Talk:Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Bad Suggestion Guidelines (working model)

There are plenty of little ideas that are utter crap. like buying flavor skills... nobody wants to spend 100xp for a skill that does nothing. but the five i have listed below are aimed at a wide array of skills that really make for bad suggestions. please, coment, edit, argue, whine and agree on all or some of them. Lets hammer this out a bit before this thing goes semi "offical" and goes over to the main page. This might be premature, however there's nothing like getting a head start.--Spellbinder 00:38, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Sorry, but these are completely wrong. Don't change APs? Kevan explicitly said that there WOULD be AP-modifying skills. Please research before posting. --LibrarianBrent 23:04, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
This is not what is stated below, from what I understand. It doesn't say "no AP changes at all", it says "no APs over 50 and no massive cut", which is reasonable IMO. --Seagull Flock 18:28, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Well, as much as I agree with cutting down on people messing with APs in suggestions, you guys should really read this. Quoted directly from the FAQ: "There will eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same.". McArrowni 21:25, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Exactly. The magic word in the statement is eventually. Suggesting skills to increment APs or its recharge rates is IMO useless, as we don't know when the UD server will be able to afford an increase and how much more APs can we expect. I think Kevan will deal with it himself when the time comes. About the AP hammering, I think we all agree on that. --Seagull Flock 14:57, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I'd toss in that the best course of action would be to wait until we see what Kevan has in mind and go from there. Until then, any AP-modifying suggestion is probably not so swell. Bentley Foss 22:03, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
So what's so bad about Endurance Training skill (prerequisite Bodybuilding), that would let you store up to 60 AP instead of 50? It's not as though you were getting APs faster than one each half-hour. --Dan 22:01, 5 May 2006 (BST)
The most AP efficient way to play the game is to store up your maximum AP, then use all of it up in one playing session. This is because there's a fixed overhead AP cost for each session, and if you play once in a day, you only pay the overhead costs once. For example, each playing session a survivor might have to travel to a zombie, attack it, then travel back to his safehouse. The overheads are the travel costs; the survivor needs to pay AP to travel, but gets no XP benefit from doing so.
As the game stands at the minute, zero to maximum AP takes 25 hours, or virtually once a day. This means players can play the game at the same time each day (with one hour's leeway) and still play efficiently. With a 60 Ap maximum, ie 30 hours recharge time, the most efficient time to play would get 6 hours later each day. As you can probably imagine, this would be very inconvenient for a lot of players.--Toejam 22:50, 7 June 2006 (BST)

I've been re-working some of the sections here, mainly to make them as brief and to-the-point as possible. I know I skip over the guidelines that are more than three or four lines long, and I assume most people do the same. --Dickie Fux 17:06, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Uber Ninja Zombie Killers Stay Out

(like entering a building or Free Running, neither of which are in the game... oh wait.) -- Amazing 21:28, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Entering a building isen't hiding, its entering a building, dumbass. A button that you click that allows you to hide in a deserted parking lot is what i'm talking about.Spellbinder

Uhh... you might want to sign this section, Spellbinder. It's more opinion than fact, especially at this stage, it might be good to indicate that it's conjecture at this point. --Lucero Capell 20:49, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

actualy, i did sign it, its right above this whole section. i was hopeing that people would feedback on the list so that we could hammer out some kind of a good idea/ bad idea, rather then just takeing my word for it. but obviously i wasen't too clear on that

Like we should listen to someone who calls people "dumbasss" on here. My point is that you are using your own personal opinion as to what should be suggested as RULES. Your personal feeling isn't a rule. If you're referring to my Camoflage suggestion when you say "A button that you click that allows you to hide in a deserted parking lot" then you need to actually read the suggestion. You only hide from bordering blocks, not zombies on the same block. -- Amazing 21:28, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Meh, sorry about the dumbass coment, but posting right smack dab in the center of someone elses (MINE in this case) post annoys the hell out of me. and NO, this is NOT a direct comentary on that skill, you are going out of your way to take this personaly. the hide/stealth debate has raged on for a good long time. long before i even joined, people were going back and forth on this topic. --Spellbinder 00:32, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I'm sorry, but after some thought I don't think a single person should be allowed to make a list like that. Maybe on your user page, but in suggestion it has an official feel, yet if one person does it it will be assuredly opinionated. McArrowni 03:12, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Indeed I thought you were trying to play this off as a chunk of official text, not a personal post. Editing your post in the middle or anywhere else, I thought, would be acceptable since it wasn't signed in the usual manner. -- Amazing 06:36, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Don't Connect Suggestions

I didn't know if you are supposed to add on to this, but there were some things that were appearing constantly and getting shot down for the same reasons. If anybody thinks these are totally out of line delete them, otherwise argue away. --Zaruthustra 00:01, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I think this rule especially needs to be added to the main page. The stupidity on some of these suggestions has got to stop, or we're all going to be drowning in spam. I added #4 to Suggestion Guidelines but I'm thinking we need a #5 and #6, too. Slicer 00:18, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
This is a Wiki Slicer not your own personal Blog where you whore your life out over the internet. The point of suggestions is that any suggestion can be posted and as we have seen get spam voted or kill votes. Its not up too you or me what suggestions to delete its up to you and me to vote on them. Stop trying to destroy the wiki with your persistent ramblings that are polluting the UD community --GodofGames 00:10, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
With all due respect that seemed more rambling and less constructive than Slicer's comment. He at least had a point, whereas that just seemed like a vague, vitriolic, ad hominem attack. Lets try to stay on the topic at hand now eh? --Zaruthustra 00:19, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Zaruthustra, its thor. he's just a Wiki troll who is in love with the power of editing. we had to edit his stuff two or three times a day because he changes what other people say, posts rambling nonsence, and insults people like the above statement. really, don't take it personaly, he's 12. I even gave him a little shrine, below--Spellbinder 23:53, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Getting back on track. We need this, we need it so bad. The spam created from chaining suggestions is getting pretty large and it just complicates the entire process. Lets get somebody to codify these rules, pare them down as neccesary, and put them up. Then people won't have any more excuses for their insane suggestions. --Zaruthustra 16:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Keep it simple, part 2

Yes, yes, god yes. Even with CGI scripts and such state based effects pretty much lower your suggestions chance of succeeding to that of Kevan deciding to pound nails into his dick. From what I hear its about as painful. --Zaruthustra 16:24, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Some people will probably say "Yeah, but generators in hospitals do the same thing!" No, not exactly. I'm already rambling along here and I should wrap this up. Trust me, it's different. I'll come back later (maybe) and explain why, if anybody cares... In the meantime, it's back to actually doing work, heh. Bentley Foss 20:47, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Don't Think Only in Terms of Flavor

Another big guideline people seem to forget ALOT. --Zaruthustra 18:19, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)

A Crucifix Does Not Make You Jesus

I'm surprised that we need this section, but it seems we might...--Milo 22:39, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moved from the main page, as this is discussion Argus Blood 08:22, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT):

I'll elaborate on this: Nor does it make you a saint capable of miracles. In this type of scenario religious belief would be kind of odd. All kinds of weird ideas would be floating around and no real answers. (see Groups for examples of wierd religious beliefs)
Real faith is a rare, rare thing and shouldn't be trivialized as a simple skill or Skill/item combo. If there is indeed a God (from a hypothetical point of view for the sake of argument) in the Malton Mythos it is obvious that he has judged Malton much like Sodom and Gomorra, meaning that there are no "Good people" in Malton just like Lot couldn't find in his time. --Matthew-Stewart 22:33, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Hm. Only a year afterward, but... maybe that should be flavor text when you click on it. "If God loved you, you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place." --Kestrel 14:58, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Don't Think Only in Terms of Mechanics

The counterpart to the above skill. --Zaruthustra 18:19, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Make it Fun!

I added this a few weeks ago. Seems like an obvious one, but the occasional suggestion for eating made me decide to put it up. --Dickie Fux 17:03, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Leave other people's inventory alone

So, just stop this one before it starts, I say. Bentley Foss 20:47, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Oh, but yanking off Zombie XP is all good and right, no? Well, it's immensely frustrating... Oh and, how about Flak Jackets? These would make sense to deteriorate... - Skarmory 14:43, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Let's see how happy the zombie hordes are when their brainrot zombie logs in one day to discover his prized flak jacket missing, hmm? Bentley Foss 22:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Brain Rot + Memories of Life = "You tear the bloodied flak jacket off the fresh corpse and put it on yourself, rememebrng it to be protective." - Skarmory 15:52, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

*smirks* actualy, yanking off zombie XP is all good and right. loan zombies fear the gunman, afraid that he might rip off his beautiful XP. Humans fear the monsterious Hoard, for the zombie mob cannot be stoped by pesky barriers.--Spellbinder 02:34, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Don't suggest something that will require resetting the game

Bentley Foss 21:41, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

No Pied Piper Skills, Please!

I would have included "Don't let your character be moved by other characters" while I was at it, but actually, I'm going to suggest a skill that does this very thing, so I'm going to leave it out right now. Excepting what I will propose later, I'd say that any skill that allows you to move another person with or without their consent is bad! Bentley Foss 22:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I have no idea what a "horde leader" is or why the person who wrote this bit is ranting about it. What's up with the incredibly vague (b) option ("a crapload of other stuff")? If it's supposed to be a catch-all category, why is it then followed by two other options? This feels to me like somebody complaining about a very specific skill that somebody suggested long ago and that the rest of us have forgotten. I would recommend keeping the recommendations on this page simple and general (don't waste my AP while I'm offline, don't move me around the map), rather than taking potshots at specific suggestions that not all of us encountered the first time round. --MoonLayHidden 20:27, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

NPCs Go Home!

Bentley Foss 04:50, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Er, this seemed to have disappeared overnight somehow, and there's no record of it being moved/deleted in the history, at least that I saw, so I brought it back. Feel free to shoot it down if you so desire. Bentley Foss 16:08, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Personally, I'd rather just see no NPCs. Ever. We don't need no stinkin' NPCs. UD isn't NPC-oriented at all, and I'd like to see it stay that way. It's part of the charm of the game.--Arathen 22:39, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • There are NPCs in the game already, but only alluded to in text. "Survivors with generators" and the pilots of Necrotech planes. I think this could be effectively changed to "No NPCs unless they are only alluded to in text and don't actually exist as a player would." The NPCs already exist, folks.. can't unring the bell. -- Amazing 21:04, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • The Necrotech pilots are just alluded to, yes, but of course that's not something that anybody will actually be able to play. And when Kevan said "survivors with generators", he meant us! Slicer 23:44, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Do the Necrotech pilots themselves interefere with the game? Can you interact with them? If you can't even have your character see them, how do they count as NPCs? They're storyline characters, meant to add to the plot of the game. AllStarZ 04:12, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

So you agree storyline characters meant to add plot to the game that don't interact with your character are accpetable and already in use. Good to know. -- Amazing 04:30, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Rare Does Not Equal Balanced

Suggested by meh. --Zaruthustra 22:09, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Bravo. --RSquared 23:13, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

*golf clap*,--Milo 21:49, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

also perfect--Spellbinder 01:52, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Multiply it By a Billion

Seen it a lot lately. --RSquared 04:18, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

OMG, we have to nerf bite! It does .4 base damage, but if you multiply that by 1000000000, it's 400000000 damage!!!11!--Milo 12:20, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I would like to point out that a Billion can either be 1,000,000,000 (US) or 1,000,000,000,000 (UK). - Jedaz 05:38, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I think the guideline is not saying that if a hundred players use a skill and the overall effect is a hundred times stronger it's too powerful, but rather it says that if the total effect became a hundred hundred times stronger there'd be a problem. --Toejam 23:06, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Actually, I think it's even simpler than that. It's not meant to be literally "multiply it by 1×109" or "multiply it by 1×1012." What it means is "if a lot of people, or everyone, did this at the same time, what would things be like?" That's also what the rule actually says.Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 23:42, 7 June 2006 (BST)

I think this is the dumbest "rule" there is. Zombies metagame (We have no choice in the matter at all, it is either metagame or only gain a level every couple of weeks, the game is THAT unbalanced.) Humans dont metagame, at least nowhere near the extent that the zombies do. When humans DO metagame like zombies, the humans will win every single time. Dont punish us for working together. Dont force people to metagame in order to have fun in a game. This "rule" negates any siggestions that make feral zombies fun. --Grim s 13:08, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The point of this rule is not to nerf all ferals - it's to avoid combat upgrades that sound small, but give a horde a perfect chance. Examples include the "Zombie Radar" suggestions and pretty much all the across-the-board "make zombies do more damage/add crazy status attacks/more hit%" ideas. --RSquared 14:00, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
While i have no problem with killing those that allow zombies to sense humans in buildings, the fact is that Hordes formed as a direct reult of zombies getting backed into a corner by headshot and the 10ap stand up cost, as it became the only way we zombies could ever pose a threat. Nowadays the game is in such a state where even when working in superhordes, the zombies are losing. If the hordes are losing, think of the ferals. The simple fact is that this rule punishes zombies because some have higher levels of coordination, when they should, in fact, be rewarded for putting in all the extra effort. Also, with the current number of large hordes (4), they could, at most, hammer four suburbs at a time, five if the two smaller hordes in Dulston banded together and tried hard. Thats a staggering 1/20th of the map that would be very dangerous for human habitation. Humans have mobility advantages that, when combined with their ability to pass on information and hide, means that they should be played in a manner different to that which they are now (As gunho heroes who rush out and go head to head with the hordes) Any game in which humans can put up serious opposition to more than 500 metagaming zombies is inherently broken, unless they themselves are resorting to similiar levels of metagaming. This rule just perpetuates the status quo, which, if you look at the game now, just plain sucks. --Grim s 16:54, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
The point of "multiplying by a billion" is not to say "if we make one zombie powerful, all of them together will be absurdly overpowered." It's a way of getting people to think about the potential unintended consequences of their suggestion. For example - allowing a zombie to hide in a safehouse building is kinda cool, when you consider it on the level of one zombie. When you start thinking of it on the level of "every zombie in the game," however, it means entire hordes could simply vanish off the map and only come out to utterly crush some safehouse before going back into hiding again. And, of course, that would be ludicrous. The central concept of multiplying by a billion is to make sure that people consider the overall balance of a concept instead of thinking on its individual impacts. Perhaps I'll give it a bit of a clearer write-up to match this. --Drakkenmaw 17:17, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Still Drakkenmaw, the basic premise of this entire rule is to punish zombies for working together. We have far higher levels of coordination and we put a damn huge amount of work into doing what we do (In my case, given my positions, this adds up to five or more hours a day). All this "rule" exists to do is negate the metagaming advantage that we zombies built up as a result of headshot and 10ap standup. All it does is make casual players not play zombies because any suggestion which would make the game good for them would automatically be dumped because it would "overpower the hordes". Hordes are NOT THE NORM. The large hordes together cannot field an army greater than 700 individuals (Feral zombies and arseholes who zerg can push it up higher). We put in a huge amount of effort into doing what we do, and i dont see why that should be considered a reason to toss out suggestions for zombies. --Grim s 04:20, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Underpowered Does Not Equal Balanced

This rule isn't necessary in my opinion. Underpowered suggestions, especially for survivors, are vastly preferable to overpowered ones, don't you think? If, say, survivors got submachine guns and they prove to be weaker than existing weapons, no-one uses them, no harm done. However, if they're overpowered, everyone will be using them and the zombies will get mauled, which is bad. There should be something along the lines of "If you're unsure, err on the side of it being underpowered". - KingRaptor 05:28, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You're right that they're less bad than overpowered suggestions, but they're still non-good. If no-one uses them they don't add anything to the game except extra complexity. -Toejam 02:50, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Multiple Starting Skills

I think we should have a rule stating that there shouldn't be any classes that start with multiple skills (If I missed it then ignore this). So if someone wants to put it up (or someone tells me to) than that would be good. - Jedaz 10:10, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I don't think it happens enough to add it to the list; the page is too long already. If we get a ton of suggestions rejected for that reason, then we can add it. --Dickie Fux 17:31, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Don't Penalize Players for Behaving the Way They Were Intended To Behave

Some of the examples this section gives are not relevant to the rule. IE: The option to make friends with rats does not hinder zombies from attacking humans or humans attacking zombies. In fact, most of the examples there are just a rant, having nothing to do with the actual guideline. Jirtan 22:49, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I agree. I removed the middle paragraph, because the first and last paragraph make the point very well, without the need of (arguably unrelated) examples. --Dickie Fux 17:50, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Put yourself in the other persons shoes

I put this up because I thought it would be a good thing to think about for people making suggestions. Remove it if you feal that it isn't needed - Jedaz 14:14, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Kevan is not Microsoft

  • Leave Firefox extensions alone.
Extension authors have added many layers of customization to Urban Dead, and have contributed immeasurably to the health of its metagame. They are a vital asset both to the community and to the game's competitive advantage. Even if we wanted Kevan's time & energy spent implementing what's already available, consider how you as an extension author would feel about adding new features, or starting a new project, if you believed your work would be rendered unnecessary a few months later. Please don't suggest changes which would discourage involvement by these people.

--einexile 22:27, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Dead in the Water

Is this section really necessary? I think the Frequently Suggested list is sufficient, since it may be possible to take ten bad suggestions and come up with one good one. The Yet Another SMG and Scent Life suggestions both contradict two of the supposed no-no's listed here, namely Military Weaponry and X-Ray Vision, but they're both acceptable (going by the number of votes they got) and balanced versions of previously killed suggestions. --Dickie Fux 18:28, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Agreed. Not to mention the worst part -- this page has become so huge and bloated that any motivation by potential suggesters to read this page will be lost before they even read the most useful part -- the frequently suggested list. Riktar 06:14, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The DitW section is my way of pointing out central concepts that come up again and again, and are not complete clones of one-another, but which almost inevitably are defeated in the voting process. There's a reason I put it at the very bottom of the page - it isn't as important as the basics, or as necessary to read as the things to consider prior to suggesting your idea. It is, however, a good thing to look over. I continually see the same basic ideas ("look into/out of buildings," "PK legitimacy," etc.) come up in voting, and every single time they are voted down using the exact same arguments. So, since people seem to like these ideas yet the issues which are raised with them rarely get properly addressed, I figured it'd be good to put them all in one area so that they can be something of a "rogue's gallery" of the Suggestions page. As I stated, "this isn't to say that is is impossible to come up with a workable variant of these broad ideas... but coming up with one, fixing the innate flaws of the concept, and getting it past an unfriendly jury just isn't very likely." I just want to make it clear to people that if they are going to submit another "X-Ray Vision" ability, they need to put the thought into it to overcome the arguments we all know that idea will come up against. I listed the common arguments against each typically-rejected concept as a sort of guide - those are the questions which will be asked, so any suggestions should be prepared to answer those questions.

As a side effect, the DitW section removes all the suggestion-specific concepts from the "Other things to consider" section. It seemed very odd to have specific prohibitions against crucifix-powers in the middle of talking about general balance, after all. And by removing those to below the Frequent Suggestions, it actually moves that section up in the page somewhat. Plus I don't think it was fair to include specific suggestion-prohibitions in with what is seen as the "rules" of the Suggestions page - a really good AoE concept should still make it through, even if this page says it shouldn't be suggested, and the DitW section makes it clear that the ideas are held in disfavour instead of being outright banned from consideration.

If you wish to fix things up a bit, feel free to give it a try. I've just been working on making this a little less "confrontational," as it's been called before, and more of a guide to newcomers who want to make their own contributions. Any ideas are welcome. --Drakkenmaw 06:50, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Splitting the Page

After a bit of discussion with Riktar, I think I have a suggestion for how to preserve the purpose of the page while still keeping it small enough to be readable. The "Frequently Suggested" part of the page is apparently seen as potentially its most important part, but that doesn't really fit with the purpose of the page itself. This is, after all, the "Suggestion Dos and Do Nots" - a set of rules and precepts which newcomers to the Suggestions page can read to acquaint themselves with the basics of conceptualizing and presenting a new suggestion. What other people have suggested before doesn't seem to mesh with that well, and indeed the "Frequently Suggested" part of the page itself didn't receive much in the way of real estate even before I started editing it. Thus, I think only the first two parts of the page as it currently exists should remain. The other two, being frequently-suggested repeats and concepts which are repeatedly-rejected, are similar in scope but rather different from the posting guide - and thus, those two could stand to be migrated to a separate page altogether. An actual "Frequently Suggested" page, basically. That way the newcomers to Suggestions who are looking for a guide to submitting their own ideas won't be bogged down by the random inclusion of specific concept-prohibitions or listings of prior ideas, and people who are reviewing the lists of prior repeat postings to make sure their idea is different or addresses issues raised previously won't have to scroll past the guide they're already familiar with. We could link the "Frequent Suggestions" page from the Dos/Do Nots, along with an extra rule about "Repeats Will Be Shot" or something similar, if you think it's important to make sure newbies review them - but since they're basically two different things, it'd be best to divide them between two different pages. What do you think? --Drakkenmaw 08:33, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

A seperate page for frequent suggestions sounds like a wonderful idea. --Matthew-Stewart 08:41, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I think that would work. Would it be a problem if the Frequently Suggested lists were the main page, and Dead in the Water became the discussion page for it? That way, the list would serve as an easy place to do a word search, and the reasons behind it could become a place to discuss the issues, rather than a set of rules that everyone may not agree on. --Dickie Fux 18:49, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Aye - I think it would be best to have right from the get-go on Dos and Do Nots "Repeats will be Shot on Sight" and then a link to the Frequently suggested page. I also think that page should be kept as trim and succinct as possible, with short, and I mean short descriptions of the common themes and then links to the suggestions. As it is now, but I don't see why Dead in the Water can't join it on the same page - but I think they should follow a similar format to how Frequently lists its articles now. Remember that the people who benefit the most from that page have the shortest attention spans, so keeping it on this page will definitely minimize whatever benefit it might have for the Suggestions page. (believe me I know, I battle my ADD every day x_x) Riktar 02:14, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Alrighty - as soon as I'm able I'll split the Frequent Suggestions off from the Dos/Do Nots page. It may take until tomorrow to be fully-correct in formatting and such, though. --Drakkenmaw 17:23, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

For anyone who's interested, I moved the page here. I've made a few small revisions, and added to the list, but nothing major yet. --Dickie Fux 16:05, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Can someone make one and add/edit my rant? Thanks.

  • Kill - great idea but I think that the server will suffer. --SOMEPERSON ##:##, # Dec #### (GMT)
    • Re: - What inside information makes you think that? What the F*** is it with everyone and KILL THIS because it'll hurt the server, KILL THIS because this will be hard to code. You don't KNOW that. Are YOU the programmer? NO! Programming it and server issues are ultimately up to Kevan. Don't $#!+ on a good idea because you think it might hurt the server or will be tough to code. They are not relevant from YOUR standpoint. You aren't coding this thing. You aren't serving it. You are just a participant. --Squashua 22:28, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Isn't one of the Do Nots on Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots about taking into account the server? Oh yes, it is first and second apparently. I agree with your point of view much more - but it would be misleading and confusing to have, on the suggestions page, "take into account the server", and then on the voting page "don't take into account the server", ne? Riktar 01:14, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Don't mind her. she's nuts.--Spellbinder 01:53, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Virus Problem

I just want to take issue with something on the page: in the "Don't Think Only in Terms of Mechanics" section, the page states that the zombie problem is definitely caused by a virus rather than magic. I don't think Kevan has ever said this outright--indeed, he's implied the opposite. Infection is not actually what causes zombification; read the news article announcing the skill carefully. "Something pestilential is spreading and mutating in the blood and guts of the undead - NecroTech DNA scans are beginning to pick up a number of specimens who are host to an unknown pathogen." This implies it wasn't there before. It seems to me that news article is saying this is simply a normal, albeit unknown disease--perhaps a mutated version of bubonic plague, staphylococcus, etc.--found zombie mouths a particularly habitable place. Catching it merely kills you, at which point you are a normal corpse--but every corpse in Malton rises as a zombie, no matter what they died from. There may be another, undetectable, virus or then again it may be something else. I just think the different possibilities add to the mystique and the page shouldn't present as truth something that isn't proven.--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:07, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

"NecroTech DNA scans are beginning to pick up a number of specimens who are host to an unknown pathogen." I think it's fair to say that a virus causing zombification would be well known to NecroTech. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is good

Whoever is responsible for the current format of this page deserves an A+. It used to be an enormous list of rules, and now it's something people could actually look over before making a suggestion.--Milo 20:26, 15 June 2006 (BST)

That would be me. Thank you very much. :D –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:30, 15 June 2006 (BST)
If I might make a humble suggestion? Perhaps it'd be worth numbering these rules for ease of use when dealing with the suggestions page. --Kestrel 15:00, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Boosting character stats for a limited number of turns

I've seen this idea up and running in another webgame (Kingdom of Loathing) and in practice the idea is perfectly workable. I don't think we need to guide future suggestion authors away from mining this particular seam of ideas. --Toejam 15:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference is this is a pvp game, KoL is a pvc game. Here if we add buffs it hurts someone, there it hurts no one.--Karekmaps?! 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, look at feeding drag, or scent blood, or even Doctors starting with diagnosis; all of those changes are "buffs" and so they all could be seen as "hurting" someone, and yet each of them was still a positive addition to the game. While I'm sure it's possible to make some truly terrible suggestions based on temporary boosts, that's true of any play mechanic, and I can't see any reason why temporary boosts are inherently a bad idea, the way that other things on this page, like skills that cut massive amounts of AP off an opponent or things that make the game less fun, are inherently bad ideas. That's why I feel this particular guideline is out of place here. --Toejam 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
They are done in a different way, what it seems like you are saying is things that will up damage for x AP or up accuracy for x AP, that's what a KoL style buff is. That is a very very bad idea. Temporary boosts are a bad idea. Something like Surgery(which is the closest this game comes to a temp buff) is only tolerated because it's pretty much the only thing that keeps Hospitals usable but a temporary buff that stuck on the character would be broken due to it's ability to save AP, it's like suggesting users get more AP as it's reasonable enough that someone could always provide it to be a permanent boost if you are in a certain area.--Karekmaps?! 00:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point about boosts allowing players to save AP. So maybe then temporary buffs are only acceptable additions if they're "rewards", or alternatively, they're alright as long as the buff has a cost attached, especially a non-AP cost. I'm thinking of things like if a zombie successfully squats a building for a night, their barricade attack odds go up, or allowing people to choose to get +10% accuracy at the cost of their max HP being halved. What are your thoughts on temporary boosts if there are restrictions such as those put in place? --Toejam 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd spam it as useless because there really is little acceptable middle ground, it'll either be too much or two little.--Karekmaps?! 04:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
pvc? Don't you mean pve, player versus environment? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I was using pvc as player vs computer, but sure, whatever. The point is you aren't playing against other people.--Karekmaps?! 01:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No Instant Kills

I think that one is obvious; why don't we already have that in here? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:25, 18 August 2009 (BST)


Here are two problems that see I in this page:

  • "Only Skills and Items Should Confer Gameplay Benefits or Penalties

Many suggestions involve being in a particular group, or around a certain number of other people, or things like that. None of these things should ever affect your character's skills. These conditions arise incidentally during the course of the game and should not confer special bonuses or penalties. The effects of being in a particular situation are beneficial or harmful in and of themselves, and should not influence things additionally. Only skills and items should confer gameplay benefits or penalties (movement, healing, attack, search, etc.)." What about Interference?

  • "Leave Your Own AP Alone

Don't suggest a skill to increase it, nor trade for it (AP for HP), nor in any way raise your AP above the current rate of gain. You get 50 max, at 1 point per half hour. That is the same for everyone, and it should be enough for now. " If you look at the FAQ, there's one section that says, "There may eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same."

--Brainguard 01:28, 25 August 2009 (BST)

  1. Interference is character based; complaining about that is like complaining about survivors being able to confer death to zombies. The basic idea is not to reward people for group membership or dumb stuff like that. It even says so in the section.
  2. The FAQ can go suck a nut. It doesn't matter what some article says "may" happen; screwing with AP just messes up the game. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:26, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Just want to make one little modification

Being at this point in the game, PKers, ZKers, etc. have become pretty common and accepted, I'd like to remove the guideline for "Don't Reward Players for Playing Out of Character". To put it simply, to me that guideline comes off as advocating against playing with those playing styles and avoiding them altogether, therefore advocating against the development of them. Removing the guideline would help encourage development of the PK-esque sides and styles of play. And lets be fair, we're not in the game to preserve any sort of false pre-defined notions of what a zombie apocalypse, we're in it to have fun. Limiting and ignoring an entire playing style in the game lessens fun overall.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of that rule is that it's not an intentional part of the game design. Breaking side is a player choice and that's never going to change. It's even actively discouraged by the game. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:24, 14 May 2011 (BST)