View source for Talk:Suggestions/archive12

{{Archive|Suggestions}}
{{DailyTasks}}

=Archives=
''If you wish to reply to something that is archived in one of these pages, make a heading with the same name as what you are replying to and link to the relevant section in the archived page.''


*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive1|Archive1]]''' -- ''Archived 04:48, 16 Oct 2005 (BST)''
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive2|Archive2]]''' -- ''Archived 22:22, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)''; ''03:09, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)''
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive3|Archive3]]''' -- ''Archived 04:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)''
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive4|Archive4]]''' -- ''Archived 23:02, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive5|Archive5]]''' -- Needs to be worked on. I'm not entirely sure whether I should just dump everything from December in this page or not. As you may have guessed, I just dumped everything from December (which hadn't had a reply this month) on this archive page. Everything should be there, but someone was editing the main discussion page during my archiving..I don't think I messed anything up, though. [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 21:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/Archive6|Archive6]]''' -- Archived 00:30, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT).  Not all of January, but the page was horribly long and clogged with old stuff.
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive7|Archive7]]''' -- ''Archived 01:09, 23 February 2006 (GMT)''
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive8|Archive8]]''' -- ''Archived 07:02, 26 March 2006 (BST)'' -- Moved the majority of March into it as well. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 20:40, 5 April 2006 (BST)
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive9|Archive9]]''' -- ''Archived 06:07, 16 April 2006 (BST)''
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive10|Archive10]]''' -- ''Archived 05:43, 1 May 2006 (BST)''
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive11|Archive11]]''' -- ''Archived 20:35, 16 May 2006 (BST)''
*'''[[Talk:Suggestions/archive12|Archive12]]''' -- ''Archived 07:43, 2 June 2006 (BST)''

=Suggestions Discussion=
== Active Suggestions==
''These suggestions are currently at vote. Please hold any extended discussion about them here.''
===Expert Specialization===

Here are my comments on each skill, one by one, as promised: 
*Marksmanship: Looks ok.  It removes a bonus the other worked for, but it only does so when facing a single type of opponent.  Possibly a common one, but I don't see it as overpowered.  
*Medic: I dislike it.  Makes surgery useless, and healing doesn't need to be any stronger than it already is.  
*Scout: Meh... It's borderline.  Possibly too strong, yet it is limited by how many people want to be scouts.  My problem with it is that it removes a major limitation in the game, and also reduces the food available to newbie zombies.  
*NT: BAH-ROKEN.  Don't mess with revive rates
*Doctor: Meh.  Not too horrible.  Whilst healing doesn't really need to be any better, restricting this to hospitals makes it not as bad as the Medic ability, IMO.  Of course, others might disagree.  After all, the healing/AP rate must be absurdly high (haven't had the time to count, and I might change my mind if I do...)
*Cop: I'm not sure we want to see that kind of combat effectiveness increase.  
*Firefighter: We don't need a 1.6 damage/AP melee attack, no thank you.  Zombies should remain king of melee combat IMO (given that they must first strike down barricades AND have less versatility).  Stick to boosting % to hit with melee weapons.  
*Consumer: Increases ammo, FAK and syringe finds by 30%... Hell no.  That's most of the time used to fire a gun, revive a zombie, or heal someone reduced by 30%
*Corpse: Isn't it unfair to zombie players who started with another class to have absolutely no benefits as zombies?  IMO, this should call for: 1. more zombie classes 2. A default skill for non-starting zombie, which any other zombie may learn IN PLACE OF their class skill.  So they'd still only have 1 class specific skill.  
The skill itself is also strong.  Possibly too much.  

Basically, if you took the weakest of these, and gave it to everyone, it would either increase the [[Game_Assumptions#The_Pace_is_Slow|pace of the game too much]], or it would break a major limitation of the game.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 02:57, 31 May 2006 (BST)
:I think you misunderstood the Consumer change. It wouldn't boost the search rate by 30%, it would boost it by 30% of its current value. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[User_talk:BobHammero|T]]•[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 03:03, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Yes, 30% faster to gather items, and gathering items is the limiting factor in: Shooting guns, healing people, and reviving people (if you actually search for syringes, which is more AP efficient already)--[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 03:05, 31 May 2006 (BST)
* Thanks for the extensive feedback, McArrowni. I kind of wonder if you're reading the NT skill as a reduction in the revive AP cost, which was definitely not the intent. The skill is just there to bring Manufacture in line with searching -- more of a convenience than anything. --[[John_Ember|Ember]] <sup>[[User:John_Ember#MBR_Weapon_Rating_System|MBR]]</sup> 14:50, 31 May 2006 (BST)
**Nah, I'm reading the reduction in syringe rarity (that's what it is) as a reduction in the AP required for those people to acquire a syringe, and by extension to use it (you can't use a syringe if you haven't spent AP to find it before, thus finding the syringe is a sort of AP cost to using it).  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 22:52, 31 May 2006 (BST)

===Linear XP===
Moved from [[Suggestions]]:

(Responding to)
#'''Kill''' - Yes, I think the skill system needs to be revamped, but not in this way. It wouldn't make things more interesting for me to have to work even harder to get skills that I've already used before. It would just make me lose interest more quickly. I think that new skills should be added under this system, however. I'm sure there are plenty of peer reviewed new skill ideas for Kevan to implement that would allow us to double the number of available levels, so I don't think we need to wipe everything out and start again. Also, minor nitpick: I think you mean "Linear XP," not "Exponential XP," since it sounds like it's growing linearly, not exponentially. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[User_talk:BobHammero|T]]•[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 20:36, 30 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''RE:'''Hmm, good point.  The original version had it exponential, until someone pointed out I'd screwed up the math and it'd take several years to get everything.  I'll just change the name then.  that doesn't count towards having to restart the vote, does it?--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 20:41, 30 May 2006 (BST)
#::Don't ask him, he's in U!  It shouldn't restart the vote unless you change something big.  This is just a mistake.  --[[User:Ron Burgundy|Ron Burgundy]] 20:44, 30 May 2006 (BST)
#:::As I say quite clearly on my [[User:BobHammero|user page]], the [[Project UnWelcome]] thing is a joke. No one takes it seriously. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[User_talk:BobHammero|T]]•[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 21:15, 30 May 2006 (BST
#::::I know.  :)  --[[User:Ron Burgundy|Ron Burgundy]] 22:01, 30 May 2006 (BST)
#:::::Okay, just making sure. I brought it up because some people have actually questioned that in the past. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[User_talk:BobHammero|T]]•[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 22:43, 30 May 2006 (BST)
#::::::Sounds like the history of the [[WCDZ]] all over again, but more amateurish :P... --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 22:58, 31 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''RE:''' to vote 7 corleone- While this is a bad idea...If you think the game is fine and don't want to see changes made, why are you participating in the suggestions page? Killing suggestions won't prevent Kevan from making changes, it will just prevent him from seeing the changes other players may like to see. The reason for your kill vote is insufficient, IMO. These pages are for distinguishing the good(or popular, at least) suggestions from the poor ones, NOT to prevent changes all together.--[[User:Raystanwick|Raystanwick]] 21:35, 30 May 2006 (BST)

===Counting Coup===
*If your reviving, then eventually you have to kill zombies due to the presence of rotters. And if you dna scan them first and find they are rotters, then never have to worry about them not healing/reviving you. --HamsterNinja 05:56, 30 May 2006 (BST) 
**You don't have to kill rotters to do revives.  You can just revive exclusively via your contact list, your actual contacts plus those you've gotten on the list with a revive-request tool. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:48, 30 May 2006 (BST)

*I'm guessing you want to be able to tell, in game, which are Brain Rot zombies and which are not? Wouldn't that be counter to zombie anonymity? What I usually do is just DNA extract. Then I know if the zombie is a rotter or not.--Pesatyel 06:59, 30 May 2006 (BST) 
**You can already tell what zombies have brain rot, by scanning them or by looking at their profiles when they take an action.  You can also see their profile if someone spends an AP talking to tell you their profile number. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:48, 30 May 2006 (BST)
***So, what was the point of the suggestion then?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 08:01, 31 May 2006 (BST)

===Barricades improvements for both sides===
:::'''Re''' "Mall siege" isn't a descriptive way to tell me how my suggestion fails the "Multiply by a Billion" rule, it's just a creative way of trying to sound cool. Be descriptive, enlighten me. The unfair thing i mentioned is the time that a zombie needs to level up compared to the time a survivor spends doing it. Read the suggestion again, as it says everything i needed to say about the wicked ways a zombie needs to follow just to level up his first levels. --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 09:24, 30 May 2006 (BST)
::::'''Re''' - If you can't think it through properly, I don't think I will, as I've decided that I'm just a little offended by your insult. I don't actually ''have'' to explain my opinions to you. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 09:28, 30 May 2006 (BST)
:::::'''Re''' - Its fine, im sorry if you felt insulted but i did as well. Anyways, tomorrow after i had some sleep i'll move this suggestion to the talk page to see what kind of fixes i can make. --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 09:39, 30 May 2006 (BST)
::::::You felt insulted over one Kill vote out of how many? --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 13:11, 30 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::It was the content of the vote, I believe. He contends that a mall siege would actually benefit from being able to barricade to EHB+8 {{User:Xoid/sig}} 13:13, 30 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::Oh...right. Still, I fail to see the potential insult value. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 13:17, 30 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::::I did feel insulted by the tone of your first reply, not your original kill vote. But, as opposed to people that is so used to be arguing, never ending drama and trolling, i think my point of view may be kinda naive for you. Next time i blame you of insulting me i'll have to make sure to gather all kind of proofs, or at least enough to start an arbitration case, as that seems to be the only thing actual wiki veterans respect. And Xoid, people with my suggestion will be able to barricade to "EH+10", not +8 only. --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 18:15, 30 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::::You're going to start arbitration cases over single insults? You know, arbitration is really only meant for edit wars. It was decided last week (?) that this should be so. Users are expected to solve their own arguments. And I can pretty much guarantee you that veterans won't respect someone who starts an arbitration case every time he's insulted. --{{Unsigned|Cyberbob240}} at 22:37, 30 May 2006 (BST)
::::::: What is needed is a more reasonable suggestion; this one is simply way too much. It does suck that new zombies level so slowly because gaining XP is so difficult. Even the 1XP per cade level drop is too much. A few XP(2-5) for completely removing a cade would be better, IMO. And perhaps 1XP for ransacking a building, though this would only help midlevel zombies with the skill.--[[User:Raystanwick|Raystanwick]] 22:03, 30 May 2006 (BST)

===New and Improved Radio===
(Moved from [[Suggestions]]):

(In response to)
#'''<s>Spam</s>Kill''' - Some changes needed, like "where do you find radios?", "at what rate?", "where will the 'broadcasting' skill be placed?", and i wuold like the radio message to be broadcasted only in the same suburb you are, and not 9 as it is a bit extreme. Everyone that is voting keep is voting a half made sugestion. Just resubmit more detailed and you have my keep. --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 02:53, 27 May 2006 (BST) ''changed the Spam voite, i must confess it was there just to catch the eye of everyone who was voting keep. I wont do that again''. --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 03:59, 27 May 2006 (BST)
#:<s>'''Re:''' So...why not kill?  Why spam? [[User:MaulMachine|MaulMachine]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 03:51, 27 May 2006 (BST)</s>
#::You cant Re other guy suggestions. --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 03:56, 27 May 2006 (BST)
#:::I dont think there was much of a reason to move this, but anyways: Dont worry MM, i changed my vote and told my concerns to the suggestion's author. --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 05:43, 27 May 2006 (BST)
:::Well, for radios, well, mall electronics stores, maybe PDs, Motels and Hotels (they usually have radios in rooms) etc. As for power. Well, the simplest radio can be made, eg. out of a razor blade and a graphite pen, needing no electricity. Only problem being capturing the right airwaves. There could be a solar panel, or a lever to spin a small generator, youknow, the things you find in survival packets (usually meant for earthquakes, floods or other similar crisii, but Zmobbageddon works too). Off course, they could require batteries, which could be found in malls, maybe schools, etc.--[[User:William Raker|William Raker]] 18:07, 27 May 2006 (BST)
::::Screw the batteries, they complicate things. Cellphones and GPS units could use bateries too, and they dont. Its not the Radio use that needs balancing, its the broadcasting ability tht needs some tweaking. I wonder why a community that spamminates almost everything to oblivion is voting keep in a half-made suggestion... --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 18:18, 27 May 2006 (BST)
:::::Probobly because it has a way to solve a problem in a suggestion that has been suggested dozens of times before and makes it very useful. Search rates are delicate things that frequently kill suggestions by making them a pain or too powerful. In some suggestions they are more important than others, such as guns or other one shot deals, but when its something that you only need one of, its not quite as important in my opinon. [[User:HamsterNinja|HamsterNinja]] 08:00, 28 May 2006 (BST)

===Axe Sharpening===
(in response to)
#'''Keep''' - Much better. @Teksura & Tokakeke: Idiots. Not 5% added on, it was just another possible outcome. Bob means that when you fail, you have a 5% chance of breaking the axe as well, making it 50% succeed, 50% chance of fail, and ''if you fail'', you have a 5% chance of the axe breaking. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 06:41, 25 May 2006 (BST)
#*Ah, I see you got to much the same point I did. One thing I'd note is that by apparently making the 5% chance conditional upon the 50% chance of normal failure, you would actually make the average chance of destruction upon using the skill 2.5%, which I do not believe was the intent. --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 06:52, 25 May 2006 (BST)

If he MENT something like a 50% chance of sharpening, 45% of falure (but keep the Axe), 5% of breaking He would of SAID that. and if he MENT 47.5% of sharpening, 47.5% of falure (but keep the axe), 5% of breaking the axe He would of SAID that. And I aside from that the reason I voted '''Kill''' was because of the junkyard issue, the 105% was just me pokeing fun at him for the bad math --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 07:33, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:First off, MEANT has an A in it. Secondly, I added a note to my suggestion to clarify what I me'''a'''nt. '''I'm not stupid'''. (That's me poking (no e in poking) fun at '''you'''.) --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:39, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::Its late, I'm sleepy, I don't feel like argueing or spell checking. And I don't feel like moveing your other invalid Res here this late. So I ask you ([[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]]) to read [[Suggestions#Comments|this]] specifically the first part about '''Re''' --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 07:46, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:::I'm [[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]]. I'm not [[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]]. We are different people. HURR. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:50, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::::You ([[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]]) must be full of yourself ([[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]]) to think everyone is talking to you ([[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]]) just because they use the word "you". I thought you([[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]]) were smarter then that. I guess I was wrong --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 07:51, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:::::We shall now observe a minute of silence in reflection of the stupidity of that comment. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:56, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::::::This really isn't the place for personal attacks. I don't think there ''is'' a place in this wiki for personal attacks. I'm going to bed, if someone wants to remove this crap from the talk page go right ahead, I'm not going to be baited into an arguement when I'm too sleepy to think --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 08:00, 25 May 2006 (BST)
{{Speling}}
:::::::Quick! Reel him in! He's got the hook in his jaw! --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 08:06, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::I MUST HAVE THIS TEMPLATE. --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 08:46, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::::...Except it's too big. You have a small version? --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 08:49, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::::I'll rustle one up for you. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 08:49, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::::::Awesome. I hope you know you are officially my hero now or something. --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 08:52, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::::::With great power comes great responsibility - never forget that Jimmy. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 09:04, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::::::::I promise I never, ever will. That is, until responsibility gets hard and I wanna get laid instead. Then I'm totally blowing that shit off. --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 09:18, 25 May 2006 (BST)


<span id="numbskulls">For the numbskulls who don't get how this would work (written in a bastard love child C-esque code):
<pre>
chance = random_number(1,100);
if(chance > 50) {
   flag = true;
}
else {
chance = random_number(1,100);
   if(chance > 95) {
      // Destroy axe code here
   }
   else
      flag = true;
}
if (flag == true) {
   // Axe sharpening code here... would most likely involve:
   // USING THE FUCKING DATABASE & ALTERING THE AXE CODE, NOTHING MORE.
}
</pre>
This would involve <u>almost</u> the exact same amount of work that Tangling grasp did. Jesus H. Christ, why can't people use their heads for once? There is '''no reason in hell''' that any competent programmer would split the process out over both client and server sides. If it's anything that people have discovered from playing this game, is that Kevan, while not perfect, ''is'' a competent programmer. Give him some credit. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 09:40, 25 May 2006 (BST)</span>
:Your programming is corrupt and enrages Bjarne Stroustrup. [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 16:17, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::Was that meant to be funny? Or was it just a really lame "comeback"? If the former, it sucked. Badly. If the latter, I put the disclaimer that it wasn't proper code, merely that it was C-esque. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:32, 25 May 2006 (BST)

===Item-based Specialization===
#'''Kill''' - Would tip the balance against zombies, its overpowered, I would be able to do about 8 revives a day. Ammo space for shotgun would increase. Though the medic part isnt that bad. [[User:Whitehouse|Whitehouse]] 18:13, 22 May 2006 (BST)
#*'''Re''' - It is a survivor improvement, so of course it would have to be implemented along with a zombie improvement.  As for the revives: you still have to find an entry point, go outside, and come back inside when you're done.  And besides the movement, a revive costs about 10 AP of searching plus the 10 for doing the revive.  This puts that down to 15 for specialists, so you could only average about three per day.  Ammo space would increase for firearms ''if'' you carry a lot of them, stay the same if you carry (for example) four pistols and four shotguns, and decrease if you carry fewer. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:31, 22 May 2006 (BST)
#**'''RE''' - then you should suggest improvments for the zeds as well, also I find syringes at about one for every five ap, and when stockpiled can do a whole load of revives. [[User:Whitehouse|Whitehouse]] 19:09, 22 May 2006 (BST)
#***'''Re''' - One in eight on the search odds page, so I think you had a minor run of good luck.  But there are also the IP hits spent on dropping the trash items.  And you can stockpile six fewer syringes if you have the specialization items taking up inventory space.  I do support zombie improvements too, and my barricade suggestion is somewhat detrimental to survivors. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:40, 22 May 2006 (BST)
#****'''RE''' - Weird, but I often find one syringe for every five ap so I must have major luck, I like to count the amount found you see :) anyway fact is with three spaces in a shoutgun you are carrying three shells for two slots, correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Whitehouse|Whitehouse]] 20:38, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Yes, you're carrying three shells for two slots.  But you had to pay six slots up front in order to be able to do so.  So if you're carrying six shotguns it's a break-even on space: six extra shells fit in the guns, but you could just as well have put them in the six slots where your specialst gear is. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 21:59, 22 May 2006 (BST)
#*'''RE''' - I carry over ten shotguns giving me a big advantange to gain from this skill [[User:Whitehouse|Whitehouse]] 20:43, 27 May 2006 (BST)
::It would be a definite advantage for extreme specialists like you.  You would get to carry four extra shots.  But that's partly balanced by the fact that it would keep you from switching back and forth to being more of a generalist unless you were willing to give up your extra inventory capacity and carry around six slots of specialist items. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:38, 29 May 2006 (BST)
#'''RE''' - Fair point. [[User:Whitehouse|Whitehouse]] 19:36, 31 May 2006 (BST)

===Fair Trade V2===
#<s>'''[[WTFZOMBIES!|WTFZOMBIES]]/</s>Keep''' It's very, very fair and works well. No zerg problems I can see. [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 05:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)
#*'''Note:''' Removed illegal part of vote. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:07, 21 May 2006 (BST)
#**<s>'''Re''' It ''seems'' somebody likes to flame me. *Mattiator threw a knife in [[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]'s head, causing him to retaliate by flaming him* [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 05:30, 21 May 2006 (BST)</s>
#***'''Notice''' - Non-author Re. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:33, 21 May 2006 (BST)
#***'''Notice'''This is done all the time to WTFCENTAURS votes. Get over it. Anyone else notice the irony in the phrase "No zerg problems I can see. [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 05:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)"??--[[User:mpaturet|Admiral Ackbar]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 05:35, 21 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Re:''' - Right, 1. Non-mods should not edit other people's votes, unless it's to strike out unsigned votes.  The legality of striking out the invalid portion of a vote is still a gray area. 2: Non-mods should not strike out other people's comments, even if they shouldn't be commenting there. 3. '''Notice''' is not a valid comment type. 4. If you're going to chatter on like this, take it to the talk page which I shall now do. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 06:57, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::'''1.''' If it's a grey area it's still allowed - it just hasn't been definitively ruled upon.
::'''2.''' Yes they can. I've seen it done countless times without reprimand of any kind.
::'''3.''' Yes it is. It was ruled upon about a month ago. However, it may only be used for comments such as "Non-author Re". So the only invalid '''Notice''' there is Mpaturet's.
::'''4.''' Fair enough.
::--[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:::Right then.  1. While it may not be stated that it is illegal, it's not stated that it's legal either, hence 'gray'.  Some say it should be legal, others do not. 2. I assume you have at least one example to link to? 3. I you mean [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions/archive9#Vote_to_Add_New_Comment_Type:_Notice this] ruling?  The one which was ''withdrawn'' or ''failed''. There is also the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions#Comments comments] part of the suggestions page, which lists the valid comments. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 07:35, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::::While you're correct, I don't really care. It's done, and there's no changing it. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 09:54, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:::::Actually there is 'changing' it. I moved your notice to the talkpage and added my own. So the problem is solved. next time though it might be better to leave it to the mods, As they are the only ones certianly allowed. It limits these kind of discussions.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 20:51, 21 May 2006 (BST)

===Lose One Flak Jacket Upon Death===
Short and sweet: If you die, you lose a flak jacket.  Assume it was looted from your body, or maybe wore out during the attacks that eventually killed you.  

This actually increases the value of flak jackets, since most players will usually just grab one during their very early levels and then never bother with them again, other than to dump extras from inventory during PD searches.  It would be a lightweight code change (drop top 1 flakJackets from character xxxx), require no changes to how flak jackets work in current damage prevention, and add value to carrying spares.  It also adds incentive for non-ammo-carrying classes to visit the local PDs and Malls, and gives extra flak jackets a possible use besides simply clogging up the inventory as they do right now.  Maybe some will want to carry two or three spares in inventory, just as a non-medical class human currently might carry a FAK or two to remove infection.  

As a corallary, no special changes would need to apply to zed flak jacket use - and let's keep that argument of "flaks should/shouldn't be used for zeds" seperate for other discussions.  I am not looking to change Status quo on that.  Zeds that die too often would run out of spares and revert back to regular damage adsorbsion.|
#'''Spam''' - HAY GUYZ ZOMBIES ARENT TAKING FULL DAMAGE FROM MY GUNZ THAT IS SO UNFAIR. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 19:59, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#:''Re:'' Actually it has no effect on "zed flak jacket use". --[[User:Karlsbad|Kb]]
#::'''Re''' - Which is why it says "Zeds that die too often would run out of spares and revert back to regular damage adsorbsion."  By the way, zombies don't have regualr damage absorption. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 20:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#:::''Re:'' I believed that that was the reasoning for there to be no change.  [[User:Karlsbad|Kb]]
#::::'''Re''' - Traditionally, reasoning uses a word like "because", "since", or "as".  As it is, it's two contradictory statements. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 20:17, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#:::::'''Re''' - Author edit applied.  My entire goal was to leave out the issue of zeds using flaks.  They do right now, and that is not an issue this change is trying to address.  I'm just trying to apply the loss of a jacket per death to both classes to simplify coding and balance. - [[User:decentdeals|decentdeals]] 3:47, 17 May 2006 (EST)
So you want to ignore zombie flak use but...not?  Fact of the matter is, zombies use flak more than survivors do.  You cannot apply something to survivors flak use and NOT apply it to zombie flak use.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:47, 17 May 2006 (BST)

===Electrocution (not a dupe)===
I found an electrocution suggestion, but it was moved to a talk page (which no longer exists) and so I'm not sure if this is a dupe (regardless of the fact it was author-removed). Basically, when attacking a generator with a crowbar, pipe, kitchen knife, or fire axe, survivors or zombies have a 50% chance of taking 4 "electrocution" damage. This will help reduce griefers, I think.|

#'''Spam''' - People who smash generators, be they humans or zombies, are not greifers. They merely play the game differently than you do, and have different opinions. By the very reasoning behind this, every zombie player is a greifer because they kill human players. I dont think i need to point out how utterly stupid such a line of reasoning is. In any case: Dont punish people for doing what they are supposed to do. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 01:15, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''Re''' - in all fairness that is BS, anyone who destroys a generator gets the penalty. Perhaps I should have reworded this differently..it's not designed to punish griefers but may help do so. It forces humans to use pistols to avoid the penalty, adding a step of "do I really want to waste my ammo" to the gking process. [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 01:27, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#::'''Re''' - In all fairness, GKing is already right. What you want to do is punish players for taking away your newly granted search bonus. You are not doing this to make GKing harder, although this will, of course, make it more difficult (Even more difficult than Pking, since you dont get hurt for killing a person). Seeing as how people are already notified if people smash a generator, there is absolutely no need for anything like this, and all it exists to do is greif GKers. You dont like your generator getting smashed? Tough shit. Suck it up and search up another generator and feul, and shoot the guy who did it dead next time you see him. Dont whinge and whine because you cant discourage them without *Gasp* putting some effort to the task. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 01:54, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#:::'''Re''' - If you can't discuss without being civil, there is no reason for discussion at all. [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 04:18, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#::::'''Re''' - I am being civil. If i am being nasty or rude, you will bloody well know it. If you want to pretend to take a moral high ground and attempt to dismiss my arguments from that position, please do so elsewhere. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 06:03, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#:::::'''Re''' - Is that a threat? Because if it is, you should review your own moderation guidelines. [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 19:29, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Keep''' - Zombies wouldn't be affected except voluntarily, since they hit better with claw than blunt.  GKing isn't something you're supposed to do.  It's not that it's forbidden: it's just completely optional rather than supposed-to in either direction.  Damage so low wouldn't be a serious deterrent, just an amusing bit of flavor.  But if you really are destroying so many generators that you're going to hit 15 of them and die before anyone heals you, just go find a baseball bat. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 01:33, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#*'''Re''' I just thought of something. I'm not a generator expert but doesn't a generator that works on petroleum not run on electricity? [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 01:35, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#*'''Legal Re''' - Generators turn petroleum into electricity. Therefore, by destroying one with a metal object, you could be electrocuted (output). [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 01:41, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#**'''Re''' - Damn, I knew I should have paid attention in Petroleum Generator school. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 01:43, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#***'''Re''' - Actually, generators use petroleum to run an engine (like in a car or lawnmower) to run an electrical generator, which is basically the inverse of an electric motor. -[[User:Mark D. Stroyer|Mark]] 03:31, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#****'''Re''' - Yeah, but it doesn't matter where the electricity comes from, you bash something that runs at a high voltage with a crowbar, it might just electrocute you. [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 04:18, 17 May 2006 (BST)
#*****'''Re''' - You know, the wires are protected for a reason, the reason being that you won't be electrocuted. If I wanted to smash someones generator in reallife, I would atack the engine. If anything, it might explode (gas go boom), but the electrocution is a bit farfetched.--[[User:William Raker|William Raker]] 10:45, 18 May 2006 (BST)
#* Soooo, what happens if the generator kills someone? Is there a message for that along the lines of "So n' so was fried by the genrater. You smell chicken." --[[User:Rozozag|Rozozag]] 02:09, 17 May 2006 (BST)

===Look out a window V2===
V2

This is one of those ideas that will NEVER go away BECAUSE it is so easy a "realism" idea.  Why SHOULDN'T a survivor be able to go up to a second (or third or whatever) floor and be able to look outside?  Or even climb on the roof and do the same?  Because of BALANCE.  John Ember and Xavier06 explained it quite clearly.  The primary flaw with the idea is that it tactically benefits survivors to such an extent as to seriously damage the game.  If survivors can look outside, zombies cannot look inside.  The zombies may see *a* person looking out, the survivor STILL has the tactical advantage of knowing how many characters are outside (even if you limit it to "one," "some," "few," or "many," rather than actual numbers) because the zombie can still only see the one guy looking out.  Counter proposals, such as the zombies being able to hear the people inside (lots of survivors tends to mean lots of noise), tend to get shot down for the whole "x-ray vision" thing, but what about in conjunction with one another?  Survivors have the ability to look outside and get a rough estimate of how many zombies are in the square while zombies can "listen at the door" and get a rough estimate of how many survivors are inside?  If one makes sense (looking out the window), why not the other (listening at the door)?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 09:18, 15 May 2006 (BST)

'''Re'''s that were moved to talk page.
#*'''Re''' - But you ignored the fact that they see you and now know where you are. (see part about scent trail) How would knowing where you went not really matter? Are you saying scent trail in itself is pointless? It really makes me angry when people vote first/read second. Can you explain why the scent trail won't help the zombies in this? --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 06:25, 15 May 2006 (BST)
#**'''Re''' -What makes you think I didn't read it?  The Scent Trail stuff was irrelevant.  When a zombie logs in, the "since your last turn" messages indicate where the survivor is, if within range AND the survivor interacted with the zombie.  In other words, if a zombie has scent trail on you and you are within range, they ''KNOW WHERE YOU ARE WHETHER YOU LOOK OUTSIDE OR NOT.'' (and the point of the suggestion is to be able to look outside without "getting your hands dirty").  Thus this suggestion ADDS NOTHING that Scent Trail doesn't already grant and, in fact '''NERFS''' Scent Trail.  Unless you are reworking how Scent Trail works which is wholy immaterial to THIS suggestion, or I'm mistaken on how Scent Trail works.  I might add this is PERFECT for baiting hordes and ferals into attacking empty safehouses.  "You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window".  One guy, in an empty building, frequently looks out a window to attract zombies, then free runs to another building.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 08:25, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I think you are mistaken on how scent trail works. Scent trail doesn't do much that I've seen. It only triggers if the survivor interacts with you. Just walking by wouldn't trigger it. The fact is, the zombie would not have a scent trail on you unless you went outside and attacked them. Not everyone will go outside and attack just because they see zombies out there. many people will simply run away or raise the baracades.

your hypothetical situation requires that the survivor went outside and did something to every last zombie in the horde and then left. that simply doesn't happen. your second hypothetical situation requires that the one person stays in the safehouse he looks out of untill the zombies log in before he runs, otherwise scent trail will be able to tell the zombie that the person is no longer there. It also requires that the zombie player does not know what the "... And Again (timecode)" message means.

You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window (timecode)... And again (Timecode)... And again (Timecode)... And again (Timecode)... And again (Timecode)... And again (Timecode)... And again (Timecode)... And again (Timecode)

I forget where the scent trail info goes, but it is very clear that this is very different from

You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window (timecode)

You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window (timecode)

You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window (timecode)

You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window (timecode)

You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window (timecode)

You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window (timecode)

You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window (timecode)

So how could 1 person bait hordes? You're more likely to bait a horde by walking up to them and simply saying people are in that empty safehouse. --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 03:03, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Also, you said this nerfs scent trail, but how does giveing it a new use make it less effective? Scent trail still would work the way it always has. Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of the word [[nerf]]. I Know I didn't have a clue untill I looked it up.  --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 03:29, 16 May 2006 (BST)
:Actually, I'm not.  Your first paragraph reiterrated what I said about Scent Trail.  Does your suggestion mean that, when a person looks out the window, the zombies automatically get a Scent Trail on the person?  I don't believe you are implying that, thus ''SCENT TRAIL HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SUGGESTION.''  In order for Scent Trail to work, the survivor has to have interacted with the zombie at some point (the other conditions include the zombie not dying and the survivor staying within range).  How does Scent Trail apply AT ALL to your suggestion?  And, again, the nerfing of Scent Trail is irrelevant since all the action occurs right in that one square.

As for the rest, you make a valid point between the ...and again and the individual views.  Thanks for the clarification.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:18, 16 May 2006 (BST)

::Nothing to do with scent trail? its right in the suggestion. Scent trail triggers as a balance measure. I've heard people say that you have to have ''Direct contact'' with the Zombie for scent trail to trigger, but in my experience, I've been shot and it triggers (you don't have to have direct contact to shoot something). Also today I had some DNA extracted from me and it did not trigger scent trail for some reason. I agree, the full 10 blocks of scent trail does not make scence, but that is taken care of. The general idea is the zombie sees the person looking down and can get a whiff of the scent as the person looks down. However they don't get as good a whiff as they would if the survivor was next to them at ground level.
(Quote from suggestion)
Also the standing Zombies will be able to see you as you look at them, they will get a message along the lines of.
"You notice someone looking down at you from an upstairs window"
Scent Trail would tell the Zombie if the survivor has left ot not as well as where they went. This will prevent a survivors from baiting a horde into attacking a safehouse that doesn't really have anyone in it. However, Scent trail would be limited to 5 Squares away from the zombie before the scent is lost rather then 10. This is to reflect that the Zombie was far away and didn't get the scent as well as it would of if the survivor was on ground level.
(End of Quote from suggestion)

::I think what happened here is a simple misunderstanding, There was a lot of text in the suggestion and I myself have from time to time missed a chunk of text. The point of the scent trail is to let the zombie know if the person who looked down at them is still there or not. therefore, if the Zombie gets the message "(they're still here)" (I beleive thats what scent trail says when they have not moved) The Zombie knows that they are still in that safehouse. On the other hand if they get something along the lines of "(Now 1 North)" or "(Scent Lost)" (Its been a long time scence I have lived through an attack and been able to use scent trail so the message may not be exact) then they now know that person is no longer in the safehouse, thus preventing them from being baited into an attack. If this is a case of misunderstanding what is written I will be more then happy to make it clear. If you understand it just fine and still think it is unbalanced, I'd like to find out why you feel that way (you have that right, I'd just like to know the reasons). Were there any other parts you didn't understand or found unbalanced?  Another possability is I am misunderstanding what you are saying at the moment, I am a little deprived of sleep right now and probally shouldn't be editing anything on the wiki at the moment :) --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 06:03, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Oh, ''NOW'' I understand.  If a zombie has Scent Trail, and a person looks out the window, it '''activates''' the Scent Trail.  That word, activate, is what was missing from the suggestion.  As I read it [the suggestion], Bob can look out the window and see the zombies.  If Bob had interacted with the zombie earlier, Scent Trail would tell the zombie if Bob were inside the building, whether or not Bob looked out (Scent Trail, active first, would negate "looking outside" since you would already know Bob is in there, even before he looked).  But what it REALLY says is that, if Bob looks out the window, the zombie can see him.  If the zombie has Scent Trail, it is activated by the looking.  But your right, it IS late, so now that I understand the suggestion (I do...right?), I'll have to rethink it.  Tomorrow.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:53, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Now you got it. I thought that it was clear in the suggestion but I can see how you would missunderstand. --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 21:33, 16 May 2006 (BST)
:Hmm...well the trade of is that the zombie has to have Scent Trail, but the average zombie doesn't take Scent Trail until at least 5th level (Lurching Gait, Ankle Grab, Memories of Life, and Neck Lurch or Death Grip usually come first.  And throw in Vigour Mortis for the converts).  Thus the problem is that a survivor of any level can make use of the skill, but the "counter" is only for level 5 or higher zombies.  Maybe the zombie could get some kind of "pre-Scent Trail" that kicks in until the actual one is purchased?  The "pre-Scent Trail" would only apply in the event the zombie catches the person looking out the window and maybe has a range of, at most, 3 squares.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:40, 17 May 2006 (BST)
::That sounds fair, however how would you explain them getting a scent trail for free? A low level zombie can follow a feeding groan to a meal and a low level survivor would need probally leave the building anyway because of lack of free running (although to be fair Free running is gotten sooner then scent trail) I can't even figure out a way for them to figure out if the person is still in the building without scent trail --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 22:18, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:::Well, the key to Scent Trail is that the survivor has to interact with the zombie (attack, DNA extract).  You COULD argue (though it might be a little weak) that looking at the zombie from the window is "interacting" (you don't have to be right up next to a zombie to shoot them either) and/or the zombie can smell the person BECAUSE they are looking out the window (logically, I'd think most people would stay away from the windows under the circumstances).  Or you could just do it SIMILAR to scent trail, but call it something else (sighting prey or something) in which, the zombies look and see Bob in the window.  If/when Bob runs, the actually SEE him leave (see him go around the side of the building if he has to leave) or they SEE him in the next building at a glance (if he uses Free Running).  Just remember that realism, while important for a suggestion, CAN be skewed some in favor of balance.  The ONLY way to do a suggestion like this is by balancing it like this, even if it counters realism.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 23:26, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Adding my bit here, im realli new to writing in wikis so i am sorry,

i had a similar idea, and i thort about advantages and disadvantages, of this, i think i this is quite reasonable. Instead of making it look out a window, and you know how many objects there are (if zombies are around, all my windows was be boarded, so that doesnt seem logical), i thought maybe you could overhear zombies. I believe things like, It is eerily silent (0-2 zombies outside), Faint groans can be heard in the distance (3-5 zombies, in all ajacent blocks), Loud moans send chills down your spine (5+ zombies surrounding the building). Also i believe, that it should timestamp whenever a zombie (or survivor) swings at a barricade from the outside. "You hear something bashing against the barricades". As this would be audible to survivors inside.

This wouldn't really offer any tactical advantages, but would just make the game seem more realistic, as i doubt zombies are steathly as they seem to appear. I would also suggest that % be involved somehow, to confuse the survivors, so hordes may breed empty messages, and a lone zombie could breed a horde message.

===Double Stats===
#'''Kill''' - The XP and combat damage have to match, otherwise this is in fact a very big nerf on all new players. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 21:54, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#: How? all that has to be done is make sure that every hit increases your XP total with the same percentage towards the new skill. Wether it is done to keep the XP as is or double both the recieving and the cost is irrelevant to balance--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 21:58, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#:*'''Re''' - Technically correct. But it points out another problem with the system. So normal combat nets you  half XP to be consistent. That's a bit awkward. But same-on-same combat would have to net you ''quarter'' XP. That's really awkward. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 22:07, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#:::So why not simply double the cost?--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 22:12, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#:::* That's the solution exactly, but the author explicity ruled it out. So I had to Kill. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 22:16, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#:::: very little suggestions get implemented as is. Don't you think Kevan is smart enough to see that possibilaty instandly, you and I did. But if you think it should be mentioned just type ''to the person moving this suggestion to peer reviewed put in the comment section: people let their preverence known that XP earnings should also be doubles to stay the same ad done damage. the skill cost in XP should be doubled as well to balance this.'' I'll put in the same and then I'm sure that problem is solved. as it gets mentioned with the suggestion in peer-reviewed. Now I doubt kevan is going to implement this, but I think that anyway with 99% of peer-reviewed.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 22:24, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#::::* Occasionally I do let authors slide on a detail or two, but this is what I'm following: "If you only want the suggestion to be kept if it's changed, vote Kill and ask them to re-suggest with your changes." Normally I would make an effort to explain what changes were needed, but it seemed the authors above me had already pointed it out. However, I consider this an act of generosity -- it's not incumbent upon me to write authors' suggestions for them. The suggestion is doing fine even with my (admittedly picky) kill vote anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 02:08, 13 May 2006 (BST)
Okay reading the suggestion, everything is doubled.  HP 100/120, shotgun 20 damage, pistol 10 damage, axe 6 damage, etc.  One thing there is potential in is that, while just doubling would be most simplistic, that doesn't necessarily mean EVERYTHING has to just be straight doubled, especially if you consider the 1/2, 1/4 XP gained.  Instead, an axe could do 8 damage or a shotgun 16 or similar.  Or, as just doubled, the damage could just be rounded down (effecting the same-same damage).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:39, 13 May 2006 (BST)

The suggestion is perfectly clear: damage is doubled, XP is not.  So if you blast someone with a shotgun for what's now called 10 damage, the damage would be doubled to 20 but the XP for it is not doubled and would still be 10. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:58, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Yes, exactly. This suggestion, by itself, would not affect gameplay or game mechanics at all. I never suggested that you would start getting twice as much experience just because damage was doubled. I don't understand how that's "Awkward", and even if it is, I don't see why that's a problem. Currently, this suggestion is '''ONE''' kill vote off from being in peer reviewed, and and many of the people who voted "Kill" did so under the premise that it it doesn't do anything. Obviously, this ''isn't'' the case. To those who voted kill, please, keep this in mind. I just need one person to change their kill vote in order to save this suggestion. --[[User:Rozozag|Rozozag]] 18:36, 20 May 2006 (BST)

===Sawed-off shotgun===
There seems to be some interest in multi-target shotguns, so I'll see if I can salvage the concept.  I tabulated the numbers for comparison of total average damage with what a normal shotgun does.  But I can't get the table code to work inside the suggestion template, so I'm posting the summary here.

A sawed-off shotgun uses normal shotgun shells.  When you fire at someone, you may also hit the next two zombies in the stack or the next two players in the list.  Search details are in the actual suggestion.

{| cellpadding=1 border=1 style="text-align:center"
|-
|<b>Skill & Flakjak</b>
|colspan="5" | <b>Sawed-off</b>
| <b>Normal shotgun</b>
|-
| --
|colspan="2" |Primary target
|colspan="2" |Each secondary target
| total avg damage
| total avg damage
|-
| --
| To hit
| damage
| To hit
| damage
| --
| --
|-
|no FJ, no skills
|25%
|5 
|10%
|3
|1.45
|.5
|-
|FJ, no skills
|25%
|4 
|10%
|3
|1.3
|.4
|-
|no FJ, basic firearms
|50%
|5 
|15%
|3
|2.95
|3
|-
|FJ, basic firearms
|50%
|4 
|15%
|3
|2.45
|2.4
|-
|no FJ, shotgun training
|75%
|5 
|25%
|3
|4.5
|5.5
|-
|FJ, shotgun training
|75%
|4 
|25%
|3
|3.75
|4.4
|-
|no skills no FJ
|85%
|5 
|30%
|3
|6.05
|6.5
|-
|FJ, advanced shotgun
|85%
|4 
|30%
|3
|5.2
|5.2
|}

Err, I could be lost and/or stupid; is there a target cap on the original suggestion? --[[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]] 00:24, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:Mine definitely says "the next two".  "Shotgun spread" sounds like just one other person at random.  I think there was another one, and I don't remember whether it did. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 02:32, 17 May 2006 (BST)

===GPS Improvement===

So far, two different alterations have been suggested to my idea:

1) That it requires both parties to have Mobile Phones and that the Phone Mast nearby is active.

2) Simply that the Phone Mast nearby is active.

Anyone's thoughts on these? Personally I think that the latter is the better of the two, if the original suggestion were to be changed. --[[User:Lord of the Pies|Lord of the Pies]] 23:18, 18 May 2006 (BST)

:I've changed my mind about (1).  Two not-very-practical items is too much of a requirement for this ability.  The mast requirement is reasonable.  But the important thing is that in the discussion notes, it should mention that this is contingent on having separate friends and enemies contact lists.  Get a mod to stipulate that they'll put that in when it gets moved, and I'll change to a Keep. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 01:15, 19 May 2006 (BST)

===Diligence===
Re vote 4 (Teksura) -- It does give the reason, right in the title: you're studying more diligently.  And gaining an increased ability to learn would be getting smarter, not getting dumber. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 00:27, 20 May 2006 (BST)

Re vote 17 (Craer) -- I doubt that libraries would be crammed with people studying, even if you could farm XP there at twice the speed of anything else in the game.  Most characters are levelled up fairly well, and don't need XP at the cost of having it not be as fun. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 00:27, 20 May 2006 (BST)

I thought this was a good rough idea(but the bonus was too high). There have been a few "Book" suggestions lately; I'm surprised there's so little disscussion here. A new *Science* skill making books more beneficial would help low level characters without combat skills. It would also be of little or no benefit to higher level characters with better XP sources, so I really don't see the problem with implementing a reasonable version of this. Something like it should at least be in Peer-Reviewed...--[[User:Raystanwick|Raystanwick]] 11:22, 27 May 2006 (BST)

===Rotting Touch===

All right, most of the comments for this suggestion seem to revolve around making the skill tied to bite attacks instead of claw attacks. A couple others mentioned lowering the % to activate the Rotting Touch effect. And it seemed a few knee-jerk kill votes were due to people whining about spending 2AP to move. I thought this would be a good place to see if this zombie skill suggestion can be flushed out a little more. I think it has potential. I'll try responding to some individual votes here (when I get some time), or go ahead and make your own detailed comments. --[[User:DirskoSM|DirskoSM]] 23:50, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:I like it as it was (I voted Keep).  There is VERY little that can be added to a zombie, as an attack, that wouldn't be unbalanced or just plain out of genre/bizarre.  I don't understand why it is necessary that you can't add "specials" to claw attacks.  I might go so far as to even say this would be applicable no matter WHICH attack form you use (claw OR bite).  The only thing I can say might be good would be to lower the % to 20% or 15%.  And I'd also mention in the suggestion that, like Infection, there is no stacking.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:50, 22 May 2006 (BST)
A couple suggestions mentioned tying this skill to bite attacks which I was against doing for a number of reasons. 1) There are already several good suggestions for bites such as Persistant Infection (Dec. 9th) and Scalable Diseases (Dec. 12th). 2) Trying to think up any more suggestions for bites is redundant and overpowers the attack. 3) A suggestion called Paralytic Bite (Nov. 6th) was already presented that caused an identical effect through bite attacks. It had 14 Keep votes out of 26 Total. --[[User:DirskoSM|DirskoSM]] 02:42, 2 June 2006 (BST)

===Arson (reworked)===

The skill in its present form would allow humans to burn the building, causing 2 HP of damage to the frist 10 people there.
The fuel can would '''not''' be lost if there have been over 2 arson attacks on the3 bulding already in one day. A message would be displayed telling you that ''there is nothing to burn'' or something to that effect.

Should this skill affect the building like Ransack, and reduce the search chances? If this was so, then the building would be restored to normality after 12 hours. --[[User:Otware|Otware]] 17:04, 22 May 2006 (BST)

Just for clarification, there is a limit of 2 arson attacks per day to prevent large groups whiping out a building in a mater of seconds. --[[User:Otware|Otware]] 17:09, 22 May 2006 (BST)

Large grounds could still wipe out buildings. It'd just be slow. Not bad, but I don't see it fitting into UD. [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 20:51, 25 May 2006 (BST)

==Developing Suggestions==
''This section is for suggestions which have not yet been submitted, and are still being worked on.''

===Expert Specialization===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=02:00, 31 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Class-specific skills for veteran players|
suggest_scope=All players|
suggest_description=Reading the Linear XP suggestion, I realized that I ''would'' like to see class-specific specialization -- but with new, class-specific skills rather than an overhaul of the existing skill system. So here's my proposal.

Each character class is provided with a new skill that ''only'' players of that class can purchase. Cops will never get the specialty fireman skill, and vice versa. If you want to try a skill for a different class, you'll simply need to create a new character in that class and start leveling.

Additionally, in order to become eligible for the class-specific skill, you must acquire ''every'' other skill available to your class type. Medics will need to acquire every human skill in order to have the option of purchasing their skill; corpse-class zombies will need to acquire every zombie skill. Class-specific skills also cost 200 XP for all class types.

The skills are listed below. These are powerful additions -- don't be fooled by the small numbers. Each one would seriously impact the game. However, only the most veteran of players are going to be able to attain these skills, and '''no character will ever be able to possess more than one.'''

'''Private''' - Marksmanship: You are able to target areas of the body not protected by a flak jacket. All successful firearm attacks deal full damage regardless of flak.

'''Medic''' - Triage: You are skilled in field medicine. Player's FAKs heal 15hp everywhere, regardless of location or powered building status.

'''Scout''' - Shortcut: You are an expert in getting in and out of fortified locations. Can enter and exit heavily (but not very heavily or extremely heavily) barricaded buildings.

'''NT''' - Advanced NecroNet Access: You know the most intricate secrets of NecroTech equipment. Syringe manufacture costs half the AP.

'''Doctor''' - Intensive Care: You are experienced with hospital equipment. Player's FAKs heal an additional 5hp over Surgery in powered hospitals, for a total of 20hp.

'''Cop''' - Veteran Firearms Training: You're one of the sharpest shooters on the beat. Firearms accuracy is increased by 5%.

'''Firefighter''' - Strong Arm: You're built like a tank. All melee and punch attacks deal an extra 1 damage.

'''Consumer''' - Scrounge: You know how to find those buried bargains. All search odds increased by 30% over their normal values (5% search odds become 6.5%, 30% becomes 39%, etc.).

'''Corpse''' - Petrified Limbs: Your hardened arms pack a terrible wallop. Success in breaking barricades is increased by 5%.
|
suggest_votes=
}}

* Interestingly, when I first put this up for a vote commenters found the same skills both "underpowered" and "overpowered." Really I have tried to limit the effect of every skill, while balancing them with each other. At the same time, I haven't worried too much about making every skill equally powerful. The Scout, for example, is kind of a tricky class to start with, so I felt freer to give him an extra-cool skill at the max level. NecroTechs are already pretty effective IMO, so their end skill is more of a convenience than anything. Feedback is welcome.

FYI, Marksmanship makes the pistol's MBR vs. flak 1.71 (roughly, new search odds data still coming in), while Veteran Firearms Training makes it 1.47 vs. flak. --[[John_Ember|Ember]] <sup>[[User:John_Ember#MBR_Weapon_Rating_System|MBR]]</sup> 14:46, 31 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Axe Grinding===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=01:03, 24 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Skill and balance change|
suggest_scope=Survivors|
suggest_description=This suggestion would create a new skill for survivors, "Axe Grinding," that would allow temporary damage advantages when using a fire axe.

Survivors with Axe Grinding, who are carrying at least one fire axe and in an Armoury, Auto Repair Shop, Factory, Junkyard, or Warehouse with a running generator, would be presented with a button to grind their fire axe, with a 100% success rate to grind. Grinding the axe would temporarily boost its statistics to deal 5 damage over its next 4 successful hits, after which its blade would be dulled again to 3 damage per hit. The cost to grind an axe would be 2 AP per axe, with multiple grindings on the same axe having no effect.

Currently, fully-upgraded axes have a 40% chance to deal 3 damage, which equates to 60 damage per 50 AP. Axe Grinding would change this statistic only slightly, increasing it to 60.8 damage per 50 AP, assuming the axe is ground only once. This would be enough, however, to make axes marginally more useful, especially as a backup weapon instead of a primary weapon. Having the damage boosted for only the next 4 successful hits (not swings) would place the axe in between pistols and shotguns in terms of "usefulness longevity," while still maintaining its difference from guns as a melee weapon. Survivors without Axe Grinding, or who choose not to use it, would not be adversely affected, since axes would keep their current statistics by default.

It would also add some tactical value to the buildings in which Axe Grinding would take effect, since none of those buildings seem to be currently used as main tactical points. This would also increase the value of generators, since a running generator would be required to power the axe-grinding equipment.

*'''Prerequisites''': None.
*'''Location in Skill tree''': Requires Axe Proficiency.
*'''Crossover skill''': No.
*'''Cost in XP''': Standard.
*'''How it's activated''': Click a new button, which would appear only for survivors with Axe Grinding who are carrying at least one fire axe, and who are in an Armoury, Auto Repair Shop, Factory, Junkyard, or Warehouse with a running generator.
*'''Cost in AP''': 2.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
# '''Keep''' - Obviously I think this is a good idea, and it's also my first suggestion. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 01:03, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - "A lot of people don't realize just how big a pain it can be (in terms of coding effort) to keep track of state on the web. HTTP is simply built as a stateless protocol...multi-step skills are just technically bad ideas. Items or skills that temporarily boost your stats for X turns are bad ideas." --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 01:09, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''Re''': Yes, I know that part, but I don't think it would be any more difficult (or different) than keeping track of how much ammo a given gun has. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 01:13, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#::'''Re''' The long, drawn out version can be found here: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Keep_It_Simple.21.21 --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 01:15, 24 May 2006 (BST) EDIT: Before any more of you come down on me like bleating sheep about server load/complexty et al, consider the fact that my justification was verbatim from the Do's and Do Not's page. KTHX BYE --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 01:35, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' Same as Mookiemookie. --[[User:Matthewfarenheit|Matthew Fahrenheit]] 01:17, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' Fire axes do not need to be made more powerful. They're intended as a back-up weapon when you don't have or want to conserve ammunition. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 01:23, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - Different to mookiemookie. look sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this is not going to go down well.(its going to get killed pretty quick) but dont be discouraged. This is a nice idea. Mookie coding dificulty is not a valid reason to kill/spamm. prahaps the damage is a little high,could you grind knives? (i think you ment hone/sharpen it fits better but whatever)I have seen worse first posts, did you take this to the discoussion page? if not do that next time and your idea will have a better chance of keeping.[[User:Nazreg|Nazreg]] 01:26, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#* My vote justification was a direct quote from the Do's and Do Not's page. I'd say that makes it as valid as it gets. --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 12:31, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - Argh, I really want to Keep this. I love the mechanics of it. However, it would power up the axe to the point of making firearms obsolete. For 2 AP I can create a 4-shot pistol that's unaffected by flak jackets. Why search for ammo anymore? Just keep 20 sharpened axes on hand and go to town. (For the record, the MBR is 1.33 -- (.40 * 5)/(.5 load AP + 1 attack AP). [2 AP loads up 4 sharpened hits, so each hit has a .5 AP load cost.] If you increase the sharpening cost to 3 AP, I'll Keep (MBR would then be 1.14) --[[John_Ember|Ember]] <sup>[[User:John_Ember#MBR_Weapon_Rating_System|MBR]]</sup> 01:43, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#:Also, because axes take up one inventory slot rather than two, you could actually carry up to 51 of the things. --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:28, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - Mookie hit it dead on. Well done.--[[User:Wifey|Wifey]] 02:00, 24 May 2006 (BST) EDIT: Not to mention, you somehow decided that it both has no prerequisites and requires Axe Proficiency... Which is clearly self-contradictory.--[[User:Wifey|Wifey]] 02:02, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''Re''': Thanks, but I'm not stupid. "Prerequisities: What non-skill prerequisites..." (see [[Suggestion Guidelines By Type]] for what "prerequisities" means). --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 02:14, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#::'''Re''' - Which would be a fault in the terminology of whoever wrote that little guide, hm?--[[User:Wifey|Wifey]] 05:57, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Keep''' - I like this suggestion. Coding difficulty is not a valid kill reason, It has good machanics. I would even vote keep if it was 3 ap. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] <font size=-3>[[User_talk:Fullemtaled|T]]--[[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]]</font> 03:51, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#* Quotes from the Do's and Do Not's page aren't valid? Since when? --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 12:31, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - Over powered in it's current state - an axe should not be as powerful as a handgun. Drop the damage incresse down by one, and add a chance to fail when sharppening the axe and then you might have a keep. --[[User:Darkstar949|Darkstar949]] 04:35, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''kill''' - Darkstar949 nailed it right on the head. [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 04:42, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - Et tu, Bob?  Et tu?  --[[User:Undeadinator|Undeadinator]] 04:44, 24 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - As Darkstar. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:51, 24 May 2006 (BST)  
#'''Kill''' - Agree with Darkstar949.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:54, 24 May 2006 (BST)
}}

====Discussion====

Okay, obviously there are some things that need to be changed before I resubmit this. I'd like to invite anyone who's interested to discuss what changes they think should be made. Thanks. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 06:25, 24 May 2006 (BST)

I'll go ahead and kick things off with the basic constructive suggestions that I received in the votes:
* Prerequisites: Requires Axe Proficiency.
* Change the name to either Axe Honing or Axe Sharpening.
* Increase the sharpening cost to 3 AP.
* Lower the damage to 4.
* Lower the sharpening success from 100%.
--[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 06:34, 24 May 2006 (BST)
**Another option: Give it a chance of destroying the axe.--[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:09, 24 May 2006 (BST)
**Yet another: Make it require an item.  You find a grinder, then you have to set it up and risk having it be destroyed like a generator. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:09, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Sug-a-mestion: Use the relevant calculation of average damage over the AP required to use the skill and then the axe (which as of now is 6 AP) rather than average damage over the entire day's allotment of AP, which is fundamentally irrelevant. --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:21, 24 May 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry, but I'd bet you're going to have an awful tough time getting an "increase damage for X turns" suggestion passed. As far as the "ZOMG CODING ISNT GOOD REASON FOR KILL, DUMMY" crap...well, as it was put to me last night, "people don't want their creativity limited to things that can feasibly be done." I'm just saying that it might be pretty pointless to put something in front of Kevan that he can't do without a shitload of work. Don't forget that the suggestions page isn't a game as to who can make the best suggestion given the rules here. The point of the page is to provide Kevan with useable fodder for things that can actually be implmented with a minimum of effort. --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 12:38, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:Giving an axe four rounds of ammo isn't some sort of coding nightmare.  Guns already have ammo.--[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:09, 24 May 2006 (BST)

I would do more than one of the changes on the list.  As it was, grinding an axe gave 8 extra damage for 2AP.  That's way too high for something that doesn't have a massive drawback for the user.  I don't really like raising the cost to 3AP.  A high AP cost usually means an action is too powerful.  Even at 2AP, I would rather have a chance of failure. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:09, 24 May 2006 (BST)

I really like the idea of a "loaded" axe, it provides a new strategic element and additional uses for powered buildings. You simply need to reduce the overall effectiveness, preferably so that it's about equivalent with an un-sharpened axe. I.e. -- yes, you can load up your axe for those special combat situations, but total damage dealt over time remains the same. Axe currently has an MBR of 1.2; your original suggestion would have bumped it to 1.33. Either increase the sharpen AP to 3 (1.14 MBR) or decrease the damage to 4 (1.07 MBR). You could also decrease the damage to 4 but increase the total "shots" to 5 -- (1.14 MBR). If you want to reduce the sharpen success rate, you could try 40% for 4 shots of 5 damage -- (1.23 MBR). --[[John_Ember|Ember]] <sup>[[User:John_Ember#MBR_Weapon_Rating_System|MBR]]</sup> 15:53, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:Okay, thanks to everyone so far for the feedback. How do these changes sound (full description to be written once a solid, workable suggestion is in place):
:* Prerequisites: Requires Axe Proficiency.
:* Change the name to Axe Sharpening.
:* Lower the damage to 4 per hit.
:* Lower the sharpening success to 40%. 
:* Add a 5% chance to destroy the axe when sharpening.
:* Require that you first find a Metal Grinder and set it up next to a generator.
:* Increase the number of increased-damage hits 5.
:No, I didn't increase the sharpening cost, since that didn't seem to be too popular of an option; I opted for the other costs instead. --[[User:BobHammero|Bob Hammero]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 20:07, 24 May 2006 (BST)

* That looks fine to me, except possibly for the introduction of the Grinder item. While it sounds cool and would be a fun new addition, I just think you'll have a hard time getting both a skill ''and'' an item past the voters at the same time. Could be wrong, though. For the record, the MBR on this looks to be about 1.07. Definitely not overpowered. --[[John_Ember|Ember]] <sup>[[User:John_Ember#MBR_Weapon_Rating_System|MBR]]</sup> 22:54, 24 May 2006 (BST)
* Looks good (I especially like the idea of a chance of destruction as a balance), except I think the chance of success for sharpening is too low. Given that it will now more often than not require multiple tries to sharpen an axe, you've effectively raised the average AP required to use the skill to slightly ''more'' than 3, while also reducing the damage to 4. Keeping the same rate of average damage makes sense, but actually ''reducing'' it? Not so much. Also, if you're going to include a "Metal Grinder" item, you need to specify where it would be found (choose between hardware store, factory, etc.). --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 00:21, 25 May 2006 (BST)

===Mentoring===
This is a suggestion that I have been holding back on due to the fact that a) it might be hard to implement, and b) it could be exploited by zerg. However, I am partial to the idea of having mentors in the game so I'm going to toss the idea out there and see if it is practical. In short, high level players (level 10 and up) would be able to buy a skill that would allow them to send low level players (level 1-3 or so) messages for free for the purpose of explaining game mechanics. This is partly based on my own experience at those levels where I had no idea what to do, and I still wasn't reading the wiki yet. However, this suggestion would break the "no free actions" rule, and could potentially be exploited by zergers. That's the idea - feel free to tear it to pieces. --[[User:Darkstar949|Darkstar949]] 02:28, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:Well I don't know why Zergers would be able to abuse this realy, there are alredy meta game solutions that people would alredy undertake. However are you talking about sending a text message to them? Most newbies wouldn't have a mobile any way except for the consumer class. Also you can't say a some to just one other person at the moment. So basicaly I can't see any way that this idea would get kept. But nice try though. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 14:12, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::What I was thinking was along the lines of two options for talking while you are in a room with low level characters - you could use the talk button to talk to everyone, and a mentor button to only talk to low level characters. --[[User:Darkstar949|Darkstar949]] 23:17, 22 May 2006 (BST)

===Generator Defenses (Summary)===

With the importance of generators, it seems silly to have 216 survivors sitting in a mall who do nothing when someone is smashing at the generator, and who don't bother to put up any sort of structures to defend it in any way. A few generator defense suggestions have done the rounds and they have mostly been shot down for one reason or another. I'm wondering if we could come up with *some* kind of method for protecting them that isn't overpowering or otherwise game-breaking.

Potential defenses:
# Notification of attacks, not just destruction ("UniCentaur attacked the generator...and again... and again").
#* Alternatively, this could notify only when it "falters for a moment".
# Barricadable Generators - you can put barricades on the generator, but only a small amount.
# Reduced chance to hit/damage the generator if there are lots of survivors present. In a mall this will probably make it really hard to hit/damage the generator, but that makes sense.
# Sacrificial Defense by one or more survivors (as has been suggested more than once).
# Make a successful attack on a running generator just empty the fuel. A successful attack on an empty generator destroys it.

-- [[User:Mettaur|Mettaur]] 05:01, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:Well I can't see any of those passing. The first two would just result in message spam. How would people fill generators with barricades? No suggestion about changing hit percentages due to the number of players located in one space has ever been accepted. Passive defenses (Sacrificial Defenses) haven't been accepted on here ever and probably won't for a very long time. And for the last point it doens't make sense, a generator is either broken or it isn't, if the fule emptys out then it can't be refuled because obviously something holding it is broken. To put it simply, it's just something that you'll have to learn to live with just like player killers and zombie spies. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 14:17, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::I'd Spam the shit out of any of those. Generators provide such a huge boost to survivors that they SHOULD be vulnerable, for balance reasons.--[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 12:41, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:::Generators can be balanced any of three ways: have them be destroyed effortlessly, have them take a fair amount of AP to maintain (whether it's finding, setting up, fueling, or defending), or have the balance of the rest of the game be based on the assumption that there will be generators.  Having each GKer be able to destroy nine generators a day is not the best of those options.  But even if you think it is, that's a reason for a kill vote, not a spam. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:55, 25 May 2006 (BST)



===Knife mechanics===
I checked Peer Reviewed and Undecided to see if there was anything similar; I didn't check Peer Rejected or Recent because there are so damned many.

The knife has its own skill; it was clearly meant to be an important weapon in the game.  Unfortunately, it's relegated to flavor weapon status, because even at the highest skill level, it's less powerful than the axe, and it's just as easy to get the axe skill as it is the knife skill.

My proposed solution is to make the knife a one-use weapon.  When using the knife, a survivor would jab it into a zombie and, as sometimes happens with bladed weapons in zombie movies, the survivor would lose his or her grip and the knife would be permanently lost.  Alternately, there might be a chance to lose the knife, as there's a chance to lose a book after reading it.  The upshot to this scheme is that the knife would do more damage per use.

I'd like to make the knife an appealing weapon, balanced against the axe and firearms.  For simplicity's sake, I'd like to leave the search odds alone (right now they're at 3% and 7% in mall hardware stores, depending on bargain hunting skill).  Does anyone have suggestions as to accuracy, damage, or odds of losing the knife? [[User:X1M43|X1M43]] 06:41, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Personally I'd like to see the knife be able to reach anywhere from 55-60% acc. unless my math is off, 60% would make it exactally as effective as a Fire axe. 55% It would have a Higher % to hit however do less damage. But simply raiseing the ACC would not be enough to be used untill it reached what a fire Axe can do. I've seen a few other sugestions that make the knife useable, [[Suggestions/23rd-Apr-2006#Knife_Improvements|This is my favorite]] --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 23:14, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Could be cool, a more powerful weapon that needs to be "reloaded." That could make it useful. Maybe 70% probability of hitting (1.4 HP per AP) and 2% probability of getting stuck. I see zombie players bitching regardless of how it is made more powerful than the axe, but this could make it a cool weapon, an alternative to axe melee, and still underpowered relative to pistols / shotguns.--[[User:Theblackgecko|Theblackgecko]] 07:07, 5 May 2006 (BST)

I think the knife should have an advantage that doesn't make it superior to the axe.  I like the [[Suggestions/2nd-May-2006#Knife_Throw | knife-throwing ]] idea with the numbers tweaked into the sane range, and I like the idea of having knives be useful in active-vs-active combat, by letting you do more per server cycle at the cost of lower AP-efficiency.  I evoked a truly impressive wave of hate with that suggestion a few weeks ago.  Half said it was overpowered and half said it was useless.  (Ha!)  It's about time for me to submit a new version of it.  I think I'll put in more flavor text this time. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:22, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Personally, I think knives do need more attention, but the fact that it's (mostly) just as easy to max on every weapon makes things tough to balance. If knives are dual-wieldable, they would need to use more AP or have less hit% than other stuff, which would make most not use them, or make them a trenchcoater fave. However, if knives were 1-use option, like throwing (which a skill might make usable), or %to lose (which would be every time) or possibly break-off-the-blade-stabbable (again, skill usable) they may be nice. Perhaps if the blade broke off, they might be the only Melee weapon to allow a headshot effect? could work for the second 'Zombie Hunter' skill... [[user:bubacxo|Bubacxo]] 10:14, 15 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Supply Chest===
'''Type:'''  New item

'''The idea''':  Searching is, as stands now, the only way to acquire items in the game in UD.  This does fit the tone well, as it represents a desperate scrabble to survive.  But it does seem also in tone that survivor-groups and the odd rare lone survivor might have a small stockpile which could be used to supply them (and their friends) in a pinch or for barter purposes.  Some kind of limited-supply, limited-use supply chest would be one way to go.

'''How it works:'''  The form the Supply Chest takes may vary to what building its found in--hope chest, lockbox, safe, whatever--but the idea is the same.  Once found, it can be carried to wherever (even an outside location) and put down just like a generator.  It cannot be used until it is placed somewhere, at which point it is unmovable and detsroyable.  When placed in a room, two more survivor-only button would appear:  "Drop in chest" and "Remove from chest" (both with appropriate scroll-lists).  There would be [undetermined amount] inventory slots within the chest, which could be used by any survivor using the new buttons.  When full, the items in the chest would start to drop off, either after a certain amount of time (from the time it gets full) or at a percentage rate (some items might have a higher rate then).  This would keep the chest from being monopolized or cluttered.  Obviously, you can't embed a Supply Chest with a Supply Chest.  Possibly there might also be the additional limitation that wouldn't let some items fit in the chest, like multi-slot items.

'''Where found, at what rate:'''  All buildings except Malls (would mess with the stores) at [no more than 5%].  If rates of other items need to be adjusted, do so.

'''The clincher:'''  To keep from completely devaluing searching, there is a limit of how many Supply Chests there can be in Malton at any one time, probably somewhere in the range of 10-20.  If the number of Supply Chests hit the limit, it can no longer be found in building.  If one (or more) is destroyed, then they can be found in buildings again until hitting the limit again.  The limit should be big enough that every corner of Malton could lay claim to at least a couple of chests, but rare enough so that they have some value.  
<!---Let me know what's on yer mind.  No, really, I wanna know...--->
*'''Comments'''
I'm always wary of any suggestion that has an arbitrary limit of the number that can be in Malton.  Usually sommething people add to overpowered suggestions, and it makes no sense.  Also, can never be destroyed or moved?  So only 20 of these things would ever be in the game, they'd all be placed in a week, and they'd stay there forever?  Make them destroyable, or at least make then dissapear when emptied.--[[User:Guardian of Nekops|Guardian of Nekops]] 22:10, 3 May 2006 (BST)
:*No, it is destroyable.  Sorry I wasn't more clear.  It was in there, but I neglected some stuff that would've made that clearer (my fault for whipping this up in the early morning, after no sleep).  Unmovable and destroyable, just like a generator.
::*Heh.  Sorry about that, somehow I read "unmovable and undestroyable" rather than "unmovable and destroyable", which makes a whole lot more sense.--[[User:Guardian of Nekops|Guardian of Nekops]] 17:14, 4 May 2006 (BST)
What about a person can only take something out once per [period of time]?  And/or HAS to put something in to take something out?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 22:17, 3 May 2006 (BST)
::*The first option seems like it would just add more user-tracking, but the exchange idea has merit...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 14:19, 4 May 2006 (BST)
:::Well, I was thinking to counter greedy jerks.  If I put 5 clips into the chest, what's to stop someone from taking them all?  Sure, that may be the point, but if I want someone specific to have them and someone else gets there first?  At least if they can only take ONE clip, the other 4 are still there.  Regardless, it seems to me a straight trade with someone would work much better OR a "storage" device that only YOU can use.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 22:13, 4 May 2006 (BST)
:::*Yeah, the once-per-time-period idea would hedge greedy people out, but I prefer that the system ''not'' have to babysit players to keep them honest.  True, there are in-game hedges keeping zerging and PKing from being overly profitable, but they are largely passive in nature.  In most cases, I'd prefer such behavior be monitored in-game be other players.  Plus, groups who held a Supply Chest would have the added advantage of knowing its there, letting their own members know first.  The exchange idea, the more I think about it, would just ensure that greedy people fill the Supply Chests with useless crap.  Part of the reason for the drop-off rate was to keep the chests from being cluttered, to keep it from being monopolized by the same person.  But I'll take some more input before I go with a finished first version...nothing is set in stone yet.--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 20:12, 5 May 2006 (BST)
::::Well, if there was some way to know who interacted with the chest (took out or put in), THEN you could monitor it.  But that's the problem, people AREN'T honest.  That's why PKing/GKing, among other things, is such a problem (but more of a side note to this).  What about if an individual could "own" the chest and be the ONLY one allowed to use, it unless they "allowed" others to do so?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 02:12, 6 May 2006 (BST) 
::::: Like if you could put a lock on it as you put it down? --[[User:Lord Evans|Lord Evans]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!</sup>]] 07:34, 8 May 2006 (BST)
::::::*I'd thought about some kind of lock system, but could think of no good way to implement it.--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 15:52, 8 May 2006 (BST)
::::::What about a simple password?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:16, 9 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::*Yeah, I'd thought of that--more along the lines of a 4-digit number combo--but I didn't want to go for that right away since people would just bitch about server/coding issues.  But as long as the number of chests is limited, I suppose it probably wouldn't be too bad...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 14:18, 9 May 2006 (BST)
(Starting over, if necessary) Since server/coding issues is NOT a valid argument for kill/spam, why NOT give it a try?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:33, 10 May 2006 (BST)
:*Now that this suggestion, in its completed version, is on the slow-train to Killville, I have to wonder:  Where the hell were all these people when I was workshopping it?  A few users come by to comment, some helpful advice is garnered, I post it up on Suggestions, and *bam* the Kill-voters come out of the wood-work.  Sheesh. I guess I'm starting to see the methodology behind Mr. A/ Mattiator's quick, sloppy suggestions.  If you spend the time, try to workshop it for a reasonable time, then post it up, only to have it summarily killed/spammed, it feels like losing a child.  However, if you post up a few quickly-conceived half-baked suggestions (and their subsequent revisions) a day almost as fast as you mind can hatch them up, there's less sense of loss attached and the law of averages assumes at least one of them might make it.  Ah well, back to the drawing board...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 00:40, 16 May 2006 (BST)
:Where was I?  Same place you were with the suggestions I've had on here, like laser sights.  Take a look at the latest version of Ropes before it goes up, maybe? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 17:03, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:* I should have been more specific.  My beef was more with some of the reflexive kill/spam voters who show up in force to put down any suggestion that comes close to breaking some inviolate commandment, with little regard to the actual merit of the suggestion, but don't have time for the discussion (See also: [[Suggestions/14th-May-2006#Supply_Chest|my long-tract response]]).  And I'm not just complaining about my defeated suggestion; I've seen this happen before with other well-meaning suggestions.  I've actually got little quarrel with you and never had a problem with your votes, even when they went against my view.  So you wanna engage in a little ''quid pro quo''?  Like most users with a life outside of UD, I don't always have the time to attend to every little thing that goes on in here, so I usually just go for the ones that grab my attention the most, especially if it seems to be a cause that needs championing.  But drop me a message anytime if you want me to weigh in on something and I'll do my best.  I get the feeling that if I'm ever to get any suggestion off the ground, I may have to actually expend some time in advance and do some old-fashioned electioneering...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 18:16, 17 May 2006 (BST)
<!---But let's not go past here just yet, ok?--->
----

===Default Target Change===
Affects: Everyone

Description: As it stands, the default target (the first one in your drop down menu) is whoever is on your contacts list. This can lead to some problems, such as accidently attacking them if you hit attack too fast, or if your target moves away.  What I propose is that the system be changed to list members of your contact list last, with zombies and misc. survivors being at the top. Not quite sure how contacts work as a human (is it contacts/zombies/survivors? zombies/survivors/contacts in crowed?) been dead a little too long.  If someone could hook me up with the info, I'd appreciate it. I'd rather not have a repeat of the MoL change. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 20:58, 16 May 2006 (BST)
:I just clicked the second survivor in the room and put them on my contact list.  The first one is still my default target.  So it looks as though this is only a zombie issue. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:18, 17 May 2006 (BST)
::Thought so, now I just need to find out if zombies appear on top (to survivors) when there are survivors about. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 18:34, 17 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Rope, version 3: a use for knives===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=16:39, 17 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=New item|
suggest_scope=Survivors|
suggest_description=A rope would be found with <s>ten</s> ''twenty'' uses.  It would take up two inventory slots.  To use it, you would need to have a knife to cut it with.

Ropes would be found in warehouses, with a find rate of one in six ''(just under 17%)'' when the generator is on.  They would also be found in junkyards with a base rate 2%, and they would be found with a base rate of 1% in all locations where rope could reasonably be expected (forts, factories, fire stations, ''power stations'' and hardware stores).  They would displace junk items from the item list in all cases. 

Using a rope would give a <s>+40%</s> ''+20%'' bonus to your chances to barricade.  The number of uses remaining in the rope would be decremented only if you found a place to tie something down, i.e. only if you succeed in barricading.  Base success rates for barricading would be adjusted so that the total AP cost of barricading remains the same, i.e. for any barricade level, if the old probability of success was x, the new probability ''with rope'' would be 1/(1/x - <s>0.6</s> ''0.3'') unless this gives a number greater than one, in which case it's more efficient to barricade without rope, so the old probability remains unchanged.  ''The new probability without rope would be <s>40%</s> 20% less than the probability given by the formula.''|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here when it gets posted for real
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----
Ok, I ran some sample numbers and decided to tweak the numbers in the suggestion.  For example, I looked at a one-in-three chance of success.  (I think that's in the VH range, based on personal experience, but I haven't counted so it could be in the H range, or maybe EH+0) Previously, putting that into the formula would result in a 1/(3 - 0.6) = 42% new success rate with rope -- and a 2% success rate without.  Anything below a 33% current success rate would mean that rope would be mandatory.  That's too rough on survivors who don't search for rope.  So it needs to be a smaller percentage bonus, to allow a higher rate without rope without lowering the total AP cost of barricading.

To make the percentage bonus smaller, I need to make the AP per charge smaller too.  That means either more charges, or less AP to find the whole thing.

I still want the AP-battery effect to store 3AP per slot, to avoid giving too big a boost over FAKs, or even encroaching on the pistol.  (The pistol stores a bit over 4AP per slot, if I remember right from the calculations I did for the laser sight.)  I can't make it that common to find, because it would displace everything else from the item table of warehouses, so it needs to remain a two-slot item.  So it has to be more charges.

Now each charge represents 0.3 AP.  So for a barricade level where the real chance of success is one in three, the new formula would give 1/(3 - 0.3) = 37%, so the new probability without rope would be 17%, or just about cut in half.  That's a serious incentive to use rope, but it still leaves a real option of going without. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 04:13, 21 May 2006 (BST)
----
The purpose of this suggestion is to create a new tactical resource point for higher-level survivors, without affecting the balance of barricades and without affecting the game at all for new characters.  Survivors would need ropes in order to barricade efficiently at levels higher than about Heavily.  The actual probabilities of success are unknown; therefore so is the exact barricade level at which ropes become efficient.  Obviously, barricading below VS would be unaffected, since you always succeed already.  Survivors gain interesting tactical choices, but we would lose advantage because we would be forced to defend a new resource point and maintain a generator in it, because we would have to spend AP travelling between the new resource point and the safehouses and malls where we would be using the rope, and because occasionally we would be caught without rope and have to barricade less efficiently.  I suspect the loss of advantage would be small enough that survivors would continue to be the majority of standing characters, but barely.

Here's the derivation of the formula:
The find rate is one rope per six AP, which is the same as saying that the AP cost to find it is six AP per one rope.  One rope can be used ten times before it's used up, so the AP cost of one use is a tenth the cost of the whole rope, or 0.6.

(old AP cost) = 1/(old probability of success);

(new AP cost) = (AP cost of rope) + 1/(new probability of success).

Setting old equal to new, and substituting 0.6 in for the AP cost of the rope,

1/(old probability) = 0.6 + 1/(new probability).

subtracting 0.6 from both sides,

1/(old probability) - 0.6 = 1/(new probability).

Then taking the reciprocal of both sides gives the formula as stated.

There were three objections to the previous version: First was not liking bungee cords in the flavor text (so I ditched the bungees).  Second was wanting to have auto repairs for fuel remain a separate minor resource point rather than consolidating them into a major resource point (so I switched it to warehouses: the person wanted it to be some totally useless building type, but it doesn't make sense to have rope be from banks, offices, or mansions).  Third was that someone who didn't want an additional resource point at all, and there's nothing I can do about that.

I hope the simpler implementation will make it clearer that this would either nerf barricades or enhance them. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:45, 17 May 2006 (BST)

The problem with this is that you're effectively creating an AP battery (sort of) for barricades.  Effectively it takes less AP (at higher levels) to barricade if you've got these ropes.  I don't think it'll fly, because survivors already have tremendous AP battery advantages now.  Enhancing barricade effectiveness in any way really is going to hurt zombies in the long run.  I think the only way that the barricading methodology could potentially change would be if the build/destroy rates were changed simultaneously on both sides as an adjustment to increase or decrease volatility.... and the current system works pretty well as it is.  All that aside, I agree that adding new and interesting items to different (non-tactical resource points) is a good idea at some point. --[[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 18:41, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:Yes, it's a new kind of AP battery.  But not a net increase, since you only store 6AP in two slots, the same as currently stored for defensive purposes by collecting FAKs.  And you could be storing more AP in those slots with existing firearms. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:30, 17 May 2006 (BST)

<s>The vast majority of objections were CNRs who thought that this would either nerf barricades or enhance them.</s>  I hope the simpler implementation will make it <s>harder to misread.</s> ''clearer that this neither nerfs nor enhances barricades.'' --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:45, 17 May 2006 (BST)
*Uhh...call me out if I miss the point here, but wouldn't this make life tough for all survivors, new and high-level alike?!?  There are enough tasks that a survivor must do to merely, ya know, ''survive''--barricading, keeping the generators running, gathering ammo and FAKs, healing--without adding find "rope at 1/2%".  Our limited inventories already force us into the typical "What do I keep?" survivor malaise and this would mean I'd have to trim the fat even further to keep a couple slots open for rope and knife.  The 10 uses on the rope wouldn't go all that far, since there are so many levels in barricades (even just to get to VS-level), so I'd have to keep plenty o' rope on hand (The pithy comment that I'd use if this were up for vote:  ''I may as well just hang myself with thta rope'').  I'm all for making other building more valuable since the game (at this point) centers too much around Malls, NT Buildings, and possibly factories/power stations (with the occasional safehouse spotted by Feeding Groan), but I'm not sure adding another resource to the already long survivor laundry-list is the solution.  Final query:  I've seen you use it before, but haven't been able to draw out its meaning from context:  What does "CNR" stand for?--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 18:45, 17 May 2006 (BST)
::CNR stands for "caught not reading".  I decided that was too harsh, so I thought took it out.  Either the edit didn't go through, or someone reverted it.  As for your statement, ''there are so many levels in barricades (even just to get to VS-level), so I'd have to keep plenty o' rope on hand'' please note that the change applies only to barricade levels above Heavy or so: the formula comes out with the leave-as-is option for lower cade levels.  The connection to new characters is that those without free running aren't going to be barricading above VS. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:30, 17 May 2006 (BST)

* It ''does'' nerf barricades, though -- because now survivors will have to search for rope in order to keep their 'cading success rates at the levels they were previously. I don't know if it's a ''bad'' idea, but I wouldn't expect this to make it through the voting gauntlet. Folks aren't going to vote for something that complicates barricading and steals 3 more inventory slots (2 rope + 1 knife). --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 19:10, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:What I think it would do is encourage specialization: if your inventory is full of guns and you see a break-in, just barricade up to VS2 or H1, where the odds are good without rope, then shoot the zombies and let rope-collectors like me do the barricading. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:30, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:PS - Your statement ''"survivors will have to search for rope in order to keep their 'cading success rates at the levels they were previously"'' isn't quite right.  What would stay the same is the total AP cost of barricading -- including the AP spent on searching.  So the new success rate with rope comes out higher than the old success rate.  For example, if the old success rate is 50%, the new rate would be 1/(1/0.5 - 0.6) = 1/(2 - .6) = 71%. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 23:51, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Better/clearer than last time, but still not that good.  If the current % to barricade past VS is less than 40% per level, you are seriously nerfing barricades (a negative % chance to barricade without rope?).  People would be FORCED to search for rope (which isn't really a BAD thing) or there would NEVER be a barricade above VS.  A single zombie with nothing but Vigour Mortis and Death Grip can rip through a VS barricade and still have AP left over to attack.  Multiply that by a billion.  2% searching?  If I recall, syringes used to be at 5% and it took an average of 20 searches just to find one.  This would take, what 30 searches (where did you get the idea it would only take 6 AP to find a rope?)?  I think we need to find out what the % to barricade above VS is before we can have a good discussion (and the wiki page on barricading doesn't say).  And what do knives have to do with the suggestion?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 20:44, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:Quote: ''"a negative % chance to barricade without rope?"''  
:Sort of, yes.  For a high enough barricade level, EH1 if my guess about current cade percentages is right, it would become impossible to barricade without a rope.
:Quote: ''"People would be FORCED to search for rope (which isn't really a BAD thing)"''  
:That's exactly the idea.  I'm not nerfing barricades.  I'm forcing people to search for rope OR ELSE!, with the "else" being barricade problems, so you can bet we'll search.  In return, we get a weak AP-storage battery to use on barricades.
:Quote: ''"where did you get the idea it would only take 6 AP to find a rope?"'' 
:I wrote it into the suggestion. Second paragraph first sentence, "Ropes would be found in warehouses, with a find rate of one in six when the generator is on."  The 2% is for other locations, sort of like how you can occasionally find a shotgun shell in a junkyard.
:Quote: ''"And what do knives have to do with the suggestion?"'' 
:They're mostly there for flavor-text reasons, just because you need to cut rope to use it.  I think the effect would be to encourage specialization.  Since I'm not that much into shooting (seems a waste, spending 40+ AP to kill someone who's just going to stand up again for 6AP), I would grab a knife and become a barricade maniac -- knowing that other people would be deterred from doing the last few points of barricading because they don't want to spend the inventory slots on it.  It also diminishes the AP-battery density. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 23:37, 17 May 2006 (BST)
::Ah, I see.  Guess I was reading it thoroughly enough.  I still think we need to discover just ''what'' the barricade % are.  I think there SHOULD still be the chance to barricade to max, even without rope.  And what would the be the search % for ropes ''without'' the generator?  And, it seems to me, if the rope is THAT important to the barricade, it might even be "destroyable" relative to the barricade.  But that might be TOO much.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:39, 20 May 2006 (BST)
:::What do you mean by "destroyable relative to the barricade"?  And I don't think there ''is'' a max barricade level: I think the chances just keep getting lower, the farther into EH you go.  You can barricade to at least EH+4, but by the time you barricade that far (if you do it without zerging) you've spent so many AP that you would have to wait until the next day to continue.  So you wouldn't know whether someone had knocked it down a couple while still being in the EH range.  The exact effect of a generator on search odds is unknown.  People have tried in malls, enough to say fairly confidently that a generator puts it from 33% to 50%.  But we don't know whether it's always one-out-of-N with the generator changing N from three to two for malls and four to three elsewhere, or whether it makes you half again as likely to find things.  If it's a major resource building, it will normally be powered, so that's the rate that matters most. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 03:39, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::::I just meant that, given how important rope IS to barricading, it might be something to consider that it could/should be destroyable or removable if it is ''THE'' thing holding the barricade together.  As for the find rate, you listed it as roughly 17% to find in a warehouse with a running generator.  But what would it be without a generator?  2% (as listed for Junkyards)?  This suggestion is going to ''more than significantly'' alter the game, thus the search % would necessarily be MUCH higher than a mere 2%/1% or even the 17%.  I wouldn't be surprised (depending on circumstances, of course) to here, the moment this idea was implemented, that hordes attacked EVERY building in the game (foregoing hitting survivors) just to ensure that they are all stuck at VS maximum.  At least until people start finding ropes, but given the low search odds....--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:45, 24 May 2006 (BST)
17% isn't low search odds.  It means you can find about eight a day.  Eight ropes will keep you stocked quite a while:  For the latest revision, that's 160 uses, and you don't use it up on failures or low barricading.  About half the barricading is low enough that you wouldn't use rope, and at the higher barricading it seems like you succeed about one in four now.  Call it one in three with rope, for a crude estimate (i.e. two thirds of the time you don't use up a piece of rope because you fail).  So a day of rope searching gets you something like ten days' worth of rope if you're barricading all the time. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:32, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:No 17% isn't "low," but you didn't answer my question as to the search odds in OTHER circumstances.  I just mean that barricading is a ''VERY SIGNIFICANT'' part of the game and, thus rope is going to become the most significant item of the game (on par or maybe just below syringes), thus I'd expect the ONLY means to barricade past VS to be significantly easier to find.  And the "8 a day" is if you use ALL your AP looking for one, right?  If your going to do "uses" for each rope, I'd suggest variable amounts.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:07, 27 May 2006 (BST)
::It wouldn't be the only way to barricade past VS.  It would be the only way to barricade past some higher level -- my guess is EH1.  It would be inefficient to forego using rope anywhere past VS, but it would be an option.  Yes, eight per day is with all of that day's AP going to searching.  The exact effect of generators on search odds is unknown, so I can only specify the odds with generator or without, not both.  I think it would be a little over 10% without. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:46, 28 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Fading Bruises===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=04:37, 22 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Attempt to balance blunt weapons with the axe|
suggest_scope=Everyone|
suggest_description=Damage on blunt weapons would be increased.  Two new skills would be introduced to offset the increase, one for survivors and one for zombies: 

'''Fading bruises:''' Some of your injuries will now partially heal, even without the application of first aid.<br>
'''Necrotic Reviviscence:''' When your tissues undergo necrosis, some of the dead cells can now return to the undead state without the need for your entire body to die.

The crowbar would have its damage increased by 2, so it would remain useless at .8 dmg/AP.  The pipe and the baseball bat would have their damage increased by 3, making them do 1.25 dmg/AP, slightly better than the axe before the new skill is taken into account.  Flak jackets would still not reduce blunt damage, despite the fact that pipes and bats would hit for 5.

On any hit with a blunt weapon, 2 damage would be flagged as bruise damage.  For zombies with Necrotic Reviviscence skill, bruise damage would spontaneously heal at a rate of two HP for every action other than talking, until you either get killed or run out of bruise damage to heal.  For survivors with Fading Bruises skill, the rate would be one HP per non-talk action.  Zombies get a higher rate to balance the fact that delayed healing is less useful to zombies than to survivors.

FAKs would heal one point of bruise damage out of every five HP healed, as long as you had both bruise and normal damage to heal.  If you have only bruise damage, of course, all the damage healed would be bruise damage.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes will go here '''if''' I decide to suggest it for real.
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----
New description.  Unless I've made a mistake, this version has exactly the same content as the old one below.  I hope it's clearer; is it? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 04:37, 22 May 2006 (BST)


 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=03:18, 18 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Attempt to balance blunt weapons with the axe|
suggest_scope=Everyone|
suggest_description=Damage on blunt weapons would be increased.  Two new skills would be introduced to offset the increase, one for survivors and one for zombies. 

The crowbar would have its damage increased by 2, so it would remain useless at .8 dmg/AP.  The pipe and the baseball bat would have their damage increased by 3, making them do 1.25 dmg/AP, slightly better than the axe before the new skill is taken into account.  Flak jackets would still not reduce blunt damage, despite the fact that pipes and bats would hit for 5.

For survivors:<br>
'''Fading bruises'''<br>
Prerequisite: Body Building<br>
Text description on the Buy Skills page: Some of your injuries will now partially heal, even without the application of first aid.<br>
Details: Whenever a character with the skill gets hit with a blunt weapon they get a reverse-Infectious-Bite effect put on them, but it lasts only long enough to undo part of the damage, 2 HP for each time you took blunt damage.  

I think of it as giving the character an auto-FAK with charges, hidden in a separate inventory where you don't see it.  If charged, it uses up a charge to heal 1 HP whenever you spend an action point (except for talking).  The charges start at zero when you buy the skill, of course.  When you get hit with a blunt weapon, two charges are added to the auto-FAK.  ''For every five HP healed by FAK, some bruising is healed, so the <s>counter</s> ''number of charges'' is reduced by one.''  When you die or get to full HP, the charges are reset to zero.

For zombies:<br>
'''Necrotic Reviviscence'''<br>
Prerequisite: None<br>
Text description on Buy Skills page: When your tissues undergo necrosis, the dead cells can now return to the undead state without the need for your entire body to die.<br>
Details: Similar to the survivor skill, but because tissue can die more quickly than it can heal, 2 HP are regained per action point spent.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes will go here '''if''' I decide to suggest it for real.
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}

The real reason for the zombie version to be more powerful is that delayed healing is less valuable to zombies.  What do they care?  They're just going to stand up for 6 AP if they die.  So, what's anyone think? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 04:23, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:I'm just going to say that quite simply this won't pass at all. It won't be any use to Zombies because they would need to be in a realtime combat situation so they get any benifits from it, also most people just use guns. There are other reasons this won't pass as it is, but I can't be motivated at this point in time to explain it all. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 11:25, 18 May 2006 (BST)
::Zombies wouldn't benefit much, because people use guns.  But so what?  As long as survivors use guns, the increase in blunt damage wouldn't harm zombies either.  Why should a blunt-weapons tweak have any effect either way on people who get shot? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:23, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Two players. One hits the other one with a blunt object again and again, then heals the other one with a bunch of FAKs. The other player now gets tons of regenerative HP any time they're attacked by zombies. gg balance. [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 18:13, 18 May 2006 (BST) EDIT: Yeah I realize if you're at full HP it gets reset. So heal to 55 hp. 
:Cool, you found a flaw.  For every five HP healed by FAK, the counter is reduced by one.  The scheme is still theoretically possible, but so inefficient as to be pointless. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:40, 18 May 2006 (BST)

This one starts to sound as if it has some sort of merit, but is awful complex.  What happens if someone dies and gets revived or stands up?  Is the counter set to zero when they hit the ground?  I'd have to assume you'd have to add that. --[[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 20:57, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:Already there, very last sentence of the survivor version: "When you die or get to full HP, the charges are reset to zero."   Hmm, I think I'll make it consistently say "charges" rather than switching back and forth with "counter". --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 01:19, 19 May 2006 (BST)

Waaaaaaaaaaaay to complex.  In a vote for some other suggestion, someone said to make the suggestion as if the reader was 12 years old.  Let me see if I can figure this out.  Bob hits Joe with a blunt weapon.  Joe thus gains 2 "healing charges."  Joe then performs an action (except talking) and heals 1 HP, leaving 1 "healing charge."  He is then healed with for 5 HP with a FAK using the other "healing charge."  If Bob hit Joe 10 times with a blunt weapon, Joe will have 20 "healing charges."  When Joe performs 20 actions (besides talking), is healed by a FAK (5 HP equals 1 "action"), dies or gains full HP, he will use all those charges.  Bob then hits a zombie twice with a blunt weapon and the zombie gets 4 "necrotic charges."  The zombie then performs 4 actions (besides "talking") and heals 8 HP.   Well, the primary problem is that it promotes PKing.  While PKing may be acceptable as part of the game it does NOT need to be encouraged.  Seems balanced if you add in the increased damage for blunt weapons, but what about newbies?  This skill requires 200 XP to buy.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:01, 20 May 2006 (BST)
:I don't think it encourages PKing.  It brings the pipe and bat into balance with the axe (if I got it right), which leaves them a lot less powerful than the firearms that PKers normally use.  It doesn't heal twice the bruise damage on zombies.  It still heals the bruise damage; it just does it twice as fast. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 04:28, 21 May 2006 (BST)

*You're on the cusp of a good idea here, but I think you're working it the wrong way.  You're tiptoeing around the current damage system, trying to shoehorn some new ideas into a system that isn't wired to handle it.  Here's the way I'd handle it:  make blunt-weapon damage a seperate damage-type with its own seperate HP-stat.  It would top out at a higher number than normal-damage-HP max (somewhere around 80 feels good, but I don't have any math to support that), to represent the fact that you can probably take more blows than bullets or cuts.  Not sure if blunt-force damage would ever kill a player, but it should have some interesting detrimental effects along the way to zero (extra AP to move, decreased accuracy, I dunno).  FAKs would heal blunt-force damage, along with any normal-damage incurred, but at a lower rate (since bruises heal better with time).  Every player would have some capacity to autoheal blunt-force damage because of that (and also not to punish players caught without an extra 100 XP to spend when the implement happens), though the above skills could be bought to accelaerate the process.  I'd like to say zombies have no different reaction to blunt-force damage, since they are essentially walking slabs of meat and bone, making no differentiation between a bullet and a bat.  But if I went that way, survivors would bitch that they get screwed over while zombies get a free pass.  Just not sure how blunt-force would affect them.  Just an idea, anyway.  If someone else doesn't write it first, I'll try for it, time and ambition permitting...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 15:07, 22 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Stash===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=16:53, 18 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Skill|
suggest_scope=Survivors indoors|
suggest_description=Well, there have been a few storage-box suggestions recently, so there's interest.  I guess I'll take a stab at it.  At least we'll get to see an implementation that isn't a backdoor trading scheme, and isn't so overpowered as to require an arbitrary limit on the total number in town.

Stash would be a skill, with no prerequisites.  When you're indoors, you would get two buttons.  The stash button would have a drop-down list of the different items in your inventory.  When you choose an item and click the button, you would get a message saying "You stash xxx under some worthless-looking debris".  Each stash would be two inventory slots, but to simplify the interface you only choose one item type.  So you can stash two FAKs together, or two pistol clips together, but not a FAK and a clip.  If you choose to stash an item you only have one of, you only get to put one item in that stash.  You can't stash in a ransacked building.

You would have a limit of five stashes in any one building, and twenty-five total.  More than that, and your character's poor brain couldn't keep track of them all.

When you're in a building where you have at least one stash, the retrieve button would list the stashed items, in order from oldest to newest.  When you select a stash and click retrieve, you either retrieve your stashed items into inventory, or get a message "The debris has been disturbed.  You cannot find where you hid your xxx".  If a building gets ransacked, all stashes there are destroyed.  Otherwise, each day the stash has a 5% chance of being lost.  But you don't know the stash has been lost until you try to retrieve it (or see that the building is ransacked), so it still counts toward your limit.

When you're not in a building where you have any stashes, the drop-down list on the retrieve button would display the list of coordinates for the buildings where you have stashes.  You (the player) don't have to remember any of it: your character is doing the remembering.

No one ever finds anyone else's stash specifically.  They just rearrange the debris in the course of their ordinary searching.

Some implementation details: Stashes would be hidden inventory slots on your character.  Each would get a time-stamp and a location when filled.  When you retrieve, the timestamp is checked against the current time, and the odds of success are .95<sup>x</sup>, where x is the time difference in days.  The building also gets a timestamp updated whenever it's ransacked, and the retrieve fails if the ransack timestamp is more recent than the stash timestamp.  If a retrieve fails because of the ransack timestamp, or if you get the ransacked message in a building description, all of your stashes in that building are checked for timestamp against the ransack, and removed from your stash inventory list if they're older than the ransack date: when you learn that the building has been ransacked, you don't have to spend AP clearing each stash.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here '''if''' I submit this for real
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}

I'm not committed to this thing.  What do you think? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:53, 18 May 2006 (BST)
10 FAKs hidden in yoursafe house is overpowered if the limit was 1 stash id vote keep. other than that id vote keep. one alteration id like is if successful searches in a building would have a chance of removing your stash too, e.g hiding medkits in a hospital, everytime a medkit is found theres a 10% chance your stash is removed, however people may shout server load.--[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 19:23, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:We could make the chance to lose a stash be dependent on number of searches instead of time.  I think the server load wouldn't be too bad, just keep a search counter for each building and stamp the stash with the searchcount number instead of a time stamp.  But having it be 10% for each search would just eliminate stashes entirely in buildings with items.  You would basically never find anything you had stashed.  Even a 1% chance would put your stuff in grave danger: two people spending their day's AP on searches would wipe out most of the stashes in the building; fewer than two people in a building and it probably gets ransacked.
:As for ten stored FAKs being overpowering, note that you have to spend five actions putting those FAKs in the stashes, and another five getting them out.  Each FAK only represents two or three stored AP, since the find rate is so high at the mall. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:39, 18 May 2006 (BST)

First of all, who would be dumb enough to stash stuff in a common resource building?  Limit it to a maximum of ''2'' stashes per building and a maximum of 4 stashes (2 buildings).  Allow any 2 items to be stashed (so long as they aren't more than 2 slots).  I don't much like the degrading stash chance, but I could see, with each search, there is a cumulative 2% chance of losing a stash as stuff is rearranged.  And, of course Ransack destroys all stashes.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:29, 20 May 2006 (BST)
:*Gotta agree with Pesa on the 25 stashes being waaaay too high.  Granted, having all 25 stashes would mean you'd have to keep 5 buildings from being ransacked to get full value, but the type of players more likely to use Stash--ones who stay close and defend a specific suburb--probably wouldn't have too much problems with that.  Just pepper the suburb with stashes in non-resource building nearby any hotspots and make it part of your rounds.  Yes, I know you still have to spend the AP to "stash" the items, but that's just the balance price you pay for having extra (invisble and somewhat reliable) inventory slots, so there still should be limits.  Altogether, I like the idea and I'm pretty sure I'd vote Keep on it, though I'm not sure others might be so warm to it, but at least they can't vote it down on zerg-abuse reasons...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 15:38, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::Well, what are the people trying to accomplish who keep submitting storage box suggestions?  The limitations should be tailored to the purpose.  Given the low AP value of items, I think spending 2AP (one to stash, another to retrieve) would be drawback enough even if your stashes had as much capacity as your inventory.  Retrieving your stash is barely better than just searching in the mall.  What about making it four items per stash, to cut down the per-item AP cost, and limiting the number to four stashes with only one per building? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:57, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:::Barely better?  It depends on what you are looking for.  Depending on where you stash (mansion, for example), you have an AUTOMATIC chance to find 2 pistol clips.  A mall search gives you only 11% chance.  So, it would take roughly 10 AP to find a pistol clip in the mall compared to the 1 AP to dig up the 2 clips from your stash.  The point of the "stash" suggestions is to cut the AP-sponge of searching and, usually, to promote trading (though thats why they usually die).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:57, 23 May 2006 (BST)
::::Cutting the AP cost of searching is a non-starter.  If I submit a stash suggestion, it will cost AP to use, and you will still have to get the items by searching before you can stash them. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 21:23, 23 May 2006 (BST)
:::::Okay, now I'm lost.  As I understand the suggestion, you have an item in your inventory, say a clip, that you wish to hide and retreive later.  You stash the clip, but there is a chance it will not stay hidden (Ransack or other searches in the room disturb the hidden spot).  The "normal" search parts to obtain the clip in the first place would be unchanged.  It would still cost you an average of 10 AP to find it in a mall at an 11% search rate.  But then you stash the item.  Come back a day or 3 later and, now it only costs '''1 AP''' to automatically obtain a clip instead of an '''average of 10 AP''' to get one via searching.  Depending on where you are and what you stash, your saving a ''significant'' amount of AP from the searching AP-spounge (which is why I suggested making fewer stashes).  Your also talking MALL search chances, primarily, as well.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:02, 24 May 2006 (BST)
::::::Retrieving isn't a search, just like it's not a search to go through your inventory to get a clip to put in your pistol.  Either way, we're talking about items you already have, whether it's in your pocket or your stash.  Stashes are extra inventory space, storing items that already exist; searches effectively create items. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:47, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Okay, whatever.  I don't know WHY we can't seem to figure out what the other is talking about on it and I don't think it matters.  My modification ideas to the suggestion are this:
*A maximum of ''3'' stashes in up to 3 buildings (1 in each building or 3 in one building) with a maximum of ''2'' item slots per stash (of any type of item, since guns take 2 slots, you could hide ONE gun).  It would cost 1 AP to stash an item and 1 AP to retrieve an item.
*Ransacking automatically destroys all stashes.  Each search made in the building with a stash has a 2% cumulative chance of "destroying" the stash.
*Other things.  In a mall, would you be able to pick which store to hide your stash (assuming you have the mall skills)?  Have it cost an extra AP to find a "suitable" stash site?
*So, what do you think?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:23, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::Two slots per stash, i.e. only one gun, was what I had suggested.  The limitation to two of the same kind of one-slot item is for user-interface reasons: I would prefer to have a button just like existing ones, rather than having something more complicated.  The 2% per search is basically a complete prohibition on stashing in resource buildings, except that picking your store would make malls an exception, which seems odd. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:42, 26 May 2006 (BST)
:::This discussion got quite long, so I was trying to reiterate what the basic idea was (as I saw it).  Sounds like we are on the same basic page.  I don't think having to only stash two of the same items is really that significant a problem.  Stashing in a resource building would be kinda stupid regardless (in my opinion).  And the mall thing IS wierd, isn't it?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:15, 27 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Abandoned Cars===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=19:22, 19 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Movement AP battery|
suggest_scope=Survivors|
suggest_description=Kevan's statement about suggestions specifically mentions three things that would be cool: helicopters, infectious bites, and abandoned cars.  The other two are in the game already (even if only on holidays in the case of helicopters).  So how about an implementation of abandoned cars?

First, of course, you need car repair skill.  You would find a restorable car by looking in a carpark, with 10% search probability.  This would be indicated by getting a car key in your inventory.  (Apparently some of the citizens who abandoned their cars in Malton left keys on the visor.)  The key is represented in inventory as a keyring that has a drop-down menu with an identifier for the car, consisting of the location with an additional number appended to distinguish between different cars found at the same place.  If you have found more than one car key, you have more numbers on the menu.

Once you've located a fixable car, you need to fix it with car parts from a junkyard and tools from an auto repair.  The tools are an infinite-use item, found at a rate of 2% -- about one day's searching on average.  The parts have to be suitable for the car, so you take your car key to a junkyard and search there.  You find car parts at 10%.  It has a dropdown menu showing which of the cars you can repair with it: it always works for the car you had selected on your keyring, and for each of the others it has a 20% chance of being usable on them too.  If so, they show up on its menu.  

Then you go back to the carpark and fix the car.  This costs 2AP and has a 20% chance of success.  Congratulations, you've got a car.  Now all you need to do is get in, drive somewhere, and pick up passengers.

Getting into the car costs 1AP.  In a car, in addition to being able to go to an adjacent block by clicking on it, you can click around the border of your nine-block view, to go two blocks for one AP.  A car can go into buildings with big garage-type doors: warehouses, factories, fire stations, and power stations -- but only if the building is completely unbarricaded.  However, even with the building barricaded you can leave by the same magic exit as we now use.

Outside a building, your car is vulnerable to attack.  It's the equivalent of a lightly barricaded door.  People (survivors and zombies both) can see that a car is occupied, and anywhere but a car park they'll notice the new car even if it's unoccupied.  Inside a building, other people can still see who is in the driver's seat, and survivors can get in if they're willing to trust you to drive them around.  A car holds four passengers, plus the driver.

You spent 10AP finding the car, 10AP finding the parts, and 10AP fixing.  The basic payoff is two-to-one: it can provide 60 blocks of movement before it runs out of gas.  It can be refuelled with a fuel can.  Odds are, it will be destroyed by attackers before that.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here '''if''' this ever gets submitted for real
<!--VOTE **ABOVE THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
Seems to be balanced, but a bit complicated.  You might need to "dumb it down."  The fuel amount is WAY to high.  Have a found car start with a random amount from 0 to 10 blocks of fuel and a fuel can will give 4 blocks of driving.  Also, bear in mind there are probably not a lot of "drivable" streets.  I'd say have a % chance, say 20% that either the car get stuck and has to be abandoned or "you can see no clear path to drive" in each square.  Also, why would every car you find need such massive repairs?  Odds are there would be a significant number of cars simply abandoned but in perfect condition.

Personally, I don't think an idea (ACTUALLY driving) is EVER going to work, even when balanced with your ideas.  Instead, you might do it where there is a chance of finding an item in the car or as a "mini-barricade" for people who can't get into an actual barricaded building....hmmm this gives me an idea.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:11, 20 May 2006 (BST)
:I like the idea of not all streets being drivable.  If you can ransack buildings, you ought to be able to do something similar to streets.  Survivors ought to be able to clear it.  But 4 blocks of driving from a fuel can is pointless unless fuel cans cost less than 4AP to find.  You put a lot of actions into finding (and repairing) a car, so once you have one it ought to be advantageous to use, rather than being a ''less'' efficient way of moving.  Leaving out the repairs is reasonable, from a flavor-text perspective, but then you need some other cost of getting the car. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:16, 20 May 2006 (BST)

----

===Prestige Skills===
{{suggestion|
suggest_time=17:48, 19 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=New skill trees|
suggest_scope=Everyone|
suggest_description=To fix the problem of homogenous high level characters, I came up with this solution:
Have 5 "Prestige" skill trees for each class (Scientist, Civilian, Military, Zombie). Each skill in these trees would cost 500 xp depending on your starting class (so civilians would pay 500xp for each, Military and Scientists would pay 375 xp for their own skill trees and 660 for skills from eachothers trees). 

In addition to having each skill be worth xp, they would also cost one "point". Every two levels, a character gets one "point" which he can spend on a Prestige Skill if he also has 500 xp to spend as well. Points are only earned from levels gained from purchasing skills from your own side (if you started as a human, only your human levels count, same with zombies).
In order to balance the point system for zombies (since humans would have 2 more points, 20/2=10, 16/2=8) zombies would start out with 2 prestige points, but would still need to collect the 500 xp needed to invest a point. 

Prestige Skills would be interchangable, that is, you can take points out of skills and reinvest them in others. To take a point out (and thus, remove the skill) you must pay 250 xp (for each point removed). 

For each point invested in each class, there might be some kind of penalty(?) such as "1 point in Civilian= -10% chance to hit with all weapons, 2 points= -15% chance to hit" or something. This would keep the game balanced.

Along with keeping characters less homogenous, this could also help Kevan implement improvements to the base skill trees, so that high-level characters would just be able to buy every new skill before lower levels could take advantage of it. |
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
#'''Spam''' - Not even remotely fleshed out.  What ARE the prestige skills, then?  Take half-completed suggestions to the discussion page first. --[[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 17:56, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam''' I agree with Dan --[[User:HerrStefantheGreat|HerrStefantheGreat]] 18:30, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam''' - Agreed. And this sounds pretty complex as it is. --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 18:32, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam''' "Might be some kind of Penalty?" If even you don't know what you're suggesting, please don't post it here! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 18:33, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - There's already suggestions like this out there, with a lot more detail. I'm just to lazy to find the "dupe" --[[User:Rozozag|Rozozag]] 18:41, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam'''  I don't like new skills that need more than two sentences to explain the basic idea. And it's not even finished. -[[User:Craw|Craw]] 18:46, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam'''  please resuggest when this idea is finished. i dont think this suggestion shud even go to peer revied, its should be moved to the talk page instead --[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 19:11, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Keep''' - You all know I think we should be able to vote on suggestions that aren't completely specific.  If we could agree that it's a good idea to have an additional type resource building, for example, that would be worth finding out by vote. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:38, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' We already have two or three versions of this idea that ''are'' more specific, so why should we keep one thats half finished? --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 20:10, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam''' I got an idea. How about "no"? [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 20:39, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''spam''' UHHHHHHHH.... Are you new? tell people ''what'' the presteige skills might be and you'll do better with this. [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 22:14, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' A bad idea; don't need Yoda characters, too many griefing problems, some issues with multi-character pick ups... --[[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]]
#'''Kill''' - This isn't a suggestion. There's no description of the skills so we cant vote on it.-- [[User:Krazy Monkey|Krazy Monkey]] 22:37, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam''' - Spam, but still much better than most of Mattiator's stuff. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|talk!]])</font></sup> 22:54, 19 May 2006 (BST)
#*<s>'''re''' kiss my ass, Wyn! You know you want to... [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 04:59, 21 May 2006 (BST)</s> ''Non-author Re. Mattiator, you're coming close to a vandalism report with that comment... --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:05, 21 May 2006 (BST)''
#'''Spam''' - Where are the skills? Do we spend 500XP on NOTHING?! --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 23:24, 19 May 2006 (BST)
}}

===Fair Trade V2===

I like trade suggestions, I really do. But they're unbalanced a lot of times due to zerg concerns. What I've done is categorized weapons. Only weapons in each "level" can be traded for each other. For example, I can trade a DNA Extractor for a Mobile Phone but I can't trade a DNA Extractor for a fully loaded shotgun. Also, I have devised a way to make sure trading guns with certain amounts of ammo in them is not unfair.

A player (let's call him X) with the skill 'Negotiation' (100XP for all classes) may propose a trade with ANY player Y using a drop-down list for 2 ap. Why? Because zerg concerns have been already addressed. The player being "proposed to" (:/) can accept or deny. X and Y's inventory is now surrounded by a colored box, indicating that inventory items can now not be used until the trade is completed, and all clicking of items in inventory will go toward a trade. In addition, the "attack" dropdown, search, barricade, and enter/leave options would be grayed out, and there would be a box that says "Stop Trading". While trading, speaking does not take any AP, but speaking can only be directed at the person you're trading with, nobody else hears your speech. 

As for the actual mechanics, once Y accepts the trade. X picks an item Z out of a drop-down that he possesses, then clicks "Offer". This way, you will not be able to see the other person's inventory, and if you want one of their items you must tell them using speech. Y is told that "X has offered Z for trade." Y can click an item in the appropriate category that he has in exchange, he can decline the offer and pick his own item out of any of the ones he has to start the process again and offer it to X, or he can stop 
trading by clicking the button.

Here is an example:

Player ILiekCake has Negotiation

ILiekCake offers trade to WTFCentaurz by clicking WTFCentaurz in a dropdown field. (2AP)

WTFCentaurz declines by clicking the Deny button.

ILiekCake offers trade to OMGBox. (2AP)

OMGBox accepts. (2AP)

ILiekCake says "hey, i heard you got a phone, i need one" (0AP)

ILiekCake clicks his GPS unit and clicks Offer. (0AP)

OMGBox says "wtf u fag i dont want a gps unit" (0AP)

OMGBox clicks Stop Trading. (0AP)

OMGBox says "you're a n00b" (1AP)

ILiekCake offers trade to Sean Connery (2ap)

Sean Connery accepts.

ILiekCake offers his GPS unit. (0ap)

Sean Connery clicks the drop-down next to Decline, clicks his mobile phone, and clicks Offer (0AP)

Sean Connery says: "Talk to me, punch the keys for god's sake." (0AP)

ILiekCake says: "ok do you want a DNA extractor" (0AP)

Sean Connery says: "Yes, yes!" (0AP)

ILiekCake clicks the dropdown next to Accept and clicks his DNA extractor, then clicks Offer.

Both players exchange items.

Sean Connery says: "You're the man now Dog!"


'''Level 1, Items that have no or extremely little use:'''


Crucifix, Book, Poetry Book, Wirecutters, Newspapers


'''Level 2, Items that have small use:'''


Beer, Wine, Baseball bat, Length of Pipe, Kitchen Knife, Flare Gun


'''Level 3, Items that have medium use but having multiple doesn't confer benefits:'''


DNA Extractor, Mobile Phone, Empty Shotguns/Pistols, GPS unit,


'''Level 4, Items that are somewhat useful:'''


Flak Jacket, Crowbar, Fuel Can, Portable Generator, Fire Axe, First Aid Kit, NecroTech Syringe, (FA is on here because I see it as a useful weapon, but not quite able to beat the Pistol/Shotgun, and it's about equal to the other stuff on here effectiveness-wise.)


'''Level 5, Items that are useful and weapons.'''


NOTE: When trading a Pistol for a Shotgun, player cannot trade back for more ammo (trade in pistol with 1 ammo for shotgun, then trade shotgun for pistol with 3 ammo) for one server cycle. (Therefore it could be done, but would only at best give you two more bullets, and you wait longer for one server cycle than to just pop to a PD and search a bit)


Pistols with 1-3 ammo in them can be traded for Shotguns with one shell loaded and vice versa. (In reverse case, player gets choice.) Pistols with 4-6 ammo in them can be traded for Shotguns with two shell loaded and vice versa. (In reverse case, player gets choice.)


'''Level 6: Ammunition'''


Pistol clips, shotgun shells. (Yes, they're interchangeable. The rate of finding, balanced out with the amount of ap/shot, etc, makes them about equal).


Comments? [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 01:09, 20 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Keep'''- good sugestion. if you put this up id vote for it. --[[Nkoi|Nkoi]] 20 May 2006, (PST)

----

===Abandoned Cars (a new idea)===

Survivors can search for abandoned (and in good condition) cars with unlocked doors.  Carpark 10% chance, Auto Repair 6%, Street 4%, Wasteland 2%.  If a car is found, two buttons appear [Search Car] and [Climb Inside] and it, of course, costs 1 AP to do either.  Only one car can be found in any one square.  The car CANNOT be moved/driven.

[Search Car] gives the character a 5% chance of finding a single item (of any type, randomly chosen).  A successful search makes the button disappear.  If a search fails, the character can try 2 more times, the button disappearing upon a successful search or after the 3rd search (whichever first).

[Climb In Car] allows the character to climb inside.  Only 1 person can be in a car at a time (even though there may be room for more, the first person isn't going to take the risk of someone else not locking the door).  While inside, the character cannot "interact" with anyone outside the car (attack, DNA scan, etc.) except by talking.  They survivor CAN use FAK (on himself), reload weapons and use mobile phones inside the car.  When inside, there will be a button [Leave Car].

Others entering the area will see, in the area description, "There is a car here.  You can see someone inside."  The person's (in the car) name/profile link and HP would not be visible.  For 1 AP, the person can [Look in Car].  If they do, then they will see the survivor inside and get that information.

The car acts as a mini-barricade of 1-3 levels for the person inside (represents different models of cars), with a +1 for the look (if the person chooses to look).  Zombies using blunt weapons get the crowbar bonus when attacking the car barricade.

If the car is "destroyed" (as a normal barricade) or the person inside leave the square, the car ceases to appear and another car must be searched for in the area.

Possible changes:

Alter the search %.  Maybe Carpark 6% chance, Auto Repair 4%, Street/Wasteland 2%.

People probably won't like the "hiding" aspect, so instead of having to look inside the car, it could be:
"There is a car here.  You see Survivor X inside."

The barricade level could just be a base 2.

Room for 2 people (front and back), but only the person to actually find the car can search it.  Survivors can act normally with each other, except for the use of shotguns, axes and blunt weapons.

More than 1 car can be found in any one area (given the search odds).

Having Wirecutters adds +2% to search (using the wirecutters to help "open" a car).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:17, 20 May 2006 (BST)

:Why would anyone bother with cars?  Compared to buildings, they're less efficient to search in and less safe to sleep in. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:05, 20 May 2006 (BST)
::Emergency shelter.  EVERYONE has had a time or two where they could not find a building at VS or less and had to sleep outside.  It would help newbies (it isn't a skill it's a "starting" ability).  The low search % is a trade off for being able to find ANY item.  It was also my intent, I might add, to make the "empty" squares somewhat useful.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 22:14, 20 May 2006 (BST)
:::For emergency shelter, you'll need a higher find rate than 10%.  At 10%, you expect it to take about ten attempts to find one, so you're always better off looking for an enterable building, or just travelling to a different suburb, than looking for a car where you're very unlikely to actually survive the night anyway.  Or have the search happen automatically when you move: sometimes the block description says you notice that a car is unlocked. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:40, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:::: I went a low search % (to find a car) because I was thinking about possible abuse.  Discussion on another board made note of it.  What about say 50% (with a +10% for Carparks)?  Do block descriptions, occasionally, actually say "you notice that car is unlocked?"  I can't say I'm not surprised other people aren't being more helpful with this (thanks by the way).  Kind of a catch-22.  People think it is a good idea to "flesh-out" or correct suggestions on the discussion pages, but wait until it is actually suggestioned to do the work.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:58, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::::: Actual block descriptions never mention cars.  That was only supposed to be part of one of the options I was talking about for the suggestion.  A 50-60% find rate seems about right, given the low value of finding one.  I think I would rather see cars be more valuable, rather than more common.  Maybe zombies would have to actually look to find the survivor: whenever someone finds an enterable car, the block could say "one of the abandoned cars here appears to have been tampered with".  Then you can look inside it, to find out if it's actually occupied, or you can just smash it.  If you look and it's unoccupied, you can get in.  That way other players could help out lost people (probably newbies) by finding cars.  I still don't think the voters would go for it, of course, but then again they don't go for much of anything.  --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 04:58, 22 May 2006 (BST)
* Yeah, I get kinda annoyed by the way a lot of voters are weak-kneed about anything more radical than a cosmetic change.  They bitch about having to vote on half-baked ideas (no-one forcing them), but are never around on to give feedback when it is in discussion (it seems they come around to discussion just to talk about how ineffective they think Spam votes are, though).  Throw in a couple "me too" voters into the mix and you get a consolidated bloc of inflexible voters.  But that's really for another rant.  An emergency barricade is a nice idea.  It wouldn't coddle newbs since it has limited-use.  Search rates should be high or they should be fixtures in certain areas to keep it AP-useful to the stranded survivors (chances are, if I'm stuck without VS Building to duck into, I probably don't have that much AP left to fritter away).  Zombies should have a chance to find survivors in cars, perhaps scaling from tough with just one car on a block to higher percentages per survivor-laden car on the block.  So a block with one car would offer up, say, a 15% chance, with 5% added per extra car on that block.  Carparks might not scale up at the same rate, since it would become more of a shell game for the zombie.  Dunno whether the zombie search thing would be button-implemented (something like "Scour for survivors") or passive search upon entering the square.  The former would offer the zombies unlimited searches at 1 AP a piece, while the latter would mean they get the search for free (just like normal perception) but only once per entrance into the block.  I personally favor the latter,  since it is more in tone with zombie behavior (zombies don't really search) and it seems more sane/controllable.  Zombies with the full Scent suite should probably get a slight bonus in their search.  Good luck on this one...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 16:26, 22 May 2006 (BST)

To [[User:Dan|Dan]], yeah the 50-60% search would be much better.  But I'm not sure what you mean by "more valuable" then "more common."  I was quite concerned with the idea of people claiming this to be a "hiding" skill.  Since cars don't show up in the text description, someone finding a car would CAUSE it to show up, thus the zombie(s) would KNOW there is someone in the car (or, if the finder hasn't actually climbed inside, they would be present in the square along with the car).  The zombie just wouldn't know WHO was in the car unless they looked inside.  The basic idea being that a person desperate enough to search the car would gain the benefit of finding one to use.  Everyone else would just ignore searching, unless they were specifically looking.  As for the voters, yeah, this might not actually fly, but it depends on if I can get the description tighter (ie. simplier to understand).  And just because something doesn't make it into Peer Reviewed doesn't necessarily mean it won't catch Kevan's attention.  What about the stuff I listed in the "possible changes?"--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 23 May 2006 (BST)
:Quote: ''But I'm not sure what you mean by "more valuable" then "more common."''  To make them worth looking for, there are two options: make them more valuable (so it's worth looking even though it takes a while to find one), or else make them more common (so that it's worth looking even though finding one isn't much better than just saving your AP to stand up and go find a revive point).  I think the first option is better than the second. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 21:12, 23 May 2006 (BST)
::Ah, thanks for the clarification.  So how would you suggest making them more valuable?  Higher "barricade" rating?  Better search chances?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:::One way is by letting the car stay there once it's been found.  That way a community-minded survivor can search, and then a lost survivor can use it as a last resort instead of having to start searching when it's probably too late.  That makes a car a safer place to stay because it's a gamble to look inside, instead of a guaranteed free meal. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:13, 24 May 2006 (BST)

===Wounding===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=16:37, 20 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Skill, Suriviors|
suggest_scope=Humans, Military|
suggest_description=100 XP, Military Skill.

If a Human attacks another Human with a Knife, he may wound that Human. The wound would act like an infection by a Zombie...if you do anything but speak, you lose 1 AP. It can be cured by a First Aid Kit. If you die, you do not lose HP until you get revived. Revives does not take away the Wounded flag.

Wounding also hurts Zombies as well. If a Human attacks a Zombie with a Knife, he may wound that Zombie. However, that wound is temproray. After 15 AP of moving, or if a Zombie get cured by a FAK, or a Zombie get revived, the wound "heals" itself, and the Wounded flag goes away.

Wounded and Infected stacks. A FAK may remove only one of the two flags randomly. Another FAK will be need to remove the other flag.

Any suggestions for improvement? Please tell me before I submit this to the wiki.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
'''Kill''' I've been thinking about this and I've come to a conclusion: I don't think PKers like me '''want''' help. Everyone in the city except ZKers are trying to kill us. We chose this style of play for the challenge and fun of being hunted by Bounty hunters. I may not speak for every PKer but I do speak for both of mine.--[[User:mpaturet|Admiral Ackbar]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 20:41, 20 May 2006 (BST)
:non-author '''Re''' - I see this as a melee enhancement, rather than particularly a PKer enhancement.  Odds are, the axe wound you inflict on a zombie won't do much, but it's still some extra damage.  And it adds a tactical question, especially if they're indoors: if they die of their wounds, they don't get headshot and they get to heal themselves by standing up, so you may even be making them harder to kick out of the building.  --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:52, 20 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill'''- nah its gonna mess with people... maybe change this suggestion for knife. --[[Nkoi|Nkoi]] 12:54, 20 May 2006 (PST)

Can characters with diagnosis tell whether a survivor is wounded? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:45, 20 May 2006 (BST)

First of all, PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need validation or encouragement.  Secondly, the fire axe is ALREADY the best melee weapon in the game.  What we need, instead, is to make bats, pipes and knives better in some way.  Crowbars to, possibly, but they already have the added benefit of being usable (by survivors) against barricades and THAT is what I mean by making bats, pipes and knives better.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 22:20, 20 May 2006 (BST)

What the hell? You want to give advantages to PKing AND the fire axe? [[User:Tokakeke|Ayaka Komatsu]] 02:55, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Hm...I am changing Wounding to only work for Knives. I do however expect it not to pass on the wiki, even if it is a good suggestion. PKing does not need encourgement. It is part of the game, but it does not need encourgment. Still, I thought it might be good, if only because PKers are more likely to buy the skills, and hence, could be marked out, making it easier for non-PKers to spot PKing. Doubt it will ever be expected on the wiki anytime soon, unless I'm ready for the Monsters of Spam to come and eat it.

EDIT: I'll possibly add in that if you have diagnosis, you see wounded characters with a mark...I would suggest a ^, or !, or something else.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]] 04:31, 21 May 2006 (BST)

<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Rip the Door Off Its Hinges===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=20:45, 20 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Zombie inherent ability, survivor skill|
suggest_scope=Buildings with doors|
suggest_description=When the barricades are gone and the doors are at "secured", any zombie could attack the doors with one-half their chance to hit against barricades.  If they succeed, the doors are torn off their hinges.  Until the doors are repaired, the building functions like a church or a junkyard.  Zombies with Memories of Life could still open doors.  However, once the doors are open they can't be attacked.

As long as the building is unbarricaded or at loosely, the survivors inside could repair the doors with a 15% success rate.  This would require repair skill, which would have construction as a prerequisite.  It would also require having a tool kit in inventory.  Tool kits would be found at 5% in hardware stores and auto repair shops, and at 1% in junkyards (displacing trash items).|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here '''if''' this ever gets submitted for real
#'''Kill''' - Hey, if it's up here, I'm going to vote.  Things like this have been suggested before, however we didn't have a repair button before.  I don't like the 15%, or the aditional skill/kit requirements.  Having it linked to a ransack repair (with the repair button coming up even if the building not sacked) and switching it to 100% sounds better to me. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 02:14, 21 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - Nerfing barricades never turns out well. 15% for both destroying (at max) and repairing is also not something that will turn out well. [[User:Tokakeke|Ayaka Komatsu]] 02:57, 21 May 2006 (BST)
Barricades on churches and junkyards aren't broken.  The most this would enable anyone to do is bring a building down to the same level of barricadability as those types.  And it wouldn't do that unless zombies spent the AP to rip and survivors didn't spend the AP to fix. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:31, 21 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Kill''' - Tnis is bad.  It fucks over survivors. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 21:13, 23 May 2006 (BST)
#*Survivors need some disadvantages.  We've got a numerical advantage because survivors are more interesting to play.  But this wouldn't be much of a disadvantage for survivors, and could even help survivors if zombies used it unwisely: it's an equal AP-sink for both sides, and survivors have more AP available because there are more of us.  To see the effects of an equal-magnitude AP sink more easily, take it to an extreme: Suppose there are 1000 zombies and 1100 survivors.  If the top-priority activity requires 48,000 AP per day from each side just to fight to a draw, zombies wouldn't have any AP left for anything else, but survivors would. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:05, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Hmm...It seems to me a zombie is better of destroying the doors whenever they can.  It would help newbies (ie. pre-MoL zombies).  I think requiring a tool kit AND repair skill linked to Construction might be a bit much.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:02, 23 May 2006 (BST)
:I think destroying the generator would be higher priority than ripping the doors off the hinges, if you don't have the AP to do both.  It costs 4AP to destroy a generator and a lot more to replace it, whereas doors are one-for-one like ransack.  Going through and infecting people would probably also be higher priority than taking down the doors.  That costs the survivors a FAK for about three AP, close to one-for-one, but it also heals the zombie if necessary and puts demands on survivor inventory for the FAKs. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:52, 23 May 2006 (BST)
::What does that have to do, AT ALL with what I said?  I said ''whenever they can''.  Requiring Construction, a repair skill AND a tool kit means the doors aren't going to be fixed as often that frequently.  Thus zombies without MoL will have an easier time all around and veteran zombies are more apt to help "younger" zombies than veteran survivors are to help "younger" survivors.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:16, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:::You said they would whenever they can, and I disagreed.  I think they would do other things when they didn't have the points available to do both.  But doors would always be fixed.  Requiring a skill is nothing, since most people have lots of XP sitting around.  People would buy a new skill just to put their level up, even if the skill did absolutely nothing.  The item takes up a slot, and you've got fifty.  That's not a significant barrier either. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:47, 24 May 2006 (BST)
::::Again, what does that have to do with what I said?  I said NOTHING about having to decide where to spend the points.  Did I.  If there are MORE IMPORTANT things to do, like hit the generator, they would.  But if they have the opportunity to rip doors...they would.  I think you misinterpret how zombies would act in general and I notice you ignored the rest of my point.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 18:20, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:::::But if a zombie beats down the barricades to "secured" and has only a few AP left, they have an opportunity to rip the doors off the hinges.  Would they do so, or would they go on inside and destroy the generator?  Saying they would rip the doors off ''whenever they have the opportunity'' means that they would rip the doors off, top priority.  And what did I ignore?  If you mean new zeds without MoL having an easier time, I was saying I think it won't do that very much because I think survivors will almost always fix the doors. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 02:19, 25 May 2006 (BST)
Heh, I think I've been reading so many of your ideas here, I'm having trouble keeping them straight (the ones I like and the ones I don't like).  Okay, so once the barricade is gone, would the zombie see [Doors] in place of [Barricade] in the drop down?  The only thing I have trouble with is requiring BOTH a repair kit AND skill.  I mean, sure lots of veterans have unused XP floating around, but you also have to take into account the "younger" survivors.  I might just say go with one or the other instead of needing both.  Or just require Construction.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:30, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:Quote:''Okay, so once the barricade is gone, would the zombie see [Doors] in place of [Barricade] in the drop down?''  Yes.
:As for new characters, they should be farming xp instead of maintaining the barricades, for the most part.  But having it just be Construction skill is fine by me. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:46, 26 May 2006 (BST)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Walking Wounded===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=10:34, 21 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Injury related|
suggest_scope=Injured Survivors|
suggest_description=A basic fundamental of injuries is that they restrict the actions of people, though both pain and pure inability.  To transfer this into the game, I suggest creating penalties on people below certain HP levels.

People of 10HP or below would have to spend 2AP for any movement actions (moving between blocks and entering/exiting buildings), to represent severe damage to the torso and extremities, which makes walking and climbing barricades very tough.

Due to the fact that the people are wounded severely enough to limit their movement, anyone below 15HP would be highlighted as “wounded�? for all players in the room – even without diagnosis – and the room description would be as follows;
“There are 53 other survivors here.  11 of them look badly wounded.�?
Or
“Also here are Madeupguy1, Madeupguy2, Madeupguy3 (wounded), Madeupguy4 (wounded)�?

I considered implementing Zombie penalties, but decided against it because Zombies, being the walking dead, have already taken the most grievous wound possible, and are still moving.  You don’t get much more crippling than death!|

suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Any suggestions here please;
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===death by infection===
{{suggestion|
suggest_time=15:22, 21 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Change to infection|
suggest_scope=People who die due to infection|
suggest_description=well i think it would add a bit of variation to the game if people who died due to infection died differently to those that get clawed to death.<br>
i suggest that when a survivor dies due to an infection(or with an infection so that it happens more often), when they stand up(stand up costing standard AP although it could be cheaper) they appear to be a human with 1HP, however this effect only lasts until his AP changes(it was gunna be until he does anything but this way they can only stay hidden for 30min max). FAK would have no effect on them as they are really zombies with full HP and anybody who treats them would waste the FAK and realize this. attacks would hurt them but they would still appear human, "you attack X ...for 4 damage he has 1HP left".<br>
The player would just see his standard zombie actions<br>
'''why?''' well it would add a little more tension to your safe-houses, do you waste a FAK to try and heal him, do you shoot him just to find out it was really a survivor with 1HP. And even if it doesn't add much tension it would just add a bit of flavor.
'''Abused''' well ofc some zombies would suddenly realize they can get try and get infected then run to a safe-house, but they can do that anyway
'''Realism''' not that it really matters but a very sick survivor looks a lot like a zombie, i mean i finally decided to suggest this after watching the new zombie movie on steam, where exactly that happens

[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]]|

suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Any suggestions here please;
*I like the idea of having something be different when you've died of infection, but I don't like having it be a weak FAK-sink that would be confusing for newbies. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:31, 21 May 2006 (BST)
*Useless. Most infection-caused deaths happen outdoors (they die BECAUSE they can't get inside).  Thus it wouldn't really matter.
You said "until his AP changes."  So if the zombie stands, he will appear to be a wounded survivor until he gains an AP after half an hour OR he loses an AP by doing anything (which would happen first, most likely).  Presuming that only applies to an increase, the player would spend his 5-15 minutes of play time and look like a survivor the whole time.  Thus, ''no hiding skills.''  And THAT having been said, it would just be too confusing to people.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 02:15, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:*The idea seems interesting, but the mechanic of it (as noted by Pesatyel)is too vague and rife for abuse.  Plus, if I have an extra FAK and I use it on a survivor, there's a good (actually ''outstanding'') chance that I can afford to waste it, so one FAK to reveal a hidden zombie wouldn't slow me down.  Shoot first and dispense FAKs later?!?  Nah, it'd be more trouble than its worth.--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 17:47, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::*Thats a matter of how you play i often give my no2 FAK for a badly wounded survivor and would even my last fak if i saw a 1HP surivor--[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 14:50, 24 May 2006 (BST)
::*The AP change limit is so that if he either does anything or gains an AP he would stop being hidden. The point of this was because if i removed the limit so you can hide in the building and regain 50AP if you die and stand up at 0 then everybody would yell its a hiding skill and vote spam, however as it is it just give u 1 hidden action aslong as you do it quickly--[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 14:50, 24 May 2006 (BST)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Tidy===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=22:22, 23 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Ability|
suggest_scope=Survivors|
suggest_description=It's the anti-ransack.  Survivors indoors could go beyond repairing ransack and actually tidy up the place.  It would enhance other people's chances of finding things, but the place would get cluttered with debris again as people search or fight.  Tidying can't be done on a ransacked building, and ransack undoes all the tidying.

Specifically, the building would have a number: every AP spent on tidying would add ten, and every AP spent on searching or combat would decrease it by one.  For every hundred points of tidying a building has, all searches would get +1% to succeed.  It would be capped at 1000, or a +10% search bonus.  You wouldn't see the number.  Instead you would see a text description telling the approximate level of tidying.

So if you just did one point of tidying, then in twenty searches, the points from 1AP of tidying would be gone and on average people would have found an extra 10 x 0.1% = 0.01 items.  So far, it's a complete loser: if you had spent that 1AP on searching, you would have found an average of 0.2 items, and that without the risk of losing tidiness to combat.  But now suppose you had previously spent 50AP on tidying, so that the building is at 500 tidiness points and everyone is getting a 5% bonus.  After you spend the 1AP and people do ten searches, the building is back where it started.  But in those ten searches, people found on average 10 x 5% = .5 items.  That's as good an AP cost as searching in a powered mall.  If you're spending AP to maintain a building at full tidiness, it's twice as good: it averages one extra item found per AP spent.  But only by spending AP to anonymously benefit others, and only at the risk of losing it to an attack.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here '''if''' I ever suggest this.  Comments below, please, so that the template will stay together.
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
Comments here please.  I suspect this will be unclear, or at least sound much more complicated than it really is.  But how should I put it? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 22:22, 23 May 2006 (BST)

I really don't see the point, at least with the current stats in the suggestion.  The only place something like this would be used would be in malls, PDs, NTs and Hospitals (ie. the resource buildings).  Most of the time, there would NEVER be any "tidyness build-up" as you can't stop people from searching and searching would outweigh cleaning.  If the survivor wlaked into the building and saw "you see [survivor x] tidying up" as part of the room description, that would help.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:25, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:Why on earth would survivors pass up the opportunity to get double efficiency on some of their actions when they're in a resource building that's not under attack?  You wouldn't ''want'' to stop people from searching.  You would want people to spend a tenth of their search AP on cleanup.  Spamming the room description with all the cleanup actions is out of the question: besides the sheer amount of text it would generate, all beneficial actions in the game are anonymous and I don't want to change that. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:42, 24 May 2006 (BST)
::Well if things are too easy to get then the game is no longer fun. Any way this would unballance the game way too much in favor for survivors. So mainly for those reasons I don't see it passing. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 16:39, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:::It goes with the next one, so it's a +10% effect and a -10% effect if survivors use this and zombies are around at all.  The net effect is that survivors spend AP maintaining the plus effect while zombies get the minus effect as part of their attack, so it's slightly against survivors. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:07, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:Because PKers and GKers exist.  What I mean is there are more players that don't give a crap about anyone else, unless it means getting XP (for healing for example).  And if searching counters cleaning, why would you NOT want people to stop searching?  I'd think you would WANT to stop people from searching until the tidying bonus is at maximum.  It would be easier to maintain near maximum then it would to build up to maximum.  And the point of the descriptor about cleaning is to make it useful at all.  Say I walk into a PD intent on finding a Flak Jacket.  YOU just spent a whole bunch of AP tidying and I negate a signifcant portion of that AP by searching ''because I don't know you were tidying.''  And then I don't even FIND the jacket and have to KEEP searching.  And it doesn't have to be "you see Bob tidying."  It could just be "You see someone has tidyed up."  In addition, this would require a LOT of AP to maintain, something that most players are going to get tired of doing after awhile because it benefits OTHER people more than it benefits THEMSELVES.  And if 100 people spent 10 AP tidying, you would get the +10% bonus.  How would you know if someone kept up their part of the cleaning?  Maybe if the AP needed were much lower, but I can't see this suggestion working at all.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 18:37, 24 May 2006 (BST)
::It already says "you would see a text description telling the approximate level of tidying".  To have the AP needed be much lower, without it being seriously overpowered, you would have to have the benefit be correspondingly lower.  As for benefitting others more than oneself, that's how the game works already for barricades and generators.  You wouldn't want people to stop searching because people searching is the only way there's any benefit to having the place be tidy.  You might want them to do their share of the tidying, a click of tidying for every ten searches.  But some of us wouldn't necessarily even care about that.  The XP isn't the major incentive for healing.  If I wanted to farm XP I would use firearms or do DNA scanning, instead of going around barricading and healing all the time. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 22:30, 24 May 2006 (BST)
All I'm saying is that your hinging the idea on players ACTUALLY doing a share of the tidying when you have no way of forcing them to.  I know that some places might work that out (some groups "headquarters" for example), but I really don't think the average player is going to care.  But I COULD be wrong.  Maybe if the amount of AP were lowered.  Rereading the suggestion, it would require an expenditure of 100 AP at the location to maximize the bonus.  What about making it a different amount, say 12 points per AP?  And what would be the "approximate levels" of tidyness?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:39, 25 May 2006 (BST)

There are freeloaders already, who don't do their part to maintain barricades and replace generators.  That's the nature of the game.  Here's a set of text descriptions for levels of tidiness:
:0-125   same description as now
:126-250 "someone has made a half-hearted attempt to tidy up"
:251-500 "someone has tidied up a little"
:501-625 "the area has been tidied up somewhat"
:626-750 "the area has been tidied up fairly well"
:751-875 "the area has been tidied up quite well"
:876-999 "the building is very tidy"
:1000    you can see no further tidying to do --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:10, 26 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Pall of Despair===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=00:38, 24 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Balance change|
suggest_scope=Searching in buildings under attack|
suggest_description=Zombie activity would interfere with searching.

Each block would have a counter.  Every action point spent by a zombie would add one.  Every half hour, if any action points had been spent by survivors in the block, one one-hundredth of the points would be removed.  So the number of points would be about a hundred times the number of zombies beseiging a building.  

All survivors in the block would get -1% decrease to their chance to succeed in searches for every three thousand points (i.e. for every thirty zombies), up to a maximum effect of -10%.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here '''if''' I post this suggestion for real.  Comments below please so that the template will stay together.
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
Comments here please.  This goes with the one above, so that the effects completely cancel out when maxxed. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 00:38, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Why would a zombie standing outside a building affect the search rates inside?  Sure, it could be argued the people inside are "scared" of the horde outside, but the exact opposite arguement could be made.  Okay, let me see if this sounds right.  2 zombies in a square spend all 50 AP, accruing 100 points on the counter.  A survivor in the square spends AP and on the half hour, 1 of counter points is canceled.  When the counter points reach 3,000, survivors would be at -1% to search, with a maximum of -10% (at 30,000 points).  So, how many points would a survivor have to spend to cancel?  This would just make malls the only important buildings in Malton as the other resource buildings would be completely negated, including NT buildings.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:47, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:Where do you get the idea that non-mall resource buildings would be adversely affected?  To have maximum effect on a building they have to put '''300''' zombies outside it, and even then it's still usable.  There are never anything like that many outside anything but a mall.  And it says quite unambiguously: if even one survivor spends even one action point, the Pall of Despair points are decreased that half-hour.  This would encourage patrols: as long as someone goes through a building, the aura of undead malevolence fades a little. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:31, 24 May 2006 (BST)
::If you have a -10% to search, ONLY malls have a higher search % then 10%.  For example, there is an 8.4% chance to find a crucifix in a church.  a -10% to searches means...a -1.6% chance.  Basically, there is SO much work for, basically so little gain, players would do it for a week or so then stop bothering.  I can even see major hordes trying to use this to maximum advantage...and quitting because it is not worth the effort.  You even said WHY in your response to me.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 18:50, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:::Yes, it would be pointless to search in a non-mall with -10%.  But how many non-mall buildings have 300 zombies besieging them?  When a non-mall building is attacked by that many, the survivors all flee anyway. And that's wrong about a -1.6% chance.  It's a -10% adjustment to your overall odds of finding something, not a separate -10% adjustment for every item.  The maximum effect puts it down from 20% to 10% (assuming no generator and not ransacked), so if the chance of a crucifix was 8.4% before it would be 4.2% with the adjustment.  But again, any time there are 300 zombies attacking a church, the occupants will all be dead and the search odds won't matter.  --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:06, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Where are all these ungodly ideas coming from Dan? What, do you have some kind of ShitGenerator<sup>TM</sup> churning away at home? --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 06:52, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:That's how brainstorming works.  To come up with good ideas, you come up with bad ones too.  How about saying what's actually wrong with it?  We know it won't be voted up, just because it's not useless.  The worse the idiocy of the responses on this page, the more likely I am to put the suggestions out unchanged and unfiltered. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:31, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:Hey, at least he's trying.  How come YOU aren't helping discuss the suggestion?  Would it be better to discuss it here BEFORE submitting it as a suggestion or wait until it gets submitted as a suggestion then tear it to shreds?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 18:50, 24 May 2006 (BST)
I think what might be confusing me is how much AP the survivors have to spend.  Lets say the zombies have spent 3,000 AP (meaning a -1%).  Survivors Bob and Joe enter and each spend 30 AP doing stuff.  On the half hour would that mean counter drops to 2,998?  And what about zerging potential?  Even if survivor players have active patrols, whats to stop someone from creating an ass load of zombies outside a major location?  If all they have to do is spend AP there, the zerging penalties wouldn't apply.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:46, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:Are you assuming that the anti-zerging measures wouldn't apply to this, same as to everything else?  If you want to zerg, you already can.  You can make a hundred accounts to barricade or tear down barricades, if you want.  If the fact that you can zerg is intolerable, the only thing to do is quit the game.  I don't see how this would make zerging one bit easier or more effective.  The only things that do are actions that concentrate benefits onto one character, like trading ideas that let you find 50 shotguns and give them all to your main character.
:If the creepiness points are at 3000 and survivors Bob and Joe each spend 30AP, then on the half hour the points would fall <s>by 10%, i.e. by 300, to 2,700</s> ''by 1%, i.e. by 30, to 2970,'' -- same as they would no matter how many or how few survivors, as long as it's not zero.  Deserted places are creepy, and zombies have the advantage when things get creepy. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:33, 26 May 2006 (BST) ''Edit -- Sorry about the mistake: when I first typed the idea, I was going to have the points decreasing at 10% per half hour, so that they would be maintained at ten times the number of zombies, instead of at 1% per half hour so that they're maintained at a hundred points per zombie.  It was still a maximum effect for 300 zombies.  The only difference it makes is when zombies change what building they're besieging how fast the points accumulate at the new place and fade away at the old one.'' --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:20, 27 May 2006 (BST)
::You must not know how the zerging measures work then.  Two zerging characters in the same square have, effectively a 0% chance to attack or search.  All zerging characters can do is talk or move.  Thus it is impossible to have 100 zerging characters all attack the barricade (or whatever).  All this suggestion requires is that a zombie spend AP in the square and since talking doesn't activate the zerging countermeasure, get 100 zerging zombies and you will have 30,000 points in not time.  As for the creepiness factor, the original suggestion just said survivors have to "spend some AP" and nothing about %.  And 2 survivors knocking of 10% by only spending 30 AP is a significant counter.  Barring zerging, zombies would NEVER be able to accrue any points at most resource points.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:29, 27 May 2006 (BST)
:::Anti-zerging measures make whatever you do with zerger-flagged characters ineffective.  The way that corresponds with this is that the actions of zerger-flagged characters wouldn't count toward the total.  --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:06, 27 May 2006 (BST)
:::Zombies wouldn't be able to accumulate many points everywhere.  But I think there are enough zombies to have 300 besieging each mall, so they could have full points at all malls if they so chose. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:20, 27 May 2006 (BST)

#'''wtf you smoking somethin awful''' how does something outside affect the inside, unless its a bomb [[User:Robbie the king|Robbie the king]] 21:51, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:Because it is scary seeing a whole bunch of zombies outside.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:29, 27 May 2006 (BST)


This suggestion has more holes in it than swiss cheese. By requiring that processing be involved with ''every'' action outside outside, this ''will'' double server load. The fact that it is both exploitable by zergers and illogical in it's core <span style="text-decoration: underline" title="the reasoning why search rates drop&hellip;">assumptions</span> only adds nails to the coffin. This idea is irredeemable. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:12, 26 May 2006 (BST)
:Alright Dan, you've allayed my fears about Zergers, now counter the rest of my argument. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 15:09, 27 May 2006 (BST)
::I don't know about server load.  How do you assume the programming works?  Each block would have a number, and various actions would check or increment that number.  That's a couple extra operations for each action, not like displaying the whole list of names or events (those add an increasing number of operations to each action, as the number of actions increases).  As for illogical assumptions, I assume you're talking about having influences from outdoors affect things indoors?  But lots of things go in and out of a building: sounds, smells, airborne virus particles (or diffuse magical influences, if these zombies are magic).  Or in a movie, it would be the background music getting ominous. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:16, 28 May 2006 (BST)
:::Think about it&hellip; each movement now involves moving the character from one location to the next. If ''every'' movement and other action involved requires:
:::#Using a variable
:::#Incrementing that variable
:::#Calculating a percentage based off the variable
:::#Applying that percentage to every action in the building&hellip;
:::Then we are looking at an increase of about 25% on server load. (This is assuming that the actual code that Kevan writes uses an average of 12 operations to fulfil it's purpose, and that is a '''more''' than generous estimate. (Not including sending data back and forth, etc. I'm not going to guess how much data would need to be sent back and forth, so I'm not going to gauge this suggestion against an estimate of what the game currently uses.))
:::Kevan wouldn't be able to free lance if he wasn't a competent programmer, so I can safely assume his code is tighter than the generous estimate. The tighter and more efficient Kevan's code is, the higher the percentage increase in server load would be would. I just don't see how this suggestion would ever get implemented unless he is willing use bad programming practice to save on processing. It's a slippery slope &mdash; if he kludges it together for this specific case, then since he will have already used sloppy coding on one section, why stop? A program is only as stable as it's most poorly coded function.

:::As to the other aspect, why would search rates drop? It is too difficult to generalise in circumstances, but frantic people often get desperate. Desperate people are capable of performing acts with either great idiocy or amazing insight. I tend to think that those screwing up would be counteracted by those who perform well under pressure. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:42, 28 May 2006 (BST)
::::''"This is assuming that the actual code that Kevan writes uses an average of 12 operations to fulfil it's purpose, and that is a more than generous estimate."''  What are you talking about?  There are way more than 12 items on the page, each of which has to be sent each time.  Spelling out any piece of text involves handling a byte for each letter; multiplying two integers involves handling two bytes for each factor of 256 in MaxInt, probably about eight bytes.  If keeping track of a number for each location were such an overwhelming burden, he certainly wouldn't have had "there is a crowd of 79 surviors here": that's a number to be kept track of for every location (indoors and out), whereas this is just a number to be kept track of for every block. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:32, 28 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Cairn of Bone===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=19:55, 24 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Skill|
suggest_scope=Zombies|
suggest_description=When a survivor dies, the body would have a hidden tag marking them as freshly-killed survivors rather than zombies that have stood up and been knocked down.  By defiling the bodies with the new skill, zombies could create a cairn.  A cairn would allow zombies to spend AP to gain a combat enhancement.  It would be the equivalent of searching for pistols, only with undead flavor text.  The search rate would increase as more bones were added to the cairn, maxxing out at the equivalent of a powered police department.

The cairn could be attacked by survivors, and perhaps would deteriorate with use.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here if I submit it.  Comments below, please.
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
Comments here. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:55, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Zombies != witches, and besides, you haven't even talked about what kind of combat enhancements would be found. [[User:Tokakeke|Ayaka Komatsu]] 04:43, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:I don't watch zombie movies, but don't they sometimes do creepy things just to be creepy?  The combat enhancements would be the equivalent of finding pistols: you can attack six times with a better to-hit rate and higher damage.  The improvements would be based from zombie damage output rather than axe.  I haven't calculated what that comes out to, but so what, I'm not sure if I'll suggest this.  Zombies need something to make it more interesting to play a zombie, or they'll be stuck in the minority indefinitely.  Got any better ideas?  --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:25, 25 May 2006 (BST)
Well, this idea isn't even complete.  How does the zombie gain a "combat enhancement" from a corpse?  Making claws from the corpse's bones?  And, no offense, but the fact you don't watch zombie movies might be important.  As for zombies doing creepy things, no not really, they don't.  At most they will suddenly "spring to life" while lying on the floor (Play Dead/Feign Death ideas, ''look them up''').  But in zombie genre, they are usually "mindless" and "driven by hunger" over anything else.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:53, 25 May 2006 (BST)

However, flavor is quite flexible. There isn't a clear, narrow definition of what a zombie can and can't do. As long as what you suggest sounds reasonable, you can probably get away with it.--[[User:Toejam|Toejam]]

They must do something: how would you get a movie out of them never doing anything but putting on blank expressions and maybe standing up?  The flavor text for this obviously wouldn't have them being some sort of weapon-smiths.  They would defile the corpses of their victims and dump some bones in a heap.  By means as unclear as the reason there are zombies in the first place, that would make nearby zombies more powerful.  Maybe it's technobabble, where a germ or virus incubates in the bone pile and reinforces the infection that animates the zombies, or maybe it's magic and piling them up creates a focus from which the magic strengthens the zombies that invoke it.  Or you could think of it as playing with their food. --
[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:18, 26 May 2006 (BST)
:Nope, they don't do anything.  The primary problem (with the suggestion) is that ''intelligent'' zombies are rare in zombie genre.  98% of the time, they just attack and it is the shear numbers of them that are the problem.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:34, 27 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Item-based Specialization, version 2===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=17:41, 22 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=New items|
suggest_scope=Survivors|
suggest_description=Currently, survivors have no real way to specialize, and little incentive to organize.  If we got a modest bonus from items bulky enough that it's not worthwhile to have all kinds, that would present a choice of what to specialize in, while leaving those who want to remain generalists free to do so without penalty.

Each specialization requires a skill in addition to the items, with the prerequisites advanced pistol training, surgery, and necronet access respectively.

For necrotechs:<br>
Serum pump, syringe adaptor, and battery pack:  Each is a two-slot item.  If you have all three and are in a powered NT building, you can spend 3AP and a revive syringe to manufacture a serum vial.  A serum vial is a two-slot item.  It's initially created with one charge, and has a capacity of three.  Charging a serum vial costs 2AP and consumes a revive syringe.  You can use one charge from a serum vial to do a revive for 8AP.

For healers:<br>
Medical reference book, portable autoclave, and surgical tools:  Each is a two-slot item.  If you have all three and are in a powered hospital, you can use a FAK to manufacture a medpack.  As with the serum vial, a medpack is a two-slot item initially created with one charge.  Charging a medpack costs 1AP and a FAK.  You can heal 12HP with a charge from a medpack, 18 in a powered hospital.

For shooters:<br>
Bandoleer, speedloader, shellholder, reloading die, bullet puller, and priming tool: These are one-slot items.  If you have the first three listed, when you load a pistol clip it fills in partially loaded pistols; if you have all six, your pistols hold nine rounds.

The necrotech items would displace half the trash found in NT buildings, the medical books would displace half the newspapers found in hospitals, and the shooting gear would displace half the flakjaks and flares found in police departments.  So in addition to the hefty investment of inventory space, it would take a fair amount of searching to accumulate any set.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here when it gets resubmitted.  Comments below, please.
*'''Suggest'''<br>''First'': I would suggest that you can find these items as additional "junk" instead of replacing the junk, so that while searching an NT it adds an IP-hit "dropping" cost to searching for syringes instead of manufacturing and doesn't make DNA extrators more hard to find than they should be, furthermore, is the new ability to do manufacture AP "saving" part of Necronet Access?  The current skill makes a Revive cost of Syringe plus 2AP to revive 3 at 24AP; this makes the overall cost the same (at 10), costs an additional 1AP "set up" cost, and only allows for more "burst" Revives rather than cutting the cost... I'm afraid that the change would only create an incentive to Combat Revive rather than a boost to revives overall, but that's why we discuss, I geuss. <br> ''Second'': I changed AP to HP because I figured that was what you meant to say; now, is this new ability a part of a First Aid skill or Surgery Skill, or neither? Does it cost 1 AP to create a Medpack at first and additional 1 APs to do it afterward?  <br> ''Third'': I don't like it; its too much of a complex bonus and would fark up the balance too much. --[[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]] 22:44, 24 May 2006 (BST)

[[Suggestions/22nd-May-2006#Item-based_Specialization | Here]] is the link to the previous version, with its comments.  I expect to change some more stuff according to those comments, before resubmitting it.<br>
I don't generally like adding items to the search table without displacing anything, because the search rates for the various types of locations go according to a pattern.  If it costs too little to find a syringe, the natural thing to do is just take it out of the syringe find rate.<br>
The new skills are new skills, that would have to be bought with the corresponding existing skills as prerequisites, not additional capabilities that would be granted by the existing skills.<br>
Why would it encourage combat revives?  I've never understood why people would combat revive in the first place, when a combat-revived zombie is entirely within his or her rights to just come right back in, destroy the generator, and start shooting people.<br>
Yes, as I have it now, creating a medpack is a 1AP action, as is converting a FAK into a medpack charge.  I'll make that explicit, but I'm open to changing it.<br>
Thank you for catching the typo of HP as AP in the healing. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 02:07, 25 May 2006 (BST)

:Well, I'm positive that we have never been able to consider there to be a set pattern, and it would be better for the items if they did not displace anything at all; it could be only possible to find these items when you have the skill, much like NecroTech Training allows you to find Syringes <br> Combat Revives are encouraged when it is cheaper to revive a zombie and risk any attacks afterwards than to kill the zombie in the first place.  The new skill itself would only allow for more Revives in a max AP day (6 rather than 4)... but I think that it is a good idea anyway; issue recinded.  --[[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]] 04:13, 25 May 2006 (BST) 
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Flying Leap===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=04:13, 25 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Zombie Skill|
suggest_scope=Mid-Level zombies|
suggest_description=This is a possible suggestion that I'm thinking of checking with the rest of the wiki-populous first before submitting to see if it is in theme and worthwhile to try out.  <br> Basically the skill is a zombie method to enter VSB buildings.  However, the only way it would work is if the zombie is currently in a building; furthermore it would be an unlikely chance anyway.  For 2AP a zombie can attempt a flying leap out of a building; this leap will 10% of the time allow them to move inside a neighboring building that is VSB or below, or it will kill them on the outside below the building.  This kill can be stood up as normal.  <br> Therefore the skill will allow a 2AP 10% chance to jump into a building that would not be followable by any other zombie like it is currently, or it will cost 5AP to reset the zombie in the same position he started- 2AP to leap, 1 AP to stand, 1 AP to return to the leaping building, and 1 AP to enter it again.  <br> It might be out of theme, but if Free-Running highways are in theme and possible, why not have a form of zombie dive-bombers?|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Comments?  [[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]] 04:13, 25 May 2006 (BST)

This really isn't a bad idea, but the percentage is way too low. Of course, anything higher would probably nerf barricades too much. I'd give a keep, but only verrry cautiously. No suggestions from me, though. [[User:Tokakeke|Tokakeke]] 04:45, 25 May 2006 (BST)

I actualy really like it. It is a good way for zombies to attemt suicide too. They can leap from a building in a vlying dive movment and crash onto the ground and avoid headshot on their last ap. Or they could end up inside the building and out of ap. --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] <font size=-3>[[User_talk:Fullemtaled|T]]--[[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]]</font> 04:54, 25 May 2006 (BST)

"Suicide" for zombies is just a heal.  Anything that gives a zombie a free suicide is probably overpowered.  Digestion is a good standard of comparison for about how effective zombie healing should be.  New zombie heals can be more effective but with a drawback, or less effective but with some other advantage. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:19, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:On further consideration -- It's ok for jumping out a window to heal a zombie.  It's not free, because it requires them to have gotten into a building, and then it puts them outside.  I think this suggestion is ok on the mechanics. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:49, 26 May 2006 (BST)

One thing I don't like about this is it kills the zombie. Jumping from a window as a zombie won't kill them why would this? (however it has been a long time and I may be mistaken Can someone double check this for me?). The thought of a zombie going into a running jump off a building and smacking into a wall is amuseing as well. --[[User:Teksura|Teksura]] 07:07, 26 May 2006 (BST)
:When I started playing, one of the first things I did, as a zombie, was jump out a window to see what happened.  Yes, I died.  That was a few months ago and I can't imagine it has changed.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 18:34, 26 May 2006 (BST)
::Are you ''sure'' that actually worked? Because I've tried it more recently than that, and I can tell you it doesn't now. --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 02:37, 29 May 2006 (BST)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Festering Infection, version 2===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=01:54, 28 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Skill|
suggest_scope=Zombies|
suggest_description=I think zombies could use a boost when attacking well-defended targets, to keep things interesting for those of us who play cautious survivors, but without making things harder on newbs.  This skill would help organized attacks, but be quite detrimental when the horde disperses.  So zombies could turn it on or off each time they die.

The infection itself would be just like a standard Infectious Bite infection, but would stack with it, so that people with both would take two damage instead of one for each action, and would require to FAKs to completely cure. Using a FAK on someone with both infections would cure the regular infection first, and then the second FAK would cure the festering. The same zombie could inflict both infections, but it would require two bites: the first bite would inflict festering infection, and the second would add a standard infection.

The drawback would be that zombies with festering infection active would have more difficulty entering buildings. After the barricades are down, there would still be debris around the door. A normal zombie could step over it, but a festering zombie's shuffling gait wouldn't let them past. An attempt to enter would get "you nudge the debris in the doorway". Non-festering zombies entering would also count as a nudge. After five nudges, the debris has been trampled out of the way, and festering zombies can enter. 

No extra barricading is required: if the debris is at four nudges and a survivor puts the barricades to loosely, the zombies have to start over on nudging it out of the way. Just closing the door would not reset the nudge count.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here if I resubmit.  Comments below, please, so that the template stays together.
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
The changes are that it only takes five nudges instead of fifteen, and that the zombies no longer have to coordinate their bites because the festering infection is applied first.  Would those of you who attack in organized hordes use it yet? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 01:54, 28 May 2006 (BST)
:I don't see any reason that Zombies would choose this. It would cost 5 AP more to get into the building which is AP that could normaly be used for clawing or chewing on survivors. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 05:18, 29 May 2006 (BST)
::It wouldn't cost 5AP more to get in: you just have to be at least the sixth zombie to enter (and each AP you spend on unsuccessful attempts reduces it by one).  As long as you're attacking in a group, with five other zombies going in ahead of you, it's pure benefit.   And getting to use up defenders' FAKs twice as fast is a big advantage in a siege. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:31, 29 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Sated Torpor===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=17:06, 28 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Skill|
suggest_scope=Zombies|
suggest_description=When you kill a survivor, you get <s>+20HP</s> ''+15HP'' and -5% to hit with all attacks.  On each subsequent action other than talking, this effect has a 10% chance of ending.

The +20 HP is added to both your current and maximum HP.  When the effect ends, the 20 HP are removed from both your current and maximum HP, except that if that would kill you it puts you to 1HP instead.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here if submitted.
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
Makes it harder to clear out the zombies on an organized attack where most of the zombies enter with enough AP left to get a kill, but has less or no effect on small break-ins where the zombies spend most of their AP beating down the barricades and don't have enough left for a kill. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 17:06, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Maybe fiddle with the percentage, like a sliding scale. Perhaps 1% off per 10% to hit? And/or lower the +20HP to +15? {{User:Xoid/sig}} 17:13, 28 May 2006 (BST)
:If people would still want it with only +15, that's fine by me.  But what do you mean by 1% off per 10% to hit? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:17, 28 May 2006 (BST)
::Since you didn't state that it had any, I was assuming that the skill doesn't have prerequisites. If someone without Vigour Mortis got this, -5% to hit would be excessively harsh. So a zombie should only have -1% to hit per 10% chance to hit while under this effect.
::If you made this skill have a prerequisite, bumping it back up to +20HP and leaving it as a flat rate would seem balanced while still leaving some incentive tor the skill to be taken. Regardless, I like the core idea, I just don't think others will. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 00:48, 29 May 2006 (BST)
:::Yeah, I kinda like the idea. But I don't like the numbers, I just don't realy like the idea of loosing accuracy just because you killed someone mainly. It would weaken Zombies quite a bit actualy. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 05:14, 29 May 2006 (BST)
::::Getting this skill before Vigor Mortis would certainly be a bad idea, but I don't see the need to make VM a prereq: just don't buy it until after you have the higher-priority skills.  It would also be a very bad idea to get this skill before you have Scent Blood.  This skill is intended to benefit zombies in organized hordes: the additional HP let you soak up more of the defenders' AP, so your fellow horde members can do more damage before the survivors get them.  It doesn't make sense to me to have VM as a prereq, because VM is the start of the attack skills sub-tree and this is a miscellaneous skill.  If a prerequisite is necessary to keep foolish noobs from buying it when they shouldn't, it would make more flavor-text sense to put it in under Digestion, because you can hardly be sated if you can't digest.  Another possibility would be to make it go into effect only when you kill a survivor with a bite. 
::::I can't imagine that it would weaken zombies at all.  If you have the AP to kill two survivors, get them both down to one attack worth of HP and then finish them off.  That way you only have one attack that has the penalty.  Even if you don't bother with that, you only have it for an average of 10 attacks, so you only lose half a hit. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:54, 29 May 2006 (BST)
:::::Flat rate, sub-skill of digestion, triggered by a bite, +15HP. That seems a bit weak, but it's a utility skill, designed to waste survivors AP (15 HP = how many days AP on shottie shells? 20HP would be better for ferals, but 'cause hordes would also use it, 15HP to be on the safe side.) Maybe fiddle with the numbers a bit more. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 13:23, 30 May 2006 (BST)
::::::The way I figure it, if you're searching in a dark PD and the target has a flakjak, firearms are about equal to the axe, so 15HP = 15HP/(1.2 HP/AP) = 12.5 AP, or a quarter of a day's AP.  If you're searching in a lighted mall and the target doesn't have a flakjak, the efficiency of firearms comes out to 2 HP/AP, so 15HP = 7.5AP.  If you want to use shotguns exclusively during break-ins, and burn off your pistol clips farming XP outdoors, you can justify numbers four times higher, i.e. up to a whole day's AP.  But that's if you're paying for the concentrated power of the shotgun, not for the 15HP themselves. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 23:37, 30 May 2006 (BST)
----

=Further Discussion=
''This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.''
===Passive Defenses and Knee-Jerk Voting===

Personally, I don't understand why the sudden reactionary rash of Kill/Spam votes citing "No [[Useful_Items#Flak_Jacket|Passive Defenses]]" as a reason.  I've looked, and I don't find it stated anywhere in any rules that [[Barricades|Passive Defenses]] are strictly verbotten.  Whether it apears as an in-game object or maybe as a [[Body Building|skill]] or [[Construction|two]], I think the game would survive something like that.  

So, where is all this hate coming from, anyways? --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 23:00, 11 May 2006 (BST)

This is what I added on to the vote for the generator defense suggestion.  The most common problem with the auto-defense is that you are giving the defender ''free actions''. Or the person is "spending AP" while offline (imagine logging in and instead of being at 50 AP, you are only at 40 because the computer spent your AP in an auto-defense). And Flak Jackets don't count as "auto-defense" as Flak Jackets don't use AP.  Basically speaking, EVERY action (except dropping which is an important balance factor) requires an active choice by the performer.  They must decide on what to spend their AP and when.  "Auto-defense" either gives a player extra AP (by way not spending their AP) OR it penalizes them for not being active when the action is performed.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 23:17, 11 May 2006 (BST)
:I can understand the reasoning, to an extent.  I am also against suggestions that would spend AP while offline.  Thing is, how does that relate to the Generator Defense suggestion?  You take the action to defend it, and that's it.  You don't get to take any more actions while offline, you just get the privelege (?) of being more likely to get hit.  No AP spent, no actions taken.  No automatic dodging, no reactionary attacks/ripostes.  I'm just afraid that the "No Passive Defences" cry is becoming a misunderstood crutch.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 23:30, 11 May 2006 (BST)
::Ah, I see the point.  It just...feels...like free action.  I mean the "defender" IS technically DOING something by blocking people from hitting the generator.  Normally, a GKer hits a generator, no problem (beyond normal).  Now, if the GKer trys, someone stands up to "intercept" the attack ("automatically" dodging in front of the GKer?).  I think I would be satisfied if the defender had to spend more than 1 AP (say 3).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 23:48, 11 May 2006 (BST)
:::It would still be broken even if it cost the defender 500 ap. GKing is a legitimate practice in the game. Generators are destroyable for a reason, and there are numerous viable RP reasons to want them destroyed, varying from "Carbon monoxide buildup in enclosed spaces" to "Darken the building so the zombies dont find us" and onwards to the old favourite: "Me like smash!" GKing is not a major problem in the game, and the massive benefits generators now give are counterbalanced by the fact that people break them. Basically this is just a knee jerk response to the latest change, with people wanting to protect their newfound beloved search bonus. And no, Reverend Loki, Flak jackets dont count as a passive autodefense, in the manner as is implied by the no auto defenses convention. No one should be able to, for a small investment of AP or othersie, be able to prevent harm to another player or object, or be permitted an automatic retaliation, free or otherwise, to such a hostile action. The only thing people should be able to do when offline is become a corpse (Through death). --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 02:50, 12 May 2006 (BST)
::::Hmm... I believe Grim summed it up pretty well for me. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Moderation/Arbitration|Arb]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 07:35, 12 May 2006 (BST)

::::I don't understand the reasoning behind Grim's last two sentences. Could someone explain to me ''why'' it is so? --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 13:54, 12 May 2006 (BST)
::::A Passive AutoDefence - well, really, the "Auto" part is redundant, as the "Passive" part already implies that it occurs without further action on the part of the user.  You spent the AP to find a flak jacket - from there on out, it is providing a defense for you without further action on your part.  A flak jacket IS a passive defense.  It may not be convenient to your arguments, but it's true.  In a similar fashion, a guy decides to camp out for the night in a fashion to defend the generator - he spends an AP to do so, and then nothing else until he logs back in again.  If it helps, think of it as the player making himself the generator's flak jacket.  <br/>I understand that GKing is a valid tactic, but the thing is, wanting to defent the generator is, too.  There are numerous role-playing reasons, varying from "it's one of the few signs of civilization left in the God-forsaken city" to "the light keeps the shadows away" to "Hey, I want to be able to find what I'm looking for", or even "let's be a beacon t the lost survivors to come find us". I would also argue that the "Me Smash Generator" contingent isn't that big, it's larger than "Me Maliciously Set-Up and Fuel Generator" group of players. <br>I am also against auto-retaliation, and for much of the same reasoning you give.  But, when you log off, do the barricades you built go away too?  I've seen brainrotted zombies stand in revive queues, and occasionally mumble just to be put at the top of the in-game zombie heap, and that strategy is vehemently defended.  I don't see how anyone could be for that and against this one.  <br/>"The only thing people should be able to do while offline is become a corpse".  This skill doesn't really contradict that statement, though you'll find examples that do contradict it already implemented in game.  A zombie ransacks a building, and  a survivor cannot repair the damage while a zed is present.  That zed, while offline, is preventing the repair of the building.  Based upon this ability (which is inherent, w/o a skill!), it is obvious that Kevan does not hold to the same ideas as you on this one.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 17:54, 12 May 2006 (BST)
:::::That's not a bad point about Ransack.  However the mechanics of Ransack is a balancing factor, not realism.  I still think the easiest way to deal with the "generator defense" is that the defender allocate x AP to the defense.  A person with 50 AP allocates, at some point, 10 AP to "generator defense."  They could either spend 40 AP, then allocate the last 10 for defense before logging out OR they could allocate the 10 AP at the beginning, then spend the other 40, but if the generator is attacked at ANY point while the survivor is there, the points would be used.  Either way, once the generator is attacked 10 times, the person's "defense points" are spent and they can no longer defend the generator.  The inherent flaw, which people keep ignoring (about the generator defense suggestion) is that you ARE doing something when offline by defending the generator.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:12, 13 May 2006 (BST)
You're not doing anything while off-line.  Your action is to go stand next to the generator.  While you're there, people hit you.  Much as you can "defend" another zombie by being higher in the stack than they are. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 14:58, 12 May 2006 (BST)
:You said it yourself ''You're not doing anything while off-line.''  As I said above, given the suggestion, you WOULD be doing something "for free" by jumping in front of someone attacking a generator.  The "higher in the stack" defense is a purely mechanical part of the game dealing with the zombie anonymity.  The high-end zombie doesn't choose to be the target (as in the suggestion) but it is more that the attacker can't differentiate one zombie from another and there has to be SOME mechanic to dictate it.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:12, 13 May 2006 (BST)
::In the case of revive queues, yes, some higher-end zombies DO actively choose to remain higher in the stack by rationing out the rate they spend AP across the day. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:18, 15 May 2006 (BST)
:::True, but that still doesn't negate the zombie anonymity, as the suggestion would (so to speak).  The higher-end zombie doesn't take the hit by "jumping in the way" (or however you define the action of the generator defender), the attacker can't differentiate between the "target" they want (the second zombie in the stack) and the top of stack zombie because of the zombie anonymity.  The comparison would be like saying the GKer couldn't differentiate between the generator and the defender.  The point is, the zombie is attacked because, basically, a generator defender is actively performing an action while the top-of-stack zombie is not.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 08:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:*I don't think the most recent iteration of "Generator Defense" had any in it about an auto-attack against the GKer, just the ability to intercede a survivor (three max.) between the zombie and the generator.  It seems the only action that the generator-defender gets for free is to be extra likely to be killed, which by dint of being in the building when the zombies attack, might happen anyway.  Which is sillier, the notion that a zombie would be able to squeeze through a crowd of survivors to selectively attack a generator or  that the zombie might actually have to fight through a few survivors to get to the generator?  Hell, the "Generator Defense" idea actually was kind to zombies/GKer.  If it'd been my suggestion, I would've done it the other way and make it so the GKer would be more susceptible to attack because he/she/it would have to wade through survivors just to get to the generator...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 18:58, 17 May 2006 (BST)
::Who said anything about attacking the GKer?  The basic idea is that, to defend a generator, the person has to actually do something to inhibit the GKer from hitting the generator.  Is the defender sitting right up against the generator?  Possibly.  If not, then the ''character is performing free actions while offline.''  The GKer attempts to shoot the generator and the defender steps in to take the hit, thus performing an action.  The simplist way to do it would be to just have the defender(s) sitting up against the generator. ("There is a generator here.  It is running.  Bob is leaning up against the generator") or require the defender to spend some AP before logging out on generator defense (The player wants to defend the generator while logged out and decides to spend 10 AP for it.  Then while logged off, if the generator is attacked up to 10 times, the defender is there as in the suggestion.  If the generator is not destroyed in those 10 chances, the defender stops defending and an 11th attempt will be an undefended attack.  If the GKer is successful at, say the 2nd attack or stops, the other 8 AP is not refundable, having technically been "spent" already).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:01, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:*I think I misinpretred your line:  ''The point is, the zombie is attacked because, basically, a generator defender is actively performing an action while the top-of-stack zombie is not.''  Now that I re-read I realize I probably just mixed up the subject and object or something equally inane.  Your "committ AP to generator defense" idea sound good, though, but it does bring us back to the main topic.  Do you actually think its possible such a hot-button issue like this could ever actually get voted through?  Bias-driven  voters tend to vote their side, regardless of the suggestion's merit.  There are a number of anti-GKers that will vote any suggestion that punishes GKers no matter how broken it is; Conversely, the strident pro-GKers would immediately spam any suggestion that gave generator any kind of defense...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 21:57, 17 May 2006 (BST)

GKing is basically AOE PKing.  If you can't search you can't survive, it's that simple.  It's just broken to have one player be able to have an adverse effect on a billion others, without it being diluted by a factor of a billion.  And it's genuine AoE, not multi-target that idiots confuse with AoE: no matter how many survivors are there, you've kept them all from searching at decent odds.  Until and unless the game gets fixed, GKers should be hunted down, killed, barred from using all revive-request tools, and if necessary killed again until their friends or their zerger alts all run out of syringes.  --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 05:43, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:You seem to be a bit confused.  GKing is the act of destroying a generator as done by humans.  [[Ransack]] is the act of ransacking a building, and thus severely inhibiting search rates.  GKing sets the search odds back to the point they were at before the generator was setup, which is what everyone was used to (See also: "Back in ''My Day''"). [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 08:00, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:: I'm obviously ''not'' talking about Ransack.  You can't adversely affect a billion people with Ransack, because you can't ransack a building with a billion people in it.  Ransack isn't broken.  GKing also severely inhibits search rates, compared to how they are with a generator.  The game is kept balanced with each set of changes: you need every advantage you can get.  Back In The Day, there were no generator search bonuses, but there was also no Feeding Groan. Nor was there any Ransack, so you could sneak back into a zombie-occupied mall and search just as well as if it weren't occupied.  The changes were a package deal: now search rates are higher, because we need to have them be higher -- and he could give zombies their new advantages because search rates are higher since the generator change. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:45, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:::Oh really? GKing totally screws over your search rates?  So tell me, [[Search_odds|where do you]] that?  Seems to me the search odds are still at pre-powered.  The only change listed on the search odds was the NT building, which was outdated as it didn't take into account the massive syringe find rate boost (roughly 1/12) ''before'' the powered search change. If you "need every advantage you can get" - nice trench coat mentality there by the way - then you must have been thrilled when cell phones came, and supply drops, because they give an "advantage".  Then you have Ankle grab, grasp, etc which give an advantage to the zombie side, but act as a disadvantage to the survivor side. As for ransack being able to affect your search and run tactics.  Whoop de doo. Ransacking affects one section of a mall at a time, so the zombies would need to take all four sections.  Besides that zombies arn't known for their squatting tactics. Once they shamble on, it takes you one AP to restore the building to normal.  Not to mention that there still have not been tests done on a powered-ransacked building. - [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 18:25, 18 May 2006 (BST)
::::Not that I fully agree with this branch of the argument, but the link you supply provides the rebuttal to your own comments:  "As of the 29th of April, changes to the Game's structure were implemented. Those changes were:  Powered Generators add a positive bonus to Search rates ..." --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 19:29, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:::::Could you be a little more specific? I'm not quite sure which part of my argument the search odds refutes. I assume you're talking about "...search odds are still at pre-powered."  What I meant by that is the search odds listed on that page show the odds on a non-powered building (except NT).  Odds which are hardly 'screwed over', odds which fail to show how much generators have affected the odds.  Data is still being compiled, ergo the changes for powered buildings are going to be off until more information is provided. Regardless this seems to have gone off on a tangent. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 20:00, 18 May 2006 (BST)

'''[[Suggestions/18th-May-2006#Attack_a_Random_Zombie | Grim supports passive defense, on the record, in a vote.]]''' Yes, you read that right: Grim has come out in favor of passively defending someone else's character.  I ask the assistance of all fair minded wiki-participants in taunting him mercilessly henceforth whenever he uses "no passive defenses" as a reason for a vote. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 02:44, 19 May 2006 (BST)

To [[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]], while an idea like this might not make it to Peer Review, having it filled out as much as possible can make a difference.  And we know that Kevan doesn't only go through Peer Reviewed to add stuff to the game (Ankle Grab).  Bear in mind to that generators are MUCH more important than they used to be too.  Actually, I think what might work better would be "stronger" generators, ones that could take more hits to destroy.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:57, 20 May 2006 (BST)

===A Workable Trade Suggestion (Barter?)===
From: [[Talk:Suggestions/archive10#A_Workable_Trade_Suggestion_.28Barter.3F.29|Here]]

Purpose: I plan on eventually gathering enough information to make a trade system that won't have people who are anti-zerg frothing at the mouth. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] m. <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|cH-]])</font></sup> 15:21, 1 May 2006 (BST)
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=16:10, 22 April 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Trade|
suggest_scope=Survivors Lv.3 or higher|
suggest_description=Whatever goes in here, the Trade ability will probably work something like this:


Barter will be a skill, purchaseable with a minimum level of three (that's the magical number where people who are going to quit have most likely already quit by).
In practice, the skill should work like this.

Person Y offers Person Z -item- for -item2-. (Costs Y 1AP)

Person Z is notified that Person Y wishes to trade them -item- for -item2-.

At this point, if Person Z has -item2-, and accepts the trade, it costs Person Z 1AP to do so.

If that trade is not acceptable, Person Z can change -item2- and Counteroffer, which costs him 1AP.

Person Y will be notified of the Counteroffer, and will be able to accept (for 1AP) or Counteroffer (1AP).


This will continue until both parties are either satisfied, or fed up. It eats up AP and IP hits, making it less desireable than simply searching for the object yourself, unless it comes to an early conclusion. (The AP costs are, obviously, negotiable.)

In addition, it would also use the IP tagging on people trading.

So far, there are four anti-zerging measures here - one-for-one item requirements, AP costs, minimum level, and IP tagging. It's not really enough to discourage hardcore zergers, but not a lot will be. Input? -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyndallin]] 16:10, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Zerg Blocking, like already implemented w/ combat and FAKs, etc, from CyberBob240 (fifth anti-zerg measure) -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyndallin]]

Barter skill would fail on targets without the Barter skill - sixth anti-zerg measure; from me. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyndallin]]

As suggested by John Ember, users would be restricted to a maximum of three trades with the same character in a 24 hour span. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|talk!]])</font></sup> 04:22, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Moved to current location and updated. Lemme know if it is inappropriate to keep it on the current talk page. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] m. <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|cH-]])</font></sup> 15:29, 1 May 2006 (BST)

|suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
<b>I know people don't like the idea of trade. What I want is the people who don't like it to tell me what they would want to see in a trade suggestion, to make it more palatable to them.</b> -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyndallin]] 16:10, 22 April 2006 (BST)
*A block for zergers would be appreciated. It could work exactly like the automatic thing already in place. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Moderation/Arbitration|Arb]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 16:17, 22 April 2006 (BST)
*Also, the recipient would have to have the Trade skill as well, or the trade would fail. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyndallin]] 17:14, 22 April 2006 (BST)
*Tentative name: Barter. 'Trade' might be a subskill, allowing people to trade multiple items. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyndallin]] 17:43, 22 April 2006 (BST)
*Oooh, I'm not sure about that name. I think there's been another trade suggestion before by the same name, so you may be duped. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Moderation/Arbitration|Arb]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 17:45, 22 April 2006 (BST)
**All I need to do is show that the methods - if not the premise - of the idea are suitably different from the original skill. If I manage that, I'll call out any dupe I see. After all, you can only get so creative without raping a thesaurus. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyndallin]] 17:48, 22 April 2006 (BST)
***You raise a good point. I hereby withdraw my previous comment. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Moderation/Arbitration|Arb]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 17:50, 22 April 2006 (BST)
*The loophole I see - Player 1 has characters Bob and Bob_Zerg.  Both Bob and Bob_Zerg spend almost a full day's complement of APs searching thew NT building.  Bob then trades his 5 excess GPS units and 6 extra DNS scanners for all of the Revive Needles Bob_Zerg found.  Is this enough of a loophole to kill it?  Dunno.  It could be lessened by limiting trade a bit more - i.e. consumables for consumables (ammo, syringes, flares, generators, fuel), and non-consmables for non-consumables (cell phones, GPS units, flak vests, etc... anything that, once you have one, you don't need more).   You could use IP as well, not allowing trade between characters of the same IP, but this will unfairly punish false positives, and some of us could get around that too easily.  Instead, this skill could be used as an indicator - if a trade happens between characters of the same IP, it could be investigated, if they started enforcing the no-zerging policy with character bans.  I also agree that both characters must have the skill to sucessfully trade.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:26, 1 May 2006 (BST) (''Moved by [[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|talk!]])</font></sup> 17:28, 1 May 2006 (BST)''.)
**I'm not sure that I dislike the consumable/non-consumable idea, but it would require that Kevan go through and add code to each item. I don't know how easy or hard that would be, not being a programmer myself. It would definitely cut down on zerg use of the skill, but ... I dunno. I'm not comfortable with restricting it that much. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|talk!]])</font></sup> 17:39, 1 May 2006 (BST)
* Here you go, ultimate zerg blocker: Character X can only trade with character Y once per day. (Well, maybe twice or thrice). With that last check in place, I'd vote for this. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 17:24, 1 May 2006 (BST)
** Brings up problems of how we track arbitrary lengths of time in UD.  [[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 19:32, 1 May 2006 (BST)
***Not really, just have it so that until they've both spent another 50AP, they can't trade again. Close enough for me. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|talk!]])</font></sup> 21:52, 1 May 2006 (BST)
*** There are definitely time limits on some things. How often a zombie can be scanned, how many IP hits you can rack up in a day. I'm not talking about realtime actions, just a flag that would get reset when the game clock rolls over. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 04:01, 2 May 2006 (BST)
****The zombie tagging flag isnt time dependant anymore. I believe it was combined with that zombies activity, so the flag is unset if the zombie logs in, refreshes or makes an action. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 08:36, 3 May 2006 (BST)
* Thanks for adding the trade limit, Wyn. Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting players couldn't trade as much as they wanted in a 24-hour period; just that they couldn't trade '''with the same person''' more than x times in that period. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 17:01, 3 May 2006 (BST)
* i think trade wouldnt be rite in UD, not your idea but the concept, the whole point of TRP is that players have to go to them to get what they need, trade wouldnt fit in IMO. it would make safe houses too safe, with runners going to get your stuff, it would make organised groups to effective at reviving, it would generally overpower survivors.--[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 20:30, 6 May 2006 (BST)
**Which would therefore give Kevan a reason to give zombies abilities to make them more effective. Come on, now. If suggestions are never implemented because they 'break the balance', you get a game that's stagnant. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|talk!]])</font></sup> 13:41, 9 May 2006 (BST)
**It would definitely change the dynamic. But even if runners emerged in the game, others would still need to have ''something'' to trade with them in order to get the items they bring in. Plus it costs both sides AP to make the trade; after a point it's less AP-expensive to just find the items yourself. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 22:59, 9 May 2006 (BST)
* What about if one could only barter with a Contact? perhaps if the IP hits are similar in origin, they could then be seen as Zergers or as Illegal Teaming. Only other way I can see is if some sort of money is arranged, and that would more than likely be so catastrophic that it would only be implementable if the game goes 2.0 or something. Although on the flipside, 1 for 1 does remove the concept of groups assigning a quartermaster type character... darn zergers ruin that too much though. Careful on this. [[user:bubacxo|Bubacxo]] 10:38, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I just don't see any way to make trading workable.  Quid pro quo is not in the nature of the game.  Even barricading is anonymous. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 06:16, 18 May 2006 (BST)

<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===A Generator for Zombies===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=06:12, 18 May 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Soapbox|
suggest_scope=Zombies|
suggest_description=Just as survivors have to keep generators up (and pro-GK twits gripe that it costs a whole 4AP to destroy them instead of 1), zombies should have a generator of their own.  

It would be called a Necrotech Reanimation Unit.  The flavor text would explain that Necrotech had put these things in place, one in every block with a building, to somehow help keep the undead menace from spreading beyond Malton, and now the zombies had found how to take advantage of their mysterious effects.  Simply by smearing some bra!nz on the device, they give all zombies in the block +10% to hit against barricades.  But to balance the change, the base rate would be reduced by 10% whenever there actually are survivors and no zombies inside the building.  And the bonus could be removed with a 25% chance of success by anyone, survivor or zombie, wiping the device clean.  To get it going again, a zombie would need to extract more bra!nz from a survivor by killing them and then go smear it on the NRU.  

Then we would watch the pro-GK crowd saying how it's just fine to have people deactivating the NRUs, especially that it's a perfectly honorable thing for zombies to do, who can walk around outdoors just as survivor GKers can free-run indoors.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- DON'T VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT READ THIS LINE -->
No votes here
<!-- DON'T VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT READ THIS LINE -->
}}--[[User:Dan|Dan]] 06:13, 18 May 2006 (BST)

<s>The 10% reduction could cause unfair difficulties for low level zombies- while the chances of a high level zombie's attacks collapsing the barricade go from 25% to 15%, a low level zombie's go from 12.5% to 2.5%, which is a huge reduction. Though probably, a low level zed is better off not smashing barricades anyway.</s>EDIT:Too subtle for me--[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 20:09, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Doubt it would work for the simple reason that the consequences for a survivor GKer (i.e. death and the hassle of being revived) are much higher than those of a zombie GKer (i.e. at most, 6 APs to stand back up). Zombie generators would be targets for not only humans, but also dead humans who want to grief zombies. --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 19:22, 19 May 2006 (BST)

I really, really hope that this is an attempt at humor and not a serious suggestion. --[[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 19:53, 19 May 2006 (BST)
:Note the type: soapbox.  It's to make a point.  It's definitely not a serious suggestion.  It was intentional that I put it in "discussion" and not in "developing suggestions". --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 23:52, 19 May 2006 (BST)
::The thing about satire is that you actually have to be good at it for people to notice.  This? Too close to the suggestions you normally make. Hence the lack of comments. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 03:42, 20 May 2006 (BST)
:::People don't need to notice anything: it's flat-out labelled as a soapbox.  And it's an analogy, not a satire. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:45, 20 May 2006 (BST)
::[[Humorous_Suggestions|WTFCENTAURS]] [[User:Furtim|furtim]] 20:37, 21 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Suggestions should not be useless===
Concern about having them be overpowered is reasonable, but it usually gets taken too far.  We're supposed to be suggesting '''changes''' to the game, not things that leave the game unaffected because no one would ever want to use them.  Look at the changes Kevan actually makes: 50% find rate in powered malls, for example.  That would have been spaminated with heaps of abuse if he had made an anonymous userID and suggested it here.  Most changes ''should'' affect game balance.  Then other changes affect it in the other direction.  Any suggestion should be considered on the assumption that some other change will balance it.  Some changes wouldn't affect game balance, either because they would be useful to both zombies and survivors, or because they're things like making the knife as good as the axe.  --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:45, 20 May 2006 (BST) Edit [[User:Dan|Dan]] 17:51, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:So where exactly are you getting the 50% from? Search odds are one of the 'behind the scenes' changes Keven makes.  You can see syringe find rates fluctuate occasionally with no announcement from Keven. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 02:31, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::From the search odds pages.  Enough search results have been posted for drug stores and gun stores that you can add them up and be fairly confident that it's 50%, although not absolutely certain yet. 

::But what about the actual point?  Why does everyone insist that suggested changes be utterly insignificant? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 04:35, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:::Because people are voting on the current suggestion and not if something will come along and balance it. Most likely if the suggestion can't be reasonably balanced on it's own then it's probably too powerful to even be in the game. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 08:07, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::::Of course something else will balance it.  All the changes Kevan has made have affected balance, and come with other changes that affected it the other direction. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:25, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:I disagree.  Not every suggestion HAS to change the balance.  Why should it?  Does changing automatically make the game ''more fun?''  THAT is the central focus of all these suggestions - making the game more fun.  And saying NO ONE will use/do it doesn't mean that is so.  With 50,000 players, sure a LOT of players won't but there are a lot who would.  If it DOESN'T significantly affect the balance, why would it hurt to include it in the game if some people would find it increases their enjoyment.  Those that don't wouldn't use it so it wouldn't really matter to them, would it?  Take Knife Combat.  Some people use it for an RP reason.  Some ignore it completely (whether or not they purchased the skill just to spend the XP).  But the fact that some people like/use Knife Combat AND the fact Knife Combat does NOT affect balance does not, in ANY way, affect those that DON'T like/use Knife Combat.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 02:27, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::Good point about improving knife combat.  It can be a big enough improvement not to be useless, while still leaving it no more powerful than the axe, in which case it wouldn't affect the game balance because people are already using the axe.  I edited the top paragraph to include that. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 17:51, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:::I wasn't making any point about improving knife combat.  I was pointing out that there were changes made to the game that, essentially, didn't do ANYTHING.  Knife Combat or Tagging, for example.  When they were added they would be considered "minor."  And, it seems to me, you are advocating they shouldn't have been added because they don't do anything and they "leave the game unaffected because no one would ever want to use them." (why use a knife when the axe is better?).  '''ALL''' suggestions are suggestions to make changes to the game.  Some are minor, some are major, but they ALL change the game, even if not everyone will make use of the change.  Being a major or significant change should NOT be a requirement for a suggestion.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 19:07, 24 May 2006 (BST)
::::Tagging is far from useless.  Spraying works better than saying.  A change that not everyone uses is fine: a change that NO ONE would use is pointless.  (Btw, I didn't realize that Knife Combat was a change.  I started playing after it was already in game, so I thought it had been there since the beginning.)--[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:16, 24 May 2006 (BST)
:::::My point was that what YOU define as "useless" is not the same thing as what *I* define as "useless."  As I pointed out with Knife Combat, people DO use the skill, so how can you say that some new change will be used by "no one?"--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 23:03, 24 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Spleens===
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=316#comic

Is there a good place to post silly links like this?
----

===More Demands on Inventory Would Enhance the Value of Melee===
If you want to have ropes, toolboxes, who-knows-what else in your inventory, that's all the more reason to attack with an axe most of the time.  Currently, firearms are pretty thoroughly better than the axe, and other melee weapons are absolutely useless.  If sticking to the axe enabled me to use that inventory for something else, that would be an advantage of the axe relative to firearms.  There's stocking up in FAKs, but I can carry a pretty good load of those and still have room for a couple pistols and a couple shotguns.  A few more demands on my inventory would make it worth giving up the firearms and becoming a full-time axe-wielder. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 23:16, 20 May 2006 (BST)
:Do you have a point?  EVERYONE has different styles of play.  My character, for example, I have ONE shotgun, ONE pistol and ONE axe.  Most of the rest is filled up with syringes, ammo and FAK.  Some people carry 10 loaded shotguns.  Some don't even carry weapons.  Any additional items will just mean a redistribution of the preferences people have for their items.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 02:32, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::Additional items would mean a redistribution of the preferences -- away from firearms (which take up a lot of space) and toward melee (which don't).  If you think melee is too weak compared to firearms, then ''any'' new item (other than more firearms) will help remedy that.  It's just an effect that it's good to be aware of when writing or evaluating suggestions. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 17:56, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:::Yeah, I got that in your suggestion.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:14, 23 May 2006 (BST)
* I agree with your overall premise. Note that the powered searching change has already put more pressure on inventories, as generators and fuel cans are now very valuable things to have on hand. This trend can't help but continue as Kevan adds new features. Axe is already very good compared to firearms for overall damage; you just can't often kill a healthy opponent with it in one round. --[[John_Ember|Ember]] <sup>[[User:John_Ember#MBR_Weapon_Rating_System|MBR]]</sup> 20:55, 23 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Requiring Nonconsumable Items in Inventory would Encourage Specialization===
For a silly example, suppose you're proposing crocheting doilies to put on top of the barricades.  If you expect people will find it worthwhile to have four balls of yarn in inventory (and the crochet hooks are already stuck in the ball of yarn when found), you can have it be just as effective if a ball of yarn makes 33% more doilies and you also need to keep a crochet hook as a separate item.  But then it's a more efficient use of inventory if one person specializes and keeps six, while another person doesn't keep any (seven slots total, instead of eight). --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:23, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:Not really.  The majority of players, even within groups, play "self-contained" types.  If my character can do everything and carry all items I want, I don't NEED anyone else, even if all items were consumable.  Not to mention that there are unlimited items and most action occurs while others are offline.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 02:50, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::The main reason characters are self-contained types is that that's what results when you do things the best way.  You don't gain any advantage by organizing to have someone be a specialist healer, someone else be a specialist shooter, and yet another person be a specialist barricade-builder.  But suppose the game had features where shooters got some benefit from having a bandoleer, healers got some benefit from having a couple of medical reference books, and barricade-builders got some benefit from having a bunch of tools.  If you tried to have all three, you would have hardly any room left for FAKs and ammo.  So there would be a game-mechanics incentive to get organized and have some people be specialists. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:47, 22 May 2006 (BST)
*Right now, everyone kind of drifts towards the same kind of character and until more and more skills (or a new way of handling XP) pop up, players are going to max out anyway, just to be rid of all the excess XP or out of boredom.  Three slots wouldn't take all that big a dent and I doubt it would keep any survivor from becoming a jack-of-all-trades, given that they confer bonuses.  The class really just suggests where you start out, but every human player is essentially the same class, "survivor".  A better way to give class choice more impact is to give each class an inherent bonus only accesible to those who start with that class.  There have already been a few suggestions made that used that method and I'm pretty sure at least one made it to peer-review.--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 16:45, 22 May 2006 (BST)
**I don't think I would use a bandoleer, unless the bonus were overpowered.  For just one item, it shouldn't be much: enough to be worthwhile if you spend all your time shooting, but not enough to be worth it if you spend most of your time barricading and healing, and only do a little shooting.  And if it's multiple slots for each specialty, you'll find yourself ineffective if you try to specialize in everything. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 18:04, 22 May 2006 (BST)
**A problem with class-based specialization is that two of the main activities are the same class (reviving and healing), and one doesn't have a class (barricading).  Item-based specialization could have different people specializing all four, and it could allow slight benefit from double specialization while having it be counterproductive to attempt to triple-specialize and impossible to do all four.  That would make ten specializations (four single and six double), plus the generalist who carries none of the specialist items.  Class-based specialization would also inevitably result in one class being stronger and another weaker, which would be seen as a retroactive penalty on characters of the weaker class.  Item-based specialization avoids that. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:43, 23 May 2006 (BST)
Item based specialization also has the benefit of allowing people to change their speciality. This is quite a big advantage, since:
:*It means balancing doesn't have to be as precisely tuned as class based specialization, since you can't be stuck with a bad speciality,
:*New players aren't making a big (and uninformed) decision when they pick their characters and don't yet know much about the game, and
:*It gives each character more options. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 17:12, 24 May 2006 (BST)
----

===Moderators Changing Votes===
What's up with [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions&diff=254309&oldid=254308 this]?  Since when can mod change votes if they disagree witht hem?  I thought it was strikeout or nothing. --[[User:Cinnibar|Cinnibar]] 01:07, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:He did just strike it out, just not the whole thing, which is what you're supposed to do. May be time to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions/archive10#Invalid_votes.3F point out this] again.  As The General pointed out, the requirement of validation was not actually put up to vote as per the normal rules.  Makes it somewhat ironic that it's The General saying validation is required. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 02:22, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::Actualy I think it's fair enough that the General changed it. You should have a reason behind your Spam vote unless people before have alredy said it. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 08:12, 21 May 2006 (BST)

I thought I was actally rather leaneant in not striking out the entire vote. I only changed it to a kill, would you prefer it if I had invalidated the entire vote?--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 08:16, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:Yar, it probably would have been better to strikeout the whole thing than change it from SPAM to KILL.   I've seen a number of votes struck out for lack of signage, but rarely one struck out or changed "because you need a reason".  I've never seen a vote changed from one type to another... I thought it was a little excessive to not only strike it out, but to change the vote type as well.  --[[User:Cinnibar|Cinnibar]] 15:09, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::rules are rules but i dont think your allowed to edit votes e.g change spam to kill, even if it is an invalid vote--[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 15:25, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:::I was working on the principle that the voter would prefer his vote changed to a kill rather than having it invalidated entirely. That way at least his opposition to it would be noted.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 22:30, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::::The problem with this (and it's happened before) is that people have "guessed" what someone would have wanted and changed votes before and it's been clearly established that even if the editor thinks it's a good-faith edit or correction, it's still technically vandalism.  One shouldn't assume anything about voter intent and correct someone's votes for any reason.  Re-ing to that vote and/or leaving comments on a user's discussion page is the best course, not changing the vote type.  I think it's safer in the future to avoid edits and just stick to strikeouts on supposed invalid votes. --[[User:Cinnibar|Cinnibar]] 00:20, 22 May 2006 (BST)
*Yeah, a strikeout is less likely to get you in trouble in this case.  Their objection is still noted (people can still read through a strikeout after all) and you give them a chance to amend their vote and have the strikeout removed.  Plus, with this, you insinuate that Kill votes shouldn't have valid reasons.  For the record, I '''DO''' think not having a valid reason with your vote is a perfectly good reason to invalidate a vote (even if its not in the rule ''technically'').  If you can't think of one (or ar too lazy to trot out the old standards:  "Its broken", "See Above", "What [X] said"), then you probably shouldn't be voting on it in the first place.  Its that simple.  If you have some asanine joke to tell in your vote-text, that's fine...as long as you supply a valid reason somewhere in there.  Capische?--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 16:59, 22 May 2006 (BST)
----
===Request for Analysis/Discussion of Suggestion===
''(similar to above, but seperate issue)''
Author: [[User:Bubacxo|Bubacxo]]
Time: 06:38, 29 May 2006 (BST)

Concerning: My Suggestion "PSP Access to Gameplay" 2nd vote on [[Suggestions/14th-May-2006|this page]].

Voting Closed as of May 28, 2006.
Has not been Tallied, nor moved to "Peer Reviewed" or "Peer Rejected".

I Would like to request an analysis from an NPOV Moderator --preferrably one who didn't vote, so to avoid bias. (especially considering some of the disputed votes were made ''BY'' moderators.)

I feel many of these votes should have been invalid.
Many were based on Coding Complexity, others on "Kevan has better things to do" or "not Kevan's responsibility", & others claiming it is a bug report (which since the game was not originally coded for being accessed by PSP, would not be a bug). Oh, and two without a reason at all.

Including the disputed votes, current tally is:
'''Keep''':10
'''Kill''':8
'''Spam''':3

If the disputed votes are not included, tally would be:
'''Keep''':10
'''Kill''':0
'''Spam''':0

I know that at this point, I cannot remove & reword this to be concise & have the disclaimers to prevent this kind of thing from happening, as that would get it shot down as a dupe, or be seen as me abusing the system (rather than how I feel currently, being abused ''by'' the system.)

This happening to my first & only suggestion, after reading the rules, looking at suggestions, voting, etc. really makes me lose faith in this system.

If anyone has intelligent conversation on this, please discuss this with me. 

(''I will any and all technical information I can find/have if asked.'') {{Unsigned|Bubacxo|}}

:You're concerned about invalid votes claiming it was a bug report, that I can understand &mdash; It's '''not''' a bug in Urban Dead. Claiming that it is a bug is spurious; is Urban Dead "buggy" because it won't run with MSIE 1.0? Hell no. This ties in neatly with my reasoning why the PSP can stick it:
:Your claim that votes, like mine, were invalid because we said it's "''not Kevan's responsibility to compensate for a poorly coded browser''" is clearly due to a lack of perspective on your part. If the PSP's browser does not comply with the web standards, then TOUGH. How is it '''anybody's''' responsibility to <u>compensate for another's incompetence</u>? {{User:Xoid/sig}} 09:29, 29 May 2006 (BST)
::How do you know that it's not Urbandead that doesn't comply with web standards. Anyway, what is wrong with it going to peer reviewed. If Kevan wants to spend the time coding it he will, if he doesn't he won't. Vote on whether it would make the game more fun for people to play, not on whether you think it's worth Kevan's time to code or not.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 10:44, 29 May 2006 (BST)
:::If Kevan feels like wasting his time on it, fine. I will still dispute the claim that my vote is invalid. As to the claim that Urbandead is what is at fault here, I just ran five pages through the [http://validator.w3.org/ W3C's Code Validator], including the Cascading Style Sheet (through their CSS validator) and have gotten very little wrong out of them. There are more grevious errors than that on almost EVERY web page visited, and yet Firefox, IE, Opera; none of them have problems with the code that it breaks the game. Could Kevan stand to make his code more standards compliant, yes. Does a handful (7 '''minor''' errors over 5 pages) of errors break the game on any ''real'' browser? No. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 11:10, 29 May 2006 (BST)
::::Does it hurt to fix them anyway? No.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 12:06, 29 May 2006 (BST)
:::::Does it hurt to fix those 7 errors? Of course not. Fixing ''those'' errors would be fixing an ''actual'' coding problem, and could benefit us all more than allowing owners  of the PSP to use Urban Dead ever could. If you were still on the topic of the PSP, tell me why is it that the suggestion, basically begging Kevan to compensate for Sony's incompetence, deserves to get in?
:::::It is a matter of principle: you ask the person who fucked up to clean their mess up, not someone else to do it for them. He wants to ask Kevan, fine. Regardless, that suggestion should be sent to peer rejected, as it was rejected for legitimate reasons. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 13:07, 29 May 2006 (BST)
::::::First, It's not a question of fault. Everyone who said Kill from a "not Kevan's responsibility" perspective are saying Kevan has an "no obligation", which he doesn't, I agree. But he also has "no obligation" to actually put the game on the web & update it in the first place. Second, the PSP Browser conforms to the ECMA Script 262 3rd Edition standard on Java(many sites say this. [http://www.psp-vault.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=244 Here's one]. [http://jefte.net/psp/what-browser-does-the-sony-psp-use/ & Another].) , which is a standard being observed my MANY mobile devices. So using this standard to update the game would add more functionality than just making one more device use it. It was not a "fuck up" as you say, but a legitimate decision to use a mobile device standard, and since we are only voting on if it would be ''nice to have this implemented''... I thought those votes had a problem. And again. MOST of it already conforms to these standards & works. Do you even have a PSP? [[User:Bubacxo|bubacxo]] 16:12, 29 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::Fuck no. Why would I want a hunk of junk when I've got an actual computer?
:::::::Regardless, if the suggestion had of been "Make this game compatible with standard X", instead of "Make it work for the PSP", then I don't think it would've have gotten spaminated so heavily, if at all. I know that ''I'' would've voted keep if it had of been in that form, but it wasn't. The way you wrote the suggestion made it sound like it was limited to the PSP. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:28, 29 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::For that point, I admit, I should have researched it more heavily or put it on the talk page first, but this was my first suggestion & I didn't know any better. I only know now since the poo flung at me spurred me to look into it. (heh.) Two Words: Learning Experience. The question is, do I repost it with All Relevant Info & heavily note it's a clarification & not a dupe? [[User:Bubacxo|Bubacxo]] 16:37, 29 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::::Just read the instructions on the suggestions page in full. More than twice. If it meets all the criteria, then by all means, go ahead. Considering it would now be aimed at getting a host of mobile devices, instead of a single one&hellip; I just don't see that many flames, spams or kill coming it's way. Still don't see why you can't use a real, portable computer though.
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives/PortablePC.jpg Like that one. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 18:32, 29 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::::: Well, it's not like I don't ''use'' my home comp to play, I would just enjoy being able to play on the PSP. Plus it doesn't help much that my internet connection is a guest account on the mother-in-law's AOL(28.8, but the price was right), and that the wireless connection I can get on my PSP is faster. Sad, ain't it? [[User:Bubacxo|Bubacxo]] 02:25, 30 May 2006 (BST)



----

===Backlog Progress===
Just keeping a log of which pages I've done up to and by association, those ready to be filed away.  It doubles as a measure of my hate for Mr NoName.
"Current" Progress: January up to [[Suggestions/11th-Jan-2006|Jan 11th]] ready for processing. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 19:56, 21 May 2006 (BST)
*Progress Update: Up to [[Suggestions/15th-Jan-2006|Jan 15th]] ready for processing. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 20:45, 21 May 2006 (BST)
'''Small Problem''' - Came across something odd while I was going through the rest of January in order to cross out invalid votes before I tallied. Found some votes which were ''signed'' but not ''dated''. Are they still valid votes? Without the timestamp we can't be sure it was cast in time, and since the pages have no history we can't check it there.  Should I just strike them? [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 05:56, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:Isn't the old page history still there on the pages the votes were moved from? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:44, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::Every page had had their history archived or deleted or some such so that it begins at March.  So there is no history to check from what I can tell. - [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 20:36, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:::Actualy they are invalid votes because you have to have a time stamp on your vote for it to be valid. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 14:25, 23 May 2006 (BST)
*Progress Update: January up to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/20th-Jan-2006 Jan 20] ready for processing. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 17:54, 23 May 2006 (BST)
*:Keep up the good work [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]]. Hopefuly when we get through all of the backlog then people will put in the effort to actualy manage this system. But it seems unlikely to me that they will. Oh well one can only dream. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 16:31, 24 May 2006 (BST)
*Progess Update: The '''ENTIRE MONTH OF JANUARY''', seen [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/January2006 here], is ready for processing...mostly. There was a minor problem with [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/19th-Jan-2006#Armor-piercing.2C_or_AP_.28.22cop-killer.22.29_rounds this suggestion] and votes appearing/disappearing. I pointed it out in my note. - [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 18:48, 24 May 2006 (BST) - ''Edit'': Page in working order again.  No idea what was going on there. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 00:27, 25 May 2006 (BST)
*:Good job, I'll get onto that whole month now and get the suggestions sorted. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 11:14, 25 May 2006 (BST)
*Problem #3: Problem trifica is complete.  Going through February when I came across [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/3rd-Feb-2006#Different_Explicit_Zerg_Warning this]. Vote #14 is signed ''and'' timestamped, but there is no name link, which suggests the usual tilde method wasn't used, so we can't be sure it was the same user, or even the correct time.  Valid or no? [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 05:08, 26 May 2006 (BST) '''Edit''' - I also just noticed his other votes are done properly, but this one looks like it was inputted manually. 05:09, 26 May 2006 (BST)
*:Well I would say that it's invalid becasuse it's not stamped correctly, so feel free to remove it. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 07:03, 26 May 2006 (BST)
::*I'm going to wait for a mod's opinion on this one. - [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 21:17, 26 May 2006 (BST)
:::Well I don't see the point disturbing a mod for this. Mainly because even if the votes there or not the suggestion will still just go to peer rejected. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:13, 27 May 2006 (BST)
*'''Progress Update:''' The months of '''[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/February2006 February]''' and '''[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/March2006 March]''' are tallied - except for [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/2nd-Mar-2006#Ammo_Conservation this] (locked), and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/3rd-Feb-2006#Different_Explicit_Zerg_Warning this] (see above). - [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 21:17, 26 May 2006 (BST)
*:Wow, Keep up the good work - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:13, 27 May 2006 (BST)
*Yay! Finaly Januray has been done. Well for all of the peer reviewed suggestions. I'll go back over it later and move the other suggestions. But the peer reviewed realy need to be moved first I reckon because the older they get the less relevant they are to the game. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 12:23, 29 May 2006 (BST)

=Policy Discussion=
''This area is for formal policy discussion concerning policy votings to be opened on the subject of the suggestion page, as per the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions/archive7#RULES_FOR_CHANGING_THE_RULES rules for changing the rules]''


==Spam Vote Definition==

Apart from the caveat about not being a "strong kill" (which many people seem to ignore), spam votes are defined only as "for the most ridiculous suggestions", which is almost meaninglessly vague. I think we need to specifically define what merits a spam vote, as at the moment any spam vote can be defended with "but I thought it was ridiculous!"

"Spam" itself is mostly just being used as "strong kill" at the moment. On the page right now we've got generator-electrocution being spammed because people don't agree that GKing should be punished, and medic XP being spammed because people don't like the proposer's attitude (including a comment of "I wouldn't have even voted spam if not for that. I'd have just voted 'kill.'"). Neither idea is "ridiculous", both have some merit, and it doesn't seem fair or helpful if they're spammed off the page before they get enough useful feedback (the GKing one was nearly spammed before anyone got a chance to suggest only damaging on successful hits).

It looks like WTFCENTAURS has evolved to fit the niche that spam votes are ''supposed'' to fill, for the completely ridiculous psychic-zombie-rocket-launcher stuff. I say we redefine "spam" to mean the WTFCENTAURS end of the spectrum, and encourage people to just say "kill" if they don't like an otherwise coherent and genre-appropriate proposal. Any thoughts? Suggestions for definitions? --[[User:Punchkin|Punchkin]] 08:27, 17 May 2006 (BST)

* The best definition I've seen is "anything that can't be salvaged by playing with the numbers." That is, a suggestion that violates some fundamental tenet of the game, particularly as seen in the Suggestion Do's and Don'ts. And while those guidelines are a bit over-strict in places (we can't suggest adjustments to AP usage ''at all?'' Kevan has played with AP more than once!), they are generally a solid yardstick for assessing Spamability. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 14:56, 17 May 2006 (BST)
:The problem is more that spam voters aren't giving legitimate reasons why they voted the way the did, like they are supposed to ("Just no" or "this is stupid" or whatever do not cover it).  But, yeah, the spam vote IS pretty much subjective (some people believe that ALL suggestions have "merit" for example).  Here are the definitions *I* use.  Keep means the suggestion is good AS IS.  Kill means try again, but make changes (AND the voter leaves what they think should be changed).  Spam means the suggestion should never return, there is no way to save it no matter what changes are made.  As for the examples you cited ([[Suggestions#Electrocution_.28not_a_dupe.29|Electrocution]] spam voters DID give feedback (read [[index.php/User:Ism|ism's]] vote, but [[index.php/User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] and [[index.php/User:Tirion529|Tirion529]] shouldn't really be counted since they don't have valid reasons for the vote.  And the Medic XP suggestion seems to have utterly disappeared, but it was dying not because people were "abusing spam" but because it would badly imbalance the game.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:27, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Maybe we should just eliminate the spam vote for a few weeks, and reintroduce it when the itch to abuse it has abated.  If something is so vague -- not ''general'' as opposed to specific, where many possibilities could be ways of making it more specific, but ''vague'', where you can't even tell whether a more detailed suggestion is a way of elaborating on it or not -- if something is so vague as to fail to be a suggestion, then it ought to be spaminated.  But if we could wind up having a real spam vote instead of the spam-vote-abuse we have now, that would be worth losing the spam vote entirely for a while.  --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 05:06, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:An even better solution would be to allow moderators to strike out spam votes that dont give a valid reason. Valid reasons being: Breaking the suggestion do's and Do nots, irredeemable suggestions (That cannot be fixed, as per John Ember's statement), suggestions intended to greif a certain section of the playing community, things that arent suggestions for the game, and finally suggestions that are absurd and dont fit into UD or are beyond suspension of disbelief (For example: Magic, or sticking more than two shells in what is portrayed as a double barrelled shotgun without the required *BOOM* when firing, Carniverous sidewalks, Giant Spiders, Barricade Automatons, etc). --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 05:50, 18 May 2006 (BST)
::<s>Big Brother</s> Katthew is watching.  Couldn't resist.  Refresh my memory, didn't we have a time when a mod went around removing votes that she didn't like back in the day? I wasn't around then so the best I can do is look through the archive. -[[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 08:16, 18 May 2006 (BST)
:::I agree with Grim. Allow mods to remove those Spam Votes that have no reason and also only allow Mods to remove Spammed suggestions because these suggestions are only around for a few minutes and some people may actually have something positiver to say. -- [[User:Krazy Monkey|Krazy Monkey]] 19:38, 18 May 2006 (BST)
::All sounds good apart from "grief a certain section of the playing community". This is okay if it would genuinely make a certain section completely unplayable and unviable, but given that all suggestions are bad for ''somebody'', I think a lot of spam votes could be spuriously defended with "it griefs (my character)!" (I don't agree that the Electrocution skill would actually "grief" GKers, for example. Certainly not fundamentally, it would work with different numbers, so kill instead of spam.) --[[User:Punchkin|Punchkin]] 03:22, 19 May 2006 (BST)
*A strikeout of the vote, rather than removal, is probably a better idea.  This way the voter still gets a chance to amend things, but the vote stays invalid until that correction takes place.  In most cases but the most flagrant vandalism, strikeouts are usually better anyway.  They stand as a way to show other users what doesn't stand as acceptable behavior, whereas a removal (unless the mod puts a line in saying "So-and-sos vote was removed due to invalid vote protocol") leaves the other users suspecting foul play, if they even notice.--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 17:33, 22 May 2006 (BST)
*At the very least Spam votes that are struck out (not that I'm saying this is a good idea) should still be counted, but as kill votes. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:05, 23 May 2006 (BST)
:*Why should it ''have'' to count as a kill?  If you're going the bother saying "this-and-this makes a vote invalid", then why go only half-ass on it? (And for that matter, what would you change a "Keep" with no valid reasoning behind it to?).  If the suggestion isn't spammed (in which case the vote is moot anyway), its up there for two weeks...plenty of time to amend your vote-text and get the strikeout removed/vote counted as valid.  Even if the user who did the strikeout is not courteous enough to let you know personally about it, it's bound to appear in your watchlist (if you are watching the suggestion anyway).--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 14:27, 23 May 2006 (BST)
:: why it has to count as kill? perhaps because it's absolutely clear that the voter dislikes the suggestion and doesn't think it has enough merit to go to peer-reviewed? as for the watch list. it's not bound to appear in your watchlist becuase we cycle out suggestions, seeing the amount of traffic this page recieves you have to check up after your vote all the time to see if it hasn't been struck out. most people vote between 18-24 (BST) and disappear for a couple of hours. Now they have to stay unline just to make sure some zealiot doesn't stike out there vote? What is the problem with the spam vote anyway? I've yet to see any worthwile suggestion get spammed, hell a lot of the meritless suggestion aren't getting removed like they should. Seriously why do some people have such a problem with the spam vote? striking it out. not counting it, etc. Restarting the same discussion agian and agian and agian and yet again without them ever having a example of an unjustly spammed suggestion? It's never been harder to remove a never workable suggestion and still the same complaints keep getting repeated without any backing from facts. If you want to make a case that the spam voting system is currerently broken and needs a rework get unjustly spammed suggestions from peer rejected or history. All this is just a lot of bull about nothing. the system isn't broken and if you think it is, make a case first.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 17:53, 23 May 2006 (BST)
*Yes, yes, I've been around this argument time and time again, but this is not the topic here (you can see it in the topic heading above).  The case being made here is that Spam votes (and all votes by extension) should come with reasoning in the vote-text and the actions taken (if any) when one is found without adequate reasoning.  So please pack up your shrill refrain for now, 'k?  To wit:  I've never countered your so-called challenge to retrieve the salvagable out from the Spam is likely due to the very subjective idea of what constitutes "salvagable suggestion" (in other words, one which should have only been killed).  Me and you, as well as every user on this wiki, is bound to carry an individual reference point that helps them demarcate what is and isn't Spam.  So thus, we get another argument going back and forth over the merit/lack of merit of Suggestion X.  No thank you.--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 21:19, 24 May 2006 (BST)

==Featured Suggestion Suggestion==

I think it's a bummer that there are so many nifty suggestions tucked away on the Peer Reviewed page where they don't get seen except by those double-checking for Dupes. What does everyone think about creating some kind of Featured Suggestion box that would draw attention to a suggestion which may be long since consigned to the archive, but which we think is really cool? It could be just a colored sidebar with a partial summary and a link to the suggestion on Peer Reviewed for those who want to read the whole thing. We'd have to figure out how we pick such Featured Suggestions (rotate the choice among us?), how long a feature would last, etc. The responsibility of switching out the feature could fall to the person who's turn it was to pick. Besides just being fun, it might help the newbies in understanding what a good suggestion looks like. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 22:39, 3 May 2006 (BST)
:Well we do have enough peer reviewed suggestions to do this (167 to be exact), what we could do is on this talk page have a voting system choosing the suggestions we want. We'ld all get a choice out of 3 for each day. We can use a system similar to [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day/May Wikiquote] - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 11:08, 4 May 2006 (BST)
::I had a bit of a play and this is an example of what I came up with, I might go ahead and put this onto the suggestions page tomorrow presuming no one objects. (except I'll chose a skill that isn't mine) - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 14:23, 6 May 2006 (BST)
{| width=400 align="center" style="border:solid #115565 2px;"
|-
| align="center" style="background:#00AAAA" | '''Featured Suggestion For Today'''
|-
| align="center" style="font-size:90%;" | Skill Alteration - [[Skill_Alteration:_Survivor#Toggle_Headshot|Toggle Headshot]].
|-
|align="left" style="font-size:80%;background:#808080" | This suggestion, toggle headshot provides the character with the ability to disarm headshot if they so chose to.
|}
::: I like the template implementation.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 14:56, 6 May 2006 (BST)
::::I really like this idea.  The template's nice too --[[User:CPQD|CPQD]] 18:40, 6 May 2006 (BST)
:::::Well I went ahead and added it to the suggestions page. If you want to add it to your user page just put in <nowiki>{{FeaturedSuggestion}}</nowiki>. I geuss now I'll have to do it on a daily basis, but thats ok. But I do think we should have a voting system like wikiquote so that people don't just say "Oh, you are favoring such and such" - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 04:11, 7 May 2006 (BST)
{{FeaturedSuggestion}}
:::::Thanks to [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] for making the template look better. I'm going to set up a page so we can vote on which suggestions we want to have shown for the featured suggestion. [[Featured_Suggestion_Voting|Featured Suggestion Voting]] The system will work similar to wiki quote. I'll go and place the rules for voting onto the page and so that way we can have a fair and unbiased selection of suggestions - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:25, 7 May 2006 (BST)
::::::I am afraid that it has to pass a vote before it can be implimented. I have removed the template from the Suggestions intro template until such time as that vote has been made and passed. Personally, i dont see a need for it. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 12:26, 7 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::Aww... ok then I'll go and get the community to vote on it, however I do still think it was a good addition because the good suggestions don't get hidden away with this. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 12:35, 7 May 2006 (BST)
:Ok, we need 20 votes in total, at least 14 yes's to get this template onto the suggestion page. So the plan is to generate enough interest for people to vote on this. So if you could ask people you know to vote on the change then that would be appreciated. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 14:04, 7 May 2006 (BST)
::[[User:Vista|Vista]] just noted me about a great idea. As you all may be aware the Featured Suggestion Suggestion is being shot down because it creates clutter. So what [[User:Vista|Vista]] purposed is that we have a page just for the featured suggestions with the template on it (or at least thats how I understood it). So I had a play around with the idea and [[Featured Suggestion|this]] is what I came up with for the page. So if only a link on the suggestions page intro was provided I'ld imagine that all of the people who were shooting down the idea wouldn't mind any more. So in short what I was getting at is for you all to tell me what you think about the page and posiable improvements on it. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:01, 16 May 2006 (BST)
:::It's quite pretty, and it's easily navigated. Nice. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 20:53, 16 May 2006 (BST)

:Thanks [[User:Toejam|Toejam]]. Any way, as people would have noticed the motion failed. Mainly because there wern't enough people voting on it. So I'm going to suggest a version which reduces clutter for all of the people who disliked it. Also we *need* to get more people interested in it because otherwise it'll end up not getting enough votes again. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 15:03, 22 May 2006 (BST)

==Suggestions from peer reviewed most wanted in the game==
I just made a page for this. I'll make the link soon... [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 04:34, 21 May 2006 (BST)
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/mostwanted]
:Making the better archived suggestions more easily available(peer reviewed alone is huge) AND allowing discussion on them somewhere would be nice, if that's what you're doing. With UD being so basic, most of the rational suggestions have already been made, and it sucks to be new and left without a voice.  When I first started playing I read over all the archived suggestions and I was very eager to endorse/support the great peer-reviewed suggestions I liked. Making a best-of-the-best page to list and discuss them would be very cool, and might give Kevan a better idea of what most players would like to see.(sadly, the current suggestion system does not do that IMHO) On a side note, this may help reduce new dupe and bad suggestions since newbs will be more willing to read the old suggestions if they can participate on some level.--[[User:Raystanwick|Raystanwick]] 11:46, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::Well there isn't any easier way to archive the suggestions. But I've noticed that going through all of the suggestions that the kinds of suggestions are usualy in lumps. IE, GPS improvememnts for about 3 days, then a new way for Zombies to attack ect. It's all a great big loop so you can just look the major ideas. Plus there isn't any real way of ranking what all of the people would like best, once you get voting all done then it's two weeks later and quite possibly not what people want any more. I have came up with a solution to get newbies more invlolved kinda. I made this template for featured suggestions (<nowiki>{{FeaturedSuggestion}}</nowiki> if you wanna slap it onto your user page) and there is a whole system where you rank a few of the peer reviewed suggestions and then they get displayed for a day or so ([[Featured_Suggestion_Voting|Check it out]]). This is probably the easiest way of getting peoples opinions out about what they think would be worthwhile being implemented and more user support is always a good thing. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 15:12, 30 May 2006 (BST)

==Suggestion Probation==
Just recently somone posted a suggestion that was, frankly, laughably stupid...

 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=16:58, May 12 2006 (PST)|
suggest_type=Improvement|
suggest_scope=Paid Users|
suggest_description=Paid users recover AP at the rate of 2 per half hour, thus helping to support the site at more than just the too many server requests being fixed.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
#'''Author keep''' - Helps play move quicker while allowing the site more support.  --[[User:TheBriz|TheBriz]] 16:58, 12 May 2006 (PST)
#'''Spam''' - Ah.  Ah ha.  Ah haha.  AHAHAHAH- no. --[[User:Lucero Capell|Lucero]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[User_talk:Lucero Capell|T]]</sup> 00:13, 13 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Obligatory WTFCENTAURS vote''' AKA '''SPAM''' See above--[[User:Mpaturet|Mpaturet]] 00:14, 13 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam'''- Absolutly not. [[User:Swmono|Swmono]]
#'''Spam''' - No sir, I don't like it! -- [[User:Tirion529|Tirion529]] 00:18, 13 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam''' - My urge is to not dignify this with a real response, as the others have done. But stupid people don't get less stupid that way. A.) messing with AP in any way is a bad idea, and will generally break the game. A double recharge rate for ANYONE is just not going to work. B.) giving donators special powers leads to what we like to call AdventureQuest syndrome: a quote-unquote "free" game where--just like in real life--the people with money get everything and everyone else is subpar. This is to be avoided. I'm going to suggest a rule about needing 50 suggestion votes before you can make a suggestion, or something.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 00:19, 13 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Spam''' - A centaur to you and yours, sir.  A centaur to you and yours.  --[[User:Undeadinator|Undeadinator]] 00:20, 13 May 2006 (BST)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

As you can see from my vote, I had an idea.  50 was my first impulse, but I guess that's rather high.  Howsabout a new user to the wiki isn't allowed to make any new sugestions until he's voted on 10 or 20--let's say 15--suggestions, and given at least 1 full sentence of reasoning on each?  I think it'd cut well down on spam...--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 00:26, 13 May 2006 (BST)
:Biggest problem would be counting them. --[[User:Lucero Capell|Lucero]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[User_talk:Lucero Capell|T]]</sup> 00:41, 13 May 2006 (BST)
:I'm all for it, this way people can see what's good and what isn't before they try their suggestions. Also, we could check the contributions page that every user has; but I think most of us can tell who has been around that long and who hasn't. --[[User:Arcos|Arcos]] 01:58, 13 May 2006 (BST)
::I would have to agree with [[User:Lucero Capell|Lucero]]. However we could just put it in the guidelines saying that it's suggested to vote on a few suggestions with full reasoning behind your vote before creating a suggestion. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 05:08, 13 May 2006 (BST)
:::I feal 50 is to many, id put a more resonable limit 20? 20 suggestions would remove most of the 1 spam wonders, without discouraging too many new users--[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 15:21, 13 May 2006 (BST)
::::Even still it would be near on imposiable to tell how many suggestions a person has voted on and no one would be bothered to check. It can't realy be enforced, however as I said before it should be added to the guidelines saying that it's suggested. But 20 seems like a reasonable number to me. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 03:49, 14 May 2006 (BST)

:::::Well, no one need necessarily check.  Just put in the tulres that you have to.  Newbies, being newbies, won't know that no one ever actually bothers to check--most of them will probably do it.  Those that don't vote on ANY beforehand we'll notice, and we can delete the suggestions; those that don't quite fill the quota of 15 or whatever will feel like they've gotten away with something, and their suggestions will still be less crap.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 16:52, 14 May 2006 (BST)

::::::It sets a bad precedent to add something to the rules if we know it's not going to be enforced. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 06:13, 15 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::I have to say, 'Ster, I agree with Lucero and Toejam. But I fucking love the idea. If only there was some way to keep track. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|talk!]])</font></sup> 06:54, 15 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::We could just create some kind of "submitter registration" page where someone needs to be registered on the page for a week before they can start submitting suggestions. --[[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 15:19, 15 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::::Yeah, but I still have a gut feeling against it. There are good reasons for having a low vote count, such as only voting on a suggestion when it seems possible that a vote will ''matter''. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 15:53, 15 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::::You're not a member of the forums are you? There's something there called [http://zombies.desensitised.net/board/index.php?topic=7305.msg153326#msg153326 Stoth's Law].  Suffice to say it still gets ignored/passed over by newbies - more recently newbies stating that they've read and understand it. Just because people have been voting on votes, doesn't mean they understand what a good suggestion is comprised of any more then someone who just stumbled upon the Wiki. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 23:05, 15 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::::: You learn most from doing, the crap suggestion maker now may be the ever so slightly reasonable suggestion maker from tomorrow. And we actually had enough people who came  here posting one rather good idea that got peer-reviewed and who then never returned. Just think of spam suggestions as the half time entertainment.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 23:16, 15 May 2006 (BST)
:No to Stroth's Law! It's fucking cliqueism, pure and simple. At best, it'll lead to people spamming votes on suggestions they haven't read or don't care about just so they can break the magic 50 and post their retarded zombie rocketlauncher idea. [[User:Furtim|furtim]] 20:45, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::A better "probation" would be one that I've heard tossed about at various points previously. Namely, having one of your suggestions spammed means that you can't suggest anything else for a certain period of time. Two days, a week, whatever. That's a lot better than this, because it won't cause people to spam votes without reading and because it doesn't punish new guys who may happen to have a really great idea. Also acceptable: a limit of one-suggestion-per-user-per-day. [[User:Furtim|furtim]] 20:48, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:::Wait.  You're saying that booting people, for having their suggestion get spamminated, will cause the voters to read the suggestion? Your faith in the voters is astounding. As for the suggestions per day, we already have a 3/day limit, it was added in March. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 20:52, 21 May 2006 (BST)
::::Three is too high, although I suppose the problem of multiple-suggestions has declined lately anyway. (Probably mostly because Aushvitz isn't around anymore.) Even granting that somebody has three brilliant ideas in a single day, what's the harm of putting them all here in the Talk page and submitting them for voting one at a time?
::::And I'm saying that a ''temporary probation'' based on having votes spaminated is a good idea, yes. Not even a ban, they could still vote and use the Talk page, but any new suggestions from the user within a certain period would be subject to immediate deletion from the page or transfer to the Talk page, at the discretion of the mods. Considering that I don't think I've ever seen an even half-decent suggestion get spaminated, especially under the recently revitalised rules which many people have complained don't get things off the page quickly enough, I don't think the probation I described is too harsh.
::::Your comment about people spamming without reading frankly seems like a non sequitur to me. The connection between a required number of votes and and vote-spamming is pretty obvious, since like I said people will just go through all the past suggestions pages and vote randomly in order to gain enough votes to post their zombie rocket launcher suggestion. If spamination resulted in probation, you may have people who vote spam just to be grief suggestors, but it's not like one or two jokers will really be able to successfully spaminate a suggestion that has any merit to it.
::::In other words, your concerns assume that the current system of voting is completely and irretrievably broken. I think it's got some flaws, but it's certainly not ''that'' bad, and if it is that bad then the only thing to be done is raze the whole Suggestions page and be rid of it for good. [[User:Furtim|furtim]] 01:53, 22 May 2006 (BST)
:::::(I am new to wiki so forgive me if the format's wrong) Making people wait will not improve the quality of the suggestions they eventually do post. I think there are a few reasons why there are so many BAD suggestions. First, the game is very simple so there is "a lot of room for improvement"(read: potential to add detail) esp when compared to a console or comp game. Second, with UD being so basic, most of the rational suggestions have already been made, so people try to find something new to suggest even if it stretches the game. Third, some people simply do not think their ideas through; some people ARE just dumb, frankly(and nothing will prevent their bad suggestions). You can't punish all newcomers for that. A way to avoid more bad suggestions is to educate newbs by making the BETTER archived suggestions more easily available AND allowing discussion on them somewhere(like what's posted in the discussion above this one), so they can learn how to make a good suggestion. This wouldn't eliminate the problem, but it sure could prevent some of it.--[[User:Raystanwick|Raystanwick]] 11:20, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::::::That sounds good. And we'll be safe in the knowledge that every single one of Mattiator's suggestions will be kept safely hidden away from the public, who will continue their daily lives heedless of the mindless terror that lurks in the depths of the wiki. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 11:24, 25 May 2006 (BST)

==How specific ''should'' something have to be in order to count as a "suggestion"?==

We have it by unanimous acclamation that "Next time a major new item is added, put it on the search table for auto repairs and leave it off the search table for malls." doesn't count as a "suggestion", even though it suggests something.  But how much further does the category of 'not a "suggestion"' suggestions extend?  And more importantly, how much further should it?

Details often are useful, certainly, and sometimes necessary.  If you need a way to make your trading scheme zerger-proof, for example, you can't do it without some details: just saying it ought to be zerger-proof doesn't convince any reasonable person that it could be.  A [[Suggestion_Guidelines_By_Type | list]] of things to consider including is worth having as a resource for people making suggestions, just not as a requirement that every suggestion include all imaginable details no matter how irrelevant to its point.

But in most if not all of the implemented suggestions, Kevan has done it somewhat differently than was said in the suggestion.  So the record suggests that grinding things out at the level of pseudocode often isn't particularly helpful.

My criterion for the minimum to qualify as a suggestion is this:  the suggestion must provide enough information that you could look at any pseudocode-level change to the game and say whether it constitutes an implementation of the suggestion.  That's just a minimum for something to count as a suggestion; if you think that a suggestion would benefit from having more detail, that's a valid reason for a "kill - revise and resubmit" vote. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 15:41, 15 May 2006 (BST)
:actually the record is also in favor of turning out pseudo code, Howl for example. point is with pseudo-code you catch everything and it's relatively easy for kevan to work from. he can just take what he wants. with your broad definition of suggestion it's easy to just be so vague that kevan still has nothing more then a piece of flavor he probably would've thought off himself. this says it best

:Q. Can I send you some ideas? 
:A. Thanks, but I've got more than enough ideas - the gaps between features are because I don't have the time to implement them, not because I'm sat here trying to think of something. I've watched the same zombie films that you have; it isn't particularly useful to have people telling me that helicopters and abandoned cars and infectious bites would be cool. 
''Elegant implementations of ideas might be taken up or used as raw material'', though - the best place to communicate these ideas to me would be through the peer-reviewed Suggestions page of the Urban Dead Wiki.--Kevan

:emphasis mine. the pseudo code is there to make sure people try to make their suggestions as elegent as possible.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 16:01, 15 May 2006 (BST)

::Vista's right, though it would be nice to have someplace to discuss whether general goals of suggestions are good goals to be aiming for.--[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 16:16, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I agree that suggestions of mere flavor text are worthless, and shouldn't be considered real suggestions.  But that doesn't apply to the types of suggestions I'm thinking of.  My concern is with ones that say something concrete about game mechanics, but without being fully specific.  I'll revise my criterion to "The suggestion must provide enough information that you could look at any pseudocode-level change to the game ''mechanics (i.e. with the flavor text removed)'' and say whether it constitutes an implementation of the suggestion". --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 16:47, 15 May 2006 (BST)
:So, someone could suggest "''make zombies' atttacks stronger''", and when something like tangling grasp comes along, claim their suggestion was implemented? The problem is suggestions that vague aren't much use.--[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 17:31, 15 May 2006 (BST)
::On the other hand i suggested an outline for a full mecaniche, that coverd all possible outcomes ect (with the coding sort of implied but not wanting to step on anybodies toes. alot of the kill votes were because the suggestion was too complicated--[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 18:25, 16 May 2006 (BST)

::Yes, very unspecific suggestions aren't as good as suggestions that accomplish the same goals while being more specific (without overloading the amount people are willing to read).  That's a reason to vote kill.  But that's a separate question from whether something is so vague that it isn't even a suggestion.  For example, something is vague if you can't tell whether it includes increased damage, or only increased to-hit percentage, or both.  "Make zombie attacks more effective" would unambiguously include both.  It would be a suggestion.  If there were widespread agreement that zombie attacks need to be more effective (one way or the other), then it would be useful to find out.  Then it would be on the list, and it could be spaminated as a dupe the next time, unless the author gave some details. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 04:53, 18 May 2006 (BST)

:So, your ranting that some suggestions aren't clear enough?  Then they get spammed or killed.  End of story.  The problem isn't that a suggestion is weak it is that it either doesn't get started on the discussion page to be made ready for suggesting or, when it does, people DON'T help.  Then it DOES get submitted as a suggestion and people tear it apart.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:01, 22 May 2006 (BST)

:I think the amount of detail required depends on the type of suggestion.  A weapons balance change obviously needs to have all the numbers completely in order, but a class or action suggestion probably does not.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 12:48, 31 May 2006 (BST)

==Suggestion Guides==
I just posted [[Guides:Dan's Guide to Making Suggestions]].  (I'll remove the duplicate material from this page, once people have had a last chance to respond to the discussion here.)  Where else should/can I link it?  Anyone else want to write one? --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 19:24, 21 May 2006 (BST)
*I like it.  Don't quite agree with every point, but I like the drift of encouraging suggestors to take chances as long as they think though it.  I doubt you'd find a majority that would let it be in any public space.  More likely it would be linked off your user page, which would probably limit its usefulness to others.  Maybe if enough users liked it enough (after several versions) anyway, you might stand a chance of getting a vote to put it somewhere linking off the main suggestion page...but I sincerely doubt it.  I do wish others would do something like this though, if only to get a good idea of where they stand.  More power to you for thinking this up, though...--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 17:18, 22 May 2006 (BST)

==Voting Rule Change==
Ok, as pointed out in a different policy vote it is ridiculous that a couple of '''no''' votes can save a policy. So it was suggested to change the rules so that a minium of 14 '''yes''' votes and 2/3rds of them are '''yes'''. Discuss - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:14, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:That makes no sense at all. 2/3rds Yes out of a minimum of 14 Yes votes? WTF? --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 06:21, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::Let me rephrase it better, I meant at least 2/3rds of all votes are '''yes'''es. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:47, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:::Actualy I'll rephrase the whole thing because it doesn't make much sense at all (my brains fried...)

:Ok, as pointed out in a different policy vote it is ridiculous that a couple of '''no''' votes can save a policy. So it was suggested to change the rules so that a minium of 14 '''yes''' votes and at least 2/3rds of the total votes are '''yes''' for a policy to pass. Discuss. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:57, 25 May 2006 (BST)

:I still don't understand the need for this, and I sense that you won't be able to explain it to me satisfactorily. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:31, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::I see what you mean.  I think what he's trying to say is he wants to change it so there is a minimum of 14 yes votes and a 2/3 majority for a policy vote to pass.  This is rather redundant since it takes 20 to pass, with at least 15 being yes. - [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 10:07, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:::OK. Thanks for explaining it to me coherently. I'd have to say, based on lengthy thought and consideration, that this is stupid. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 10:59, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::::<u>'''Actually'''</u> what I was trying to get at is removing the 20 votes min and replacing it with the 14 yes vote minium and a 2/3 majority. I geuss I'm just no good with words. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 11:08, 25 May 2006 (BST)
<!-- Yes I changed it (being a bit of a sore looser, he he) -->
{{Speling}}
:::::Finally! A chance to test drive my new baby! --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 11:09, 25 May 2006 (BST)
::::::Ha, except that my spelling was fine, it was just the wording which could have been a little clearer. Plus you better be careful with that because people will argue that thats designed for trolling ect and want it removed. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 14:38, 25 May 2006 (BST)

:::::::HAHA! Just noticed, Cyberbob was right for using that template. I've boldly gone and underlined the word you misspelt. (I love puns.) {{User:Xoid/sig}} 14:21, 31 May 2006 (BST)

:::::::Hmm... I "geuss" you're right :D --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 22:36, 25 May 2006 (BST)
:Yep, it make sense. It's crazy <FONT SIZE=-10>and sort of funny </FONT>that "'''no'''" votes can make a suggestion pass. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 15:36, 26 May 2006 (BST)
::Yeah, [[User:Toejam|Toejam]] gets it. So what we realy need is someone who can word up a nice policy so we can vote on it. AND I have a stratergy as to how we can get some promotion to it. So I'll let someone else decided on the wording of it so it's crystal clear and can't be interperated in too many ways. Then we'll put it under the policy votes. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 16:53, 26 May 2006 (BST)
:::For some reason I have a strong preference for that fourteen becoming a fifteen, but I digress. Jedaz's suggested alteration is a good idea. <small>Volunteer to write this proposed policy change? Me&hellip; why not?</small> If you want me to try and word a new policy, just say so. {{Unsigned|Xoid| at 16:08, 26 May 2006}}
::::Yep, I'd be happy for you to. I guess 15 yes votes would be fine as well, it's a nice round number so go right ahead. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:25, 27 May 2006 (BST)
:::::Can't believe I forgot to sign&hellip; I must be going senile. Anyway, here it is (1<sup>st</sup> draft):
:::::('''NOTE:''' To reduce visual clutter, this section has been commented out. 06:12, 28 May 2006 (BST))
<!--
<div align=center style="border: ridge black 2px; text-align: left; width:100%">
#;Proposal for Policy Change
#:A ''Proposal for Policy Change'' is to be defined as:
#::#A motion put forward, with the intent to alter an existing policy, or existing policies.
#
#;Creating a ''Proposal for Policy Change''
#:A ''Proposal for Policy Change'' must be:
#::#Well written, with clear concise English.
#::#Signed and dated by the submitter.
#::#Placed on a seperate sub-page of [[Moderation/Policy Discussion]].
#::#Linked from [[Moderation/Policy Discussion]].
#
#;The Democratic Process
#:The following stipulations apply to voting:
#::#A proposal for policy change will be voted upon for 2 (two) weeks.
#::#A minimum of fifteen "'''Yes'''" votes are required for the ''Proposal for Policy Change'' to be successful. Additionally; <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub> (two-thirds) of all votes must be a "'''Yes'''" vote for a ''Proposal for Policy Change'' to be successful.
</div>
-->
:::::{{User:Xoid/sig}} 07:42, 27 May 2006 (BST)

::::::The central idea is good but your version has some troubles, first these are the current  [[Talk:Suggestions/archive7#RULES_FOR_CHANGING_THE_RULES|Rules]]. Changes in the rules of the suggestion page only counts on the suggestion page, voting is to be done here as it only affects this place. I don't think that the moderator veto needs to be there so I whould have no problems dropping it. But the one day discussion period and the limitations in the amount of proposed policy changes need to stay. --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 18:51, 27 May 2006 (BST)

:::::::Not really hanging around the Talk:Suggestions page that much, I admit that I'm relatively ignorant of the rules for policy changes. A quick read gave me this:
::::::::"''To open a vote for a rule change you must first open a discussion on the rule in the discussion page. You must post the exact text of the rule and allow at least 24 hours of discussion before opening voting. The text of the rule can be modified before you put it to a vote in light of comments you get, new ideas, and for clarity. Any voting starting by a person who has not first posted the rule change for discussion can be deleted by anyone.''"
:::::::I'll meld it into my idea, and see if I can make a generalised version, and a tailored one for Moderations/Policy Discussion. Unfortunately, It is *late* here, and I won't be able to do jack until tomorrow. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 19:28, 27 May 2006 (BST)


::::::::Well the entire rule is below what you'd want to do is to remove the striken part and insert the italic part.
<!--
<div align=center style="border: ridge black 2px; text-align: left; width:100%">
:To open a vote for a rule change, <i>with the intent to alter an existing policy, or existing policies</i> you must first open a discussion on the rule in the discussion page. You must post the exact text of the rule and allow at least 24 hours of discussion before opening voting. The text of the rule can be modified before you put it to a vote in light of comments you get, new ideas, and for clarity. Any voting starting by a person who has not first posted the rule change for discussion can be deleted by anyone.

:Voting is held on the discussion page. You may only open voting for one rule change a week. Calling off voting you have opened does not let you start a new one. If you post more than one vote change a week the excess can be deleted by anyone. <i>The proposal needs to be signed and dated by the submitter.</i>

:There are three votes, "Yes" "No" and "Spam". If rule change has 3 Spam and no non-author Yes it can be deleted but only by a Moderator. <s>Votes need 2/3rds acceptance and at least 20 votes to pass. Moderators are granted a special "Veto" vote they can choose to place instead of "No." A moderator Veto vote is counted in tallies as a "No" but also makes the rule change require 3/4ths acceptance to pass instead of 2/3rds.</s> <i>A minimum of fifteen "'''Yes'''" votes are required for the ''Proposal for Policy Change'' to be successful. Additionally; <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub> (two-thirds) of all votes must be a "'''Yes'''" vote for a ''Proposal for Policy Change'' to be successful</i> Voting is kept on the discussion page for two weeks and is then closed. Rules that pass are added by a moderator and must be added even if the moderator voted against the rule change.
</div>
-->

::::::::('''NOTE:''' To reduce visual clutter, this section has been commented out. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 06:12, 28 May 2006 (BST))

::::::::All other changes are either implied (who is going to vote for a badly spelled rule change?) or are better set and defined in the old rules. There is little reason to make a whole new rule if just modifing the old one wil do just as well (if not better). You might want to format the version I just put up to a more readable version like yours though--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:49, 27 May 2006 (BST)

That sounds good. I reckon if we make a more readable version then it'll be more likely to pass and eliminate confusion. Good work [[User:Xoid|Xoid]] and [[User:Vista|Vista]]. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 05:04, 28 May 2006 (BST)
:Taking on board what Vista said, I've melded in the core of the present rules. Be sure to tell me if I missed anything. I personally view the "3 votes spam votes and it gets spamminated" as too small a margin &mdash; as proven time and time again, some people here are vindictive and would abuse that. The trick is balancing how difficult it is for the vindictive to spamminate a good idea, and still allowing others to spamminate crap. The suggestions page is regularly spammed, and there is a 7 "'''Spam'''" vote requirement for removal there. So I thought I'd try a 5 "''Spam''" vote requirement here and get some input from others. Anyway, here it is (2<sup>nd</sup> draft):
:('''NOTE:''' To reduce visual clutter, this section has been commented out. [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 16:42, 31 May 2006 (BST))
<!--
<div align=center style="border: ridge black 2px; text-align: left; width:100%">
#;Proposal for Policy Change
#:A ''Proposal for Policy Change'' is to be defined as being either:
#::#A motion put forward, with the intent to alter an existing policy, or existing policies.
#::#A motion put forward, with the intent to create a policy where none previously existed.
#
#;Creating a Proposal for Policy Change
#:A Proposal for Policy Change must be:
#::#Well written, with clear concise English.
#::#Signed and dated by the submitter.
#::#Placed under a seperate heading of [[Talk:Suggestions]].
#
#;The Democratic Process
#:The following stipulations apply to opening or closing voting on the proposal:
#::#Before voting can be opened, you will allow a <u>minimum</u> of 24 (twenty-four) hours to discuss the proposal.
#::#If you wish to alter a proposal &mdash; in light of comments you get, new ideas, and for clarity &mdash; you may only do so <u>before</u> voting has opened.
#::#Voting is held under a sub-heading of the Proposal's main heading.
#::#You may only open voting for 1 (one) proposal per week.
#::#You may choose to withdraw your proposal. Withdrawing a proposal does allow you to submit a new one. Multiple proposals from the same submitter that are submitted within less than 1 (one) week of each other are free to be deleted by anyone.
#:The following stipulations apply to voting on the proposal:
#::#There are three votes, "'''Yes'''", "'''No'''", and "'''Spam'''". If the proposal has 5 "'''Spam'''" and has no non-author "'''Yes'''" votes, it can be deleted by a Moderator.
#::#A proposal for policy change will be voted upon for 2 (two) weeks, and is then closed.
#::#A minimum of fifteen "'''Yes'''" votes are required for the ''Proposal for Policy Change'' to be successful. Additionally; <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub> (two-thirds) of all votes must be a "'''Yes'''" vote for a Proposal for Policy Change to be successful.
#
#;Implementation
#:
#::#Successful proposals must be implemented by a moderator, even if said moderator voted against the proposal.
</div>
--> 
:{{User:Xoid/sig}} 06:13, 28 May 2006 (BST)
::I'ld be happy with this. I don't see anything left out (unless I missed something). Good work people. The only thing is to change it visualy so that the subheaddings are next to the number. But thats just a minor detail. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 07:32, 28 May 2006 (BST)
:::Ok, so what do people reckon about putting this up for a policy vote in about 3 or so days (when the featured suggestion policy is gone)? We probably should have a bit of an explanation to start off with on why we want it changed as well otherwise people will just ask whats the point. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 05:08, 29 May 2006 (BST)
::::Like you once said, I'm really beginning to loathe these things. Writing them up is boring, even if mentally stimualating. (An oxymoron? No. I don't know ''how'' it can be true, but it is for me.) As to the reasoning&hellip; telling them to look here isn't good enough I suppose? Maybe we should get the feedback of a couple of suggestions regulars first. Meh, I dunno I just feel ''uneasy'' about this for some reason. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:58, 31 May 2006 (BST)
:::::I'd have to disagree. This would clog up policy proceedings like nothing else. One at a time? Are you serious? --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 13:03, 31 May 2006 (BST)
::::::Just saw this pop up on my watchlist, but I'm pretty sure that's one ''per user''. --[[User:McSnatherson|Jimbo Bob]] <sup>[[Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]]•[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:04, 31 May 2006 (BST)
::::::Which point, can somebody highlight it? <code>&lt;span style="color: lightyellow"&gt;''the point Xoid missed''&lt;/span&gt;</code> {{User:Xoid/sig}} 13:09, 31 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::Don't worry - Jimbo's right. I still have a sense of unease over this... as hagnat's got a much simpler and just as effective one going. Take a look at it (I can't remember its name; have a look in Recent Changes) and see if you can modify yours to eliminate conflicting guidelines in the sections concerned with voting. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 13:12, 31 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::Could you please link it? I can't see anything by Hagnat in the recent changes. So what guidelines do you belive are conflicting? If you could point these out then it'll help develop this so it's better. 
::::::::To Xoid, yeah thats because it's so true, lol. I kinda get what you mean. It's a boring thing to do but it's a mental exercise to go and figgure out how to word it just right. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 13:58, 31 May 2006 (BST)
:::::::::Cyberbob. [[CNR]] I see. There is a ''very'' good reason why Hagnat's policy is teh shite &mdash; '''simply by voting "no" you can make a policy pass.''' A 20 vote minimum, regardless of which ''type'' of vote? It may be simpler, but it leaves out everything that is important. This is essentially the <u>existing rules</u> for suggestion policies, <u>rewritten with better wording, formatting and without the loopholes that the current one has.</u> If you can spot an ''actual'' flaw in it, please mention it. Otherwise, fuck off. This is made worse by the fact that you participated in the discussion about that problem earlier. (Can you tell that I'm pissed? Yeah, I thought so.){{User:Xoid/sig}} 14:21, 31 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::::Ha, yes I can see a huge loop hole in the current system of voting, lol. If you get people to say "I accept this" then regardless of the vote that means that it'll always pass. Even if they say "I accept this as a load of bull and should not be a rule", it is still accepting it. And it only asks for at least a 2/3rds acceptance. But with our new version people have to actualy vote yes for it to pass, lol. 
::::::::::About the only thing I realy think we need to change is to make the headings line up with the numbers. (Which I can do if people want me to but I won't yet as to avoid clutter) - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 15:00, 31 May 2006 (BST)

:::::::::::Line up? In what way, as in remove the indentation from the second level, or remove all indentation? I reckon' it looks more orderly this way. (If it looks ''really'' screwy to you, can you take a screenshot? This may be a problem between browsers and such.)
:::::::::::PS: see the addition I made near the "Speling" template?{{User:Xoid/sig}} 15:31, 31 May 2006 (BST)
::::::::::::Dang, I didn't notice that... oh well nobodys perfect. Any way this is what I meant about lining up the numbers. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 16:50, 31 May 2006 (BST)

<div align=center style="border: ridge black 2px; text-align: left; width:100%">
#'''Proposal for Policy Change'''
#:A ''Proposal for Policy Change'' is to be defined as being either:
#::#A motion put forward, with the intent to alter an existing policy, or existing policies.
#::#A motion put forward, with the intent to create a policy where none previously existed.
#:
#'''Creating a Proposal for Policy Change'''
#:A Proposal for Policy Change must be:
#::#Well written, with clear concise English.
#::#Signed and dated by the submitter.
#::#Placed under a seperate heading of [[Talk:Suggestions]].
#:
#'''The Democratic Process'''
#:The following stipulations apply to opening or closing voting on the proposal:
#::#Before voting can be opened, you will allow a <u>minimum</u> of 24 (twenty-four) hours to discuss the proposal.
#::#If you wish to alter a proposal &mdash; in light of comments you get, new ideas, and for clarity &mdash; you may only do so <u>before</u> voting has opened.
#::#Voting is held under a sub-heading of the Proposal's main heading.
#::#You may only open voting for 1 (one) proposal per week.
#::#You may choose to withdraw your proposal. Withdrawing a proposal does allow you to submit a new one. Multiple proposals from the same submitter that are submitted within less than 1 (one) week of each other are free to be deleted by anyone.
#:The following stipulations apply to voting on the proposal:
#::#There are three votes, "'''Yes'''", "'''No'''", and "'''Spam'''". If the proposal has 5 "'''Spam'''" and has no non-author "'''Yes'''" votes, it can be deleted by a Moderator.
#::#A proposal for policy change will be voted upon for 2 (two) weeks, and is then closed.
#::#A minimum of fifteen "'''Yes'''" votes are required for the ''Proposal for Policy Change'' to be successful. Additionally; <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub> (two-thirds) of all votes must be a "'''Yes'''" vote for a Proposal for Policy Change to be successful.
#:
#'''Implementation'''
#:
#::#Successful proposals must be implemented by a moderator, even if said moderator voted against the proposal.
</div>

I didn't notice any change in what I saw, but you did alter the code. Definately a browser issue, or maybe a MediaWiki issue (it usually tailors the XHTML markup for each browser (to a degree, anyway). Meh, who knows. Seems good to me. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 18:09, 31 May 2006 (BST)
:Yeah thats probably it. Well that just means that it'll be more visualy appealing for all browsers now (Hopefuly). - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 05:05, 1 June 2006 (BST)

=Policy Votes=
''This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page.''

==Featured Suggestion==
Suggest time - 13:14, 7 May 2006 (BST)

As a few of you may have seen before there was a Featured Suggestion box on the suggestion page before. However it was removed due to it not going through the formal voting procedures. The featured suggestion box is designed to show suggesters what a good suggestion looks like. This would potentialy reduce the amount of spam and also mean that the odd 160 peer reviewed suggestion arn't just sitting there being duped or waiting to be implemented. 

This is what I purpose the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template:Suggestion_Intro&oldid=234629 suggestion page intro] would look like this. As you would be able to see the featured suggestion is just below the extract from the FAQ. Each featured suggestion would be chosen using a system similar to [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day/May Wikiquote]. Users would be able vote on the [[Featured_Suggestion_Voting|featured suggestion voting]] page for their favorite suggestion out of the selection which reduces the possibility for bias selections.

#'''Yes''' - This gets the peer accepted suggestions more exposure which I think is a good thing. People worked hard at getting them accepted so we might as well pretend we care. Also if Keven browses this page from time to time he may see a suggestion and consider it's implementation where as it would have previously gone unnoticed. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 13:14, 7 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - Why not?--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 14:33, 7 May 2006 (BST)
#'''No''' - The page is already considerably cluttered, and does not need more of the same. It will almost certainly be yet another thing that will likely not be updated regularly and soundly ignored by the majority of users. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 16:40, 7 May 2006 (BST)
#:Yes, it is true that the page is alredy cluttered I belive that if people realy cared that much about it then someone would have alredy suggested moving the things inbetween "Making a suggestion" and just above the suggestion navigation onto another page and just providing a link instead. Although I geuss it would be ignored by regular users the newbies to the wiki would be able to see what a good suggestion is like because they are most likely not to check the entire list of suggestions and so it draws their attention to these great suggestions. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 00:16, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#::Sorry, i had to take three looks just to be certain that i was not imagining the sheer ''idiocy'' of your proposal there. We should remove the rules of the page from the page? No. All that stuff is absolutely essential on the page. It is not clutter. The page is about as streamlined as it could be made, with possibly a few tiny alterations, but nothing major enough to warrant removing almost all of the fucking intro as you just proposed. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 04:32, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#:::Well lets see, regular users don't look at that whole intro realy and the newbies would follow the link to know what the rules are. If you are realy worried about how long the page is then the "Previous Days' Suggestions", "Peer Reviewed Suggestions" and the Humorous part under "Removing Suggestions" can be removed because they arn't needed. But even so I have the fealing that me saying that wouldn't make you happy. If you think they are essential then I'm very curious as to why you would think so because for the first two the links are provided at the top of the page and for the other one Humorous suggestions are all now (supose to be) submitted onto the humorous suggestions page. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 08:57, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#::::The procedures listed there ARE needed to instruct users how to perform certain tasks, such as... i dont know, maybe removing suggestions. '''The guidelines and procedures for the use of a page are best placed on the page to which they apply.''' We have this system in the moderation section, where the speedy deletion guidelines are listed on both the deletions and Speedy deletions pages (They are applicable in both locations), we have the guidelines for promotions on the promotions pages, we have the guidelines for reporting misconduct on the misconduct page, and the same with vandal banning and protections and undeletions. Humourous suggestions are supposed to be submitted to the humourous page, but, as evidenced just two days ago with [[Suggestions/6th-May-2006#M1_Abrams|M1 Abrams]], they dont always get posted there. The fact that a lot of people here are hardened nutjobs (Myself included) and move the damned things to peer rejected instead because we dont find them entertaining is irrelevant to the issue, some day someone who isnt so deeply cynical as us and actually thinks its funny is going to make the move. I already stated, quite clearly, in my previous post that the page isnt perfect, and there are a few ''minor'' redundacies that need to be worked out, but claiming that the fact they still exist is enough justification for the addition of a completely unneccessary addition that will require constant maintenance, provide yet another vector for vandalism, and worse still, add yet more clutter that will be duplicated mercilessly with each and every page edit, is, at best, shoddy reasoning, and at worst utter stupidity. Why, oh why, must you insist on following and worse, arguing for, a line of reasoning so utterly and irretreivably flawed (And has been demonstrated to be such already) that it makes me seriously ask myself the question: "Am i talking to a seven year old?". --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 10:49, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#:::::Grim, you are now my hero. Excuse me while I go make a template praising your greatness. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Moderation/Arbitration|Arb]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 10:51, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#::::::Spaminated suggestions are suppose to be removed to the peer rejected pages as well but that didn't happen either for that suggestion so go figgure. Just because the rules are there doesn't mean people are going to be more likely to follow them. But thats a different point altogether. 
#::::::If people need to preform these tasks then they are alredy going to have the page open for refrence any way as it's easier to view the text in your browser then in wiki code. However I do admit that you make a good point about the guidelines being on their respective pages. Also I don't see how this would create more matinence for people as I would be the one doing the work which is only like 5 minutes out of my day to update it. Yes it is true that Vandals would target it but not more so then the standard suggestions intro and other such pages. Also if I was a seven year old then I would be throwing insults around. However as I don't see any agreement between both of us happening I purpose that we cease this discussion due to it being pointless. However if you wish to continue I will much oblige. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 11:39, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#:::::::I am not seeking an agreement. I was directly attacking your stated rebuttal to my "Its useless clutter" argument, and i feel your rebuttal is now pretty much... well... dead, since you have neglected to rebut my rebuttal to your rebuttal. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 12:08, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#::::::::I felt that continuing down the line about useless clutter was pointless because if neither side is going to change their opinions then it's just useless presenting both sides of an arugment as it wastes our time. Well I geuss thats the end of that now. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 06:24, 9 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - [[User:CPQD|CPQD]] 16:43, 7 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - I agree with grim though, as soon as it doesn't get updated anymore, it has to go--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 17:25, 7 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''Re''' - Thats fair enough, however I will make it my goal to update it on a daily basis. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 00:13, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#'''yes''' - <strike>basically what grim said, plus as its shown the color is ugly</strike> after seeing it on vistas userpage i feal that it wouldnt add too much clutter, id still rather u used the 1st template tho--[[User:Xbehave|xbehave]] 17:40, 7 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''Re''' - If you are realy concerned about the page being cluttered you would have suggested for moving the things inbetween "Making a suggestion" and just above the suggestion navigation onto another page and just providing a link. Most people don't look at it all once being on the page for a while. Also if you could suggest a different colour scheme then I'ld be open for change. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 00:11, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#::For a rebuttal to your first point, see my response to you above. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 04:32, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - I absolutely love it. We have all these great, peer-reviewed suggestions but they never get seen. This could help cut down on the more dunderheaded suggestions (as it exposes more users to Peer Reviewed, which they should read first anyway but we know how often that happens), but mostly it's just fun. --[[User:John Ember|John Ember]] 20:26, 7 May 2006 (BST)
#'''No''' - Makes the Suggestions page more cluttered than it already is. Plus, every time I look at that colour I go into violent seizures. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Moderation/Arbitration|Arb]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 09:50, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#*'''Re''' - Well I'm going to ignore the comment about clutter because I'm discussing it with Grim above and I don't want to repeat myself fifty times (join in if you want though). Also if you are going into "violent seizures" it's not the colour, it must be your monitor. If you want to suggest a better colour scheme then go right ahead. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 10:02, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#*'''Re''' - ...the violent seizures thing was a ''joke''. *sighs* It was designed to show my dislike of the colour scheme. Which was a sidenote to the fact that it would be too cluttery. What discussion? All I see are like two posts from each of you... and you certainly have not repeated yourself 49 times. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[Moderation/Arbitration|Arb]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 10:22, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#**Oh well. I was exagerating about how many times I would need to explain about the clutter. Any way the discussion is going a bit slow due to the fact that Grim and I are on at different times. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 10:31, 8 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes'''- Looks pretty snazzy.  I would prefer if it could be moved to the side, but this'll do.  If you don't want to read it, just skip right past it.--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 14:29, 9 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - I don't even notice the "clutter", and the box doesn't really add a whole lot of it.  It'd be nice for newbies to be able to just jump to some of the better suggestions in Peer Reviewed.  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 19:01, 9 May 2006 (BST)
#'''No''' - Not until rules and guidelines are streamlined. And if they can't or won't be, then its too much clutter. Good idea though. Too bad theres no room. --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 19:27, 9 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''Re''' - Yeah that seems to be the main reason people are saying no to this. Well if this doesn't make it then when the page is less cluttered I'll definitly re-purpose it. But I'm hoping that it makes it, well fingers crossed - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 08:29, 10 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - I like it. I think this could be added without too much problems and with little fanfair --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] <font size=-3>[[User_talk:Fullemtaled#My_suggestions|T]]--[[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]]</font> 19:29, 9 May 2006 (BST)
#'''No''' - We don't need additional clutter at the top of the page distracting people from reading the rules. --[[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 15:15, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#:'''Re''' - And how often do you read the rules now? Newbies will still look through all of the rules if it's there or not and the regular users will still ignore the rules. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 16:00, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#::'''Re''' - ((snort!)) the regular users that ignore the rules are a whole different problem altogether.  --[[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 22:23, 12 May 2006 (BST)
#:::'''Re''' - I'm not saying that they don't follow them but they just don't look at them because they are always the same. It's not a problem realy. It's like how people don't look at an instruction manual every time before they play a game, it's because they alredy know what to do and it isn't going to change. But the newbies will look at it all because they don't know what they are doing. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 05:11, 13 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - This is an incredible idea.  And why is anyone worried about it cluttering up the ''suggestions'' page?  It doesn't have to be at the top, for one thing, and more importantly it's not like that'd be the only place we'd put it.  This'd belong on the Main Page.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 00:54, 13 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - See above reasons. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]]  <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 13:43, 14 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - Oh noes, five lines that are used for a template instead of text! '''FEAR THE APOCALYPSE!''' ... Yeah. About that. I actually think it will ''increase'' newbie readership of the rules rather than detract from it, and I'm all for anything that could cause more wiki!literacy. -[[User:Wyndallin|Wyn]] <sup><font size=-1>([[User_talk:Wyndallin|talk!]])</font></sup> 07:00, 15 May 2006 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - Because Grim's argument was so unpersuasive. --[[User:Dan|Dan]] 20:20, 18 May 2006 (BST)
#'''No''' - Because 20 voices are needed for this vote to matter.  This is not so bad as to usualy vote kill, but not good enough to usualy vote keep.  As until the 20th vote mark is voted, kill is a "better vote" than abstention, kill it is.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 00:40, 19 May 2006 (BST)

'''Moderator''' - Motion fails. Failed to aquire 20 votes in two weeks. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 01:02, 21 May 2006 (BST)
:Dang, what a bummer. So when will this be archived? I'm going to wait for this to be cleared before I suggest a version which I belive will make people who commented about cluter happier with it. And, if that doesn't succeed (based of people not liking it and not due to lack of interest) then I will stop my attempts at this. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 15:00, 22 May 2006 (BST)
::To Jedaz: If a vote fails, you dont immediately restart it again, just because you didnt like the result. Wait a few months before you resubmit, and hope the page is more active. Since other votes have managed to make it up to the required 2 votes, it is my opinion that enough peope looked, a lot just chose to abstain from voting (The method by which the minority can defeat policies they strongly disagree with). --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 00:28, 23 May 2006 (BST)
:::I see your point. I will wait a month at the very least before I resubmit and hopefuly by that time there will be more activity on this page. I'll see if I can draw more user attention to it when the time gets closer... - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 14:15, 23 May 2006 (BST)
*Yeah, that's probably best.  Why is it that users are so unreliable when it comes to voting on policies?  Do we need to put a announcement up at the top of the suggestions page to draw people in, like they do when modships become available?  Policy changes rarely go up for vote (1 or 2 per archive-cycle as far as I've seen), so what's keeping people from getting off their keisters and voting?--[[User:Xavier06|Xavier06]] 17:23, 22 May 2006 (BST)
*:we  had an announcement up at the top of the suggestions page just for that end somewhile ago, next time somebody puts something up for a vote, might be worth looking into putting it up again.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 20:42, 22 May 2006 (BST)
*::I dont think so. Only those who are interested in this page actually look at the policy votes, and thus we dont get uninformed drifters wandering through and voting impulsively on what they think is cool, as opposed to what is best for the page. But feel free to put up a policy vote to have notifications of policy votes put on suggestions page. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 00:28, 23 May 2006 (BST)
*:::?? I do think so. We done it before. Putting up a notice has nothing to do with policy. get a grip man. your getting too kafka for your own good.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 23:06, 24 May 2006 (BST)
* We had a vote recently where the thing would have gone through if more people had popped in to vote it down. Seriously. The 20-vote minimimum requirement is pretty silly considering how relatively few people spend time on this page. I understand the desire to get broad community support, but two weeks is a good chunk of time. If folks aren't voting, it's because they don't care enough either way. Why should someone's apathy about an idea prevent us from making improvements? --[[John_Ember|Ember]] <sup>[[User:John_Ember#MBR_Weapon_Rating_System|MBR]]</sup> 23:11, 23 May 2006 (BST)
**What about making it so that if we get enough votes that a policy suggestion would be approved even if there were enough kills to add up to 20 votes, that it passes.  I'm tired right now, so if this sounds insanely dumb, that's why.  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 04:52, 24 May 2006 (BST)
::* Sounds fine to me. I think that works out to be 14 Keep votes. So we could say 2/3 majority if the votes exceed 20, or at least 14 Keep votes if the total votes are less than 20. --[[John_Ember|Ember]] <sup>[[User:John_Ember#MBR_Weapon_Rating_System|MBR]]</sup> 18:33, 24 May 2006 (BST)
*I designed the current system so that 3 or 4 people couldn't radically alter the suggestions page, that you'd need many people to make changes. This not only makes it hard for bad rules to pass, but also makes it hard for things people don't care about to pass. The fewer rules the better really just to avoid a complex legal compendium, anything that can't get 20 people interested in it is probably something that isn't needed. That said it does seem pretty ridiculous that kill votes can save a suggestion. We should mull on it. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 08:14, 24 May 2006 (BST)
**Which is why there would be a minimum of 14, i.e. the 2/3 of 20 normally needed.  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 21:21, 24 May 2006 (BST)
***Ok then, well in that case lets change the rules for it to be that way. I'll go and open up a discussion above for this under the heading of Voting Rule Change. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 05:47, 25 May 2006 (BST)
*I just had a thought... quite posiably (and I'm not 100%) but I think that you are alowed to have a community announcement on the main page for policies which will affect wiki users. Now I'm not sure but I belive that something about this could be posted. However it's something which I'll look into before I try anything. I remember there was a discussion about something similar a while ago. I think this might be the best way to incite interest. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 13:59, 24 May 2006 (BST)
**Not to sound elitist but I seriously doubt that John Q. Player knows what's best for the suggestion's page.  The people who actually vote on the page, and poke around here, have a better idea of what works for the page and what is likely to screw it over. - [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 10:14, 25 May 2006 (BST)
***Yeah I know, *sigh*. Well I think it might be a worthwhile thing to consider if we decided to change the policy on voting because with a turn out like this again nothing will change. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 11:24, 25 May 2006 (BST)