 (BST)

Somethings Sonny said about griefing areas, what about multiple and concurrent events? For example, if the "event" is to be at a certain location in Gulsonside at a certain time (to meet a helicopter drop or something), instead there would be 4-6 locations around the city (in different suburbs, of course) where the exact same event is happening. I think the city is large enough to pull off something like that. In addition the problem is that SURVIVORS are easier to event for. If people think zombies need events too...promote some ideas. As for rewards, what about special (but limited) attacks (especially for zombies)? I was thinking some special attack, for the winner(s), that could be used up to, say, 4 times. Maybe not 100% to hit, but instead a temporary boost to hit or damage or the ability for a zombie to use a shotgun (or FAK). Something like that.

And one last thing, what about NPCs? I know people have said "no NPCs" in the past, but I think it might depend on the situation. For example, one event could be to escort an NPC child (or maybe a group of people) to a specific location (NecroTech building or outside the city by going to a map edge location). The NPC would be unable to attack (it is a child) or use items and would be linked to a particular player (moves when they move) unless the player specifically hands off the NPC to another player or dies. If a zombie kills the NPC, they win. If the player successfully escorts the NPC to the location, THEY win.--Pesatyel 04:55, 21 June 2006 (BST)


Further Discussion

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

Topic of Thought

I was considering working on some suggestions revolving around semi-specializations of skill sets based on your initial starting class, but I began to think (yes I know thats dangerous on many levels) and I asked myself why is there only one Zombie Hunter skill? could we not develope some sugestions that was post 10th or 15th level skill sets that required the players to make a choice between certain skills? there seems to be an even split among votes that I have seen since joining the Wiki... Someone with more time in want to comment? Conndrakamod T W! 20:16, 7 June 2006 (BST)

No one likes specialisation for two reasons, one it is usually unballanced between the classes, and second, specialisations based of classes is unfair for all of the people who started with a class and then can't choose the specialisation they want because they had the "wrong" class to start off with. - Jedaz 12:58, 8 June 2006 (BST)
The answer to that is simple: make the advanced specialisation skills available to everyone, regardless of their starting class. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 14:23, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Yes, but they are still usually unbalanced anyway in most cases. But if a balanced version can be made, then good on you. - Jedaz 12:36, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Oh no. Suggestion writing is not for me. I prefer to leave that to others with more elequoency. Cyberbob  Talk  12:40, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I was looking at a process that allow me to figure some out...my base plan is to create a series of Skills that either allow for a 20% increase in current skills, or creation of a non-combat skill at 20%. Using the same formula I'd also create 4-5 Zed skills based on the Zed skill tree that would be "a choose one of the following" skils. Conndrakamod T W! 22:50, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Backlog Progress

Just keeping a log of which pages I've done up to and by association, those ready to be filed away. It doubles as a measure of my hate for Mr NoName. "Current" Progress: January up to Jan 11th ready for processing. Velkrin 19:56, 21 May 2006 (BST)

  • Progress Update: Up to Jan 15th ready for processing. Velkrin 20:45, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Small Problem - Came across something odd while I was going through the rest of January in order to cross out invalid votes before I tallied. Found some votes which were signed but not dated. Are they still valid votes? Without the timestamp we can't be sure it was cast in time, and since the pages have no history we can't check it there. Should I just strike them? Velkrin 05:56, 22 May 2006 (BST)

Isn't the old page history still there on the pages the votes were moved from? --Dan 19:44, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Every page had had their history archived or deleted or some such so that it begins at March. So there is no history to check from what I can tell. - Velkrin 20:36, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Actualy they are invalid votes because you have to have a time stamp on your vote for it to be valid. - Jedaz 14:25, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  • Progress Update: January up to Jan 20 ready for processing. Velkrin 17:54, 23 May 2006 (BST)
    Keep up the good work Velkrin. Hopefuly when we get through all of the backlog then people will put in the effort to actualy manage this system. But it seems unlikely to me that they will. Oh well one can only dream. - Jedaz 16:31, 24 May 2006 (BST)
  • Progess Update: The ENTIRE MONTH OF JANUARY, seen here, is ready for processing...mostly. There was a minor problem with this suggestion and votes appearing/disappearing. I pointed it out in my note. - Velkrin 18:48, 24 May 2006 (BST) - Edit: Page in working order again. No idea what was going on there. Velkrin 00:27, 25 May 2006 (BST)
    Good job, I'll get onto that whole month now and get the suggestions sorted. - Jedaz 11:14, 25 May 2006 (BST)
  • Problem #3: Problem trifica is complete. Going through February when I came across this. Vote #14 is signed and timestamped, but there is no name link, which suggests the usual tilde method wasn't used, so we can't be sure it was the same user, or even the correct time. Valid or no? Velkrin 05:08, 26 May 2006 (BST) Edit - I also just noticed his other votes are done properly, but this one looks like it was inputted manually. 05:09, 26 May 2006 (BST)
    Well I would say that it's invalid becasuse it's not stamped correctly, so feel free to remove it. - Jedaz 07:03, 26 May 2006 (BST)
  • I'm going to wait for a mod's opinion on this one. - Velkrin 21:17, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Well I don't see the point disturbing a mod for this. Mainly because even if the votes there or not the suggestion will still just go to peer rejected. - Jedaz 06:13, 27 May 2006 (BST)
  • Progress Update: The months of February and March are tallied - except for this (locked), and this (see above). - Velkrin 21:17, 26 May 2006 (BST)
    Wow, Keep up the good work - Jedaz 06:13, 27 May 2006 (BST)
    Tallied. Go nuts. –Xoid STFU! 13:40, 4 June 2006 (BST)
  • Yay! Finaly Januray has been done. Well for all of the peer reviewed suggestions. I'll go back over it later and move the other suggestions. But the peer reviewed realy need to be moved first I reckon because the older they get the less relevant they are to the game. - Jedaz 12:23, 29 May 2006 (BST)
  • Update: Bored of UD. Tired of favoritism towards survivors, lack of action on zerging front, etc, etc, etc. Someone else can take over. - Velkrin 22:16, 2 June 2006 (BST)
  • YES!, Febuary is all done now. We are getting there. Oh yeah, and cya Velkrin, we'll all miss your valuable contributions (yes I know it's a late reply, but meh). - Jedaz 09:02, 10 June 2006 (BST)
  • Yay, all the way up to the end of March is done. So I'll just check if the undecided suggestions are moved fully up to the end of March... - Jedaz 09:03, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  • Update: All, and I mean ALL of the way to the end of March is 100% done. So about 2 more months to process then we're back to where we should have been already. - Jedaz 10:23, 20 June 2006 (BST)

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

Dupe votes

I think it's ridiculous that people go and dupe an idea which is in peer rejected but say "I like the idea but it's a dupe". It's stupid because people will dupe an idea even though they like it and it'll never get into peer reviewed. I purpose a change in the rules from

"Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion."

to

"Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of peer reviewed suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion."

If a suggestion is truely bad enough then it will get spamed, however this change protects suggestions that that were good, but were suggested at the wrong time. What do people think? - Jedaz 06:26, 18 June 2006 (BST)

Yes. I've always thought that was silly, but didn't realize people were actually doing it. --Pinpoint 22:53, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Agreed. Suggestions should be able to have a "second chance," so to speak. (Question: if a dupe of a rejected suggestion is later accepted, is the rejected, original suggestion removed, kept, or is a note added that a duped version was accepted?) –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 22:57, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Well I guess it can be noted on the suggestion that it was later accepted, however I don't know if people would pick it up because personaly I wouldn't go and state that a suggestion was taken from peer rejected. But yeah, I think it'ld be best just to note it. Oh yeah and to Pinpoint, there was a suggestion the other day which was duped and it had 3 links, all to peer rejected but people liked the idea this time around. It is silly, but it happens. I'll see if I can find it for you. - Jedaz 06:53, 20 June 2006 (BST) - EDIT - Here you go, XP gain for First Aid. I'm fairly sure it had a few keeps and no kills on it. - Jedaz 06:56, 20 June 2006 (BST)

I would definitely like to see some suggestions looked at again. As the game changes, some suggestions that were bad start to fit the game better. But....

Dupe votes prevent us from discussing the same suggestion, good OR bad, over and over. I think this idea is a step in the right direction, but I think it goes a bit too far. I believe we benefit from being able to remove frequently discussed suggestions quickly, and I wouldn't want to lose that ability.

If there was a middle ground that would let us remove the over-discussed suggestions easily, but still let us occasionally review previous suggestions, it'd be good. --Toejam 16:12, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Hmmm.... yeah I see your point. Well what about this version...
"Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of suggestions that are currently not in peer rejected. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion."
This makes people wait at least 2 weeks so they don't get duped, which is what should happen. Is that better? I think this is probably the best way of getting a ballance without making it overly complicated. - Jedaz 03:33, 21 June 2006 (BST)
Jedaz, this alteration is just as bad as the other, IMO. That version means that once you get a suggestion in peer rejected, by waiting the two weeks, you can then dupe with impunity. –Xoid STFU! 03:54, 21 June 2006 (BST)

Option to Notify of Policy Votes

I was really glad to see the announcement on the main page informing me of the policy change vote below. And it's clearly helped participation tremendously. However, according to Grim it may not have been entirely kosher. I'd like to put something like the following to a vote:

When opening a vote for a rule change on the Suggestions page, you may post an announcement of the vote on the Suggestions page itself. Such a notice should be as brief as possible and should include a link to the vote in question.

In other words, the "do like Jedaz done" rule. This announcement would not be a requirement; its posting would be up to the motion-maker's discretion. What say you? --Ember MBR 14:52, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Certainly. It makes more sense than having no annoucement, and people who would otherwise have voted or added valuable input not even know they can. Make it so that the link has to go to a small hand-generated table of contents, so that people can see X, Y, and Z are policies being voted on. Without having multiple community announcements linking to individual policies' section. –Xoid STFU! 15:17, 7 June 2006 (BST)
  • - That's a good point. There are often multiple votes going on, all of which would need to be covered somehow. Perhaps the table of contents could be added to the Policy Vote heading on this page? --Ember MBR 19:44, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Like all people, Grim makes mistakes too. as long as it is may and not must, putting up the notice follows the normal Good/Bad faith rules of editing and doesn't need a vote to be allowed. A discussion in what form that notice can best be put can never be a bad thing, but I don't really see the need. This one serves it's purpose splenditly without taking to much space.--Vista 16:38, 7 June 2006 (BST)
  • - It probably doesn't need a vote, but I'd prefer to make the permission explicit if we can. There's been confusion about this before. --Ember MBR 19:44, 7 June 2006 (BST)
I think it'll set a very bad precedent. Already we are getting to dependant on votes for the most simplest of things. Placing of navigation bars, the removal of a link, etc. those things have nothing to do with policy and thus there shouldn't be a policy vote. It is explicit right now that it is allowed. This sort of notification has been put up regulary before. The only person who as far as I know thas ever voiced any problems is Grim, as he was the person who objected the last time as well.
The wiki rules are simple. As long as there is no rule regulating the edit in question it only has to conform to the Good faith/Bad faith editing princible that governs this wiki. As long as there is no succesful policy vote barring it's use in one form or another there is no confusion what so ever.--Vista 20:13, 7 June 2006 (BST)
I'ld have to agree with Vista. We shouldn't need votes just for the smallest of things. Any way if there ends up being an edit war then sure we can vote on it or bring it to arbitration. But we should just go with the Good/Bad faith policy. Otherwise that means that nothing would ever get done. So if people want to let them, if not they don't have to. We don't need rules for things like this because they are simple and are fairly self explanatory. And if it's misused then someone will pick up on it quickly. - Jedaz 04:43, 8 June 2006 (BST)
  • All good points. I won't plan to put it to a vote. I just suggest we all take responsibility in posting a notice if an important vote appears on this page. --Ember MBR 16:57, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Oh well, anyway just to let people know just use {{pageannounce|Announcement}} - Jedaz 07:57, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Where do we put rejected suggestions which were actually implemented?

Any ideas?--Milo 13:10, 9 June 2006 (BST)

We don't. There isn't really any point to. Anyway just out of curiosity more so which suggestions are you talking about specifically? - Jedaz 13:12, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I saw one the other day, I was quite suprised really. –Xoid STFU! 13:19, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Scent Death Probably some others, like grab (which would have been killed by our no combo rule,) but I'm too lazy to look.--Milo 13:22, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Hmm... fair enough. Well I don't drop in by the peer rejected page often and I don't wish to find all of the suggestions that have been implemented. I don't feal that it's really worth the time and effort to seach through so many bad suggestions just to try and find the odd one that may have been implemented. But hey, if anyone wants to then go for it, if you get enough suggestions together (say 20 or so) then we can start a whole page for it. But I don't feal that it's worth the effort really considering that they'll all have to be searched through after each change by Kevan just to make sure the list of Implemented Peer Rejected Suggestions is kept up to date. - Jedaz 13:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
20 is wildly optimistic, considering we only have about 10 implemented reviewed suggestions. What I was thinking was, we should have a "This was a suggestion" template, to add to pages for game changes which were suggested here. Anyhow, I think ankle-grab, scent death, and maybe grab or syringe making were suggested... I'll post here later.--Milo 13:40, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Yeah good point. Ok so if you can find 5 then we can make a page. I guess I did kinda make an impossible goal, lol. - Jedaz 14:00, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Voting Rule Change

Ok, as pointed out in a different policy vote it is ridiculous that a couple of no votes can save a policy. So it was suggested to change the rules so that a minium of 14 yes votes and 2/3rds of them are yes. Discuss - Jedaz 06:14, 25 May 2006 (BST)

That makes no sense at all. 2/3rds Yes out of a minimum of 14 Yes votes? WTF? --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 06:21, 25 May 2006 (BST)
Let me rephrase it better, I meant at least 2/3rds of all votes are yeses. - Jedaz 06:47, 25 May 2006 (BST)
Actualy I'll rephrase the whole thing because it doesn't make much sense at all (my brains fried...)
Ok, as pointed out in a different policy vote it is ridiculous that a couple of no votes can save a policy. So it was suggested to change the rules so that a minium of 14 yes votes and at least 2/3rds of the total votes are yes for a policy to pass. Discuss. - Jedaz 06:57, 25 May 2006 (BST)
I still don't understand the need for this, and I sense that you won't be able to explain it to me satisfactorily. --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 07:31, 25 May 2006 (BST)
I see what you mean. I think what he's trying to say is he wants to change it so there is a minimum of 14 yes votes and a 2/3 majority for a policy vote to pass. This is rather redundant since it takes 20 to pass, with at least 15 being yes. - Velkrin 10:07, 25 May 2006 (BST)
OK. Thanks for explaining it to me coherently. I'd have to say, based on lengthy thought and consideration, that this is stupid. --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 10:59, 25 May 2006 (BST)
Actually what I was trying to get at is removing the 20 votes min and replacing it with the 14 yes vote minium and a 2/3 majority. I geuss I'm just no good with words. - Jedaz 11:08, 25 May 2006 (BST)
Ralphchocolate.gif SPELING LOL
Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!
Finally! A chance to test drive my new baby! --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 11:09, 25 May 2006 (BST)
Ha, except that my spelling was fine, it was just the wording which could have been a little clearer. Plus you better be careful with that because people will argue that thats designed for trolling ect and want it removed. - Jedaz 14:38, 25 May 2006 (BST)
HAHA! Just noticed, Cyberbob was right for using that template. I've boldly gone and underlined the word you misspelt. (I love puns.) –Xoid STFU! 14:21, 31 May 2006 (BST)
I can't believe I missed the misspelling of guess for so long. –Xoid STFU! 09:12, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Hmm... I "geuss" you're right :D --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 22:36, 25 May 2006 (BST)
Yep, it make sense. It's crazy and sort of funny that "no" votes can make a suggestion pass. --Toejam 15:36, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Yeah, Toejam gets it. So what we realy need is someone who can word up a nice policy so we can vote on it. AND I have a stratergy as to how we can get some promotion to it. So I'll let someone else decided on the wording of it so it's crystal clear and can't be interperated in too many ways. Then we'll put it under the policy votes. - Jedaz 16:53, 26 May 2006 (BST)
For some reason I have a strong preference for that fourteen becoming a fifteen, but I digress. Jedaz's suggested alteration is a good idea. Volunteer to write this proposed policy change? Me… why not? If you want me to try and word a new policy, just say so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xoid (talkcontribs) at 16:08, 26 May 2006.
Yep, I'd be happy for you to. I guess 15 yes votes would be fine as well, it's a nice round number so go right ahead. - Jedaz 06:25, 27 May 2006 (BST)
Can't believe I forgot to sign… I must be going senile. Anyway, here it is (1st draft):
(NOTE: To reduce visual clutter, this section has been commented out. 06:12, 28 May 2006 (BST))
Xoid STFU! 07:42, 27 May 2006 (BST)
The central idea is good but your version has some troubles, first these are the current Rules. Changes in the rules of the suggestion page only counts on the suggestion page, voting is to be done here as it only affects this place. I don't think that the moderator veto needs to be there so I whould have no problems dropping it. But the one day discussion period and the limitations in the amount of proposed policy changes need to stay. --Vista 18:51, 27 May 2006 (BST)
Not really hanging around the Talk:Suggestions page that much, I admit that I'm relatively ignorant of the rules for policy changes. A quick read gave me this:
"To open a vote for a rule change you must first open a discussion on the rule in the discussion page. You must post the exact text of the rule and allow at least 24 hours of discussion before opening voting. The text of the rule can be modified before you put it to a vote in light of comments you get, new ideas, and for clarity. Any voting starting by a person who has not first posted the rule change for discussion can be deleted by anyone."
I'll meld it into my idea, and see if I can make a generalised version, and a tailored one for Moderations/Policy Discussion. Unfortunately, It is *late* here, and I won't be able to do jack until tomorrow. –Xoid STFU! 19:28, 27 May 2006 (BST)


Well the entire rule is below what you'd want to do is to remove the striken part and insert the italic part.
(NOTE: To reduce visual clutter, this section has been commented out. –Xoid STFU! 06:12, 28 May 2006 (BST))
All other changes are either implied (who is going to vote for a badly spelled rule change?) or are better set and defined in the old rules. There is little reason to make a whole new rule if just modifing the old one wil do just as well (if not better). You might want to format the version I just put up to a more readable version like yours though--Vista 20:49, 27 May 2006 (BST)

That sounds good. I reckon if we make a more readable version then it'll be more likely to pass and eliminate confusion. Good work Xoid and Vista. - Jedaz 05:04, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Taking on board what Vista said, I've melded in the core of the present rules. Be sure to tell me if I missed anything. I personally view the "3 votes spam votes and it gets spamminated" as too small a margin — as proven time and time again, some people here are vindictive and would abuse that. The trick is balancing how difficult it is for the vindictive to spamminate a good idea, and still allowing others to spamminate crap. The suggestions page is regularly spammed, and there is a 7 "Spam" vote requirement for removal there. So I thought I'd try a 5 "Spam" vote requirement here and get some input from others. Anyway, here it is (2nd draft):
(NOTE: To reduce visual clutter, this section has been commented out. Jedaz 16:42, 31 May 2006 (BST))
Xoid STFU! 06:13, 28 May 2006 (BST)
I'ld be happy with this. I don't see anything left out (unless I missed something). Good work people. The only thing is to change it visualy so that the subheaddings are next to the number. But thats just a minor detail. - Jedaz 07:32, 28 May 2006 (BST)
Ok, so what do people reckon about putting this up for a policy vote in about 3 or so days (when the featured suggestion policy is gone)? We probably should have a bit of an explanation to start off with on why we want it changed as well otherwise people will just ask whats the point. - Jedaz 05:08, 29 May 2006 (BST)
Like you once said, I'm really beginning to loathe these things. Writing them up is boring, even if mentally stimualating. (An oxymoron? No. I don't know how it can be true, but it is for me.) As to the reasoning… telling them to look here isn't good enough I suppose? Maybe we should get the feedback of a couple of suggestions regulars first. Meh, I dunno I just feel uneasy about this for some reason. –Xoid STFU! 12:58, 31 May 2006 (BST)
I'd have to disagree. This would clog up policy proceedings like nothing else. One at a time? Are you serious? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:03, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Just saw this pop up on my watchlist, but I'm pretty sure that's one per user. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 13:04, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Which point, can somebody highlight it? <span style="color: lightyellow">the point Xoid missed</span>Xoid STFU! 13:09, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Don't worry - Jimbo's right. I still have a sense of unease over this... as hagnat's got a much simpler and just as effective one going. Take a look at it (I can't remember its name; have a look in Recent Changes) and see if you can modify yours to eliminate conflicting guidelines in the sections concerned with voting. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:12, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Could you please link it? I can't see anything by Hagnat in the recent changes. So what guidelines do you belive are conflicting? If you could point these out then it'll help develop this so it's better.
To Xoid, yeah thats because it's so true, lol. I kinda get what you mean. It's a boring thing to do but it's a mental exercise to go and figgure out how to word it just right. - Jedaz 13:58, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Cyberbob. CNR I see. There is a very good reason why Hagnat's policy is teh shite — simply by voting "no" you can make a policy pass. A 20 vote minimum, regardless of which type of vote? It may be simpler, but it leaves out everything that is important. This is essentially the existing rules for suggestion policies, rewritten with better wording, formatting and without the loopholes that the current one has. If you can spot an actual flaw in it, please mention it. Otherwise, fuck off. This is made worse by the fact that you participated in the discussion about that problem earlier. (Can you tell that I'm pissed? Yeah, I thought so.) –Xoid STFU! 14:21, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Ha, yes I can see a huge loop hole in the current system of voting, lol. If you get people to say "I accept this" then regardless of the vote that means that it'll always pass. Even if they say "I accept this as a load of bull and should not be a rule", it is still accepting it. And it only asks for at least a 2/3rds acceptance. But with our new version people have to actualy vote yes for it to pass, lol.
About the only thing I realy think we need to change is to make the headings line up with the numbers. (Which I can do if people want me to but I won't yet as to avoid clutter) - Jedaz 15:00, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Line up? In what way, as in remove the indentation from the second level, or remove all indentation? I reckon' it looks more orderly this way. (If it looks really screwy to you, can you take a screenshot? This may be a problem between browsers and such.)
PS: see the addition I made near the "Speling" template? –Xoid STFU! 15:31, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Dang, I didn't notice that... oh well nobodys perfect. Any way this is what I meant about lining up the numbers. - Jedaz 16:50, 31 May 2006 (BST)
  1. Proposal for Policy Change
    A Proposal for Policy Change is to be defined as being either:
    1. A motion put forward, with the intent to alter an existing policy, or existing policies.
    2. A motion put forward, with the intent to create a policy where none previously existed.
  2. Creating a Proposal for Policy Change
    A Proposal for Policy Change must be:
    1. Well written, with clear concise English.
    2. Signed and dated by the submitter.
    3. Placed under a seperate heading of Talk:Suggestions.
  3. The Democratic Process
    The following stipulations apply to opening or closing voting on the proposal:
    1. Before voting can be opened, you will allow a minimum of 24 (twenty-four) hours to discuss the proposal.
    2. If you wish to alter a proposal — in light of comments you get, new ideas, and for clarity — you may only do so before voting has opened.
    3. Voting is held under a sub-heading of the Proposal's main heading.
    4. You may only open voting for 1 (one) proposal per week.
    5. You may choose to withdraw your proposal. Withdrawing a proposal does allow you to submit a new one. Multiple proposals from the same submitter that are submitted within less than 1 (one) week of each other are free to be deleted by anyone.
    The following stipulations apply to voting on the proposal:
    1. There are three votes, "Yes", "No", and "Spam". If the proposal has 5 "Spam" and has no non-author "Yes" votes, it can be deleted by a Moderator.
    2. A proposal for policy change will be voted upon for 2 (two) weeks, and is then closed.
    3. A minimum of fifteen "Yes" votes are required for the Proposal for Policy Change to be successful. Additionally; 2/3 (two-thirds) of all votes must be a "Yes" vote for a Proposal for Policy Change to be successful.
  4. Implementation
    1. Successful proposals must be implemented by a moderator, even if said moderator voted against the proposal.

I didn't notice any change in what I saw, but you did alter the code. Definately a browser issue, or maybe a MediaWiki issue (it usually tailors the XHTML markup for each browser (to a degree, anyway). Meh, who knows. Seems good to me. –Xoid STFU! 18:09, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah thats probably it. Well that just means that it'll be more visualy appealing for all browsers now (Hopefuly). - Jedaz 05:05, 1 June 2006 (BST)
Looks like this idea died. –Xoid STFU! 09:12, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Actualy, I think I'll put it up for voting right now because it seems that people seem to like the idea. (well they don't hate it) - Jedaz 04:28, 5 June 2006 (BST)
*sighs* I guess it's time for...
Ralphchocolate.gif SPELING LOL
Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!

--A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:28, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Dang, it happened again... I'll get there eventually, lol. (Damn you words that end with "lly") Any way it looks like we are getting a nicer turn out for voting which is good. - Jedaz 12:20, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Unless we get a considerable swing, it seems this might pass. Even if the rules are never used, I'm still pleased to see some reform taking place. –Xoid STFU! 17:30, 5 June 2006 (BST)
lol, yeah. Well I can't imagine it not passing any more, with 22 yes votes. - Jedaz 09:31, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Navigation placement

I've just cleaned up the suggestion navigation template to make it nicer looking. I propose that we move the navigation to the top of all suggestion pages, and add it to those that aren't using it. I've noticed that it isn't used everywhere, and it's placed inconsistently where it is used. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 23:39, 4 June 2006 (BST)

I moved this here. As stated by the rules you must allow at least 24 hours of discussion before you can open up voting on a policy. - Jedaz 05:00, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Oops, I must have put it in the wrong section by mistake. Sorry. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 05:13, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Yay! For consistency. It's a true bitch trying to navigate the place when it's faster to (for me at least) to type the page I want to go to. –Xoid STFU! 05:17, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I like what you did with the suggestion navigation template. So where abouts in mind specifically are you thinking that it should be added? I'll like to see a list of the locations of where the template will be added before I'll be happy for this to go into voting. (Plus you'll want the other policy to pass first so it's easier to get implemented, lol) - Jedaz 11:45, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Why would this be a policy disussion? This has nothing to do with policy It's just a editing/format discussion. Since when needs an simple edit a vote? just ask for imput and then make a responsible edit. and yeah your idea seems sensible.--Vista 11:27, 7 June 2006 (BST)

See Grim s' comment at the bottom of the page, and his revert on the navigation template for the main page. I don't agree with him that it needs to be voted on. It merely needs to be discussed, and a general consensus reached. –Xoid STFU! 11:35, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Yep, that what I said. Like all people, Grim makes mistakes too.--Vista 16:28, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Policy Votes

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

Voting Rule Change

For reasons to change the rules of policy voting see discussion above.

  1. Proposal for Policy Change
    A Proposal for Policy Change is to be defined as being either:
    1. A motion put forward, with the intent to alter an existing policy, or existing policies.
    2. A motion put forward, with the intent to create a policy where none previously existed.
  2. Creating a Proposal for Policy Change
    A Proposal for Policy Change must be:
    1. Well written, with clear concise English.
    2. Signed and dated by the submitter.
    3. Placed under a seperate heading of Talk:Suggestions.
  3. The Democratic Process
    The following stipulations apply to opening or closing voting on the proposal:
    1. Before voting can be opened, you will allow a minimum of 24 (twenty-four) hours to discuss the proposal.
    2. If you wish to alter a proposal — in light of comments you get, new ideas, and for clarity — you may only do so before voting has opened.
    3. Voting is held under a sub-heading of the Proposal's main heading.
    4. You may only open voting for 1 (one) proposal per week.
    5. You may choose to withdraw your proposal. Withdrawing a proposal does allow you to submit a new one. Multiple proposals from the same submitter that are submitted within less than 1 (one) week of each other are free to be deleted by anyone.
    The following stipulations apply to voting on the proposal:
    1. There are three votes, "Yes", "No", and "Spam". If the proposal has 5 "Spam" and has no non-author "Yes" votes, it can be deleted by a Moderator.
    2. A proposal for policy change will be voted upon for 2 (two) weeks, and is then closed.
    3. A minimum of fifteen "Yes" votes are required for the Proposal for Policy Change to be successful. Additionally; 2/3 (two-thirds) of all votes must be a "Yes" vote for a Proposal for Policy Change to be successful.
  4. Implementation
    1. Successful proposals must be implemented by a moderator, even if said moderator voted against the proposal.
- 04:34, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  1. Yes - Because it's ridiculous that with the current system a few No votes can make a policy pass. - Jedaz 04:34, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Yes - This change is a step forward. –Xoid STFU! 04:39, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Yes - Even though this would make it a trifle hard for a vote to pass. I must ask one question though, is this the right place for policy votes? HamsterNinja 05:00, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    Re: - No harder than the current system. It is essentially the same system, minus the loopholes. (Since I authored most of this, I am allowed to Re:, right?)–Xoid STFU! 05:04, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - I have no problems with you Reing Xoid. And yes this is the right place for policy votes, I moved your Navigation placement policy under the disussion headding because it wasn't open for disussion for 24 hours so it's not allowed to be voted upon. Futher talk about this should go under the Navigation placement heading. - Jedaz 05:09, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Yes - 'Cause if I remember, the base level of this came from my tired mind. At least, that's how I remember it. Glad to see someone ran with it and put it in writing. --Pinpoint 05:07, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Yes Gots to get things done 'round hur! --Ron Burgundy 05:34, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Yes - Looks fine. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 06:36, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Yes - Sure.. Why not? --Niilomaan 11:23, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Yes - Looks good. --Swmono talk - W! - SGP 11:56, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Yes - I have no qualms -- Buncy T GBP 14:07, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Yes - A much needed change. Also, I really appreciate whoever put the notice about this on the main Suggestions page. --Ember MBR 14:14, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Yes - Sure, sounds fun. --Burgan 15:37, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Yes - Makes sense. --Mookiemookie 15:55, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Yes - Well tought. --Matthew Fahrenheit 16:39, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Yes ---Vista 17:25, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Hell Yes - We need to actually be able to change things every once in awhile. --McArrowni 18:19, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Yes! - Gawd, eyesecks, all that purty stuff. MaulMachine U! 19:17, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Yes - Reasonable enough --Major Grippy 19:58, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Yes - Consider changing to "If the proposal has 5 "Spam" more than number of non-author "Yes" votes, it can be deleted by a Moderator." Without this - one yes vote prevents spam removal. For example, seven Spam votes, and two Yes votes may be removed by a moderator, because 7 >= 2 + 5. --SillyLillyPilly 21:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Yes But as SillyLilly pointed out, you leave out how to remove spam suggestions. I suggest once this passes putting it up as a new rule alteration suggestion. I suggest either it has 5 spam votes and no non-author keeps for a mod to nix out and if it is 2/3 Spam with at least 10 total votes it may also be removed. Also, the current system has a never used Veto vote for mods to use. I don't think we really need to keep it though. I assume this would overwrite the old one completely and get rid of things like the Veto? --Jon Pyre 21:56, 5 June 2006 (BST)
    Re: Excellent point on the spam votes. (Why can't people point this stuff out before we put it to a vote? *sigh* At least it's no longer ridiculously easy to spaminate a good policy change.) About the veto vote, removing it is actually one of the aims we had; I am of the strong opinion we aren't supposed to have ridiculous amounts of sway in a policy change. If a change is undesirable, people will vote either Spam or No — we don't need moderators with the power to kill a policy change before voting can really begin by Vetoing the whole thing. –Xoid STFU! 02:14, 6 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Yes But I'd rather vote keep... 343 23:01, 5 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Yes I like that the feedback gets to be incorporated into the proposed idea before going up for the vote. Lets you tweak it on the fly. - Zizanie13 02:23, 6 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Yes --Darkstar949 02:30, 6 June 2006 (BST)
    Note - Kind of ironic that this one gets enough votes. --Pinpoint 03:33, 6 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - Yeah I know, but it's because I put an announcement up I reckon, lol. - Jedaz 05:06, 6 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - There really should have been a policy discussion about that notification first, though. Its a departure from our policy and standard method, thus needs a vote to be permitted. Ah the red tape of bureaucracy. --Grim s-Mod 04:38, 7 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - Actualy there is no policy to say that you arn't allowed to. Any way remember there isn't any policy about having community announcements on the main page yet we still have them. Ah so it's not really that much of a change from our standard method. If you wish to discuss this futher please do so above under the other heading so we don't clog this area up any futher with our discussion. I know how much you dislike clutter. - Jedaz 07:15, 7 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Yes - 24 hours is *way* too little time, the withdraw-resubmit process needs limits, and the total votes number ought to be a fraction of some meaningful number reflecting activity. But hey, why the hell not. --einexile 18:26, 10 June 2006 (BST)
    Just for clarification the user can only put one policy up for voting once per week. If they withdraw it then they can't resubmit it until one week later. - Jedaz 03:36, 11 June 2006 (BST)
    Re: - 24 hours is the minimum. If the person submitting it tries to ram through a piece of shit before it's ready, it gets spammed and he has to wait another week. As for the "meaningful number reflecting activity"; what are you on about? –Xoid STFU! 17:35, 11 June 2006 (BST)
    the numbers seems constant enough to work for this trial by error way of setting a benchmark, But as we have no way to measure active users of this page anyway it's the only way that works.--Vista 16:47, 12 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Yes - It is broke, so let's fix it. Catriona McM 20:22, 10 June 2006 (BST)
  25. - A potentially silly question....what is the difference between no and spam? --Muppetlord 19:54, 14 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - It's not really a silly question, when the policy gets 5 spams then the policy is removed. - Jedaz 04:41, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Yes - It's a keeper. Cyberbob  Talk  16:23, 17 June 2006 (BST)


Voting Passed - Voting has passed with 25 yes votes. *Celebrates*. Just as something that I'm wondering, where abouts should we put this? - Jedaz 07:54, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Where does it go? Fucked if I know…
…anyway, can you please use WikiML whenever possible Jedaz? –Xoid STFU! 09:49, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Whoops, sorry, I'll try and remember. Well I guess I'll just place it on it's own page then. It's a good enough place I guess... - Jedaz 10:04, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Well there we go it has it's own page now. I've also changed the top part as well to reflect the correct page. - Jedaz 10:38, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements