Suggestions/31st-Dec-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 23:35, 11 March 2007 by Darth Sensitive (talk | contribs) (Protected "Suggestions/31st-Dec-2006": Requested protection [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(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

Lower The AP Cost To Use Syringes On Murder Victims

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Balance change/Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: Revives used to be too cheap to perform, costing just 1AP. Kevan increased the cost to make all the AP a zombie puts into killing a survivor, breaking through powerful cades before being able to attack, actually worthwhile. However this change also increased the damage caused by survivor on survivor killings despite their overall cheaper AP cost.

I suggest reducing the cost to inject a syringe into a survivor killed by other survivors from 10 to 5. The in-game flavor reason would be that it's easier to bring back those killed by survivors since those people are more intact with only a few holes put in them; they aren't ripped open and partially devoured. It'd still list the revive cost as 10 before you inject the syringe but as part of the revive message you'd get the line "On closer inspection they appeared infected by a more treatable strain of the virus and the procedure went better than expected." It'd be a pleasant surprise for the scientist.

This doesn't interfere with anybody's ability to roleplay a killer or work as a bounty hunter. Neither the killer nor victim are directly benefitted, only the scientist. Cheaper cost to kill should result in a cheaper cost to revive.

  • Q: Don't nerf my PKing!
  • A: This doesn't. Your attacks do just as much damage at the same percentage. Your victim is just as screwed, forced to wait a day mrhing in a revive queue. You won't be any easier to find by bounty hunters either.
  • Q:PKers have to find ammunition! Doesn't that balance things?
  • A: A survivor might have to spend a day to find enough ammunition to kill someone else. However I have as a zombie spend days attacking the barricades on a powerful building before I was able to attack anyone. It's clear needing to search is a cheaper cost than needing to break in.
  • Q: Don't nerf my Bounty Hunting!
  • A: This doesn't. The goal of bounty hunting is to take a PKer out of comission for a while. The PKer is out of the action for just as long, just if they stand in a revive queue the scientist that brings them back will spend a little bit less AP. Bounty Hunting aims to punish PKers, not scientists doing their job.
  • Q: Your logic is retarded. Who cares how somebody died, the revive cost is the same!
  • A: Logically I think it makes sense that a mostly intact body would be easier to restore that a gnarled corpse. If anything it'd be easier to find an intact artery to inject into. And there are things in the game far less logical than this, for instance only getting half-xp when attacking a survivor. What happens there, does attacking a human being make the part of your brain that learns less effective? Or does it make sense that the radio will put static over an f-bomb 100% of the time? This is completely logical and a needed game balance change.
  • Q: PKing is super rare. Why even bother dealing with it?
  • A: It's not quite that rare. And even if it were rare does not equal balanced. If even just 100 zombies in all of Malton were given the power to freerun that would be unbalanced. And PKing should not be overpowered even potentially. 10 zombies vs 10 survivors is anyone's call who'd win. 10 PKers thought could wipe out a safehouse of 10 survivors guaranteed.
  • Q: Hah! This is a Dupe!
  • A: This is not a dupe, it's a revision of that suggestion which had the far cheaper syringe injection cost of 1. This changes it to 5. It also had a different flavor reason that was the reason for many kill votes.
  • Q: There's already something to discourage PKing...50% xp.
  • A: Who cares about xp once you have every skill?
  • Q: Reducing the cost to revive someone by 50% is too much!
  • A: It doesn't. It reduces the cost to inject the syringe. The cost to revive someone is 12 to find the syringe, plus 10 to inject it, plus 1 to DNA extract, plus 4 for travel. So overall it reduces the AP cost from 27 to 22.
  • Q: That's all well and good but [unaddressed issue]!
  • A: Good point, I hope you'll check back on your vote later so you can read my response to whatever your problem may be.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Logical (fixing a cracked vase is easier than a shattered one) and a needed balance change. Doesn't nerf PKers or Bounty Hunters in any way, aid their victims, or make it easier to track down a victim. ONLY helps out the scientist performing the revive. And as an added bonus if this enters Peer Reviewed I'll never make another suggestion about PKing again. --Jon Pyre 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep- I like it.--Grigori 02:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep Reduces the amount of pain induced by super stealthy invisible ninja (tm)? Good for me. Want to inflict pain, play a zombie. Bluetigers 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Attention PKers: This isn't a nerf to your killing, it actulaly creates more targets for you. (How do you like that logic?)--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - I want to see this passed, but I know it wont, because of all the entrenched and semi-respected PKers here. Still, pity vote. --GhostStalker 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep Despite the heated subject of PK this and that... If we take a step outside the box and look at the entire zombie genre of this game. If you are killed by zombie, or human, you rise again as a zombie... but it takes away from the fun of the game (for you who just got murdered) knowing that getting revived again steals time from your gameplay (If you want your character to be alive, again.) Having said this, let survivors be survivors, let zombies be zombies.. if some survivor wants to shoot you in the head, we aren't going to stop that.. but why shouldn't it be easier to get revived, and take revenge. Now that would be more fun, for everyone! So I say if a human kills a human, then it's cheaper to revive, you kill yourself or a zombie kills you your bones are very mashed or zombie infection creepiness is all over your internals. A kill from another human is cleaner, easier to revive. Locical, fun, good. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - I still have a few qualms about this suggestion, and I doubt Kevan's ever going to implement this, so I wont oppose. --Wikidead 09:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - This is a great idea its a shame its unlikely to get into peer reviewed just because the majority of voters are PKers themsleves and automatically vote spam so nothing can stop them being a general nusiance. In any way it would help PKers as they would be more likely to get revived as its cheaper for the reviver. --MarieThe Grove 11:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - It's sad that this likely won't pass. I'll say it again real, real sloooooowly. This... does... not... nerf... PKers. Once again, all together now, class: this does not nerf PKers! It actually makes it more likely that a PKer will get revived and go about his business. All it does is make it easier for a scientist to deal with victims not directly killed by a zombie. Plus, for those of you needing a scientifc rationale in a game about freakin zombies, there is some actual, real world, honest to God scientific precedent for this. Several diseases behave differently depending on their point of introduction to the body. Yersinia pestis springs immediately to mind, being alternately bubonic or pneumonic plague. In Malton's case, if killed by a zombie the death plague is introduced directly into the system by the bite and claws; if killed by other means then death merely activates the latent virus which is presumably an airborne form. Different route of infection = different disease = different AP cost. --Nosimplehiway 12:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - This is a great idea ! And I believe every revification specialist in Malton agrees with me. Now if only we could get them all to vote ... -- Vercingetoriks 16:28, 31 December 2006 (EET)
  11. keep I am breaking my own rule of thumb for this because the SPAM voters are whinging for no good reason! This needs a few changes, such as the one i suggested on the talk page. Fundamentaly it is good for many reasons: It only reduces revive cost at point of service which is fine (i think it should be 5 anyway but with lower find rates!) To the SPAM voters: how does this screw with PKers? it only helps the reviver, its not like even the victim gets any benefit just a third party! Oh and logically i always think that its only the last shot/blow that really hits, the rest are just reducing your ability to dodge? --Honestmistake 15:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. keep- The only reasonable anti PKing suggestion we've seen so far. If you're going to nerf it, make it this one. --Karloth Vois RR 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Beep Beep goes the Keep - I like it! --Peterblue 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. You have to laugh at spam voters who confuse revive cost with standing-up cost. --ExplodingFerret 22:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Keep - Frankly, I'm starting to lose a lot of respect for some of the spam voters for voting spam when they clearly don't understand the details. (Revive cost vs stand up cost is a great example.) I understand that this is a very polarizing issue and you generally either love this idea or hate it, but please don't abuse spam. Oh, also I think this idea is great and should be implemented at once! --Uncle Bill 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Keep - Let me ask the spam voters this: who does this hurt? No one. The PKer can still kill just as easily, and they can kill just as many people. In fact, this could be considered good for them because scientists will be able to revive their victims more quickly and allow for more potential victims. This also helps the PK victim because it decreases some of the griefing inherent in PKing (zombies kill survivors to increase their numbers, survivors kill zombies to prevent that, and PKers don't have either excuse). But it helps the scientist most of all, because they're the ones shelling out all the AP to revive the victim in the first place. It's a win-win-win situation. --Reaper with no name TJ! 02:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - Yes.--J Muller 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keep - Humans can do a hundred different things, zombies can only do one thing. Therefore, zombies should be better at doing that one thing (making more zombies) than survivors are. --Toejam 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Keep - Fair enough --Deras 19:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. keep but just barely Asheets 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Keep - Makes perfect sense... the increased revive cost was RPed in as Zonbies becoming resistent to the serum... obviously, people killed by something other than a disease ridden zombie would be less resistent, and would take the old amount of AP --Gene Splicer 23:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Keep - 10 AP for a revive is expensive; is better only 5 AP for a better game! --Sedda 1:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Keep- Sounds fine to me. --Dementus 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Keep- w00t. --Zizi Booba 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Keep - This does nothing to stop PKers, and can even help them, so stop whining. --Thelightguy 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Keep - I think this is a good idea. --Hempress 07:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. No, this does not nerf PKing... This doesn't affect the PKer in any way at all. It just makes things easier for the scientist who goes and revives the victim. And it also doesn't make it easier for the victim to come running into the PKer's hideout in the middle of the night brandishing a shotgun or something. So I really don't see why the self-confessed PKers are complaining. -- Ashnazg 0402, 5 January 2007 (GMT)
  28. Keep I find it very hard to belive that we could have 19 kill votes all with different arguments and almost all are stupid. graah. --AlexanderRM 7:19, 5 January 2007 (EST)
  29. Keep - Yes...let's argue for realism when a character without armour can take six shotgun blasts before they die. This suggestion does not affect the act of PKing in the slightest. All it does is allow a PKers targets to be stood up cheaper - doesn't that just give a PKer more targets? (Also, if it's cheaper be revived, then survivors will care less about PKers and they will be hunted even less than they are now - if that is possible - making a PKers life easier...how can they spam a bonus to PKing - oh...wait...the cheaper revive means the PKing doesn't cause as much grief......now I see how) –Ray Vern phz •T 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Keep -Yes. Although it would be a little bit more work on Kevin to show that a dead body's been killed by a PKer. The same for Zombies who are ZKed without ankel grab should be added for fairness IMO. --Bluemofia 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Keep - i like it! - Nicks 01:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. Keep - Might work.Waluigi Freak 99 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - By cutting the AP in half it would take to revive a PK'd player, that opens the door to teammates getting in the killshot on each other during an attack when HP is low so they don't have to spend the extra five AP to revive them. Does this hurt the efforts of PKers? Yes. It could easily be exploited to hurt zombies as well though. They've got enough problems blowing through their AP to tear barricades down and then dealing only three damage. This makes everything a lot easier for humans. --Ghoulius Caesar 00:45, 31 December 2006 (EST)
    • Re It'd be much cheaper to heal a person than to kill them and spend 5 less AP later. This doesn't reduce the revive cost to 5, it only reduces the cost to use the syringe. You still need to spend around 22 AP in total to revive someone..--Jon Pyre 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Re I'm basically looking at the end result of the revivication process, the concrete number. I've gone into an NT various times before and picked up three syringes from three searches. While you've got a 12% chance to get syringes from a search, I've rarely spent 12 AP searching for syringes and not come up with more than one. I'm thinking of things the way they may go down after a mall has been cracked into. Say a player has some syringes saved up, the AP they spent getting them days ago, they've got that all back. If they've got a team member laying back to pick off their own guys when their HP gets low, they only end up spending about 5 AP to get that guy back on their feet (maybe another two or three AP if the body was dumped). It's a sneaky tactic, but it's a strategy and will be used. As was pointed out, every now and then, zombies do the same to avoid headshots. Two wrongs don't make a right though. I just think it'd make things a little too easy on humans who already have an advantage on zombies. --Ghoulius Caesar 02:45, 31 December 2006 (EST)
    Kill - Some zombies kill each other to protect each other from headshot; similarly, will survivors start killing each other to reduce death revive costs? I don't think that will happen, but it's interesting potential situation to consider. The reason I choose to vote kill is this: can you say zerg revives? --Wikidead 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re If someone is willing and able to zerg they have in essence infinite AP. 5AP one way or another won't make a difference to them. But it could help out some honest scientists that rely on just 50AP to make it through the day. --Jon Pyre 06:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: Good point. There is still one part of the suggestion that bothers me: the scientist doesn't know upon DNA extraction whether the subject will cost 10AP or 5AP to revive; I, personally, would rather know ahead of time how much AP the revive is going to cost. Is there any reason why it has to be a "pleasant surprise"? --Wikidead 06:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Because it'd only be visible if you do a DNA scan, otherwise it'd be impossible to change the message built into syringes. And because it might make things unfairly hard for PKers/Bounty Hunters/PK victims if people choose not to revive them because of the manner of their death. This isn't supposed to give any additional detection abilities for finding PKers, just repair an AP imbalance.--Jon Pyre 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    [illegal re struck. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)]
  2. Kill - Jesus, enough with the PK nerfs.--Jorm 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re There haven't been any yet. And, um...do you mean kill or spam? Cause you wrote kill but it's in the spam category... --Jon Pyre 08:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Whupz. Moved. Regardless, this is lame.--Jorm 08:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - No. Just, no. PKing is a fact of life in MMORPGs, it's unfair to give the 'righteous' players a boost like this. PKers already have a nerf, the fact that they do not earn the same amount of XP as if they were killing a zombie instead of a human. Besides, it seems a bit hard to implement. How will the system know if the player has been killed by another human, and not a zombie? --Heiki 13:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill Why differentiate between how you were killed? If you want to deal with PKing, do it in-game. You don't need game mechanics to do so.--Bassander 20:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill This is absolutely worthless. PKers (humans killing humans) are generally killed by other humans (thus PKed) so aren't you also reviving them with less AP used? And besides, PKing is one of the best parts of the game, whether you're killing or being killed, it adds so much flavor. --Silas Slear

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - PKers killed by bounty hunters would also get to stand up for 5AP. HURR. --Gage 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re You misread. This doesn't affect the stand up cost for the killed person at all. It only reduces the revivification syringe injection cost for the scientist that revives them from 10AP to 5AP. Bounty Hunters are in the business of hunting PKers, not draining AP from allied scientists. This doesn't nerf Bounty Hunting in the slightest. --Jon Pyre 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - You completely ignored the window jumper factor (Which i pointed out when you had it on the talk page, but you apparently ignored). They dont get eaten, and they are arguably more intact than someone who has been shot at least five times with a shotgun (And believe me, five shotgun shots does a hideous amount of damage to a body). If a person gets killed with an axe, they are likely to be in similiarly dire straits. And, well, ten pistol bullets are most unpleasant and quite destructive, smashing bones and perforating things best left unperforated. What a human does is just as damaging as what a zombie does (Who just eats a bit of them, and causes some severe tissue damage (And arguably, an eaten brain). Once again, a completely arbitrary nerf to PKer and Bounty hunter damage. Give it up Pyre. --Grim s-Mod U! 02:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Logic is something of a window dressing here. If it's a viable reason and it fixes game imbalance we should go with it. I don't think it's helpful to let the game stay unbalanced because a survivor getting eaten has 86.593489% damage while someone getting shot has 78.595839% damage but oh it doesn't make sense because someone jumping out a window has 85.348958% damage! Seriously grim, this is a game about zombies with plenty of illogical stuff in it. The underlying logic here is fundamentally sound and even if you can find some nitpicks, none of which I think are serious enough to move it into "illogical", it shouldn't matter. edit: Also, I address logic in one of the Q&A thingies. I think my point there is valid. I don't think quibbling over the varying damage caused by different types of deaths should prevent game improvements. Logic should serve the game. Not the other way around.--Jon Pyre 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Re - FOR FUCKS SAKE! We have been arguing for more than a week on the discussion page and you have yet to prove that there is an imbalance to address!!! Why dont you prove it before you start asserting bullshit as fact? And your comment shows you either didnt read my vote properly, or you set up a straw man. Person who jumps = least damage. Just brain trauma, a few broken bones, and maybe some internal injuries. Person who gets eaten and person who gets shot are about equal on the horrific damage part. While it IS a game about zombies, there should be some semblance of realism to justify your idea, rather than arbitrary magic boundaries. --Grim s-Mod U! 02:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - This has been sugested before.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re This is a revision of a previous suggestion. --Jon Pyre 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Nerfing PKing shouldn't be an excuse to make it easier for Surviivors to, err, survive. The impact in game of PKers helps zombies, and if they're nerfed you're saying that a guy that should have been dead is now alive and building barricades. No no no. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I think zombies should be able to win without survivors helping them. I'd rather zombies get a new skill or two rather than stay ineffectual while someone with a shotgun plays the game for them. This isn't about making it easier for survivors. It's about preventing survivors from being better zombies than zombies are. I'll gladly suggest a slew of pro-zombie suggestions the next few days to compensate for this. --Jon Pyre 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Re - You don't play a zombie because of the numbers behind him. You play it because you want to play with a stinking pile of walking rotten leftovers of a human. You present your suggestions as if it had a significant impact in Survivor-Survivor combat vs. Zombie-Survivor combat, but it doesn't: PKing is still by far more effective, and by far is still the less used option. Guess why? Zombies don't care about numbers. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Discussion continued on Matthew's talk page --Jon Pyre 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam - No. Stupid. Keep game mechanics for reviving as they are. The sooner you make 'if' or 'but' rules, the sooner people will somehow exploit it, no matter how much thinking you think you've done. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re How could you possibly exploit this in a way that would be worse than the current system? And ugh, I've replied to every spam vote which I don't like to do and which I know people don't like. But to be fair they're all making different points. --Jon Pyre 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam Next time suggest remove all game balances instead. This is a terrible idea. Why should murder victims get special treatment?--Mayor Fitting 05:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Spam - I love bagels. Cyberbob  Talk  06:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Spam - With this, my character could grief the feck out of people all day long, and then when they finally snap and murder me, I get to stand up for only 5AP. Ha! No thanks. And don't Re me, please - you already over-use the Re to a chronic extent, and it's not in either the spirit of this page or within the rules to do so. Let your suggestion, as written, speak for itself - let the voters have their say without countering everything. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Spam -- And what about the length of time a body is dead for, are you going to take that into account too? Surely a body which was PKed and was dead for five days should have a higher revive cost than one that was revived the same day as it died. The logic is somewhat similar to yours, just I am taking into account decay. Whitehouse 11:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Spam - I don't think it add anything to the game imho. The voters will decide anyhow. I see alot of zombie players against though, including Grim, and Jorm, who both, to my knowledge do not play this game. I think this is interesting, to say the least, and if they would clarify, that would be nice. - Terra 13:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Spam - Same as most everyone above. I don't see much logic in a gameplay sense of making someone easier to revive if they're shot instead of clawed to death. It's just an anti-PKer nerf. -- Murray Jay 15:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. I'd Dupe this, but there are so many anti-PKer suggestions it'd be hell to find the right one, so this is a SPAM. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Let me correct Gage's statement. This will save 5 AP for the PKer group arranging for the revive after Pking happens. That 5 AP would be used for, you know, helping out the PKer cause. And hey, some people get kicks out of greifing, and by taking away the greif you are causing to the scientist, that might be bad. And realism is a big deal.--ShadowScope 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Any benefit to organized PKer groups will be far outweighed by the benefit to ordinary scientists. If a PKer kills nine people over the course of a week before they're found by a bounty hunter and killed then scientists are saved 45AP while the PKer group is saved just 5. And I do believe this is realistic: getting eaten should leave more damage than getting shot. --Jon Pyre 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Spam - PKing was allowed in the game for a reason. Game is already far too imbalanced for survivors (looking at the game stats, we see 29153 humans vs. 15181 dead), and I believe PKing should be encouraged anyway, as it adds in to the anarchy that takes place when a zombie outbreak occurs. Don't mess with the game mechanics. --Aeneid 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Wiki Location Pages

Timestamp: 01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Game interface
Scope: All players
Description: The name of the building/block you are standing in is a link to the wiki page by that name.

Pros

  • Easy access to wiki information for all players.
  • More likely to get players updating the status of each block.
  • Easier navigation of the wiki for all.
  • More likelyhood of new players being able to enter the metagaming side of Urban Dead, where a lot of the action takes place.

Cons

  • More access may mean more vandalism?
  • Unexperienced wiki'ers editing in a random fashion.

Maybe this should be held off until all locations have a page? But it would be one hell of an idea, once we've finished the locations project, but at the rate we're going, it shouldn't take too long before this is very useful. Even if it's implemented beforehand, I assume it can't be that hard for Kevan to set this up so that if there isn't a wiki page, no link is made, as is done with the groups on the stats page.

Late edit - Voters noted that it would be preferable to have the links open in a new window. Was also suggested that having a GPS be a requirement for activating the linkification (as with the existing FF extension) -- boxy T L ZS PA DA 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - of course -- boxy T L PA DA 01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Sounds good to me. Will the wiki suburb enter in a new window or the current one? It would be better if a new window opened. It is quite a pain having to go to Urban Dead and then the wiki, it would be easier to do it all in one shot. --Zombie slay3r 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Sounds good as long as it opens in a new window, this could be a great shortcut when finding the barricade plan, current news, revive points, etc....Darkvengance 03:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - I've always wanted this. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - And maybe the work put into location pages will be noticed...--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep with a reminder - What if I live at Foulkes Village? Completion of all location pages from the whole Malton must be a prequisite. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re: - If you live there, then it's about time you got involved with the locations project, and this would encourage the residents to do just that, I think -- boxy T L ZS PA DA 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - As above. --Deras 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Ooh. I like dat idea. - - Scalene's Lollipop.jpg Lil' 'alene Widley 04:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep Yes, especially access to maps, suburbs and so on and so forth. The pages that are a must for the need to know players. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep Would help new players get their hands on more information regarding zombie/human populations. Great idea. --Mayor Fitting 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. THANK GOD - someone isn't an idiot on this page.--Gage 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Keep What a good idea. Should open the wiki in a new window.--Jon Pyre 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Eh... why not. --The Surgeon General DHPD 06:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Keep - Ok, but one small problem: some buildings in Malton share the same name. For example, St. Benedict's Hospital is the name for both the hospitals at [77,49] and [83,47]. I don't know if there are any others, but is there any specific way you want to address this? --Wikidead 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re: - That is already addressed via the disambiguation page system, at worst it would mean that by clicking on St. Benedict's Hospital link, you would come to a page asking you which hospital you are after, at best, all the building links, that have more than one occurrence in Malton, would be sent to their individual pages that include the suburb name (ie. St. Benedict's Hospital (Peppardville)) -- boxy T L ZS PA DA 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re:Junkyards, cemeteries, and factories all share the same name. I'm sure all that is needed is just to change their names, but does the author of this suggestion have his own idea for how to fix this? --Wikidead 00:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - That is already fixed in the locations style guide. Nondescript locations are described by a combination of the description and the coordinates, for example, Junkyard 50,58. It'd take a little more effort to get the links to point there, but I'm sure there's a way around that -- boxy T L ZS PA DA 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Conditional Keep - there should be a clear disclaimer at the top of any wiki page linked to from inside the game - that the wiki is maintained by players, who may have an axe to grind, or may be wrong, or the information may be out of date. This wiki is not always accurate. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Keep - The only problem I may see with this is that the wiki is Case Sensitive and not all locations have the St. and Departments etc. but I'm sure it wouldn't be a great issue. --MarieThe Grove 11:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Keep - In reply to Maries concern, we'd just have to make some redirects. - BzAli 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Keep - Great idea! Maybe we will get more wiki members involved. Maybe even a few whose idea of leadership does not include calling every single individual member, unreservedly, except the author of this suggestion an "idiot". --Nosimplehiway 13:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Keep - Fair enough this is already part of a FireFox extension... But it'd be good to have it for EVERY member that works on EVERY browser. Good thinking. --Heiki 13:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Keep I am sick of kills because there is a Firefox extension even though I run Firefox, because this game should be easy to new players without the extension, to encourage them to play, and defeat elitism that prevents new players from staying. - Terra 13:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Keep - I agree with Terra, it's doubtful new players will immediately go searching for extensions. --Vercingetoriks 16:12, 31 December 2006 (EET)
  22. Keep - Good idea. --Peterblue 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Keep - Helpful! --Uncle Bill 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Keep - More people using the wiki sounds good to me.--Lachryma 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Sure. --Joe O'Wood TALKCONTRIBSUD 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Keep - I see no problems here. Any possible vandalism can just be reverted. --Reaper with no name TJ! 02:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Keep - Yee-haw.--J Muller 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Keep - Good. -- Aeneid 19:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. keep with mod -- There is a firefox plugin that does this already, but ONLY if you have a GPS in your inventory. Make having a GPS a requirement for tyhis also. Asheets 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re: - I'll leave a note up the top, but not as a requrement, interesting idea to make them useful -- boxy T L ZS PA DA 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Kill Counts

Moved to the talk page for editing suggestion after voting started. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 01:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/31st-Dec-2006&oldid=590353"