Suggestions/6th-Dec-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 13:50, 10 June 2009 by DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs) (fixing link)
(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

Re-scent trail

Mod Spaminated with 6 Spams, 7 Kills, and no Keep votes.--Gage 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a PK suggestion we can all agree on?

Timestamp: Garrett Fisher 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Duly submitted, un-modified, by Certified=Insane☭Québécois 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Game mechanic tweak.
Scope: Survivors only.
Description: I'm sick of seeing constant suggestions on how to "stop PKing", mainly because they're a waste of everbody's time. There is no way they'd survive the vote, and there is no way that PKing will ever be stopped, though I do propose a (relatively) small change.
  • Simply: Don't nerf PKing, just remove any "reward" from doing it, i.e. the earning of experience points.


What I think to be a logical reason... Most actions that earn experience points in UD are those that in some way benefit or otherwise assist the cause of their side.

  • Zombies only earn experience by attacking survivors, and at a pinch, each other. I have no wish to interfere with ZKing, as I think most people will agree it's essential to help a lot of new zombies to get by until they can upgrade their attacks. It also has benefits for other zombies in that, for

1AP after being ZK'd, you can rise again with full health.

  • Survivors earn experience by attacking zombies, healing one another, reviving one another and dumping dead bodies. Reading is also another method, but the low XP reward indicates the usefulness of this.

So as I stated above, experience is earned primarily for actions that can in some way assist your character class. PKing does nothing to assist survivors, and is in fact detrimental to the cause, so why should it be rewarded as an action? In terms of game flavour, even if the city was so apocalyptic as to make any concept of law enforcement meaningless, you wouldn't exactly be rewarded for murdering people in cold blood.

This idea doesn't prevent PKing at all, and would have no effect on the play mechanics of UD. It would certainly not affect PK players with maxed skills, other than removing the kudos of an ever increasing number of experience points on their profile. It would, however, discourage low level players and people seeking to max out the skill tree from taking it up as a means of playing the game and developing their characters, and I think that is about as much discouragement as can realistically be given. --Garrett Fisher 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Votes

  1. What's the point of letting it be buried in some suggestion talk page archive. Let's just vote on this. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: The day we see as many spam votes as keeps, we know the spam vote is abused. Oh wait, it's the case right here. Doesn't penalize anyone for PKing, or stops them in any way either. It just cuts off all bonuses of doing so, other than having the other person dead. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I STILL say it should be worth 1 XP--Pesatyel 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep I don't actually care that much for this suggestion. I don't really hate it either. I'm on the border. What decided me was people abusing the spam vote below. --Jon Pyre 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Hesitant But Begrudging Keep I had to think about this carefully... if a zombie kills another zombie... it takes a while even if you are maxed out... cuz.. no guns. Pk'ing, well shit how many shotgun blasts does it take, with an even better chance to hit? If Kevan impliments this, he may actually take the XP reward for killing another human down to 5, or 1 XP, probably not 0. But, yeah, you're right... it's soo much easier to kill other humans for XP, than it it for zombie on zombie. In many instances easier than humans killing zombies... but the main thing, humans have so many ways to gain XP other than just killing one another.. so yes, i concur. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - I like this idea, maybe only a -1/2 xp like ZKers would get, to make it more balanced. --Kyndrid Angel NMC BBB 03:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Anything that makes PKers bitch and moan is good in my book.--_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - I love the way they throw their toys out of the pram whenever anyone suggests balancing their easy-life style of gameplay. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - For the above reason.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - If you want to PK fine- well if you kill me I might be annoyed but anyway- but why should you get a reward for it? --MarieThe Grove 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Makes sense, but theres no way it will pass with all these entrenched (and somewhat respected) PKers here. However, didnt I already vote on something like this before? --GhostStalker 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep - I guess none of the spam voters have paid much attention to the suggestion dos and do nots (doesn't say suggestions that weaken PKing are bad; only that they will meet firm opposition). Or Kevan's talk page recently (he says that he's open to tinkering with PKing). Or zombie movies (when was the last time you saw a traitor in a horror movie who could walk into a building, kill half its population with the others watching, and then escape?). PKing as it is portrayed in this game is not in genre. Therefore it should not recieve a reward. And even if it was, the fact that it hampers the survivor cause means that it shouldn't recieve XP. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Sort of - PK'ing is a valid (although deeespick-able) feature of the game. However, I would like to see a modification. You get 0 XP for for PK'ing until you take the PK skill, at which point you get 1/2 XP (this way, you announce to the world your intentions and people can react to you accordingly). --Sid1138 1940, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Keep - for the same reason as Funt Solo --Gateking 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Keep - See above. --Schizmo 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Narrow keep, largely to show that not all Pkers have knee-jerk reactions as seen below. --The Supreme Court RR 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. keep - Does for me. The Mad Axeman 11:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. keep - not only because it is a decent suggestion, but also as a 'thumb my nose' towards the 'if it mentions the word 'pk' spam it' flock seen below Fortuna314 01:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. keep it'd be a waste of space to say why. --AlexanderRM 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
  19. Keep - PKing is easy, it doesn't need rewarded with XP. I think there are other rewards. --Toejam 22:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill- Let's just leave it alone.--Grigori 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Hell no.--Ev933n 04:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. kill PKing can be in genre and should be rewarded as such. I would support a version that replaced most of the xp with some sort of status flag, ie if you add a "bounty hunter" skill that showed on your profile and delivered a message similar to the headshot one on all your PK kills it could give bounties instead of XP, useless for everything except bragging, likewise for a "drooling psycho" skill! That would actually be a gameplay improvement and done that way anyone without the skill should gain no XP for PK kills!--Honestmistake 11:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Oh and didn't we all vote on virtually this exact issue already this week, like 2 days ago? It was virtualy the same just diferent wording, though in defence of this it was removed cos of some pretty crappy SPAM votes!--Honestmistake 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. KILL I am the original author of this Idea, and I tried submitting it two days ago. I submitted it more or less intact, but heeding the suggestion of a couple of people, i.e. that PKing should be reduced to a nominal 1XP as a kill bonus, rather than nothing at all. My suggestion was spaminated by ignorant hypocrites once already, hence why I removed it. The children here don't want to hear about logic, as they just enjoy griefing others - so let it rest. My thanks again to everyone who contributed to this in a meaningful way, either for or against. --Panserbjørn 17:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill I actually like the general idea, but this discourages retribution from zombies who get combat revived. I'd vote keep if it wasn't for that. --Zap 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. KILL Come on! I thought we've come to the realization that there _are_ going to be murderers about in Malton, because, frankly, it's HELL on Earth. Leave it as game realism, end of story. Daniel Hicken 19:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill While some say it doesn't take enough "effort" to PK, neither does killing a zombie. The effort is spent finding the ammo (AP used searching), then finding a target, etc. PKing already has a half XP penalty, that's plenty enough; besides, who is a player killer for the experience points? That's pretty entertaining.User:Bassander 10:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. I spammed this once, I'll spam it again! --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - PKing is in genre, therefore it should receive some reward.--Gage 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hurr? - I want XP when I PKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPKPK--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 02:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mrh? I thought it was pretty clear that Kevan wasn't going to do anything about PKing because it's just part of game-play. Daniel Hicken 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam - what Daniel Hicken said besides we have measures to kill Pkers, It also adds to reality of people binding together to keep the mentally ill people like Ed Gein away from themselves, Keeps your allies close and provides unification of loners. I'm a loner I know this cause I hate Pkers. Pkers stay--Wbleak24 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - No. Cyberbob  Talk  05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Again: NO FUCKING WAY.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Spam - Yeah, no. - CthulhuFhtagn 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Spam - Man, the Suggestions page is just full of shit today. --CaptainM 08:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Spam - Does nobody read the suggestion do's and do not's? Obviously not. Pillsy FT 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. It's the way it is for a reason. Suggest things that promote/retard PKing that use in-game mechanics (and cost AP). --ExplodingFerret 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. spam clearly in the suggestions dos and do nots Asheets 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Spam - Leave PKing alone. I will ,in future, auto-spam all anti-PKing suggestions.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Spam - Hmph... --Niilomaan GRR!•M! 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Spam - This is just silly, in any real zombie apocolypse, I guarantee that human's will prey on each other. Removing the incentive removes an important flavor in the game. -- TexasFlag.gif BubbaT 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Spam - No fucking way. PKing is a part of the game, deal with it. --Joe O'Wood TALKCONTRIBSUD 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: I ain't gonna reply to everyone, so I'll make this pretty general... I PK. I PK ALOT. Hell, I've killed more people than zombies (though I prefer the river tactics, so that explains my low zombie kill count). I'd spam anything that would hinder me from headshoting any scum I see. But I mean, common. Want to be a PKer? Earn it. lvl 1s should NOT be PKers. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Spam - I have Pked many a people "belive me, ask gage, bob hammero , or axe hack) and , without any XP, i would be a noob. so spammy. --Poopman9 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Spam - I am not a PKer and I hate PKers. Still, its reasonable toe xpect people to kill each other in times of stress. Killing a person definitely gives you experience in real life, and it should in UD also.~I am
    Struck vote, not signed properly, see your talk page for details -- boxy T L PA DA 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ravenous Hunger

Timestamp: MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Yet another zombie bite skill
Scope: +5% to bite if total zombies outnumber survivors at an indoors location
Description: Ravenous Hunger
  • Appears on zombie skills tree as a sub-skill of digestion, adds no benefits to your human character.

Your zombie has a +5% bonus to hit with a bite attack anytime you are attacking a survivor indoors, and the zombies outnumber those survivors by at least 2:1

  • That's right: It only works indoors, and only if the zombies present outnumber the survivors present by at least 2:1.
  • Only zombies with this skill get that +5% bonus to their bite attack. To let zombies know that their bonus to hit is available there is a red Ravenous Hunger lit up at the location description if you are a zombie with this skill, and the bonus is currently available.
  • This +5% bite bonus only works if you are a zombie biting a living survivor.
  • The bonus (and the red notifier) turns on and off as that 2:1 ratio goes up and down.. so survivors arriving and leaving (free running) may interrupt feeding long enough to "nerf" the bonus (for a while.) "Oh.. crap.. sorry man.. can't save you!" ~ Some survivor who runs away leaving a fellow human, to die.

Why?

This is a zombie safehouse clearing skill. It's all about zombie tactics (of sorts) which are very effective if they can corner you! If you want to know how or why this works... well... actually the zombie with this skill doing the biting is trying to make sure that they get their share before there is little or nothing left of these survivors they'd just found. It takes a bit of experience as a zombie (and that insatiable hunger of digestion) to be impatient enough to be this viscious, and accurate with the biting.

This skill also works in synergy with other zombie skills (ex. feeding groan) so the outnumbering of survivors indoors won't be quite as hard to pull off in a very nasty feeding frenzy (zombies doing what they do.)

This skill also allows zombies to have a "little something" to throw in every now and again when they have the numbers advantage over a falling safehouse. you can put down the claws and get down to some serious feeding.

The bonus is a meager 5%, then again, a maxed out bite does a lot of things too (infectious bite, digestion, etc.) so 5% on top of everything else will be quite handy, and balanced.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - Oh, the reason this is needed... well... basically it kind of makes more sense to finish off a survivor with a bite attack if you can... you know what I mean? So this skill makes doing so more "nautral" under the best of conditions. (And survivors that die to this skill, their last few hits will say "You take 4 damage.. and again.. and again... you're dead" MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 03:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Am I the only one around here who realizes that zombies are still underpowered? Of course shacknews gets along fine as is, they're probably the most organized zombie horde the game has ever seen! If survivors were half as organized, zombies would never win battles. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    I give it a Mehhh out of Mehhhhh - This doesn't do much, survivors would die anyways. Still, does make sense because two zombies would hold a survivor and one zombie bites the surivor [unsigned vote --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]
  3. Keep - I can't believe I forgot to vote on this...--Labine50 MH|ME|P 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - I can't believe people are saying this would even affect game balance. Claws would still be more effective, so its not a "safehouse clearing" skill- claws and feeding drag work better for that. If you multiple an INFERIOR effect by 100, the result is STILL inferior! The main reason zombies bite humans is to cause infection; if zombies outnumber survivors 2:1, infection is the LEAST of the survivors problems. So all this really would do is help zombies regain HP's in certain rare circumstances- and we all know zombies don't care much about HP's. Gee, so why am I voting "keep" instead of "spam"? Just because I want more skills to buy my brain-rotters, that's why! --Swiers 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - I think it'd make more sense as a subset of Neck Lurch, but still, it'd be a fun skill to add. I do actually try to keep an eye on my zombie's HP when I play as him, and I have attempted to get others to ZK me just so I don't get headshot'd. This skill would make Digestion more useful. --Zap 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. kill Do we really need combat buffs now? Zoift 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. kill - doesn't fit in; shacknews has done fine without it, you should learn from their tactics and philosophy.Sand limes lamps and brains--Wbleak24 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - This suggestion sounds awfully familiar for some reason... --Wikidead 08:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Underpowered - Yes, you read that right. 35% chance for 4 damage is 1.4 damage per AP, which is still significantly less than claws. -- Ashnazg, 0825, 6 December 2006 (GMT)
  5. kill I actually like going into buildings with a zed being outnumbered by a huge ratio, then taking 1 infectious bite out of as many different people as I can. That clears them out fairly quickly. Asheets 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill As someone who often dabbles with his zombie alt, I can tell you this: In a "Multiply By 100" senario, the humans wouldn't have a chance with this. --MorthBabid 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    You misspelled "vicious" - So i vote kill, even though it is a good idea... --Poopman9 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Note - Trolling of this nature will not be tolerated.--Gage 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill Too much dahling, too much!!! Daniel Hicken 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam Bad aushvitz, no mob-count skills.--Burgan 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - In a zombie game? Why the hell not? MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Sounds like MrAushvitz found the Cat Shit again. --CaptainM 08:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - You suck even worse than me on the Wiki. Live with that, and quit playing around in your cat's litter box, ya freak... MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spamarama - overpowered as all hell. I swear this is a dupe of something in Peer Rejected, but I'm not going looking. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. spam because it is unfixable, un-needed and unlovable! seriously this is not good--Honestmistake 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Overpowering spam. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Pointless. If zombies outnumber survivors 2:1 indoors, the survivors are fighting a lost cause already. It only takes one or two of those zombies to go around infecting all those survivors, which is probably done by the time that many get in. --ExplodingFerret 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Spam - Pointless, basically what explodingferret said.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Spam - I hardly see the point in this skill - zombies operate in groups, by the time the number of zombies outnumber the survivors, they're already meat--Dux Ducis 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Show Contacts

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 04:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors/Zombies
Description: Don't you think people saying "profile?=34u482y3y2335 is evil!" or "Revive my buddy profile # 47384" is a bit out of flavor? It reminds me of that great scene in Day of the Dead where the soldiers start arguing with the scientists and loudly shout their URLs at another. How about instead of all this mood ruining sharing of profiles we just let people show off their contact list in ways that make sense in game?

I propose adding a button for humans to use: "Show Contacts". This would give a message to up to 50 people in the room:

Survivor name takes out a list of names and shows it you [VIEW].

It'd cost an AP to display it but not to view. Clicking on view would take you to that person's contact list, color coded and all. You wouldn't be able to change it, just look at it. It'd be up to the survivor displaying it to explain the siginficance of the colors they're using.

Zombies would have the same exact ability, but the flavor would have to be changed. Maybe instead of "takes out a list of names" it could be "makes a low noise replicating the distinctive heartbeats of" or something along those lines. While they couldn't say what they used their colors for I'm sure zombie forum metagaming would establish a universal meaning for each color, and if not they can add a line to their profile with the meaning of each color.

  • NOTE ADDED FOR CLARITY: Some voters have expressed concerns this makes it too easy to share PKer profiles by showing all your contacts at once. I decided to experiment and see how many people you could accuse at one time currently. This was the maximum message I could enter:

"PKERS: 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456"

That's 35 PROFILES! I don't have nearly that many PKers on my contact list. Heck, I want to leave room for my allies. And even if someone's contact list had OVER A HUNDRED, jesus, what does this save them even then? 3AP? That miniscule bonus rare enough to be laughable. And this method avoids having people recite six digit numbers during the zombie apocalypse.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Hey, have you met 2483478374837483478347? He's a great guy. 3478348 and I were thinking of visiting him tomorrow. Feel like coming? What, no? Fine! Stay indoors. Be a shut in just like 6832948 for all I care! --Jon Pyre 04:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Gee, here's a written list of murderers I have run into/heard of... although, to cut down on the spam/abuse.. this should be a skill. Like Investigation or something (cops, etc...) Keep that in mind if ya revise and need to do it a different way or whatever, all good. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - People are voting spam for very stupid reasons. We need a survivor friendly update damnit! (Don't get me started on forts...)--Labine50 MH|ME|P 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Bad for PKers, bad for your safety of your profile, bad for... oh hell lets keep it anyway. --MarieThe Grove 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Interesting, and useful. Not to mention interesting. -Mark 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Labine - Now don't get me started on wekanesses of forts and newspaperes!!!! --Poopman9 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep Why does this count as spam? I do think people should be able to add it into what they say in normal conversations for no extra AP, but still, it makes sense, and it's definitely not a buff. --Zap 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Keeping a handy piece of paper with your friends on it is almost as bad. Perhaps you can add a button allowing you to share names by talking? An 'insert contact' pulldown that'd just add it in with what you're saying? --Burgan 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Revise - I agree with Burgan and so I say it dies, but wait Don't we have mobile phones, Think about it...Phone list on your phone showing other people,but it would cost 1AP cause you need to acess your own phone to put them in. It would only work between people with mobile phones.PTT already has a way around this though.--Wbleak24 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - An interesting idea, but why don't we just have an Urban Dead profile directory (ingame or metagame, either way)? That would be much simpler than what you've just vaguely described. --Wikidead 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. It shouldn't work for zombies. They don't currently have any method of communicating profiles without some kind of encoding, and it makes sense as it is. --ExplodingFerret 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. kill I would much prefer an ingame mechanism where a player can share his contact list and color scheme with his allies quickly. As it is, enemies of survivors (zeds, pkers, griefers, etc) are always more organized and use communications tools better than survivors anyway. Asheets 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re This is a way to do that. --Jon Pyre 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Re Re But sometimes I don't want to share. Your method is "on demand" Asheets 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Re Re Re But this doesn't require that you share. You actively choose to show it each time. --Jon Pyre 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill - "Hey all! Gathour around I wanna show you my list! C'mon guys... Come to see it!" --Niilomaan GRR!•M! 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re It's only one line. It causes less spam than talking. --Jon Pyre 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Re It's still totally stupid / silly / "unrealistic". If someone says something like "Watch out for PKer #123456" you just gotta hear it, but if he'd ask you to come and see some stupid paper with names on it while 49 others are already surrounding him, I'd most likely just walk away. It would be different if he could just show it to one guy inside, but 50? No damn way. --Niilomaan GRR!•M! 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill - if you want to get rid of the numbers, get the game to replace id=272908 or profile.cgi?id=272908 with a link to the players profile whenever it detects such a string being spoken -- boxy T L PA DA 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kill - No, not even going to make a reason, as others have said it for me.--Shadow213 05:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kill/Change - A method of survivors sharing contacts is a worthwhile and nicely in-theme idea. (Zombies should not be able to use this ability - so maybe a survivor only skill?). In its current form it's too open though (how do 50 people crowd around a bit of paper?) I would rather have to option to share my contacts list with another specific person in the room (at the cost of 1AP per person chosen). Each chosen person would then receive the option of viewing my contacts list at the cost of 1AP (if they don't bother you've wasted the AP). I put the AP cost in on both sides because they are noting down the information while I am waiting for them to finish. I'm not sure whether it's possible or not, but the addition of check boxes alongside each contact in this view and the option to automatically add checked contacts to your own list would save the time consuming admin task of transfering them one at a time. I can see this being used for sharing group member profiles with a new member, or providing an in-game Killer lists (rather then having to rely on meta-gaming - which not everyone does or wants to do). All good stuff. –Ray Vern 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Kill but workable If this were modified a little, so that you could do input something similar to the Wiki, such as typing in the Speak TTY area "Can someone revive my friend profile # at the revive point at XX, YY please? Thanks!", and it'll make the profile number display the associated name which is a clickable link to their URL profile. So for example, typing that should show "Can someone revive my friend GuyIncogneeto at the revive point at 33, 59 please? Thanks!" Displaying an entire list seems a bit much, but being able to refer to a player's name "in character" makes sense.--Bassander 10:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Jesus christ no. This would allow you to give a list of PKers in the area. Privacy invasion anyone? Hmmmm?--Gage 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re It isn't any more effective than saying "PKERS: Ronny 43554 PhilX 3232 BrainD 4654 HeadhunterDude 43435 BiteMe 5455 JohnJim 3245 Gunsword 6986 Pox 4578 DuneArrakis 57435 Panic 47475 VortexLad 4475". A Pker's identity and privacy is just as safe either way. Just this causes less spam and doesn't completely break character. --Jon Pyre 05:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    This could show them all 150 names on your contacts. That is much worse than 4 or 5 profile numbers.--Gage 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Survivor buff vs. Rotters and PKers. Hell, buff against ALL enemies. Hell no. --CaptainM 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Well, it's overpowered. But at least this bit made me laugh: "makes a low noise replicating the distinctive heartbeats of" --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Bad for PKers. Good for goody-2-shoe survivors. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam -- I am sick of suggestions involving the contacts list. Also what those above me said. -- Whitehouse 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - As others.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Armoury: Tall Building

suggest_time=13:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Removed for revision. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Extention Skill

Mod Spaminated with 5 Spam and one kill.--Gage 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Crypts

Timestamp: Lord of the Pies 18:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Empty Block Modification
Scope: Cemeteries
Description: Crypts, small mausoleums, etc.. Sometimes, at least one kind of small shelter or building can be found in a graveyard, even if it's not a crypt. I propose that the option to enter Crypts should be available while standing in graveyards. Crypts would be unbarricadeable, doorless, un-Free-Runnable buildings (for obvious reasons, such as that they're in the middle of/beneath graveyards) which can't have Generators or Radio Transmitters. However, they do provide a hiding place for zombies and the occasional desperate - or foolish - survivor. Players in Crypts wouldn't be visible to players outside or in different blocks. The inside of a Crypt would be able to be spray-painted as normal. The interior description is You are standing inside a crypt, rows of coffins and human remains lining the walls (crypt could be replaced by 'mausoleum'. The exterior description of a Cemetery remains the same.

Keep Votes

  1. Unconventional, but I like it. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - A neat little addition to graveyards.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I'd spend a night in one, just to say I had --Gene Splicer 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - What's the next building your planning to change?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sure. --ExplodingFerret 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mm, tasty flavor. I vote yes. --Sgt. John TaggartUNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ! 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Nice little flavor building that con be done pretty easily, I think. --GhostStalker 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep They should have doors though. Crypts usually have a gate. --Jon Pyre 19:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. keep If they are taggable, then some of the revive specialist groups will have some fun with them. Asheets 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Sure. --Niilomaan GRR!•M! 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep - As Jon said I think a gate that can be seen through. So you could close it & maybe cade to vsb tops, but any zombie walking by would see you and try to get in. Imagine that, you'd be trapped & safe (sort of) with tens of zombies just waiting for you to leave.--John Blast 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Nothing like a crypt for a teenagers' coming of age tradition.... --Gateking 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Imagine people huddled up behind a bar gate, with 20 zombies clawing for them. Sweet.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Keep - Cool, I see some groups visiting these frequently, cause a crypt is just cool --Lord Evans 23:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Note one thing: Crypts are UNBARRICADBLE. UNFREE-RUNABLE. NO DOORS. Basically, you go in, you expect to die, since all a zed has to do is pop in, see a harman and eat it. The cyrpt supposed to be a safehouse for Zeds, not to be used by harmans. It might be interesting, though to be fair, I think hordes are more useful.--ShadowScope 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Keep - Unconventional, as Funt has already said, and also a bit weird... Nevertheless, I like it. --Wikidead 00:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Keep - a nice bit of flavour, and a convinient little hidey hole that may be able to be used by zombies trying to avoid headshots, or survivors trapped outside. I would suggest though, that to keep it a low profile target (ie. one that it isn't worth checking often), the crypt can only hold 3 people/zombies... after that you have to stand "in the doorway" and are visible to both those inside and out, and can attack/be attacked by both -- boxy T L PA DA 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Zombie Dugouts Yeah, just like baseball... MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Is it presumed that ALL cemetaries have this building? And Shadow213, you might want to learn how to play the game first (as well as use the wiki).--Pesatyel 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Keep- it's a decent idea. I would normally have abstained, but the idiots below voting Spam for irrelevant reasons have force my hand. OMG there's 18 people in one unbarricaded coffin!. There's fricking zombies, stuff your irritating realism. How long would they last anyways? --The Supreme Court RR 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Newb-friendly - A nasty problem for newbies is the 15 AP Headshot stand-up cost. This may help to reduce the chances of that happening...because new zombies will be likely to sleep in crypts, and a zombie in a crowd is less likely to be the unlucky Headshotted one. -- Ashnazg 0448, 7 December 2006 (GMT)
  22. For Why not? It makes sense, and doesn't have any game-altering changes. --Zap 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Keep the tasty goodness....Mmmm Braaanz......Barbaga Zaarz..... Sorry! Was I slathering? Daniel Hicken 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Great idea. It helps both zombies and players without actually making the game easier. One suggestion-there should be a couple cemetaries wthout crypts.~I am
    Struck vote, not signed properly, see your talk page for details -- boxy T L PA DA 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes

I vote spam beacause everone else voted keep - Oh yeah, for a reason....ummm.........its...umm.... unneeded?? anyone?? --Poopman9 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Trolling of this nature will not be tolerated.--Gage 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. SPAM a very cool and well presented idea that is just not needed and thus pointless. By the way congratulations . Gage for removing for removing poopboys S*P*A*M* vote, but don't you think some of the others on the page were worse???--Honestmistake 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam--Shadow213 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)--Shadow213 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    [discussion moved to discussion page --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]

Gatehouse: Tall Building

Timestamp: 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: building change
Scope: Gatehouse (of fort).
Description: Make the Gatehouse a tall building, allowing suicide and binocular use.
  • This was called "Armoury: Tall Building", until someone pointed out the Trojan Horse aspect of that idea (ie death cultists bypass the gate, commit mass suicide and storm the armoury) and that it's described as a bunker.
  • You may imagine that the Gatehouse is a low building (the text in-game says it has a low entrance): if so, just imagine that the tallness comes from a small watch-tower that is part of the building. It makes sense that the entry point would have a good field of view for the defenders.
  • Binoculars are available to find in the Armoury and Storehouse - you might as well be able to use them.
  • Thanks to Sgt. Expendable and Gene Splicer.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Yeah. "somebody" :P --Gene Splicer 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Either way, its good to have some lookout point for forts.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Anything that makes forts even a small bit more defenceable is a keep from me. So you jump out and find yourself outside the gate, right? Anti-death cultist? -Mark 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - For the above reason.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Author - yes, Mark, suicide would leave you outside the gatehouse, but in the gatehouse square (which is outside the fort). --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: Exactly. -Mark 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. --ExplodingFerret 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - As Mark. (By the way, it's "defensible".) --Sgt. John TaggartUNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ! 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Yea, having a watchtower at the gate makes sense. --GhostStalker 19:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep Makes sense. --Jon Pyre 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. keep ditto jon pyre Asheets 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Guess! --MarieThe Grove 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Not that it will ever get used, zombies having taken the forts... --Gateking 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re - Actually, the zombies abandoned Fort Perryn and the survivors moved back in this week. The battle for the gatehouse is happening right now. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Hooray! --Sgt. Expendable JG 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Keep - Cool... --Lord Evans 23:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Keep - Doesn't seem very important, but it wouldn't hurt... --Wikidead 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Too sexy!!! Too sexy not to keep... MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Keep - Again, irritating realism forces my voting hand. Oh noes! The watchtower is 213 ft, whereas the local buildings are 216 ft! How could a survivor make that jump?. Really, go join some text only game where the object is to bore people to death. --The Supreme Court RR 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    {{{1}}}
    Non author response struck.--Gage 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Keep - Nothing wrong with this. --IrradiatedCorpse 04:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Keep - Yah, let us use binoculars to check the fort's status. -- Ashnazg 0456, 7 December 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Me likes. My only concern is that it may be possible to buff the Forts too much. -- Andrew McM W! 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Keep - Makes sense, isn't game-breaking, why not? --Zap 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. I give it a meh out of mehhhhh I'll change my vote if the author can clarify whether free running will still be invalid. Because although it makes sense for a watchtower at a gatehouse, doesn't make sense for a person to jump from the rooftop of a building to the actual tower itself. --Shadow213 00:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - I've moved your discussion edit to the discussion page. Free Running into the gatehouse will still be impossible, yes. You could imagine that it's a fully enclosed watchtower. This suggestion ONLY does what it says on the tin. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill All the forts I've ever seen have had a low, one story/two story structure that's a gatehouse. But whatever. Daniel Hicken 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

See my above spam vote, funny no?? - --Poopman9 23:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Trolling of this nature will not be tolerated.--Gage 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bodies out of Forts

Removed as a Dupe. with 5 Dupe votes. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/6th-Dec-2006&oldid=1481894"