- These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
- 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.
- Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
- All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
- Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
- 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.
VOTING ENDED: 2nd-June-2006
Retracted for reworking.
|Timestamp:||05:56, 19 May 2006 (BST)|
|Description:||Diligence is a new survivor skill. It increases the chance to gain ex from books by 30%. Could possibly be a "new player" skill.|
- keep Author Vote. Mattiator 05:56, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill This type of suggestion is not necessary: "This suggestion gives suvivors/zombies a +X of doing Y" Think of improvements to the game, not random boosts for no reason whatsoever. Hey, howabout zombies get the power to do 5% more damage, what if survivors got +2xp for reading a book, what if zombies could deal +1 damage with infectious bite, etc. --Jon Pyre 06:30, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Besides the fact that this doesn't explain the reasoning or flavour behind the suggestion, books would still be useless, making this pointless. --Cyberbob240CDF - U! 07:18, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Why does it suddenly increase the chance to gain ex from books? You have given no reason. Did I suddenly get dumber by buying this skill and have more to learn? Or did I get dumber from reading this stupid suggestion? --Teksura 07:40, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- technically illegal Re - I comment here.
- Kill - You should remove the suggestion and pad it out a bit more. You're being too vague. -- Krazy Monkey 08:43, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - a skill in on sentence? try to put some time and effert in your suggestion. now it looks like you want to fill your alloted quota or something--Vista W! 08:49, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill One sentence? I see two. Whitehouse 10:05, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill Actually, I think there is three. Don D Crummitt 10:33, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Yep, Crummit is right, 3 sentences. --HerrStefantheGreat 10:35, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - I wanted to be different. Also we could use one more useless skill to level up our chars. --Niilomaan 11:12, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - So useless that it can't really hurt. If you want to waste 100 XP on this POS skill, go right ahead. --Mookiemookie 13:18, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - I haven't run the numbers, but it could provide an alternate level-up route for people who want their characters to be anti-trenchcoats. PS I count it as three sentences. The subject is implicit. And as long as we're being nitpicky, it has two nouns, "player" and "skill", just no explicit subject. --Dan 13:37, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Dont want another useless way of getting xp--xbehave 13:42, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Actually, there are only two sentences. Because the third one hasn't got a noun, and thus not a sentence. --Changchad 17:29, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - I want to start a pacifist character soon (never attacks, never learns a combat skill). This would make it at least somewhat possible. Almafeta 18:03, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep -I'm not sure if books were originally supposed to be a joke, but they sure are now. Sure they are a renewing source of XP, but you have such a poor chance that you spend so much AP just to get a few. As is, its just a "run out the AP-clock" item. This probably wouldn't make it much more useful, but it can't hurt. I'm all for making useless items useful, as long as they are then overpowered. So, why not? To kill-voters: would have a RP explanation of this really changed your vote?--Xavier06 19:19, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - I really really like this idea. It's something that would be excellent for RPing purposes. However, this SHOULD be accompanied by a decrease in the general search rate of books in libraries, or an increase for those with this skill in the rate of finishing books, otherwise they'd be immediately crammed full of people taking advantage of this, making libraries easy zed targets.--Craer 23:40, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - No-risk XP farm = bad --Cinnibar 02:20, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Tally - 7 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 Spam, 0 Dupe, 18 Total --Cinnibar 02:21, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Ditto Cinnibar. David Malfisto 13:18, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - Yes, the post itself is poorly written, but the idea is not without merit. This is a good idea very similar to one I had. IMO, it should be a new Science skill called 'Research' that improves the chance of gaining XP from books. The suggested +30% is a little too steep though, IMO. Currently the books yeild XP about 10% of the time. The new skill should be +10% making it 20% total. BTW, it seems that most who have voted kill don't know the actual game mechanics of books, can't imagine reasons like scientists maybe having better reading comprehension and researching abilities, or are voting on the suggestions grammar rather then it's content(not there was much...) --Raystanwick 00:59, 22 May 2006 (BST)
|Timestamp:||11:03, 19 May 2006 (BST)|
|Description:||With the cost of 15 AP, player could build a ladder leading from the street into a heavily barricaded building, normally not accessible by anyone. This would need the Construction skill. As zombies lack the dexterity to climb ladders, only survivors could use them. When walking in the street and approaching a building with a ladder in place, player would see the text "The building is so and so barricaded. You see a ladder hanging from the window" and players would be presented with the option to climb into the building. It's harder to climb into a building than just going in through the door, so there could be a 2-3 AP cost to climb into the building, but this would probably stress the server. However, zombies outside could rip the ladder down if they chose to do so, as the dropdown list would list barricades and ladders seperately. The chance for succesfully destroying a ladder would be the same as destroying a part of a barricade. Ladders could not be destroyed from the inside.
So, in a heavily barricaded building with no other entrance, a ladder could be built, but the cost of doing so and the possibility of zombies destroying it would make the player think twice about building such a thing and visible ladders would work as a sign to the zombies that fresh meat is waiting inside. Also, the ladders would be essentially destroyed after zombies weaken the buildings barricades to 'very/quite strongly barricaded' with the message "The ladders fall down due to the violent shaking of the barricades." Destroying the ladder with the barricade would prevent the advantage of using a previously built ladder and thus saving a load of AP for building a barricade and still get a ladder.
The numbers are just suggestions, they can (and should) be tweaked to get them as player- and server-friendly as possible.
- Keep - 15 AP sounds like lots of building. 10 at most... Also climbing could be just one AP. I say we keep it. (Even if this is one of those suggestions that will surely be shot down anyway.) --Niilomaan 11:37, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - I don't think this is needed. Plus any survivor with construction will most likely have free running so they can just spend at tops 5 AP to get into the building they want. - Jedaz 11:53, 19 May 2006 (BST)
Re - What about islands? Fort Perryn could use this to boost their barricades. I still didn't understand how strong the barricade could be when using this, or would it be possible to get out of heavily barricaded building. --Niilomaan 11:58, 19 May 2006 (BST)Author Re's only please.--The General W! Mod 23:45, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill No. There are very few rules you must remember when suggesting something. No nerfing, no auto defence, no messing with AP, and NO SUGGESTIONS FOR BARRICADES. Besides, who sleeps in a Fort anyway? They're dangerous. Sonny Corleone WTF 12:15, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - You want high barricade levels, then you deal with the consequences of having them. That's a basic game assumption. --Mookiemookie 12:15, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - SSS. What Mookiemookie said. --Cyberbob240CDF - U! 12:41, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - Having to mess with a ladder is a severe-enough alternate consequence of heavy barricading. Not quite how I would implement it, though. Edit: Check out my version here. --Dan 13:34, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - removes the need for VSB buildings--xbehave 13:44, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Fundamental alteration of game mechanics --Timid Dan 15:06, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - What Timid Dan said, and what Cyberbob said. –Xoid Talk U! 16:17, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam on a Ladder!--Wifey 16:44, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - What mookiemonkey said --HerrStefantheGreat 17:22, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - spelled backwards is maps -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 17:41, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - Right, I see where you're coming from, this is a bit too radical in it's current form. How about ladders allowing access *only* to heavily barricaded buildings (means access to HB buildings, but no access to VHB and EHB)? The AP cost would be lowered just a bit, but everything else the same. --Nob666 18:13, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - I hate PKers who overreinforce buildings, then wait for the humans to drop. Almafeta 17:48, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Let's make a deal: You add flying zombies and I'll vote Keep. Oh, and what Mookiemookie said. -Craw 18:53, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill -I guess the 15 AP build is equivalent to a search for it if it was an item, so I have no beef with it. I'm not sure I like making it as string as a barricade level or disallowing zombies w/ MoL even the chance of making it up. Give this some tweaks and we'll talk...--Xavier06 19:29, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- kill make it so you can only get into Very heavily barricaded and I'll reconsider. Good for a "Negate Barricade" skill. Also: can zombies use the ladders? Mattiator 22:23, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - The barricade level attribute is a major part of the game. As much as this is attempting to balance it, it's still the sort of thing I can see making it even more difficult for zombies putting a mall or suchlike under siege. And that's just not as fair.--Craer 23:43, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - A good idea, but not sure on some of the specifics. I think allowing zombies ith MoL to climb is a neat idea, and the AP costs are enough to make it prohibitive as a widespread practice. Allowing access to only HB buildings would be good too.-- Mettaur 01:55, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Bypassing EHB barricades = stupid. --Cinnibar 02:19, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Tally - 3 Keep, 6 Kill, 10 Spam, 0 Dupe, 19 Total --Cinnibar 02:23, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam Leave 'cades alone. - David Malfisto 13:18, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam I was goign 2 vaot kep on teh sugestion when I get hit in teh head with a bat and haev an out of bodey experiance when Jerry hit me with teh bat and I floated around and saw a bright light and a big tunnel and there was sound at teh end of the tunnel and it saids "COME TO TEH LIGHT, JEFF COME TOO TEH LIGHT" and I did but then I got there and it was just Jerry's FAT WHORE MOM looking at teh refrigerator light so I left. --Jeff K. 01:19, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Suggestion withdrawn by author.
|Timestamp:||14:45, 19 May 2006 (BST)|
|Description:||-1 from all melee damage.
Prerequisite Skill = Brain Rot
Cost: 100 XP
As the rot spreads throughout the zombie's innards, the skin tightens to hold the body together. The result makes the zombie harder to damage with melee weapons due to its stronger skin.
All melee attacks are less effective against a zombie with the Undead Resilience skill. This cannot reduce a melee attack to zero damage.
- Author Keep - Most survivors hunt zombies with guns so this should provide limited protection when hunters have to rely on their back-up melee weapons. Might make Brain Rot more tempting to take and will likely exclude the skill to only dedicated zombie players. DirskoSM 14:47, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - What is wrong with Melee weapons as it is? They aren't exactly overowered at the moment. I think it would be majorly unbalancing --HerrStefantheGreat 15:06, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re Specifically, how would it majorly unbalance the game? The skill would only be available if the zombie has Brain Rot. According to latest UD stats - Survivors: 54%, Zombies 46%. And the percentage of survivors is still increasing. DirskoSM 17:54, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Zombies already have flak jackets (and don't get me started on how silly THAT is), they don't need protection from melee weapons as well. --Timid Dan 15:08, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Keep - It would obviously be implemented together with some other change that would benefit survivors, and I like having a bigger incentive for people to make the commitment and play rotters. I particularly like the combination of this, with my suggestions for rope and blunt weapon enhancement. Rope would put more demands on inventory, giving an incentive toward melee weapons. --Dan 15:13, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re I sort of had that in mind that melee weapons will eventually get a boost anyway. And like you said, provides some incentive to play a rotter. Not a big one, since firearms are preferred due to the massive damage but its something and it reflects the tough nature of the undead. DirskoSM 14:53, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Melee damage is perfect as is. Don't mess with it. --Cyberbob240CDF - U! 15:56, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - unnecessary. We do need more zombie skills, though. --Bulgakov 16:07, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Unbalancing. But Bulgakov is right, more zombie skills, please. –Xoid Talk U! 16:15, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Ok, guys. I have a great idea; let's give zombies extra flak jackets!--Wifey 16:46, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - One time my friend was playing world of warcraft, and mid dueling someone and then running away we made him say " I hate firemen" on the off chance that the cow attacking him was really a fireman, thats basically what I heard from this suggestion. I hate firemen. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 17:43, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill -- I'd prefer to see zombie armor as a skill rather than an item, but more to the point, armor doesn't work like that in Urban Dead. Almafeta 17:46, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill This would be a major unbalence to the game because it would make melee weapons useless. An axe can only kill ONE zombie in 50 AP on average, and making it do less than 3 damage at its already low 40% hit rate would make it as useful as the other melee weapons. Ergo, people who want to actually KILL anything would have to invest in guns above all unless they indended to finish off a weakened zombie. Also, you act like the 4% lead in the survivors' favor is significant. It's just fine because getting it to a perfect 50% is going to be near-impossible, and even so, it's not nearly as bad as back in January when the ratio had 2/3 of Malton as survivors! If the 4% lead is why you're suggesting this, it's a stopgap measure, something that's generally frowned upon here. --Volke 18:31, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re Thanks Volke! That's what I was looking to hear about the unbalance issue. The easist solution would be to provide survivors a skill boost to hit with specific melee weapons. Maybe 10-15%? Then you should still be able to kill a body building/resilience zombie with an axe on 50AP. As it is now IMO, it already seems unbalanced an axe has a low hit percentage (how hard could it be to swing a weapon and thunk a shambling zombie anyway?). Besides, guns are already highly invested in to kill things, hence all the flak jacket gripes here. Also, I don't see half (or even 25%) of the non-rotted zombie population wanting to invest in Brain Rot just for a little melee protection so it won't be the end of melee weapons. But no, I didn't intend this to be a stop-gap measure. Just think zombies need more skills but it's hard to think any that will work within the system and limitations of the game. I appreciate the constructive criticism! DirskoSM 19:59, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill skills that require brainrot just arnt needed--xbehave 18:37, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill -Melee weapons are meant to be infitite use, but of limited usefulness. I'd hate to see new survivors get frustrated because they were doing less damage than zombies (and probably at a lower hit rate).--Xavier06 19:36, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Melee weapons are already relegated to emergency weapons and PKer tools, I don't support making them even worse. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:14, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - No need to nerf Melee weapons -Karlsbad 22:34, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill Melee weapons should at least have some utility. --Jon Pyre 00:36, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - It would be good after any melee skill bosts were interested, but melee weapons are already nerfed (as you said, how hard can it be to hit a zombie with an axe) -- Mettaur 01:58, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Newbie Fireman nerf --Cinnibar 02:18, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Survivor melee combat does not need a nerf --McArrowni 02:25, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Tally - 2 Keep, 17 Kill, 0 Spam, 0 Dupe, 19 Total --Cinnibar 02:27, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - No, melee combat is already fairly ineficient. This coupled with flak jackets (which are usually only any use to zombies) will make them too powerful. Especially against new players.Nazreg 10:14, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - SSS. Why not make a human skill called "Bullet Proof Monk" to go with this? David Malfisto 13:19, 20 May 2006 (BST)
|Timestamp:||10:26, 19 May 2006 (EST)|
|Type:||Skill and Flavor|
|Scope:||Humans and Zombies|
|Description:||Body Building is a prerequisite to this 100 XP skill. This skill can also be used by zombies.
The effect is that a player with this skill can pick up another player (or their dead body) and carry them to another location, Before all the Kill and Spam votes start piling in, let me finish.
The skill has a (40%-60%) chance of success to pick up a person(/body). (the higher the other player`s level, the harder they are to pick up maybe) The player who has the skill must select a player to pick up and spend an AP to do it. Failure to pick someone up gives a message stating that you started to pick them up but lost your grip. The person being picked up gets a similar message stating that you tried to pick them up. You can carry only 1 person at a time. While carrying another player, this skill also limits what can be done by the person carrying. They can no longer attack or use Items, and they cannot (enter or exit buildings unless the doors to that building are left open.) They CAN only Speak, put the person back down (with no AP cost), or move (with an additional 1 AP cost, due to the additional weight of another player.) Should you be killed or run out of AP while carrying a player, you automatically drop them, and a message stating that you are unable to carry them any further is shown, to both you and the one you were carrying.
Now, while being carried, The player can still do all actions that don`t require moving, AKA move to a different square or enter/exit a building, and they can`t use Axes, Pipes, Bats, Crowbars, (or Shotguns) as they are difficult to use while hanging over someone`s shoulders. If the player wishes to be put down, they can either say it to the player carrying them and hope they do so, or attack the person carrying them. (the first successful hit causes an auto drop.) Players being carried can still be attacked, and should they die up there their body (can still be carried without having to pick it back up.) (Players can "Stand up" while being carried.) A message that So-And-So is carrying you or put you down is given when the action is performed. Zombies(/dead bodies) that are carried who have Scent Trail can use it on the one who carried them, if applicable.
Why would someone want this skill? I`d be surprised if no one did, as it is highly useful both in a positive rescue kind of way, or a negative sacrificial sort of way. (You can pick up that body you just revived and move them to a safer location) or allies who have run out of AP can be helped, or you could pick up that PKer and drop them in an enemy infested area while they have no AP or pick up an enemy and drop them in an area with all your buddies so you can kill them one at a time...
Everything that is in ( ) is an uncertainty to me and I would like comments on these areas particularly. Also make sure you read the comments of myself and others before posting, as we might have already found a solution to a problem in the suggestion.
- Keep - Author vote- I don't have any comments as of yet.--Savat 10:27, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Kill - Leave my body alone you naughty fireman. Don D Crummitt 15:39, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - I don't care about the restrictions, you cannot move other players against their will. --Cyberbob240CDF - U! 15:55, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - Why not? It is more helpful to suggestors if you can give good reasons why the suggestion is bad.--Savat 11:27, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Spam - What Cyberbob said--Mookiemookie 16:05, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - the potential for abuse is too great. like most if not all of the other 'moving other people' suggestions have been.--Bulgakov 16:09, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - Tell me how it can be abused.--Savat 11:30, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Spam - This suggestion is pure idiocy. –Xoid Talk U! 16:13, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam on My Shoulders! Ok, yeah, this has to stop.--Wifey 16:47, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - It is starting to sound like some of you don't know what the fireman's carry is, it is probably the easiest way to cary a person without them sliping off... Do I need to go over how it is done? Sometimes I forget that not everyone has had survival training.--Savat 11:58, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Spam - Way too easy for PK'ers to abuse. For 1/3 of the cost of shooting someone, you can just carry them outside to a waiting horde of zombies. Or zombies could carry half the population of a building outside. That's the problem with ALL involuntary move suggestions. No amount of failure percentage balances this, suggestions that move other players are pretty much universally bad. This adds SILLY on top of bad, though, as apparently XP makes you fat and too heavy to carry. --Timid Dan 17:02, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - What if level had no effect, what should the success rate to pick a person up be?--Savat 13:41, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Re About 0%. If you note, I said "No amount of failure percentage balances this". Moving other people is waaaaay too easy to abuse, never should be a part of UD. --Timid Dan 19:01, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re -Forget about the game for a second, in reality, what do you feel the percentage of sucess a really beefed up person would have to pick another person up?--Savat 14:08, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Re - Listen, I don't really care how much you think this skill/suggestion would add realism to the game. The target of the suggestions page isn't to increase realism... it's to increase FUN and FAIR PLAY. If the game was about realism, there wouldn't be fucking zombies running around. --Timid Dan 19:14, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - What if level had no effect, what should the success rate to pick a person up be?--Savat 13:41, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Spam - you asked how it could be abused. Heres an example. Player enters building. Player picks up character. Player takes character outside. Player finds zombie. Player puts character down. Zombie kills character. Player goes back for more. --HerrStefantheGreat 17:06, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill Make it outdoors-only and I'll re-evaluate. As is, I won't even cast a keep vote to defend it from spamination. You don't need to be able to exit: just carry someone to the open building next door, and they're zombie food. Also, people should have to consent (or be dead bodies) in order to be carried. --Dan 17:38, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - Outside only isn't so bad, but it messes with some of the coolness of the skill I think. I'd be willing to change it though. As for the consent issue, All someone has to do to get down is land a successfull hit on the one carrying them to be dropped. I would say that is fairly close to how a nonconsented fireman's carry might be.--Savat 13:23, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Kill -- One zombie enters mall, grabs human, drops him off outside of mall to horde, wax, rinse, repeat. No good. Almafeta 17:42, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - Ok, let's try this. Zombies can't put human players down, why would they want to? Also, It makes it kinda hard to enter or exit a building when you can't even open the door... I don't see where this is an issue.--Savat 13:16, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Spam This suggestion would be great, I don't mean that as anything but the truth. I really want this skill in game, death doesn't matter, and this would really help me mess with people! Or we could pretend we were in that body guard movie while I carried people through crowds. Also, I am upset I didn't get to vote on stim packs. -Banana-\(o_-o)/-Bear 17:46, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - So why are you voting Spam then? If you like it then vote Keep, because in truth this is no more Spam than attacking, reviving, or healing a person without consent.--Savat 13:26, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- Spam This is NOT the same as healing/reviving/whatever without someone's concent. It's a good idea in theory, but too many people would abuse it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wake up one day to find out that someone decided to carry me down to Ridleybank... --Volke 18:36, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Hmm, you wanted to know how this could be abused? Here you go. "I'm a PKer. I drop you outside by zombies, and your death is assured. My life is easy now." --Rozozag 18:38, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Re -Yes, but someone could do the same thing to that player, also, what's to stop another character from going out to save that player? Infact, that should be part of the flavor, Other people in the same space will see a message saying that So-And-So/a zombie carried off What-His-Face.--Savat 13:48, 19 May 2006 (EST)
- keep - griefing wouldnt be too bad as your not safe in a building thats wide open anyway --xbehave 18:40, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam My PKer heart likes the idea to grab innocents and dump them in Ridleybank, but my brain tells me that it's a stupid suggestion. -Craw 18:49, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - While the thought of a team of firemen stealing into an overrun safehouse and toting away the sleeping inhabitants is compelling, the thought of a team of PKers feeding those sleepers to the zombies instantly crowds it out. Also, it's kind of unfair to the zombies that they could work so hard to bring down the 'cades and then see their meals stolen away before their very eyes. --John Ember 19:39, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam -I'd like to like this idea...I really would. It looks like you put a lot of work into it, but it is way too abusable. Your "balancing" measure, the fact that the player being carried could attack, doesn't work all that well in practice. Since all of the players can only be online for so long a day (the average is probably a half-hour, but some people spread that out a bit), there is an excellent chance that the other player you attempt to carry are not there to defend themselves at the time. Other survivors could pitch in to save you, but they probably have better things to do than track someone who could be several building away (perhaps if you automatically yelled a trackable call, it would be possible) by the time they get to it. The only other balancers are the limitations on the Carry itself, which are formiddable but not insurmountable. How is this different from reviving or killing someone while they're offline? The difference is that they are assumed to require some amount of effort beforehand (breaking the barricade or finding the syringe), where this is too easy. It might be used for rescues (though you probably pretty busy saving yourself at the time) but most certainly used in an offensive capacity. No thanks...I've got enough to worry about.--Xavier06 19:55, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam Flagrant Pied piper skill. This would be a griefer's dream skill. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:12, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- kill Too easy to abuse. Someone could possibly make a huge chain and move 30 people at once. I don't think there is too many glitches with this suggestion. For humor value: could you have one person pick up another person, then another pick up the first, and so on? e.g. 30 people running through a suburb on eachother's shoulders. Another idea: make it so there is a chance you can lose your grip. this will make it less effective for grifers. Mattiator 22:20, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - The entire idea behind this suggestion is game breaking, and no amount of restrictions or limits will change that. If there was a skill like this i would go into a building and toss everyone outside, where they will likely die. During mall seiges zombies would get revived and hurl defenders out over the barricades in some hordes. There is absolutely no way you can stop this from being abused, or from hurting the game, Even if you limit it tou outside only, you are then going to starve the younger zombies, who feed on the people left outside before they can knock down barricades and open doors. --Grim s-Mod 22:38, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill Actually, limiting it to people on your contact list would make it significantly less game breaking, but then it would be nigh-useless. --Cerebrus13 23:09, 19 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. --Jon Pyre 00:29, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill as too abusable/greifable, but I really like the idea of moving bodies. We already have the ability to dump bodies outside a building - I'd vote keep for this if you could only use it on dead/reviving bodies (with an immediate drop if they stand up). Note to some of the above voting spam: it's a skill, with a prerequisite, and this not very zergable. Update For #$%^ sake, this is the worst case of Caught Not Reading on the suggestions page ever. Please READ the suggestions first. You can't carry someone in or out a building unless the doors are wide open. -- Mettaur 02:04, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Really bad idea. Don't move other players. --Cinnibar 02:17, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Exactly the same problems as with other "moving other players" suggestions that we have been spaminating since what, october? --McArrowni 02:28, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Tally - 2 Keep, 8 Kill, 16 Spam, 0 Dupe, 26 Total --Cinnibar 02:29, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Just what zombies need, a way for the person who killed them to drag them somewhere else they don't want to be. I can see a group of greifers all working together on this one to drag some poor sap all the way across malton just to piss 'em off. --Teksura 03:39, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Well done, well thorght out. almost. Cyberbob was right tho, this is a big no no. Nazreg 10:22, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam - No auto moves. - David Malfisto 13:21, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Kill - Talk about a rude awakening; you go to sleep i a factory in Dunell hills, and wake up in the middle of Ridleybank. I got a short laugh of the the idea of chain of people first carrying Poor Bastar X to place Y to prankster Z to carry him forward, untill the Homeland.--William Raker 17:48, 20 May 2006 (BST)
- Spam -- FUCK NO! furtim 20:52, 21 May 2006 (BST)
This suggestion was spaminated with 10 Spam 4 kill and a Keep, however as the main critisim was that it wasnt clear what you get i moved it to talk instead of rejected--xbehave 00:28, 20 May 2006 (BST)
Play Dead (Alternate name: Zombie Theatrics)
This suggestion was spaminated and moved to Peer-Rejected with 1 Keep, 1 Kill, 6 Spam, 3 Dupe, 1 Spam/Dupe mixed vote, 12 Total votes. Users strongly objected to hiding-related suggestions. --Cinnibar 02:44, 20 May 2006 (BST)