Suggestions/6th-Nov-2006

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.

Malton University (MU)

Timestamp:	MrAushvitz 02:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Malton University!
Scope:	Take one of Malton's suburbs, make 3/4 of it into the "University" grounds
Description:	Usually major cities, even smaller ones.. have a university of some sort. All that is needed is for one of Malton's "minor" suburbs to be "converted" into the university/college campus. Simple enough, anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 of that entire suburb would be "re-described" as being the college grounds themselves... color coded a bit differently from the rest of Malton (like the zoo squares are currently brown for example.) This does not include the technical colleges, hair salon schools, and the like.. as well as high schools and grade schools.. those are already distributed throughout Malton. No, this suggestion is just about the university & associated buildings for example Colleges of Education, Business, Engineering, Medicine, etc. Guidelines: With this suggestion, are some guidelines so Kevan has help with certain specifics of what would be a "realistic" campus. 1. Choose any suburb in Malton that isn't too close to the center of the map, preferably 1 or 2 squares from the outermost map edge. (Most universities aren't built that close to downtown.. or too close to the airport... so long as it seems a "reasonable" place that the university was built to start.. and the rest of the city built around it later.) 2. Choose any suburb that currently doesn't have an: Armory, Mall, 4 or more police departments, 4 or more hospitals, 4 or more fire departments. Reason why: so the "conversion" of this suburb won't take away from the more "important" resource buildings in Malton. This way it's fair to both the zombie and human populations throughout Malton as to where it is placed. 3. It's okay if this suburb contains any other large buildings like a Cathedral, or a Mansion.. they might be part of the campus or located right near the campus (historical site?) The same is true of churches, museums, and graveyards.. if anything many of them may be older than the university itself.. or the university just bought the land around them and incorporated them into their location. Many universities have at least 1 church on the grounds. 4. Once you've chosen the suburb (or choice of suburbs) best for conversion to the university: here is what I (and hopefully the voters) propose for building changes/descriptions: Building Changes/Descriptions: This is true for 1/2 to 3/4 of an entire suburb depending on what you choose the university's grounds' size to be. (Depends on how much of the suburb "should" be converted into the campus.. even 1/2 a suburb is quite a large space.) University Grounds: Whatever the size & shape of the grounds, all locations within these grounds will have a slightly different color than the regular versions of these locations throughout malton. This would allow you to see whether or not you are still on the college grounds or not. Color choices may be some kind of: Green, Blue, Violet, Orange, Purple (probably purple, nobility, and all that..) The university grounds' descriptions will be different from the rest of the city.. even for open squares.. parking lots, whatever.. the main thing is these descriptions should indicate it is part of the university. For example: This is one of the many parking lots here at MU. The university grounds themselves are all connected as part of the university (color-wise) but you can literally just walk onto or off of the grounds normally. (Not too many universities have a fence around the entire grounds!) Make sure the university has barely adequate parking it seems to be one feature that every university in the world has in common, why should "Malton U" be any different? So, there are no special rules, or fencing, relating to the university grounds, or any of it's buildings. But it should look and "feel" a bit different from the rest of Malton, as it is part of an entire educational building structure. Buildings: There should be at least 8 School buildings... but each of them should have names like: "College Of Education", "College Of Business", College Of Medicine", "College Of Engineering", and so forth.. the number of school buildings located within the university should make sense based on malton's origional living population. About the right number of buildings, each of them just for that "field" of education. There should be at least 2 Hospital buildings located within the university. One is Malton University Hospital, the other the Malton Veternary College (the veternary college building, is actually the hospital itself! Because that's how vets learn, they work on animals, farm animals, pets, whatever...) There should be at least 1 Police department, 1 fire department and 1 power station on campus.. for safety & security reasons.. There should be at least 1 Stadium on campus, it may not be the professional sports complex.. but damn near. There might be more than one, if so call one of them the College Of Physical Education, or Phys-Ed Building. There should be at least 1 "Club" building on campus, but no arms. Call it the college students' bar/pub or something appropriate. There should be at least 2 "Tower" buildings on campus, which should be named college residences or something to that effect. 1 could be the women's dorm, 1 the men's dorm.. don't put them too far apart from one another! There should be at least 2 "Library" and at least 1 "Museum" buildings on capus.. with appropriate names, or named after someone important to malton's history. There may, or may not be a NecroTech building on campus.. but there probably should be at least 1.. but not more than 3. (Maybe they got in by offering research grants to several scientists? Maybe that's how the outbreak started? Who knows?) There could be regular "Building" buildings, but they should have a reasonable name that implies they belong on campus, named after some relevant dead person or society... There may be a cinema or bank on campus, but it's 50/50 not nessesarily needed. There should not be any junkyards, auto repair shops, railway stations, warehouses, factories or hotels on campus, anywhere...

Keep Votes

1. Author Keep It's nothing but flavour, ok, no special rules, or anything. But it should be put together carefully.. and reasonably.. so if this suggestion seems a bit "vague" on some specifics: I wanted to make sure Kevan had the lattitude he needs to make a "believable" university location. Becuase we all know it's going to be completely overrun by zombies the same week it gets added to the game! (The cool thing, man, this would be a hell of a fun location to fight over.. and there would be at least 1 survivor group that would pop up claiming the university itself as their territory!) MrAushvitz 02:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep - One? I wouldn't be surprised if there were two or three. This is one of the most detailed, well-thought-out suggestions I've seen. It's flavorlicious too!--J Muller 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep -Great work! A bit revisionist, but more than worth it for the flavour!! -- Nicks 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep - I don't vote often, but when I do, it means something. I'm thinking that one of the buildings should, instead of the power station, be the physical plant with the steam generators and all that. Be able to find generators, gas, crowbars, pipes, etc. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. keep - when did more flavor ever hurt? also, can chewy become a flavor? --Kaminobob 08:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
6. I'm no book burning bastard - This is interesting :) Me like. One thing though when you say there must be a power station, stadium etc. on site I presume you mean that these buildings are added to the suburb. Yes? Suburb wise the only one that I know fits the above is Judgewood - one PD, one FD, 3 hospitals, no fort, or malls though its closeish to calvert and caiger which can only be better- university and shopping :) --Marie^{The Grove} 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re Judgewood does seem an excellent canditate! It doesn't have much in the way of resource buildings... so no loss to survivors in terms of finding items. If anything, adding a University to that suburb would improve it's significance greatly! Well done Marie! MrAushvitz 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep- It would indeed be a good change to game play. I like this idea and it is well thaught out. Master B8 15:49, 6 November 2006(UTC)
8. Very interesting... It is, of course, incomplete, but the basics are there. -Mark 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
9. What's the mascot - Do you have any ideas of what suburbs you would choose? And I still like the idea of there being something new in the university. What about College textbooks instead of books. They could give xp at a slightly higher rate. Seeing as there all fancy and stuff. --Officer Johnieo 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes
A mind is a terrible thing to waste...

1. Not too bad, but it looks like your suggesting a "mini-Malton" (which isn't THAT bad, really). However, something THIS elaborate as flavor ONLY is a bad idea. At least try to introduce SOMETHING new, like alternate search rates for the "new" buildings.--Pesatyel 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree with Pesatyel. All in all, this isnt a bad idea, but there should be a difference between the buildings in this University complex and regular buildings besides their names. ALtered search rates, new types of buildings, etc. There should be a lot more than 2 dorm buildings, if you're gonna make the entire University take up most of a suburb. Also, if you do put a Necrotech on campus, it should be a lot smaller in scale, maybe only a research lab, with reduced search rates. --GhostStalker 06:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Incomplete - I'd like to see a concept map for this. You've gone far enough into the selection criteria to go ahead and choose a potential site. Also, you're including a lot of rare buildings in there - another stadium, another power station etc. Won't you turn a single suburb into the flavour hotspot? Might it make more sense to spread it across two suburbs, or, thinly, across three? Of course, this was first mentioned in the Fallback suggestion, but only as a concept - this goes much further, and there could be two universitys - one in town and one outside. --Funt Solo 09:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Check out Reganbank. Talk about a nothing suburb. --Funt Solo 09:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) My Citywide Meta-Tactical (beta) map can provide an overview of the city as a whole - although (perversely) it works best in Internet Explorer - there's a significant time delay with the map updating in Firefox. Lets you see where there are few police stations, and so on. --Funt Solo 13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Incomplete, also bitter - Been working on an MU suggestion since I mentioned it to Funt Solo during the Fallback discussion (damn employment, cutting into my suggestion time). As with Funt, you really should be suggesting at least one suburb for this. I suggest the upper half of Mornington. Mornington currently sits in the middle of the biggest necronet deadzone on the map, and adding a "University grant" necronet building to the suburb would give your suggestion more than just flavour. --Gene Splicer 11:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. A bit too big and powerful - You're suggesting a lot of resource buildings to be in these. And it's a bit big. Remember, even malls and forts only take up 4 and 9 spaces. Why would a university take that much more? I like a lot of these ideas, but it needs to be smaller and have less buildings. Maybe get rid of the police/fire departments (and instead have them just close to the grounds, since that's how some universities really do it) and a few other buildings. --Reaper with no name 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Incomplete! - Dude, there is a truckload more info that is needed. And for an idea this size i would like to see some concept art and maps.--Mr yawn 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Incomplete - It seems like a good idea and I would love to see it in the game but it needs alot more work put into it. Not too bothered about concept arte but if you create like a little map using some colours it could look good. Pillsy ^FT 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Kill - I like this idea, but it is incomplete. Rethink the idea to be more specific and give details. --Wikidead 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam I really hate this. It doesn't need a university. If you say it's unrealistic, just immagine it's outside the quarantine. -Certified=Insane^☭ 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Lower Revive Costs If You're Not Killed By A Zombie

Timestamp:	Jon Pyre 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	Revivification
Description:	For a while revives were pretty cheap compared to the high cost zombies had of breaking through barricades and killing and Kevan rightfully made revives cost 10AP to perform. Here's the news brief: "Memo to NecroTech staff: The subjects are developing a resistance to our current antigens - syringe barrels must now be fully emptied to guarantee successful revivification, even if this takes longer and puts support staff at risk." Today I saw a PKer waste five survivors in one day then leave on the line, which I'll paraphrase "that's five of you f**got asses, or was it six? see you all again soon!" It occured to me that since PKing has a pretty low AP cost compared to the high cost of a zombie killing someone that death by PK might not deserve the same 10AP revive cost. Here's what I suggest. Reviving someone who was killed by a survivor would now only cost 1AP, as previously. There'd be no way to check in advance which zombies were killed which way, just after pressing the revive button you'd get a message: "On close inspection you noticed the subject was killed by a human and was not infected with the newest most resistant strain of the virus. The procedure was easier than expected." All other revives would stay 10AP. This is balanced. Cheaper kill cost results in a cheaper revive cost. It falls in line with the current UD policy of allowing PKing but making it less effective (half xp for attacks). Dying would still be bad, you'd stil become a zombie and need to wait for someone to spend a syringe. But it'd remove the penalty intended to make things fair for people playing zombies.

Keep Votes

1. Author It's only fair. And it works flavor wise. The infection is clearly evolving and becoming harder to treat. You could assume that when you're killed by a zombie you get whatever the newest version is while if you're killed by a survivor you're only animated by the older strains still dormant in your body. --Jon Pyre 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. keep - partly because griefing is, well, bad, thats why its not called happy fun spreading or some other weird over-cheerful thing. the other part? i like the sentence "this is balanced". THE AUTHOR DECLARES THAT THIS IS BALANCED! also, the half-ap revive would be better, but suggestions aren't put into the game perfectly-as-is, which is why kill votes over little details always confuse me... --Kaminobob 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
3. keep - makes sense. Grief the griefers. See how they like it. --Funt Solo 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re This doesn't even grief their griefing! The person who's dead is still equally screwed as before. --Jon Pyre 09:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
     • Re - That's true. For your next suggestion, then - come up with something that does grief the griefers. Cheers. --Funt Solo 09:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep - I hate PKers, not pking. Read the Spam votes to see why. Humans killing humans is part of the zombie mythos. Immature jackasses are not. Well, except as cannon fodder. --Gene Splicer 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep - This is so true. It's so much easier for humans to kill humans than it is for zombies that it's not even funny. All PKers have to do is search for ammo, free run in, do their "business", and get out. Zombies have to organize (lone zombies have no chance of breaking into a safehouse and getting more than a few attacks in), tear down the barricades, and then survive long enough to kill the survivors. That costs a LOT more AP than PKers have to waste. Besides, it's not affecting how much the victim suffers, just how much the guy reviving them does. --Reaper with no name 15:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Keep - Come on people it doesn't really affect PKing and for everyone who ISN'T a pker *looks around and realises that it isn't many* it affects us when we kill PKers too so it works both ways. Its a great idea :) --Marie^{The Grove} 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep - Yeah, that makes sense. If you were killed by a human, why would you be turned into a zed? --Joe O'Wood 16:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Keep - Makes sense... The fact that you dont know if it will cost less until you actually revive them seems fair. --GhostStalker 17:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Keep - Add aditional help to those who arn't playing the PK game... Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
10. I like it. Possibly a slightly higher cost? -Mark 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Keep - This hinders bounty hunters, but at least it makes sense. Move the cost up to 5AP. When a player revives someone for 5AP, do they gain 5XP or 10XP? --Wikidead 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. Against - No thanks. I like it the way it is. There's something there to give you an incentive NOT to die. --Absolution 06:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re Right, an incentive to find a good safehouse, help maintain barricade levels, stock up on FAKs, all of which are entirely ineffectual against non-zombie threats. This doesn't sweeten death, it's an incentive to play as a zombie. --Jon Pyre 09:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. I kinda like it but 1 AP is too cheap. Since you mentioned it, why not just continue the "half" trend and make it 5 AP instead of 10 (or 1)?--Pesatyel 07:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re Technically this is more like 2/3rds cost. It takes more than 30AP to revive someone. You have to get the syringe, walk outside, and spend 10AP. Basically this skill reduces revive cost to 21 from 30. --Jon Pyre 08:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
     • I don't consider searching as significant, not with syringes. Most people pay the search cost WELL in advance of the use cost. Yes, people have the option of crafting a syringe, then using it immediately, but that's only for the most extraneous circumstances, not standard practice as it appears to which you are eluding. On the other hand, your suggesting that a person be allowed to revive for as little as 2 AP...as it was before the change.--Pesatyel 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Kill - I'd feel better if it still cost 5 ap. One just seems to drastic. --Officer Johnieo 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re That's just the original rate. --Jon Pyre 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Kill!!! --Carl Panzram 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Kill!!! - I like it the way it is. Humans have a lot of power, but if they die for any reason, they pay the price. Chronolith 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
6. KILL I got Pked today but still don't like the idea. For roleplay value if nothing else it shouldn't matter how you died the fact is you're dead. --Tahoe 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Kill Dead is dead.. everyone hates being PKed but I'd be more onboard with something that discourages the perp directly. this doesn't. A direct discouragement would also placate the "valid way of playing" arguement since that would put the PKer on a more even playing field, the problem is that it is too easy to do. Cousin ed 07:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Kill - I say kill, becuase it gives the humans an "out" to being killed by zombies, where as zombies can't use an easy out to avoid the headshot penalty (ie: Jumping out a window ect ect) -- SniffleNose 11:24am 19, November, 2006 MST
9. Kill - It shouldn't matter how you died. Dead is dead and the penalty should be the same. Raggedy Man 18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Kill - oh yeah, i can see the abuse already, you're inside a building, zeds break in and start ravaging the humans, somebody gets low on HP so another human that just happens to have a needle on them kills the person low on HP, that person stands back up as a zed, the person that killed them hits them with the needle, human stands up with more HP than they had. BS! they should be treated like any other dead body Braggledorth 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - don't nerf mah PKing! Part of the fun of PKing is knowing that I am griefing the fuck outta some poor bastard.--Gage 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re I have a devoted zombie character and I have a great deal of spiteful fun dragging survivors out to the street and feasting on them. Victory is fun, but it isn't victory if you aren't playing a balanced game. Want to have real fun griefing? Run some magnets over the UD servers and destroy the game. That's grief by the busload. --Jon Pyre 09:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Spam - No. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note - Invalid vote struck. "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote." --Funt Solo 11:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note - Non-author reply struck. Cyberbob  Talk  07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note - Invalid strike reverted. Please read the rules of the page. Any user may add a Note to indicate the removal of an invalid vote. I did not place a non-author Re, which is what you're trying to strike me for. Also, as previously noted: "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote." I'm willing to seek arbitration if you disagree with the rules of this page. --Funt Solo 08:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

   Non-author reply struck. Cyberbob  Talk  08:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Spam - HAHAHAHAA! Ahem... Since my vote was struck and I need a reason... Here goes: A long time ago in a land far far away, there lived this man. This man decided oneday, he was going to wake up, march his happy arse down to the castle and tell the king his brand new idea for the kingdom. His idea, he thought, would revelutionize the way the kingdom would be run. His idea was flawless. He spent hours crafting just the right wording... to make it perfect... because with his idea, the world in his eyes would be a better place. When he got to the castle, he had found that the King was no longer listening, and that a tribunal of peasants led under the voice of nobles were now hearing what the populace had to say. He was discouraged, but continued with his motion. He waited his turn patiently, and held back a bad wind he knew that was building within his belly. Finally he was brought before the tribunal. He smiled to them and spoke... "Today.. on this glorious of days, I, John of the Fire Tempers, have brought before you this new idea. I believe that in the best interest of the Kingdom, that in order to ward off celestial objects from falling from the sky (a comet had hit his onion crop), we must all be required under pain of death, to wear an onion from our belt." It, of course, was in John the Fire Temper's best interest, as he grown a crop of onion for many seasons. The crowd grew silent, as they all blankly stared around at eachother. He was sure that his idea had been a success, until one of the nobles spoke, "You mad git! I'm allergic to onions!" which was followed by another noble just shaking his head.. and the mad laughter erupted from the leader of the largest criminal underground of the Kingdom. The man was soon grabbed by the guards, roughly escorting him out, all the while the populat threw cabbage and tomatoes, the Kingdom's top vegetable and fruit export. -- So.. in closing, like John the Fire Temper's idea was bad, this one is too. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Spam - Don't grief griefers for god's sake.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re I think you can still take plenty of spiteful joy in forcing someone to wait for a few days in a graveyard even if the person who revives them spends 21AP instead of 30. --Jon Pyre 09:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
     • Syringes cost 7AP. Eight AP for a revive instead of 17? No fucking way. If you can make getting PKd more griefing like "You got a headshot from XXXXXX the Survivor Hunter, you will need 5 more AP to stand up", maybe we can remove some AP cost for reviving them from the people who revive dead guys.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 14:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Spam - Dead is Dead. Revives shouldn't cost less based on how you were killed, unless you want to suggest something that makes people killed by axes harder to revive, because you had to stitch 'em up. Or maybe you have to have surgery to revive them? --CaptainM 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re Since the extra cost is from a more resistant disease I believe this makes sense (within the context of zombies existing making sense). But since that explanation is just something Kevan made up as a bit of flavor as he corrected the game's balance the realism isn't that important. This is about fighting survivors as a zombie being better than fighting survivors as a survivor. --Jon Pyre 09:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Spam - All aboard the spam wagon. Bad idea, period. Pillsy ^FT 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - I'll add a bit more reasoning, to be honest it's a pointless idea, it doesn't make sense because there is no guarantee a player will know if someone has been killed by another player. It could be a good suggestion if there were major tweaks. Pillsy ^FT 16:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Spam - With a great killing comes a great griefing. --Niilomaan ^GRR!•M! 09:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Spam - As above, this idea nerfs the fun of PKing.--Mr yawn 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re It nerfs the ultimate effectiveness of PKing as a military tactic and brings it more in line with a zombie's AP expense. The person dead is still as screwed as before. I just think that in a zombie apocalypse game the zombies shouldn't have their thunder stolen. --Jon Pyre 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - A zombie apocalypse game isn't just about zombies. Remember, this city is in an absolute state, wreacked beyond belief and in anarchy. Therefore i think its suitable to have a PKing element in the game that has its own, as you put it, "thunder"--Mr yawn 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Spam-CaptainM is right. The syringe is there to get rid of the Zombie Bacterium...it comes to you no matter HOW you die. Death is death. Oh, and this would nerf Bounty Hunters (a subset of PKers) as well...Death Cultists could destroy barricades, radios, gennys, etc., and then, after dying, get revived by his buddies and go back to destorying barricades, radios, and gennys.--ShadowScope 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re It's unlikely to nerf bounty hunters as this wouldn't make the person getting killed have an easier time of it, but just helps the scientist who revives them. Since there are more people being PKd than are PKers this would help ordinary scientists out more than those in the somewhat rare dedicated and highly organized PK group. Besides, this suggestion isn't against PKing or PKing groups. I want them to get the benefit too. This is just to prevent survivor vs survivor being better than zombie vs. survivor. I'm all for allowing PKing. Crazy humans killing each other is a staple of the zombie genre. I just want it to be on equal terms so it doesn't effectively nerf zombies. --Jon Pyre 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
10. SSS Hell no! There is NO WAY you are gonna fucking help tha damn IWM by reducing the revive cost to 1 AP! -Certified=Insane^☭ 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Afraid I don't know what IWM is. --Jon Pyre 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • They are fucking fascists. Anyhow, there are things such as group wars, and punishing griefers, and this would only make things worse. By the way, IWM is for Imperial War Machine... -Certified=Insane^☭ 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Spam - In two words? Get fucked. In more? Not until headshot is removed from the game and those who get ZKed get the same benefit. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Spam - It's a player vs. player game. The costs for reviving someone were raised on purpose. I don't think that there should be any difference in the way that you die as to how long it takes you to come back. Death should carry an even penalty, as dead is dead. Aside from that, 1AP is way too low. In a Necrotech building with a generator, I can usually find a syringe with 2-4 searches. That would mean on average, it would only take my 5 AP to bring back a survivor who jumped off a building. --Token Black Man 07:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Spam I think that the zombie virus is what allows people to return from gunshots, which is why all people who die become zombies. Revive Syringes are to suppress the zombie genes that are still in your system so that even though you are a zombie that returns from the dead, you aren't brain-dead and can fire a weapon. That and there is no need to buff survivors. --Karlsbad 08:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
14. WTFCENTAURS- Bullets make death easier now? PKing is a valid play style, and what stops humans from KSing zombies?--Admiral Ackbar ^{U! WTF} 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

---

NecroTranq Syringe v4

Timestamp:	13:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	New Weapon / New Skill.
Scope:	Scientists / Survivors.
Description:	In attempting to capture and study zombie specimens, NecroTech scientists have had some limited success in developing a zombie tranquiliser. New Scientist Skill: Undead Anatomy Prerequisites: Lab Experience Effect: Increases accuracy of an attempted NecroTranq syringe attack by 15%. New Item: NecroTranq Syringe Base accuracy: 15% Maximum accuracy: 30% (with Undead Anatomy vs. a zombie) Capacity: 1-use weapon (an attack attempt damages the fragile syringe beyond use, whether or not it was successful) Inventory: 1 space Locations: NecroTech Building: 6% (1% taken from DNA Extractor, 2% taken from GPS Unit). Effect vs. Human: none. You waste 1AP but the syringe is left intact. A message tells you that "the syringe has no effect against humans". Effect vs. Zombie: successful attack does 0HP damage to the target and provides 4XP to the attacker. Additionally, the zombie is tranquilised (see below). Tranquilised: Whilst tranquilised, the zombie is at -5% on all attacks. Cure #1: A zombie that carries out a successful Digestive Bite is cured. Cure #2: A zombie that dies (<1HP) is cured. Cure #3: Once the zombie has spent 10AP, doing anything, the tranquiliser wears off. Note: - The negative effects of being tranquilised don't stack. A DNA scan could show that the zombie is tranqed - otherwise, sticking a tranqed zombie just wastes a syringe.

Keep Votes

1. Author - people keep suggesting changes that they'd vote Keep on, so I keep revising and resubmitting this suggestion. This time, it doesn't mess with AP, which was the main complaint last time. --Funt Solo 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep - I liked the last version better, but this one is still great, and still serves the purpose of strategic rather than tactical combat. Also, I'm assuming that one cannot be tranquilized multiple times (ie, the negative effects don't stack)? --Reaper with no name 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re - I've added a note to that effect, as we're the only two voters so far. --Funt Solo 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Keep - Sounds good to me. Does not dull the zeds too much, while giving humans more chances to get XP and to halt sieges. --Joe O'Wood 15:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep - Its better this time round. Good defensive weapon for seiges.--Mr yawn 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep - Man you can't get a break. People just can't agree on a version. Even though I did like version three better ... --Officer Johnieo 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re Tell me about it - reckon it might be time to give up on this line. --Funt Solo 00:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Keep - Much improved, but still needs a little tinkering and improvement. Nevertheless, this suggestion is a keeper. --Wikidead 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep Zombies get to infect survivors, so what the hell... MrAushvitz 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Its a hard suggestion to work but if it only lasts 10AP the zombie can easilly get away without being affected. Walking, groaning, pointing etc. so it would be a waste of time. What happens now if you miss while firing at a zombie? I do like the concept really but I just think its unbalanced to survivors. --Marie^{The Grove} 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - If you miss, the syringe is lost - just like if you miss with a flare gun. You're right, the zombie could spend that 10AP doing anything - but if they'd planned to spend it attacking, they'd be at -5%. Useful in seiges or break-ins. --Funt Solo 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
     • Re Re - I see its a good point for seiges but I have an issue with it only being 10AP, if it is attacking- which is think is a good idea- it should be around 50ap, that way it would seem more worthwhile to find and a fire a syringe. --Marie^{The Grove} 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Kill You can't get more sleepy, or slower than dead. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   re Heh - if it wasn't for all these damn zombies, I'd agree with you. --Funt Solo 18:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

3. I liked version three better. -5% isn't enough. Make the effects higher, add the 2 AP walking cost, and you've god a keep. -Mark 21:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Much as it pains me to say, I much preferred v3 also (or even v2). --ExplodingFerret 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Kill I'd vote for this if infectious bite also caused a negative modifier for survivors. Zombie attacks are already a lower percentage to hit. This could disrupt the balance even further. --Carl Panzram 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

KILL For the exact reason as stated above me.

1. Kill - I'd vote for this if zombies had more powerup options. But as-is, a 5%-penalty modifier is yet another overpowered attack for humans. Chronolith 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Kill Think of the low lev zombies.. standing up costs a shitload of ap, even more if they caught the bullet with their face. so wearing of after 10ap, while maybe acceptable for high level zeds, would be a massive percent of their ap nerfed if they get tranqued in a fight. also consider they have a criplingly low chance to hit already and aren't going to have a digestive bite to recover from it. If all zombies were at a decent level it's well thought out enough but for the lowbies I have to vote nay -Cousin ed 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Kill - It's all been said before, but this is too powerfull, especially against low level zombies. Raggedy Man 18:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Rearrange Healing Skills

Timestamp:	Reaper with no name 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Everyone who doesn't already have First Aid and/or Diagnosis
Description:	Diagnosis is widely considered to be a better skill for newbies than First Aid. The reasoning is that while First Aid increases a survivor's (and other players') survivability, it hampers their ability to gather XP. Diagnosis, on the other hand, allow a player to quickly tell who needs healing. But, how is a newbie to know that? What I'm proposing is that First Aid (and by extension Surgery) should require Diagnosis as a prerequisite. This will help newbies be able to gather XP, because it will force them to buy a skill that helps them get XP before they can buy a skill that hampers their XP gain. And it makes sense from a roleplay standpoint, because it's hard to effectively treat injuries if you don't know how to diagnose said injuries.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

1. Author Keep - It makes sense, and it helps newbies. What's not to like? --Reaper with no name 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep - I knew diagnosis was a problem but I thought it was the other way round. Keep Keep Keep! --Marie^{The Grove} 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep - A great idea. --Winnan 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep It's a dupe but this idea is long overdue. It's gets my keep of support regardless. --Jon Pyre 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep - There's this and this, but neither of them quite put it like this. --Funt Solo 16:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re- Yeah, this doesn't affect the starting classes at all. It just makes players have to buy diagnosis before First Aid, thus helping newbies gain XP faster. --Reaper with no name 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re Heh - using Officer Johnieos logic, we need to delete everything in PR over a month old. Except that the billboards suggestion from last December just got implemented. Hrmn... --Funt Solo 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Keep and what hasn't been mentioned is those guilty of Alt abuse can't take advantage of using one char as the Diagnostician and another as a Surgeon/Doctor Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 17:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep - great news for the noob --Kcold 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Keep - Dupe, but it should be in the game already. --Niilomaan ^GRR!•M! 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Yay - Its a nice idea. And Kcold, newbies aren't called noobs.--Mr yawn 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Keep - Huh, I think I saw this a while back. Still, makes sense. -- Nob666 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Yay.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Keep - C'mon Kevan, this has to be the simplest change to implement. I'd call this a bugfix more than anything… the currently illogical fashion of diagnosis and first being separate trees really bugs people. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Keep - Nice idea! --Wikidead 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Keep Ah, going about it a different way to fix ther problem. Nice... MrAushvitz 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Keep - It should have been this way to begin with. --Carl Panzram 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Keep I like it. --Tahoe 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Look, this has already been suggested twice. And both passed into peer reviewed. If Kevan was going to intergrate this he would have done so. --Officer Johnieo 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Give Liqour

Removed as a Dupe with 5 Dupe votes. --Funt Solo 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

---