From The Urban Dead Wiki

< Talk:Suggestions
Revision as of 16:21, 25 April 2006 by Xbehave (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Handgreen.png 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.


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

  • Archive1 -- Archived 04:48, 16 Oct 2005 (BST)
  • Archive2 -- Archived 22:22, 28 Oct 2005 (BST); 03:09, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive3 -- Archived 04:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive4 -- Archived 23:02, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive5 -- Needs to be worked on. I'm not entirely sure whether I should just dump everything from December in this page or not. As you may have guessed, I just dumped everything from December (which hadn't had a reply this month) on this archive page. Everything should be there, but someone was editing the main discussion page during my archiving..I don't think I messed anything up, though. Bentley Foss 21:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Archive6 -- Archived 00:30, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT). Not all of January, but the page was horribly long and clogged with old stuff.
  • Archive7 -- Archived 01:09, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Archive8 -- Archived 07:02, 26 March 2006 (BST) -- Moved the majority of March into it as well. Velkrin 20:40, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

Death Cultists

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

      • Stealth, PKing... No, not at all *Roll eyes* BuncyTheFrog Talk 00:55, 8 April 2006 (BST)
        • I don't think of this as PKing, rather a third, unique char set built to work with zombies. My Stealth skill doesn't allow either for rest OR actions during "invisibility". --Bachmaner 01:00, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Don't think of it as something built to be used by the players in a certain way defined by you. Think of it as a certain something defined by you used by the players in whichever way they find it is most convenient. The problem is you mererily expect players to want to hack through barricades as zombies when they can just pick up allmighty death cultist skills then stealth in (which is better than freerunning!), infect with better % than a Z, hack away with almost the same claw attack (except for tangling grasp), or just blast with shotguns... All the while being able to gain xp from healing zombies at a rate that dedicated medics can only dream of (since they don't get 10xp from healing other humans). The only thing that barely looks good in there is dark piper... and it really doesn't help for discussion that all of those individual suggestions are all lobbed into one big suggestion-McArrowni 04:27, 8 April 2006 (BST)

    • Re - Ok i make a charcter go to a building crack its barricades, drop the character...Thats y u never give crowbars at start let em find it!Killer < 00:55, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Um, that's why organised multiple chars are against the rules, remember? --Bachmaner 01:02, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - They dump em, How do u think on the stats page thr r 6000+ Dead Bodies?They use em take em away and the account gets Dumped.Killer < 01:08, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • So you're saying in a game with almost 400,000 players you expect there to be less than 6,000 dead at any one time? --Bachmaner 02:25, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - 400,000 signed up 49k are active...

Active Characters : 47236 Standing Survivors : 21005 (53%) Standing Zombies : 18578 (47%) Dead Bodies : 5470

Players active in the last day: 30227 Players active in the last hour: 2569 Total players in game history : 492227Killer Talk 02:30, 8 April 2006 (BST)

    • Okay, try this: "So you're saying in a game with almost 50,000 players you expect there to be less than 6,000 dead at any one time?".... uh, yeah, I still win. --Bachmaner 02:49, 8 April 2006 (BST)
      Re - Uh were we playing I dint now about lol?I was just pointing out that it will encourage dumping characters i think its called zerging...--Killer Killer|Talk 11:20, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    No, you already lost when you put up that suggestion, thank you for playing though. please try again! and remember: there is never is a need to think!--Vista W! 11:15, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Zergers who let their zergs die will probably not log on to them again, thus they'll rotate out to the 90% of characters that are inactive. Of which we have no idea how many are zergers, and frankly don't care, since it's probably not the best way to see how zergers are still around, so this discussion is probably just missing the point. Still, measures have always been taken NOT to encourage zerging. Just because the rules say not to doesn't mean there's an instant-detector-annahilator or that people will refrain from doing it. --McArrowni 04:27, 8 April 2006 (BST)

In response to Xavier's vote:

  • Re - <trying desperately not to break author-only Re rule, and failing> In future, please make your votes at least readable. --Cyberbob240 CDF 13:21, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re - Hay guys I can Reply! Lookit!!11!--Mpaturet 18:43, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • First off, Cyberbob, I found Xavier's comment very easy to read. I have no idea what you're reffering to. Mpaturet, that's just total spam. BuncyTheFrog Talk 19:18, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Sorry about that but I was a little annoyed how this guy replied moret han the author(Who's only response was a cockboat)--Mpaturet 19:30, 8 April 2006 (BST)
      • Yeah, yeah, I know this is a graft from the suggestions page, but since this is the discussions page, I thought I'd discuss. I'm not sure what you mean by "readable", CB240. My vote posts can be many things--long, rambling, even very occasionally tinged with humor--but they are alway, as far as I can tell "readable". Perhaps I should post in another language (I can always feed the text into Babel Fish and see what I get). Perhaps I should try and post it so it can be "seen" in frequencies outside the visible spectrum. There is some validity, some method to the madness, to the length of my vote text, though. When newbie (or simply oblivious to sense) suggestion authors don't take the time to workshop their baby in discussion, they effectively turn the Peer-review into the discussion area. Why should I pretend otherwise?--Xavier06 21:29, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • This Suggestion isn't quite at that point yet, but I think it's a fairly good reason to implement alternate Spamination rules - say, if an entry has 20 or more responses and 50%+ are 'Spam', then perhaps it should be considered. Perhaps the number of required responses could be lowered, but it would be something to look into. -Wyndallin 21:52, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Echoes of Gunfire

  • Kill - Ridculous amounts of message flooding. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 11:52, 9 April 2006 (BST)
    • No more so than Feeding Groan. If the text was generic, and shorter (maybe: "You hear gunshots echoing x blocks away"), this would be a lot more serviceable. --Cyberbob240CDF 12:00, 9 April 2006 (BST)
      • I'm open to suggestions, though I'd prefer that there be a message for those with APs at the time and those without (there's something about the roar of gunfire waking you up before you quickly black out again). However, the message could be shortened like you said. Perhaps:

Awake: "You hear gunshots echoing x blocks away to the [direction]."?

Asleep: "Gunshots wake you up, echoing x blocks away to the [direction]."? --Lord of the Pies 12:31, 9 April 2006 (BST)

  • Re - Groans have a range of six blocks and require a human presence. Also, you are severely underestimating the death rate that this game experiences, and how common headshot is. The spam would be unbearable, especially when a horde attacks an area. --Grim s 12:27, 9 April 2006 (BST)
    • Flares have a range of around 15 though, besides which the Headshot, like I said, wasn't such a good idea. That would bring the effective range down to 3 blocks away, half of the maximum Feeding Groan, and I doubt that the death rate is so high that you would be hearing more than five or six gunshots a day (in a three block radius?). --Lord of the Pies 12:39, 9 April 2006 (BST)
      • Understand that this is just an estimate judging from the number of corpses on the ground, but to my thinking about 18,000 people would get killed a day (Mostly Zombies and newbies). Even if we say that only a third are caused by zombies (And that we have to do because the zombie numbers have practically stabilised for the time being at 48%), thats still 1.2 people getting killed on each block in the game per day. A 3 block radius would be 7 blocks by 7 blocks (Three in each direction plus the players location). As a result there would be an average of 58.8 deaths a day within that range (Some may be caused by axes, but very few people use those against zombies because an axe doesnt guarentee a kill). Furthermore, since the location is included in your spamathon, these messages will not collapse into the "And again" spam reducer very often. This gets far, far worse when you deal with a large horde rampaging through the area as teh death rate on both sides dramatically increases in the area, so you would probably be dealing with about 2-3 hundred messages in such circumstances per day. Please not that the numbers are based on estimates, and i feel they are reasonable, though they may not accurately reflect the actual state of affairs, but they must be pretty close. --Grim s 14:17, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • Ok then, maybe setting a limit on how many gunshots you can hear? That could defeat the spam problem. It would, however, still give you an indication that something is going on. (unamed author, please sign your comments on talk page)

Possible solution to the spam, although it woudn't help with the server strain and has not been tried before, and is pretty complex to describe. Since they are echoes, maybe they could be less precise than, say, flares and groans. How this would work would be each square in position to you would be assigned either N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW. When you log on total noise level and general proximity is showed for the 3 loudest directions (so you don't have 8 entries each day). However my adaptation would be pretty complicated though for a suggestion that is only ever heard by survivors outside (I'd allow zombies to hear that version)--McArrowni 22:52, 10 April 2006 (BST)


  1. Kill - The metagame counter to Pkers is pretty damn good as it is, this is just excessive when combined with that and would leave us with no chance to survive such an action at all. Why all the hate against us, its not like death has really meant much these past few months, and even now, its still not that hard to get a revive if you know how (MY pker character is getting revived all the time). --Grim s 06:15, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re If there's some unbalance, suggest a fix to that. Bypassing zombies entirely and playing as a PKer (basically just a zombie that uses guns and walks through barricades), detracts from the game. This is Urban Dead, not Urban Shotgunwielding Raiders With Some Zombies Outside. If Malton need have PKers, fine, but they should be part of the game, not an oversight. --Jon Pyre 06:18, 11 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - If pkers were the result of an oversight kevan would have REMOVED the ability to pk, not make grant half xp. The fact is that there ARE psycho's and murderers out there in real life who would cheerfully kill you (Or me for that matter). It is perfectly reasonable to run a character roleplaying that you are a person driven mad by the constant fear of zombies to the point where you almost worship them and act on thier behalf (Something Akin to Stockholm syndrome) slaying humans. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to be driven mad by memories as one of the undead and start slaying those responsibvle for his torment (Scientists). It is completely reasonable for there to be serial killers who are taking advantage of the lawlessness in the city to continue thier horrific killing sprees. Murdering psychos are in genre, perfectly reasonable, and actually adds to the depth of the game, as you always have to watch out for other humans, who may be plotting against you or planning to off you (Which is also perfectly in genre). --Grim s 06:28, 11 April 2006 (BST)
        • Re Which is why I am not suggesting to remove the option to attack other survivors, but suggesting a flavorful Vigilante skill that's in character, fun, and logical. It gives both murderer and lawman goals and parameters...essentially, a game. I don't oppose PKers existing, I oppose the game being set up for them to have essentially no consequences to their actions. Right now if PKing were banned and Kevan set up a script to randomly kill 50 survivors with a lightning bolt each day, it'd have the same effect. That's not a game, that's random griefing. If you want to talk about this further, let's do it on the discussion page. --Jon Pyre 06:33, 11 April 2006 (BST)
          • Re - With this skill you may as well be removing Pking from the game. This skill, Multiplied by a billion, would see the end of Pking as no one would be able to hide after the killing. You would be destroying an important part of the game, and a good deal of the fear associated with it. --Grim s 06:38, 11 April 2006 (BST)
            • Re What fear? It only inspires annoyance. "Why look, I've been killed by a gameplay strategy I have no way of countering, regardless of my skills or planning. What a fantastic game this is in which choosing to grief has absolutely no counter whatsoever. I hope Kevan gets rid of zombies altogether because these PKers are far more effective. I don't like the zombie genre anyway, I want Urban Dead to become a Halo deathmatch with me using a sniper rifle" --Jon Pyre 06:41, 11 April 2006 (BST)
              • Re - There are a couple of counters, you just dont like them and are therefore ignoring them: Track down the pker and shoot him dead. Repeatedly. Without a nifty tracking skill. I used to do it all the time when i played as a bounty hunter (Before i fell to the Dark Side, if you will, and started my rampage across Malton). Use Metagame PK lists and shoot known offenders dead when they turn up, neither of these are perfect, but they are effective. Oh wait... this requires work, just like police have to work to keep them from hurting people in real life. Gods forbid you would get up off your arse and do something to stop it yourself, instead of crawling to Kevan screaming for them to be nerfed so bad you never need to worry about them again. They add to the game. The more you complain about Pkers, the more they will kill you. If you take it like a man then blow thier brains out, odds are that they wont bother with you again. Furthermore, your own experience does not equal everyone elses experience, and furthermore, the fact that it hampers your style of play does not make it invalid as a form of play in and of itself. --Grim s 06:52, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                • Re The fact is, it's not the way the game was designed. If bring a gun to a tennis match and shooting the other player was a legal tactic that doesn't mean the game is fine. Zombies get plenty of nifty enemy finding skills because they need them. If humans need them against PKers, they should get skills too. But let's stop this argument because I know I'll never convince you that PKing is unbalanced because it's in genre and provides fear and is a valid playing style yada yada yada, and you'll never convince me because bypassing every defense and easily hiding without consequence is unfair blah blah blah. --Jon Pyre 07:24, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                  • Re - To be perfectly honest i think you are just a whining baby with regards to Pking. Its not like its likely to happen to you with less than 500 of us wandering around (Unless you bring it upon yourself with displays such as this one). Also, i agree to stopping this discussion, because i will never be able to get you to form a coherent counterargument to any of the points i have raised. You respond with rhetoric, rather than points. You ignore defenses i have listed, and you avoid the most obvious escape: Move to another suburb. --Grim s 07:30, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                    • Grim your defense to Pk'ing is more Pk'ing. And more over the defences you propose are basically: shut up and take it like a man, you bitch. Or run like a baby, you pussy. So basically it's fine for other people to be crammed in their playing style as long as it isn't PK'ers? The people who dislike PK'ing far outnumber the people who think it's fun. And all your solutions require all the work to be solely done by the victims. Who all have to start metagaming and devote almost a larger chunk to patrol, catch and deal with Pk'ers then against zombies. And surprise there is already an enourmous amount of work going into trying to keep PK'ing down, and yet they don't succeed. At which point are you ever going to consider the fact that perhaps Pk'ers have to make some extra effort? Look I know that a large chunk of them are very dedicated players, who've been around for ages, and make extremely valuable contributions, like yourself. And I wouldn't want to remove Pk'ing from the game. Put please, PK'ers aren't a persicuted minoraty, and they sure as hell aren't the ones being griefed. In fact there are quite a few who do the griefing. If people want to Pk fine, but then they should also be the one paying most of the cost for it.--Vista W! 17:04, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                      • Pkers already do have to go to greater efforts to survive. Ive resorted to throwing myself out a window on my last ap to avoid being shot dead Every. Single. Day (Just to rob the people of the satisfaction of killing me). Humans have all the communication advantages so it makes sense to use them to spread the word of who is a pker, and post up thier profiles for scientists in necrotech buildings so they dont revive them. This requires no metagame effort, just a willingness to use a days AP to spread the word and the willingness among humans to build up the kind of community that the zombies have going. All it takes is a little effort and so far all that i have seen is that the people are petrified of making an effort for themselves and want some built in protection for them that makes them safe and secure, without realising that if that happens then the pkers themselves are getting fucked harder than the zombies ever were. The best defense against a killer is a strong community who are dedicated to protecting each other, looking out for known bad elements, and and hunting down said individuals. If someone attacks you, fight back. If that someone is too skilled for you, you run away. Fight or Flight. Thats all it boils down to. Im giving you a realistic defenses and you say you want more. Honestly, the whole pker "problem" is blown entirely out of proportion. The fear and paranoia associated with it is ridiculous, and the people who complain about it happening to them repeatedly bring it upon themselves by making themselves into such great targets. Sure, the occasional newbie gets shot and killed a couple of times (Hell, i picked off the same level 2 NT twice in 5 hours once (The second was because he had 25hp and i knew he didnt have a flak jacket).) but it isnt as big a deal as people think it is. Personally i think its just bruised ego's talking when they say there is a massive problem. Yes, it would be a major problem if another 2000 people started doing it, and if there were that many i would probably support some extra defense against them, but at the moment it is a tiny minority of the total population who practice it, and they are known by thier actions and terminated regularly through the existing metagame methods. If such a measure were implimented now, with pking at these levels, it would spell the end of that style of play except for the most stubborn and wrathful of people (In which case i would uess that there would be less than a dozen pkers). --Grim s 18:15, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                    • Grim, if PKing is acceptable in the game, and is valid because it creates fear, is in genre, and all the garbage you constantly spout on the topic, explain to me this: How is Zombie PKing in-genre, valid because it creates fear, or any of your usual rhetoric? If you can successfully explain this to me, I will vote kill on any future suggestion of this sort. If you cannot, I will continue to vote to oppose anyone who even seems to suggest that PKing is a valid playstyle. -Wyndallin 09:58, 11 April 2006 (BST)
                      • Hey Homey, I'll handle this one. First, you are speaking of ZKing, secondly ZKing featured prominently into a zombie comic put out by IDW a few years back. It was called Remains. After the human flesh got scarce, the fresher Zeds started to eat the weaker ones. When they ate brains they got smarter and quicker and started to mutter, Mmmmeat, and even use simple tools as clubs. While ZKing is not present in all zombie mythos, ZKing is clearly present in some. -Banana Bear4 10:04, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • I enjoy having PKing in the game. I enjoy it the way it is now. If there were a way to kill someone without being seen by everyone, I would even consider this idea of tracking being decent. However, as it stands now, there is a balance. If you get PKed, chances are it was one of two types of PKers, either a random drifter who will be perhaps, half a days ap away, and will after you get rev'ed you will not see them again. Secondly, it could be someone after you or your group on purpose, in which case you can find them as easily as they find you if you move a bit. There is nothing really wrong with the way it is now for me. I like bad people in a zombie apocalypse. Like when all those soldiers and that guys were doing some serious PK fun to each other in 28 days later. Or when that old lady shot the dudes zombie baby and then he PKed her, and then all the other people in the mall PKed him in retaliation in that remake of Dawn of the Dead. The fact that PKers could not be tracked by hardened military experts made the climax of 28 days later totally sweet. PKing fits in genre, and in this game. -Banana Bear4 08:19, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Also there is some precedent set for suggestions not passing if they support or discourage PKing. There seems to be knee jerk reactions from both camps. -Banana Bear4 08:36, 11 April 2006 (BST)
  • Grim, your response if anything proves that PKing is highly unbalanced: "its likely to happen to you with less than 500 of us wandering around (Unless you bring it upon yourself with displays such as this one)". Basically you admitted that PKers can swoop him at any time and hit anyone anywhere without difficulty. And they do, I've heard of people being killed repeatedly just because they have a famous name, or are recognized as leader of a group. PKers shouldn't be invulnerable assassins, it discourages roleplaying and group formation because anything that attracts attention attracts PKers. And search for them? Unlike you Grim I don't have a highly organized forum board. If search just the area within 5 spaces of the building that's over 100 potential places the person could be hiding!!! And that's just if they move 5 spaces away. There's no way to catch them, how can you search an area far greater than the AP of several players? --Jon Pyre 13:06, 11 April 2006 (BST)
  • Analysis of the Statistics Behind This Suggestion - Since there is some confusion about how the math works out on this, I'll try and explain here. First off, the 5% chance of failure itself means nothing for our calculations, but the 95% chance of success is where we need to direct our attention. In order to sueccessfully track, you need enough successive .. er, successes to make it there. If they are only one block away, then it is a 95% chance. 2 blocks away, the chance for success is (.95*.95), which is .9025, or 90.25%. 3 blocks away, this is (.95)^3, which is about 85.74%. 5 blocks away, about 77.38%; 10 blocks away, about 59.87%; 20 blocks away, about 35.85% percent chance of successfully tracking this far. And if anyone is interested, chance to successfully track 50 blocks is about 7.69%, and 0.59% chance at 100 blocks. So, it never drops to 0%, but eventually the odds fall in favor of the PKer (a distance of 14 blocks puts the cumulative chance to track at about 48.77%). All in all, it looks like a well balanced chance to me. --Reverend Loki 16:45, 11 April 2006 (BST)
  • Frankly, I love this idea on all levels. I don't find the idea of walking into a building, unloading my shotguns into somebody, and walking five blocks south and one east to be an exciting style of play. However, if other survivors had this skill and I could knock somebody off, run across an empty block, and barricade a VSB building up to heavily, stranding my pursuers outside, I might consider that style of play. As a survivor, I want to be able to follow the guy who killed my buddy. As a potential PKer, I would enjoy the challenge of a cat and mouse game that this suggestion would provide me with. Because frankly, if you avoid the PKer lists and the bounty hunters now, you were just lucky. No skill, really, they just didn't happen to stumble across you. But if you can consistantly break a trail you leave and get away from those tracking you time after time, that is skill.--Guardian of Nekops 17:23, 11 April 2006 (BST)

People are missing the point I think. The suggestion doesn't STOP PKing, it INHIBITS it in a certain way. And Banana Bear4, a single comic book is hardly evidence of ZKing.--Pesatyel 07:21, 12 April 2006 (BST)

===Bounty Hunter=== Suggestions/10th-Apr-2006#Bounty_Hunter

Why is the idea of survivors being able to fight back against saboteurs and murderers so repulsive? It wouldn't eliminate PVP, nor would it completely wreck the lives of people who want to engage in it - that's a kneejerk response that comes from not thinking it through. If anything, this would enhance the PVP aspect of the game. Currently, the game mechanics for PVP are grossly unrealistic and entirely one-sided. I can walk into a mall with 200 people, kill 2 of them with my shotguns and blow up the generator, and then run 10 squares away and nobody from that mall is likely to find me. When I say that, I mean mathematically their chances really do suck - a 10 square radius in this game translates to a 21x21 block area in which you could hide: That's over 200 possible locations(assuming that only half of the squares have buildings to hide in). I know that I can get away with this because I have done it myself, in Caiger mall of all places. There's really no effective way for someone who wants to be a PKK to set himself up, aside from metagaming. But if you cite the effectiveness of the metagame as a reason why this sort of mechanism shouldn't exist, then your premise is faulty: the metagame is only substituting for a deficiency in the normal game!

The bounty hunter idea is certainly realistic enough. If you are in a safehouse with a bunch of friendlies, and someone shows up and opens fire on someone else, why shouldn't you be able to follow them stealthily, if you have the skill? One might argue that it's unrealistic because you are supposed to be 'asleep', well that's absurd because a loud noise obviously should wake you up, especially if you are as paranoid as a veteran survivor should be. You might argue that you should be able to track people who've attacked you as well, so that it doesn't make sense. Well it does make sense: how well can you follow someone who's just shot you? The recovery time implicit in a combat situation could preclude the possibility of shadowing your assailant, although adding that functionality probably would not make much difference anyhow.

The best sounding counterargument to the realism of tracking other survivors is that there's no mechanism for it. Well actually, there are many conceivable ways of tracking someone through a zombie-ridden city: you can network with other people who saw them, you can follow footprints (which would be a lot more prevalent in a zombie apocalypse scenario, what with all the blood and gore flying around), you can get on top of buildings and watch where a person goes, and most importantly of all, you can just be shadowing them the whole time. "No!" you might say, "That's absurd! You can't have shadowed a person while you were logged out! The timing doesn't make sense!" Stop and think about it. The timing already doesn't make sense, because we are working in an action point system. Does it make sense for a person to be inactive for 23.5 hours and then run half the length of the city in 30 minutes, only to collapse and go to sleep again? The action point system already presupposes that you are taking varying amounts of time, at varying points during the day, to engage in your various activities; so in the context of this game, the timing argument is absurd. Finally, I should point out that many of these arguments could equally apply to the zombie skill, scent trail. Scent Trail doesn't tell you a 'direction', or have a wear-off time. It doesn't give a convincing mechanism for a zombie to have followed a survivor who's roof-hopping a distance of 30 blocks(which ought to be several miles, and ought not leave a trail on the ground). The bounty hunter skill is every bit as realistic as the skill it was modelled on, so any arguments against its realism are entirely inappropriate.

My intention from the beginning was for this to be a high-level skill, because I know what an impact it would have if everyone had it. I would make it require level 20 to purchase - according to the stats page, only about 27% of players would be eligible to buy it. Only the max-level survivors would get it, basically. Other measures could be added, to make it easier for PK's to escape - like a limit on tracking range or a time limit after which a trail is lost - but I think such changes would only complicate the situation, trying to fix a problem that isn't there. PK's would still be able to operate, and the fear of someone murdering you will still be there, it would just be shared more evenly. My biggest mistake with the suggestion was probably just not writing it carefully enough, to anticipate the more obvious responses. If you read this essay all the way though, then thank you. If your objection to the idea wasn't covered here, then please post it. --MLF 07:41, 11 April 2006 (BST)

  • there is some precedent set for suggestions not passing if they support or discourage PKing. There seems to be knee jerk reactions from both camps. -Banana Bear4 08:36, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Furthermore, the current metagame solutions already provide an effective answer to the "problem" without making it overly difficult to perform. At the moment it is fairly effective against us Pkers. Its still very dangerous for us (Especially considering the notifications people get), meaning that we get killed by both people and zombies. Our lives are far more dangerous than the average survivor. You non pkers assume we live it easy, but we are all walking a knife edge, with varying degrees of success. A Pker is actually, by far, the most difficult chaarcter to play. This just makes it far, far more difficult, to the point where managing it and surviving is utterly impossible. --Grim s 09:29, 11 April 2006 (BST)
      • And yet I've heard you repeatedly say how easy it is to get revived, so what if it is dangerous? getting killed is means what? a 30AP burn for the reviver, and a few movement points for the Pk'er revivee. Wauw, you get killed a lot. Getting killed a lot in a game were death means close to nothing isn't what I call 'walking on a knife edge' unless you really care if you live or die, and if you're truthfull how large a percentage of Pk'ers cares about that, other then as a way to keep score?--Vista W! 17:20, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • I mentioned the metagame thing already: metagame is not a solution, in fact I consider it part of the problem. This change could increase the level of chaos by quite a bit, since disorganized individual players who aren't involved with the metagame will go around killing people for their own reasons. Hopefully, the ease of use of this skill will draw people away from bounty-hunter boards. Survivor vs. survivor would become a lot more dynamic, as not only will PKK's appear, but also PKKK's and PKKKK's etc. I think that might even make life easier on "first-order" PK's who just murder at random, as the bounty hunters kill one another. Right now, those wacky possibilities are just not there. My suggestion doesn't come from the standpoint of someone who wants to get rid of PKing, but rather it was intended to make things better than they are now. --MLF 10:11, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • I think it's just overdone, plain and simple. Every PKer is now trackable for every act he commits of the kind, nothing he can do about it, short of dying before he is caught. Sure, getting PKed is annoying, but considering what Grim said about the difficulty of playing a PKer being already high, I see no point in upping it some more. --McArrowni 16:07, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Mark Inactive Contacts

Banana Bear4 apparently overwrote my suggestion when placing his own. I have reinstated it where it would be, with all the votes it had at the time. I took it from this version, the last by Mpaturet. X1M43 05:19, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Looting: A Balanced Search X Times Suggestion

  1. Kill - Oh dear, i cant rapid search in the same building as the zombie, ill free run to the PD next door, rapid search there, then come back and gun it down before it can finish its meal! No. Real time, searching is balanced by its slow pace. --Grim s 06:45, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re So the zombie will face a survivor with depleted AP both from searching and from travel back and forth. As I said, it's a pretty minor problem to begin with. Considering the benefits in convenience and server load reduction I think that concern is pretty trivial. Especially considering how rare it usually is to come on as a zombie is actually feeding. --Jon Pyre 07:03, 14 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - You just dont get it. If a zombie broke into a building and was killing a person, this allows another survivor to run to another building, search up some FAK's speedily, then run back, and wheras before, if the person had to search manually, the zombie would have killed the human, with this it wouldnt happen, The survivor who leaves would get some FAKs (With your speedysearch) and rush back in the time it takes a zombie to take three or four swings. Thats just not right, or fair. The slowness of search balances it in real time combat. Speeding it up grants humans a massive advantage in real time actions. --Grim s 08:38, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • re There's one thing you're not thinking of. Even after the survivor gets ammunition and loads it all, it still takes them time to attack the zombie in your extremely rare fast paced real-time scenario! So the survivor comes back with 30AP and some pistol ammunition, and while they're firing for 4 damage 65% of the time the zombie already should have time to kill whoever they were already attacking. I have never once tried to "outsearch" a zombie. If I don't have ammunition guess what I use: an axe! Considering the extreme rarity of your nightmare scenario balanced with the fact this could save HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of clicks each day. The server would thank us all. Seriously 100s of 1000s. --Jon Pyre 13:47, 14 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Rare? It happens all the time in big sieges. Real time combat is the norm when large amounts of both side clash, and you only referred to the shooting part of my complaint. I notice you handily ignored the healing part. Oh dfear, could it be that youa re ignoring that which you cannot find a reasonable counter to? --Grim s 14:21, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re I still think it's a pretty unlikely problem. I've never tried to out search a zombie, ever. Searching costs AP. Attacking costs AP. If I search enough to get a significant hoard of anything I won't have enough AP to use it. Besides, most survivors keep ammunition and first-aid kits on them. And first-aid kits can be found manually. If I want to heal 20AP I can probably search up two FAKS and get back in time, using Search X to get 5 is overkill. Your problem exists only if there's a real-time scenario, the survivor is unprepared, the zombie breaks in right next door to a resource building, the zombie hasn't started attacking anyone yet, there's only one zombie inside....a whole lot of conditionals to meet an scenario that really wouldn't change much even if it did happen, weighed against the convenience of thousands of players and the lack of server load caused by clicking over and over. --Jon Pyre 14:40, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Figured I'd add my vote comments from the suggestion page. I understand the kill reasonings, but what about a minimum number one has to use for the skill as well? And what about if the person "begins" searching when a zombie enters? With the syringe, you click the button and 20 AP is deducted. With this would it be "search 10 times" with 10 AP deducted automatically, or would it be that the next 10 interactions are searches (ie. the computer hitting the "search" button for you)...does that make sense? It seems to me if the 10 AP is automatically deducted, zombies wouldn't be able to interfere, even if the suggestion were implemented.--Pesatyel 02:54, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

These suggestions are here for comments/changes before they go to formal voting.


Moved from suggestions main page for breaking no-edits-after-submitting rule. --Brizth W! 12:08, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Timestamp: 10:23, 15 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: All
Description: It occurs to me that electricity can be dangerous, however this is not reflected in the game. Therefore, this should be corrected.

I propose that attacks on functional generators (I.E.: Those with fuel) should carry some risk. "You smash the generator. It is destroyed. Unfortunately, an electrical arc traverses your body, killing you."

Risk Percentage: 25%


  1. Keep - Author vote. --Gene W! - Talk 10:23, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam - Really, you should take this suggestion back to Talk:Suggestions. It's not exactly ready. And insta-suprise kills are bad. --Brizth W! 10:29, 15 April 2006 (BST)
    • RE - Perhaps this is true. The power companies would have one believe that the risk is 100%. Those with electronics knowledge can say that the risk is 0, with proper precautions. What the game says... Ah. Open question.
      As far as the "insta-surprise"... There's a reason folks don't tend to lick light sockets. --Gene W! - Talk 10:41, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - Not ready? It doesn't even exist! Numbers would be nice, since this is a suggestion, not a debate. Velkrin 10:38, 15 April 2006 (BST)
    • RE - Very well, edited. --Gene W! - Talk 10:44, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - Editing suggestion mid vote, and the fact that its stupid. --Grim s 10:48, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Yeah, I know, I should probably vote spam. But it's anti-GK, pro-realism and hey if I where to smash in a generator with a metal crowbar chances are I wouldn't be walking away. Good for flavour - smash the genny and rise as a Zombie. DavidMalfisto 11:03, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Realist. I like it. --Abi79 AB 11:16, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - see above - --ramby T--W! - SGP 11:23, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Comment 25% instant kill way to overpowerd--xbehave 15:41, 15 April 200 (BST)
  9. Spam - 25% chance to just die? Not even take damage, but flat-out die? I propose that every time a human attacks a zombie, they have a 25% chance of getting splattered with zombie guts and instantly turn into one. --TheTeeHeeMonster 16:15, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - Only if zombies get rocket launchers. - CthulhuFhtagn 00:36, 16 April 2006 (BST)


Okay, first suggestion and -- naturally -- I break a rule. Que sara sara. There seem to be three things making folks uncomfortable.
A) The percentage is "overpowered." (Mildy ironic.)
B) My philosophy of electrocution being deadly.
C) No documentation of the risk.
Working backwards, should the suggestion be accepted, then the Generator description could be updated in the Wiki to note that damaging a working generator carries the risk of electrical shock. Also, attacks to a generator could be an "are you sure?" action; Perhaps you click on "Attack the Generator" and a message pops up: "You notice a little sticker on the generator which says, 'No user servicable parts inside. Disassembly poses the risk of potentially fatal electrical shock.' Are you sure?"
The middle one, in retrospect may be valid. Lord knows that I've received enough over the years. (Never urinate on an electrical fence, and when in the country ask your aunt if she has installed one a couple inches off the ground to discourage the groundhogs from snacking on the vegetable garden. Worse: Since she was about to holler that supper was ready, she apparently noticed the sudden change in posture. The next day the bloody imp "helpfully" showed me where the power switch was.<Pauses to let the giggling stop>)
Tesla coils can generate tens of thousands, hundred of thousands, or even millions of volts of electricity; But, the amperage is so low that a pin prick is more painful. (Just don't smell your hand afterward. It will char the epidermal layer, and that's not a pleasent scent.)
Power generators, however, are all about lethal amperage. Not every 120 volt 15 amp jolt will be lethal. Maybe they just toss you several feet and cost 15HP. Maybe that nice metal pipe, held firmly in your grasp, lodges quite firmly and you fry.
Which brings us to the percentage. How about a 20% chance of being tossed for 15HP, and a 50% chance of death if using a pipe or crowbar? (We could then present the smoking corpse with a framed "Darwin Award.")
Thoughts? --Gene W! - Talk 05:33, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Letting Zombies Find/Use Items In Unique 'Zombies-Only' Ways

I loved "Land of the Dead". For all its flaws, the new way of viewing the zombie (whos the monster here? what are the needs/rights of the zombie?) stuck with me. And the idea of zombies using items in limited but impressive ways (NOT a new way of doing the same thing), got me thinking about ways to allow zombies who are either becoming more aware with Memories of Life or Brain Rot (still not sure which to make these subskills of) to use items in new and unique ways far different than survivors do.

So I suppose my first suggestion would be a way for zombies to find new items. I call this suggestion Grim Harvest. With this skill, when a zombie kills a survivor (NOT another zombie) a search attempt (similar to a unskilled Mall search) is made.

The chance of finding nothing is less than a usual search, but the items found are kept to Blunt Weapons, Firearms, Flak Jackets, and all the Assorted/Misc Items. No FAKS or NecroTech stuff, no Fire Axes and Knives, and possibly no ammo (not sure on that one, has to do with possible suggeston for a sub-skill of Grim Harvest). The theme is that somehow, on some level...the zombies are either remembering/learning how things work, but since they are creatures of instinct, they only pay attention to items upon their foodstuff and primary foes. They aren't smart/don't care enough to search stores, but shiney things/memory triggers on their food is something they pay attention to. A 'evolving' zombie with Brain Rot may eventually learn that maybe that thing they keep getting shot/hit with does something, or recalls dimly in their Memories of Life its use.

This opens up the chance for subskills of Grim Harvest to possibly offer new ways of using these items. I've got ideas for the Blunt Weapons and Firearms, but I know that it's a Suggestion faux pau to make suggestions based on a skill that hasn't been passed yet. The point isn't for "OMGD NEW WAY TO DO SOMETHING THE SURVIVORS DO", but a way for zombies to have their own unique item-based skills that are strictly 'undead-only' cool stuff.

What I need from all of you is suggestions on if my initial suggestion is even worth it, and if so, how to approach this and my future suggestion subsets of this skill? Do you feel this would be more a Memories of Life ("They're pretending to be alive.") or a Brain Rot flavored skill tree? ("...They're evolving!") I can discuss my ideas for subsets of Grim Harvest if you feel I have to justify zombies being able to do this at all, as well, since this is really what Grim Harvest is: A platform for unique 'Zombies-Only' ways for using weapons and items that adds flavor to the undead experience.

Thanks all! --MorthBabid 02:35, 11 April 2006 (BST)

  • Ya, the reason zombies don't need search is that they do better with their claws/teeth then with blunt weapons. Even as a base I think they're higher to hit. A Flak Jacket is the only item that's really really useful for a zombie to have. Velkrin 07:23, 11 April 2006 (BST)
Exactly. This is an attempt to fix that. The following subskills of Grim Harvest would let the zombies use blunt weapons and the like in unique ways. One I've got rattling around in my noggin is a suggestion called Deadarm (horrible name, yes :) ), which wouldn't increase the accuracy of the blunt weapons, but would have it do additional shotgun-level damage that you don't gain XP from. You'd only get the two XP from the regular blunt weapon level attack, even though you do a total of ten damage. It's the idea of zombies being clumsy but using raw brute strength. This could naturally be tinkered with, and is only one such possibility for an item-subskill. But would such subskills be interesting enough? --09:27, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • If you want to a void people's auto-kill votes, make sure that the survivor doesn't lose an item (though I personnaly don't see a problem with it, many voters would auto-kill it for just that reason). --McArrowni 17:26, 11 April 2006 (BST)
Oh, I agree. I should have mentioned that that would not occur. It's a SEARCH, not a removal. Thats also a suggestion faux paus. :) --09:27, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Why not give them something just for zombies to find, like I tried in Bile bite. Be creative, zombies already are almost undistingishable from survivors, give them thing that sets them apart more from the living world instead of incoorperation them more.--Vista W! 17:48, 11 April 2006 (BST)
A good idea, but a harder suggestion to get passed. Working with items that already exist in the game and have been tested and established is a far easier thing to get passed into the world of Malton. --MorthBabid 09:27, 12 April 2006 (BST)
do you mean implemented or just passed to peer reviewed? You might be right about implementation as Kevan whould have to do less work. but getting into peer reviewed is as easy for both angles, you just have to have a reasonable suggestion. (wich is of course not all that easy, considering AP storage is quite a powerfull mechanic) --Vista W! 09:42, 12 April 2006 (BST)

I always go the impression that zombies are much stronger than humans (I can't imagine a human being able to bite for so much damage and a punch does 1 damage while claws do 2/3 when I can't imagine a zombie's claws being that "sharp"). Maybe have zombies do more damage with melee weapons but with an inferior to hit %?--Pesatyel 03:44, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Innate Class Abilities ideas

Retroactive penalty rule violation complaints: Make all players already existent when this is instituted not be automatically assigned these abilities. Instead, they can purchase ONE ability with XP, say 200 XP or more, requires the skills the classes have at start, and maybe changing any visible class description once one of them is purchased.

Sticking with AP bonuses all around may not be the best way to distinguish the classes. Examples: Allowing scientists to ID zombie health levels, perhaps limited to a sort of a general idea based on color coding, like green for 90%+, red for 10%-, that sort of thing.

Firefighters could: Gain a bonus to a forthcoming new skill, such as one related to a major update introducing fires to the game. Have the combat bonus not limited to melee. Have the melee bonus be a small melee damage bonus. Have the melee bonus be a small chance of melee attacks causing something other than HP damage like a small to-hit penalty that lasts for x AP actions. Gain the ability to identify and use firehydrants and firetruck hoses as weapons.

Consumers might increase the chance of finding an item, at the cost of occaisionally finding a worthless trinket of some sort ("You found an mint condition CD!"; "You found a collector's edition video game!") that would have zip value except as collector's items.

Scouts may gain an ability to track recent zombie movements.

That's all I can think of at the moment for this subject.

Comment - On the firefighters, I know everyone is going to go, "OMG, Zmobie SPY!", but perhaps a bonus to destroy barricades with an axe. That was/is the whole point of the axe in the real world. Timid Dan 15:04, 6 April 2006 (BST)

  • I am a big fan of the notion of innate-class abilities, even as a free starting class perk. As stands now, a character who had bought all the skills--zombie and survivor--embraces the same fate as all the other skillmaxed characters: they essentially become a homogenous polyglot class. It would be nice to have something exclusive to starting class that would actually make charcters stand out once they leveled as far as they could, so there would be some incentive (besides making those first few levels easier) to be choosy with your class choice. Sadly, I've seen few suggestions for this that are workable (if not outright broken). Some of the ideas above have merit, others rely on projecting as to how future implememnts might affect the game and your character. Perhaps suggestions addressing this should attempt to tackle it class by class, so that gradually it can be assembled into one whole workable suggestion...--Xavier06 21:53, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • Rethinking about Timid Dan's suggestion for the firefighter... Despite the zombie spy aspect, I'm now sort of forced to agree with it, as long as it would not manifest before a certain level. After a few levels the difference between someone with a bonus with axes to break barricades and someone wihtout that bonus is the time it takes for the later person to find a crowbar, and a single inventory slot.
    1. Similarly, I think necrotechs could use the networking aspects of their DNA extractors to combie the effect of two items. Either they use it as a GPS device (since the extractor can report back where the samples are taken, the NT employee might know how to use it to ) or as a NT access to the mobile phone network.
    2. Doctors could simply have one or two more xps from healing people. After all, they get half as much from healing the same wounds right from the start right now (even though they heal people fast). I think they are one of the slowest class to level up, and don't get the medic's bonus cross-class skill.
    3. Consumers could maybe be able to carry an extra item or two. My other idea was making them able to get a GPS-like effect from their cellphones, or see the barricade levels of every corner of a mall at once (since they probably adopt malls as safehouses)
    4. That's all I can think of, for now--McArrowni 05:45, 9 April 2006 (BST)


This is a work in progress. I'm keeping it here to get feedback as I tweek it. --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:04, 21 March 2006 (GMT)



(None) - Available by default. Mr. - Available by default. Mrs. - Available by default. Ms. - Available by default.

Sergeant - Level 10+ Private Corpsmen - Level 10+ Medic Ranger - Level 10+ Scout Program Director - Level 10+ Necrotech Lab Assistant Doctor - Level 10+ Doctor Detective - Level 10+ Cop Fire Marshal - Level 10+ Firefighter Investor - Level 10+ Consumer


? - Level 10+ Corpse


Humans: (None) - Available by default. Jr. - Available by default. Sr. - Available by default.

The Altruist - Heal 100+ other people The Good Samaritan - Heal 500+ people The Humanitarian - Heal 1000+ other people

The Architect - Build 500 barricades

The Pious - Have a crucifix in your inventory.

The Saboteur - Smash 50 generators

? - Revive 100 zombies ? - revive 500 zombies

The Researcher - DNA tag 500+ zombies. The Archivist - DNA tag 1000+ Zombies.

The Turncoat - Kill 50 humans as a human. The Murderer - Kill 100 humans as a human. The Serial Killer - Kill 500 humans as a human.

? - Kill 100 zombies ? - kill 500 zombies The Zombie Hunter - Kill 1000 zombies


The Cannibal

? - Kill 100 humans The Man-Eater - Kill 500 humans ? - Kill 1000 humans

The Relentless - Knock down 500+ barricades

The Infectious - Infect 100 Humans The Virulent - Infect 500 Humans The Malignant - Infect 1000 Humans

The Ravenous - Buy Digestion

The Lucid - Buy Death Rattle


The Revenant - Revived 50 times. The Hapless - Die 50 times times.

  • love it but the 100, 500, 1000 is to much, I like to believe my main is one of the more higher placed survivors, 36 skills and +3000XP (it's a bit low, haven't earned any in about a month or two, but still) And I wouldn't even be close to most of the second titles. perhaps being in the upper percentages of a certain usage? say 1% 10% 25% ? (courtesy of pulling numbers from the backside inc.)--Vista W! 23:20, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I'm a big fan of flavor text. How about Elijah and Jesus for revivors? --Theblackgecko 09:48, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  • Good idea, but they seem a little high in some cases, as Vista pointed out, but it would help to prevent lots of people having them at the same time. As for some of the blank ones...

Level 10+ Corpse - The decayed

revive 500 zombies - The resurrector

(zombie) Kill 1000 humans - The devourer Velkrin 19:29, 6 April 2006 (BST)

  • Nice idea that can only make the game a bit more fun, though some may wish not to so openly announce their player's title (as it gives some hint of their intent) or others may disagree with the tone of it...--Xavier06 21:59, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Pack Mentality

I'm still playing "spot the possible dupe" on this idea before it becomes a coherent suggestion, but I'm trying to work up an idea of a new skill for zombies that allows them to sense the direction and distance of outdoor hordes (10+? 5+? ) within 5-6 blocks for one AP. Call it a zombie radar of sorts. Apologies for not using a template at this point, but it's not a full suggestion yet. --Timid Dan 14:56, 6 April 2006 (BST)

I believe I'm thinking 1 AP to sense the location of all 8+ zombie groups within 6 blocks at this point.

Possible caveats : - Zombies outside of buildings are hordes. Zombies in open space aren't? (Keeps from picking up the revive-points) - Only works outdoors. - Only works on hordes that are outdoors. - 8+ standing zeds, bodies don't count. - Could there be a possible group-oriented version or variant?

I don't have any links, but I believe this has been done before, in fact probably multiple times. --McArrowni 04:31, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Only show last days worth of feeding groans

Right, I logged in a couple of days ago to find a weeks worth of useless Spam on the page and I am sick of it. When I go to Australia for 4 weeks I probably won't be able to load the page! So, I suggest that, when a zombie logs in, they only see the last days worth of feeding groans. This would eliminate a lot of useless spam without getting rid of anything important because anything longer than I day ago will either have been re-barricaded, or overrun. Anyway, if dead bodies (which is what most zombies log in as) can't hear possibly useful speech, then why should they have to put up with uselss spam? All other game messages would not be affected by this change.--The General 20:55, 6 April 2006 (BST)

  • I take it that with "bot" you meant "not". I agree with the feeling. I'd go as far as only display the last day's groan. Less than that might pose problems in less active areas. --McArrowni 04:30, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Yes that's what I meant, typing error. I'm fine with it only showing the last days worth, it doesn't need to be any less than that. I just don't want to log in and find a page several miles long.--The General 08:53, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Once you are removed for inactivity you dont take any further logs, so you are complaining about a nonexistant problem. In any event, if i forget to log in for a couple of days, tracking the general tend of the groans lets me know which direction the zombies have gone, allowing me to follow them. I like it that way. --Grim s 16:26, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • It still means that I get a weeks worth of feeding groans on the page.--The General 20:50, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • This idea might be out there, but with the vociforous opinions about message-spam and the number of possible message-spam producing suggestions coming up, would it be smart to implement some sort of message-channel filter, kinda like the big boys do? Right now, despite the complaints, there is little need since the majority of message-spam originates from one source, but if other sources pop up through implement, it would cut out the spam to your suiting. If you were a survivor and could care less about zombie groans, rackets, or whatever else they come up with, you could just check some prefence somewhere that made it so. If you're a zombie and you could care less about whatever noise those meals-on-legs ("humans") make, you could change prefs to shut that out. We filter our perceptions IRL, why not in UD? But I suppose I'm really just counting several of my chickens before they've even been hatched...or born, for that matter. Just wanted to get the idea down in case I forgot it.--Xavier06 17:17, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • I have to say, that'd be a good idea. I rather don't care about feeding groans or flares, I hardly ever pay attention to them (either playing as a zombie or human), so it'd be nice if I could reduce that spam ammount. BuncyTheFrog Talk 17:58, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • Good idea. When I'm following groans as a zed, I only follow the most recent groan. I would just suggest to make sure the most recent "familiar" groan gets included, even if it's more than a day old. That way hordes aren't hurt in their ability to stick together. --John Ember 18:59, 14 April 2006 (BST)
Sounds fine. I'll put this up on the main suggestions page in a day or two.--The General 19:19, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Echoes of Gunfire

Alright, so the original suggestion wasn't received very well (though some people should really read the entire of it before voting). Taking into account what people said, I propose the following changes to it:

1) You only receive the message while you're outside, or in buildings with open doors.

2) Headshot has no effect on it.

3) It has a standard five block radius to make up for the other changes.

4) Zombies, due to partially decayed hearing organs (or whatever other excuse you can come up with), do not hear them. This would make up for the fact that zombies are almost always outside.

5) Corpses, are, well, dead; they wouldn't receive the message.

In effect, you would only be spammed by them if you really liked sleeping outside in the middle of a horde. Additionally, the message would be the following (and much simpler than the original messages):

"You hear gunshots echoing x blocks to the [direction]."

Any suggestions? --Lord of the Pies 13:31, 9 April 2006 (BST)

  • This is completely useless. Very few humans stay in buildings with open doors, and even fewer survive such folly. This would be essentially useless code and a strain on the server for no benefit at all to the gaming experience for either side. --Grim s 14:21, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • Well, under one condition only it will be seen/heard. If you are a trenchcoat outside doing the daily shooting and hearing those gun shots, you might be attracted to the sound to do some zombie shooting. But to be honest, if you are someone like that, you will simply live close to the zombies so it's AP/EXP efficient, you will not live far away and spend a lot of aps searching for the zombies. I quite like this idea, needs a bit of trimming though. For flavours, consider more of a single user flavour (as in the in game decription), we are currently suffering from those Groan and Flare spams, so not a suitable idea for the current situation. --Changchad 14:52, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • would direct me to fights on my daily wanders, so id vote keep on this--xbehave 21:23, 14 April 2006 (BST)

A few suggestion have been made for improving mobile phones and making them more useful. The purpose of this suggestion is to simulate some of the same solutions in use by phone companies today. In an effort to solicit wider use, phone companies have tried a variety of "plans"' that make phone use more appealing to potential customers. A previous suggestion involving communicating more easily(cheaply) with group members for example resembles the "Friends and Family" type plan. Two alternate type plans I'm aware of might also make valid suggestions.

Either suggestion could potentially increase the utilization of mobile phones resulting in an increased desire to maintain/demolish phone masts as a secondary goal for groups and survivors.

Use of the word Free within these suggestion denotes only a partial savings overall.

Please help me hone my suggestion by commenting on either of the following scenarios. (Two potential suggestions)

Free Nights and Weekends

Timestamp: 21:23, 10 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Mobile Phones
Description: In an effort to solicit wider use, phone companies have tried a variety of "plans" that make phone use more appealing to potential customers.

Using either GMT or BST one third of each weekday (9pm-5am) and Saturday and Sunday, use of a Moblie Phone would require no AP to send or recieve calls. Results in a net reduction of phone costs by 52%.


  1. Comment - Seems to technicaly cumbersome to implement time specific costing. --Spraycan Willy MalTel 21:23, 10 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Comment - I don't really like the time specific nature of this, it punishes people based on their location, some people log in only once a day, thus they would always/never get it free.--Bermudez 19:29, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Free Incomming Calls

Timestamp: 21:23, 10 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Mobile Phones
Description: In an effort to solicit wider use, phone companies have tried a variety of "plans" that make phone use more appealing to potential customers.

No AP cost to recieve incomming calls. Results in a net reduction of phone costs by 50% to 66% as opening the phone (clicking on Mobile Phone) initially would reveal any incomming calls and prepare you to place a call for 1 AP each.

Reducing the cost overall would likely result in more AP being spent using phones than in the current crippled implementation.


  1. Comment - Seems easy to implement and gets to the heart of what I'm after with the least change to the current system. It seems to go a step further than the suggestion Change Phone Interface. --Spraycan Willy MalTel 21:23, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Power Search

Timestamp: 21:23, 10 April 2006 (BST)
Type: improvement
Scope: Searching
Description: About
You search multiple times by pressing one button.


You spend your remaing AP+1 searching.
You have 40 AP remaining, you press the power search button, you waste 41 AP searching.
Each AP spent searching counts as a server hit.

A new button is addead to the UD interface. Power Search. No skill needed to use it. This button is disabled if there is any zombie in the same square as you are.
by pressing the button, the game asks if you wish to perform the power search. It explains you what Power Search does, and asks which section of the mall you want to search (if available).
System Message: Power Search will waste all your remaining AP plus 1
doing searches. Do you want to power search this building ?

System Message: Power Search will waste all your remaining AP plus 1
doing searches. Which section of the mall do you wish to power search ?

[button:Gun Store] [button:Drugstore] ...

The game stores all items found in your inventory, even if you find more itens than you can carry.
After you regain AP to move, the game checks if you have more itens than you can carry. If you have, you cant do anything but drop itens and reload weapons until you have 50 itens or less.
System Message: You have 57 itens, you have to drop 7 itens so you can 
move again. (Shotguns, Pistols and Generators counts as two itens) If you 
have spare ammo, you can reload your guns.

Closing notes

  • This reduces server load, as the game wont have to check how many people is there in a building after each search attempt. It will only have to calculate the X searchs made by the user, and send him to -1 AP.
  • Since the survivor is at -1AP, he will have to stay in the same place until he gets at least 2 AP. This means this hbility will only be used in zombie-free buildings, not in places where zombies and harmanz are fighting while some were searching.


  1. Comment - author's comment. My alt harman has 48 AP that i wish to spend searching inside a mall. This sux hard. --hagnat tw 02:09, 13 April 2006 (BST)
    • Someone please grammar patrol this, --hagnat tw 02:09, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Comment Not too shabby an idea. I would've had problems with it if it was a simple multiAP action (since this makes for quicker searching, but unbalances vs. the poor Zeds), but since it requires all your AP (+1), it would mean the survivor would still have to wait at least an hour before using the items acquired, so running into the mall and instantly coming out with a full arsenal. Polish this suggestion up, slap it in Suggestions and I'll vote for it. As for the grammar patrol, I don't think I'm empowered to make changes to your post.--Xavier06 14:06, 13 April 2006 (BST)
    • If i asked for grammar patrol, it is because i want someone to fix my english mistakes and i am giving this person rights to correct my mistakes. --hagnat tw 00:00, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • WHY when ther is already a power search in peer reviewed --xbehave 21:16, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Uses for Wirecutters

Timestamp: 03:11, 13 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors inside/outside Heavily or higher barrricaded buildings, somewhat of a bonus for lower than very strongly
Description: Wirecutters have no use now, and I suggest, instead of the hectic beating and shooting of barricades, thjat it could be possible to cut some of the wire that holds the baricade together. about 40%-50% chance of collapsing part of a barricade higher than heavily barricaded, 15%-20% for below Very strongly barricaded


  1. Keep - Author Vote. --Lyoko is Cool 03:11, 13 April 2006 (BST)
    • Comment - Actually, there are still junkyards out there with fences. Around Christmas I was holed up in one such as that, although it got totally pwned by a zombie spy. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 04:01, 13 April 2006 (BST)
    • an undamaged one, at christmas time, are you sure?.--Vista W! 11:48, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • I'm all for giving the wirecutter a purpose (Hell, my firefighter still keeps his in the vain hope that a new use will be implemented), but this seems too powerful. Plus barricades are supposed to be made out of random items jammed up the door (from the inside), so I can't see wirecutters being much use in taking those down. Also, because I just can't resist it, Lyoko is so not cool...--Xavier06 14:17, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Scent Exhaustion

Timestamp: 03:16, 13 April 2006 (BST)
Type: New skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A skill under Scent Fear, it marks any survivor with less that 10 AP with a circumflex (^) on the map. It would be somewhat akin to knowing if a survivor is asleep or not. Since only the characters that have been idle longest (and thus have recharged more AP) would be visible on the map, this is more useful for a zombie who is chasing an active human outdoors. This skill's effects would not carry over once the player is revived.


  • I'm not voting on this until it actually reachs the Suggestions page, but this could be considered a "Keep" for all intents and purposes. Seems reasonable anough.--Xavier06 14:20, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • This would be quite useful, but not overpowering. Lets me know whether to keep chasing the harman or not, but doesn't give me exact numbers. I'd vote for this.
  • Buncy sez this sounds like a good idea. But if many more pro-zombie skills pop up, I may get annoyed, the game is getting very balanced now. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 00:28, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • id vote kill because its zombie biased and zombies ar owning out there --xbehave 21:14, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Further Discussion

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

Top 10 Suggestions

As of right now the peer Reveiwed section is a mass of reveiwed sugestions I Suggest that the top ten suggestions (those with the best Keep to kill/spam Ratio) Be put in a top Ten sections so that with a quick glance you can see which suggestions people really like. --Deadeye207 19:27, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Moved from main suggestion page. --Brizth W! 19:33, 10 April 2006 (BST)
unfortuneatly the best aren't always the most popular, there are a lot of small unimportant changes in User Interface that have 100% support. they'd clog up the spot that better but more controversial suggestions deserve--Vista W! 18:19, 11 April 2006 (BST)
Yeah, the problem is deciding which ones are important. I'd say a mod could decide, but that means even more work for the poor mod, so it'd have to be voluntary. --Pinpoint 15:46, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • So why just stop at the sorting/ranking by popularity? See my post in the topic heading just under this one for possibilities/concerns w/ this approach.--Xavier06 22:14, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Aiding and abeting Kevan

The quality of the reviewed suggestions page is something to be proud of, however due to the length of time that the Suggestions page has been in place, it seems that if in the unlikely event that Kevan finds himself without anything to do, with a balanced Urban Dead and thus with the luxury of adding an update that is not influnced by a need already present with the game, he will be spoilt for choice. So I prepose that we organise a vote on the reviewed suggestions page to allow the masses to elect the most popular reviewed suggestion to go on the top of the list and so on down. That way if Kevan ever does find himself in the aformentioned circumstance he will know exactly which suggestion the people want and thus which one to ignore... I mean include. MIA 10:39, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I agree that there is a problem, MIA, but a vote on the most popular ones seems little more than a stopgap. Even your snarky intentional Freudian-slip ("ignore/include") tells me you don't have the greatest faith that it might work yourself. It is one way to better organize/flag suggestions, but I can think of much, much more. Rather than limiting it simply to a page ordered by chronological, state/fate of suggestion (peer-reviewed, rejected, open for vote, etc.), and with your suggestion, ranked by popular accord, there could also be cross-indexing for shape, scope, and flavor of suggestions for easy look-up (all which would have to be formalized into categories agreed upon). The Peer-Reviewed page (where all good suggestions go to die slow deaths) should be combed through after every new implement for possible obsolete, contradictory, or redundant suggestion to be brought up for another vote (this one to decide whether to leave, move, or remove it). But before someone launches into what will be, no doubt, an editing nightmare, several questions should be answered. When was the last time a suggestion was implemented? What is the frequency of such an occurance? Now that the suggestion page is a long way from it's humble beginning, from small creature it was then to the 8-ton gorilla it is today, does anyone know whether Kevan's opinions on the validity of this page (ie does he give a damn about it anymore?) have shifted? Does Kevan himself have any advice for taming this beast? And the sum of all these knotty question, the tough nut to crack: Is the suggestion page worth keeping, at all or in its present iteration?--Xavier06 18:20, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Well plenty of updates came from this page. Feeding groan, the reworking of zombie hit percentages, NecroNet, the 10 AP syringes, and probably some others that elude me right now. So he does pay attention to that page. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:26, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • The 10 AP Syringe action came from Suggestions?!? (grumble, grumble) Well, if Suggestions still has some validity, then I suppose it would be a good idea to index the Peer-Accepted ones, so it isn't nearly such a bewildering mess...--Xavier06 14:22, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Comments on Voting

Am I wrong in thinking that voters should only be use Keep, Kill Spam, Dupe, and Re on the suggestion page? I'm seeing comment pop up now, comment on votes by users, from users. Arn't they supposed to be used only on the discussion page, or by mods? Velkrin 01:00, 23 March 2006 (GMT)

They are, but no one is enforcing the rule.--The General 12:41, 28 March 2006 (BST)
Well I would have but I wasn't really sure about it, hence the topic. Now I know I can berate people if they use comment for purpose I disagree with. Velkrin 00:00, 29 March 2006 (BST)
Mods are allowed to delete the comments, so with any luck, if I get enough vouchers, i'll be able to delete them in a couple of weeks.--The General 08:35, 29 March 2006 (BST)
Bleh, another one, in Re form this time. Would be nice if we had some sort of 'Voice of the Mod' or Deputy system or some such for the people who have been around here longer, we could point out the rules without breaking the rules in the process. Sort of like mod delegated authority in reference to infractions when a mod isn't around. Velkrin 10:20, 29 March 2006 (BST)
If I get made a mod then we probably won't need to, but I agree with you. We should put some sort of rule, to that effect, up for discussion.--The General 17:57, 29 March 2006 (BST)
who is aloud to remove invalid votes?i recently removed a personal attack (not on me on a 3rd party) on the suggestions page, and was acused of vandelism, (also i previously made a mistake and so had a previous, mistaken acusation on my talk page, am i aloud to remove that, or should i ask the original poster too, after i explain what happend), are only mods aloud the enforce the rules, if so i shall apologise --xbehave 20:17, 31 March 2006 (BST)
Only mods may remove personal attacks on the suggestions page, feel free, however, to remove personal attacks from your talk page.--The General 17:47, 2 April 2006 (BST)
  • I'm thinking something along the lines of: 'Notice' is used by experienced users to remind newer users about rules they are breaking, such as commenting on other people's vote when they're not the author. Velkrin 04:01, 4 April 2006 (BST)
Sounds like a good idea.--The General 19:31, 5 April 2006 (BST)

What do we do with people who are consistently violating this rule (specifically the only-author-gets-to-reply rule), after having received numerous notices? *Cough*Wifey*Cough* --Pinpoint 08:06, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Suggestion Development and Disscusion forum

The link to the Suggestion development and Discussion message forum doesn't seem to work, has the forum been moved or deleted? If a new one is needed then I would be happy to run one on my forum.--The General 15:44, 28 March 2006 (BST)

I'm not really sure what link you are talking about... I probably never noticed it... --McArrowni 04:33, 7 April 2006 (BST)
If you look down the contents you will see it. It might even be easier if you use the edit tab on the page to find it, I don't think it's part of the templete, it should be easy to spot.--The General 08:50, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Doing some investigation, it looks like the link is to the old CDF forums (run by Amazing). I would like to change the link, but I want to get approval from the community first so I don't get accused of "vandalism".--The General 10:07, 7 April 2006 (BST)

A thank you is i order to --[[User:The General|The General]. I have noticed this for awhile, but did not know where to post it. I hope you get this fixed! --Swmono W!

Well you sure are welcomed to do it as far as I'm concerned, The General --McArrowni 01:37, 10 April 2006 (BST)
  • Sure, go for it. Maybe new suggestors would actually find this page and use it. If you need to bring it to vote in order to do it, start the vote here, but (despite my usual paranoia) I highly doubt anyone would accuse you of vandalism for fixing a page. Not exactly covered in Daily Tasks, but oughta be: "Check for broken links".--Xavier06 08:53, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Should I change the link to my site or to the new CDF forums? My general feeling is that my forum might be a better option.--The General 20:40, 14 April 2006 (BST)


While I think MrAushvitz has a rare good idea, here and there, I believe he SERIOUSLY needs to start in the discussion page with his idea before submitting them to the suggestion page. I also think it would be a good idea for him to read through EVERY suggestion in the Previous, Peer Reviewed, Peer Rejected and Humorous pages before submitting anything as well. (So, MrAushvitz, if you are reading this, take some notes). Also, I don't believe "MrAushvitz Suggestion" is a valid reason to vote spam/kill. People need to remember to vote ON THE SUGGESTION NOT THE SUGGESTOR. If it is spam or kill-worthy, say WHY so that, hopefully, he will learn.--Pesatyel 06:22, 3 April 2006 (BST)

  • I think using "MrAushvitz Suggestion" as a reason is valid if you're just so disgusted with the submission that you don't feel like tearing apart everything that's wrong with it. I read all of his suggestions, hoping for one that's not complete crap, but some of his stuff is so awful that I could write whole paragraphs of explanation in the spam vote. Never mind his strange "habit" of putting quotes "around" random words... or the fact that half of his stuff is boldfaced. Besides, he Re's almost any vote to his stuff, and giving him less to respond to on the Spam stuff ain't a bad plan. Timid Dan 15:54, 3 April 2006 (BST)
    • He hasn't learned yet and can't or won't be bothered to post his suggestions to the discussion page first, even after being told to in a nice way and also being beat over the head with it. He abuses the "Re" function to argue every kill vote and has even been told so by mods, so Thus "MrAushvitz suggestion" remains a viable reason for voting kill. Perhaps he'll get the message THAT way--Mookiemookie 18:20, 3 April 2006 (BST)
  • Honestly, that fact that he's even allowed to post suggestions anymore signifies nothing other than the complete and utter failure of the Wiki suggestions system. He may not breaking any rules (well, he breaks the PAGE all the time, but that's not the point), but his constant spamming of shit suggestions that rarely if ever get Keeps aside from the author vote is pretty much ruining the entire page and screwing up the suggestion system to the point of making it almost completely useless for genuine suggestions. Seriously, since he started posting, have we not seen a decline in non-Aushwitz suggestions? He's a fucking one-man denial of service attack against the Suggestion apge, and he needs to be banned ASAP if the Suggestions page is to be a useful tool for the community. furtim 23:11, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Well, I tried. Like I said, he had some good ideas and I felt that, with some guidance (and a review of what's been done before) he might learn. But then I read his "Deathly Moan" suggestion and I guess I was wrong.--Pesatyel 02:57, 4 April 2006 (BST)

I don't accept the theory that MrAushvitz has singlehandedly stopped everyone else from posting suggestions. IF he has ANYTHING to do with it, it's because we let him get to us far more than we ought to and we rip suggester's heads off as a result. Mostly, I think what the suggestion page needs is for everybody to chill, and for us to not bash everything we come across with a "This is the worst suggestion I've ever heard! Stop posting suggestions here, we hate you!" There's no call for that. After all, it's our responsibility to be mature, and that implies being civil.--Guardian of Nekops 17:02, 4 April 2006 (BST)

I request that MrAushvitz be banned from the suggestions page (posting suggestions and voting) for a month. His suggestions are nothing short of atrocities, and he has been pumping them out for a good long time. --Grim s 08:20, 6 April 2006 (BST)

  • I agree. Timid Dan 14:48, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  • I agree. --McArrowni 17:34, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  • I agree. furtim 22:43, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  • Please do this, I beg of you -Nubis 03:35, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • I agree. I'm a Jew and I'm German, and his name is an insult to both my heritages. I would ask you to perma-ban him because of it, but I'm quite happy with a one-month-ban for now. Oh, and his suggestions are on the borderline to retardism and they hurt my eyes. -Craw 03:43, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Please for the love of god yes --Mpaturet 19:39, 8 April 2006 (BST)

This is ridicules, you can not ban him on the grounds that his suggestions are no good. Also would people please stop the personal attacks against him, as Guardian of Nekops said it is up to us to act mature. Whitehouse 17:37, 6 April 2006 (BST)

  • Actually we've done it before with users, such as Eddo. Not to mention that there was that personal attack a little while back that he didn't get punished for. Velkrin 19:30, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  • I wasn't around for the Eddo period, but I see MrAushvitz is TRYING (even if most of his ideas are bad/need a lot of work), where as Eddo was just being an ass (so far as I can tell).--Pesatyel 21:51, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  • He's trying, but he's barely changed on multiple points that we kept telling him he had problems with. His suggestions are still overcomplexified, long-for-no-good-reason messes with random wiki edition here and there that doesn't do anything to make it more readable. And almost invariably unbalanced. And he keeps showing time and time again that he has no idea what he's talking about. We're not talking about a lifeban, but a forced month-long break, and only from this page (not the whole wiki). It's obvious he won't have the capabilities to produce a decent suggestion anytime soon (except if he rolls a hard six and pulls the proverbial monkey that randomly wrote the whole of Shakespeare's work, after infinite time, out of his hat). Honestly, I feel we should have some kind of rule measures in place for this kind of situation (it was discussed before, but found unecessary as the other problem users were much more obvious in their retardness, and were quickly pointed to the mods as unproductive editors, as opposed to MrAuswitch, who at least maintains the decency of not posting 7 psychic-zombie-survivor suggestions in a day or two)--McArrowni 04:43, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Exactly. There is always the chance, however small, that he may actually use a month long break to put some effort into a suggestion, rather than posting up the first thought that comes to mind like he does now. We have tried repeatedly to tell him why his suggestions fail and every single time we are ignored. They are a pain to read, and tiresome to vote Kill and Spam on. --Grim s 05:55, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Well as long as its only a month or so then, he could use the time to think things through. But I still dont agree with "MrAushvitz suggestion" as a valid vote. Whitehouse 20:26, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • I agree Banana Bear4 20:35, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • I agree CPQD 05:51, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Here's an idea: if you're so tired of his ideas, DON'T READ THEM. Cyberbob240 11:48, 8 April 2006 (BST)

  • I know i promised Novelty that i would be nicer to newbies and i promised to not swear so much, but you sir, need to get yourself a fucking clue. Please check the previous days page, look at his suggestions for yourself. look how long we have been enduring them. Look at the sheer quantity of them. One cannot ignore the ubiquitous. --Grim s 13:52, 8 April 2006 (BST)

1) No-one is forcing you to acknoledge them. 2) Just because I haven't been active with regard to posting, voting etc. doesn't make me a newbie or an idiot. I have read his suggestions. I have seen how long you have been "enduring" them. He's coming up with some ideas and putting them out there. If they weren't by him you wouldn't mind - you would just keep voting happily. --Cyberbob240 CDF 14:02, 8 April 2006 (BST)

  • If they weren't all by them, we'd complain about the number of stupid unbalanced suggestions that are being put up, like we did before. But at least it woudn't come from one single person who's too thickheaded to understand that he doesn't get how the game mechanic works and that he has no idea how to make suggestions. Whilst the energy is You see, the problem is, for the system to work, we HAVE to vote on his bloody suggestions, else they get peer reviewed (author keep vote and all), and he would be pretty much capable of destroying our work for the past few months. THE VERY POINT OF THE PEER-REVIEWED PAGE IS THAT IT'S ONLY THE BEST SUGGESTIONS, so that it is actually somewhat readable. So unless you want us to insta-spam his suggestions, which would be stupid, don't tell us not to read them... it won't work. --McArrowni 16:00, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • That is the very reason I put up this discussion. I see potential in some of his ideas. Unfortunately, the potential gets lost because he doesn't think things through BEFORE posting his suggestion (like starting here in the discussion page first), he makes them overly complicated and wordy and posts so many at once. If he could but fix those problems, his ideas would be accepted a bit better than they currently are. Also notice he was one of THREE people that voted "keep" on the Death Cultist suggestion. I think people are starting to wonder if he actually even PLAYS the game.--Pesatyel 20:05, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • (rolls eyes) He votes "Keep" on damn near every suggestion, that I've seen, usually with some asinine comments along the lines of "Great! Put this in now! [Insert peurile comment here]". He says its because he likes to encourage new authors from feeling dejected by not having one "Keep" on their suggestion. Better idea for new authors would be to workshop it on discussion first, so as to get an idea of what response they might get and what changes would make it more favorable. Mr. A could stand to do some of that, since by posting the multitudes of his haf-ass suggestions to the Peer-Review, he just turns that area into a de facto discussion area. I do agree that some of his ideas show potential (while many others can't be saved, no matter how drastic the rework) and I usually try to give some constructive criticism so that he might realize the error of his way (though with the length of my oft-rambling vote posts it seems impossible a little of everything might get in). Give him fair warning (not just idle threats) and I don't think some time in the corner would hurt him a bit. Does he even know about this page? Or this discussion on it, for that matter? Mr. A, you're so daft you probably don't know this page is about you, don't you, don't you? Someone really needs to link him here.--Xavier06 21:12, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • I tried, twice.-Pesatyel 21:24, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • He probably read it and decided to ignore it. Which really woudn't be stupid of him since arguing would be a waste of energy here (everyone has already made up their mind, it's not like it's a new issue or like we didn't argue this kind of stuff with him before). That said, when was his last suggestion, anyways? We at least aren't seeing him posting 3 per days anymore. The kid's got a head on his shoulder afterall, might have decided it wasn't worth it to post his own suggestions for awhile. It would have taken him awhile to realize it though...--McArrowni 04:16, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • Actually he did stop off once. But that was after I moved his retort to my berating everyone. You can view it here. While you're over there, you might be wondering if we have any real reason to boot him. Well there are a couple things. Here and there. That is just one example. I don't really support suspending someone because they make excessive amounts of suggestions. The problem is he makes excessive amounts of bad suggestions, of which the only improvement I've seen has been his going from spam to kill. He knows this page is here, I can really pointing it out when I spamminated one of his suggestions. Velkrin 04:54, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • I haven't even been witness to his antics for as long as most people here and his antics begin to piss me off. If he truly tones down his whole "bad suggestions every day, supplemented by a author Re: after every vote", then I have no problem. But if he returns right to form, we need to go to vote on this, rather than just waiting, making more idle threats, and well, discussing it like we are now...--Xavier06 05:25, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Utterly and completely fascinating, and revealing as to the level of hipocricy on many levels here at the Wiki. Many of the claims made here are blatant lies, plain and simple.. not just over exaggeration but lies. I haven't even posted a single suggestion in 3 days, I've stopped posting 2-3 a day until the 2 I posted today, which were serious suggestions. Yeesh some people get so mad because you can't read their minds as to what they want, well I'm sorry but I'm not pyschic (or your mom), yes I play the game. No I don't agree with you, live with it. What's got a lot of these people so riled up is I've pointed out several times they're hippacrites, as they are in the act of doing it, and a lot of people on the Wiki are starting to realize it's very, very true. All of these claims that my suggestions are unreadable are wrong, the truth: some people don't read even part of it and just vote (I've proven that several times.) I can't make some people any more mature (not my job), but I will say this much.. you can't point the finger at me suggestion wise when I see all that zombie-laser crap and suggestions that even if they were 1% as efffective as is written would still break the game. Point blank: I have been taking my suggestions down a notch and then some, and people keep saying "underpowered" "waste of a skill" etc. make up your minds. Too much, too little, oh wait this skill makes me have to think, uhh I don't like it! I have made every effort, some people want to just get rid of me becase they won't keep their side of the bargain and vote intelligently "if I do this". Ugh. --MrAushvitz 20:25, 9 April 2006 (GMT)

  • Just a question for the mods, did you actually boot him? I mean if you did that would make him evading a (temp) ban, which is generally more serious.Velkrin 04:12, 10 April 2006 (BST)
    • I assume you're referring to the '6' after his name? If you look in the History page, looking at the last 500 changes made specifically to Talk pages only, there's no 'MrAushvitz6' to be found. I suggest that it's a typo, which leads me to believe that he wasn't actually banned. -Wyndallin 05:31, 10 April 2006 (BST)
  • Dude, I was DEFENDING YOU. As I said, I see potential. How hard would it be to start an idea HERE in the discussion area and see where it gets you BEFORE submitting? And, for your information, some of us (whether you think we're hypocrites or whatever) actually DO read the WHOLE suggestion before voting (hence why I think some of them have potential). It isn't that they are "unreadable" it is that they tend to be excessively wordy (K.I.S.). The "too much, too little" etc., you were whining about is PRECISELY why I suggested you start them HERE.--Pesatyel 07:41, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Dude, what I wrote was for the people who were blatantly eggagerating the "facts". I'm not attacking everybody, just the hippacrites (say one thing do another). I have listened on many occasions to people's suggestions as to how to make suggestions. But to be blatantly honest I don't have all day to post 1 idea in the message area, wait several weeks, then slap it up on the suggestion page, etc. Not a bad idea if I have the time and the patience I will, but for now, I work on em and slap em up and see how it goes. From what I see I put a lot more time into my suggestions that most people so I don't feel bad about it. The bottom line is everyone wants to restrict my every movement, hardly seems fair, does it? Make an example of MrAushvitz.. and see what happens. --MrAushvitz 105, 10 April 2006 (GMT

I gotta say, this isn't exactly kosher. Far be it from me to challenge the authority of the seething mob, but I'll have to consult on this one. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:32, 10 April 2006 (BST)

  • Mr. A, you do have the unfortunate habit of sometimes opening your mouth and proving yourself the fool/digging yourself deeper in the hole. Keep in mind that the majority of this discussion was posted before your recent trend towards the straight-and-narrow. Hell, I only just read and voted ("Keep" on one of them!) on your last two suggestions before writing this. If you can continue on this path, I see no reason to persue punitive measures and I will, no doubt, come to your defence should the lynch-mob show up at your doorstep. One piece of friendly advice, though, should you continue to mend your ways: Dial-down the persecution-complex down to, say, 3ish. I know, I know, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after you etc. etc. etc. But you've been problematic (to say the least) for such a long time that you can expect a sea-change in attitude overnight. Take the good-natured ribbing, laugh it off, and move on. If anyone makes spiteful personal attacks or continues to respond to reasonable posts with stubborn unreasonable responses, then get worked up about it. Why does this whole thing feel like an intervention? Does that make me a co-dependant?--Xavier06 11:41, 10 April 2006 (BST)

"MrAushvitz Suggestion" should be a valid "Spam" reason. It is not a vote against the suggestor, it is just a short-hand way of saying "bad for all the usual MrA reasons", and hopefully if there are enough of them the author will start to actually think about his suggestions before posting them. Honestly, we could each write a paragraph of valid kill reasons and suggestions for improvement, and copy/paste it onto practically every one of his suggestions without changing a word - so why not just abbreviate all that as "MrAushvitz Suggestion"? At least that way we'll save pagespace - doubly so since he won't write his 20-line-long "Re"s for these. (Saving pagespace is a good thing, considering how long his suggestions are, and how many Kill/Spam votes they get!) If he ever writes a good suggestion, most of us would be mature enough not to Spam it out of existance; we just don't want to waste our time writing out long replies to the rest of his crap.-- Norcross 15:34, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Actually, it might not start out or be used by all as a vote against the suggestor, but it would damn very well be taken that way by both newer voters and MrA. The later doesn't make him understand what the problems are with the suggestion, it just makes him go on the defensive, which any normal human being would do in that situation. "All the usual MrA reasons" isn't that much longer to type, now is it? Otherwise, I'm also on the side that thinks we won't spam his good suggestions out of existence when he'll start making them. The problem is that so far, the suggestions are mostly "Meh" at best.--McArrowni 18:20, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, I'm willing to consider this, but I'd like to procede carefully. Please lodge this formally on vandal banning and I'll come to a decision. PS: "MrAushvitz Suggestion" isn't a valid reason to vote kill. If you don't want to cite reasons just say the old "see above" or "I agree with others". --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:43, 10 April 2006 (BST)

I dont see why we should take it there. This is a suggestions page matter, not a whole wiki matter.--Grim s 07:07, 13 April 2006 (BST)
All the drama that is radiating of the wiki is getting out of hand, can we please have some sanity back everybody, It isn't that hard just to put op with some people you like less then others. MrAushwitz crime is that he forces you to read some extra text. lets put things into perspective.--Vista W! 08:23, 14 April 2006 (BST)
Oh please, dear god, the latest batch of crap is making my eyes bleed. Can we ban him yet? Timid Dan 14:32, 14 April 2006 (BST)
I have taken the case to Arbitration, as it is far better for this matter than the suggestions page, and there is already a precident, where Amazing was banned from the vandal banning page for a time there. --Grim s 19:23, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Too Many Dupes

I really think we should update the Frequently Suggested page. We seem to be getting more dupes lately, the latest being another variation of those 'More zombies, less items' suggestions that keep poping up. I also don't think we need the "Air Drop Suggestions" part anymore. Perhaps it should be changed to "Suggestions on New Changes" or some such since despite being listed in the Dos and Do Nots page people don't pay attention to it. Velkrin 23:09, 5 April 2006 (BST)

most of the dupes come from the peer approved page, making that a bit more readable might work as well.--Vista W! 11:20, 8 April 2006 (BST)
So Operation: Large Font Text? Velkrin 01:31, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Version Madness

It'd be nice if there were some sort of reasonable time-lag between versions of the same suggestion, perhaps a day or so minimum. I'm seeing a lot of v2.0, v3.0, etc within the same day block. Also, what's the protocol on removing the original suggestion (assuming that you're the author). Should you remove the previous version or leave it up for reference with some sort of "VOTING CLOSED" tag? Timid Dan 14:52, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Normally you remove everything except the title and the line bars (-----) and put up some message along the lines of 'withdrawn by author'. Velkrin 19:31, 6 April 2006 (BST)
Maybe we should have something in the suggestion guidelines about author removal, if it's not there already (scurries over to check) Timid Dan 21:09, 6 April 2006 (BST)
As an author if I make an updated version (the one that has had all the corrections made to it based on voter's responses), would it make sense for me to leave the OLD version behind, taking up space. As the author I think it makes a lot of sense, if you choose, to toast the old version and make room for other people's suggestions. The old suggestion has become moot anyways by the newer version. MrAushvitz 21:09, 9 April 2006 (BST)
The problem with removing the prior version is that it's a form of censorship in that all the votes, comments, and questions regarding the original suggestion are removed. If an author, you for instance, has a suggestion up with six spam votes and then quickly author-retracts and resubmits it, the spam votes go away. I don't agree with removing the original suggestion. I would prefer to preserve the original voting history (undoubtably negative, if it required revision) for comparison to the revision. Also, it gives people a clue as to WHAT was revised in the first place and quickly identifies a substantial change vs. a trivial rewording to avoid spammination. --Timid Dan 19:26, 10 April 2006 (BST)
although the taste of the wiki does change. and taboos are somethimes replaced/established, (search x times wouldn't pass now, AP limit increases are judged on merit now instead of auto killed.) in my experience things that are duped or only slightly reworded usually have the same result the second time around. I've removed quite a lot of dupes that had excactly the same amount of kill/keep ratios before they were discovered as dupes. But sometimes a re-write works, simply by putting it more consise on paper. Why should we look back at less developed/workable suggestions to judge the one before us on merit?--Vista W! 08:19, 14 April 2006 (BST)
Here's a novel idea to stem the tide of version madness....actually use the friggin discussion page to iron out the kinks in an idea before submitting it to voting! *gasp* Goddamn novel idea, aint it?--Mookiemookie 14:24, 10 April 2006 (BST)

PKing, Good or Bad?

There have been a few anti-PK suggestions recently with a lot of mixed views on them. Some people think that ANYTHING that reduces PKing is a good thing while others believe that PKing is hard enough. I UNDERSTAND that PKing is a part of the game and nobody (okay almost nobody, I'm sure there HAVE been suggestions) is suggesting making it impossible, but the focus of the game is on survivors fighting zombies, is it not? I'm aware there ARE people that enjoy PKing (griefing?), but why should they NOT be inhibited? If people do it because of a "lack of zombies" then what does that say? They should move? They are afraid of the zombies? Why is inhibiting PKing a bad thing?--Pesatyel 06:38, 11 April 2006 (BST)

  • BECAUSE ZOMG GRIM SAYS SO AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS SPOUTING RHETORIC LOLZ. Now, for seriousness. I'd wager a bet that about half of Survivors are PKers (having killed another Survivor once, for reasons other than revenge for being PKed). I'd also further wager that 90% of serial PKers are organized and are metagaming and coordinating their attacks just as much as the people who try to hunt them down. So, obviously, it becomes a 'who is better' contest. As it stands, PKers are better despite their 'punishment', in the form of half-XP. They suffer no consequences other than maybe being found by someone who cares. Possibly. The people with level 36 characters to massacre someone who PKs their lowbie characters forget that not everyone has a level 36 alt to commit said revenge, and for those people, it can be very frustrating. A player who creates a survivor and wants to remain that way will eventually get killed by a PKer directly, if not a PKer/zombie spy dropping the barricades on their safehouses. Grim, if you want revive points to go away, support a suggestion that punishes PKing. -Wyndallin 10:20, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re I disagree with you on several points. One is the assumption that the focus of the game must revovlve around Human/zombie conflict. In many, many fine zombie films and such, much of the drama comes from the Human v. human conflict (Such as, 28 Days Later) which points to human v. human conflict being an integral part of the genre and game. Secondly, your assumption that all serial PKers are organized and meta-gaming is simply false. Thirdly, you make it seem as if PKers targe low level characters mainly, which is false, as many take pride in "beard hunting" or targeting the toughest Humans there are. Just as one should not be forced to play a human or a zombie, one should not be forced to PK or not PK. It is a part of the game, and valid mode of play. -Banana Bear4 10:34, 11 April 2006 (BST)
      • I've heard plenty of arguments for human v. human killing. But if PKing is so in-genre and valid, name for me one movie where it was the zombies that were killing each other. -Wyndallin 10:51, 11 April 2006 (BST)
        • re - First of all, my comment on vigilante address the ZK genre issue, secondly, all these new measures specifically target Human v. Human PKing, thus making your references to a lack of ZKing in film a wholly seperate issue. Ninny. -Banana Bear4 10:54, 11 April 2006 (BST)
          • Sorry, your comment(s) on Vigilante don't deal with ZK at all. //// Kill - PKing is a valid style of play. This severely nerfs it. If you PK in front of a lot of people, then its not safe to be around there really, and there's lists to help PKers get killed. It also isn't exactly RP accurate to be able to track people through all these crazy crowds with a 95% success rate. There shouldn't be Rangers in Malton. -Banana Bear4 05:37, 11 April 2006 (BST) //// Re No, I'm pretty sure it can be considered play as its in the game and being neither encouraged nor discouraged. There is a balance. Get revived, Kill PKer if you see them around. Shotguns and pistols switchin fo' lanes, drop top, screamin out PK aint a thing. -Banana Bear4 08:49, 11 April 2006 (BST) //// Which one of those addressed ZKing, exactly? Before calling someone else a ninny, make sure that objective facts that anyone can check are correct. Thanks. -Wyndallin 11:05, 11 April 2006 (BST)
          • Sorry Wyndallin, I meant my comments on vigilante on this page address ZKing, I will reposit them here.

Hey Homey, I'll handle this one. First, you are speaking of ZKing, secondly ZKing featured prominently into a zombie comic put out by IDW a few years back. It was called Remains. After the human flesh got scarce, the fresher Zeds started to eat the weaker ones. When they ate brains they got smarter and quicker and started to mutter, Mmmmeat, and even use simple tools as clubs. While ZKing is not present in all zombie mythos, ZKing is clearly present in some. -Banana Bear4 10:04, 11 April 2006 (BST)

In addition to the ZK referenced in here, I remembered this film called I was a teenage zombie, wherein the climax of said film is a Zombie V. Zombie fight. Also, in one of the zombie films shown on basic cable, there is some sweet ZKing action going on. I can't remember the title, but there is sweet ZK action. I hope this clears things up, ninny^2 -Banana Bear4 11:10, 11 April 2006 (BST)

  • Very well, you've made your point. I respectfully decline to continue, and I will - as I have said I would - oppose anti-PK measures. I have accepted defeat as graciously as I would hope that you will accept victory. I still disagree that PKing is necessary at all, but that will remain a personal opinion. -Wyndallin 11:17, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • Wyndallin, im wondering who the hell you are talking to. I have never said i wanted revive points to go away. I dont want in game protection for them, because its your responsibility to do it. A Pkers life is a hard one already, and the existing measures are more than sufficient for my pker to wake up dead every morning. The majority of pking is not organised. In fact, the only organised one i can think of is the Malton DEA, who coordinate thier raids, then scatter. --Grim s 10:43, 11 April 2006 (BST)
      • Oh no, I make other people miserable with intra-faction grief, my life is so hard as a PKer, woe is me. If your PK character dies, they'll turn up being a zombie - which they should remain. Frankly, most PKers are neo-Wileys, as far as I'm concerned. Players without any style who make a nuisance of themselves merely because they can. -Wyndallin 10:58, 11 April 2006 (BST)
        • I find it amazing you managed to go three lines without making a point or rebutting anything i said. All you did was make an assertion. --Grim s 11:17, 11 April 2006 (BST)
          • In general you should look at PK'ing as a bad thing. But talking about human vs human conflicts it could be understandable ( I'm not saying acceptable). If two Survivor groups would claim ownership of a certain building for example and it really heats up; It would be RPG'ing if they started busting caps in eachother. (remember those scavengers from Dawn the Dead 1978?) But looking at it in UD, most PK's are done by Survivors who support the Zed's, or ex-Zeds resorting to killing Survivors. That can hardly be good RP'ing I think. (though there are few exeptions imaginable). This concludes me to saying I just can't pick a clear side.. It all boils down to RP'ing.. --Vykos 11:46, 11 April 2006 (BST)

The gods (Kevan's) truth as I've heard it is that PKing is allowed since it adds to the post-civilized feel, but it not overtly rewarded in any other way than the satisfaction of the kill. Neither is it overty discouraged --Zaruthustra-Mod 17:28, 11 April 2006 (BST)

  • I been saying that for months, but every time I rattle it on the wiki I get ever more frustrated with it, as it is now every skill that touches it pro or contra is not weighted on merits or effects, but killed on principle. It's a bad thing for a page that is supposed to improve the game to ignore a very large part of the game. We should lift the taboo on both sides, and just weight it on how much fun and debt each suggestion would add to the game. If it's Kevan's truth, all the better, He's our benevolent dictator who decides anyway, so why should we limit ourselves needlessly, avoid making choices when it doesn't even matter, Hell it might even end up possible to improve the situation all around.--Vista W! 17:35, 11 April 2006 (BST)
  • Well, I don't have a problem with it being part of the game. I guess it is the fact I don't do it (haven't had a survivor character long enough to really worry about it), I'm just curious WHY people do it.--Pesatyel 21:34, 11 April 2006 (BST)
    • tons of reasons, roleplaying, a different kick, adding extra difficulty, just to annoy/grief other people, policing, etc. just as much reasons as there are PK'ers I guess.--Vista W! 21:47, 11 April 2006 (BST)
  • It's fine to have PKing in the game, but right now it's just too darn easy. You can protect yourself against zombies but you can't protect yourself against murdering humans. There needs to be some kind of counter, even if just a small one. --John Ember 17:49, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • back when zombies were outnumberd hideously i discussed making PKing less like griefing and more like combat, (check the archive of talk page if you care), however it was shot down due to the PKing part. IMO when zombie numbers are low, PKing is quite important to stop everybody getting to safe/board, but i hope (im not sure because i move around alot and it might just be there are fewer Pkers here) that when zombie number get higher PKers stop Pking.--xbehave 18:20, 12 April 2006 (BST) Perhaps in order to get ballanced PKing suggestiosn through the guidline could be reworderd, so that it says "Pking should not be encouraged,removed but it can ba changed"
  • PKing seems like such a polarizing issue that I have a sincere doubt that any suggestion, whether it be pro- or anti-, addressing seems doomed to fail. There are enough voters on either side to vote these suggestions down, but not all of them are without merit. Is PKing too easy or too tough? A little of both, really. Zombies have it tough getting to their victims, but once they get in, they have it a good deal easier. Sure, quick-thinking (and online) survivors can quickly rebarricade (to stem the tide) and take out the zombies, but there are a lot of times (especially if you choose your targets well) that all the survivors are sleeping inside, giving them free reign to chow down and get away to the safety of a mob before AP runs out. Sure, a survivor can track a zombie who has attacked by adding them to theri contact list, but who would bother. On the other hand, PKers have almost exactly the opposite problem. They can easily get in and attack, circumventing defenses because they are survivors, after all. But they have a much harder time afterwards. Unlike the mystical ninjas people seem to paint them as, PKers do not vanish into the night (though they do have suprise on their side, this only goes so far). They have their names reported, so all can see and track, using in-game and metagame channels. And unlike zombies, PKers seem to be branded for life (perhaps with a scarlet "PK"), since none of the groups I've seen have anything resembling a PKer repentance/amnesty. You just have to kill a survivor once to acquire the tag. Why do you think de facto vigilantes (who are just PKers under the guise of "justice") always announce their justifications ("[X] is a PKer. I have killed him in retribution for the crimes he committed, by the authority vested in me by [group]")? Instead of making it so the game does all your work for you, how about taking a much more proactive stance towards PKing? Some suggestions: dedicate yourself (and even your group) to the higher purpose of policing PKers, share PK lists with other groups to cast as wide a net as possible, communicate to all who will listen (in-game and meta) when you spot one, and (best idea of all) draft a piece of cut-and-pastable policy (much like the Sacred Ground policy) and invite all groups to adopt it. Spend some of the energy you've put into these anti-PK suggestions and pick up the guantlet I just threw. I would love to see an ad hoc justice system pop up in Malton; It would enrich the RP experience all the more.--Xavier06 15:05, 13 April 2006 (BST)
It seems to me there are only TWO reasons to PK. You are bored (the zombies aren't "threatening" enough) or your a jerk (no offense intended). People shouldn't be spending a significant amount of time "PK watching." And the justice system only works if people actually follow it. Everbody is so enamored with PKing, it seems, nobody would. Not everyone metagames and saying "Bob is a PKer" as justification for killing the guy means nothing (see my justice system argument above).--Pesatyel 03:58, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • To paraphrase Voltaire: I do not agree with your PKing others, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it. Velkrin 09:21, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Question on Dupe Votes

Now on the Spam/Dupe guidelines, it says 2/3 with a min of 7 for a suggestion to be removed as a dupe. But in another circumstance, Zaruthustra removed a suggestion after it had 7 or so, but mentioned that it only needed 3. When can the suggestion be removed. Is it after 3 (linked) dupe votes, regardless of the number of other votes, or 2/3 majority, or what? Velkrin 09:15, 15 April 2006 (BST)

According the rule change (the 7 & 2/3 rule), yes, 7 votes with 2/3 majority is required, even for dupes. But this is not exacly strongly enforced, probably because not everyone knows that the rule applies to dupes and there hasn't really been any major problems with invalid dupe votes or dupe suggestions in general. --Brizth W! 09:28, 15 April 2006 (BST)
Hmm, perhaps Dupe should be changed. Considering that it requires a link to be valid, and that it's so rarely used, not to mention that dupes are normally fairly clear cut. Take Blunt Combat for example. Velkrin 10:53, 15 April 2006 (BST)
You can always take it to policy voting. I would vote yes. --Brizth W! 11:00, 15 April 2006 (BST)
Actually the 7 dupes required is a mistake, it used to be that both spam and dupe only needed 3 votes. Jon pyre made a suggestion that remade the spam rule to 7 and 3/4 of the vote but left the Dupe rule alone the info that stands there isn't according to whats actually the rule. Al that is required is 3 onopposed Dupe votes (opposistion has to be ratianalised and not from the author.)--Vista W! 12:21, 15 April 2006 (BST)
Unfortunately, no. And yes. Jon Pyre was originally speaking about Spam votes, but the actual rule that was voted upon included both Spam and Dupe. Here is the vote, and here is the discussion that started it all. --Brizth W! 12:33, 15 April 2006 (BST)
Ooops... That's what you get for paying more attention to the discussion, then towards the actual wording of the rule. Well actually I'm up for changing it back, as there isn't that much controversy about or much need for the current rule as strict adherence to it would make the rule obsolete.--Vista W! 23:21, 15 April 2006 (BST)

A quick note about "/Change" votes

  • I just noticed the big warning at the top of Suggestions about using "/Change" as a modifier to votes. It suggests that it is not a valid vote, but my understanding (as outlined under "Invalid Votes") was that it still got counted in the final tally, since the inavalid part is ignored. Thus the reson I use "Kill/Change" (as well as a few other iterations) since it is essentially a "Kill" vote with a strong suggestion to the author. Since the Peer Review is becoming prey to more and more unfinished suggestions, "Kill/Change" allows me to draw attention to the fact that it needs work right from the start (so perhaps the author actually pays attention), whereas a simple "Kill" vote means that I see nothing salvagable about the suggestion. I've used "Keep/Change" on rare occasions that the suggestion was good as written, but I wanted to advance minor tweaks that might make it into future versions. But if these "/Change"-modified votes are actually not tallied, I'll not use them.--Xavier06 20:24, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • First of all, yes, they are tallied (the valid part that is). I put the notice up mostly to prevent new voters starting to use it. There is ample space available to give your reasoning for vote. And you can emphasise your comment (within reason, mind you). As there is only Peer Reviewed and Peer Rejected (and presently unused Undecided), there shouldn't be any need for other votes than Keep and Kill.

      As for Keep/Change votes, I feel they are especially stupid, as peer reviewed suggestion are very, very rarely revisited (without duping). Usually/Hopefully in such cases it is some experienced suggester who knows how to read Previous Days Suggestions and read the vote comments. --Brizth W! 10:08, 15 April 2006 (BST)
    • If a suggestion has "nothing salvagable" isn't that why you vote Spam? Keep means the suggestion is good AS IS. Kill means the suggestion could be kept with some changes (which should be supplied by the voter). Spam means the suggestion could NOT be kept, no matter WHAT was changed. And Dupe means the suggestion is significantly close to a suggestion that is still up for voting OR in Peer Review.--Pesatyel 04:11, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Peer Reviewed Suggestions

I was thinking with the peer reviewed suggestions that we just go and have one page for each section, that way the page loads up faster for users of a slower connection. It would also help visualy because there wouldn't be a realy long list at the start of each page. I wouldn't mind doing this but I'm just seeing peoples reactions to this. - Jedaz 06:24, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal policy discussion concerning policy votings to be opened on the subject of the suggestion page, as per the rules for changing the rules

Addition of new Comment

With the influx of newbies we're seeing both 'Re' and 'Comment' being abused. The problem is that the more active members of the page can't really do anything directly without breaking the rules themselves. What I propose, is a new type of Comment to let us inform the newbies that what they're doing is wrong. This would not give the users any more power then they already have, but it would allow us to politely remind them to stop breaking the rules without breaking the rules ourselves.

[Exact Text]

Notice is used by more experienced voters to remind inexperienced voters about rules they are breaking. It should not be used for any other purpose.

The example box should also be amended to reflect this. Proposed changed follows:

  1. Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Spam - Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels is an inappropriate Survivor Class. --NoFunAtAll 09:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - You shouldn't vote spam because I said so. Not the Author
      • Notice: You are not the author and so you should not use Re to comment on other votes. Informative Voter

[End Exact Text]

I get the feeling I missed something in the Notice usage description. Comments? Inane babble? Offers I can't refuse? Velkrin 21:03, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Looks like a good idea.--The General 21:08, 5 April 2006 (BST)

I'll second the good idea. Question, can we, in our vote, comment on another vote if we think that the vote has entirely missed the point of the suggestion? --Pinpoint 08:32, 6 April 2006 (BST)

You can comment on anything you want, in your vote.--The General 08:47, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Well, anything related to the suggestion, at least. :p This would also be useful for mods, looking for invalid votes like "CertainPerson made this suggestion", if you get where I'm going ;) --Pinpoint 08:51, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Mods already have a comment they can use to invalidate votes.--The General 11:59, 6 April 2006 (BST)
Meh, I was tired, but was thinking more along the lines of just helping the mods notice them, not actually invalidating votes or deleting comments. Something like that. --Pinpoint 15:38, 6 April 2006 (BST)
Ah, yes, sorry. I thought you meant that this could be used by moderators to invalidate votes. You're right, it would help mods look for invalid votes, anything that makes things easier for the mods is good.--The General 21:00, 6 April 2006 (BST)
In all the time I've been here we've just re'd illegally or just went to the appropriate talk pages. people never had a problem with that because they can see why people did it. discresion is needed with rules like this, not an ever increasing Beaurocracy of rules intend to account for every possible action. a bit of flexabilaty works so much better.--Vista W! 11:26, 8 April 2006 (BST)
I'd like to point out that in less then a week after I remove my suggestion, a bunch of illegal REs pop up. Funny how that works. Velkrin 06:05, 11 April 2006 (BST)
  • And I'd like to point out that there were plenty of people doing that before your suggestion. Correlation does not equal causation...--Xavier06 22:07, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Ah, but cause does lead to effect. Or in this case, attempt at rule change. Velkrin 09:02, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Author Votes not counting

Author votes should not count in the tally. Obviously, they are going to vote keep, otherwise they wouldn't have made the suggestion, would they?--Pesatyel 19:55, 6 April 2006 (BST)

I voted kill for one of my suggestions once. Author votes are still votes. Velkrin 21:39, 6 April 2006 (BST)
I've seen that happen and I thought it was wierd. Why not just remove it instead?--Pesatyel 21:47, 6 April 2006 (BST)
Because I wanted people to see it. I didn't put all that work into Hippie just to remove it. Also technically it needed to go through the suggestions page to get into humor. Velkrin 03:45, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Actually a author kill supposed to be counted as a retraction, I think we had that as a rule way back. but because it happens so infrequantly everybody forgets it.--Vista W! 11:29, 8 April 2006 (BST)

The rule is that everyone gets a chance to vote on every suggestion. Author's votes get counted in the 2/3 Keep-for-Peer-Reviewed. It could be the difference between Peer Reviewed and Undecided. I say let the author vote stand. --Pinpoint 06:13, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Also, the author keep tells you who posted the suggestion without having to look in the history. If we disallowed authors voting, we'd have to look at the history for each suggestion to see who wrote it and make sure he didn't vote. Much easier as is, me thinks.--Guardian of Nekops 07:15, 7 April 2006 (BST)

it doesnt really matter who suggested it, so i disagree with the comment above as i vote on the suggestion not the suggester.i do think that author votes should count, especaily as they can be used 1/2 way though a vote to defend the idea.--xbehave 01:32, 8 April 2006 (BST)
even though you vote on the suggestion, it always helps knowing who made it, adressing the right person with your concern, informing him of procedures if he gets it wrong, going to his talkpage for extended discussions, etc. So I think it actually does matter knowing who made the suggestion.--Vista W! 11:32, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Well then, maybe a change of the voting template is in order? BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 01:19, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Ah, makes sense. I just see that, sometimes people have the tendency to vote on the suggesTOR instead o the suggesTION.--Pesatyel 20:07, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Well then the author can just abstain from voting if they think they're going to get kills due to their name alone. Author votes are not required. Velkrin 01:27, 11 April 2006 (BST)

I'm all for it! --Swmono W!

Rule of the day

this would go at the top of the suggestions page(very top) it would stand out slighty, +2 font? the point would be to re-enforce rules , that are being ignored on that day. its just an idea because i get quite annoyed by completly invalid votes, that disregard the rules completly, this would be a little reminder. the possibility of explaining the rule by expanding it to more than one line is also possible, but i think that may jsut add to clutter.--xbehave 01:40, 8 April 2006 (BST)

With the high cycle rate due to Grim it would be a bit hard to find the rules being broken. Besides, if they skip the rules chances are they'll skil the large text pointing out a rule. - Velkrin 03:14, 8 April 2006 (BST)
I kind of did this, with the Change-Vote-Is-Invalid notice, though I didn't know about this idea here. One day is a bit short, few days seems more reasonable. I haven't seen that much rule breaking, except occasional over use of non-author Res. --Brizth W! 10:24, 15 April 2006 (BST)
Yeah i spotted the notice thats what i was hoping for, and i havent seen a single keep/change vote since it was added--xbehave 15:44, 15 April 2006 (BST)

When Are Suggestions To Be Moved To Previous?

If I put a suggestion up 1 hour before midnight is it moved to previous after spending just 1 hour on the page? True, previous days is supposed to be accessed by everyone but the main page is where all the voting and discussion is actually done. I think we should make sure that every suggestion gets at least 24 hours before being moved. An easy way of doing this would be to have a two day cycle, moving one day to previous at midnight on the next day. While it would mean a longer suggestion page I frequently find myself avoiding putting up suggestions because I want to do it soon after midnight so it has as much time on the main suggestions page as possible. What do you guys think? --Jon Pyre 21:11, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I think you are right. It makes little sense that suggestions get up to 23h and 59 minutes of difference in main suggestion page exposition. I'd suggest a rule change to something like this: "Suggestions are removed from the main page on rotation if they have been on the main page for at least 24 hours". Hopefully that woundn't piss off Grim and anyone else (if any) who are doing the rotations.--McArrowni 04:37, 9 April 2006 (BST)

I dont see why its needed personally. Im leaving the page uncycled for several hours after the required time each day to let everyone see, and if thats not enough, all people need to do is check the previous days page, and vote there. There is no need to change the actual cycling of the suggestions, but maybe, if you really wanted it, you could put a link in the "Current Days' Suggestions" section which leads to the previous days page i make at that time, and i can update that with my regular cycling. You could call it "Recent suggestions" or somesuch. At least then people will have a chance at noticing it. Fact of the matter is that the longer the suggestions page at the time, the larger the chance of edit conflicts messing up my cycling for a while, which annoys me greatly. --Grim s 16:18, 9 April 2006 (BST)

I used to try and make sure that I gave every suggestion it's full 24 hours, but it was a pain. Remember, I was doing it while I was on holiday when I could be on all day and I therefore had the time to cycle individual suggestions off at different times, I can see that it would be far more difficult for someone else who doesn't have as much time as I did.--The General 20:05, 9 April 2006 (BST)

*NEW* Suggestion System

i was working this week on the previous suggestions page, tallying some of January suggestions in order to easily move those suggestions who were supposed to be moved to Peer Preview. Peer preview is outdated to the most, with most ot the good recent suggestions not there.

So. What was i thinking this morning...

Using this template, a user will post a few lines about his suggestion to the main page. Then, He will follow the link, automaticaly created by the suggestion, and post his entire idea in there, using this template. See both talk pages of these templates for a sample.

This second template will categorize this suggestion per day, and any user can categorize that category to the Suggestions category. When the 14days of voting for suggestions is over, a mod can simply see which suggestions got peer approved, categorize it as such (in Category:Peer Approved Suggestions), and lock those pages. He will switch that day's category to Category:Closed Voting Suggestions and lock it also.

I believe this will give an extra work to make a suggestion, but at least it will be worth it, since now suggestions will be easily moved to peer preview. --hagnat tw 14:41, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Ah! I was forgotting! With this system, any discussion about a suggestion will remain in its own page. People will no more discuss about an idea and clutter this talk page. --hagnat tw 14:42, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Im not too keen on this. The current system doesnt involve much work, its just that the work is not being done. Some people, such as myself, are doing some of the required tasks, but some more dedication from people would be nice, like for instance three people to go through each days page, each selecting from peer reviewed, peer rejected, or undecided and moving all suggestions that fit that criteria to the appropriate page. --Grim s 15:12, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Which would be an easy task for people considering I've tallied up the majority of March (still some open votes), and a bit of February. As for this idea, you're just making a diffrent sort of clutter. Instead of having it all on a few pages, they all get their own page, causing a spike in the number of pages on the Wiki. There is also the nice ability to vote on all the suggestions in a day, rather than vote on one, go back to suggestions page, vote on another, back to suggestions page. Finally, there is the template itself. Quite frankly it gets messed up enough as it is, I'd rather not have to fix some guy's failure which breaks the Wiki in half. Before you say 'That'll never happen' or some such...they'll find a way. They always do. Velkrin 18:45, 9 April 2006 (BST)
i like this idea.--xbehave 20:25, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • Why not just make the link to an individual's talk-page, thus cutting back on new-page clutter? Frankly, when and if I develop a suggestion (I got a couple brewing...just too lazy to get 'em down), I would probably start the discussion on my talk-page, just because this page is so cluttered right now that I'd be afraid of making a typo and accidentally breaking the page...--Xavier06 19:40, 10 April 2006 (BST)

What a Crowded Page

The suggestions page is getting too crowded with really long crappy suggestions to be effective. I wouldn't expect Kevan to sift through that much crappy crap to find the few good ones. We need to figure out some way to limit the length of a suggestion, but without making it impossible to explain a good idea with a lot of small details to clarify. Any ideas/comments/etc.? --Jon Pyre 05:02, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Isn't the point to put the suggestions on the main page, then send the "good" ones to Peer Reviewed and leave the "bad" ones in the Previous Days (or move to Peer Rejected)? He shouldn't have to sift through all the crap if all the good ones are already seperated out, right?--Pesatyel 07:22, 15 April 2006 (BST)

==GPS_Modification== --17:21, 25 April 2006 (BST) moved by xbehave it was removed, had lots of kill votes and added the next day, now its passed, is this a valid method of abuse, should i add it to peer reviewed or not?Im asking for a Mod/ somebody who knows not discussion--xbehave 11:18, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Indeed. It should be removed for violating the suggestions guidelines (Specifically number 10). Edit in question --Grim s 18:07, 20 April 2006 (BST)
Done --Grim s 18:23, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page.

Vote to Change Wording on AP Suggestion Guideline

See the discussion above. The motion is to change the wording of this guideline to the following:

AP is an extremely powerful mechanic, with very subtle implications, and is thus very hard to balance. It shoudn't be messed around with except by the most experienced of suggesters. If you don't understand why, you are probably not an experienced suggester, and should keep away from messing with AP.

Please vote Keep, Kill, or Spam below the line.

  1. Keep --John Ember 15:11, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - This was always the dumbest sacred cow because A) Kevan already violated it and B) UD is a pretty simple game and everything in it boils down to AP efficiency in the end anyway. If anything, it's actually easier to reason out the overall affects of AP suggestions than any other because they cut right to the heart of UD's mechanics. --Sindai 16:34, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I didn't expect this text to end up there, but it would be better than the current test, which IMO was relevent in november, when bah-roken ap suggestions were commonly suggested. Most people know better by now and the guideline doesn't need to be an exagerated "touch this and die!" sign anymore--McArrowni 16:44, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - So votes I. Velkrin 01:05, 23 March 2006 (GMT) Edit: You'd think I would have learned to sign my votes by now.
  5. Keep - What Sindai said. --Pinpoint 20:12, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - The fact that it IS possible to alter AP rules means the old logic is starting to date itself. Adding a large "Caution" sign instead of "DO NOT TOUCH" seems logical in the context. --Dr. Fletch 21:00, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - No one will read it, but... --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:09, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep -I suggest a prize for the first person who makes extremely nwebie broken suggestion quoting this as his justification/permission and thus completely missing the point. In effect nothing is going to change though, we usually only cite the do's and don't against newbies. but although redundant it's better then what it saying now.--Vista W! 20:43, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Oh well why not. Seems reasonable. --Brizth W! 23:13, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Sure Timid Dan 16:17, 27 March 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - Great! Keeps people from being annoying by referencing this rule as the sole reason for their kill vote.--Guardian of Nekops 02:31, 1 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - Although there is a big, big difference between "messing with AP" in terms of making actions that cost multiple AP, and making energy drink items that give you 5 extra AP to spend. --Lurking Grue 02:37, 1 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Im all for voting more power to myself. --Grim s 04:44, 2 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - This is exactly what I've been trying to tell people for a long time now --CPQD 08:07, 2 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep --Blahblahblah 18:19, 9 April 2006 (BST)
    • Vote fails due to insufficient number of votes. Velkrin 05:43, 7 April 2006 (BST)
    • Really? I read in the rules that Votes need 2/3rds acceptance and at least 20 votes to pass. 2/3rds of 20 is just a hair over 13. We have 14 unanimous Keep votes. So if we'd also gotten 6 Kill votes, would that have made the suggestion a keeper? Isn't that kind of silly? --John Ember 01:57, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • As I recall the votes for changing the rules last the same length as the normal votes (2 weeks). Not sure if that was an unofficial number or if I'm just remembering things incorrectly since I can't seem to find much information to support that. Velkrin 05:06, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Yes, it [two weeks]. Sort of annoying given the lower traffic of this page --McArrowni 04:41, 9 April 2006 (BST)
    • You could resubmit it, since more users appear to be poking around. Velkrin 03:36, 10 April 2006 (BST)
    • i didnt realise there was a minimun number of votes needed and as it was a resounding keep i didnt vote, i will vote if ressugested, or on a suggestion to remove the AP guidline--xbehave 12:54, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Vote to Add New Comment Type: Notice

Author withdrawn due to a bad case of Vistaitis among the voters, and to reduce clutter. You'll rue this day Vista! One day you'll be crossing the street, and then *bam*, Velkrin's Legions of Terror. Velkrin 19:06, 10 April 2006 (BST)

  • What, no rue-ing for me? What does a guy have to do to get VLOT to pay attention? Feh, monomaniacal authors these days...--Xavier06 19:43, 10 April 2006 (BST)
    Don't feel bad soon you'll be just as recognized a destroyer of hopes, suggestions and dreams as me--Vista W! 09:24, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Personal tools