Suggestion:20090109 Quarterly Cities

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20090109 Quarterly Cities

ChiefyMan 05:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion type
New Cities, Revived Cities

Suggestion scope
Everyone

Suggestion description
I would like to suggest that, every three months, a new city - or going back and forth between a new city and reviving an old "temporary" city - be created. During those three months, it will be opened. After three months, when a new city is created or an old one, such as Monroeville, is revived, that city will go into quarantine.

This will allow the game to add fresh new cities for survivors to fight for and the walking dead to kill for without having to join a large, well-set city - Malton. Possibly once a year, once there are enough new cities to do this with and depending on the "following" the city has, it could be reopened for another three months to allow new players to enter and reignite a city possibly overrun by one group or the other.

This will help to keep interest by current and past players while giving new players options to join a "specialty" city available to join for a limited time or a city that is already very well established.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. keep As the author, I obviously like the suggestion :-p - # justification ChiefyMan 05:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2. keep The suggestion is something I would like to see as the first few months of a new city are by far the best time to play. I can think of a lot of other ways to do this but the suggestion of "new city every 3 months" which is the core of this idea is what they would all boil down to. --Honestmistake 10:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Keep I'd like to do this as I missed out on both Monroeville and Borehamwood. Nemesis645 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Keep This is a great idea, not only will this provide more experienced players with a challenge but also it will allow for a great number of players to join the game. Me101 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill Seems like entirely too much extra work to be demanding of Kevan. Also, it seems like it would only work out for people who abandoned characters after quarantine or had the money to pay every 3 months to have the sever cap removed. Faranya 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Kill - The suggestion is somewhat incomplete, and the number of created cities could put a great deal of stress on the servers. --ZsL 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Kill - Both times we've had a new city, we've had the zombies totally raping Malton while all the survivors had left, to the point of there being reports that some new players were actually being put off of the game owing to the fact that there were no safe places for survivors to play. And after having left Malton for the zeds to shit on, what happens in Monroeville and Borehamwood? The zeds dominate there too, of course. No, right now I don't consider new cities worth the time or effort for either Kevan or the players. --Idly Hummingbird 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Kill - As the guys above me. It needs more detail, and would put a lot of strain on the server. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Kill - As above. --Private Mark 02:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Kill - Screw the extra server load (LAAAAAAAAG anyone?) and the watering down of the player base. If we have new cities, I'm very content for them to be rare occurrences. --WanYao 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam and Dupe - Same exact sort of thing has been suggested before plus if Kevan wants to give us new cities, he will give us new cities.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Spam/Dupe - As above. Liberty 06:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Spam - This isn't strictly a dupe. Most of those ideas, including my version of these, were on Talk:Suggestions only, plus there'll be enough distinctions for me to make it stay. It is however Spam due to it being incomplete, it's a vague "What if?" -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Spam - As above. _■^■ 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Spam - As above.--Michaleson ^CAPD 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Spam - As above. --BlackstarC 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Spam - As above. --Turtleboy412 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Spam - Redundant spam is redundant. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)