	Archive Page
	This page is an archive page of Talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the Suggestions page do so at Talk:Suggestions.

Moving Suggestions

As some of you know, and other certainly don't, Jedaz asked to be demoted and quit moving the pages into Peer Reviewed, Rejected ect. I have been and am currently cycling the suggestions to Previous Days Suggestions and I fully intend to continue to do so. I would take over moving the suggestions into their rightful place, but I really don't have the time. I am taking 16 hours and I have a paper due on the on the 28th, 3rd, and 5th. I probably will have to get a job as well since I quit the part time job I had over the summer when I went to college. I just don't have the time to deal with it. It is alot of work, and it is thankless. Would anyone be willing to step up to the plate? Maybe even two people could take it on, alternating days or whatever you can work out. It is a month behind. Something has to be done.--Gage 05:22, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Ill do it, im on regularly on suggestions anyway. I wont find it too difficult. I always check on suggestions every now and then everyday, and wont interfere with anything.--Mr yawn 18:29, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Honestly, we were looking for somebody with some significant wiki experience. You have less than 500 edits.--Gage 23:59, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Fair enough.--Mr yawn 06:13, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Gage, you might as well let him have a shot if he's willing. I'll keep my eye over him and make sure he does it right for the first few, and if not it's easily fixed. I'm not here just for the record. Oh, and if anyone ever has any questions I check my talk page on a regular basis so you can leave a question there and it should be answered after a while (less then a week). - Jedaz - 01:46/20/04/2024 14:16, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Well, if you have Jedaz's blessing, then go for it.--Gage 22:10, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Ok.--Mr yawn 06:16, 22 September 2006 (BST)

One question, ive been doing well so far updating suggestions from yesterday into previous suggestions but ive hit a snag with the "take the discussion as well" bit. Both militia and grocery store suggestions have discussion in developing suggestions area. Do i take those or only discussions on the suggestion in the active suggestions area?--Mr yawn 15:51, 22 September 2006 (BST)

I have got Previous Days Suggestions under control. I just need you to help with the copying of the closed suggestions into their correct place.--Gage 18:20, 22 September 2006 (BST)

Ok. Thanks for telling me.--Mr yawn 19:54, 22 September 2006 (BST)

Sorry, I really don't mean to come off as the n00b who hates Jedaz - because I don't. But Jedaz is saying "no-one else moves the suggestions, no-one thanks me for helping out the wiki"... but according to the talk page only a mod is allowed to move suggestions into Peer Reviewed, Rejected etc. Here's a wild idea - don't make it a mod possition. Instead of one or two people doing it, let anyone have a go. I can't promise I'll update it every day, or even every week. But I'm willing to sit down for eight hours a months and clear huge backlogs like this. I just don't want to get called as a Wiki vandle for doing a mod job. David Malfisto 17:12, 26 September 2006 (BST)

The only place that I can see where it says that was in peer reviewed, I've changed it now. Can you point out to me where it says that only a moderator can do it because I've had several looks at it and I can't see anything that specificaly says or implys so. Anyway no one would be called a wiki vandle for moving the suggestions unless they obviously move them into the incorrect place, I started moving the suggestions before I was a mod and I don't have anything on my vandalism record. - Jedaz - 01:46/20/04/2024 09:31, 27 September 2006 (BST)

I was looking around for my Underworld suggestion (you know, looking out for my baby, and all that), and I noticed it had been deleted from the Closed Suggestions page - which it says not to do - so I put it back. I then went and looked for it in Peer Reviewed and found that it had been incorrectly formatted (no psuggestion tag), and the votes had been left in. So I fixed that as well. Here's the thing, though - on the Closed Suggestions pages, it says "do not edit these pages in any way, shape or form" - but then how would one know if a suggestion has already been copied across to Reviewed / Undecided / Rejected / Humerous, if one can't add an edit saying so. Someone might come along and move something twice, to different locations in Peer Reviewed, for example - depending on what heading they thought it belonged under. In order to fix this issue, I suggest that any suggestion that is processed (copied) out of Closed Suggestions pages, have a note added to the bottom saying that it has been moved, and a link. So, a date-stamp and link. Is this fair enough? --Funt Solo 12:19, 30 September 2006 (BST)

I'd add, I was going to start sorting through Closed Suggestions and moving them to the relevant sections, but not if they've already been moved. Currently, there's no way to know except by searching. --Funt Solo 12:21, 30 September 2006 (BST)

On further investigation, I see that they've ALL already been moved. So, never mind - this is already being dealt with. I'll just go eat some ice cream. --Funt Solo 13:43, 30 September 2006 (BST)

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

These suggestions are currently at vote. Please hold any extended discussion about them here.

Syringe Manufacture Alteration

Reaper with no name, why not create a suggestion to decrease the chance of finding a syringe at lower the ap cost of manufacturing one? 8ap average seems high for, "Whoops, wow, there's a needle that just happens to be laying on the floor that I can use." If you tried to balance the two better, it would be a better overall suggestion that cutting the manufacturing cost by more than half. - Bango Skank ^{T W! M!} 21:08, 13 September 2006 (BST) PS, I'm not sure of the format for suggestion discussion, sorry if I've done it wrong.

Up Book XP Chances

Timestamp:	21:37, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors reading books.
Description:	As it stands, books are useless. A ten percent chance of getting 1XP is pretty darn worthless IMHO. I propose that the chances of gaining XP from a book be improved to 20% or 25%. This is not overpowered, a survivor could get far more XP from hitting zeds, even at lower levels. It would not do much, just make books marginally more useful. And zombies, remember that a survivor using his AP to read books is a survivor not using his AP to kill zombies. So everyone wins!

Votes
Gage has already voted keep, so I'm encouraged. Any suggestions on how this could be better, if any? --Paradox244 ^W! ^TJ! 21:57, 3 September 2006 (BST)

~~Yes, you say A ten percent chance of getting 1XP is pretty darn worthless IMHO. and then I propose that the chances of gaining XP from a book be improved to 20% or 25%.. Mispelling, lol?~~ My stupid mistake.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 22:00, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Hehe... Can I fix it? --Paradox244 ^W! ^TJ! 22:19, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Require it be done in libraries and schools WITH a generator running. Basically, the problem is that there is no difficulty, even when considering the low % chance of gaining XP, in doing it. I could literally spend my entire UD "career" in a library, never seeing a zombie, and still get XP.--Pesatyel 05:24, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Aimed shot

Timestamp:	20:35, 2 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombie Hunters
Description:	You have discovered that not all of a Zombie need be destroyed to bring it down, and that avoiding superfluous body parts significantly reduces the damage needed to kill them. Unfortunately, the reduced structural damage to the Zombie in question makes it substantially easier for them to recover from your attacks. Aimed shot would be a Zombie Hunter skill in the Headshot skill tree. You may only have Aimed Shot OR Headshot enabled at any one time. Upon aquiring Aimed Shot, you gain a 0AP button reading "Aim At Joints". Clicking this disables Headshot and enables Aimed Shot, replacing the button with "Aim At Head". When Aimed Shot is enabled, any attack that brings a Zombie to or below 12HP kills him/her immediately. Because the Zombie ends up taking less actual structural damage, an Aimshot zombie requires 5 less AP to stand up (to a minimum of 1). A Zombie cannot be both Headshot and Aimshot at the same time, for obvious reasons. Why is this good for survivors? It increases the number of zombies an individual can clear in one login. This would make it easier for Survivor groups to attempt to take back heavily ransacked suburbs, as it reduces the number of Survivors required to clear a building for repair. There would also be an impact on Sieges, as it would increase the Critical Threshold required for the Zombies to gain an overwhelming advantage. Metagamewise, it would also accelerate the leveling of the Survivor in question, as he needs to do 12 less damage to gain the 10xp kill bonus(assuming there is a large local supply of zombies). Why is this not too good for survivors? Given that Aimed Shot has Headshot as a pre-req, anyone killing a Zombie with Aimed Shot is (effectively) "Gifting" the Zombie the 5ap Headshot would have otherwise taken. If the Zombie lacks Ankle Grab, this goes up to an effective 10ap. So while Aimed Shot can kill 4 newbie zombies for the cost of 3, each of these killed zombies will have 10ap's worth of extra barricade smashing than they would have if Headshot. For Ankle Grab + Bodybuilding, the numbers change to 5 for 4, and 5ap each. Why is this sometimes good for Zombies? Because as a newbie Zombie, logging in to see a 15ap stand up cost is horribly disheartening. As an oldbie Zombie, 6ap is still pretty irritating. With this implemented, sometimes Newbies they would log in to find it only costing 5ap to stand up, giving them up to 45AP to spend in one go. And everyone wants to help Newbies, don't they? Most importantly of all: Why is this fun? Because tactics equal fun. Survivors now have a choice: Do I want to kill this zombie quickly, or do I want to think more long term? Do I want to risk running out of AP/Bullets before I run out of zombies, or should I deal with them all now, knowing they'll be stronger tommorrow? And newbie zombies would greatly appreciate the occasional extra-productive day. Notes: You do not gain 12xp for the 12 damage you do not have to do. I selected 12hp because, well, it works for ~~Tangling Grasp~~Feeding Drag. Other suggested names welcome. How do people like Bodyshot?

Votes
The reaction so far has been mainly positive, but some people have issues with the numbers. If this hits peer rejected/undecided, how would people feel about a resubmission with the following alterations:

Better Name (optional, suggestions welcome)

8HP instead of 12HP. 8HP is the damage done by one shotgun shot or two pistol shots vs. a flakjacketed Zombie.

I disagree with reducing the accuracy, as even a minor reduction would render this completely pointless.

8HP seems reasonable, but remember, we are talking about saving ammunition here, which is very difficult to collect large amounts of. Leaving it at 12HP and adding a 5–8% penalty to accuracy may be the only way to go. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 00:32, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Your suggestion has three problems. First it makes it easier for survivors to kill zombies quickly - a huge factor in siege battles. Second you are giving both sides about 5 extra AP per day, which helps the survivor side of cade battles. Third you are giving humans free ammo. Lowering the threshold to 8 HP will not balance this suggestion. It would give survivors an average of 3 AP (+3 shots) and zombies 5 AP per day. A survivor can certainly build more cades with 3 AP than a zombie can take down with 5. Even if this were equal, it still grants humans free ammo. Even if THAT didn't happen, it helps humans kill zombies faster which unbalances sieges. I see no simple way to balance this. Rheingold 00:42, 3 September 2006 (BST)

See below for part of my response. As to the rest: Urban Dead is not a real-time game. Sorry, it had to be said. Prickishness aside: Yes, this would have an effect on sieges. But sieges are not the be all and end all of the game. The most fun I have with my zombies are running around with three or four people, laying a small private siege to a small group of people. More NOTLD than LOTD. In those situations, I could care less about being killed (Rarely am I killed while I am logged in, even when someone wakes up they tend to run away and come back later). What I DO care about is logging in to find I only have 44AP to spend eating the barricades down. Those are usually the days when we end up leaving a survivor on 10 or 15 HP. Unless someone is activeley barricading as you attack, the fact that the humans had more AP left after barricading to do some searching several hours before I logged in is substantially less important to me or any small group than how much AP I have left when I finally get inside . As such, haveing 20 AP left per zombie after eating the barricades is a MASSIVE improvement over 15 AP. If It's the difference between killing someone outright, and leaving them on some miserly amount of HP that someone will have healed by the next AP tick. In other words: Yay Ferals. --Gene Splicer 02:01, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Elaboration: If a Zombie manages to break down a barricade, you can get inside and Feeding Groan, Ferals come running, the people inside have to spend AP and ammo on killing you, everyone gets freaked out that you got in, and so forth. If, however, you run out of AP before the barricade is down, even if you get it to loosely(or worse, you run out of AP "as the last few boards fall away"), all that's going to happen is someone will log in and go "Oh nurts, the barricades are low. Barricade Barricade Barricade... eh, that will do". So, for the want of two or three AP, your entire day's worth was wasted. The same for eating someone... if they die, hurrah! 10XP and a convert to the cause. If they almost die... whooptido. A couple of faks and they're up and running again. Urban Dead is a game of thresholds. You meet them, full success. You fall even a little short, complete failure. That is why Headshot is so powerful: those last 5 AP can make or break an attack. That's what you are giving up for the sake of speed, and why it balances out the, still not to be dismissed, benefits of this skill--Gene Splicer 02:47, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I think the concerns about over-powering survivors are valid. Here's a thought: I like the idea that you could somehow disable a zombie, because you know where to hit it correctly. How about, if you reduce a zombie to (nominal figure) less than 5HP, it loses it's Lumbering Gait skill bonus until it gains HP again. You'd be left with a choice - do you go for the kill (and the XP), or hit the zombie to wound. (Oops - I think I've invented a completely new suggestion. EDIT: In fact, if you don't mind, I'd like to keep that idea and use it for a Tranq Gun suggestion.) --Funt Solo 01:23, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I can already tell you that idea is going to be spammed out with the response "Don't negate skills."--Pesatyel 05:49, 8 September 2006 (BST)

If the accuracy is changed, all people will do is keep on Headshot untill the zombie is at low health, then switch to Aimed Shot and shoot. To prevent this, we'd have to make switching stance cost an AP, and then things start to get messy. at 8AP, you are saving ~1.5 shotgun shells, ~3 pistol ammo, per Zombie.

Assuming the extreme of 20 fully loaded shotguns using 40AP your average zombie kill count goes from 5.2(3.5 if 60hp + Flak) to 6.2 (4 if 60HP + flak). The stats for pistols are the same, but halved (2.6(1.7) and 3.1(2)), with the improvement against unflakked zombies using both shotguns and pistols cases actually being somewhat lower, as it is impossible to hit 42 or 52 exactly if you are dealing 5 or 10HP damage a shot. This is roughly comparable with gaining a skill that increases your accuracy by 10%, or improved Shotgun/Pistol training.

If this was all there was to it, 8HP would still be extremely overpowered; There is a reason there is no Improved Improved Shotgun Training, and why Tangling Grasp is a conditional effect. But then we must look at the downsides of using this. Any zombie killed by this has been killed by someone who would otherwise have Headshot him. The prerequisite makes this a garauntee. So each of these 6.2(or 4) zombies would be standing up with 5AP more than they would have otherwise. Any without ankle grab would be standing up for 10AP more than they would have otherwise. That is 60 (!) more AP if you are fighting a horde of Newbies, and 20 (much more reasonable) more AP if it's a pack of 4 Flak/BB/AG veterans. As such, using this in some situations is definitely not something to take lightly. Additionally (and this is a very minor note) you would be gaining slightly less XP than a flat 10% bonus to hit would provide: You are gaining 8XP less per zombie you kill than you would if you were just shooting at it. --Gene Splicer 01:46, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Any zombie killed by this has been killed by someone who would otherwise have Headshot him. So what?

You talk about Zombie AP savings from not being Headshot, without factoring in the corresponding AP savings for humans. A pistol clip is worth something like 3 to 5 AP. Autokilling a 12HP zombie is worth 4.6 AP, or 3.1 AP if you're going for the 8HP threshold.

Let's assume the absolute best case for your suggestion: killing a newbie zombie (no Ankle Grab) at the 8 HP threshhold. The newbie zombie has saved 5 AP. The survivor has saved 4 AP (loaded pistol clip) + 3.1 AP (for firing those shots) for a grand total of 7.1 AP.

As a survivor, I will go against you as a zombie any time if for every AP you get to spend bashing the cades, I get to spend 1 AP putting them back up. I will take the same deal at 4:3 or even 3:2 odds. When you do the math your suggestion simply does not work. Rheingold 02:53, 3 September 2006 (BST)

In case I was not being clear above, Zombies only save FIVE AP NOT TEN from not being Headshot. You are conflating death costs which is absolutely incorrect. Rheingold 03:02, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Regarding your point above (I'd like to have the discussion in one place please), there is no such thing as "waking up with 45 AP." Headshot does not induce a cap on your AP. Stand up, wait 2 hours, log back in and bash some cades. If you don't do this, it's your fault if you waste 40 AP almost bringing down a cade. Rheingold 03:11, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Firstly, CNR. Zombies without anklegrab take an ADDITIONAL 5 less ap to stand up if killed this way, 5ap + headshot 5 = 10ap. It's written right there. Secondly, nice ninjaedit on the maths, you originally said 9.1 for the Survivor save. I now post my edit-conflict afflicted response to that statement.

I disagree with your maths: three pistol shots do not equal 9.1AP. I am assuming you are using mall statistics, since they are the standard Siege scenarios. Ignoring the Power factor (Since I am still not sure of the exact boost) you find 6 pistol shots every 9 searches. So 3 shots = 4.5AP of searching. Or 4, when you take into account the half a shotgun shell you find. Loading brings it back up to 4.5 (half the clip) + 3 shots = 7.5AP. If this is a powered mall, this is further reduced due to the higher search rate. So the Newbie Zombie comes out three to four AP better off on the exchange, and the anklegrabber comes off 1 to 2AP worse. Except... all AP are not equal. You made this point yourself, a survivor can barricade for 1ap, Zombie takes it down for 4. This works both ways. 5AP spent by me when you are not online is worth more than a thousand AP spent while you are online. I will take you up on your offer, if you wish, with these qualifiers: You and the three survivors of your choice versus me and two other zombies. You remain in one building untill you die. You will be eating brains in under 24 hours, because while you may have 200AP a day to boost up those barricades, our mere 150 will be more than enough to take you down on the one half hour we log in while none of you are online

In response to your "Wait two hours" comment... yes, I will log in, wait two hours (assuming I am not, I don't know, at work in two hours. Or asleep. Or just busy) log back in, and look at my shiny NEW headshot. I don't know what game you are playing, but no zombie lasts two hours in a populated suburb, especially if standing outside a safehouse. and that's still 5ap wasted, just wasted later on. Speaking of sleep... --Gene Splicer 03:34, 3 September 2006 (BST)

10 AP or not (not that I'm in favor of making the Headshot AP system more complex, but whatever) you have failed to address the main (or only, really) point: giving anything near equal AP bonuses to survivors and zombies in the existing mallsiege environment is broken.

I have been playing a zombie for a month and a half and I've yet to be headshotted outside a building. If you don't have a group, and wander into an area with no z's, many s's, expect to get headshot, don't blame the game.

When you say that +5 AP waking up is a better bonus than +7 AP and ammo saved, you are simply wrong and not recognizing that play is continuous NOT PER DAY so it doesn't matter a damn what AP you wake up with. Making a major move with low AP is a tactical error just like stranding yourself outside by FreeRuning.

When you analyze the game as a continuous function, the obvious result of granting equal AP bonuses to both sides is to exaggerate the existing situation i.e. that barricade battles favor survivors. Your example is fallacious. Put 100 zeds vs 100 survivors and the survivors will have a far easier time thanks to your suggestion. I've not mentioned for a while the other big flaw with this suggestion which is that it is the equivalent of Survivor Feeding Drag - kill zombies quicker, yay! Except that zombies already have a hard enough time besieging.

I'm not really too worried about whether your suggestion gets into PR or not because there is no way Kevan is going to implement anything along these lines. I only play the game, he DESIGNED it. I'm pretty sure he recognizes exactly how broken this is. Rheingold 03:54, 3 September 2006 (BST)

"I have been playing a zombie for a month and a half" - I've been playing two for a year and some change ;) "play is continuous NOT PER DAY so it doesn't matter a damn what AP you wake up with" - So why the AP cap? Why not just let AP mount up and up and up? Why not log in every hour, and use up 2AP at a time? Because block use of AP is Infinitely better than piecemeal. If you really don't know that by now... are you sure you don't mean week and a half?

I have also never stated or implied that it was an equivalent to Feeding Drag. I mentioned Feeding Drag as an example of an in-game mechanic using 12hp, as I did not want to choose an arbitrary number. This was an error, as 12hp was indeed to high. 8HP is not :) Additionally, 100 survivors Vs 100 Zombies is not the norm... 20 vs 20, or 10 vs 10 is. If you had ever stepped out of a siege into any non-mall part of the map, you would see that that is true --Gene Splicer 04:09, 3 September 2006 (BST)

12hp was indeed to high. 8HP is not. As I showed mathematically, they both give survivors an AP advantage. You have yet to refute this (hint: you can't) or prove that it's your suggestion is still balanced (it's not). But there's a saying about bringing a horse (or a mule) to water... Rheingold 04:41, 3 September 2006 (BST)

You have shown that, in a pure quantity to quantity comparison, sometimes Zombies win, sometimes Zombies lose. I have attempted to explain to you the difference between Quantity and Quality. Let's talk about water and horses :D You have a horse and a glass of water. It (the horse) gets thirsty. You give it all the water in the glass. A little later, it gets thirsty again. You tie up the horse, run off, fill your glass, run back, and give the horse a little more water. Repeat. Eventually, it is too late to work anymore and your field is still not plowed. The next day, you bring a bucket of water. Your horse gets thirsty, you give it the whole bucket. It does not get thirsty again for some time, and you get a great deal of work done before you must get more water. Suddenly it is bedtime, the field is plowed, and you have spent the past hour in the hayloft with the farmer's daughter. While, quantitively, the young man in this tale may have had to give the horse more water than before, the quality of his day had vastly increased. This is called an analogy. I leave the connection as an exercise for the reader --Gene Splicer 05:08, 3 September 2006 (BST)

There is no tradeoff involved. Aimshot is strictly superior to Headshot, longterm. I honestly can't make it any clearer... you either understand the math or you don't. Rheingold 09:39, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Not everything comes down to math. --Gene Splicer 11:43, 3 September 2006 (BST)

In a setting like this it does. --Pinpoint 10:10, 4 September 2006 (BST)

This is how I "voted" in the previous days suggestion: The idea looks...okay, but I'm a bit confused. Why bother with the "aim at head" thing? Just have the "aim at joints" button and don't bother switching it (makes this stand out from headshot, as I see it). So, if I attack a 50 HP zombie and get him down to 8 HP, he instantly dies and I earn 52 XP (where "normally" I would earn 60 XP)? AND a zombie killed in this manner has a standup cost of 5/1 instead of 10/1? (Basically, I just wanted clarification). If that is correct, I would UP the XP penalty. Either reduce the "kill" bonus to 5 or negate it entirely (meaning the survivor in my example would earn 47/42 XP instead of 60 for a "normal" kill). Also, maybe instead of "0" AP to aim, just make it "1". The trade off, basically being kill the zombie faster for less XP and some ammo/AP saved or go for the full XP award.--Pesatyel 05:38, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

This section is for suggestions which have not yet been submitted, and are still being worked on. Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

Damage upon standing

Timestamp:	02:06, 13 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	Game mechanic
Scope:	Everyone upon death
Description:	I know, the title sucks like hell, but think about it. You have 1 health as a zombie. You also have Ankle grab. You just go "Meh, kill me so I get full health". I mean, i know Zeds ae supposed to be practically unstoppable, but even still. I think that you should have the option: Stand up and have anywhere from 30-45 health (Whatever you want), or heal for another 2 AP, taking you up to 53.652 health. I know, but i think death in this game should be at least a little bigger thing in this game. This does apply to harmanz dying, zeds dying, and revving surviverz.

Votes
Gold Blade, I thought your spelling was a lot better.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 02:11, 13 September 2006 (BST)

It is. I was tired and spilled coffee on my keyboard the night before. Unrelated: Look at the VOTE ABOVE THIS LINE. --Gold Blade 00:43, 15 September 2006 (BST)

53.652 health? That's a rather odd figure, how did you come up with that? The Mad Axeman 11:49, 13 September 2006 (BST) Through a very long, tiring, cunfusing mathematical sequence utilizing regular math, astronomy, calligraphy, and eight strawberry yogurt Nutri-Grain bars. In other words, I used an RNG. --Gold Blade 00:43, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Drunken Fighting

I take that I posted this? Withdrawn... --Niilomaan ^GRR!•M! 06:37, 13 September 2006 (BST)

Jagged Teeth

Timestamp:	Laragh 15:02, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Skill
Scope:	Level 10 and up
Description:	Your zombie has taken some damage to his teeth. Interestingly enough, this increases bite damage by one point. Why? In order to balance the game more fairly toward Zed characters, and to give us a competing tool with those blasted Headshots!

Votes

kill - All that damage, along with the status effects, is too much. The Mad Axeman 15:06, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Spam - 6 damage? At 30% accuracy? With status effects? How about... no?--∴Gage 15:12, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Spam - What Gage over there said. --Axe Hack 15:32, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Keep - And Shotguns and Headshots AREN'T excessive? Well OK, try this edit. Laragh 9:38, 7 September (CST)
Spam - You've edited the suggestion after voting started. --Funt Solo 15:48, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Spam - As it says on wiki bite attacks don't need a boost- they give 4xp, 4hp, an infection and 4 damage. Plently. Plus you have changed the suggestion since the start of voting. --Marie 15:55, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Spam - Suggestion changed after voting started. --Nob666 16:40, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Kill - Teeth are fine. --Max Grivas ^{JG,T,Max4Mod,F!} 16:42, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Spam - No stopgap balance measures. Teeth do less damage because they have other effects as well. --Burgan 17:13, 7 September 2006 (BST)

Doctoring Doctors

The doctor is rather difficult class to get started. Free Running is expensive, and healing is actually not as good for with First Aid. A fireman/cop can become a surgeon faster than a doctor, which is quite strange. What I want to discuss is a rebalancing of newly starting doctors by giving them Diagnosis instead of First Aid. I am aware of the use of Diagnosis for PKing, but doctors need 150XP for military skills, making a PKing doctor more of a joke than anything else. What kind of server issues would be involved in implementing this for new doctors? I also want to get comments on the usefulness of the suggestion before making it a formal suggestion. --OmegaPaladin 01:59, 7 September 2006 (BST)

I believe that suggestion has been made before, and got into peer viewed. It has never been implimented, though. The Mad Axeman 14:55, 7 September 2006 (BST)

Ironically, it was put in Peer Review TWICE. Here and here.--Pesatyel 05:28, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Train Tunnel Shortcuts

Timestamp:	03:49, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors, Zombies
Description:	Train tunnels cut a straight path beneath the city resulting in a shorter route. Some survivors are willing to risk the underground in order to cut time off their trip, and face the zombies using the tunnels for their own purposes. What it is A series of underground tunnels would be added to the game linking train stations to each other. The exterior of each train station would have two buttons to enter the tunnel in either direction. If for example the next stations were to the north and southwest respectively the buttons would say: [Enter North Tunnel] [Enter Southwest Tunnel]. Movement inside the tunnels would work the same as it does on the street except only two squares, representing each direction of the tunnel, would be clickable. At some points tunnels might intersect or branch out resulting in more than two directions but most of the time you could only go forward or back. You would not see the street map when you're underground. Squares would either be the nameless unclickable gray of the wall or just labeled "Train Tunnel". Why the heck go down there? Walking through a tunnel takes approximately 30% less AP than walking from one train station to the next on the surface. It doesn't cost less to move, you just have fewer squares to travel through. This provides an advantage to both survivors and zombies. Pros and Cons of the Tunnels -Survivor: The darkness of the tunnels requires survivors take care in their movement, requiring 2AP to move. Zombies are more reliant on other senses and are unaffected. To bring this number back to 1 (and prevent tunnel travel from being counterproductive for the living) survivors will need to power the tunnel's emergency lighting by placing a generator inside the train station at either adjacent station. This requires survivors keep at least one station for every length of tunnel powered and zombie free. -Survivor: Radios, cell phones, and GPS units do not work underground. The necronet map view will also not be changed to include tunnels. +Survivor: The tunnels are equipped with survelliance cameras. Originally put in to spot vandals they now let the living survey the tunnel for undead. Any survivor in a powered train station can "View Tunnel Monitors". This essentially works the same as binoculars, providing a view of the squares along the tunnel to the next stations. The cameras compensate for the fact that Necronet zombie tracking system doesn't transmit from underground (this doesn't affect scanning or reviving at all thanks to the stronger signals extractors and syringes broadcast). -Zombie: Feeding Groans from above are blocked off. Only groans coming from other tunnel squares are heard when you're in a tunnel. Similarly Scent Trail cannot track someone no longer in the tunnels. In Conclusion A new system of shortcuts that'll put forward train stations as valuable new battlegrounds? Sounds good to me.

Votes

Kill - I don't think this *and* The Underworld could coexist, and I like The Underworld better. Cyberbob Talk 03:56, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Keep Author vote. Re Bothan: There's no reason why a system of train tunnels couldn't have passages leading to other underground areas. But mainly what is the Underworld? If you notice mine was the only kill vote for that suggestion because I felt while it had a cool premise it didn't address how it'd fit in the game at all. This addresses that problem and I feel a network of underground shortcuts is more practical and useful than a second city nobody would really go into. Additional underground content could always be added but this is a good place to start. --Jon Pyre 04:02, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Kill - I, too, see where you're coming from, but, I dunno, this just doesn't seem to be there yet. I think my biggest beef is the ap cost: if I was worried about spending so much less ap, I would just save up for a day and move through the tunnel section in one go instead of getting caught somewhere in the middle. If it were really so complicated to keep generators up and going to get the thnig to be efficient, I would just bugger it and use something else. - Bango Skank ^{T W! M!} 04:25, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Spam - another thing to keep powered? Can you say major zombie buff?--∴Gage 04:27, 6 September 2006 (BST)
- Re So "things that aid zombies" are now spam? This is the zombie survival genre. Needing to maintain power is a pretty reasonable requirement for the survivors. Generators are in the game, I see no reason not to use them. Also while this gives survivors a requirement and leaves zombies without one, it'll make calling for reinforcements over the radio more efficient. --Jon Pyre 05:12, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Spam - What Gage said over there. --Axe Hack 04:34, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Spam - Yet another almost-free-of-charge survivor boost. Surveillance camera's equipment still intact after a year of zombies walking around the streets? come on! It's as exagerated as power plants still able to power entire suburbs. Zombies, altough able to travel those passages, wont be doing that too much: Survivors will. When you're a zed you don't travel much more than 10 blocks a day if following the Bash, 6 blocks if following a groan (and let alone the fact that you can't possibly follow groans trough passages because you cant count how many squares you're travelling on). And finally, not basing at all my Spam vote on this: Brutally copying a suggestion without even asking the author just because you could get a Peer Reviewed? That's low. You even voted Kill on the original! For moral reasons alone you deserve the spam. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:43, 6 September 2006 (BST)
- Re I don't quite understand. Zombies often have reason to travel to different suburbs. This makes it a little harder on survivors than it does on zombies since they have to keep a generator going in one of two stations. And as for my "brutal" copying...this suggestion is rather different than the underworld suggestion in that it has mechanics. I voted kill because that suggestion was too vague and I didn't like the idea of almost as many underground squares as above ground squares. This is pretty much a different idea altogether the only real similarity is that they both involve undergroundness. However since I was inspired by the previous suggestion I name dropped it to give credit where credit was due. --Jon Pyre 05:10, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Keep You Bastard! You beat me to it, I was going to comment on the underground idea that the #1 best suited underground entrance/exits should be the train stations, then they definately serve a purpouse! (Might even get fought over...) --MrAushvitz 05:14, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Spam Show me the last suggestion Kevan has implemented that took more than 200 words to summarize and I will vote Keep. Both this and Underworld are spamtarded. I do not believe that such a big change late in the game's development is either feasible or desirable. Rheingold 06:53, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Keep - DUDE DONT EVER USE THAT EXCUSE FOR A SPAM VOTE AGAIN. okay admittedly its a bit long but were voting on the IDEA not the presentation. also Kevan doesnt go into the pros and cons. Blazefire 07:31, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Kill - "a refinement of the Underworld suggestion". My suggestion is still under peer review, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't link your (completely different suggestion) to mine, or claim that the two are connected in any way, or call yours a "refinement". I'd add that much of your suggestion (2AP to move, GPS et al not working) is lifted straight from my talk page, which is linked to from my Underworld suggestion. I'm calling you out as a thief. Plus, there are sometimes 3 railway stations next to one another in a suburb, which you haven't addressed, which is why this gets a Kill vote: it's ill-thought out and incomplete. --Funt Solo 08:28, 6 September 2006 (BST)
- Re I did as you asked and removed any mention of your suggestion. If this suggestion is completely different as you say it is you shouldn't have a problem with me putting it down. You came up with an idea. I didn't think you had a working suggestion but I agreed with the idea "Hey, something underground. That might be cool." I think that's fair license. The GPS unit not working was kind of a necessity since tunnel squares don't actually correspond to surface squares and to be honest I didn't read through your talk page. I ran a search for 2 AP and discovered your section on 2AP movement concerns sewer tunnels and uses gas masks to negate them, and is pretty far removed from my idea with darkness and generators. If you look back through the suggestions page history you will see that the idea of something making movement cost 2AP instead of 1 is hardly new, it's a pretty basic idea for a penalty. And as for adjacent train stations, though thats rare a simple solution would be for all of them to use the same tunnel entrance. You could enter the same tunnel square from any of the stations. I apologize if you feel this suggestion rips off your own but your concept is very big and undefined while this is rather specific and limited in its scope. --Jon Pyre 08:44, 6 September 2006 (BST)
- ReHaving now changed the text of your suggestion, all prior votes are null and void. You should tidy this up and resubmit it. --Funt Solo 08:57, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Kill - It pains me to write this, because it does seem like a good idea. However, you say it takes about 30% less ap to get from one station to another, but then you say survivors take 2 ap, and zeds are unaffected. How does this make it require less AP? --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:19, 6 September 2006 (BST)

It seems to me the basic idea is to make a Train Station have a second "building" that connects to another Train Station. Get rid of the security cameras (THAT idea has already died at least once). The basic trade off being that characters in the tunnel cannot be seen (and vis versa) by those outside the tunnel. You also might want to drop the signal interference. Zombies could hole up in a railway tunnel to avoid NecroNet detection then launch a raid. I still have some problems that need fleshing out.

Darkerstown & Jensentown Example: Hardwick Row Railway Station (7,0) is 5 spaces from Imber Road Railway Station (9,5) which is 4 spaces from Snook Alley Railway Station (8,9). If I enter Hardwick, which direction could I go? South directly to Snook (9 spaces) or would I HAVE to go to Imber before I can move on to Snook? Would I be able to move directly to Dawney Grove Railway Station (14,2) in Jensentown (7 spaces away) from Hardwick? You might want to "map" your rail routes. A train from Hardwick, would probably go to Imber/Snook but NOT Dawney while a train from Hardwick to Dawney would probably NOT go to Imber/Snook. Or, simpler, just have each rail station have a tunnel that goes in each direction (N, S, E, W). And your numbers are confusing. Would it cost 10 AP (sans light) to get from Hardwick to Imber? Where does the 30% less come in?--Pesatyel 19:45, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Heavy Machine Gun/Gun Nerf/New Skill

Timestamp:	Zizanie13 23:58, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	New Item/Event/Skill
Scope:	Humans
Description:	*HEAVY MACHINE GUN* With the widespread use of military radios, some military groups have requested more powerful weapons... As a special event, 10 Heavy Machine Guns are air dropped randomly throughout the city in wooden crates. Usual rules governing crates follows - zombies can destroy them for points, people can break them by not opening them correctly, etc. The idea is to only have a very few of these circulating, and to really encourage team play when using them, as Heavy Machine Guns are used by the military. Heavy Machine Gun - shoots 3 rounds at once, doing 5 damage each, each having normal chance to hit. Would look something like: POW: You miss your target POW: You hit your target for 5 damage POW: You hit your target for 5 damage 5 damage lets flak jackets still be useful, dropping it to 4. Chance to hit same as pistol or shotgun, maybe add a skill like "Heavy Weapons Training" to the Military tree or whatever to get to hit up to 65% As for points, you only get the points that cause damage, though extra hits can have fun flavor: POW: You hit your target for 5 damage, killing them POW: You hit your target again, tearing another hole into their body POW: You hit your target again, tearing another hole into their body. They fall to the floor in a heap. Mechanics: Being that this is a large machine gun, it needs to be set up. This would take 1 AP, and would last until your next non-gun related movement (Firing, Reloading, Un-Jamming): You set the heavy gun up on its tripod mount, aiming it in the direction you want to fire 1 AP to fire a three shot volley. If you run out of ammo before the three shots are over you get a something like: POW: You miss your target >KLICK< Seems you are out of ammo 1 AP to reload, 21 round Ammunition Drums ONLY found in Armourys at 1-2% find rate. This would make Armouries ever so slightly more important strategic places, as the 10 or fewer people in Malton with Heavy Machine Guns would have to reload in these buildings. Since the search rate for ammo is so low, it would behoove the owners of said guns to have friends along to help clear out and defend the Armoury. So, 10 people in Malton get the gun, and keep them forever, never letting anyone else in on the fun?! That Sucks! *GUN JAMNING* There is a 5% chance that the gun jams on any bullet, wasting said bullet: POW: You miss your target CHUNK The gun missfired. It is now jammed The gun will no longer fire, rendering it useless, unless... *GUN MAINTENANCE* You have a military skill "Gun Maintenence" (I guess level 10 and above). This lets you clear out the jam, rendering the machine gun operable again. The catch is this: there is a 10% chance that un-jamming the gun causes the caught round to explode, dealing 5 damage to the user, and destroying the gun, removing it from inventory. You give the slide a good whack, clearing the jammed round or You give the slide a good whack >BANG< The jammed round exploded in your face, dealing you 5 damage and destroying the Heavy Machine Gun's firing mechanism I think if the gun took up 3-4 spaces it would be fair. I though a while about this, and I think it is a good idea. I wanted to discuss it and revamp it as suggested before submitting. I know that an item requiring 200-300XP worth of skills is a bit daunting, but this weapon is really meant for team play. Those senior members out there are looking for things to spend XP on, and this would be a lot of fun for either Mall Sieges or Turf Wars. If a young player ends up opening a crate without destroying the gun, I'm sure he would be welcome in any group around, and would quickly make that XP. The Heavy Machinegunner would be a powerful addition to any gang/team/mall defense/etc. but would be of limited use because of the lengthy reloading runs required. This character would also need support to make the Armoury trips useful. In the end, zombies don't care about HP, and this guy would be a bright target in a Horde situation. Maybe the act of being grabbed can mess up the Machine Gun placement and would require it to be set up again. I also think it is fair that it is only a matter of time until the gun breaks. 10 might be a low number to be dropped, but I think it is enough. Maybe there can be a monthly drop, bring the total number of guns in the game back up to 10, depending on how the mechanics turn out in the game. Any and all serious suggestions are welcomed.

Votes
Vote and suggest changes here. -- Zizanie13 00:01, 6 September 2006 (BST)

People are going to have three main problems with this. Heavy machine guns are (arguably) not part of the genre of a zombie apocalypse (in terms of desperate survivors and ravening hordes). You've spotted the second problem yourself - 200-300 XP spent on something you hardly ever use. And that leads to the 3rd problem - only a few people get to play with the shiny toy, out of 1000s of players. Any one of those reasons would get this spammed or killed (from what I've seen). --Funt Solo 09:12, 6 September 2006 (BST)

Exactly what Funt Solo said, rare does not mean balanced. People will auto-spam this because you have limited how many players can have it. - Jedaz 10:23, 6 September 2006 (BST)

And, if you fix it by giving everyone a shot, then it's way overpowered. The result will still be an auto-spam. I can't see a way to make this work without a complete rethink - and there's already a Peer Accepted suggestion for a sub-machine gun and a combat shotgun (if memory serves).--Funt Solo 15:51, 6 September 2006 (BST)

If it's not for everyone, no-one should have it. This is too powerful to give to everyone, so it gets my vote of spam, --c138 ^RR 22:48, 6 September 2006 (BST) Sorry, but I have to say spam, machine gun ideas just don't fly with UD. --Kiltric 00:11, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Hmm, why not the military drop off 100 guns? 10 for each suburb. 100 people have a gun, suburbs are defended with many guns. Since there are thousands of player,s who cares if only 100 get a gun, it's notl ike we're airdropping tanks in and napalm strikes to smash buildings. If that's a bad idea, limit the amount of guns. Less than 100, more than 10 seems reasonable Kaylee Hans 09:07, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Just because it's rare does not make it balanced. Howabout, lets drop a tank. But only one of them. It does 200 damage and fires 8 times every AP. But... there's only one of them! If you have to limit it to ten people, it's overpowered. Karloth vois ^RR 11:09, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Variable Entry Restrictions

Timestamp:	Doc Groucho 00:29, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	Barricades adjustment
Scope:	Humans
Description:	Survivors would need to take in account their equipment weight when using entry points. Those with a light equipment (like <15% slots filled), can climb Heavy barricades, while survivors carrying a lot of weight (like >90% filled) can't enter Very strong barricades. There may be some intermediate steps, for VS, VS+1, VS+2, Hvy + 0 and Hvy + 1. Survivors that find themselves unable to enter a building can still drop a few pieces of equipment. Their only risk is planning bad their move and running out of IP hits while dropping items. Newbies and survivors that use non-ammo weapons would benefit from an higher mobility, while heavy combat survivors would be a bit more focused to ground holding. It makes crowbar start to be useful within less hits, and adds depth (and more sense) to barricade strategy. Unfortunately, less cunning players may find confusing to need to remember they must drop items to cross some barricades.

Votes
Vote and suggest changes here. --Doc Groucho 00:29, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Nerfs free running in one way or another. Youronlyfriend 01:39, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Honestly, this would make the game (for me, anyway) a lot less fun, playing as a survivor. Playing as a zombie, I'd be in hog heaven, watching survivors tearing down their own barricades rather than drop the equipment they just spent all their AP on. --Funt Solo 02:05, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Can you say superp-uber survivor nerf squared? IMHO, this would be game breaking. --Paradox244 ^W! ^TJ! 21:52, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I don't think barricades just means like a pile of junk on the front porch. It means like windows boarded up, tables against doors, that sort of thing. So i don't really see how you would "climb" over it. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 23:14, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Realistic, but complicated and confusing to perform, especially to noobs. --Kiltric 00:15, 4 September 2006 (BST)

GPS Mk2

Timestamp:	Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:33, 1 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	All GPS units
Description:	The current GPS is rather useless and underpowered, not to mention unrealistic. I suggest the now the GPS has to be "turned on" (when you click on it). That keeps you from wasting AP. Furthermore, the GPS will not show your current position until it is turned on. Also, when it's activated, you will see the 8 suburbs around your current one. That will compliment the binoculars nicely. The GPS unit will also have a number of "uses", representing the bettery dying, probably about 15 uses per GPS. When you pick up a new GPS, you don't get a new one, rather, your current GPS gets another 5 uses, representng replacing or augmenting the baterries in your current GPS.

Votes
Vote here. Include your ideal number of uses for starting and augmenting. So, you're suggesting making the GPS only display your location when you burn an AP, which runs out after a series of uses? No thanks.

Well, it also shows a small map. Besides, you needlessly burn an p if you click on the gps anyway. Plus this gives multiple GPS's a purpose. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:49, 1 September 2006 (BST)

So does finding another GPS device to supplement the battery add to your inventory? or just increase the number of uses? and do you mean the 8 suburbs around you, or the 8 blocks? --Kiltric 02:40, 2 September 2006 (BST)

It simply adds uses. And i mean the 8 suburbs. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 02:43, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I don't understand this suggestion. 8 SUBURBS? How the hell would THAT work? Secondly, the GPS unit is "automatically" on. There is no need to "click" on it.--Pesatyel 06:22, 2 September 2006 (BST)

8 suburbs, in a map like this, except smaller. Also, don't you think that if it was alwways on and showing your position, don't you think the batteries might run out? Plus, you waste an AP if you click on the GPS anyway right now. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 16:14, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Ah, thanks for the clarification (about the map). I don't think that would be useful. If it was something like the way the NecroNet map worked that would be better. As for the rest, I don't think we need to introduce THAT kind of realism (that the batteries die). It doesn't effect anything else (after a fashion), so why GPS? All it would do would make a marginally useful item LESS useful by limiting how often it can be used. And why would you click on the GPS unit when it doesn't do anything? Who would be be dumb enough to do that (besides a newbie)? I don't understand why that even came up in your suggestion.--Pesatyel 06:02, 8 September 2006 (BST)

I was wondering, should the map be thee only part that doesnt work if you lose power? --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 00:21, 4 September 2006 (BST)

The Underworld

Timestamp:	20:07, 1 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	New Level
Scope:	Urban Dead
Description:	An entire subterranean level of Malton. The Pitch #1 (role-playing): A wounded zombie, battered and confused, climbs into the crypt beneath a cemetery to gnaw on grisly bones, whilst it's brethren stumble through the sewers in search of fresher meat, unperturbed by disease and the choking stench. Survivors, desperate to escape the slaughter and madness in the city above, hide out in old emergency sub-stations, built to power Malton's half-built nuclear shelters. The Pitch #2 (game-playing): There are more survivors than zombies (54:46). A common complaint is the zombies don't get enough love in terms of new and exciting ways to play the game, or that being a zombie is somehow considered losing. Part of the idea in introducing this suggestion was to help redress the balance. The Underworld has been designed as a location in which zombies, not survivors, have a natural tactical advantage (but not a game-killing one). Summary: This is a large suggestion covering multiple new rules, and as such it breaks the concept of keeping suggestions simple. It was felt that introducing it as a collection of separate suggestions would do more harm than good. I've tried to keep to the tenets of the dos and don'ts, whilst also keeping in mind that server load and coding time shouldn't be key factors against a suggestion. ~~The rest of this suggestion is available to read in full HERE (as it's a bit big for this page).~~ There's a limited version of this Suggestion now up for voting - but it's not the suggestion in full, only the concept - so I'm leaving the discussion open here for the time being.--Funt Solo 22:19, 4 September 2006 (BST) I've moved the main points of this discussion to my user page, (which I never used for anything else) and I consider this discussion closed. Cheers for all the input. Feel free to continue contributions on my talk page.

Votes
No votes, please - just discussion.

Damn, you put a lot into this! Anyway, i think you should break this up into seperate sections. I like the idea as a whole, because the current UD map is getting a bit boring. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:35, 1 September 2006 (BST)

I like this as well. It would be rather cool if there were one entrance per suburb into the sewers. It would create a tacticle point that people would SWARM to either protect and block, or to destroy and keep open. This could be used also as a possible shortcut system for getting around, but possible a much more dangerous one.

The idea on whole is neat. How do you plan on implementation? An entire 100 x 100 map below, or a series of junctions and open areas connected by avenues of open rock/tunnels? - Bango Skank ^{T W! M!} 22:47, 1 September 2006 (BST)

The full 100*100, but with the addition of an Impassable square (ie solid rock), so that you could, yes, create a series of tunnels and junctions --Funt Solo 22:56, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Both of those game me an idea: tunnel points that could be collapsed/cleared. That would be neat. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:51, 1 September 2006 (BST)

I can honestly say that I like this idea. However... the coding of an entirely new map area would probably require a server reset, which few people would be in favor of. Putting some new gusto into the game is something much needed. I would vote keep, but you may want to personally contact Kevan about this. --Kiltric 02:49, 2 September 2006 (BST)

How would this require a server reset? You can quite easily add functionality without breaking anything. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:58, 2 September 2006 (BST)

You're talking about attaching a whole new map onto the existing one. You may be right and that it would be simple to implement, I'm just not sure of that. Either way, I am all for it; I just don't know if it could be added. --Kiltric 00:17, 4 September 2006 (BST)

It probably wouldn't require a server reset... I'm not sure how similar the process would be between the Urban Dead and Nexus War, but Nexus War's map changes fairly often. Just recently, in fact, jorm added a 100 by 100 map. Without reseting the server. Onikage Wolf 05:01, 7 September 2006 (BST)

Overall? I like this idea. A battle under and above ground would be quite interesting, sieging a mall from below, escaping into the sewer system if the surface is ravaged, there are so many interesting scenarios that this opens up. I like the idea. A lot. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:58, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I like the general idea, and I hate to put a damper on the whole thing, but as a survivors I would avoid this place like the crotch rot. Looks way to easy to die for very little gain. Speaking for myself, the increased search rates don't act as much of an incentive. I'm quite happy to spend a few extra AP's searching if it means I can do so in relative safty. That's why I avoid malls. The fact that you can't see nearby by blocks makes it so easy to get lost.. and that's virtually suicide for survivors. If it is implemented, I'd rather have just the one entry per suburb, because that would make it easier to avoid them and the huge zombie hoards that would pour out of them periodically. I can well imagine zombies using feeding groan to group together into large mobs without the survivors ever knowing about it. The Mad Axeman 13:16, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Mad Axeman - you've voiced pretty much the exact same concerns I have with my own suggestion. To an extent, there are so many unknown factors (about how players would use a new level), it's difficult to call.--Funt Solo 14:26, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I think it might help a little if the zombie skill Night Vision still worked for survivors. That way, the underworld would be occupied mostly by zombies and ghoulish survivors who have spent a lot of time as zombies. If there were items that could only be found in the underworld it might encourage survivors to enter. Perhaps those NecroTech safehouses and nuclear shelters might contain a bit of heavy firepower - We've had a lot of submachine gun ideas submited in the past. Perhaps one of them will be used at last. The Mad Axeman 15:05, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Hrmn - I don't think uber-weapons are the answer - but I'm going to retool the details of the suggestion to take into account that it's a bit too harsh on survivors. I'll revisit the visibility rules and have a look at making some locations more attractive to survivors (beyond the need for pure defence against Underworld hordes). I'm against the idea of one entrance per suburb on the basis that I've seen a lot of suggestions shot down because they introduce new choke points that would dominate the game. (Thanks for all the feedback, though - very helpful.) --Funt Solo 16:56, 2 September 2006 (BST)

No, I wasn't advocating 'uber-weapons' - a few of the sub machine gun suggestions haven't been too bad. I mostly picked up on them as a new item that would require the user to return to the underworld periodically, rather than just grabing the loot then running back to the surface, never to return again.

On the point of getting around, I would advise increasing the visibility levels a bit. Zombie or survivor, I think getting lost in the tunnels and wondering around for ages, burning off AP trying to find a way out would get old really fast. I'd let people see the square their on, and the adjacent ones, just to make navigation easier. However, without night vison / a flashight, you could never be sure who else was out there. All you'd get would be a message saying "It's dark. You can hear no-one nearby." or "It's dark. You can hear something moving around." You still can't see who is in the adjacent squares without night vision, giving the deaders the slight edge you were on about. The Mad Axeman 18:04, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I have to say, that image of zombie hordes moving around in secret, in a place that just swallows up survivors, only to pour out in a rush to attack unsuspecting suburbs appeals to me enormously. Cyberbob Talk 13:19, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I'm with the spy. This would also mesh nicely with the introduction of binoculars: Aboveground is now a lot more visible to survivors, Zombies go somewhere else. Which makes me think.. maybe introduce Night Vision Goggles for surviviors who venture underground?--Gene Splicer 20:46, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I've updated the rules HERE on Visibility, and added some stuff to try to tempt survivors into the subterranean hellhole: new rules for the Nuclear Shelter and NecroTech Safehouse, plus a couple of new items, only found in the Underworld (Gasmask and NecroTranq Dart Gun) and a new skill (NecroTech Ballistics). --Funt Solo 03:56, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I'm a bit iffy on the Tranq gun and gas mask, but otherwise I am madly impressed. I am assuming no Underworld location will be only accessable via a building? As in, you can always get to any underworld location via at least one other underworld location. I'll also be submitting a flashlight suggestion tommorrow I think you'll like. --Gene Splicer 04:47, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I've left the question of a fully connected network as a "further design decision", but as with the current Free Running network, there may be rare exceptions to full connectivity. I've changed the Gasmask so there is a high % chance of it failing. With the Tranq Gun, I was tempted to make it a 1-shot, like a Flare Gun. Do you think it's overpowered? I tried to balance it by having only a maximum (skilled) 30% to hit, and a limited ammo clip. --Funt Solo 10:58, 3 September 2006 (BST)

People tend to dislike abilities that negate purchased skills, and you'll probably get a lot of flak for it. It may be best to leave non-integral objects and skills out of the final version for submission (i.e., night vision and flashlights included, trank gun and skill not). The last thing you want is someone voting Kill because of an example "incentive" item. Like I said, the Underworld idea is fantastic, and I would love to see it implemented ASAP. The trank gun might be better submitted seperately either beforehand as an NT building item, or later if Underworld is implemented. --Gene Splicer 15:37, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Point well taken. I've commented them out for the time being.--Funt Solo 16:26, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Xoid and I have done some thinking over the nuclear bunkers, and have come up with this:

Nuclear bunkers, if powered, give survivors inside the option to close their blast doors.
While the door is closed, nothing can get in or out - dumping bodies doesn't work, either.
As a failsafe, if the bunker is unpowered (i.e. the substation powering it is shut down) while the door is closed, it automatically opens.
Barricading a bunker is difficult due to its spartan design, and as such they cannot be barricaded past QS.

Cyberbob Talk 16:29, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I like that idea a lot. I think if may be wise for me to submit this Suggestion with most of the detail left out - just to see how popular the idea is without any hammered out rules. There's a danger of Kill votes on separate issues, whilst the idea overall might appeal. --Funt Solo 16:35, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Nevertheless, expect to be autospammed by such fuckwits as Gage, Gold Blade and Rheingold. Cyberbob Talk 16:45, 3 September 2006 (BST)

GoldBlade said he liked the idea--Funt Solo 16:58, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Whoops. Just Gage and Rheingold (and perhaps a few others), then. Cyberbob Talk 17:22, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I only Spam ideas that are completely useless or the general idea won't work. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 23:16, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I don't usually comment or vote on suggestions, but I've just read through all this and have to say what an absolutely awesome suggestion this is. I truly love it. The only minor thing I have to say is that I'm a little confused as to why a Fort/Armoury wouldn't have an access. Surely thats one of the places that would definitely have a Nuclear Shelter? Myo 16:50, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I left out the Fort/Armoury for a couple of reasons: it's already a swarm point, and it already has stuff that nowhere else has (kind of). For the same reasons, I'd be against placing any special Underworld buildings beneath a Mall.--Funt Solo 16:58, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I must admit, I like it. What kind of items could there be, though? --Paradox244 ^W! ^TJ! 21:51, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Further to the discussion above, I'm leaving out specific new item suggestions for the moment. (Things I've thought of are tranq guns, gasmasks and limited handheld NecroNet scanners.) --Funt Solo 00:38, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Don't put anything other than gas masks and flashlights in bunkers. Anything else, and they'll be OP. Cyberbob Talk 08:56, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Oh, one more detail on that bunker thing I put forward above. Any 'cades are destroyed when the door closes, making survivors extremely vulnerable if the door is opened and no-one is awake to barricade. Cyberbob Talk 08:56, 4 September 2006 (BST)

I'd make the flashlights just last a certain amount of AP, rather than having a % chance of failing. That way, people don't get screwed over by the RNG, nor do they get lucky and never have to find another flashlight. I'd make it a decent number, without getting crazy. How high it would be would partially be determinate on the search %s for it. --Pinpoint 11:11, 4 September 2006 (BST)

I think that's a good idea. How about 100? Enough to be useful, but you'd still want more than one before going down. The Mad Axeman 14:37, 4 September 2006 (BST)

The reason I didn't apply a specific number of uses to the Flashlight is technical - I think to do that, you have to make it take up 2 spaces in the inventory (the reason why pistols and shotguns do, and why radios take up 5 spaces). I'm not against the idea, though - just telling you the reasoning behind the current version.--Funt Solo 01:06, 5 September 2006 (BST)

Okay, I'm sorry, but fuck that I aint reading all those comments. However, just to pitch in my opinion on this, all, or a certain %, of the tunnels should be filled with impassable debris, which needs to be cleared first (i suggest same rules at barricades: too much debri and you can't enter, less debri and you migth be able to enter, possibly via free-running or it's udnerground equivalent). This would be like the buildings that needed their fences cut at the start, so that this feature would be progressivly used and we wouldn't have acess to the whole network instantly. -Certified=Insane_UG 00:28, 5 September 2006 (BST)

I did add a section on Implementation, because I realise this could have a massive (and potentially very bad) effect on the meta-game - so much is unknown. My suggestion was that it be implemented beneath a single suburb as a sort of Beta version. I like the idea of debris filled tunnels, but the current movement rules don't really allow for that - even if a building is barricaded, you can still move through that square at street level. You'd need a completely new ruleset for moving through squares - and if a square can be blocked / unblocked, you'd have to do that from one of the eight surrounding squares - as you wouldn't be able to move onto the square to clear it. --Funt Solo 00:52, 5 September 2006 (BST)

I love this idea! It has incredible potential. I love the idea of having to barricade either the underground entrance to a building, or the subterranean structure underneath (i.e. the secure underground rooms of a NT- another route for zombies to attack through). Is this the right place to suggest more uses?

Powered defence system: essentially an extra to subterranean barricading- secure doors to the more advanced locations will not open when there are zombies detected in the darkness outside. Barricades can be destroyed as normal, but must be fully reduced to nothing before entry is allowed unless there are no standing zombies outside, in which case survivors can pass freely no matter the barricade level.

yes, it's a bit of a silly idea, but I can see a vast number of ideas spawning straight off the back of yours, with a few good ones at least! Karloth vois ^RR 02:17, 5 September 2006 (BST)

Oi, I also would be leary of implementing tunnels underground. Don't know why I hadn't thought of this... Ever play a MUD? Ever play a shittly made one? Does this sound familiar?: West - "Underground Tunnel. The walls are slimy and you're standing ankle deep in muck. It smells bad" West - "Underground Tunnel. The walls are slimy and you're standing ankle deep in muck. It smells bad" North - "Underground Tunnel. The walls are slimy and you're standing ankle deep in muck. It smells bad" Catch my drift? I'm not bashing or anything, but this always bugged me about shitty muds, and I just realized this could be a terrible delimma for your idea, especially if it was hoping to cover a 100x100 map (Even if it were smaller, even 25% of the topside, that's still a lot of potential for repitition).

Damn, I also wanted to mention... The more I've thought about this idea, the more it makes me think of 12 Monkeys. Humans are banned from the surface of the Earth and the rest of the creatures roam free. I thoguht this was interesting, perhaps somethnig would happen where humans make strongholds in sewer bunkers and abandoned subway stations and tunnels, sometimes making guerilla raids to the surface to get supplies before retreating? Only the brave and strong are good enough to stay topside at all times? Eh, anyhow, just a thought. - Bango Skank ^{T W! M!} 04:44, 6 September 2006 (BST)

Meh, I forgot about this while I was chattering my dumb head off above: feeding groan should be super effective underground. Legions of zombies moving in on both sides... The groan would reverberate off the walls and echo for a greater distance. Ah, take what you will - Bango Skank ^{T W! M!} 04:48, 6 September 2006 (BST)

Discussion Summary / Main Points:

Visibility Rules too harsh on survivors - have now been altered.
NecroTranq Dart Gun removed for later suggestion: worry that it was overpowered.
Bunker Doors - special rules added to the Nuclear Bunker (from Xoid and A Bothan Spy).
Enticing survivors down here may prove difficult - additional section has been added to address this.

There's a limited version of this Suggestion now up for voting - but it's not the suggestion in full, only the concept - so I'm leaving the discussion open here for the time being.--Funt Solo 22:06, 4 September 2006 (BST)

I've moved the main points of this discussion to my user page, (which I never used for anything else) and I consider this discussion closed. Cheers for all the input. Feel free to continue contributions on my talk page.

Barricade Status

Timestamp:	01:34, 1 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	More detail on barricades
Scope:	All players
Description:	This suggestion allows all players to see when people successfully build or destroy a barricade up or down a level. There is a timestamp. This is based around building seiges with the idea being that if you log in, you can see if and how recently the barricade status has changed, and who changed it. There will be a check-box to turn the feature on or off, so if you don't want there to be spam, you can simply not use it. If a zombie attacks the barricades then it will say "A zombie destroyed part of the barricade, reducing it to Very Strong, Loosly, etc." There will not be a profile link in the zombie name, so it doesn't hurt zombie anonymity. Human text will read "Joe Barricader re-inforced the barricade, strengthening it to Heavily Barricaded, EH, etc." Edit: If you are on the opposite side of the barricade as the builder/attacker, then the text will simply read "someone" specifying nothing about the person, whether zombie or human. end edit. --Kiltric 00:25, 4 September 2006 (BST) Purpose/Effect for Humans: For the less observant players to keep better track of their safehouse's status, and for the rest of the humans to better coordinate their barricading efforts. Also will help stop zombie spies from attack cades from inside. Purpose/Effect for Zombies: Will allow them to make a better-informed decision about whether to attack the barricades or conserve their AP for when others join him. If a zombie were to log in and see that "a zombie destroyed part of the barricade, reducing it to Quite Strongly Barricaded" (3 Hours ago) or (30 Seconds again) then the zombie would know it would be a good idea to attack after 30 seconds, but should reconsider in the instance of 3 Hours. No votes yet, just tell me if I missed anything big, and what you think. --Kiltric 01:37, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Votes
This has been suggested before. Look in Previous (and look in Peer Rejected). Besides, it doesn't take all that much to look and see what the barricade level is at each page refresh. What would end up happening is a lot of PKing as you see "Bob brought the barricade down a level." Besides, if you can't see outside, how would you know WHO hit the barricade? It would make more sense if you and I are inside, you can see me alter the level. But if I am outside and you inside (or the reverse), you COULDN'T see me alter the level.--Pesatyel 02:35, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Re: I couldn't find it, could you maybe post a link please? --Kiltric 18:37, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Surprisingly, the suggestion HAS been done several times (prety much any "barricade" suggestion that doesn't mention XP), but only one had it by button instead of automatic (and the flaw with THAT suggestion was that it would cost 0 AP to press). There is also this in Peer Review. But, as I said, the idea isn't bad, just make it so that if person A is outside and persons B and C are inside, A can't see that B has altered the barricade while C can (or B and C can't see that A has altered the barricade).--Pesatyel 07:12, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I've changed it. oh, and thanks for the links. --Kiltric 00:25, 4 September 2006 (BST)

I have to ask, if you are a zombie standing on the outside, will you see who barricaded on the inside? Other than that, i like it. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 23:18, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Re: - no, you cannot see who barricaded unless you are on the same side of the barricade and you only get a profile link if they are human. The main point of this is to see when the barricade status changes. --Kiltric 00:25, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Leap Attack

Timestamp:	01:06, 1 September 2006 (BST)
Type:	New skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies can't leap. Therefore they should have this skill: Leap Attack. At a 20% chance of sucess and costing 3 AP, you do double damage or you smash your face into the cround in a comical sort of way. Therefore, all zombies will not be able to smash through the windows or bypass barricades.

Votes

Author Keep - It makes so much sense. Therefore, everyone should vote Keep. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 01:06, 1 September 2006 (BST)

I thought you were supposed to put "humorous" suggestion on THAT page. Or is that this isn't that funny?--Pesatyel 02:39, 1 September 2006 (BST)
Re: Not humorous. The only humorous part is the wording. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:25, 1 September 2006 (BST)
So, this is a "serious" suggestion?....wow.--Pesatyel 06:53, 2 September 2006 (BST)
Kill - Nerfs barricades. Blue Command Vic 02:44, 1 September 2006 (BST)
Re as in Reread the last sentence. --Gold Blade^Hunt! 22:25, 1 September 2006 (BST)
In that case, my vote remains Kill, but my reasoning changes to When was the last time you saw a zombie movie where the zombies could jump?--Blue Command Vic 07:06, 2 September 2006 (BST)
I know. But instead of jump, how about lunge? Besides, when was the last time you saw in a movie a zombie being revived? Hmm? They just jet shot and then cremated. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 16:16, 2 September 2006 (BST)
Keep - It would make being a zombie more fun. Survivor 1 September 2006 (BST)

Infectious Bite

Timestamp:	00:42, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement, new skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	As it stands, infectious bite is practically a useless skill. If a survivor's bitten in battle, they'll just whack a FAK onto the wound and keep on going. I'm proposing it's made a little more potent... -2HP per action perhaps, and can only be healed by a survivor with the NT skill "Decontamination". That would add a bit more use to the skill, and add a margin for tactical use that it doesn't have atm.

Votes
Your thoughts? --c138 00:42, 30 August 2006 (BST)

This is probably a dupe. I can't be bothered to find it. ----∴Gage 01:11, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Sounds familiar, but are you ACTUALLY saying it should do 2 damage? Seems pretty vague.--Pesatyel 05:56, 30 August 2006 (BST)

God. We now have 13 moves to find a survivor with the decontamination skill after we get revived. Youronlyfriend 06:27, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Newbies would be having a hard time trying to find shelter and a FAK and especially hard time getting into a NT building. --Nob666 10:17, 30 August 2006 (BST)

This would be really hard on low level - as infectious bite is already. It's the only attack I know that can kill you more than once. The infection persists past the first death - so you might get chewed to death by a zombie, find a revive point, stand up again as a human, then die a little later while unable to find a FAK. As far as I'm aware, you'd still be infected sa well! Fancy doing that a few times? Especially if you're new and don't know how to cure it, or that there is a map on the wiki telling you where the hospitals are? I don't. The Mad Axeman 10:47, 30 August 2006 (BST)

The skill is still very effective against newbs, and also forces the Human to use a Fak, and in a siege, which is a battle of attrition, consuming their supplies means everything. Instead of trying to build a horse, use the wheel. --Kiltric 01:33, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Feeding drag change

Timestamp:	11:20, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill alteration, improvement
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Feeding drag, the only attack that you can't use against your own kind. I purpose that we change it so that feeding drag is usable on Zombies by Zombies. In most cases when a Zombie is down to 12 hp they will usually be killed, so why not allow feeding drag? Pros: Survivors will aim to get more Zombie skills so they can try and help clear buildings in their Zombie state. When Zombies get dragged out they won't face the inevitable headshot that would normaly follow. Cons: Buildings can be cleared ever so slightly quicker, but not as quick as a few shotgun blasts to the head. Notes: No other game mechanics need to be changed. If you are attacking a weak Zombie then feeding drag would target the Zombie you were attacking, just the same as if you changed to a different attack.

Votes
No Votes here for now

Just something I noticed while I was playing. I wanted to run this by people first and see what they thought. - Jedaz 11:20, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Could you just clarify a few things here for me. Are you suggesting that as well as zombies being able to use feeding drag on each other, survivors should be able to use it on zombies? The biggest problems I see are from zombie the fact that it's hard to tell one zombie from another. For this to work, there would also need to be a change that ment low hp zombies could be told apart from the crowd, otherwise how would you know who to try and drag out? The Mad Axeman 12:46, 28 August 2006 (BST)

As The Mad Axeman said, for this skill to work you have to know which zombie is below 12 HP and which is not. But if such a change would be introduced, weakest zombies could be wiped out with ease. --Nob666 13:04, 28 August 2006 (BST)

I'm talking about Zombies being able to move other Zombies, not survivors being able to move Zombies. (I'll put changes in bold) Also you don't need to be able to tell one Zombie apart from another because when you attack it says the HP level and thus once you get the Zombie to the nessacary HP you can then just use feeding drag against them. - Jedaz 02:19, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Okay, so basically the idea is to allow a zombie to drag another zombie out of a building as per normal Feeding Drag? Wouldn't that break zombie anonymity?--Pesatyel 03:26, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Yes, thats basicaly the idea. How do you think it would break Zombie anonymity? It doesn't break it any more then attacking another person does. - Jedaz 05:02, 29 August 2006 (BST)

How is the zombie going to KNOW if another zombie is at 12 HP? There ARE advantages to being killed in the building. Get killed, stand up quick (perhaps before getting tossed even) at full HP. With this idea, I'm at 12 HP and get dragged out...but I'm STILL stuck at 12 HP and the meat is still in the building. Even if I had lots of AP, if I went inside after being dragged out, there is a good chance I'll get killed anyway. If I DON'T go back in...then what do I do? All the "work" is inside. Other than semi-nerfing Headshot, I really don't see the use of this.--Pesatyel 06:03, 30 August 2006 (BST)

God. Not another Zombie vs Survivor/Zombie idea. Youronlyfriend 05:10, 29 August 2006 (BST)

How would it hurt to have it? If a Zombies at 12HP or less they are likely to be killed soon anyway so it doesn't matter much if they are dragged out of a building or not. - Jedaz 05:41, 29 August 2006 (BST)

So this suggestion is purely to aid survivors who have just been turned into zombies? When I first saw it I thought you were saying that long term zombies should be able to drag injured zombies from a building to save them from being killed. In that case ir should require memories of life to represent that the new zombie can just about remember who its friends used to be. However, I think there are going to be a lot of people who don't like the feel of this idea, and so a lot of kill votes. The Mad Axeman 13:33, 29 August 2006 (BST)

But Zombies don't feed on zombies. why would any zombie drag another into the street? --Kiltric 17:02, 29 August 2006 (BST)

I kind of like Auschvitzs take. But it still requires making zombies targettable by HP, which is Bad --Gene Splicer 21:39, 29 August 2006 (BST)

This goes against the role-playing of the game. Feeding Drag is something zombies do to survivors - because they want to eat them! A survivor turned into a zombie may shuffle off to a graveyard and later be revivified, but they shouldn't be a "good zombie", fighting on the side of the survivors. (I understand some people will play the game that way, but it's not for me, and I don't think we need any suggestions that promote playing against the grain of the game.) --Funt Solo 16:42, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Limit on actions

Timestamp:	15:11, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Cheating countermeasure
Scope:	Zergs/bots
Description:	Simply put, the game would have a limit on how many actions can be done by a certain IP adress in a half second. The game registers the first one, but ignores the rest. This would keep zergers from doing something all at once, and would keep bots from doing much at all. Normal players would not be affected. Who has the connection/ability to do more than one action a second except for bots and zergers?

Votes
Keep - seems a little iffy, I don't know about the technical aspects, but it seems alright for now. --Kiltric 05:44, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Keep - I agree. We need this in game. Liberator 06:07, 28 August 2006 (BST)

This would still hurt players. I can quickly barricade by slaming the button every time the page reloads. Anyway bots have already been slowed down a bit by being forced to load the page each time. We can't do anything much else which wouldn't hurt real players IMO. - Jedaz 02:24, 29 August 2006 (BST)

I agree, but it would help level out the game speed a little, making the game a bit more fair. That was also a bit of a reason. Another reason was this, where you could mash a button and possibly get 10 shotguns in 10 searches. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 18:04, 31 August 2006 (BST)

As I remember, some time ago there was a very detailed technical suggestion on the suggestions page to slow down bots. Kevan read the suggestion and said that he came up with an idea of his own, so I guess he's already doing something about the problem. --Nob666 10:47, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Keep - It keeps people with non-56K modems from attacking twenty times a second. Really, how many movies have you seen where zombies can flail their arms that fast? Or survivors fire that many shotguns blasts? -Mark 17:31, 30 August 2006 (BST)

That's a TERRIBLE argument for this game.--Pesatyel 01:42, 31 August 2006 (BST)

There are people with 56k modems still?--Gene Splicer 23:23, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Yes. --Pinpoint 10:45, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Skill Price Changes

Timestamp:	15:11, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill changes
Scope:	All Players
Description:	Right now, there is a problem with how the game works. All the skills cost the same. Think about it. You start out with low acuracy, so it is hard to gain XP by fighting. When you are a higher level, you gain XP easily. As shown. As you get stronger, the game gets easier. I suggest making it so higher level skills cost more, and the lower level ones cost less. Anyone is open to give ideas of what the prices should be.

Votes
It's a nice sentiment, but we've got the problem of an established community. Technically, this is a beta, but people are still unwilling to give up their level 40 character. What do we do about existing high-level characters, reset and refund their XP? I would be able to live with that, it would give me something to work towards again, but lots of people will disagree strongly with a server reset. --Burgan 16:20, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Besides, this has already been suggested a few times. I don't know if any made it into Peer Review (not likely), but you might want to search through past suggestions for discussion on the subject.--Pesatyel 03:06, 25 August 2006 (BST)

As said, it is a nice idea, a great one, imho, but the difficulty lies in implementing it. You may even want to send a message to Kevan to talk it out, or bring his attention to this page. I know this is a good idea, but it really depends on how many see it that way. Good luck. --Kiltric 05:51, 28 August 2006 (BST)

This has been well received before in concept... but execution requires doing bad things to high level caharacters. And they have bitchy owners. People here do not like server resets. I disagree, but... --Gene Splicer 21:41, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Had this been implemented at the start of the game I'm sure it would have been fine - other games use this system effectivly. However putting it in now, with a large proportion of the game population at high levels, would lead to too much confusion, and however it was done some people would get upset. It's too late in the game for such a large change. --Preasure 10:57, 30 August 2006 (BST)

I've been think about this, and there might be a way to sneak it in through the back door without a reset or messing with high level characters. Survivors already have two sets of skills. Normal ones, and zombie hunter skills. Leave the normal skills alone. The hunter skill, however, can be changed...

Currently, there is only one of them, but we could introduce more. The first costs 100 ep, but the second 150, the third 200, and so on.

In all fairness, we should also create something like hunter skills this for zombies too. Call them ghoul skills, if you like.

The biggest problem I'd see with implementing this is that it requires more than one thing to be considered at once - the experience cost change, and the new skills at the same time.

I'd be happy to create a few new high level skills for both zombies and survivors - its just getting them approved that might be the hard bit! The Mad Axeman 11:04, 30 August 2006 (BST)

SKill Loss on Revive/Death

Timestamp:	12:53, 23 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	All Players
Description:	Players in Urban Dead plateau on the skill tree and become frustrated and bored with the experience whilst also stockpiling XP. This makes it easy for them to attain slowly implemented new skills taking all challenge out of the game. Also when a player has obtained all the skills apart from Rot it makes no difference to be Zombie of Human apart from that of tastes. To make it more interesting and to use up the cache of XP that most players have a few minor skill sets could be added, for example +5% accuracy or whatever, that gets whiped when the player dies or is revived. This would mean there are always skills to learn on death/revive, it would use up XP cache, it would give a balanced but slight advantage to staying in character, and it would make encounters more exciting. I dont have the time or energy to take this to the suggestions page but if someone wants to run with it and think up applications and skills then that would be great. Thanks.

Votes
Votes here

I can already tell you this will be spammed off the page within minutes. People do NOT like the idea of losing skills. Besides, what about low levels? And, lastly, if you don't "have the time or energy" why are you wasting OUR time with this drivel? Look through previous suggestions.--Pesatyel 03:09, 25 August 2006 (BST)

As with Pesatyel, this will be shot down. As much as I love ideas that help consume the extra XP people stockpile. However, I don't think that this is the way to go. --Kiltric 06:04, 28 August 2006 (BST)

s This game is all about dieing and getting revived.. I dont think there should be a penalty to the main game mechanic! --Dgn 17:41, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Are you serious? --Paradox244 ^W! ^TJ! 21:44, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Smoke Grenades

Timestamp:	22:26, 21 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	item
Scope:	all
Description:	Smoke Grenades are a new item found in Armories, police stations, mall sporting goods stores, and to a small percent in other buildings. When activated, the space it is activated on is shrouded in smoke, making human and zombie impossible to tell apart. It also makes figuring out exactly how many users (human AND zombie) are on the space. for 2-5, it says "several hazy figures" for 6-8, it says "quite a few hazy figures" for 9-12, it says "many hazy figures" and for 12+ it says "a multitude of hazy figures". When in a smoke-filled area, the surrounding blocks cannot be clearly seen, so any humans or zombies in them cannot be identified. When attacking in a smoke-filled space, all attacks take a -10% to hit (percentage flexable) , and specific targets cannot be selected (if there are barricades they can still be selected to attack). If used outside, entering the building on that space restores your vision, and if used inside, exiting does the same. Once activated, the duration of the smoke is 5 minutes. All smoke grenades have a 80% chance of even working. Smoke grenades leave no spam messages but smokey spaces are shown on the map instead of the space's inhabitants, and flares launched in a smokey area have no effect. Submit suggestions as well.

Votes
Votes here

Author Keep -I feel these are not too powerful and could be a good offensive AND defensive device. --Mr Backwards 22:26, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Yippee! Now my Flare Gun has a -5% chance to hit! (But I do like the inability to recognize)--Canuhearmenow 22:29, 21 August 2006 (BST)

hey, with advanced firearm training its 5% to hit :) --Mr Backwards 22:31, 21 August 2006 (BST)

This needs to be worked on more, although you have the right idea. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:34, 21 August 2006 (BST)

First of all, smoke grenades in the mall? Not only does that not make sense (no offense), but malls do NOT need more stuff in them. So, if I'm in a square WITH smoke, I can't see ANY of the 9 squares of the map, but if smoke is in a square to my left THAT is the only square I can't see? What about buildings? Would they be visible? And what about indoor/outdoor? If I'm in a square with smoke, can I see the other people in the square with me (I'd think you would have to be able to). And why do smoke grenades only have an 80% chance of working?--Pesatyel 02:36, 22 August 2006 (BST)

i put them in sporting goods stores, since they'd probably be fond there if anywhere, but i can scrap that if need be. When in smoke, you can see all the spaces, just not people or zombies on them until you exit the smoke. I outlined the inside/outside guidelines, but essentually when used inside the building retains the smoke, and when used outside entering a building shields you from the smoke. When you are a space away from the smoke, you see it in the distance hiding all characters. when in a smokey space, zombie and human are indecipherable, and general numbers are given (as listed above). i said all this, did you even read it? they are 80% to work cuz i imagine they might be kinda tricky to activate, but i can up it to 90 or even 95% if thats prefferable. --Mr Backwards 08:33, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Before anything else, I have to say that a duration of 5 minutes is extrememly short. Most likely, all the people in the effected square will be logged off, and still will be once the effect expires. No-one will even know it happened, except for a message saying "Someone used a smoke grenaid (9 hours and 22 minutes ago)". Furthermore, I can only see limited use for them. You could use one to slow down a zombie sirge, by reducing their chances to hit the barricades... but beyond that I can't see many applications. The Mad Axeman 12:29, 23 August 2006 (BST)

It's kinda okay... but 5 minutes is no good. limited duration things are always tricky, it either needs to be a much longer time, or maybe AP based. --Kiltric 06:16, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Training Books

Timestamp:	8:06 PM, August 11th, 2006
Type:	Skill/Action Boosts
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I thought we could find a better way to use books in the game, so I tried to think of some way of improving their affects, when I thought of the system used in Dead Rising, the new Zombie survival game from Capcom. I suggest that certain books give a boost to various attacks/action when used. Players are limited to holding only 2 books at a time. Book List Medicine for Idiots : Player heals an extra 1HP when using a FAK. 15% chance of finding in Hospitals, Libraries, and Mall Bookstores. Advanced Medical Procedures : Player heals an extra 2HP when using a FAK in a powered hospital. 5% chance of finding in Hospitals. NecroTech Handbook : Reduces the amount of AP needed for making syringes by 2. 5% chance of finding in a NecroTech building. Urban Artist : Player gains an extra +1XP from all tagging. 10% chance of finding in a School, Club, or Junkyard. A Finer Taste : Player gains an extra +1HP from drinking beer or wine. 15% chance of finding in a Bar or Club. Books do not work if player has been atttacked in the last 3 moves. To use, player spends 1AP to click on and open the book, and would then perform the action. Book closes after any action not affected by the book is performed (i.e attacking, moving to a new area). After five uses, you would get the message "This book has no more useful information." without wasting an AP.

Votes
Give me your feelings about this, and maybe some more book ideas that could be made, should this ever actually happen. - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:06, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Zombie books make no sense. Survivor books are over-powered. -Certified=Insane_UG 01:46, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Re : Yeah, they might be a little overpowered.. But how do the zombie books not make any sense? - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:01, 12 August 2006 (BST)

The zombie books don't make sense because, a. you didn't tell us where you could find them, b. a zombie should possess memories of life before even being able to read them and who would write a book for zombies other than zpsies?

My first thought was "Hey D&D!" Gotta agree with Certified=Insane that books for zombies make no sense. The only way THAT would work is to allow zombies (with MoL, of course) to read appropriate survivor books). And, as stated, the survivor books are very overpowered. Maybe only make them, at most +2% or +3% to hit (and heal only 1-3 HP more), for example. In addition, based on your description, these are 'permanent improvements unless the character accidently dropped one of the books. Limiting the use of the book (maybe the person has to click on the book to "activate" the ability with only so many clicks avaiable) would go along way with people.--Pesatyel 07:04, 12 August 2006 (BST)

New Zombie Book: "To serve Man" AHAHAHA etc. Anyway, ditch the zombie books and all the to-hit increasers, and make books only have an effect while there are no zombies about. Because I know I'm not going to kick back and read about hitting zombies when there are zombies /right here to hit/. I would consult a medical textbook while patching up someone with a gut wound, though, assuming I was pretty sure I was not going to be devoured while doing so. As opposed to only allowing two books in total, allow people to have as many books as they like, but only allow one at a time to be active(clicking on a book costs 1ap, closes your old book and opens the clicked one). Also make them have limited charges... you use up the book after a few uses (the knowledge it gave you now translated into the exp you got for whatever you were doing).

Possible balanced books:

Medical textbook: (increases healing done with a fak by 20%, so a max of 3hp in a powered hospital)
NT Handbook: (reduces cost to make a syringe by 2)
D.I.Y Handbook: (Reduces chance to fail at barricading by a small amount, don't know the exact numbers) --Gene Splicer 16:52, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Gene Splicer, very nice idea's for alternative books, also I agree with you. I planned on making a suggestion about a book that reduces Syringe Manufacture by 2, Damn...--Canuhearmenow 16:55, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Re: Yeah, I forgot to add where you would actually get them. Oh well, it doesn't really matter since they really don't make sense. Don't know what I was thinking make the boosts so high. I think the other half of the problem, other than the overpowering, was that I wasn't really giving an "RP way" of using them. I extended the "no using if zombies present" to just not working if they have been attacked before using 3AP, because a sleeping zombie is not a threat, but players can also be attacked by humans. Also reduced percentages of finding. With this "revised" list, it really only works with survivors, so this would be very unpopular for the zombie population. Either way, what do you think now? - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:08, 12 August 2006 (BST)

- Re: - has anyone considered the possibility that the Harmans need a boost? they're steadily recovering from the Big Bash, but I think that the bash prooved that the zombies are stronger. --Kiltric 03:34, 13 August 2006 (BST)

- Re: How would you define "Attacked in the last three moves"? That's the kind of qualifier that starts ringing voters' alarm bells. People like simple explanations, and "No Zombies present" has gone down well in other suggestions. I agree with you in principle on the "Humans attack people too", but you may have to sacrifice realism a little for the sake of suggestion passing. I'd also give it more than two charges, that few renders it pretty useless. Have it run off the same expenditure rate as standard books. Assuming the number of uses increases from two, state that they only close if you perform an action /not affected by the book/. So you open your book once, use up your supply of faks, then do something else. Otherwise you are just spending 1ap to increase your fakking from 5 to 6. Not worth it. 1ap + 5faks = 6 ap for 30 hp, so same hp per ap, but using one less fak total. THAT would be worth it. --Gene Splicer 02:07, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Re - I take it then that the books are only of use to people who don't have the first aid skill? On a different note, I could invision an instruction manuel for DNA extractors that increases there chances to work. The Mad Axeman 12:27, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Re - I meant "Attacked in the last three moves" by you needing to spend 3 AP before you could use the book, making it harder (if not impossible) to use in the middle of a battle. Increased book uses from 2 to 5. No longer close if affected action is performed. I was also thinking that they could require there be power if you are in a building to be able to use, but would always work outside. It's kinda hard to read in the dark, after all. XxXThe TruthXxX 23:34, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I actually see this as unnecessary. They add more junk items to some TRPs, and they aren't even very useful. The concept of someone trained in field surgery or reviving zombies gaining a little edge by carrying a book seems a little silly to me, but maybe if they gave benefit to the unskilled only and were found solely in libraries this could work. --Burgan 18:45, 15 August 2006 (BST)

I don't like the idea of someone gaining a permanent (assuming they don't drop the book) skill-like benefit because they found an item. --Mookiemookie 15:02, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Re : Yeah, I changed that.

I like the idea, but I have to ask something: Would these be temporary (for example, you use one and then that stat goes up on your next move, or until you do the action that the stat affecs), or would it be permanent? --Gold Blade 21:23, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Re : It would only affect your NEXT MOVE. If you do any other action, it would be wasted (you will forget what you read). XxXThe TruthXxX 21:29, 28 August 2006 (BST)

I don't like the idea - because it's too D&D. Why would a book increase the HP gain from beer? And why would a book "run out" and the knowledge you gained from reading it "run out". But mainly, I always thought that reading a book (instantly) in D&D that enhanced your STR by 1 and then became blank was very silly indeed, and my hangover from that is effecting my judgement. --Funt Solo 16:57, 1 September 2006 (BST)

You think using an extremely rare artifact to gain a one-point boost to an ability score is silly? Fantasy is obviously not for you, then. Regardless, this kind of effect from books doesn't belong in UD. --Pinpoint 22:05, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Nerfing Barricades

Timestamp:	15:26 31 August 2006
Type:	Balance
Scope:	Barricades
Description:	Currently it takes zombies about 50 ap when very lucky to break down a barricade. I'm in Ridelybank right now where over 100 zombies are attempting to siege an nt building. It has been about a week and we still haven't broke through enough to swarm them. Now ask yourself, if there are 50 survivors and over 100 zombies inside and outside a building, should the zombies really have to wait a week just to get a single xp while survivors can get about 500? Well as of my new realization of how irritating cades are I propose that we use this kind of system for barricading. If a building has been barricaded more than 10 times in the past tick then I propose that it can't be barricaded anymore until ther next 30 or o clock. The exceptions are malls, multi block buildings, police departments, and hospitals. Those buildings may be barricaded an unlimited number of times. Now zombies can't just knock a building down in 30 minutes because of this, if a buildings cades have gone down a level in the past hour it's barricading limit goes up by 1. So if a club which recently went from eh to vh it's barricading limit would be 11. This is in no way making it easy for major resource buildings such as malls and pd's or any major resource buildings except for nt buildings. And this is it all sumed up- -All buildings other than pds, multi-blocks, hospitals, and malls can only b barricaded 10 times per tick the exception is- -When the buldings cade levels have gone down in the past tick this makes the limit go up by 1. Heres some things I forgot to mention -When a barricade creaks the limit has a 1/2 chance of going up by 1 -Barricading failures do not count towards making the limit go down. That covers about everything, now judge.

Votes
Votes here Spam - Dude, barricades are an integral part of this game. Don't nerf them! --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 20:58, 31 August 2006 (BST) Spam - the title alone will get a lot of autospam. the point is for barricades to be an effective defense against zombies... for a while... then enough of the are attracted to the smell of fresh meat and are able to break thru. Instead of making a suggestion for your situation, just be patient. Deus Ex is coming, probably in the form of part of the RRF. --Kiltric 01:29, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Take a look at this. Malls do NOT need to be made even better than other buildings (which, I'm aware the linked suggestion does that to a degree, but there was also quite a bit of discussion). And, no offense, but I find it hard to believe that 100 zombies couldn't break into a single building after a week, even with horrid RNG. It took my LONE zombie 3 days to get through an EH building and inside (attack until out of AP, wake up headshot, attack again).--Pesatyel 02:49, 1 September 2006 (BST)

KILL!! Oh, HELL no. If you can't get through the barricades, its because of your lack of co-ordination, not overly strong baricades. Follow the "multiply by a billion" rule and realize that this would end the game! With no useful barricades to keep the zombies out, all survivors would be dead inside of a month.

It's supposed to be difficult to get through barricades. That's the whole point. It's a barricade. A zombie is a mindless automaton desperately scrabbling for fresh meat, not a calm, collected demolition engineer. --Funt Solo 17:00, 1 September 2006 (BST)

In that case, let's just make everyone survivors and introduce NPCs as zombies. Remember, zombies are people (literally), too. It's good if the game is fun for both sides. --Pinpoint 10:32, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Man, I'm just confused by the whole thing. What the heck is a "tick"? If the limit goes up one time for every drop in barricade levels, how exactly does that "nerf" them? I do believe that barricades need to be weakened somewhat, but this is just too confusing. --Pinpoint 10:32, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Idea For PK balance?

Here's my core idea:

Item/Skill X allows survivors inside a building to become aware when one player attacks another, rather than simply knowing when a player is killed by another. This is done by a message that is given that displays the profile of the attacker/attacked.

I think it's a needed mechanic, espcially due to the high number of mass PK events that have occured (See Valentine's Day Massacre and The Second Massacre of Yagoton for some examples) that are slowly but surely building up in frequency. This would allow other survivors to protect others and themselves a bit better from mass-PK attacks using alts/zergs/many other players. I tried presenting this as some sort of camera/electronic security setup that required a building be powered, but it was spammed for seeming too unrealistic.

I'm tempted to reformatt it as some sort of survivor skill and re-submit my idea, but I'm not quite sure how this will be recieved. I've no desire to nerf PK as a game mechanic, but it's quite obvious that some level of fairness needs to be implimented. I also don't want to overload the server or create a high level of spam upon the screen.

Any ideas? --MorthBabid 03:05, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Yes. Go away. This is already present in game. Huh? Yeah, that's right. It's already there. Get diagnosis. If people's HP start dropping for no reason, and it's by more than 1 HP a go, someone in the building is hitting someone else. The reason these massacres occur is not because you can't notice them, but because you are never online when it happens. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:00, 2 September 2006 (BST)

No need to get nasty. A FORM of PK detection is there, yes. But Diagnosis isn't that effective for groups of large survivors, and given the nature of the Mass Murder PKs I'm refering to? Health quality really doesn't really matter, as it is reduced in a VERY fast manner due to the large number of zergs/players involved. And these two mass murders occured with many people in a same building with plenty being active. --MorthBabid 08:00, 2 September 2006 (BST)

…no need to get nasty? Did you even begin to think this through? Here are a few major problems with your idea:

Hit points dropping rapidly? Then you are either dead already or are one of the few who wasn't targeted first. When you see "X killed A" seventeen times and they are still in the building, you either run, or stay put knowing that the killers have likely used all their AP.
(In response to what you said Youronlyfriend) …and the other players are most likely not online. Those who do come online are almost always going to see the aftermath. Your "solution" is nothing more than a mass spam generator that will help, what, maybe one or two people? At most. Great idea there.

- What I was saying is that the people normally find out one way or another and that this just adds more spam. Youronlyfriend 01:57, 3 September 2006 (BST)

What happens when the screen fills up with spam? Do you think people are going to recognise who is a PKer and who is just trying to take one down? You're going to get the same thing that happens at most revive points when someone starts ZKing for XP: some idiot is going to attack another survivor thinking that they are the PKer, then someone else is going to join in, then another… Brilliant, just brilliant.
How this translates to zombies. If a survivor can notice another survivor attacking someone, surely they can notice a zombie takinga chomp, right? No wait, if that got implemented you could expect to get flayed alive over it. But if it doesn't (i.e. it only works for survivor vs. survivor) then every two to three days we are gonna get some idiot asking why it doesn't work both ways.
(In response to what you said to Pesatyel) …spam and server lag "are not valid reasons"? Yeah… right… it may say it's not a valid reason, but if you actually believe that, then I'd love to know what you're smoking, 'cause it's gotta be good. You are proposing that players, who are already pissed off with radio spam, are forced to put up with automatically generated messages? So, let us just watch the screen fill up with crap, shall we? Think about the number of messages, and how people are going to react to that. Think about workload that the server will have to go through. Especially when my 3^rd point comes into play. Yeah, it's gonna be chaos. You think PK events are bad now? This will make them a lot worse.

You haven't thought this through at all, and it shows. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:35, 2 September 2006 (BST)

	Oh Snap!
	Someone just got served!

—CaptainM— ^((Talk)) 20:56, 2 September 2006 (BST)

More to the point, I thought it through on my own but was perfectly aware of the fact that I obviously hadn't considered everything. Hence the initial post and request for feedback. While I may think your 'assistance' is a bit aggressive, I do thank you for your input.

The point on hit points dropping is quite valid, but its dependent on one observing too many minute and often hidden (with a large amount of survivors) data. Also, do note that you wouldn't see a repeating message 17 times. Only the initial attack would be declared, with "and again" following only if you were one of the 50 most active characters. But the issue of spam with my current format DOES need adjustment.
Another good point. Can you suggest a better way of alerting other players of these attacks without being dependent on the HP dropping views of Diagnosis or generating spam? I obviously want to provide assistance without filling up the screen.
Sarcasm aside, this underlines the fact that survivors usually police themselves. Profile links would reveal any aliances, the 'age' of the player, and the prompt would force players to announce their intentions before/after a murder. But yes, the issue of HELPING the player without SPAMMING them does need work. Any suggestions on this?
This would obviously only affect survivors. Zombies wouldn't see the prompt, as yes, that WOULD be a bit redundant.
Indeed, spam IS a concern. Perhaps there is a way we can communicate these actions WITHOUT filling up the menu. Some sort of visual alert in the room description, perhaps? Any suggestions?

An effort to help even out the effect of these Mass PKs is obviously going to take a lot more work. I look forward to more of your (ideally less volatile) assistance. --MorthBabid 01:46, 3 September 2006 (BST)

If someone gets attacked they normally say something or the person that attacked them does. If the dont get a cahnce to say something i.e they got killed. A message appears to all players in the room. Youronlyfriend 06:11, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Not if they never have a chance to speak; IE with the Mass Murder PKs. Also, that would only alert the 50 most recently active players, who tend to be out of AP if they're resting in a particular building. --MorthBabid 08:00, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Well if theres too many people left alive then its going to get lost in the sea of radio spam and if everyone got killed then it'll be too late to do anything. Youronlyfriend 06:19, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Yes, that is true, and I've been thinking about this. Perhaps this should be presented in the room description area, and only viewed if someone is repeatidly attacking someone. IE: If someone is doing significant damage or repeated damage, the room description would read a message of some sort. That'd reduce it to a single message ("X is currently attacking Y"), keep it in a generally unspammed area (the room description), and perhaps even make more sense flavor-wise. It'd also keep it from being a string of "X is attacking Y" over and over. Limiting it to a certain period of time could help as well. Anyone got more thoughts on this? --08:33, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Don't work it by damage because an accidental shotgun blow could be seen as attempted murder, but rather have it work by number of attacks. Youronlyfriend 05:30, 4 September 2006 (BST)

This would create a LOT of spam (it gets annoying wading through it in Nexus War). It has also been suggested before. Did you read through previous suggestions?--Pesatyel 06:59, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Yes, I did a search through several, and didn't find any suggestions that addressed the idea in QUITE the same way I'm proposing. I also noticed that spam/server lag were also not considered valid reasons for voting against ideas, but still feel its something worth addressing to some extent. --MorthBabid 08:00, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Wild guess: Someone got killed by a PKer and is now feeling hurt...right here...in the heart. Cry some f'ing more. We're having a drought over here. --Sirens^{T RR} 03:46, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Hardly. The usual PKing itself isn't a problem (death isn't a big deal in Malton), but the Mass PK events (See Valentine's Day Massacre and The Second Massacre of Yagoton) are based on zergs or multiple players exploiting a the 'killing announced system' by having many users attack various players, but letting a single target take the killing blow so it seems like one person has killed many. That is a bit of a problem. Read into it a bit, and if you have any ideas about ways to deal with this, I'd love to hear them. --MorthBabid 04:03, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Locks V.1.5

Timestamp:	21:05 6 September 2006
Type:	Safehouse defense
Scope:	Buildings
Description:	One day I was wondering I about doors and I realized, that you couldn't lock doors. It's understandable that a zombie may be able to open an open door, but any smart survivor would lock the door. This brings me to the first part, locks. Locks have long existed but somehow didn't work. I'm proposing to make a lock system. I will say this now because I know it popped up in your head,THIS IS NO WAY AROUND BARRICADES I repeat THIS IS NO WAY AROUND BARRICADES. Now, to lock a building you must simply be inside it and it must have no zombies in it or ransacked, press a button that says lock doors and you will spend 1ap to lock all doors. Now the doors are locked and you are safer. Attackers may force ram doors with a 20% chance of opening them. To unlock simply press unlock. READ ON, before you decide to pre spam me. The simplest way around this is to search the building for a keysmith kit to mould for the lock, you must be inside the building you want to mould the key for and then press it in your inventory. the key only works for that building. After moulding the key you may now go freely in or out of the locked building as long as it's not >vs. Survivors may also purchase lockpicking, a civilian skill which gives them a 80% chance to enter a locked building, if they fail they waste 1 ap. Now of course zeds have a skill too, it's called memories of crime under the memories of life tree that gives them an 80% chance to open a locked building. Lockpicks are things that were meant for picking locks, they raise your chances of picking a lock to 100% but they're one-time use only, may be found in-junkyards 2%-police stations 3%,4%-clubs 4%,5%. Skills&Their Effects Lockpicking-Gives survivors an 80% chance of opening a door to a locked building, if they fail, they waste 1 ap. Civilian skill. Memories of Crime-Gives zombies an 80% chance of opening door to a locked building for 1 ap, under memories of life skill tree. Force Ram-Not actually a skill, just put it here, attackers may force ram doors if doors are closed, may be rammed open with a 20% chance of success. If doors are locked, then chances lower to 10%. To use just click ram door. Key, Lock, Lockpicks Lock-May be unlocked or locked from inside building for 1 ap if no zeds and not ransacked. May be unlocked from outside with appropiate skill or key to building. Building may be entered if one has free running no matter what if next to it. Keysmith kit-Used to mould a key to any buildings for survivors and zeds with memories of life. Takes up 1 slot. Chance of finding is 3% 4% in junkyyards and warehouses, can be found in hardware stores in malls, 3%, 5%, 20%. Lockpicks-Found in junkyards,2% , Found in police stations,3% 4%, Found in clubs 4% 5%. Raises lockpicking chances to 100%. One time use. Takes up one inventory slot. Advantages A lock a day keeps the lazy zed away. If no ap left for barricading or no barricading skill then noobs can just lock the doors for some protection. Those without barricading can lock the door to make zeds spend a little more ap to enter in a siege. Clarifications Zombies may not use keys, unless they have memories of life Locks do not affect free running No ap is spent if one does not have an appropiate skill or key to a locked building and attempts to enter If a survivor enters a locked building, they lock them after they enter automaticly. Doors must obviously be closed before you can lock them. Update from V.1 -The lock system is now much easier(Well I think)to understand,you find a keysmith kit and mould it into a key. The % for picking a lock are now higher along with the ramming %. -More organization All I think the programming would require is a variable for building id, which isn't hard and isn't a reason to spam this or kill this. Programming complexity and server load are problems for which the administrator/s/Kevan has to decide.

Votes
This is a tough one...--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 22:21, 7 September 2006 (BST)

Well... Its pretty good, definitely wouldn't vote Keep though. Zombies wouldn't need to use keys? Wouldn't this just spawn a Smash/Repair command *Cough*nexuswar*Cough* which would be confusingish and take a long time to implement. Also, do you have ANY idea how long it takes to pick a lock and how difficult it is? More than one AP of effort. Rework this a bit and such. Good luck. --Mnbvcx 00:13, 8 September 2006 (BST)

I'll tell you what will spam this (something from the suggestion): A lock a day keeps the noob zed away. Newbie zombies ALREADY have enough trouble (2 AP move, can't open doors, 10/15 AP stand up, etc.). They don't need further penalization. It also breaks the basic mechanics of the game. A survivor on the streets has to find a building they can get into AND one they think will be safe while they are offline. This, basically, would negate that. And even a maxed out zombie would only have a 30% chance of removing a lock? EVERY building in Malton would, eventually, have a lock on it. Not to mention this would, basically, just be a "bonus" barricade.--Pesatyel 06:13, 8 September 2006 (BST)

5% for a zombie to 'smash' the locks is very low as I explained in my vote as the chances of getting into a locked building as a new zombie after barricades is almost impossible. The lock system with the keys is also quite complicated and would need a lot of server power if theres a different key for each building in the whole of malton. And if locks can be put in at any time people could kill the 1 zombie that broke in, too tired to barricade, put on the locka, 1ap rather than 20+ap to properly barricade a building and keep out most of the zombies. Its rather overpowered in survivors favour. Would be hard on newbie survivors too if they couldn't get in either... --Marie^{The Grove} 22:14, 11 September 2006 (BST)

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.

Main suggestions page cycling

Unh, yeah. I was wondering if anyone was going to consistently cycle the suggestions or is it going to just end up being whoever feels up to it? I don't mind ploping them into peer reviewed ect but I'm not going to constantly cycle the main page anymore (obviously). - Jedaz 12:42, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal discussion of policy changes for the suggestions page, as per the Voting Guidelines.

Backlog reducing technique

I purpose changing the current suggestions template from Template:Suggestion to Template:SuggestionNew. This will make tallying votes easier meaning that it will be posiable for a human to sort the suggestions in a reasonable amount of time.

The template shown on the suggestions page will change from

===Suggestion Name===
{{suggestion|
suggest_time=~~~~|
suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.|
suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.|
suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}

to

===Suggestion Name===
{{suggestionNew|
suggest_time=~~~~|
suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.|
suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.|
suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
For Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
suggest_against_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Against Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
suggest_other_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF SPAM OR DUPE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Spam/Dupe Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF SPAM OR DUPE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}

If you vote against this then you can just live with the backlog which I'm not going to move anymore because I'm sick and tired of this crap. If you think that the current system is working fine then sort one whole days worth of suggestions into peer reviewed, peer rejected and undecided then tell me that it's working fine. - Jedaz 08:15, 3 September 2006 (BST)

If this makes it easier for the mods, then fair enough, use it. The Mad Axeman 10:26, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Fewer Suggestions

as it stands today, rule 12 of the suggestion page reads as such:

"Each author should not make more than three suggestions per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Frequent removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

this policy would change it to read as such

"Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be resubmitted a total of two times a day for a total of three times on the suggestion page. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Frequent removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

--Gage 22:54, 21 August 2006 (BST)

My rewording:

"Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be revised a total of two times a day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:57, 22 August 2006 (BST)

I like it much better that way. That (so far) is the way it should go to vote--Gage 23:06, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Sure --CaptainM 23:09, 22 August 2006 (BST)

I reckon that we should have it at two suggestions per day rather than one. - Jedaz 07:02, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Definite Keep. Rheingold 07:28, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Gotta agree with Jedaz. But REVISIONS should count as suggestions. I get tired of readings that suggestions were author removed (whether to avoid being spamminated or just killed or to be revised). Basically, ANYTHING an author posts for voting is counted as one of their suggestions for the day, even if pulled for revision (or whatever). Even the as-we-have-it 3 per day would be fine, just as long as EVERYTHING is counted.--Pesatyel 07:51, 23 August 2006 (BST)

That's hardly fair, the problem is people submitting many bad suggestions not people revising them poorly. Let's say:

2 Suggestions per day
1 revision of each suggestion per day.

It's really not that much clutter. Especially when things get spaminated :evilgrin: Rheingold 08:39, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Bad suggestions usually get spammed off pretty quick. I get tired of reading "author removed" all the time (and it has been happening quite a bit lately). If you have to remove a suggestion for revision, what the hell are you doing putting up OTHER suggestions? I see it as the author not thinking things through or starting on the discussion page. If suggestion A needs work enough to be removed, odds are suggestion B does too.--Pesatyel 02:28, 24 August 2006 (BST)

I really don't care. But as this leads to less suggestions by Mr A, I'd vote in favour of Xoid's revision of Gages idea. David Malfisto 11:21, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I'd go for 2 per day, with revisions counting towards your total. --Mookiemookie 12:40, 23 August 2006 (BST)

You can make four submissions to the suggestion page per day, with at most two unique proposals? i.e. two suggestions with up to two revisions between them or one suggestion revised up to three times. --Burgan 16:09, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I like Xoid's reworded version the best because it only allows one bad suggestion on the page per author at any one time. I don't care if it is revised, but allowing them to make more than one shitty suggestion at once is horrible. --Gage 18:19, 23 August 2006 (BST)

"Each author should not make more than two suggestion per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be revised a total of two times a day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

Well, upon overhearing your questions I would recommend this.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 18:36, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Well, this allows people to put 6 shitty suggestions on the page per day. No.--Gage 19:08, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Uh, Gage? 2 suggestions times 2 revisions each usually makes a total of 4 suggestions. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 19:11, 23 August 2006 (BST)

No, there are two suggestions right? Each are removed and revised once. That is a total of 4 times on that page. Then they are revised again... 6.--Gage 19:24, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I saw it as you could make 2 suggestions, then 2 revisions, wether you revised the same one twice or both once. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 19:27, 23 August 2006 (BST)

A "revision" implies that it is not the original.--Gage 19:36, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I don't believe more than 1 revision should be submittable per day of each unique suggestion. Rheingold 02:05, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Believe it or not I wouldn't have a problem with 1 or 2 suggestions a day... unfortunately the point would be moot because there still exists an abuse of Spam voting.. which means many suggestions (not just mine) don't last more than a few hours before removal anyways. Taking the hard line may sound like a good idea, but there will always be troll voting, be prepared to watch perfectly good ideas burn. --MrAushvitz 01:42, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Proposal Writeups

Please indicate which one(s) you would vote for. When we have a consensus then we can submit it as a policy prop.

Policy A
- Suggestions per day: 1
- Revisions per day: 2

Policy B
- Separate items per day: 3
- Suggestions, revisions and removed suggestions count towards the total

Policy C
- Suggestions per day: 2
- Revisions per day: 1

Policy D
- Suggestions per day: 1
- Revisions per day: 1

Frankly I don't see much difference so I would vote for B, C or D. I don't like A because it allows more than one revision per day. Rheingold 02:05, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - There is no rush. If your not in the game for more than one day there is no need to make more than one suggestion. I feel that reducing the number of submissions will stimulate careful review and wording, reduce spam votes, reduce voter fatigue and increase participation within the system overall. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 02:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D If it is revised on the same day as it was suggested, it needs to be worked on more than another 5 minutes. And it would help vent some steam after users get fed up with 10,000 revisions of the same idea. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 02:30, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - lets put some restrictions on these dumbasses, while still allowing them to fix a last minute thing.--Gage 02:32, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy C - Though I'd much rather 2 & 2. --Burgan 02:46, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - --CaptainM 04:00, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy B - Keep it simple and easy to enforce. --Ybbor^T 04:13, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy B and C - I'm quite happy with either one of these two. Preferably B though. - Jedaz 05:19, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:22, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - People don't need anything more to make a good suggestion. --Nob666 05:27, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D --Mookiemookie 06:54, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Tally 8 votes for D, 3 votes for B, 3 votes for C. Unless there's a turnaround tomorrow I will submit D as the proposal... Rheingold 09:49, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  - Thanks, but I think I can handle it, considering the fact that it is my policy. --Gage 14:31, 24 August 2006 (BST)
    - Go ahead then ;) Rheingold 18:45, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D? What an overwhelming mandate <--are game/wiki policies decided by a whole 15 people out of 30 000, in the space of 48 hours? This rule is exactly what I was wondering after I (admittedly maybe hastily) threw my (first-ever) idea on the mercy of the court: How are ideas to be revised - does one put it up, and then revise it endlessly within the 24hours that it will be on the main suggestions page as people bounce it around, or leave it up untouched for 24 hours, before removing, refining and refiling, and so forth (how many times?). I've taken mine away for further work, and I shan't bring it back for at least a week, and then if people want to spam/kill vote it (because apparently the only way to play is strictly killing; a player shouldn't stop to piss on another player that's on fire, thus no-one would ever use a skill like this) then so be it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sassie (talk • contribs) .
- Re: If they can't be bothered to show up on the wiki, then they have no say in the policies that it runs on. Plain and simple. If you didn't even turn up to vote, how can your voice be heard? Commonsense here, Sassie. You can take however long you like to revise an idea , asking how it can be made better, etc, withdrawing the suggestion that is currently being voted on, and putting the revised one on the suggestions page, proper.
  The problem is, no one seems to have the patientence to wait even a day to post their fourty-third suggestion, let alone "mere" revisions of it. (Which is why these new, stricter limits are being proposed.) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:59, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: Item 4 under Suggestions#Making_a_Suggestion is actually more helpful than it appears in its hidden away form. Perhaps ~~someone~~ I will dress up a paragraph for the dosNdonts page that makes this more clear. You can "workshop" your suggestion here on the talk page (where it can't be spamminated into oblivion) to great effect. Doing this before taking it to the Suggestions page is a great way to get ideas for the type of revisions a suggestion will need to gain acceptance. While poor suggestions will often receive less than neutral feedback, they are usually dealt with in a more patient manner than those that are launched by surprise directly into the suggestion system. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 20:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  Agreed, unfortunately, very few Wiki patrons "help" with the suggestions on the discussion page, prefering to "help" (using the term loosely here) once the suggestion is up for voting.--Pesatyel 03:17, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D In addition to only permitting about 3 really bad suggestions a day, instead of nine or so we get now this new policy will encourage the people to go outside and get some sunshine. --Jon Pyre 15:34, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: Sunshine? What's that? ;-) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:10, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re: - AHHH! IT BURNS!--Gage 17:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy C - I can live with 2 suggestions a day if I'm permitted 1 revision. I do however not agree removing your own suggestion (for any reason) to be an abuse of the system... it's your suggestion, if you want to remove it to save space, that's your business... especially if there's a whole swack of troll comments. Just for the record: I'd have a LOT more suggestions on the peer rejected page if I didn't bother to remove the "worst" of them before some editor gets stuck having to copy and paste them there. --MrAushvitz 18:51, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - Why? Sometimes I think some people post too much suggestions a day, no offense. --Axe Hack 00:11, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D -If you are putting up SEVERAL suggestions a day, there is a good chance said suggestions are not as thought out as well as they could be.--Pesatyel 03:17, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Voting closed: Policy D it is. See below--Gage 03:56, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Proposal Writeups

Please indicate which one(s) you would vote for. When we have a consensus then we can submit it as a policy prop.

Policy A
- Suggestions per day: 1
- Revisions per day: 2

Policy B
- Separate items per day: 3
- Suggestions, revisions and removed suggestions count towards the total

Policy C
- Suggestions per day: 2
- Revisions per day: 1

Policy D
- Suggestions per day: 1
- Revisions per day: 1

Frankly I don't see much difference so I would vote for B, C or D. I don't like A because it allows more than one revision per day. Rheingold 02:05, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - There is no rush. If your not in the game for more than one day there is no need to make more than one suggestion. I feel that reducing the number of submissions will stimulate careful review and wording, reduce spam votes, reduce voter fatigue and increase participation within the system overall. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 02:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D If it is revised on the same day as it was suggested, it needs to be worked on more than another 5 minutes. And it would help vent some steam after users get fed up with 10,000 revisions of the same idea. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 02:30, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - lets put some restrictions on these dumbasses, while still allowing them to fix a last minute thing.--Gage 02:32, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy C - Though I'd much rather 2 & 2. --Burgan 02:46, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - --CaptainM 04:00, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy B - Keep it simple and easy to enforce. --Ybbor^T 04:13, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy B and C - I'm quite happy with either one of these two. Preferably B though. - Jedaz 05:19, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:22, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - People don't need anything more to make a good suggestion. --Nob666 05:27, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D --Mookiemookie 06:54, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Tally 8 votes for D, 3 votes for B, 3 votes for C. Unless there's a turnaround tomorrow I will submit D as the proposal... Rheingold 09:49, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  - Thanks, but I think I can handle it, considering the fact that it is my policy. --Gage 14:31, 24 August 2006 (BST)
    - Go ahead then ;) Rheingold 18:45, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D? What an overwhelming mandate <--are game/wiki policies decided by a whole 15 people out of 30 000, in the space of 48 hours? This rule is exactly what I was wondering after I (admittedly maybe hastily) threw my (first-ever) idea on the mercy of the court: How are ideas to be revised - does one put it up, and then revise it endlessly within the 24hours that it will be on the main suggestions page as people bounce it around, or leave it up untouched for 24 hours, before removing, refining and refiling, and so forth (how many times?). I've taken mine away for further work, and I shan't bring it back for at least a week, and then if people want to spam/kill vote it (because apparently the only way to play is strictly killing; a player shouldn't stop to piss on another player that's on fire, thus no-one would ever use a skill like this) then so be it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sassie (talk • contribs) .
- Re: If they can't be bothered to show up on the wiki, then they have no say in the policies that it runs on. Plain and simple. If you didn't even turn up to vote, how can your voice be heard? Commonsense here, Sassie. You can take however long you like to revise an idea , asking how it can be made better, etc, withdrawing the suggestion that is currently being voted on, and putting the revised one on the suggestions page, proper.
  The problem is, no one seems to have the patientence to wait even a day to post their fourty-third suggestion, let alone "mere" revisions of it. (Which is why these new, stricter limits are being proposed.) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:59, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: Item 4 under Suggestions#Making_a_Suggestion is actually more helpful than it appears in its hidden away form. Perhaps ~~someone~~ I will dress up a paragraph for the dosNdonts page that makes this more clear. You can "workshop" your suggestion here on the talk page (where it can't be spamminated into oblivion) to great effect. Doing this before taking it to the Suggestions page is a great way to get ideas for the type of revisions a suggestion will need to gain acceptance. While poor suggestions will often receive less than neutral feedback, they are usually dealt with in a more patient manner than those that are launched by surprise directly into the suggestion system. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 20:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  Agreed, unfortunately, very few Wiki patrons "help" with the suggestions on the discussion page, prefering to "help" (using the term loosely here) once the suggestion is up for voting.--Pesatyel 03:17, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D In addition to only permitting about 3 really bad suggestions a day, instead of nine or so we get now this new policy will encourage the people to go outside and get some sunshine. --Jon Pyre 15:34, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: Sunshine? What's that? ;-) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:10, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re: - AHHH! IT BURNS!--Gage 17:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy C - I can live with 2 suggestions a day if I'm permitted 1 revision. I do however not agree removing your own suggestion (for any reason) to be an abuse of the system... it's your suggestion, if you want to remove it to save space, that's your business... especially if there's a whole swack of troll comments. Just for the record: I'd have a LOT more suggestions on the peer rejected page if I didn't bother to remove the "worst" of them before some editor gets stuck having to copy and paste them there. --MrAushvitz 18:51, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - Why? Sometimes I think some people post too much suggestions a day, no offense. --Axe Hack 00:11, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D -If you are putting up SEVERAL suggestions a day, there is a good chance said suggestions are not as thought out as well as they could be.--Pesatyel 03:17, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Voting closed: Policy D it is. See below--Gage 03:56, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Daily Limit On Spam Votes

As it currently stands, there is an existing voting policy on the Wiki relating to the suggestions page. It clearly states that the "Spam" vote is not a strong kill and that the spam vote should be "saved" for the most game-breaking/ridiculous suggestions. (Note: "saving" your spam vote will be very relevant in this proposal.)

Unfortunately what you consider game-breaking/ridiculous is a very "subjective" thing, many people often consider even a minor change to be threatening and/or gamebreaking, and it is difficult for all sides involved to feel they are treated fairly. Their voting on other players suggestions often reflects this, and unfortunately many voters almost always vote "Spam" on basically every single suggestion they see, in an effort to keep the status quo as they see it. The current problem is the "Spam" vote has no sense of restriction on it's usage anymore.

There is also, a "backing" behind a spam vote which allows for removal of a suggestion entirely... which if abused, means suggestions will not be given serious voter consideration once removed to peer rejected or the humourous section.

(When you use your spam vote, many suggestions might not even make it to 10 votes tallied. Which is fair, but not for every single suggestion you vote on...)

Current Spamination Eligability Requirements:

"Eligibility for Spamination is acheived if there are at least 7 Spam/Dupe votes and the number of Spam/Dupe votes are equal to 2/3rds or greater of the total number of votes, with the author vote included in all these tallies. In addition, A Moderator can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps. This includes their own spam vote."

Having said this, and pointing out the existing guidelines it is not unreasonable to make the following proposal.. in order to easily "enforce" the reduced usage of the "spam" vote.

"Each voter is permitted to vote on every daily suggestion normally. However, the overuse of the "Spam" vote is considered abuse of the voting privilege (as it has the power to lead to a suggestion's removal and was intended to be used sparingly)... abusing this vote undermines the entire purpouse of the suggestions page.

To make the "Spam" vote have greater voter responsibility and to limit it's abuse , all voters will only be permitted to vote "Spam" on HALF their daily votes made (rounding up) for that day's suggestions! ns!

This means as a voter you may have to choose which suggestions deserved a "Kill" and which ones deserved a "Spam" vote based on which you considered to be the "worst" of that day (you will have to choose which ones you spam more carefully.) You are by no means forced to give a "Keep" vote on anything, but you only have so many spam votes to distribute in total, per day. So, by example if there were 4 suggestions for a specific day, you would only have 2 "Spam" votes to distribute for that entire day's suggestions. Not even moderators would be exempt from this voting rule, but they would be expected to enforce it leading up to a standard 24 hour banning, and if abused repeatedly for longer and longer ban extensions. Even those suggestions which were removed by spamination, those voters are not "freed" from their vote which was made on that suggestion. Their vote regarding that suggestion is considered "locked" when it was removed, and they are unable to change it, because the suggestion is no longer viable for further voting.

In short if you "waste" your spam vote on a suggestion which is on it's way out... you can't "allow" yourself the use of that vote on another suggestion for that day.

This voter responsibility suggestion is intended to create a more positive suggestion & suggestion-criticism based enviroment. One which makes "Trolling" more difficult, and makes the "Spam" vote now one which voters must carefully consider... possibly even save if nessesary for their daily assessment of all suggestions placed.

Note: it is 1/2 of your daily votes, rounding up.. so if there was only 1 suggestion made per day, it could be a spam vote.

Suggestions which are not yet removed: you are free to change your vote as you see fit, but it would be best to do them in an order that you do not break your "spam limit" for the day."

--∴Gage 01:06, 30 August 2006 (BST)

I like your policy better than what MrAushvitz suggested. --Axe Hack 01:16, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Gage could you please replace the suggestion body with ~~Rest of suggestion here~~ or something like that? I appreciate the point ;) but it kind of fills up the page... Thank you Rheingold 01:23, 30 August 2006 (BST)

The burden of quality on this page is on the suggester not the voters. If you don't want your suggestions spammed, submit good ones. If your suggestions are spammed, they're spammed for a good reason: nobody likes them. The voters are not to be blamed for the fact that you submit crap on this page. I consider myself to be a good suggester (over a dozen peer-reviewed suggestions) and less than half of my suggestions get into Peer Review. I am comfortable with this. The suggestions page is harsh for a reason. Kevan doesn't have time to read through pages of crap. Only the very best suggestions should be sent to the PR page. Your policy proposal is completely wrongheaded. Saying that "voting is a privilege" and attempting to restrict the spamming of bad suggestions just shows your own arrogance vis-a-vis the voters. No wonder you get spammed all the time. Are you seriously under the impression that your suggestions don't get into Peer Review because not everyone has the chance to read them? If more people read them, they'd get yet more Spams and Kills. Rheingold 01:23, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Care to back up your "over a dozen peer reviewed" claim.. no, really. I don't see it on your page. I never said "voting is a privilege" you did. All I pointed out is the voting guidelines which direct to the fact that "spam is not a strong kill" and spam votes should be reserved for the worst suggestions. Not every single one. You can't tell me there aren't voters those don't vote spam on every single suggestion, basically every single day because you know you'd be wrong! My evidence is months ago I actually got a suggestion into Peer Reviews, and several into undecided. In the months since then they all go to peer rejected (and some people don't even bother to do proper editing and cut and paste it into peer rejected, which is a much more blatant abuse of policy than anything I've done! Don't believe me check today's voting if it hasn't been removed.) My point, people are getting sloppy, ignorant, and abusive... it has to stop. Not just for me but for all suggestions. What's the point of a suggestion not even getting to 10 votes, they used to get up to around 12-15 before they got removed.. even the shittiest of the shitty. The evidence doesn't support your position, all of your argument focuses on me, what of the other suggestions being made, how fairly are they being assessed and how long do they even get to stay on the page before removal? MrAushvitz02:33, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Most of your suggestions are the WORST ones. --Axe Hack 02:39, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Stop arguing Gage and MrA, sheesh, your like little kids fighting over a cookie.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 02:41, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Hmm...that's funny...That last comment was from me not Gage. --Axe Hack 02:42, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Here, take it to Arbitration if you wanna argue, I wanna be a arbiter anyway. If you wanna handle it peacefully use this;

	Hamters in the Basket Supporter
	This user or group believes that if John Teabags does in fact put the hamters in the basket that this situation can be resolved.

--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 02:45, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Can we please be serious? You guys who don't like my suggestions... get specific: Your homework assignment: What was the shittiest suggestion I've made in the last... 3 months. Did you vote Spam? Did you back up your Spam vote (as you are required to?) Or did you write something childish like "spamtarded" or references to monkeys, centaurs, etc. Would it seriously impede your voting if only 1/2 your votes for a specific day could be spam votes? Or would 1/2 of them being kills and half spam be "sufficient" for you needs? MrAushvitz02:48, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Hmmm...your shittiest suggestion in the last 3 months.....your Mind of the Horde one. Voted spam to that one and my reason had something to do with Zombies sending 0 AP to stand up because they have the ankle grab skill. --Axe Hack 02:57, 30 August 2006 (BST)

I can't remember the last suggestion of yours I didn't spam honestly. Your suggestions are the worst.--∴Gage 03:01, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Aushvitz, the following suggestions are mine.

Malton's Stories
Killed With A (Blank)
Show Populations Of Other Corners Of Large Buildings
Impossible Actions Use 0 AP & Prompt Humorous, Helping Messages
Necrotic Symbiotes (v 3.0)
Cooperative Syringe Manufacture
Add I To Zedphalbet
New Item: City Map
Blood Smearing
Necronet Uplink (Survivor Population Map)
GPS Telematic Networker
GPS Clock

I made this list from going down the PR page and clipboarding the ones I recognized as mine; there are probably more. I noticed that nobody bothered to move the last two to Peer Review. Thanks for the heads-up.

I don't keep track of the suggestions I get into PR because I'm not a total wanker. Additionally, I only submit suggestions that I think actually have a chance to pass, usually one every few days, not the three most ridiculous passing ideas I've had that day, every day. As for the rest of your argument, it is total bullshit. Your suggestions get the votes they deserve. By insulting the voters you are only going to make them more vindictive. I have always given a reason for my Spam vote and I will continue to do so as long as your suggestions are worthy of Spam votes. Change your fucking suggestions, not my votes. Rheingold 03:23, 30 August 2006 (BST)

- Ok for some reason the page isn't loading for me.. and I don't know how to move suggestions anyway. Can someone (Gage? ;) ) help me? Both suggestions are on this page. Thanks Rheingold 03:36, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Back in the Spam Vote Value discussion/vote, this is how I voted:

No -Most of the time, when a suggestion gets any Spam votes, they get what is needed to be removed, so the question of "value" is moot in those cases. The question of Spam Vote Value only applies to those cases when a suggestion does NOT have the request number of Spam votes. If a voters honestly believes the suggestion is irredeemable, why should their vote suddenly not count because others do not agree? THAT is the very nature of voting and the choices the voters make should not be limited by how everyone else voted. The vote should be how the VOTER wants to vote.--Pesatyel 19:54, 25 July 2006 (BST)

The key is to LET PEOPLE VOTE HOW THEY WANT. You don't want to get spammed out? Don't post spammable suggestions. Admittedly, there ARE people who vote for the suggestOR instead of the suggestION. But there ARE ways to deal with that...if you bother. Don't post with your name. Start suggestions on the DISCUSSION page first (I don't think I've EVER seen any of Mr. A's suggestions there). Don't post your limit EVERY day. If we could post 100 suggestion day, I'm sure Mr. A would. But maxing out your suggestions per day because you can, what does that really say about your suggestions?--Pesatyel 06:19, 30 August 2006 (BST)

The big issue with this policy is that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to monitor every user who votes and make sure that they haven't gone over this daily limit. - Jedaz 07:51, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Free use of Keep, Kill and Dupe but not Spam? We should be able to Spam the daily triple dose of MrAushvitz Crap Suggestion and the occasional unsalvageable suggestion. Just some advice: make good suggestions, not bad. --Nob666 10:39, 30 August 2006 (BST)

As Rheingold said, change your fucking suggestions, not my votes. Furthermore, the sheer balls you have for even bringing up this turd of an idea makes me think you're trying to bully people out of voting how they want. --Mookiemookie 16:24, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Ironically enough, if he puts this to vote I will vote Spam! Take that MrAushvitz!--∴Gage 17:18, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Come on, everyone's gonna vote spam on this policy if it hits the voting stage. --Axe Hack 17:44, 30 August 2006 (BST)

You want to put it to vote, just so we can spam it?--∴Gage 17:47, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Sure, let's put it to vote. I always wanted to see how many people would vote spam to MrAushvitz's policies. --Axe Hack 18:06, 30 August 2006 (BST)

I can't decide which suggestion to spam, Uber-sucky-game-breaking suggestion number 1 or Uber-sucky-game-breaking suggestion number 2. Youronlyfriend 08:10, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page. All policies, along with their associated votes and discussions, are governed by the Voting Guidelines established for this section.

Backlog reducing technique

I purpose changing the current suggestions template from Template:Suggestion to Template:SuggestionNew. This will make tallying votes easier meaning that it will be posiable for a human to sort the suggestions in a reasonable amount of time.

The template shown on the suggestions page will change from

===Suggestion Name===
{{suggestion|
suggest_time=~~~~|
suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.|
suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.|
suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}

to

===Suggestion Name===
{{suggestionNew|
suggest_time=~~~~|
suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.|
suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.|
suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.|
suggest_for_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
For Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
suggest_against_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Against Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
suggest_other_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF SPAM OR DUPE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Spam/Dupe Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF SPAM OR DUPE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}

If you vote against this then you can just live with the backlog which I'm not going to move anymore because I'm sick and tired of this crap. If you think that the current system is working fine then sort one whole days worth of suggestions into peer reviewed, peer rejected and undecided then tell me that it's working fine. - Jedaz 08:48, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Voting ends on the 18th of September

Yes - I wish we didn't have to waste time by having to vote on something that should have been from the very start. - Jedaz 08:48, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - This looks familiar. Probably because I suggested the same thing back in Feb. or March or somewhere around there. Anyway, I'm for it as I was then. --Pinpoint 09:39, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - I see the sense in this. The Mad Axeman 14:55, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - should we have 3 different sections for this?--∴Gage 16:17, 4 September 2006 (BST)
YES - Why the hell hasn't this been the way since the beginning? —CaptainM— ^((Talk)) 19:30, 4 September 2006 (BST)
YES - This is just a pile of sense --Gene Splicer 19:39, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Don't have anything against it. --Nob666 20:08, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Yes -Nice and streamlined. S'all good. --Grigori 04:01, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Yeah - If it's going to help you...why not? Jonny12 ^{Talk | W! | Hunt!} 17:22, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Great implementation. - Bango Skank ^{T W! M!} 19:15, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - When you right you right. I apologize for the massive amounts of suggestions I have gotten into Peer Rejected... I honestly expected many of them to at least make it to undecided. --MrAushvitz 05:06, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Good idea, makes it simpler. - Whitehouse 21:01, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Great idea. It'll be easier to calculate the votes this way. --Axe Hack 02:38, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Why the fuck not? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:14, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Aye, well, sounds like you should know. --Funt Solo 16:26, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Obvious, really. -- Catriona McM 21:43, 7 September 2006 (BST)
No - how are we supposed to keep track on the flow of votes ? --overlord hagnat ^mod 22:04, 7 September 2006 (BST)
do you mean the order in which they were cast?--∴Gage 23:55, 7 September 2006 (BST)
- Unh, by looking at the time stamps? I think that actually being able to count the votes in an appreciable amount of time is far more important then keeping track of "the flow of votes". Have you not noticed that since I haven't moved the suggesitions too peer rejected and wherever else lately that it's been stuck on the 11th of August? Thats because no one wants to look through a long list just to find another peer rejected suggestion. This will make things so much easier in that respect. - Jedaz 08:56, 8 September 2006 (BST)
This is not a new idea, you guys knew ? This was already suggested, and people voted it down because you cant read the votes in the order they are cast. So, you can't see when people stoped voting one way and started voting the other because a user made a comment here, the guy who made the suggestion explained something there. It is important to see where things flip and why. This system you are proposing is used in Policy Discussion, and i find it already annoying. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:48, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - a nice addition.--Mr yawn 17:09, 8 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - If so little change helps the people in charge of the Suggestions page management, I'm glad to welcome the new system. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:01, 8 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Making people's libes easier when they're helping everyone else? Excellent :) --Marie^{The Grove} 21:26, 8 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - YEAH BABY! The Badman 18:17, 10 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - I agree with this. --Abi79 ^AB 18:07, 12 September 2006 (BST)
Yes No - I have no idea what this changes or how it makes things easier. You want to explain how this works and will make editting easier, and you've got a "Yes" vote right here. But to a newb this just looks like "I don't like the current system - do it my way or I stop working". - David Malfisto 14:14, 13 September 2006 (BST) Thank you Matthew for the explaination. No thanks to Gage or Jedaz. - David Malfisto 21:06, 17 September 2006 (BST)
Currently Jedaz work is to go trough the closed voting suggestions and skim trough them with an abacus counting the different kind of votes, all mixed up, and only after that reach a conclussion that makes them go to Peer Reviewed, Peer Rejected or Undecided. Now, with this new system, with little added difficulty for us voters (if there's any), each section will have it's own votes tallied, and as such, Jedaz (or whoever decides to take on the job when Jedaz gives up/dies/dissapears/is abducted) will just have to look at the counts and make his decission, without any kind of annoying count that slows the process. It is mostly a change aimed to help the guys that take care of the suggestions after the voting is closed, because as it is the backlog is becoming huge because it's too tiresome to classify suggestions in the current system. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:13, 13 September 2006 (BST)
What Matthew said, and yes David Malfisto, that is exactly what I'm saying. It *is* a bad system that I don't want to work with any more, how do I know? Well thats because I've been moving suggestions for over two months and I don't want to be the only one capable of moving them. If you can't fully grasp how this will make things easier maybe you should try and move one whole days worth of suggestions. The last time I checked the 13th of August still needed to be done, maybe then you can get a grasp of what I do because no one is willing to help in that area right now. If you can't understand how this will make things easier after reading what Matthew said and trying to move a full days worth of suggestions then theres no hope in my trying to change your mind. - Jedaz^TD! 00:36, 14 September 2006 (BST)
Jedaz, you're complaining that you're the only person moving suggestions. Think about that statement for a moment. If you're the only one doing it, then doesn't that make you think that some of us would be willing to help if we knew how to use the wiki better? This suggestion, and your replies to voting, make you look like an elitist snob of a control freak. Chances are, you're a friendly and helpful guy. If you want less work, then spending some time explaining what the new template does, how it works, and how it will make moving suggestions easy isn't too much to ask for. Matthew, that makes sense, I can now see why this is useful. Thus I'm voting for it. Jedaz (and Gage), thanks for shouting at me like a pair of trolls. That really makes me want to help move the backlog of suggestions. Way to build community spirit on the wiki guys. David Malfisto 21:06, 17 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Purely logically, easier tallying and voting. Me likey.--Mr yawn 06:42, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - Useful and functional. The flow is irrelevant, just read all the votes before voting. This could reduce cross-chatter on the votes nicely. --Burgan 18:10, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - I'm all for making things easier. --ERNesbitt^P·T·MalTel 05:10, 17 September 2006 (BST)

VOTING CLOSED - no need to tally, it passes--Gage 01:09, 18 September 2006 (BST)

So when does the template get changed? --Pinpoint 08:51, 18 September 2006 (BST)

We leave the template as is, but the template shown on the suggestions page is a different one. (AKA this one) - Jedaz - 01:46/20/04/2024 08:59, 18 September 2006 (BST)

By the way, congrats on getting this suggestion through when I failed bck in March or whenever. --Pinpoint 10:15, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Thanks, but a threat is so much more convincing then saying "yeah, I think this should be changed". Something interesting that was brought to my attention, Amazing had a similar idea back in January, here it is. The only reason by the looks of things that it wasn't implemented back then was because there wern't enough people to vote on it. - Jedaz - 01:46/20/04/2024 14:23, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Less Suggestions

as it stands today, rule 12 of the suggestion page reads as such:

"Each author should not make more than three suggestions per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Frequent removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

Although this policy does limit people to 3 different suggestions per day, it isn't very effective in eliminating spam because it allows for infinite revisions of a suggestion to be put forth, flooding the suggestion page. As such, I propose that the rule be changed to the version below:

"Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be revised once per day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

This version will hopefully cut down on the amount of Spam that one will have to sift through on the suggestion page and help to make the suggestion process a bit more professional and thought out, a change which is badly needed.--Gage 01:43, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Note - special thanks to Xoid for a rewording and Rheingold for a change in the number of revisions allowed.--Gage 15:04, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Votes

Voting Ends September 8th, 2006

Yes - this is a goodness--Gage 01:40, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Amazing, but not in a bad way. --CaptainM01:43, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Sweet! Mr.A was getting on my nerves..... Axe Hack 02:09, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Reduces voter fatigue. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 02:16, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes -Simply put think about what you are going to suggest and get some feedback BEFORE suggesting.--Pesatyel 03:18, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes Needed. Rheingold 03:25, 25 August 2006 (BST)
No Regardless of the merit of the idea, I refuse to advocate Gage's on-going vendetta against Mr. A. --Arcos ^T•C•S 05:09, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - So you admit the idea has merit, but because it is reactionary you refuse to support it? If it is a good idea, please support it. It isn't just Mr Aushvitz, he was just the final straw.--Gage 05:13, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re - If I could believe it was just for the sake of the wiki, then I would gladly vote for it. But, watching your voting patterns, Mr. A wasn't the last straw, he was the only straw. --Arcos ^T•C•S 05:25, 25 August 2006 (BST)
    - Re - ever heard of w3c or Canuhearmenow? They were both just as bad for awhile, but they both seemed to have turned it around. The problem with Mr A is that he cannot or will not get the point.--Gage 05:29, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - There are those that are just as annoying as Mr Aushvitz, and some who are more so. Yes, you read that right. It's time that we put a stop to this absurdity. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:25, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Yeah I guess so... - Jedaz 11:35, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Ok. Jonny12 ^{Talk | W! | Hunt!} 14:19, 25 August 2006 (BST)
~~No - Purely and simply because this is plagiarism. Xoid came up with that revision of the original propoal, not Gage. Cyberbob Talk 14:22, 25 August 2006 (BST)~~ Yes - Heh. Nice move, Gage. Cyberbob Talk 15:06, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Hell yes.--Thari ^{S T F U} 15:08, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes for cutting the amount of crappy suggestions. --Nob666 20:46, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes There is no reason you cannot wait a day or two for your second suggestion. --Ybbor^T 21:07, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes I agree. --Paradox319 00:00, 26 August 2006 (BST)
No Going from 3 to 1 is a bit much. But the part I like the least is removal of your own suggestion being considered: abuse what if the troll votes are so offensive that you're doing the Wiki a favour by removing your own suggestion? In either case, removing your own suggestion shouldn't be abuse, provided you leave a record that you as the author removed your own suggestion.. it still counts towards your limit. If I'm only permitted 1 suggestion a day I'm going to be very aggressive in defending that 1 suggestion against spam voters, watch me. --MrAushvitz 00:56, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Have you ever 'thought about how people might see it before you post it? If you did, it might not be spammed. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 17:29, 26 August 2006 (BST)

It isn't. It's going to 2 per day. It wouldn't be as abusable as the current sytem is. Submit suggestion. Remove it. Submit again. Remove it again. That's all you can do today. If you submit it AGAIN TODAY, it would be abuse. But if you wait till tomorrow, then it would not be abuse/vandalism. Simple as that. Besides, if your constantly having to remove suggestions for revision...what the hell does THAT say about your suggestions in the first place?--Pesatyel 04:33, 27 August 2006 (BST)

For those who look at the votes, it says that the voting rules are not being obeyed, regardless of the suggestion. This is ass backwards, less suggestions per day won't bring the voting in line. You're going to have some very angry suggesters, not just me. Mark my words... don't be suprised if those who abuse the voting rules get temporarily banned after this gets implimented for trolling. Don't think I won't be saying "I said so" again, and again. --MrAushvitz 04:10, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Nah, I think we're going to get just an angry MrAushvitz after this policy passes. --Nob666 20:10, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Keeps the page from getting cluttered as hell from 6 resubmissions of the same damn thing. – Nubis 00:59, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Works for me --Mookiemookie 01:56, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Everyone else is voting this way. - CthulhuFhtagn 02:24, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - It's broken as it is. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 17:27, 26 August 2006 (BST)
No - 3 suggestions per day to 1 is a bit much. If it needs to be changed, make it 2.Leeksoup 20:12, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Re The Policy change IS 2. Under the current rules, a person can make 3 different suggestions per day, but can remove and resubmit the one or all of those 3 suggestions as many times as they want since they are techically the same suggestion. Basically if I make a suggestion called [Suggestion] and remove it, then resubmit it, then remove and resubmit it 15 times, it is STILL considered only ONE suggestion, [Suggestion] and allows me to STILL make 2 more for the day. Instead, the idea is that if I make [Suggestion], then remove it, then resubmit it, that counts as BOTH suggestions I can make for the day.--Pesatyel 21:47, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Sure, sometimes i come up with two suggestions in one day. Who cares, I can wait for the next day to submit the second. And limit the number of damn revisions! -Certified=Insane_UG 22:29, 26 August 2006 (BST)
No Does it really inconvienence you that much? Its a minute or two a day, just let them have their fun and spam them to crap, like god/science/legolas/ringo starr intended.HamsterNinja 18:47, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- Tally 4 No, 19 Yes. Rheingold 02:30, 28 August 2006 (BST)
No - Whatever problems some folks have it's not worth holding back other folks who just might have a good idea. If 3 a day from one person is too much today, then 5 suggestion a week might be too many later. -- Nicks 02:39, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - do you know what that arguement is called? It is called slippery slope and it is the worst, most illogical arguement ever.--Gage 03:29, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re - I have to disagree Gage, sometimes slippery slope arguments can be valid (I'm not saying his is or isn't, I'm just saying the potential is there). Also, I think ad hominem arguments are the worst, while most five year old arguments (that is, an argument made by a five year old) are the most illogical. --Arcos ^T•C•S 21:32, 28 August 2006 (BST)
    - Slippery slope is hardly ever valid. Slippery slope makes the assumption that we are all slaves to precedent.--Gage 21:49, 28 August 2006 (BST)
      - Ah yes, that is true, but "hardly ever" isn't "never". And it's dangerous to believe that we are exempt from precedent as well, just as dangerous to believe we are slaves too it (And yes, I realize this is the entirely wrong place to debate the likelyhood for the repetitveness of human nature). --Arcos ^T•C•S 00:41, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        I never made the assertion that slippery slope was never right. I said it was one of the worst arguments ever. Reading helps!--Gage 02:42, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        Et tu, Gage? I never said that you made such an assertion, I merely pointed out that even the lowest probability is still probable. What's worse is this entire line of debate is mucking up the voting, so if you wish to continue this, I suggest we move it to a talk page and proceed in a civilized manner. --Arcos ^T•C•S 03:53, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        If I remember correctly, the 3-per-day rule was instated specifically because of Mr. Aushvitz spam suggestions. This suggestion is actually an validation of the slippery-slope argument (in other words, the old restrictions, that were originally deemed sufficient, set a precedent for new harsher ones). That doesn't however mean that this suggestion is invalid. After all how much stricter can it get from here? One-half of a suggestion allowed per day? lol Rheingold 04:27, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        It can't get much stricter without the Wiki Gestapo taking over.--∴Gage 04:35, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        
        I would like to point out to Rheingold that the policy to limit suggestions was created and purposed before Mr A even had his first post. - Jedaz 05:30, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        Thanks. That should teach me not to trust his own user page. Rolleyes... Rheingold 20:23, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - agree with the YES's gang kcold 03:47, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Me too. --Abi79 ^AB 17:52, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Less suggestions per day (crappy or good) means overtaxed voters have less to sift through, meaning they can devote more time for your suggestion, so that they can re-think that ever-fatal Spam vote or reconsider their rubber-stamp Keep vote. Sure, you'll have to wait in queue a bit longer to get all those suggestions from your fertile mind to the Suggestions Page, but it'll just give you more time to workshop it and the voters will be less taxed and happier when they actually get your suggestion. It's win-win as I see it...--Xavier06 13:50, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Cutting down on Suggestion Page spam? I'm all for it. - Asrathe 20:48, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Spam is bad. Is there anything good left to suggest anyway? --Zod Rhombus 03:10, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- In the late 1800s, the man who ran the patent office suggested that it be closed down, because he thought everything had been invented. - CthulhuFhtagn 03:44, 30 August 2006 (BST)
  - Heh, I always find that kind of amusing. Damn Victorians had their heads so far up their own arse...--Xavier06 14:59, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Yes Please. Pillsy F! 12:57, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - A good suggestion will be memorable for more than one day. Gene ^{W! - Talk} 02:23, 31 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - It is my opinion, and always has been, that people rarely if ever have more than one really good idea per day. I have yet to see it anyhow. And if they do, lord knows they can wring their hands for a whole twelvish hours before submitting it. If people want to revise an idea thats what the talk page is for. --Zaruthustra^Mod 20:38, 31 August 2006 (BST)
No - It is clearly stated that you want us to have on suggestion per day, which can be revised once per day, make it two suggestions which can each be revised once per day, then I will vote Yes - Whitehouse 14:24, 2 September 2006 (BST)
- Tally - 6 No, 27 Yes CaptainM 21:32, 2 September 2006 (BST)
No Why? It works fine the way it is, in my opinion. --Grigori 19:58, 3 September 2006 (BST)
No - Make it two suggestions a day, then we'll talk. --Pinpoint 10:11, 4 September 2006 (BST)
well, too bad everyone disagrees with you. --∴Gage 16:19, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Re - Yes, it is too bad, because one a day is too few. --Pinpoint 21:59, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Were you here for MrA's reign of terror? One is too much in some cases.--∴Gage 22:56, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Re - I've been around since January sometime. So yes, I was around before, during, and after Mr. A's "reign of terror". I still think it should be two a day. --Pinpoint 06:24, 5 September 2006 (BST)
No - I'm with the two a day brigade. Not that it matters at this stage, but just wanted my opinion noted --Gene Splicer 19:44, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - One suggestion per day seems like a good idea. It'll hopefully persuade people to think before they post a suggestion. Plus, y'know, it's difficult to find a spoonful of water in a barrel of turds. --Funt Solo 16:25, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Yes Less crap? Sounds good to me. --Jon Pyre 18:06, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Yes Yes yes yes yes yes and erm, let me so, YES!--Mr yawn 21:10, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Yes - If it means people have to spend a little longer on each suggestion, then it's a good idea. -- Catriona McM 21:51, 7 September 2006 (BST)
No - and where the fuck is the moderator veto ? suggestion policy voting used to have veto votes for moderator :P --overlord hagnat ^mod 22:02, 7 September 2006 (BST)
Pah. Xoid and Cyberbob would veto your veto.--∴Gage 22:17, 7 September 2006 (BST)

VOTING CLOSED: 31 Yes, 10 No, 41 votes total. It passes.--∴Gage 02:47, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Ah... i remember the good old days, when kids were kids, zombies ate harmans brains, and where one could post as much suggestions as they wished. --overlord hagnat ^mod 03:13, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Well those days are over viejo. Some people who are incapable of making a good suggestion ruined it for us all.--∴Gage 03:21, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Moderator: Policy implemented. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 05:45, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Daily Limit On Spam Votes

Spaminated. Moved to Suggestions/Daily Limit On Spam Votes. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 01:41, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Talk:Suggestions/archive19

Moving Suggestions

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

Syringe Manufacture Alteration

Up Book XP Chances

Aimed shot

Developing Suggestions

Damage upon standing

Drunken Fighting

Jagged Teeth

Doctoring Doctors

Train Tunnel Shortcuts

Heavy Machine Gun/Gun Nerf/New Skill

Variable Entry Restrictions

GPS Mk2

The Underworld

Barricade Status

Leap Attack

Infectious Bite

Feeding drag change

Limit on actions

Skill Price Changes

SKill Loss on Revive/Death

Smoke Grenades

Training Books

Book List

Nerfing Barricades

Idea For PK balance?

Locks V.1.5

Further Discussion

Main suggestions page cycling

Policy Discussion

Backlog reducing technique

Fewer Suggestions

Policy Proposal Writeups

Policy Proposal Writeups

Daily Limit On Spam Votes

Policy Votes

Backlog reducing technique

Less Suggestions

Votes

Daily Limit On Spam Votes

Navigation menu

Search