Developing Suggestions
Developing Suggestions
This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.
Further Discussion
Discussion concerning this page takes place here. Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place here.
Nothing on this page will be archived.
Please Read Before Posting
- Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
- Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
- It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
- With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.
How To Make a Suggestion
Format for Suggestions under development
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.
===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----
Cycling Suggestions
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the Overflow-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.
- The following suggestions are currently on the Overflow page: No suggestions are currently in overflow.
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.
Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.
Suggestions
Nightvision
| Timestamp: | Devon lobham 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Skill |
| Scope: | Zombies |
| Description: | Basically it enables zombies to see in unpowered dark buildings. They can see the complete room description and their attack rates aren't halved.
Currently the dark building feature actually makes zombies benefit from a generator and puts them at a loss in the absence of it. This is a paradox since it's humans who should be needing this sophisticated item anyway, not walking corpses. Implementing this skill will once again encourage zombies (or at least the ones who's purchased this skill) to destroy generators. Also, while survivors can immediately address a dark building problem by placing a fueled generator, zombies can't do such. Roleplay-wise, it can be said that zombies have spent so much time out in darkened streets that their visual senses become fine-tuned to darkness. This skill can be expanded to include other effects, but the one above is the only thing currently in my mind. |
Discussion (Nightvision)
Firstly, thanks for taking this to Developing Suggestions first, instead of to voting.
This could be seen as a Frequently Suggested thing (Portable light sources.) It could be seen as a dupe of this (although it's a long shot, admittedly.) I can't find any other dupes. Linkthewindow Talk 04:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Portable light sources affect survivors, I believe. And they can't have it because they already have the option of generators. Also, excuse me for asking here but, is there a "current situation" (as said in the suggestion article above) against this kind of suggestion?Devon lobham 04:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a bit stupid to vote against a suggestion because of the "current situation". The game moves in cycles-a few months ago there where complaints about the game being overly pro-zombie. Now, the stats overwhelmingly favor survivors. So, no, there is really no "current situation". Dark buildings are a zombie nerf, and I'm not against them being changed a little. However, portable generators are "expensive" (rare and valuable,) and dark buildings are often left ruined for months at a time. Giving zombies a nightvision skill is a bit unfair when survivors have to use a generator+fuel (at least 10, more likely 20 AP, only searching,) for each building they want to have good hit/search rates in, or want repaired is a tad unfair. If it gave a small boost to hit rates, then I would be fine with it. Full hit rates are unbalanced. Linkthewindow Talk 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this suggestion is that it allows "life cultists" to gather to much info about the insides of dark buildings, and to act as a "forwards team" that kills any zombies holding it (although a survivor with a generator & fuel is still needed to dump the bodies and reclaim it). The current situation in dark buildings is actually rather good for zombies, in terms of long-term holding power, and giving away more info would likely reduce that. 
Swiers 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. As I said above, in ghost towns or red suburbs, zombies can have dark buildings ruined for months. Linkthewindow Talk 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Corpse Tagging
| Timestamp: | Marcusfilby 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Equipment/Skill Enhancement |
| Scope: | Survivors (Spraying), Zombies (Being Tagged) |
| Description: | What: An alternate use for the spray can for those with the tagging skill, with all of the usual caveats (1AP, consumes a certain amount of the spray can's capacity, etc). Survivors may tag a zombie player in the same room with a short (5 character) message, word, what have you, using the same criteria as the Graffiti guidelines (no profanity, whatever else). The 'tag' would appear in two places:
The act of tagging another player would earn a nominal amount of XP for the survivor, say 1XP, and activate the Scent Trail ability of the zombie player in the same manner a DNA scan does. The tag itself would last until the zombie's next death (or incapacitation, whatever you prefer to call it when they hit 0HP), at which point the graffiti is too covered in blood and gore to be legible. Alternately it could be blacked out in the same manner as other graffiti (a space character). For purposes of items that target another (guns, melee weapons, syringes, etc) other survivor/zombie players would be able to select that target by tag (though not necessarily be able to view their profile) for as long as the tag lasts. Why:
Why Not...:
|
Discussion (Corpse Tagging)
yawn, this is a zombie apocalypse not...something else.--xoxo 03:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This is actually a dupe, though I don't have time to find it. Besides, who wants "I'm a dick!" spraypainted on them (and I'm being soft there). Also, survivors already have plenty of ways to get XP.--Pesatyel 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Survivors can already use spraycans as a form of harassment and this is just a way of making it more personal. --Papa Moloch 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Spurn skill
| Timestamp: | Explodey 11:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Skill mechanics |
| Scope: | everyone |
| Description: | For dedicated survivors who avoid zombie skills (and dedicated zombies who avoid survivor skills) as a mark of loyalty.
In the "Buy Skills" page, in addition to the "Buy this skill" button, there would additionally be a "Spurn this skill" button.
Optional features (I'm not 100% sure about these)
Examples of use
|
Discussion (Spurn skill)
 |
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I kind of like it, but this really isn't useful, you can achieve pretty much the same effect with just not buying it (except for levels, but you will have more XP so it balances out) and worst of all, it locks people into the zombie/survivor fundamentalist mindsets. Embrace the truth! Dual nature is the only true way! --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- As Mid. I'm not against it, it just seems a tad... pointless. Linkthewindow Talk 12:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you would have to have a fundamentalist mindset already to use this. There are already dual nature characters, fundamentalist dedicated survivors etc. This suggestion is not about encouraging a particular style of play, its more about advertising your chosen style to other players, for those who are already sure they are never going to buy the skills. I also think levels matter, including their effect on the game stats. --Explodey 12:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- People who don't have their skills spurned would be targeted as "spies." A lot of people play dual nature, and this would hurt them in the long run, as well as people who play rotted survivors (yes they exist.)
- Levels don't matter. A level 26 survivor (all survivor skills+scent death+ankle grab,) is equivalent in usefulness to the survivor cause as a level 41 survivor. The game stats? Yeah, you might have a point there, I'll give you that, but gameplay wise, after level 26 (for humans) and level 22 (for zombies,) levels don't matter.
- This won't change a thing to do with "fundamentalism"- a level 41 "pro survivor" will still be a pro-survivor, not mattering his skills do anything or not. It will just lead to people without this (namely death cultists and pkers, as well as dual naturists) being OMG SPAIS!!!! in many people's eyes.
- Linkthewindow Talk 13:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Re #1: Those who play rotted survivors for the challenge might actually benefit from this, as they could plausibly claim they were dedicated survivors by showing that they had spurned Ransack (and possibly some other zombie skills.) As it stands it's difficult to convince people of this if you have Brain Rot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Explodey (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- That's a good point. But I still don't like how this overemphasizes the idea that people with a mix of zombie and human skills are inherently "anti-survivor"/"anti-zombie." It will just lead to more accusations of people being "spais" by mindless trenchies. Linkthewindow Talk 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Re #1: Those who play rotted survivors for the challenge might actually benefit from this, as they could plausibly claim they were dedicated survivors by showing that they had spurned Ransack (and possibly some other zombie skills.) As it stands it's difficult to convince people of this if you have Brain Rot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Explodey (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- There are reasons why people would spurn skills without being complete fundamentalists: peer pressure, requirements to join a group, protecting themselves from getting killed as zombie spies. People change and some might want to try other things later, but this locks them in and they can't (not without creating a new character). The problem is the irreversibility, but this wouldn't be very interesting if this was reversible :P. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You can still play as "survivor only" or "zombie only" with acquring skills. It seems kind of stupid to NOT acquire SOME skills to "get back on track", so to speak. This applies more towards survivors trying to get back to surviving, but it would make sense to acquire Lurching Gait, Flailing Gesture, Memories of Life, Death Rattle and, maybe Ankle Grab. As for zombies, well you have, of course, the Necronet Access and Free Running. This, again, seems geared more towards survivors since zombies have BRAIN ROT to indicate their status, as well as minimize their ability to acquire (or not) survivor skills.--Pesatyel 01:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Oops, didn't read the whole thing. It still seems primarily Survivor focused, because of Brain Rot. And this sounds like stuff we have seen before in the essence, your asking to spend XP to buy levels. When your a zombie, your survivor skills don't show and vis versa.--Pesatyel 01:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Uhh... yes, they do show. All your skills are always visible on the profile page. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 12:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, I just noticed.--Pesatyel 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- yawn** --WanYao 04:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Cars
| Timestamp: | Allan Smiles 11:50, 31 January 2009 |
| Type: | Cover |
| Scope: | Survivors |
| Description: | Wait! Before you put down that this suggestion is under the frequently suggested ideas, read this. I don't think this is a dupe, but tell me if it is, please.(I am NOT suggesting that you should be able to drive cars!)
I think that in a city, it is silly to think that there wouldn't be any cars parked in streets or carparks. So, my proposition is that cars should be implemented into the game. Their purpose could be a short-term use for cover. Say that you are lost and running low on action points. You could collapse at any moment with fatigue. A car is perfect for that little boost of APs. If there is a car on the street where you are or the carpark, you can attempt to enter it. Once inside, you are free to rest a few hours. My idea is that the punishment cars can take are sort of like barricades for buildings. There are a few different types of cars I thought up. A Pick-up Truck-Pretty good damage, probably about the equivalent to a very strongly barricaded. A Sport Utility Vehicle-Can take the best punishment of all the cars, probably the equivalent to very heavily barricaded. A convertable-Pretty weak, the equivalent to lightly barricaded. (The weaker the car, the more common it is to find on the street.) If the doors to the car aren't locked, then zombies with the memory of life skill can open the car doors. If, by chance, zombie(s) get into the car, either by bashing it until it is open or merely opening the unlocked doors, they must drag the person out of the car to attack them. When you are looking at a car, when you are ingame and a car is on the same street as you, it'll look somewhat like this: "You are on (whatever street you are on) you notice a Sport Utility Vehicle/Convertable/Pick-up Truck. If you are a survivor. It costs 1 AP to approach the car, 1 AP to try the handle, 1 AP to enter and 1 AP to lock the doors. If a survivor is inside the car and it is locked, you will get a message after trying the doors saying that the doors are locked. Alternatively, if a survivor is inside the car and it isn't locked, you can use 1 AP to pull the survivor out of the car. If you are a zombie. It is pretty much the same, except if the door is locked, you have to bash it until the car is no longer able to keep the survivor safe, then it costs 3 AP to pull them out. You can notice if you approach the car and it is damaged enough to not be able to protect survivors. If it is, possibly a person with construction can repair the car to full hitpoints for 10 AP. I apologize for the length. This seems pretty obvious, so if it is a dupe, I again apologize for waisting your time. |
Discussion (Cars)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 02:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is a dupe, sorry. But I CBAed to find it. --WanYao 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hell I had the idea a few months ago.--Pesatyel 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Have seen a few variations of this so it is a dupe... It also ignores the fact that while the structure of cars vary in toughness they all have windscreens which would never count as heavy barricades. --Honestmistake 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Contaminated Needle
| Timestamp: | I AM TARA 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | equipment |
| Scope: | revivers and people getting revived |
| Description: | Using a revive syringe that was found instead of manufactured comes with a risk of giving the revived person an infection (assuming they weren't already infected when they died). I've been on hiatus for a while so I'm not sure if has changed, but I used to search for needles instead of making them myself so I guess this would deter this kind of action. |
Discussion (Contaminated Needle)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 1 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Kind of makes sense, but this is just too harsh, especially to newbies. It could be reasoned that the syringes are hermetically sealed (including the found ones) and are taken out only when you use them. Besides, it's not like you're finding them in the streets, you find them in a lab environment. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- What he said. Creative, nice idea in theory. But I think it's too cruel in practice. --WanYao 20:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You might go with a CHANCE of it happening, not automatic.--Pesatyel 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No need to change needle mechanics, they work just fine as it is --Diablor1 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Free Running Edit
| Timestamp: | Chuckiferd 04:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Rule Change |
| Scope: | Survivors with Freerunning |
| Description: | I propose that survivors be *unable* to freerun out of ruined buildings, as currently they can.
My reasoning behind this is it would open up a new tactic for long term seiges, pro-survivor zombies could ransack adjacent buildings to help prevent parachuting zombies. Of course pro-zombie survivors could repair the buildings up, so it is not really that biased or unfair. Organized use of this tactic could make a "fort" out of any building or group of buildings. On the other hand, zombies could apply the same tactic to cut the survivors off from any help or support. |
Discussion (Free Running Edit)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 00:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Erm, you're saying people should be trapped inside buildings? As much as I'd like to support this given the current zombie-survivor ratio, it's really too much. --WanYao 04:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- -I am saying that they should be "trapped" inside *ruined* buildings. In any case survivors left after 5 ransackings would be an extreme case, and most likely the barricades would be down. But the real purpose would be to give survivors a tactic against zombies who will sneak in as humans, and give zombies an ability to cut areas off from outside support.Chuckiferd 05:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC) (could someone help me fix this, I can't seem to get it)
- How could you be trapped? A zombie can't ruin a building if there are survivors inside and if the building is ruined you can't free run into it. If the building is over VSB you can't enter it and if it is at VSB or below you can just leave. I've just woken up so I might have missed something, but it seems like if you could get inside, you could get out as well. You just couldn't use ruins as entry points. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- This makes no sense. Either Free Running simply doesn't function, and if you move you find yourself outside -- in which case it's not much different than the status quo, just adds AP to the process (and this is a dupe). Or, you actually are trapped inside, in which case you've created a death trap -- not a form of "protection" ... And a form of fucking with my AP, i.e., griefing... Ergo, totally spam... --WanYao 17:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, what Midian said: buildings can't be ruined if there are survivors inside. Therefore, the only time this would even work is if a) the cades were VSB++ or lower (and why would you enter if you know you'd be trapped??) or b) someone makes a pinata and a revifying corpse who was already in there stands up. In either case, it's nonsensical suggestion that doesn't work within the game's mechanics. --WanYao 18:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you need to re-read the suggestion. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The suggestion just says you would be unable to freerun out of the building, it doesn't mention freerunning in and it doesn't mention normal movement so I would guess that this just turns freerunning off if you are inside a ruined building, just like it stops working when you are a zombie --Honestmistake 09:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you need to re-read the suggestion. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, all the zombies would have to do is get the barricades at VSB and then send a parachuter in. I don't think parachuters are common enough to justify ever using this as a defence. This would cut off help for survivors and thus drastically shorten sieges, and break free running lanes much more severely than the current ruin does. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jump from window
| Timestamp: | Dr Rosenrosen 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Interface |
| Scope: | Anyone in a building |
| Description: | When a Survivor jumps out of a window it shows upon all the other residents interface. Just like "A Zombie brought down the last of the barricades" shows.
"Dr Rosenrosen jumped out of a window." or
"Dr Rosenrosen jumped out of a window and plunged to a certain death." or
"Dr Rosenrosen couldn't take it anymore and jumped out of a window." |
Discussion (Jump from Window)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Dupe. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I still want it though. :( Everyone outside seeing you die from infection just isn't enough. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Headphones
| Timestamp: | Robshadow27 9:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Item |
| Scope: | Survivors |
| Description: | Spamming altogether has created an element of gameplay that some survivors are not fond of. Others wish for their younger children to be able to play, but choose not to because of constant radio broadcasts of vulgar language by those who wish only to annoy, and by passerby's harassing survivors huddling together in buildings. Therefore, I would like to propose an idea whereby survivors could mute the speech of other players by wearing headphones, which could be found at any mall in the Tech Store. Of course, like any other item, it would be necessary to search for the headphones, which would have a search rate of roughly 10 %.
Alternately, instead of a search function, headphones could be worn in place of a hat, in which a survivor would either A)not hear any conversation, or B)hear only muffles, equivalent to a groan being heard. The text could read "You see <insert name here> talking, but only hear muffles behind your headphones." This would eliminate the problem of encumbrance, if that were to become an issue. |
Discussion (Headphones)
|
WARNING |
| This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days. |
-- Linkthewindow Talk 02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Radio Spam is a pain in the ass but such an action to filter language for children who may play would deprive them of the many benefits talking has... In any event, any child mature enough to want to play a zombie game has probably heard more bad words in the playground than they will hear in game so I am not really sure that this is worth programming. --Honestmistake 10:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from but the more i think about it the less useful it seems. What about offensive graffiti or profile names? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually like this. I think this is the first suggestion of the year that I do like. We have a benefit (removal of messages that may offend) for a downside (ability to hear helpful speech removed). I'd prefer the item to be an findable item rather than a clothing slot, only for the reason that all clothing slots should be flavour only, with no implied use.
The problem is where to find them. For their intended purpose they'd have to be found first, meaning the cute kiddies that this is meant to help would still be subject to the 'bad' words until they do find them.
The only foolproof way to manage this is to put an age bracket on the signup screen, giving all players 15 and under this as a bonus item automatically (players aged 16 and over would start as normal). The item could then be found by all players at certain locations in the game should they choose to gain the item. A small encumbrance penalty, say 2%, would be fair. Limiting it to mall tech stores is flawed, add in buildings, clubs and junkyards and this might actually work. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that you're worried about "vulgar language" in a game that involves:
- lots of blood,
- zombies killing survivors,
- survivors killing zombies,
- zombies killing zombies,
- (and most importantly) survivors killing survivors (ie. MURDER).
To fix that, I'd suggest another item to complement the headphones: Candy-Lensed Safety Goggles. For the wearer they'd turn all weapons into Template:Wikipedia, melee attacks into hugging and kissing, infection into cooties, blood into lemonade, zombies into hares, and survivors into rabbits. Damage would be called "nuggets of joy" (as in: a hare hugged you for 3 nuggets of joy) and dying would be called "fainting from happiness". And the interface would be pink. And the game would be called Urban Lagomorphs. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd play that game. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah... maybe 8 year olds shouldn't be playing UD. However, if you do have your children playing, and you're concerned about the content -- follow what all the advice on good parenting says, and play with your kids, don't leave them unsupervised -- and then try to nerf the game for the adult majority because you CBAed to supervise your kids.
- As for spam... sheeesh, who's making you read it? Why doesn't it bother me? Or, how about this: leave the safety of green wanker suburbs 00 which is where all the spam happens, anyway -- and go help where it's needed. Less spam. More impact.
- That out of the way... The mechanic of this does more to discourage survivor organisation and encourage the undirected, individualistic trenchcoater playing style than anything I have seen in ages. --WanYao 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Dupe of Ear Plugs specifically. Also Ignore Certain Types of Messages. As for the age thing, he just, perhaps, needs a disclaimer on the main page.--Pesatyel 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't have a problem at all with the radio broadcasts, and receiving all types of noises and communications. I enjoy the spamming for what it is. I really only felt like submitting this idea to actually get an idea out here, to learn the process, and because there are others in my group who are concerned for their children. I believe that it is really up to the parents to deal with the implications of playing a game such as this, as it does have a good deal of violence. I thank you all for your comments, and I will also think harder on these ideas for the next time. Also, thank you Pesayel for pointing out the dupe. That was my fault for not searching thoroughly enough.--Robshadow27 06:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not problem, that's the point of the page. Finding dupes isn't that easy and there is nothing wrong with representing an idea.--Pesatyel 07:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If the radio broadcasts bother you, then don't carry a radio. As far as "vulgar passersby" (which I've neither heard of nor encountered)... add them to your contact list and then change their dropdown to 'ignore contact'. That's what it's there for. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions up for voting
- Suggestion:20090205 Gas Siphoner is up for voting. Discussion moved to here --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 12:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion:20090202 Show How Long People Have Been In Their Group is up for voting. Discussion moved to here Linkthewindow Talk 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion:20090201 Scent Enemy is up for voting. Discussion moved to here Linkthewindow Talk 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion:20090201 Radio transmitters in more places is up for voting. Discussion moved to here Linkthewindow Talk 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}