Suggestions/18th-Apr-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 02:04, 2 May 2006 by Grim s (talk | contribs) (Closed)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

VOTING ENDS: 2nd-May-2006

Shoot From The Hip

Spamnated with 13 votes spam and 1 vote keep for trying to give a free actionLyoko is Cool 06:18, 18 April 2006 (BST)

You are required, when removing a suggestion, to place it on the peer rejected page. Not delete it. --Grim s 06:24, 18 April 2006 (BST) Edit - Thank you for moving it. You beat me to it by a second. --Grim s 06:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Slight Free Running Change

Timestamp: 00:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Balance change
Scope: The skill Free Running
Description: Free Running should have a small chance at failure- say, 2%. After all, no one is a perfect acrobat. Failing at free running would put the user outside the building they were trying to run into and they would take 5 damage- have you ever fallen 2 stories onto the concrete? Not healthy.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. --Cerebrus13 00:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam - I don't like the fact that this messes up an already implemented skill.--Mpaturet 00:23, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill Take out the damage and you got my vote. You don't have to be falling 2 stories - you could just not find a passage. And I prefere to think of FR as going through the Sewer - which would be why you don't get to see the streets outside (as lets face it - you would if you where leaping building to building. DavidMalfisto 00:22, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - If revives did not cost the extra 9 ap they do now I would be all for this, however, the game seems fairly balanced now, and this would be a fairly large change. -Banana Bear4 00:33, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Spam How about we make % failures of logging into Urban Dead also? "Your name and password are correct but you must enter them again arbitrarily" --Jon Pyre 00:39, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - I'd say this idea has merit, BUT let's say these slip and fall situations come into effect if you're infected at a slightly higher chances. Makes getting infected just a bit more nasty, cuz why are you tiptoeing on the side ledges of the building trying to get to the hospital? If you're infected you'd better RUN your ass on over, don't do anything to dexteriously challenging, you may go splat. --MrAushvitz 00:45, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Spam - There is no reason whatsoever to put arbitrary failure rates into skills like free running. Addition of damage over the top makes this suggestion waaaaay over the top. It was spam without the damage. --Cinnibar 01:11, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - No reason to implement this.--Mookiemookie 01:18, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Flat out mean. Needlessly nerfs the most useful skill the survivor's have. Velkrin 01:28, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - this is a pointless nerf--Bermudez 01:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - A nerf that's not needed. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 01:33, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - I have a better idea. How about every time you attack a zombie, theres a 5% chance that you notice your fly is unzipped and you lose all your remaining ap due to extreme embarresment? But seriously, this would kill so many survivors that leave just enough ap to get through a string of H+ barricades (me included) and it would suck to be seconds away from safety, to see you missed and are now screwed. -HamsterNinja01:33, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - A failed Free Run would not be just an inconvenience -- with so many buildings barricaded beyond VSB, getting stuck outside without a ready entry point is often a death sentence. --John Ember 02:40, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - "My friend? My friend? You've been kicked in the nuts!"--Wifey 02:47, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam - 2%? Far from earth-shattering, so HamsterNinja's argument doesn't work. Still: why? And for what it's worth on the realism scale, I haven't met that many people who can leap across streets in a single bound anyways. --Undeadinator 03:38, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Spam - Don't punish people for taking a skill.--The General W! Mod 13:46, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Spam - Already suggested so many times before, already shot down so many times before... Hey, we just all want to be Neo here and pass the building-jump test kay? BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 17:16, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  18. spam -- WHo ever said Free running was about jumping from rooftops? Its crawling threw sewers, climbing in and out of windows, using fire escapes and the like all in combination.(perhaps some roofjumping) But let this be a lesson to all you pigs that wanna change free running. Remember its not just roof jumping, its representative of a bunch of stealthy and improvised way of geting from 1 building into another, buying the skill represents the player finaly mastering this ability and not making mistakes about it.--Kirk Howell 17:35, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  19. Spam - So I can die from just running around? That's just stupid. Timid Dan 21:46, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  20. Spam - Sorry It doesn't seem right to mess bout with one of the most useful skills you can get. Krazy Monkey 21:56, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill -Balance change?!? Hardly seems a point to it. Just bust into the safehouses like a good zombie and you'll get your treats. If you still think you're not getting enough to eat, we'll throw gobbets of meat outside the building.--Xavier06 21:59, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • RE What makes you blindly assume I'm a zombie? --Cerebrus13 00:41, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - Theres no real point behind it >_> at best a minor pain in the Whatever Bodypart Hits The Cement First. --Porgon 00:45, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - Make the fall lethal in your next one and i'll vote Spam. --Teksura 22:22, 27 April 2006 (BST)
  24. Spam - I'm a friggin scout. I was trained in this crap. --RCG Tiburon W! 20:24, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Carrion's Kiss

Timestamp: 01:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombie nastier infection "bite" skill
Description: Ironic about the free running suggestion above because I wanted to post this one today.

NecroTech Cadaver Analysis Report - Monday April 17, 2006: It appears that the stronger version of the zombie virus has had an interesting enhancing effect on the distribution of any remaining liquids in the zombies physiology. It appears that many if not all watery bodily substances are drawn upwards to the mouth and jaw area.. presumably to assist the jaw in lubrication for continued biting effectiveness, despite continued decay of the body. But additionally, to encourage a much greater breeding ground for all manner of necrotizing bacteria and viral concentraions in each and every bite used. It is out opinion that this enhancement are nature's (or "anti-nature's") way of improving the species, or an evolutionary benefit to the undead in the propigation of their kind, through increased killing potential. - Dr Morticai Nameez, NecroTech Biochemical Systems Analyist.

Carrion's Kiss

Appears on zombie skills tree as a Man-Hunter Skill these skills can only be aquired by zombies that are level 7 or higher. These skills are the zombie equivilent of the human survivor "Zombie Hunter" skills, but they are much easier to learn for those who have killed so many. Applies no benefit to your human character. As an additional prerequisite, your zombie character must have already purchased the infectious bite skill in order to be capable of an increased bite infection.

Your zombie has this blackish red "drool" which is most visible whenever they open their mouth (at times to groan, but especially to bite!) Whenever you successfully infect a survivor with a bite attack, you deal a 2nd Degree infection!'

2nd degree Infection

Same as a regular infection, but worse! This infection is made by the same "virus" (if that is the true cause), but it attacks the blood as well as the body! Survivors infected with this level of infection suffer painful spasms and cardiovascular damage if they over exhert themselves. (Yes, it hurts, a lot! Comparable to your veins being "on fire".)

Game Mechanics: 2nd Degree Infection

  • Can be cured with an FAK as a regular infection. But the first FAK use cures the first infection (the one that makes you take 1 HP damage per AP until healed.) But it requires a 2nd FAK use to cure this infection as well, your character is still free to survive and act with this infection, but untreated it will be limiting and dangerous.
  • The 2nd degree of infection has the following additional complications: A survivor infected by this will take 1 HP of damage every time they move from one indoors location to another using "Free Running", and 1 HP of damage for every AP spent errecting barricades! This is the damage they get from overexhertion. if your character does not over exhert themselves they take no additional damage. (Yes, if you have both levels of infection and you use free running to move 1 square, that's 2 HP damage for 1 square, better take the short route to that hospital!)

This infection is worse, but it is also going to make survivors have to help one another, so they can continue to help one another (you can spare an FAK for a guy who has the construction skill, right?) This 2nd degree of infection is bad, but it mainly limits your options as to what you can do and not do if you want to live! (ex. if you just got infected and you're out of FAK's, and it's a 2nd degree infection, you're going to head for that hospital using an outdoors route, because time is a factor! Better hope it isn't overbarricaded.)

It's nasty, higher level zombies should be nasty.

The one disadvantage to this skill, is survivors who are bitten by such a zombie will have some idea that this zombie is at least level 7+, however if it is not alone, this isn't so much of a drawback. This doesn't break their anonymity, but it does indicate they are not a small league zombie!

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. That's about it really. Doesn't overdo bite or gain extra XP, or to hit, etc. Just makes survivors burn more FAK's to stay alive IF they run into the wrong zombie. Newbie survivors won't like it per se, but then again newbie zombies get headshot by zombie hunters before they get their ankle grab, so sorry guys, it's all fair. FAK's are easy to find. --MrAushvitz 01:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill I have seen other multi-level bite suggestions I've liked better--Bermudez 01:36, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - So in other words survivors would just carry 2-4 FAKs around instead of 1-2. Barricading isn't always exerting, a plastic tree is hardly comparable to a bookshelf. Velkrin 01:37, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Bermudez basically summed it up.--Wifey 02:50, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill The main part where it fails is that zombies don't deserve a huge buff and survivors don't deserve a huge nerf. 2HP per movement is pretty darn punitive considering that hospitals are usually heavily barricaded and require a bit of free running to reach. --Jon Pyre 03:09, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill Another keeper. Why aren't you using this wit to write some Wrestling cards? -Banana Bear4 03:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Because his prose is inadequate to capture the pure beauty of two sweaty, half-naked men grappling with each other. --Undeadinator 03:41, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - What they said. --Grim s 05:21, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Hay guys look at all my suggestions r they kewl or wut? -Nubis A.R.S.E. 06:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - "Using an empty box, your barracade the doors - you take damage equal to a zombie ripping into you with it's claws kekeke" Also if a zombie attacks you, you can click back to their profile - so what are you talking about "zombie anonymity" not being effected for? Play the game, and don't be such a newb. DavidMalfisto 12:46, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 9 Kill, 1 Keep, 10 Total.--The General W! Mod 21:14, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - This is about the third or fourth multiple-level infection skill/modification/tweak I've seen from you. It's no better than any of the others. There is no reason to add additional damage levels to existing zombie attacks by stacking additional effects. The existing attacks are pretty well balanced and sane now. Timid Dan 21:48, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill -I like the title, I like the flavor text, but unfortunately that's about all. I don't mind the idea of a second-stage infection, but just slathering on more damage and more inconvenience isn't exactly a workable suggestion. I would prefer something that differentiates itself a bit more from the existing infection.--Xavier06 22:12, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Flavor wise it dosn't make sence, since usally when it's a virus, it only the brain. Mechanically it's just a waste. Being infected is a pain as is, no need to buff it. --Porgon 00:48, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Necrotic Compulsion

Timestamp: 01:18, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Subskill of Brain Rot
Scope: Zombies
Description: I loved "Land of the Dead". For all its flaws as a film, the new way of viewing the zombie (whos the monster here? what are the needs/rights of the zombie? Can zombies become...something more?) stuck with me. And the idea of zombies using items in limited but impressive unique ways (NOT a new way of doing the same thing), got me thinking about Malton's zombies and their inability to use many items in a impressive or unique way. I don't think Zombies should just do "what survivors do"...thats boring and repetitive. They need new and unique "zombie only" ways of using items which are fun both as flavor and mechanics.

However, currently the ability for zombies to fetch items is rather limited, espcially those with Brain Rot. Rather than make this a disadvantage, I've decided to even the playing field by making this a hardcore zombie subskill. It's a "springboard" skill that opens up the door for zombie-item useage. But enough talk. Here's what Necrotic Compulsion actually DOES:


"When you sucessfully kill a survivor, you pluck an item from their corpse that caught your undead eye."

When you kill a survivor with this skill, you see: "You hit <ect> for <damage>. They die. You compulsivly pluck <item> from them." if the search roll comes up. Or "You hit <ect> for <damage>. They die. You compulsivly pick at their body, but find nothing." if the search roll determines you find nothing.

This only occurs during the killing of a survivor; The search function cannot be controled or stopped, it is commited once you kill a survivor. You're not searching buildings, rather their bodies. You cannot search dead bodies that you find. You are simply picking at the survivor you JUST killed yourself.


Now, before you instantly vote Kill, let me address the questions or statements you're probably thinking.


  • Survivors shouldn't lose items.
Agreed. Infact, with this skill the survivor actually wouldn't be affected at all besides being killed by said zombie for the skill to activate. Nothing is removed from the slain survivors inventory, rather a random 'search' is made from a limited list when your zombie successfully kills a survivor and ONLY on survivors. ZKing would not trigger this ability, as that would result in a horrific situation in a "Multiply It By A Billion" situation.


  • Pft, what good is that? Zombies suck at all items.
Yes, and this is the first step needed to fix that. Zombies currently have no ability to search for items, even if they had skills to improve them. I've actually got ideas for blunt weapon and perhaps firearm ideas...one such suggested idea was to perhaps have a subskill of this skill where zombies do more damage with melee weapons but with an inferior to hit % with no additional XP given for the additional damage beyond the standard melee weapon inital damage. But its bad form to suggest skills that depend on skills that don't exist or haven't been implimented. Therefore, I'm simply suggesting this "springboard" skill to see if it gets picked up or even approved by the majority of Maltonites. Perhaps the mass players don't think zombies should use items EVER beyond what they currently can.


  • Zombies shouldn't use medkits/booze, or syringes and high-tech items.
Agreed. The items found would be from a limited list, most likely including blunt melee weapons, flack jackets, 'junk' items such as books and the like (to replace the 'found nothing' effect) and perhaps even firearms.


  • I like the idea, but don't like the subskill suggestions you've hinted at.
That's fine, you're not voting on the subskills...that'd be a faux paus on my part if I did so. If you like the core idea of zombies using the existing items in Malton, then this is for you. I believe its quite balanced due to the restrictions of the skill, namely, succesfully and personally killing (not simply harming) a survivor...which is quite a feat for even a single zombie unless you've awoken with 50AP next to a weakened/lone survivor on the street.
  • Isn't this just an old way to do something new? It's Mall Searching for Zeds, just to let them do what survivors do with whatever subskills future idiots suggest.
Not exactly, but I can see where you're coming from with that. While it would allow zombies with Brain Rot to use and search for the same items survivors do, they'd use it in different ways. The general idea is that zombies are stronger than human beings, but are usually slower and not so great with the motor skills. Some have commented that savage and unthinking attacks would be made since zombies don't care if they pull their tendons or snap their own muscle tissue, and perhaps having future subskills have minor health loss exist to reflect this. Either way, this is NOT about replicating Survivor abilities. It's about creating new abilities using things that already exist and are implimented in the game.


  • What's the math involved?
Since the zombie can only reap items from survivor they personally kill, which can be a significant investment of AP, I figured a search chance equal to a skilled Mall search would be apt. They do not have 100% search find, and they cannot search for specific items...you get what you get from the set zombie-search list. Zombies ALWAYS find something on a sucessful search roll, but its quite possible all nab compulsivly is a useless newspaper or book rather than an item they can use a skill for. I'm more than open for them nabbing nothing but items they can use, but I felt it was more flavor-wise to have them find at least SOMETHING even if its useless...after all, what good Maltonian doesn't carry around something like that on their person?


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


  • Zombies shouldn't use items more than they currently do.
If you feel this way, vote 'Kill'. I don't agree, but I can respect why. Not everyone loved the zombies of "Land of the Dead". :)


  • I like it, but you should change <Ect>...
Don't vote right away, but post about it in the Talk. I'll read it there, and we'll talk about it. I've already had some nice feedback on this idea before posting it here.

I'll be interested in seeing what you all think about this "springboard" ability, and perhaps I'll be lucky enough to see suggested subskills of this in the future. Thank you all in advance for your time and input. --MorthBabid 01:18, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Votes

  1. Spam - I was voting kill until you said the zombies have a 100% find rate. Players who take this skill will have to drop all the useless/unneeded items, using up IP hits and making it harder for them to play multiple characters. This is more annoying when you're attacking with a hoard, so you may kill multiple survivors and have to drop a great deal of useless junk from your zombie. That alone is what got you the spam vote, the rest of my comments are what would have warranted a kill vote, were it not for the IP hit issue. You seem to have a contradiction going. You say I figured a search chance equal to a skilled Mall search would be apt, yet you give them a 100% find rate, no where near a mall search rate. There is also the issue of clarity as to what you can find. You say you search the survivor and can only find specific items but mention finding a newspaper as an example, which no survivor in their right mind would carry around. So do you search the building or search the survior and then search the building? You also fail to mention what would happen if a zombie reached its item limit. Would it keep hoarding stuff or would it get the 'You are overburdened' message? Velkrin 01:54, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re My mistake, I forgot to remove that from my draft for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It was supposed to refer to junk items, not a 100% find rate. I've fixed it...though your vote still should be a Kill rather than a Spam. :) Zombies currently have item limits just as survivors do, I believe. I also do mention exactly what can be searched for, and and have added a few more descriptives. And I carry books and crosses. :) --MorthBabid 02:07, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam - Don't mess with my inventory. If you took, for example, Sigfrid's book, he'd be freakin' pissed.--Wifey 02:54, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • As I stated, your inventory isn't affected. Also, this should be a 'Kill'. --MorthBabid 23:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - I see what you're trying to do, and it's interesting, but you need to work it out more before you put it up for a vote. Mainly you need at least 2 examples of items that can be found in this way, what zombie uses they would have, and what the loot percentages would be. I'll be interested to see if this goes anywhere. --John Ember 02:58, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • I mentioned the items to be found and those that would not be above. Their percentages of finding anything or nothing at all would be the same as a skilled Mall search, and the item found would be random from the list stated above. --MorthBabid 23:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam Let's assume for the moment that zombies and survivors are currently equal. Now here's your suggestion that acts as a "springboard" for zombies to attack with items. If zombies are more powerful when they use items, and as powerful as survivors when they don't use items, then zombies would be better than using items than survivors. That doesn't make much sense. The main reason I vote spam is that you ask people not to vote and to discuss the suggestion further. You should finalize your suggestions before posting them on the main page. --Jon Pyre 03:14, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Actually, it was a suggestion to limit the paragraph length posts like this. :) --MorthBabid 23:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re Still, items are the domain of survivors. You need to explain what the purpose of the items would be. A Springboard to what? Zombies with shotguns? Zombies with 75% pipe attack ratios? Also when replying to votes use #*'''Re''' message. Just putting :: messes up the numbering. --Jon Pyre 00:00, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Zmobie Winona Ryder? I'm tempted, but no. --Undeadinator 03:42, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill -I swear I thought MrAushvitz posted this. See above and below votes.--Mpaturet 04:58, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill Because you broke rule 10 of posting suggestions. You edited your suggestion after it has been posted.--Steel Hammer 05:38, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep MAN that was long (and hard) to read Grim s clarified something for me, so I changed my vote.--Pesatyel 05:47, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Spam - Don't mess with inventories. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 06:17, 18 April 2006 (BST) Too long, missread. However, you need a list of items available to find and rates before this is a finished suggestion. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 06:48, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Again, I mentioned the types of items found and the search rates in the post. Check the Wiki sections on blunt melee weapons, junk items, and the math for current skilled mall survivor searches. --MorthBabid 23:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - see above --CPQD 06:40, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - You people arent reading the suggestion. It doesnt take ANYTHING from the persons inventory, it merely creates a duplicate in the inventory of the zombie. Honestly, there is actually nothing wrong with this suggestion, and everything above is pretty much kneejerk spam and kill. --Grim s 06:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - Liking the Idea... Gives you the sense of value without actually affecting anything significant in the game... And the Brainrot placement is good as well. By the time this skill (and followup skills that I am sure you would suggest if this got approved) I'm sure there would be an escelation on the side of survivors as well. Conndraka 07:36, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - zombies != survivors. Let's keep it that way. --Mookiemookie 12:10, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Why not? It helps making zombies more interesting to play... G F J 12:26, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - I don't like this suggestion. I don't want this suggestion in game. But given the number of invalid "Spam votes" (I mean seriously, Spaming for correcting an obvious typo? Spaming because you can't be bothered to read a suggestion?) I'm voting Keep just to spite the stupid veteran n00bs. DavidMalfisto 12:55, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Notice - A brief check of the history notes significant changes have occured to the suggestion since voting started, far beyond correcting spelling and grammar. I read the suggestion, the votes, AND checked the history. Timid Dan 21:51, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Curious...all I changed was the typo for the 100% error that I hadn't copied from the draft I have saved here on my harddrive? --MorthBabid 23:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  16. kill - Only due to the last point, it would make playnig a zombie more usefull to people who play primeraly as humans, lets them find items by playing as a zombie instead of sitting at a revive point. I did however nearly vote keep because grim.s is right, god it hursts to say that, there are alot of votes that clearly havent read the sugggestion properly--xbehave 13:39, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  17. keep - This is a lot to take in, but I didn't want to get Caught_Not_Reading, so I read it anyway. This is a good idea, but I have problem with the 'making stuff out of no where' sort of idea. And erm, there should be a list of items that can be used, and its effects. I think this version is good, but too much people are Caught_Not_Reading, so I shall expect your next version, cool?--Changchad 13:50, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  18. Spam - Suggestion has changed over the past few hours. I don't know what I'm voting on or if it will keep changing Timid Dan 21:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • What changed? I'm not seeing it in the history beyond my stated typo. -MorthBabid 23:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill -If you didn't want me to vote Kill on this, you wouldn't have moved it from the Talk page. I appreciate that you are continuing to work on this (though you shouldn't edit after it goes to vote...naughty, naughty). I'm voting Kill because, despite the length of this suggestion, it is simply not a finished suggestion. The zombie item-list and search rates should be included at the very least. Also, though you may call this a "springboard", you should probably include the intended uses for the items as well, since their effect is inexorably linked to this suggestion.--Xavier06 22:27, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • I haven't removed it from the talk page. The moderators have placed it in the Archived section of the Talk. --MorthBabid 23:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - Actually, I like the idea of taking items from survivors. Simply make it a rule that any item that a survivor has more than one of is fair game to be removed. That way, zombies cannot take vital items, such a the lone fire axe or DNA extractor, but can remove the piles of guns and ammo that zombie hunters tend to keep, or steal from the FAK supply.--Theblackgecko 22:37, 18 April 2006 (BST)
The survivor is not affected or used at all, beyond being killed. Since you can't really see what the survivor has either way (unless you're killing your own zerg alt), the imagination can fill in the gaps easily. --MorthBabid 00:17, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  1. Kill - As is the zombies own claws are better then any blunt weapon, so this skill would be a waste. As for a zombie welding a gun? ugh ... no, just no. --Porgon 00:51, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - First, I'd like to say that I'm appalled by the amount of people not reading this. Second, Morth already said that uses for items was specifically excluded, and that this was meant to be a springboard to those suggestions. After all, we can't very well suggest zombies using items if they can't get them, now can we? Obviously, you could get them as a human, but that's forcing a zombie to play as a survivor, one of our big no-nos. Anyway, I think this would be an excellent addition to the game. --Pinpoint 05:09, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - this makes no sense. If the item the zombie finds doesn't come from the corpse of the person it just killed, WTF? where does it come from? --Bulgakov 00:57, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill If I had a quarter for every time a suggestion like this came up, I'd be a rich man! Its days like this you just wish you were a wizard... --Volke 16:15, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Trade: Smoked's take

Timestamp: 08:39 April 18 2006
Type: Skill/Improvment
Scope: Survivors
Description: A lof of people want trade, but don't want zergers. "Sm0ked wh4t the fu><0rs you can'7 sugg3st trade!" Well, the idea was passed around desensitised a while ago, and peer developed there, so I hope it came out for the better. Anyway, down to business. The main points:

People are scared about zergers when trade comes into play. Therefor, trade will be a human skill, available for learning only after level 3. It will cost 100xp, meaning if you want to zerg, you're going to have to put considerable time into leveling before doing so. Level 10 wouldn't need trade by the time they're eligible, and besides, a level 2 who gets trade can do damage, but probably doesn't have the right search skills. Also, Kevan could use his already in use anti-zerging mechanisms that already trigger faulty FAKs and lowered hit percentages. Both parties involved in trade must have the trade skill (prevents lvl 37 giving his lower alts a bunch of spare clips). One item must be exchanged for another item. Both characters must remain in the same building until the second character agrees to the trade and it's completed. Here's an example: Since Your last turn: Survivor 1 wants to trade for 1 pistol clip (There would then be a button to say deny trade and another to say accept trade. The accpet trade btton would have a drop down menu next to itso you could choose which items to trade for the pistol clips. Maybe there could only be items that survivor 1 could use, so if he doesn't have NT skills you can trade for a sryinge.) If a player leaves, the trade is auto-cancelled.

Votes

  1. Kill - I like it, but I don't like seeing "maybe they could." Be specific, or else we don't know what we're voting for. Also, I think level 3 is too lenient. Make it a level 10 skill--not something that requires Head Shot, but something that can be bought at the same time. Then you'll see a "keep" from me.--Wifey 02:40, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - No, level 3 means your putting 300 XP into the character, something most zergers won't do. But a level 10 won't need to trade. Level 3s can do damage, but probably don't have all the search skills.
  2. Kill Seems overly complicated when you can find whatever you want just by clicking a few dozen times at most. Plus the anti-zerging methods aren't infallible. --Jon Pyre 03:17, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Unless we're starting off new players at level 0 now, this just requires two levels of work to trade...and for a military player, that's quite literally nothing. Even if you moved it up to level 4 (or 5, or 6) it would be too low. So long as everybody's concerned about zerging, trading just isn't gonna fly here. --Undeadinator 03:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Zergers are stubborn bastards, and WOULD invest the time to abuse this. Many zergers spotted by the folks at the desensitised board are higher than level 3 anyway. --Grim s 05:25, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - The only way I think I would get even close to voting for this is if the stipulation was made that the users ip address was checked against the other persons and if there were part of the same isp then the trade would be deemed illegal. But then you get into a whole mess of even attempting to figure that one out.--Steel Hammer 05:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - I like the idea (and I don't think it is wrong to make such suggestions if Kevan is considering implementing it), but #*change this:
    • Since Your last turn:
    • Survivor 1 wants to trade for 1 pistol clip.
    • A "deny" button and "accept" button appears.
    • Hitting the 'accept" button brings a drop down to offer (something for the pistol clip).
    • Survivor 1 then has to accept the offer. If they do not, they have to start over from the beginning.--Pesatyel 05:54, 18 April 2006 (BST)
      • It should be noted i fixed up Pesatyel's comment to repair the counting format on this page. All the above until the kill is his vote. --Grim s 06:13, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill ZERG RUSH kekekekekekekekekekekekeke -Nubis A.R.S.E. 06:16, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - There's really no good way to do this. Zergers aside, what would prevent two players in the same group from abusing the system (player A's syringe manufacturing alt trades with player B and so on) --CPQD 06:47, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Let me sum it up in 4 words, 50 fully loaded shotguns. - Jedaz 08:33, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - What Nubis said. Damn I miss Starcraft... --Mookiemookie 12:12, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - I like the idea... but it's not quite complete. DavidMalfisto 12:59, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - You didn't solve the zerging problem. Level 3? That's nothing. --John Ember 14:53, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - It would take you considerable time to get this skill if you need only level 3 for it? I don't think so. --Abi79 AB 15:12, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Sorry, but in a free game everyone will zerg. --WibbleBRAINS 15:39, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - The only way I could see even a close to safe trading system is the only people who could trade would be level 21 or 36ers. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 15:54, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - FAQ:Trade. There's a reason behind that paragraph... G F J 15:55, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - I just had an alt buy Headshot after only a month. A level 3 can be obtained in a mater of weeks. Zergs will easily pay this price.--Bermudez 20:30, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill -I'm in favor of some kind of way for allies/groups to pool resources, but this isn't quite there. Also, unless arranged deliberately, there are very few times when survivors stay together in the room for an extended period of time, so it seems a bit unfeasible for a casual trade.--Xavier06 22:40, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Drag Outside

Timestamp: 12:07, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies on humans
Description: REQUIRES DEATH GRIP

Once a zombie has "grabbed hold" of a human inside a building using death grip, he may for 25AP drag him outside the building, provided the doors are "wide open". Both zombie and human thereby exit the building. There is no XP yield. Nowadays with "feeding groan" we have hotspots of zombie fun, when we crack a stronghold and feast on its delicious innards! And survivors like it too as it's a race to seal it up before it's much too late for the meatbags inside. This skill gives a little edge to the zombie fraternity and means it's all the more imperative to repair a breach, before even you kill the invading Zeds, to save your comrades! This skill is not overpowered as the zombie receives no personal XP gain and must expend many AP to achieve the goal that could've been used up eating folks.

Votes

  1. Kill - AP cost makes it useless, and don't move characters against their will.--Mookiemookie 12:13, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - I don't like forced move suggestions (unless they're helping Zombies horde). If something needs more than 1 AP to do, it's probably overpowered and is thus a bad idea. DavidMalfisto 13:01, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  3. KILL - This is frankly useless...who will spend 25 ap to get no xp? It wil l be better to waste the 100xp for this skill somewhere else...like to get the memory of life! So you can get in there and eat all the brain you want. I know this might be cool to get some human outside and have a picnic outside the building (:P), but its simple inpratical. Also, Have you thought of how much you can do with that amount of Ap? Get the calculator and calculate, you can easily spread a building full of human the joy of infection. But keep it up, carry on doing suggestions, I am sure some good suggestion will come. --Changchad 13:37, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - At 25AP i cant see it getting used much, but when a zombie breaks in it would be able to use its last few actions to condem a survivor to death!--xbehave 13:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Totally useless and underpowered. This only condemns the survivor to death if they're offline and log on after the next couple of zombies who are outside do; many times, the survivor would just headshot you and laugh as he walked back in. Also, having the zombies who come online feast on the one person outside can actually be a benefit to the others, giving them more time to barricade. And 25 AP? Please. That's almost as much as it takes to fully revive a survivor, spent just to give some other zed a little better chance at killing him? In short, no.--Guardian of Nekops 14:22, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - *sigh* as said above - Jedaz 14:46, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - First, you meant Tangling Grasp. Second, with those 25 AP a maxed-claws zombie could nearly kill a non-bodybuilt survivor anyway -- and get XP for it! Third, survivors barricading first is precisely the wrong behavior to encourage. --John Ember 14:57, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - As above. --Abi79 AB 15:07, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Pointless. By the time the doors are open, the zombie will have less than 25AP anyway, and it has a bit of a griefy taste to it.--WibbleBRAINS 15:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - So I'm gonna drag a guy outside when I could have killed him, have his buddies dump his body outside, and injured another meatbag? ... *blink* BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 15:52, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill Useless and open to abuse (Using your last ap to drag someone out) Noobs should just follow the groans if they're hungry--Mpaturet 15:59, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - I do like the suggestion, but I just don't think this is quite right. Dickus Maximus 16:02, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Totally useless. The AP would be better used in actually gaining XP (i.e. killing the survivor you were going to move outside). --Cyberbob240CDF 16:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Author vote! I don't agree with a lot of the arguments against this (eg many people would certainly spend AP on things that don't yield XP if they're cool!) but this comment breaks suggestion "Also, having the zombies who come online feast on the one person outside can actually be a benefit to the others, giving them more time to barricade." Oh well! --Cedarsave
  15. Killl - BUT can be saved with a CHANGE. I think the general consensus is against this idea not because it's overpowered (because it isn't), but because it costs too much. Lower the AP cost to 10 or less, and resubmit it and see what happens. Slartybartfast 18:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - Slartybartfast is wrong, AP is a secondary concern, the main thing wrong with this is that it griefs inactive people--Bermudez 20:23, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Please do not move other players. Velkrin 21:41, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill- Things that would make this suggestion work: lower AP cost and a requirement that the survivor was close to death (15 or less?). The former would keep it from being totally useless to zombies, the latter would keep it from being too grief-y (since the zombie could kill for XP instead). Otherwise, its not a shabby idea...--Xavier06 22:49, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  19. Spam Moving survivors outside = Spam. Why? Because that's a 25AP Insta-Kill Effectively. --Jon Pyre 23:52, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  20. Spam - I've seen many ideas for this, and I don't like any of them.--Wifey 00:39, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally 17 Kill, 2 Spam, 1 Keep, 20 Total.--The General W! Mod 20:55, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Wanted!

Timestamp: 16:00, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Type: In-game justice system
Scope: Survivors
Description: Summary: Survivors can call in to the local police station and report their own murders. Others can access the PD computer and find who is "wanted" in that suburb.

This is a fairly ambitious suggestion, but I will try to keep it brief. My goal here is not to eliminate PKing, but to build in some of the tit-for-tat justice that is currently handled through metagaming.

Reporting: A survivor who is killed by another survivor may, upon being revived and standing up again as a human, call in the incident if the following conditions are met:

  • Victim has a cell phone
  • The suburb has cell phone coverage (the mast is powered)

The interface for doing this looks like

Do you wish to report PlayerKiller's attack on you? [Call in the report]

Upon taking any action, this option disappears. You must make the report before doing anything else as a human. Once called in, the report is stored in the databases at that suburb's police stations.

Enforcement: A new Military skill, Enforcement, allows players to discover who is "wanted" in the suburb and then recognize them on the street.

When in a powered Police station, a player with the Enforcement skill may click a button to "Access crime reports." Doing so simply produces the following message:

You will now be able to recognize criminals in the area by their faces.

Now, wanted individuals will be listed with a small skull icon in player lists: PlayerKiller http://withinbounds.com/junk/skull.gif

Players with the Enforcement skill who see these individuals and attack them will receive full experience points for their attacks and kills.

After three "game days" -- that is, once the player has expended a total of 144 AP doing one thing or another -- the player will "forget" the crime reports he checked and will need to access a powered PD again to refresh his memory. A message will inform the player of this fact:

You can no longer remember the faces of criminals in the area.

Absolution: After being killed by other survivors twice, "wanted" PKs will lose their wanted status and no longer show up as such in player lists. However, if they kill again, their wanted status will return. If they kill again while in a wanted state, the number of kills needed for "absolution" will increase by two. The formula is always 2 deaths = absolution for 1 kill.

Also, the wanted status does not carry over between suburbs. If you are wanted in Roftwood and move to Edgecombe, neither those who have checked Roftwood's crime reports nor those who have checked Edgecombe's will recognize you as wanted. However, deaths in Edgecombe will not count towards your absolution. You will still be wanted in Roftwood until you have been killed in Roftwood twice.

Like I said, ambitious. But I think it would be a lot of fun for both PKers and bounty hunters, and would create new reasons to keep phone masts and PDs powered.

Edits for clarification:

  • Wanted individuals cannot report their own murders if they are killed in the suburb where they are wanted.
  • The following suburbs do not have Police stations: Chancelwood, Earletown, Ketchelbank, Starlingtown, Reganbank, Tapton, Gulsonside and New Arkham. Folks in these 8 areas would need to resort to meta-gaming or just live with a bit more lawlessness. ;)
  • Obviously, there is not some secretary at the PD taking these calls. The system is an automated one, developed by Malton police before the outbreak, which survivors are learning to make use of.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. I've both PKed and been PKed. I think this would make for great times on both sides. And c'mon; you gotta love that skull icon. --John Ember 16:00, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Usually I vote these down because they're stupid, but this one is pretty good. I like being able to use the PD for RP purposes. Good suggestion. Dickus Maximus 16:08, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Hell as a PKer I like this a lot except it seems slightly overpowered. Maybe if you made it so that you could only report an attack on you, but if you died, your zombie would forget about this? Or a slightly high AP cost for reporting? Though one could always have a home suburb to run to which you never kill in. That would be awesome.--Mpaturet 16:11, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Well, the nominal AP cost is offset by the requirements of having a cell phone and having cell phone coverage. Since coverage can come and go, reporting a kill won't always be possible. As for death making the victim forget, that pretty much means no PKer would ever get reported. ;) --John Ember 16:23, 18 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - That's not nessescarily true, some days you can't finish a kill. Maybe a chance to forget upon death? Also this could encourage noob-hunting as people will go after prople without this skill.--Mpaturet 16:56, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - If there's no kill, there's no PKer. Just a player... assaulter. Also, anyone can call in a murder if they have a cell phone. There's no skill required for that. --John Ember 17:37, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re -Then that nerfs Pkers way too much--Mpaturet 00:16, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - bring the meta gaming into the game, the skull thing seams abit too much for this smal l feature. I hope you dont mind me using this as the basis of a similar suggestion--xbehave 16:26, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep- Just wondering if some one from the suburb that you killed in comes to the suburb you dident kill in do they reconnize you as a PKer? other than that love the suggestion Iam a Pker right now and I like this Idea.--Deadeye207 16:27, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Nope, even your victims won't "recognize" you in that other suburb, in the sense of seeing the icon and getting full XP for paying you back. It has to be in the suburb where the original killing took place. --John Ember 16:34, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - What's this? An anti-PK'er suggestion? Gets the big "Yes!" from me. --Cyberbob240CDF 16:34, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - It's not anti-PKing so much as pro-putting some structure to PKing. PKing would still happen plenty, but this way there would be instant "conviction" and instant absolution in-game, without the need for UDTool. --John Ember 16:37, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - You don't need to defend yourself John - I agree with the suggestion. --Cyberbob240CDF 16:40, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Heh, right. Thanks for that. I just didn't want any PKers to read your comment and hit me with a knee-jerk Kill. ;) --John Ember 16:42, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Don't worry. Grim Pro-PKers will be doing it anyway, regardless of what comments I make. --Cyberbob240CDF 16:46, 18 April 2006 (BST) Edit - *points to Grim's vote and winks knowingly* NOTE: The fact that Grim was used here is totally coincidental. --Cyberbob240CDF 16:58, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - I am very torn about this, but I think that it may be best to leave PKing as still not encouraged in any form (giving full xp for killing pkers is in a way giving full xp for pking), and as torn as I am about the validity of PKing, any anti-PKing suggestion (or pro-PKing suggestion for that matter) will get a kill vote from me. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 16:30, 18 April 2006 (BST) Edit: Something just occured to me. I've killed people before (death cultists, members of PKing groups, etc), so what happens when I get tagged as wanted for killing withing reason, but not acting on a bounty? BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 17:04, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Just as in the meta-game system, you're only justified in killing a wanted PKer. Any other killing will mark you as "wanted" yourself. --John Ember 18:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - As has already been pointed out NUMEROUS times in every previous anti-pker suggestion, a Pkers life is exceedingly hard, especially when the zombies are having a good time. This makes it a LOT harder to kill and survive it (Actually, this would make it all but impossible), since absolutely everyone will know, rather than those who are not in contact with everyone. Also, this puts far too much structure into what is essentially a post apocalyptic setting, which is supposed to be chaotic. --Grim s 16:56, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Okay, Grim, but isn't the reason PKers have a hard time because of meta-gaming PK lists? So how would this make things worse for them? If anything, it would make things better as folks transition to the in-game system because 1) absolution instantly takes effect in the eyes of all and 2) you can "dodge the law" by leaving for friendlier skies. As for the post-apocalyptic setting, this is still street justice; it's just that survivors are learning how to use the available infrastructure to carry it out. --John Ember 17:02, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Because Cyberbob voted Keep and because PKing isn't really such a big problem. I've heard there are zombies out there somewhere. The PKers get killed more often than other survivors already because we have a working PKing report system. If you want to do something against PKing, discourage the PKers from killing Lv. 1 survivors. Most of them don't have a mobile phone to report any PKings, so this suggestion is useless for them. -Craw 17:06, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Notice - No personal attacks. Why was this deleted just then? --Cyberbob240CDF 17:41, 18 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - I don't know, maybe because you aren't a moderator? -Craw 18:19, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill Really like this idea, but as Grim said, this is far too complex in a city where most of the major infrastructure has been decimated. Why would you go to a Police Station to report a murder, when the Police no longer exist as an organised entity? No desk sergent, no one to take statements, no investigative policy. I'm all for "bounty hunting" but there needs to be a simpler, more archaic, way of reporting PKing. And infact, there is, if you check about on the Wiki (screen shots, send them to certain PK hunting groups, of which there are a few). Don D Crummitt 17:09, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep- Finaly an in game way to combat Pkers. Now all we need is a way to lock them up :P --Kirk Howell 17:19, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - I think this is a good idea. However, there's one thing I noticed: There has to be a restriction that when a wanted pk'er is killed, he cannot file a report on the person who killed him... You didn't mention this, but it's quite important. G F J 17:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - D'oh! Had that in mind, forgot to include it. --John Ember 17:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - A well thought out idea Etherdrifter 18:00, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Not a bad idea, but I'm with what grim and Don said. Too much structure for an apocolypse. Heck, New Orleans still can't prosecute all the cases they have because the DA's offices CEASED TO EXIST. And that was just a hurricane. Imagine what it would be like with zombies. And yes I know, real life!=Urban Dead, but it does need some basis in reality. So at the risk of making my vote MrAushvitz-esque length, I just don't think this suggestion fits in the genre.--Mookiemookie 18:21, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Yet scientists can access NT computers and ad-hoc surgery centers can be set up in hospitals. It's just survivors making use of the leftover equipment. We're just assuming the police have some special method for updating their databases without requiring a human agent, and survivors have learned to use this. Besides, realism != fun, and I think this system would be fun. --John Ember 18:27, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - Well thought out, creative, and not overpowered. Expands on existing infrastructure that is currently unused. Excellent idea. Slartybartfast 18:23, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - An automatized list of PK'ers. Still, I wonder what will happen to the Malton DEA, if they'll continue killing The Abandoned. :)) Poor policemen will be hunted by their own. --Abi79 AB 18:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I am totally amused by this. Thank you. --Unlife 02:04, 20 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - We'll continue to murder you with impunity, since your group is exceedingly poor at defending itself and your charges.--Jorm 23:03, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - This WILL require significant code change. Add one column per user for PK flag, and the associated logic change and etc. Most importantly, this isn't really well thought out. What if I don't have that skill, and my friend or I want to perform my own revenge kill. OR, if I do, I will have to call in the station, get to the Police station to get the criminal report, and THEN kill him? This is a NIGHTMARE! By that time my PKer will be nowhere near me. Throw my AP in the trash please. What if I was PK in a location where there is no mobile mast, and the my PKer moves into one with mobile. When I kill him he can claim Im the PKer now. This does not serve the purpose of serving "justice" whatsoever. KILL KILL KILL!--Wikkid BigShot 14:08, 18 April 2006 (EST)
    • Re - Coding difficulty isn't a sufficient Kill reason, and I've made several decisions in the suggestion which should simplify the coding (not going to enumerate them here). You seem to assume you should always be the one to kill your PKer. What the suggestion aims at is more of a "neighborhood watch" approach where PKers have to face the justice of enforcers throughout the suburb. As for getting PKed when there's no cell coverage... seems like a good reason to keep those masts powered! ;) --John Ember 21:48, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - Many reasons for this. First, Meta-gaming handles this well enough. Second, it's way to open for grief, dispite what some people think there are many reasons why an upstanding survivor would need to resort to PKing. If I was a griefer, this would be my favorite suggestion because I could walk into the building I've been griefing before the change, get killed, report it, and repeat. This would make it so griefers would try to die, just so to get others to kill those they wish to grief.--Bermudez 20:05, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - In my opinion, a meta-gaming solution is usually indicative of some lack in the game mechanics. I think it'd be good -- and fun -- to bring the justice element into the game itself. --John Ember 21:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep -Awesome idea Jeff Oneil 20:40, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - Kill kill kill, just like my PKer kills your character, you whiny baby. --Jorm 21:16, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Er, thanks jorm. --John Ember 21:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  21. Spam Excelent idea! Now, explain to me HOW are you going to report someone for your own demise using a cell phone if you are DEAD! Zombies can't use a cell phone, and even if they could we would see something like this: officer: 'dunnel hills PD, how may i help you' victim: 'mrh?' officer: 'excuse me sir ?' victim: 'A HARMAN GRAB MA HAMM AM RAM MA' officer boss: 'must be a zombie... see from where he is calling and we will kill him, again' --hagnat t o w 21:22, 18 April 2006 (BST)RE:Some RP systems and at least one real world metropolis has a "deadman" locator that goes off when your heart rate stops. hook that up to a cell phone with a camera and "Bing"Conndraka 21:45, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I don't think you're looking at the same suggestion I am, hagnat. --John Ember 21:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep A Reason to Power up PDs...Remember if the Power is down for a PD, it doesnt work either and gives Crimainal GKers an actual reason to exist. Conndraka 21:28, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep- Who says pkers aren't a problem? I've had more issues with them than the zombies at times and that's during zombie infestations. Unfortunately I haven't seen very many honorable pkers in my area, ie those who announce it as such. More often than not they attack when there is a big zombie problem so people are too busy to deal with them. Not really much of a challenge then. If it can be implemented its a great gameplay factor because it allows for ramifications of acts. Even if you kill for a good reason, you are still killing a character and that shouldn't just be forgotten. If it can be done, I don't see why it shouldn't be implemented. --Prosperina 21:30 18 April 2006
    • Re - By your logic, could one not use the same evidence to conclude that survivors are overpowered as compared to zombies? --Unlife 02:04, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - CAUGHT NOT READING, Hagnat you lovable fool. And I quote: "Reporting: A survivor who is killed by another survivor may, upon being revived and standing up again as a human, call in the incident if the following conditions are met: yak yak yak." Ownz. Also this suggestion. For real, a harman getting some incentive (apart from bastardry) to smash a tower genny is awesome, as it finding a use for the cell phone. And, finally, a reason to power PDs. Oh man. This blows COPS out of the freaking water. --Undeadinator 21:33, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill - See above. Velkrin 21:39, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 14 Keep, 10 Kill, 1 Spam 21:40, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill - And what, exactly, differentiates the PK'ers from the people that kill the PK'ers in self-defense? You're placing a guilty mark on anyone that kills a player without a trial. What if someone combat-revived a zombie and the zombie was going bugfuck on people? Tagging PK'ers for any reason is a feature I'd like to discourage because it raises too many questions about the validity of the tag. I hope you understand that the suggestion itself is pretty well structured otherwise, but the basic premise has a fault that I can't see a way to reconcile. Timid Dan 21:55, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - A zombie is just going to go zombie again at the earliest opportunity. The PK mark means nothing to him. Killing players in self-defense (I suppose you mean preemptively) is still PKing. This is exactly how the meta-game PK list works today. If you kill someone not on the PK list, you are a PKer. If you want to justifiably attack a PKer, you wait until they PK and are put on the list for it. The rules are the same in that respect. --John Ember 22:03, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  27. Kill - First, the is the worst abuse of the RE system that I have ever seen, which forces me to vote kill. The other thing that I really don't like is players calling in their own murders, after reviving. The PK could be long gone, or have amended their ways. I would rather see a system where other players can report murders. First, if a player is killed when alone, it makes sense the killer would get away with it. Second, it speeds up justice as the murder can be reported immediately. Third, it allows players to give impassioned speeches about why the player is being killed, which may sway onlookers to let it be. --Theblackgecko 22:51, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Eh, I've seen worse. --John Ember 23:01, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  28. Kill - Never! Way too open to abuses.. Some people need to be killed. Like Zergers and GKers.. So If I kill one of them he can report me. Hell no. --Technerd 23:03, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  29. Kill -But damn close to a "Keep" on this one. I don't especially like the 2 kills for absolution, as it seems a little harsh. Punitive measures should only go so far. If all the PKers weren't too busy with their knee-jerk reaction, maybe they might have pointed out this hole in your suggestion. I mean, let's just suppose I'm a PKer who, after being tagged and killed in the proper suburb, decides I want to mend my ways, lead the straight and narrow survivor life. So now I have to get revived, get killed again (in the same suburb), and get revived again to be freed of the PK tag (Technically, I'd be free of the PK tag after getting killed the second time, but I'd be a zombie so it's just as bad). You might as well just erect the jail while you're at it. It should be 1 kill to absolution every time. I was gonna bitch about the full XP thing, but since it does require a skill and some legwork, I don't see the harm. Apart from my primary concern, this is not overpowered at all (You just have to move to a different suburb, for chrissakes!). Glad someone is trying to step past bias and make a workable PK justice system, instead of a "tip the scales the other way" unbalanced anti-PKer fix. If this suggestion gets killed, please, please consider reworking and resuggesting it.--Xavier06 23:21, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  30. Keep Like any suggestion it isn't perfect but it could definitely be implemented with only a few obvious tweaks (like Pkers not be able to report in, maybe reporting it in should be a skill also). Isn't "unfair" to PKers because it just helps replace metagaming with in game stuff. Firefox extensions can mark PKers. I don't think using firefox should be an advantage. Quite honestly any benefit of the browser is overridden by all the prima donnas shouting "Firefox is awesome! Don't suggest anything because I totally know a guy who coded that in Firefox instead! Let's close Urban Dead, I have a Firefox extension that simulates a zombie apocalypse!" --Jon Pyre 23:49, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  31. Kill - "POLEESE DEWDZORS I GOT PKed One!" Seriously guys - murder. "She turned me into a newt... I got better." I really don't think this suggestion makes sense. I'd rather see Scent Trail working for humans when they're PKed - a sort of driving instinct to create more undead and avenge yourself in one swift motion. DavidMalfisto 00:17, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  32. Keep - I like the idea, It'll bring use to powered up police stations and cellphones. not to mention it makes sence! who better to report a murder (I got better!) to then the police. --Porgon 00:27, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  33. Kill- Life is already difficult enough for PKers as it is. Get rid of the update where kills are noticed by other players, and I'll change my vote to keep.--Rozozag 00:44, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  34. Kill - I agree with the two last "kill" voters, really. Scent trail picking up on your murderer as a human would be neat (if only because we'd then have more zombie action out of someone who would otherwise just go find a revive spot and Mrh). Life is pretty difficult for most PKers. I like the little skull icon, but I don't think adding PKer flags to names is ever a good idea.--Wifey 00:47, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  35. Kill - I don't like it. Plus I thought we alredy agreed as a community that we wouldn't make the game punish or assist player killers. - Jedaz 00:59, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  36. Keep - just really like the idea. I'd be happier--and the people who think it's overpowered probably would be too--if rather than there being a military skill for reading the reports, policemen would automatically have that power and no one else can ever get it. After all, that's realistic--until and unless someone got around to rewriting the system, it'd operate as designed for normal life, and only policemen would be able to get at the info...--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:27, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally: 17 Keep, 18 Kill, 1 Spam
  37. Kill This would have been a very good idea, but I'm afraid I see two flaws. First, you can no longer kill zombie spies or PKers without them first having been reported, or else you face the possibility of being reported. Thus "reported Pkers" aren't necessarily Pkers. Second, I don't believe full xp should be given for combat between the same side, even under these circumstances. In fact, I think this pushes it over the top powerwise, in addition to the more important problem I stated first. --McArrowni 04:09, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  38. Keep I think it is the complexity that makes it work. I'm tired of the crap that "PKers already have it hard" or "just metagame to deal with PKing." Not everyone metagames, nor should the HAVE to. We NEED more in-game equivalents to metagaming.--Pesatyel 07:32, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  39. Keep - Good idea, nice and subtle. Things ned to be brought into the game. having a metagaming solution is no reason for a kill. Nazreg 14:19, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  40. Kill - Corny. 'Hi, this guy killed me. Quick, let me call in his description so it can be sketched for the database and he can be killed back.' Petrosjko 20:25, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  41. Keep - Little bit comblicated, but good --EnForcer32 22:21, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  42. Kill - As much as I love the idea of knowing who has a history of PKing, there are legitimate reasons to PK. Plus, as has been said so often, APs are not a unit of time. Plus there are obvous database problems inherent in this suggestion. Firstly, the PKer must be flagged as such in the database. Then the people who have enforcement would need an AP counter from when they checked the records. Even if it moved to a time based counter(like dna extracting used to be on, and I think Generators are on), it would still take server time to calculate. Finally, enforcement should not be a Military skill. It should be either a civilian skill, like construction, shopping, and body building, or it should be a science skill, like necro-net access. Rockphed 00:07, 20 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally: 19 Keep, 20 Kill, 1 Spam, 40 Total.
  43. Kill - For four reasons: 1. The city is in chaos. There is no working government or infrastructure, and everything has been looted within an inch of its life. See New Orleans example above. Does anyone imagine that complex computer systems and voice recognition systems would escape months of looting unscathed and would just work if plugged in. It doesn't even make any sense. 2. Too technically complicated, discussed above. 3. Not genre. In zombie movies, fellow survivors are most frequently the greatest threat, whether they are crazy, selfish, bad people, or those formerly with some authoriy/power and now alone and without direction. Crazy ex-soldiers, cops, security guards, bikers, drunken hicks, and various criminals shooting up other survivors for fun and profit is a staple of all zombie movies. People reporting to police stations and other non-cops hanging out by the cop-shop to check the police blotter is not genre, and is not a zombie apocalypse. 4. PvP game. --Unlife 02:04, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  44. Kill - Doesn't fit with the rest of the game. --Ron Burgundy 01:50, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  45. Kill - If PKing was supposed to be formally illegal, would Kevan allow it? Stopping PKers for RPing reasons, okay. Flat-out griefing us? Kill. --Bcrogers 08:02, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  46. Kill - As "Unlife" said. --RWXSM 17:18, 30 April 2006 (BST)
  47. Keep - Hold the PK's accountable for thier actions, sounds good to me! --Mister Sandmann 01:09, 1 May 2006 (BST)
  48. Kill - and resubmit. I like the basic idea, but this version isn't quite the one I want to see on the Peer Reviewed list. First, the one-suburb restriction makes is too limiting. Step across a line and you're home free, so bounty-hunters would still have to do all the meta-gaming this is meant to bring in-game. Second, I want witnesses to be able to report PKings too (provided they have a working phone). Third, GKing is a crime too, and should be reportable by witnesses so that GKers can be killed without making the enforcer vulnerable to the justice system. Fourth, I'd like to also avoid spending revive syringes on PKers, so I would like the skull icon to show up on the DNA scan too. --Dan 16:21, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Zombie Contact Tweak

Timestamp: 17:03, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Humans with friends who have died in game
Description: When someone has a person in their contacts who is a zombie and they recognise them, it should put them separate from the other zombies in the area.

Before you cry, "That already happens!!" and vote kill, read this. I run a small group in Urban Dead and my second in command was killed a little while ago. He informed me of a zombie that had broken into one of our safehouses and he'd already brought it down a few HP, I went to help and recognised my zombie friend. I selected to attack the other zombie but it kept reseting to attack my friend. Eventually not realising that I was attacking my friend, I killed him.

This should be sorted out i.e when you have a contact who is a zombie, they should be separate from other zombies. It would stop people killing contacts who are dead and in the same room when they dont mean to.

  • Note (for clarity) What I'm saying is that zombies in your contacts are just part of the zombie stack, they should be separate from the others.17:17, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. I think this may be a glitch to be honest but I thought it would be best to see what other people thought about my idea. --Krazy Monkey 17:06, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Apart from the fact that I can't understand the suggestion, the problem you had had to do with you, not the game. Keep - Upon further thought, I have realised that this would be, in fact, useful. --Cyberbob240CDF 17:18, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - It's not a glitch, it's just the way the zombie stack works. There have been times when I've had friends infront of other zombies in the stack that I could not attack, I think this may be useful... BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 17:09, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  4. killi think it makes sense that you attack a random zombie, friend or foe--xbehave 17:44, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re- However If you recognise the zombie and it is a friend, why would you attack it? Krazy Monkey 21:23, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep I think this is a good idea, because many players will want to avoid harming frendly zombies from their Group, as with the above case, and other circumstances may present themselves further down the line. Sorry, btw, this was my first post and I was trying to get it to work 17:58, 18 April 2006 (BST) HerrStefantheGreat
  6. Keep - Good idea, but I think this should go into the bugs section and see if Kevan can sort this, but again, this idea is quite good.--Changchad 18:22, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Good idea! --Abi79 AB 18:42, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - If you can recognize the zombie to attack it specificly, it's only common sense that you'd be able to recognize it so you didn't attack it.--Guardian of Nekops 21:05, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Yep. Velkrin 21:37, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - I thought this was already how it worked. If not, it may be more of a bug fix than a new feature. The "a zombie" listing shouldn't cover zombies which you recognize as contacts. --John Ember 21:54, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - Sounds more like a bugfix than an improvement to me. But I'd like to see validation that this is, in fact, the behavior. Perhaps someone could get in a room with two zombies, attack the zombie stack, and see if they accidentally hit thier contact. I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I just want to see some sort of correlated experiment that replicates this so we're sure it's not a fluke occurrance. Timid Dan 21:58, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - I agree, you should be able to avoid attacking someone you recognize. Especially since they already allow you to single out a zombie you recognize for attack. The ones you recognize should still be IN the zombie stack, just behind the faceless ones. --Reverend Loki 22:13, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep Makes sense. --Jon Pyre 22:25, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Really this is part of the zombie stack; and the zombie stack needs major overhaul. I would make the case that the zombie should be DNA extracted before this applies, and once zombies are extracted, they become identified for revive or for killing purposes. One can either get the Necrotech readout (which identifies all extracted zombies in the vicinity) or else manually extract, but the current stack is too much or a mess. --Theblackgecko 22:58, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep- This is somewhere on the fence between a bug and a feature. Put this up on the beg report page just in case.--Xavier06 23:24, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - I can choose to revive someone or not, should be able to choose to attack them to. DavidMalfisto 00:19, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Zombies once they are zombies, reguardless of what they used to be, are now your foes. "Hey Jim" "gaarrgh..." "wow, you kinda look zombified-GAAACK!" --Porgon 00:35, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep- /\ Then why can you recognize zombies on your contact list in the first place? /\--Rozozag 00:42, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - So you can shoot them first. Maybe it's just an American thing. Also: somebody accidentally fragging their friend FTW. --Undeadinator 01:14, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - In the game's context, zombies should not be an harman's "friend". So I see no point in making mechanics to make making things like that easier. You want to be a friendly zombie? Get out of the way and go get revived. --McArrowni 04:16, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill - Survivors should not try to protect zombies! If they are a friend and you have a syringe, it makes sense to be able to "target" them for revival. But if you see a former friend and another zombie, what do you expect to do, kill the "bad" zombie and then sit down for a nice cup of tea with your now-dead chum? --Norcross 04:36, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep - I don't see anything wrong with the suggestion.--Pesatyel 07:38, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - No I don't like this on the abuse it can cause. It voids zed anonimity. while it can be used to recognise friends, it can also be used to spot, pick out and greif particular zeds. So you can kill faction leaders again and again, even in swarms of 500+. Nazreg 14:27, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 17 Keep, 6 Kill, 23 Total.--The General W! Mod 20:51, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - Very annoying when attack drop down resets. RWXSM 17:22, 30 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 18 Keep, 6 Kill, 24 Total --Krazy Monkey 18:03, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Airstrikes

Spaminated with 1 Author Keep, 9 Spams and 0 kills. WMD's don't need to exist in Malton.--Mookiemookie 20:30, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Alphabetize Inventories

Timestamp: 23:18, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Inventories
Description: Inventories can get a bit unwieldly because you can't organize them. Being able to have your items displayed in alphabetical order would be quite useful. Since some people might not like that change I suggest that a small checkbox be added to your edit profile page to choose to have your inventory displayed in alphabetical order. Unchecking it and saving would switch you back. This is a small utility that would be entirely optional for players to use. It should help reduce inventory chaos considerably.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. And yes, I know there are Firefox extensions that could do this. But not everybody uses Firefox and they shouldn't have to for their inventories to be organized. --Jon Pyre 23:18, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep- I wouldn't use it personally, but still, it couldn't hurt. --Rozozag 00:42, 19 April 2006 (BST) 00:40, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - I've been waiting for this for a while now. --Arcos 00:39, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Someone deleted my vote! (And Undeadinator doesn't know how to strike through without messing up the number sequence so it was probably him by accident) DavidMalfisto 00:41, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - I deleted no votes you fool! Philistines and whores, the lot of you. Sorry about the vote screw-up: misplaced the <s> thinger. --Undeadinator 01:07, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Inventory and Contacts both need major overhauls. I think Kevan should just team up with jorm to do it the NexusWar way, but I'm not holding my breath. This is a band-aid solution, but even a band-aid can stop a little bleeding. --John Ember 03:18, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - As far as I'm concerned, there's not even any reason to put a checkbox. But that's good enough of course--McArrowni 04:18, 19 April 2006 (BST)
    • Note I moved this from previous days suggestions. Check the history, it was posted on the 19th.
      • Uh... no. It was made on the 18th. Check the history yourself. --Grim s 09:18, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep -No reason this shouldn't join the other "inventory arrangement" fixes on the Peer-Review. The more options the better.--Xavier06 19:20, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - yes indeedy. A nice little fix that would make everything much, much easier.--Bulgakov 06:48, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - Very simple. Perfect. --Spraycan Willy MalTel 07:44, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - I would like this. Crazy Hand 04:32, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - Organising inventory is really needed. RWXSM 17:27, 30 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - The inventory as it is now, is a mess. --Mister Sandmann MFD 01:12, 1 May 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/18th-Apr-2006&oldid=227531"