Suggestions/12th-Dec-2005

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

12th December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 26th-Dec-2005

Persistant Thought

Timestamp: 00:11, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A zombie with this skill will not be reduced below 25xp after being headshot. If they are headshot while at 25xp or less the headshot has no effect. A defensive skill against headshot that keeps headshot as a viable way of taking vast amounts of xp from a zombie.

Votes

  • Kill - Although now two of my alt are zombie, and I have come to dispise headshot. It does not seem fair to ahve a nerf for a greifer - --Fullemtaled 00:14, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think this is one of the better suggestions for trying to deal with headshot. However, a flat 25xp doesn't seem quite right. Maybe if it were some sort of scaled system, like doesn't reduce you below 50 at level 2 and lets you get all the way to 0 when you are above level 5. Giltwist 00:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - My reasoning is that this makes headshot more effective against people somewhat close to getting a new skill instead of getting rid of all xp a zombie might have. --Jon Pyre 00:30, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are several better headshot suggestions on here already. Bentley Foss 00:28, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re See Suggestions/10th-Dec-2005 for starters for those other suggestions. Bentley Foss 05:41, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • re Only suggestions that weren't called spam on that page are to toggle headshot on/off and to unbuy it. Those aren't anywhere near the game fix that headshot needs. Please stop saying they are. --Clickytickytai 12:56, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I will easily vote for this, as Headshot needs some effective counters to it. Especially as this is a skill, and not a gift. --Drakkenmaw 00:32, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - While I agree that there should be some headshot modification/countermeasure, better suggestions have been made. --Mikm 00:41, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill a .38 in the head always interrupts a train of thought, human or not. AllStarZ 00:43, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re And most people shot in the head don't get up and walk around the next day. Please stop trying to avoid fixing a really annoying problem because of "realism in a zombie game".--Clickytickytai 12:56, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)\
      • Even a polar bear can't ignore a .38 bullet to the head man, and its skull would be alot thicker than a zombie's. Point is, bullets will cause brain damage even if they don't penetrate, and against a zombies skull, it will penetrate. And consider it like this for zombies. Bullet enters brain, shuts it off. Virus regenerates lost brain cells, and then restarts the brain. AllStarZ 20:11, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

4 non-author replies, 1 author reply

  • Kill But can one of the people who keep saying "there are better headshot suggestions on here already" to every headshot-altering suggestion please point to one or more such suggestions that has any chance of passing? --Argus Blood 00:53, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I agree with AllStarZ. Don't be haten on the Headshot. --Spellbinder 01:06, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Auto-killvote on any headshot modification short of removing it entirely. -- Centerfire 01:48, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Auto-keepvote on any headshot modification that weakens headshot. Rhialto 06:04, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Probably would be better if you used a equation to figgure the minium xp left. It probably would be like this. Min EXP = 10x(11-level). That way Zombies at level 1 wouldn't loose any exp and higher level zombies would be able to loose more. This would be fairer then a flat out 25 Exp. However if you did it like this it would be a general implementation. - Jedaz 06:37, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm not adverse to a skill like this, but I think the implementation needs work. How about a skill that makes Headshot only remove 8 XP per level. In fact, you could create a whole new branch of the zombie skill tree, where each successive skill level reduces the Headshot damage by 2. --Jstoller 03:34, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - im for some kind of headshot modification, but im going to agree with the 'there are better headshot suggestions' people on this one. --Firemanstan 20:22, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Better to remove headshot entirely than nerf it for the third time. --Basher 20:43, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Infectious Decay

Timestamp: 00:24, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A subskill of infectious bite. If a zombie with this skill kills a suvivor they are flagged as Decayed. This condition has absolutely no effect while they are a zombie. However this condition persists even once revived. A Decayed suvivor was a little far too gone for the syringes to be fully effective and has a small risk (0.5%?) of becoming Infected with every AP they spend. Infection caused by decay is just like infection caused by a bite and can be cured by a FAK. The condition of decay can only by ended through Surgery. This is a counterskill to revivification syringes that doesn't change the ability to revive people at all. The small chance of reinfection allows Decayed suvivors to live with their condition by using a first-aid kit once every few days or they can seek out a trained professional at a hospital. It makes hospitals more important than an extra 5hp.

Votes

  • Kill - Syringes don't need a counterskill. It already exists. It's called "hordes of zombies after your tasty brains." Bentley Foss 00:26, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I'm suggesting this as an alternative to the "Zombies must spend X AP/Zombies must gain X XP/Zombies must be at X HP/Zombie must wait X hours" to be revived suggestions. This makes people who get revived to do a little work beyond waiting at a church without adding any sort of time constraints or syringe limitations.--Jon Pyre 00:33, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The infection from Infectious Bite already transcends being revived and with half HP upon being revived you are in a bad position as a survivor already unless you carry a spare FAK in-case-of-infectious-death (like I do), also "Persistant Infection" is a better suggestion. --Matthew-Stewart 00:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Redesigned as another poison like skill, this might be something i would weigh the pro's and con's about. as stated by bentley, however, this skill is just an syringe counter. --Spellbinder 00:36, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I don't want another condition that also deducts hp. This infection is the same one cause by infectious bite, it does not stack. --Jon Pyre 00:44, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This means an extra calculation for each action taken by a survivor when flagged, and it is FAR too persistant to be fair. Beyond-even-Infection-persistant. I like the idea, but the implementation is frightening. --Drakkenmaw 00:37, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - The condition isn't very deadly. It would be the same as getting infected once every four days or so. All you would need to do is carry a spare FAK with you or just go to any powered hospital and ask for assistance. Before long most people will have the surgery skill or they can get it themselves. Even if they kept this condition forever they shouldn't have trouble leveling up or living normal healthy functional lives. --Jon Pyre 00:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why do so many people seem to think it's too easy to get revived? Getting revived already requires an item which is very rare and usually a significant amount of time looking for someone to revive you or significant survivor cooperation. And after all that you are revived at 25 HP and must get healed. Plus you probably have an infection and therefore lose some of those HP every time you move or do anything. This in contrast to the zombie's 1 AP expenditure to stand up without any help and with full health. Give me a break, people. --Argus Blood 00:58, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill When stuff decays, usually its either already dead or because of unhygienic conditions. I don't really think it works here. Change the name. And the whole entire suggestion. AllStarZ 02:18, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Getting revived is not too easy and doesn't need to be nerfed. --Shadowstar 02:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Any disease based attack that has surgery as a counter misses the point of what surgery actually is. Rhialto 06:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Actually, I figured it would take a surgical operation to cut out the rotten bits and patch the person back up. --Jon Pyre 10:58, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complicated. --Basher 20:44, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. Surgery needs to have another use, cuz right now it sucks (heal 15 hp for 5 xp? no thanks, I'll just find more aid kits, if I'm a doctor. That way I get more xp.). --User:Tereseth 8:31, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Mobile Phone Locating

Timestamp: 00:48, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement/Feature
Scope: Survivors with Mobile Phone and GPS
Description: Basicly, if a survivor on your contact list has a mobile phone and a gps unit, their current coordinates will be shown beside their name when you click on your contact list. this will make following someone or organizing easier.

Votes

  • Kill - They don't need freebies. If they have a GPS unit and a mobile phone they can tell you their coordinates or where to meet them. --Jon Pyre 00:49, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Makes it too easy to grief. --Drakkenmaw 00:54, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See first vote for why. --Matthew-Stewart 00:57, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Big brother is watching--Spellbinder 01:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So what's to stop PKers from hunting down any mobile-phone-and-gps-having character they add to their contact list? Or zombie spies from locating a survivor safehouse by adding a couple of members of a group to their list? This would make it impossible for survivors to hide anywhere in the city. --Argus Blood 01:04, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is too open to exploitation. Bentley Foss 01:15, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why would the mobile phone automatically coordinate w/ the GPS unit? At most this should only work for mutual contacts. --VoidDragon 01:17, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I really don't need to say why. Its all there. Also, Big Brother may simply be the personification of the Party that rules Oceania. AllStarZ 01:45, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I know realism is not the point, but can you even do that in real life? --ThunderJoe 01:46, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If someone wants to put their location for everyone to see, they could always put it directly in their description. --Shadowstar 02:21, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Argus said. --Daxx 14:59, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Basher 20:45, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But make it only for mutual contacts; and actualy it is possible to locate someone via their mobile phone, and you don't even need a GPS unit, but it is not as precise as this is suggesting.--The General 09:38, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Scalable Diseases

Timestamp: 00:59, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill tree off of Infectious Bite
Scope: Zombies
Description: Two added skills under Infectious Bite. They do not modify the current effectiveness of being Infected, but rather requires higher levels of medical training to remove after being bitten.
  • Festering Wound To remove this higher form of Infection, a survivor must have a First aid kit and First Aid
  • Mutated Infection Requires Festering Wound. To remove the highest form of Infection, a survivor must have a First aid kit, the medical knowledge of a Surgeon

Points to ponder: Surgeons would now be in high demand, as survivors would now actualy be at risk of becoming undead, rather then the current "unlucky" state of most eaten survivors. FAKs are found in hospitals and malls, the two places most likely to find someone with Medical Skills. New players would have to rely on someone else, and not be utterly self sufficent, encouraging cooperation.

Votes

  • Keep Author. I'm not positive about making the highest form require a hospital with power, perhaps just make it the flat Surgery skill. As allways, names are up for grab.--Spellbinder 00:58, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Wow, people really didn't like the last part about being in a hospital with power. Removed so that people can reconsider it.
  • Keep - Why not? Sorta underpowered, but Kevan can easily scale it up if need be. --Drakkenmaw 01:04, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unaffiliated newbies will be unable to cure themselves, nor will there be any way for anyone else to tell that they are infected with these new magical resistant strains. Newbies could wait in hospitals for days, getting healed up by non-surgeons and continuing to hemorrhage HP. This suggestion is a newbie-killer, amounting to an insta-kill in many cases. -Argus Blood 01:05, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - would give doctors and other scientists a much more important role (they are under appreciated) AND makes zombies more threatening in the same sweep. --Matthew-Stewart 01:09, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I bit overpowered maybe (the part about needing hospital with power), but not too much. And hey! It's a zombie skill! --Brizth 01:13, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Both of these together is too powerful. Keep Festering Wound and drop Mutated Infection, and I might vote keep. Bentley Foss 01:17, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Good lord, imagine this scenario. 4 zombies break into a mall. They bite 50 people. Everyone leaves the mall to go the hospital. Zombies break into undefended mall. Mall infectees arrive at hospital. Fortunately someone set up a generator. There are only 10 suvivors with surgery at the hospital. It takes them each a whole day to find five first-aid kits and then they require more time to heal all the wounded. The suvivors without surgery wait patiently for the surgeon players to come back from the supermarket and start allowing them to play again. This skill would allow a small number of zombies to turn off large segments of the human population! --Jon Pyre 09:45, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • RE: Insta-kill? how exactly would this be an insta-kill? With current infection, you must have a FAK to cure it. FAKs are found in malls and in hospitals, both places where survivors with medical skills, also known as doctors, are found. perhaps i just don't understand why you think that someone MUST be able to cure it themselfs when they can simply go to someone else *gasp* and get healed.--Spellbinder 01:23, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Just too unfair to N0035. - LS 20:27, 11 DEC 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - Infectious Bite is currently little more than a nuisance, as FAKs are trivially easy to find and anybody can use them. This potentially makes infections much more serious. I particularly like the effect that Mutated Infection could have on mall seiges: survivors would have to leave, and take damage along the way, in order to get healed. Changed vote to kill in light of the edit. Wouldn't sufficiently alter the dynamic of the game to bother with, IMO. -- Centerfire 01:36, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Removed my own opinion because now I have no opinion on this. AllStarZ 02:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Drop the Mutated Infection and I'll vote keep. Hospitals with generators only last less than a week before the generator to destroy, and the damage will take too long to cure since getting fuel cans and portable generators takes up a lot of time and AP to do. The first, however, is a good deterrent, especially since many offense-based and military survivors don't bother taking the required skill until considerably later on! --Volke 03:34, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • RE It now only requires the Sugery Skill. Also, if you like the first skill, but not the second, i would suggest voting keep. Remember if kevin likes it, he'll put the skills in however he wants them to be put in, reguardless of any nickpicking we do here.--Spellbinder 01:32, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it. The worry about unafilliated noobs is poopycock; my survivor characters NEVER had to heal themselves, others were eager for the XP. I'd go more for the un-edidited, full powerd hospital mutated infection; god forbid some folks might actually DIE of infection, rather than just being slightly hindered. A zombie would need Digestion, Infections bite, Festering Infection, and Mutated infection, to make this work. What human skill requires buying 3 other skills as a pre-req? NONE. And zombies have a dang hard time buying skills, what with hunters outnumbering them! --Swiers 05:13, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this. I think the second skill is a bit overpowered, but maybe it could be implemented later. X1M43 05:37, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Any disease based attack that requires surgery as a counter is broken, as it misses the point of what surgery actually is. I could go for teh first skill here, but not the second. Rhialto 05:59, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT) No, I'm harping on the fact that very few diseases (they are all organ-specific, not whole body debilitating as would be the case in anything that could reasonably be said to turn you into a zombie) that can be fixed by surgery. Knives do not kill bacteria. Rhialto 08:45, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • REYour harping on the damn NAME???--Spellbinder 01:32, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I vote keep because this makes sense and I like the flavor. (And I have a surviver character) And as Prognosis is alredy in the peer reviewed suggestions that would probably be used to tell what kind of infection the person has. - Jedaz 06:59, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I am torn on the powered hospital controversy but my single zombie character and my seeral human characters all think it's a nifty idea all around. --Thelabrat 08:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. --Falk 08:55, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, both ideas. Finally gives Doctors a motivation to get the surgery skill (only getting a third of the XP you could is no fun). And while I'll grant that most diseases and not operable, I'm sure with a clever name change or something it could all work out. If the realism problem really bothers you try Tumorous (is that a word?) Bite, Cancerous Bite, or Corrupted Bite or something like that or perhaps just change the surgery skill into Medical Knowledge or Doctor. Oh, and once a character dies from the infection he be cured of it (that way you wouldn't have people being rotted forever if there was no Surgeon avalible also it might encourage a whole new set of building jumpers). --Terrgn33u 12:14, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep 1) Anything that makes zombies a little more interesting would get my vote. 2) Makes generators in hospitals more important 3) creates a much better sense of fear of being bitten by a zombie (y'know, like the movies the game is supposedly made about) 4) makes surgery useful. All good things. Personally, the only thing I'd like to see is some signifigant XP for surgens. --Clickytickytai 13:11, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep if and only if infection ID skills are introduced. --bbrraaiinnss 14:45 12 Dec 2005
  • Keep - Makes surgeons more useful. As they should be, in an apocolyptic situation. --Daxx 14:56, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like this suggestion, but it's too powerful at the moment. Make Mutated Infection require level 10 zombie skills and I'll vote keep for sure. --PatrickDark 18:46, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The zombies that are high enough level to use this are supposed to be scary. --Bloarg 11:40, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Would be interesting, but I'm not so sure about requireing Surgery to cure the highest level of infection. Maybe add a chance to cure these higher diseases without the required skills, something like 50% chance to cure without the required skill (25% for the highest level of infection without either of the skills) would be good. --Zarquon 20:39, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Finally a really good way to increase the power of the bite. This will actually make bites kill people from infection which doesnt really happen. --grassman 23:02, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Infection should be scary. I'd be for level minimums on both of these, say 5/10 or even 6/12. --Fat Charlie 23:59, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • RE to both Fat Charlie and PatrickDark, currently you would need to be 5th level to gain the last form of it, and 6th really if you consider that most will get Vigour Mortis and Neck Lurch first. But really, whatever way kevin wants to put it into the game is how its going to be put into the game, so i simply left off any level requirements. Its not under my control--Spellbinder 01:32, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Rename Mutated Infection to something less... Resident Evil. Maybe something having to do with spreading around the body quickly. I want to say Cancerous Infection, but I know I'm wrong. --Squashua 03:50, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't like Mutated Infection though. Change its name to Virulent Infection, and instead of requiring Surgery to cure, the infection does double damage. Or something. It doesn't make sense for surgery to cure infections. - KingRaptor 10:38, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes makes infecting people worthwhile. --Grim s 11:38, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Someone call a wahbulance for the survivors who don't want to have to hike ALL the way to a hospital to get patched up. Infectious is way underpowered and this just makes biting people more interestin'. --RSquared 16:36, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- O noes, I gots 2 wak all dat way 4 a helps!?!? Gimme a break, survivors. This is a good way to make infecting someone ACTUALLY SCARY. I mean, a zombie chomps a section out of your arm, you do NOT just patch that stuff up with two bandaids and some neosporin from your FAK. And surgery doesn't always only equal diving into the abdominal cavity with six scalpels and eleven vessel clamps, thank you, Mr. Dicey Semantics from earlier. -- Tabs 17:51, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - infectious bite as it is, is mearly a 1 ap inconvenience since most people carry med kits with them - or can easily enter a safehouse where they can be healed. this idea makes it interesting. may be alittle hard on new players, though no harder than a new player with a zombie in headhuntersville (aka: the city of malton). --Firemanstan 18:05, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --ALIENwolve 20:23, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Changes infection from an inconvenience to a pain in the ass. Infection should not really be "scary". --LouisB3 00:27, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - First Aid and Surgery need to be more useful, and they're not so difficult to obtain. My survivor says yes. --Seagull Flock 16:55, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - My survivor wants zombies to be scary. --Basher 20:46, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - survivors should be rendered to pieces by zombies, not be coughed on. This should be a game of Zombie hordes against terrified hidden survivors. Not sniffeling zombies and survivors dying of flue. The main weapon of a zombie should that causes most harm should always be a direct attack. sure infection is only a small annoyance. but it usually still cost about 1 to 12 HP before it is healed. Quite good for an added benefit that doesn't cost any AP for a zombie to use.--Vista 12:39, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As I said in the previous suggestion, surgery isn't good enough as is, because it only gives 5 XP to the user.--User:Tereseth 8:36, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the idea of making surgery more useful and I think we need to balance the game more in favor of zombies Erik 08:24, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Expanded Molotov suggestion

Timestamp: 02:30, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Expansion on old suggestion
Scope: Survivors and Zombies
Description: Was reading on Molotovs being considered and thought that perhaps the best way to handle them would be as follows. Only a survivor can use one though they can use one on anyone. They could be a findable item just like any other, with a weapon-level of probability of being found so that it's not too easy to get one. When you use a molotov, it has a peer/Kevan accepted percentage chance of hitting that is fair. Failing to hit means the object you found is gone. If it hits, it only sets that user on fire, NOT an area attack. But it is a repeating attack, that doesn't get worse or better, removing 1 HP per move just like Infection currently does. Could probably use a very similar piece of code. To be put out, rolling on the ground (costs 1AP) might be amusing. The point is, it slows down combat and makes you spend AP to stop the burning. It stretches the gameplay out much like Infection currently does. Certainly needs a lot more thought I know, but I could see the idea being made workable.

Votes

  • Kill - Survivors should not get a version of infection. Bentley Foss 02:34, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I agree. Work it, then get back to us. --Spellbinder 02:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No... I think the other one is a good idea. --ALIENwolve 02:47, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What did one flaming zombie say to the other? Dude, your on fire! But anyway, what if a flaming zombie walked into a building? I am prety sure that if I set myself on fire, I would catch the building on fire. And I really want to be able to set myself on fire, and then put myself out. That would be so much fun, and I don't know why. But there should be a skill called "Stop, drop, roll" for when you are on fire. God I am such a pyro. --ThunderJoe 03:22, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The original molotov idea is much, much better. Zombies infect humans, humans shoot them in the head - if you try to balance the sides by giving them the same skills under different names, it's not very creative. --Signal9 04:27, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Personally, I like the other suggestion better as well. Also, see Bentley Foss' and Signal9's votes. Repeating skills does not lead to a distinction between the classes. --Daxx 14:55, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Absurdly slow. You could be on fire for 48 hours at a time in some cases, and still be perfectly alright. I'm normally not one to argue for a strict adherence to realism, but that's just silly. --Drakkenmaw 16:16, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Honestly, who keeps molotov cocktails hangin around?--grassman 23:03, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- It's silly, and anyway, you know we'd all see jokes like someone lighting a match and saying, "What's this? Petrosjko running down the street." -- Tabs 17:53, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. --Basher 20:48, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Safe Drop

Timestamp: 05:17, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors, Military
Description: When a suvivor with this skill jumps out a window they do not fall to their death but instead climb down the side of the building and drop from a safe height. This skill is for people who want to exit heavily barricaded buildings and end up in front of it rather than on a street next door. This saves that 1 annoying AP spent in walking back. It makes sense logic wise and I hardly think exiting a building and ending up in front of that building instead of the one next door is overpowered. It's good for committed suvivors who don't want to commit suicide.

Votes

  • Kill - One of the drawbacks of heavy barricades is the fact that you might have to spend extra AP to get outside. Bentley Foss 05:26, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good, but there should still be an option to kill yourself by jumping. --Signal9 05:29, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would just remove another reason for people not to build barricades that can't be crossed. Its especially bad for characters without free running; high level characters would build an impassible barricade jump out the window and if they needed to get back in they'd free run back behind thier barricade. Meanwhile all the poor low level character would be getting chewed up by zombies. --Terrgn33u 12:37, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's the price you pay for barricading too heavily. --Daxx 14:53, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Everyone wants to make EH barricades "easy." They're not easy, but they're safe. That's the tradeoff. --Drakkenmaw 16:17, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Perhaps skill and item use together to keep it from being "easy" like a "rope" item and "Repel" skill. Ropes would be found in sporting good stores in the mall. Note I support the "Windows" suggestion which makes Heavily barricaded more balanced. --Matthew-Stewart 17:50, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Won't a survivor use his free running grappling hook to swing outside like Spider Man? --ALIENwolve 20:14, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Pointless... Might as well get free running. AllStarZ 20:27, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - geez, you're talking about ONE AP. It's not like you died and needed to spend 10. --Shadowstar 01:03, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Allstar, he prolly had freeruning when he entered that EH barricade. (not allways, however) this skill is an "exit" suggestion, not an "enter" --Spellbinder 01:21, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - looks like this ones dead anyways - but just in case... there has to be some trade off for barricading up to heavy. 1 ap isnt too much to ask. --Firemanstan 20:30, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I wouldn't want Kevan wasting time implementing this rather pointless suggestion. --Basher 20:50, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Tranquilizer Syringe

That was a stupid idea. Sorry kids.

Fun Facts for Reading

Timestamp: 05:53, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Literate Suvivors
Description: What exactly are suvivors learning when they get xp from books? I suggest that whenever you gain experience by reading you also get a small piece of true information to hint at what you learned. It can be a fact about things like shotgun mechanics, disease transmission, cellular decomposition, surgical procedures, battle tactics, etc.

Votes

  • Keep -While I like the fact that books are generic for RP purposes (you can say it is whatever book you need from the bible to dyanetics) I like how the poetry book functions. --Matthew-Stewart 05:58, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this idea. But the real question would be what constitutes experience worthy literature? Reading Applied Physics and learning about ballistic trajectories would be fun and educational, but its really not very practical in terms of fighting the undead. On the other hand I wouldn't want to only be able to gain XP from 'How To' books. Also while a fashion magazine might not be useful to a military person for the consumer it might give XP, so maybe each class should have its own set of books? Just some things to consider. --Terrgn33u 12:04, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Adds lots of flavor to a very bland Item at this point. Good on ya! --Trayton 12:09, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Favour is good, and this doesn't need too much work to add. Nice idea. --Daxx 14:52, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Flavor text is fun and simple. --Drakkenmaw 16:18, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It seems logical that each class would look for books that further their knowledge in their specialized field, so each class could have their own database of readable quotes, with maybe a general database as well. --Hexedian 17:38, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Doesn't change any game mechanics, adds flavor, sure, why not? --VoidDragon 17:47, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Mmm, flavor. X1M43 17:51, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yum... shotgun mechanics flavored pages. --ALIENwolve 19:39, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep (Puts down Spam Cannon to clap) AllStarZ 20:12, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - hooray for flavor! Also, does the Spam Cannon look something like this? --Arcibi 22:54, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Harmless. I suppose I should ammend that to "Mostly harmless" because it means someone has to get all the new text ;) --Shadowstar 01:04, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep If Kevin wants a "line suggestion" page for flavor text, i'm pretty sure this wiki group will oblige him. We'll do the work, all he would need to do is copy/paste--Spellbinder 01:17, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Increases server load with no benefits. Personally, i like the game where it doesnt take half an hour to get through my ap. --Grim s 11:41, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Increasing server load, what bull, not many people actualy read books for XP or actualy anything. There is about a million easier and effective ways to get Exp. Plus I like the flavor. - Jedaz 11:54, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - flavor.... yummy. --Firemanstan 18:09, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep-I use books often to balance out DNA extraction exp and I seriously want to see something other than "You study but learn nothing new." or "You study and gain exp." -Penance 22:05, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Mmmm, flavour. Thumbs up. --Seagull Flock 16:59, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I also agree with Terrgn33u. Each class needs it's own info from books. -- Andrew 'Flavour' McM 20:49, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Flavour is always good. --Basher 20:52, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Borders for Malton's Suburbs

Removed by Author.

Animal Undead

Timestamp: 15:41, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie class
Scope: New Zombies
Description: These undead would come in three catigories:Cats, Dogs, and Exotic. Each class would have bounses and setbacks based on lack of thumbs and other conditions and sharp teeth.

Cats: Starts with rend flesh and has an extra 1 point to biet damage. Disadvantages? 50% chance to open a door with memories of life. Class skills? Sent Fear Skill tree and shambling gait skill tree. Dogs: Starts with Sent Fear. Disadvantages? 75% chance to open a door with memories of life. Same class skills ans cat. Exotic: Starts with Shambling Gait and had an new ability to slam for 5 damage and 2 damage to self. Disadvantages: 50% chance to open door with memories of life. Same class skills ans Dog and Cat.

Votes

  • Kill - Please check your suggestions before posting them. In particular, take a look at the Previous Days Suggestions, Peer Reviewed Suggestions, and Peer Rejected Suggestions before you post. Zombie Class proposals have been proposed before in much more elegant ways. Also, there is no Shambling Gait skill tree. --VoidDragon 16:02, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Kill - I'll go one further. Zombie dogs were suggested not even a week ago, zombie animals have been suggested since the original forum, and it's still not a very good idea. Zombies need more play-options, but these are non-revivable and limited on access to the skills already in the game. Not to mention that it's inherently silly to be playing a kitten, even if it IS a zombie kitten. (Note: Changed to Kill due to single following Keep vote negating Spam dismissal option.) --Drakkenmaw 16:22, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Yes I know zombie dogs have been sugested before, but this is a wider selection. You have seen the size of the zoo, there must be a few animals around to turn into zombies! You can't tell me it wouldn't be fun to play a zombie aligator escaped from the zoo, or blood-thirsy cats tearing 6'5" men into kitty litter. --Mr NoName 16:39, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think I've ever seen a zombie cat. Zombie dogs are cool, though. But they shouldn't get "memories of life." My dog has a hard enough time opening doors, and she's quite alive. X1M43 17:53, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Most animals die from the illness and fever caused by the infection before it can take hold. --ALIENwolve 19:29, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Is there any MMORPG where you play as a non humanoid creature? AllStarZ 20:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies themselves could be considered non-humanoid, despite their appearance as one. And the Fallout PnP rules actually allow people to play as dogs if they want to. That said, I think zombie animals would be interesting. --Zarquon 20:31, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Rhialto 22:39, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Thank you voiddragon for the elegent links--Spellbinder 00:32, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Rhialto you must give an explenation, you too Spellbinder. X1M43, that is what the the minuses are for. ALIENwolve, this is a postmortum infection, why else would people in thte city not still be dieing from it. AllStarZ, you don't need to be a conformist. Shambling gait and ankle grab are what I consider a skill tree. Finaly many animals would be able to open doors, even if they were acuualy smashing the door in. --Mr NoName 00:59, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Spellbinder did give a reason: the same as voiddragon's. I don't see this as enough of a change from the already done dog thing. I was fine with that, but this is almost a repeat. --Shadowstar 01:08, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Dogs I can see, but zombie cats? No way would they be capable of doing any real damage. --Basher 20:55, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - i like this idea, except for cats. COMMENT it would be ubderstandable to be killed by a dog but, a cats?? just delete the cat dude, its unreal i mean, you just have to shoot one time and you kill him! no keep the dog!! but, for be more realistic, the dog will not have the possibilitie to comunicate with other zombie or even understand human, is a dog! and forget the street name, its a dog, is dog can read? if you want to implent dog, it will be a lone predator, with some bonus attack, not a lot of heal, a little bit more of action point(it will not change nothing, with the hp a dog have any survivor will be able to crush him fast!). and without any form of memories of life skill or inteligence. if you fix it maybe you will have more vote. --spetznaz21 20:31, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

College Student Revised

Timestamp: 19:18, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Class
Scope: Civilian
Description: There had to been some college students somewhere in Malton when the outbreak occurred. College Students would start with 2 books (college students after all), a bottle of beer, a spray can or two and possibly a mobile phone. They would also start with the tagging skill. True, this may not look like combat ready let's kill stuff character, but then again, would you be totally ready to kill zombies if it happened IRL? It would be tagged on the class page as **Do Not Use If This Is Your First Character** so newbies wouldn't accidentally pick it, not know what to do, and lose interest in the game. This would be a great RP character. Also I think having a random class, makes rping fun, having to adapt your character to what you get. It's not for everyone but I thought it might be a fun class.
    • Re- We talked it over and decided to revise it. Since college students come from various backgrounds, and are inherently different this may be a bit better. We don't know if this would work, but have a random number generator give you one of these when you choose this. This would add a flavor to the class, not knowing what you will get, and also, when students start college, some may not know what they wanna do, but enter as alpha and choose majors later:

1. Jock- Starts with Baseball Bat and Hand To Hand Combat- They would know how to swing a bat They are jocks.

2. Nerd/gamer-Starts with a few books and Necrotech "employment"- They would have read all about it illegally on the internet, or from all items in video games nowadays and would thus know how to use DNA extractor.

3. Med Student- Starts with FAK and Surgery. In medschool the first thing the students do is dissect a cadaver (surgery) before learning first aid; that way they know about the bones and tissues, etc. By dissecting the body, they learn where the organs are, what they look like, how to take them out, how to use the surgical instruments and how to stitch up bodies. Wouldn't that be useful if gunshot wound, or zombie bite, seeing underneath the skin, making sure the organs are intact then stitching it up.

Votes

  • Keep - Much more clearly defined than the previous iteration of this suggestion, and starting inventory is a lot more reasonable than before. --VoidDragon 18:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The changes make the idea worse to my mind. Random starting-skill assigning, giving Surgery before First Aid, and so on. It was better before, which is why the basis of the previous Student concept was voted overwhelmingly positive. This one? Not so much. --Drakkenmaw 18:25, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re- Of course it will say randomly given on the class choose page, so players will know what they are getting into. Jelcin 18:45, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Sorry, but no. Jock has a chance of passing, Nerd does not, Med student is not either, because Surgery cannot come into play on its own without its prerequisite. Its like learning advanced shotgun training without even learning how to fire a gun in general. AllStarZ 20:05, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re- Or learning how to swing a Fire Axe without even learning Hand to Hand Combat? --Nyfain 18:45, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And Jock is outshined by Punk. --ALIENwolve 20:06, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the flavor. There isn't such a thing as a "universal college student", so unless they added a new class for each, the random selection makes it work. Adding several classes would be too much, so just introducing a new student class helps bring a little more realism to Malton - let's face it - not every civilian would be a firefighter, cop, or mall afficianado, after all. Maybe it would place the med students and "nerds" under the science class, since medicine is a scientific field, and the nerds would get more XP for reading books, and the jocks could be placed into the civilian class. Overall, I like the idea though. None of the classes are overpowered and the roleplay potential is great. Let's hope this makes it into the game! --Nyfain
  • Keep - While not every skill needs a class, I think that these are interesting enough to use in game. Also, as for the learning to use a shotgun before learning the basics of firearms... have you EVER shot a pistol compared to a rifle/shotgun? Shotguns/rifles are so much easier to aim and the kickback is easier to deal with. A "redneck" class could easily start with shotgun training rather than basic firearms training. And you don't think it's a bit odd that the Firemen learn to swing an axe better before learning to swing anything at all better? I find that odder than someone starting with shotgun or pistol training first. --Zarquon 21:03, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Encroach heavilly on classes that exist, disrespect skill trees. Nobody would want to play as a med student. Both existing classes are much better. Nerd is a necrotech employee with no scanner, and jock is a fruity hybrid of my punk idea and a really god awful fireman. --Zaruthustra 21:22, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re- I don't see it as disrespecting skill trees. It's not like every player will be able to buy the Surgery skill right away. This is just one class that gets it at the start. The Firefighter gets Axe Proficiency in a similar manner. It doesn't mean that anyone can buy Axe Proficiency right away; anyone other than the Firefighter needs to buy the prerequisite first. Since First Aid and Surgery do the same thing anyway, I don't see this disturbing the balance of the skill tree. --Nyfain
  • Kill No --Spellbinder 00:34, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Surgery is a third level skill. You can't give it to a level 1 player. --Shadowstar 01:10, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill There are a ton of OMG COOL NEW CLASS suggestions already. Some of them have even made it into the peer reviewed section. None of them really add anything to the game IMO. Not that they're BAD, but... why? It's not like your starting class even shows up to anyone. If you want to RP a student, pick a Civilian class, go search a library for a couple of turns to get your books, and put "A college student" in your profile description. Presto! --Graaaaaaagh 01:13, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Much complication for virtually zero return. There's nothing here that you couldn't do with another class and a bit of RP, like Graaaaaaagh said. Oh, and a note to Shadowstar: Firefighters already start with a second-tier skill that they lack the prerequisite to. --Everyl 02:10, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Basher 20:56, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Headshot Alternate Implementation.

Timestamp: 17:50, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill Revision
Scope: Zombie Hunters, Zombies
Description: If you kill a zombie, 1 AP is added to the stand-up cost for each zombie / crossover skill (edited on 21:54, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)) it had beyond the first. The total stand-up cost cannot exceed 15 AP.

For reference, here are links to previous Headshot alteration suggestions, see for yourself how it differs: Headshots remove AP not XP - Nov. 10, Headshot Weakens Ankle Grab - Nov 13, Headshot Revision - Nov 13, XP loss limit for Headshot - Nov 18, Nerf Headshot (Version 0) - Nov 23, Headshot Revised - Dec 1, Change Headshot - Dec 5, Final Solution to the Headshot Problem - Dec 6, Change Headshot - Dec 8, Revamped Headshot XP Calculation - Dec 9, Change Headshot! - Dec 10, Revised Headshot - Dec 11

Votes

  • Kill - Altering Annotation: Considering the things said below, I agree. For survivors, this is too weak of a skill - it doesn't pack the necessary stopping power to "hurt" a determined zombie enough to get them to back off. For zombies, this trades an immediate loss for a persistant (and more painful over time) limitation on their ability to act. This is, really, bad for both sides. Also still violates the AP Modification rules. --Drakkenmaw 17:54, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I view the "rules" more as suggestions. This guy clearly took the time to at least see what ideas were already proposed, and headshot is one of the big reasons I head for the nearest revive point when I die. This would make headshot a siege-breaking skill, not a griefing skill. X1M43 18:00, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It nullifies ankle grab on high level zombies. What's the point of them even having bought it when zombie hunters can make them stand up for the same AP as when they were wee zombies? --Pyrinoc 18:24, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Headshot is theoretically a counter to Ankle Grab on high-level zeds. However, in it's current form it is basically useless, as high level zombies don't suffer nearly as much from headshot-induced XP loss as low-level zombies. I proposed this to try and remedy that as best I could. Ankle Grab will still be of benefit to low and mid-level zombies. As is, even max-level zombies would gain some benefit from having Ankle Grab, as their stand-up cost would be 14 AP (1 base + (14-1) instead of the maximum of 15. --VoidDragon 18:34, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill XP is less valuable than AP, especially at higher levels. This suggestion doesn't help zombies, it hurts them. Also being forced to playing less is more frustrating than having to re-earn xp. Survivors don't need headshot made MORE powerful at this current point. --Matthew-Stewart 18:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with Matthew-Stewart --Brizth 18:49, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And thus would the griefing qualities of Headshot be made worse, not better. At what point does it become clear that Headshot is a fundamentally broken skill, a terrible idea from top to bottom, and just needs to go away? -- Centerfire 18:53, 12 Dec 2005
    • Re - When Survivors get a different counter to Ankle Grab that is more than just a minor inconvenience to high level zeds but doesn't utterly demolish low and mid-level zeds. --VoidDragon 21:54, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I have a high level zed. I stand up as my first action every day. 3/4 times I stand up from a headshot. This is like saying 'lets permemently reduce the AP of zombies' --bbrraaiinnss 18:58 Dec 12 2005
  • Kill - So we're pretty much telling the level 20-30 people "go home and die" and everybody else gets a free pass to cause havoc. --Zaruthustra 21:17, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - The effect is capped at 15 AP. Although your case on levels just made me think about something. Changed "level" to "zombie / crossover skill". --VoidDragon 21:54, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I vote keep on any change to headshot that gets rid of the XP drain. Rhialto 22:36, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I've lost track of how much XP I've lost from headshots just waiting for revives. It must be awful on a career zombie. I'd rather lose a few AP and have to wait to regenerate it than lose a week's worth of XP again. --Arcibi 22:57, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill but thank you for the linkage. removes alot of work and shows that you really did put effort into your idea. again, thank you--Spellbinder 01:05, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, I'm in the minority, but I like this idea. --Shadowstar 01:12, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good research, but I would prefer something damage-based to replace Headshot, as you're unfairly nerfing based on level. I am fine with adding APs to Stand Up cost. I think that headshot should have an amount of damage caused to a Zombie beyond reducing a Zombie to 0 AP ... times 2... adding to the Zombie's Standup Cost, maxxing out at 15 AP. For example, the Zombie is at 3 HP and takes 10 HP of damage (Shotgun!). This effectively leaves 7 leftover HP. 7x2 is 14. The Standup Cost for this Zombie. --Squashua 03:48, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - Stealing zombie ap is WORSE than taking our exp. --Grim s 11:44, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL SO HARD -- Oh my god don't you DARE. -- Tabs 17:56, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - if this was ever implemented, all you who vote keep will be kicking yourself in the teeth when you max out on zombie skills and have to start every day at 35 ap... sucks to that - even less people would play as zombies. --Firemanstan 20:41, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - This is the most retarded suggestion I've seen yet. You want the dedicated zombies to start every day with 35 AP? Do you not see how that is bad? --Basher 21:01, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Shadows

Timestamp: 19:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balancing the Barricades
Scope: Zombies
Description: Now that we have powered buildings with lights inside, perhaps a good way to balance this is to let zombies see the shadows of people? If there is an abandoned hospital, it should appear very different from a hospital with a working generator, lights on inside, and thirty people. This would also allow some strategizing on whether or not to set up your generator.

Server load shouldn't be too much of an issue, would just change the "lights" message to something like "lights on inside, you see XXX" where XXX="a few shadows", "many shadows", or "a lot of moving shadows". I assume this would most accurately be a skill that costs 100XP, and have a pre-requisite of Memories of Life.

This stems from zombie movies where it is always very important to cut the lights, hide, stop moving, etc. The idea of mini forts full of humans and lights and noise seems a little Mad Max to me.

-bloarg

Votes

  • Keep - I am the author. --bloarg 11:32 Dec 12 2005
  • Keep - I see no problem with it. If you're going to decoy buildings, you shouldn't be putting generators in them. A small, yet useful, change. --Drakkenmaw 19:41, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This would be good during the night cycle when zombies are suppose to be more dangerous.--Matthew-Stewart 19:46, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Great idea, except there is no "cut the lights" option. Other than that, great idea. --Arcos 19:47, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Yeah, I think the problem is if you set some sort of toggle for the lights...well then why not set up the generator? Also, was worried about server load/complication. --Bloarg 11:59, 12 Dec 2005 (PST)
  • Kill - Same for the lights. You set up the generator so you can have lights and surgery... you should be able to turn that off. --ALIENwolve 20:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Doesn't mean you don't have lights doesn't mean you can't see. I mean schools can function without lights and all you really need is that natural furnace 93 million miles away from us. Would work if day/night cycle were to be implemented, but this pretty much already falls under that suggestion. AllStarZ 20:07, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Cutting off the lights would help keep people from being seen from the outside, but it would also prevent everyone from seeing their surroundings as well. I dunno, seems like this works to me. What if the shadows are blocked if a building is barricaded above heavily? (assuming some barricading/boarding is done to windows when you barricade.) -- Amazing 20:10, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Definately if there was light switch. Scouts could report mass zombies on the way. Oops lights out adds a bit of reality to it. That would bring better rping being in fear of being seen, as in many zombie movies. Jelcin 20:48, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I continue my crusade against magic xray skill for zombies. --Zaruthustra 21:15, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep "Magic X-Ray Skill for zombies", my gluteus maximus! This is general "you see nothing inside/something moving inside/a lot of movement inside" that only works with powered buildings. Magic X-Ray would be "You see The Doctor, Number Six, Jeff Randall, Takumi Fujiwara, Gordon Freeman, Nick Parker, and Flynn Taggart inside", no matter if the building was powered/extremely heavily barricaded or not. This, plus a "Turn off lights/generator" button, would be in keeping with the whole zombie genre. Thus, I vote keep. --John Taggart 21:40, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I keep a low profile inside buildings. Thus, zombies can't see me. (Don't tell me "crouch" should be a skill - that's just stupid.)Mikm 22:03, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - More teamwork inside safehouses = good. Would need a light switch, but that's obvious enough that it doesn't need to be spelled out. - Dashiva 23:28, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Excellent zombie suggestion, and adds a new element of danger to the enviroment. Keep this, however perhaps some new generator linked skills should show up?--Spellbinder 01:02, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good Idea -Lord Evans 02:29, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love this idea. If it were human, I'd marry it. Jirtan 03:19, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill If the lights are on, you already know that there's people in it! Generators make it easier to target buildings as it is, and even with a light switch, with this, it'd become more inconvenient than anything to use a generator at all! They'd eventually become most useful for zombie spies and PKers to set up in buildings to show zombie hordes and/or allies where to attack. I also don't like the flavor in this, but that's another matter entirely. --Volke 05:19, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. Adds strategy and flavor. --Dickie Fux 17:47, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- This is about as much X-Ray Vision as me watching the lighted window silhouette of the neighbor across the street playing his drums at night. Unless you have detailed information proving that I am, in fact, Superman. -- Tabs 17:59, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - ^ - --Fullemtaled 18:02, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Flavour without (too much) damage to survivors. I like it. --Seagull Flock 17:05, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. Good idea. --Basher 21:03, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - AWESOME idea. --User:Tereseth 8:47, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Harder construction

Timestamp: 22:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT+2h)
Type: Alter skill
Scope: Survivors with construction
Description: Well, when you think of it, shouldn't it be easier to tear down barricades than to build them? What I'm saying is, that it should be a slower process to build barricades than it is at the moment. Just a single person can now easily barricade a building into a condition that can keep away zombies not pounding all their AP tearing down the barricade, with using just a few AP himself. Of course if the survivor would use all day to barricade the building, or having a few friends to help, would make decent barricades. So the current construction speed is not realistic.

Neither is it balanced. Zombies get frustrated when they can't get into anywhere, and survivors can casually go out to shoot a bit, and then reinforce their safehouse which isn't nice for the zombie players. Making barricading a bit more time-taking would balance the game nicely. So I'm not saying that barricades should break more easily. I just think that it would take more time to do them, so if you spend enough time to make that extremely heavy barricade, it'll last as long as now, though the reinforcement speed would be decreased. The thing to do would be change from the auto-success construction to a system where you could fail in creating good barricades. You don't hit automatically in combat, or always succeed in searching. Why would constructing be any different from those? Like if you only succeeded 40% of the time, or some other ratio; this doesn't necessarily have to be the 40% guideline I tossed. So, what do you think?

-Jussi Kurppa

Votes

  • Kill Barricades are balanced. This would be totally lame. Harmans would waste massive AP barricading. Its meant to be harder on zombies, thats what makes it a defensive measure. --Zaruthustra 21:13, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill If zombies die, they can get right back up and at the barricade again, if humans die, then they join the undead until getting revived. It's easier for teh zombies to get back to what they are doing than it is for the humans. It would make it worse for humans who spend all their ap barricading, then getting eaten, wasted AP. Jelcin21:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The chance of successfully adding an item to a barricade already drops off as the barricade level increases. --VoidDragon 21:41, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricades are fairly balanced as is. Barricades didn't win Caiger Mall; sleeping outside of the Mall to avoid getting killed by the barricade breaches that occured won Caiger Mall. --Kulatu 21:45, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The tremendous AP-efficiency advantage enjoyed by survivors over zombies is the fundamental balance problem with the game, and barricades more than anything else are the cause of it. My heart positively bleeds for survivors who fear spending all their AP barricading only to get eaten; welcome to my world, where I spend all my AP tearing down barricades only to eat headshots. Barricades should be no more difficult to tear down than they are to erect. -- Centerfire 21:58, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If barricades could be destroyed as easily as they were constructed, survivors would be hopeless in the face of a medium-sized zombie horde.Bachmaner
  • Kill - Makes a seige functionally impossible. As those are one of the more interesting portions of the game-environment at the moment, I can't see why that is a good thing. --Drakkenmaw 22:05, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Make it 55% and im with you. P.S. Kulatu you have no idea what your talking about, if everyone slept outside, we would have lost.--grassman 23:25, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep If zombies outnumbered humans then I might vote KILL but with the ratio almost 3 to 1, humans can afford to work together to keep the barricades up. As it is now only one or two humans need to even look at the barricades even if there are 50 people in the building. If humans wan't to create a fortress then it should be barricaded by more than 1 or 2 people. Perpaps this skill will cause humans to work together to create the fortress they want to sleep in and zombies will have a better chance of getting a kill every once in a while if they do not.--Apocalypse Lord 23:45, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yes, a single survivor can build high barricades. But a single zombie can tear them down too, if only one person is doing it. I've seen single zombies break into buildings with single humans and get them down a number of HP. --Shadowstar 01:16, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Barricades are silly as they are now. --Graaaaaaagh 01:19, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - To have the barricades perfectly fair we should give the survivors a flat 20% chance to add them, after all thats the chance for a zombie to knock one down. :P - Jedaz 01:26, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill All this will do, on top of what has already been said, is turn zombies into the overpowered ones. Then we'll be arguing to make barricades easy to build again, and the process will repeat itself. Besides, don't forget that barricades are built INSIDE while zombies break them away from OUTSIDE, which is why they're easier to build than destroy. --Volke 05:44, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - To those who say barricading is balance, i suggest you pull your heads out of your arse. At the moment any building with a survivor active inside is completely impregnible unless there are dozens of zombies attacking, bringing them down faster than he can put them back up. While i dont agree with the example percentage, i agree with the idea. (75-80% would be better) --Grim s 11:47, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As it stands, a zombie could theoretically take down a very strong barricade for less than a day's worth of AP. Besides, they're horde creatures anyway, so it makes sense for there to be a dozen or so attacking. --TheTeeHeeMonster 14:43, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Not counting all the times I've blown 20-30 AP trying to get a SINGLE "collapse" off a light barricade, and just given up and walked off, a zombie could theoretically take down one by himself, yes... and to what effect? To be shot right off because he's so puny useless alone afterwards? And that horde logic is bull. We shouldn't all have to join the RRF just to get anything done. Besides, it's not exactly like there's a whole bunch of zombies left right now anyway--some suburbs you could spend two days going through every block and you'll never see one. How is a feral finding himself in one of those parts going to be part of a horde, exactly? -- Tabs 18:05, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree with Grim s. --Basher 21:05, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- A small increase in failure rates for barricading shouldn't be a big deal. As it is, you can barricade up to the first level of Very Strongly before the failure rate even kicks in, which should be more than enough protection for the vast majority of safehouses. furtim 21:10, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Really, every one of you that thinks that barricading is balanced I just ask you to think that is it balanced, realistic, or even fun that I can as a survivor just sit in a house that has a few zombies outside and barricade a bit, search around a bit, and kick zombies a bit more. In a siege, the barricading should be the primary job done by the survivors. And as a general rule, it is easier to break then build. -Jussi Kurppa 12:23, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - One of the best ideas I've seen yet. I agree completely. A single survivor can spend 5 ap building, and it'll take a single zombie 30 to 40 ap to get past that unless it's a high level zombie, and then it still takes 10 to 20 ap. ANYBODY THAT THINKS BARRICADING IS BALANCED IS AN IDIOT. --User:Tereseth 8:57, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -good idea. you know i play zombie player evrytime and these barricades are soo hard to destroy. you destroy one and voila, a survivor build another one!. it will ajust the game if fixed. i want a real reason to destroy the baricade for kiling high player level insive instead killing poor level 1 outside.--spetznaz21 20:31, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Lights Out!

Timestamp: 21:53, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Interface
Scope: Survivors,generator operation
Description: In essence, what I'm proposing here is a minor change to how portable generators operate. Currently, they operate 24/7 as long as they have fuel, with no way to switch them off short of destroying them. This makes powered buildings - particularly cell towers and hospitals - major zombie targets. It's kinda like tagging an occupied hospital with "Zombies: Buffet Inside!"

What I propose is this: Any building that has a fueled generator should also have a button in the building reading "Start Generator" (if the generator is not running) or "Stop Generator" (if it is running).

If the generator is out of fuel, but someone clicks the "Start Generator" button, this message would be displayed: "You try to start the generator, but it refuses to turn over. It must be out of fuel."

If the generator has been switched off, however, the generator would have a 50% chance of starting. If the generator starts properly, this message is displayed: "You start the generator running. The lights come on."

If it doesn't, but you have a fuel can in your inventory, you would see "You try to start the generator. It catches briefly, stutters, and falls silent. You fill the fuel tank and try again, and this time it catches."

If, however, you don't have a fuel can in your inventory, you would see "You try to start the generator, but it merely stutters briefly and falls silent again. It probably doesn't have enough fuel."

Votes

  • Keep Author vote. --John Taggart 21:53, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Though I think it should take a gas can each time you want to turn the generator on. Otherwise people will only turn them on when they have use of them, then turn them off immediately afterwards, and as most other people in the game will be offline there will be no one to note the change and act on them. That would make this too powerful. --Drakkenmaw 22:08, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: interesting thought, that. --John Taggart 01:03, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Ditto Drakkenmaw. --Centerfire 22:09, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I concur. Jelcin 22:10, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Although this has been submitted before, this is a great idea especially with the use of other generator submissions.Bachmaner
  • Kill - This would make generators too stealthy for balance. Rhialto 22:31, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --ALIENwolve 22:46, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Though it would require some kind of message for zombies who are outside. Like "You see as the lights are switched on", "...switched off", "...switched on and off multiple times". --Brizth 23:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I would vote keep, but Zombie spies will use this in a seige. All theyd have to do is get one or two zergs in there to turn off or on the generator in a building and noone would know whats happening!--grassman 23:23, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This + Shadows suggestion above = Excellent. -- Dashiva 23:29, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill take the good with the bad, fokes. if you want a generator, accapt the fact that you've made yourself a zombie target--Spellbinder 00:59, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - agree with Spellbinder. --Shadowstar 01:17, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good Idea -Lord Evans 02:30, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unbalanced. Jirtan 03:23, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Please specify how this is unbalanced, so that it can be addressed. --John Taggart 01:03, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No comment. --Squashua 03:42, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Generators are permanently on so the game doesn't have to waste resources tracking each generator's state. Just deal with permanently-running generators like you do with one person toting 20 shotguns. Bentley Foss 04:29, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Signaling zombies is just one of the drawbacks of having mobile phones lights and the surgery skill - it helps keep the generators balanced -valente 16:34, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Makes it even easier for Cultists to disrupt hospitals and mobile phones. --VoidDragon 16:56, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I assume Surgery and cell towers would stop working when the generator is turned off. --Dickie Fux 17:49, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: You assume correctly, Mr. Fux. --John Taggart 01:03, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Great, I don't have to waste 20+ ap trying to destroy the damn thuing when I can turn it off and on so much it runs out fo fual. - --Fullemtaled 17:54, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: No, you'd just turn it off and it can't be turned back on unless you have a fuel can in inventory (which would be used when the generator is restarted, as the survivor carrying it would use it to top off the generator fuel tanks). --John Taggart 01:03, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Spellbinder said. --Basher 21:06, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Ditto to Spellbinder and valente. Visible lights are the tradeoff for having the benefits a running generator. There's a reason they were implemented they way they were. furtim 21:13, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Would also make the shadows idea more balanced, if implemented. --User:Tereseth 9:01, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Better Use of Generator

Very good idea. Actually, so good that it has already been approved: Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions#Powered_Buildings_Search --Brizth 23:06, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Headshot not automatic

Timestamp: 23:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill adjustment (Headshot)
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: Rather than have headshot permanently active after it's purchased, make it a seperate type of attack. If you want to administer a headshot, you use the "headshot" action button rather than the "attack" action button, with the same damage and hit rates as you have with a standard attack (for any given weapon). The headshot only does anything different to a standard attack if it reduces the victims HP to zero, at which point they receive a headshot with exactly the same results as they do currently. this headshot action should also take 2AP, as performing a headshot should be more difficult than knocking someone down with less finesse. This means that those with headshot don't have to use it if they don't want to, and also that they'll have to really want to pay that extra AP to knock a zombie down hard (as the survivor reaps no XP benefit from the headshot). It should provide a way of producing fewer headshots as the number of zombie hunters continues to climb relative to the number of zombies without making the skill powerless.

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote Throctukes 23:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's a lot like the toggle, but different enough that I'll vote for it again. --Drakkenmaw 23:31, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - With a little revisement for clarity this could probably make sieges more fun. --ALIENwolve 23:41, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This would lend itself to rping better... "OMG is that Bob? he was here yesterday!" and not having the heart to shoot him in the head, again seen in zombie movies... Jelcin 24:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Like the toggle, but even better because it includes a mini-nerf. --LouisB3 00:05, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yes please. --Graaaaaaagh 01:15, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sure. Anything to allow humans to NOT use it is good IMO. --Shadowstar 01:18, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill the 2 ap thing lost my vote. --Deathnut 01:31, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It'd help reduce the number of headshots. That's good. CthulhuFhtagn 01:40, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 02:32, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love this idea...--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:43, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Great suggestion, except for the 2AP thing. Lose that and you've got my vote. --Jstoller 03:53, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep You only need to "head shot" as the last combat action and since the amount of damage you do isn't random and you see how much HP is left each time it'll only cost 1 extra AP for the whole combat. I like this better than the "toggle head shot" suggestion but either one would be a nice idea. --Matthew-Stewart 06:30, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good. The ap cost should make people think a little before destroying hard-earned xp, and would probably be easier to implement than toggling. Also, paying more ap makes sense for a more powerful attack for which you'd probably have to concentrate and aim. --Leit 08:38, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah I geuss so, there isn't any real problem to this except mabey extra dammage (2 or so) if the zombie doesn't die? Note to Leit, Toggling would be just as easy to implement as this. - Jedaz 12:14, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/change - I like the idea, apart from 2AP for the headshot. Either this is 2AP for the attempt, which could miss, or 1AP for the attack plus an extra if you make it, in which case it's very hard to judge your APs. --Marianne Wells 13:03, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - To clarify, it's 2AP for the attempt. And to those who say it should be 1AP: you may as well leave it exactly as it currently stands. The point is to make Headshot more difficult to use without decreasing its stopping power, and also to represent the added difficulty of performing a headshot (i.e., the time taken to aim).Throctukes 14:43, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good one. --Brizth 15:19, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Dickie Fux 17:50, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - 1 AP not a big loss, now I will aim for the head only when I need it. --Cah51o 18:45, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Monstah 20:17, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great for when I get headshot and want to kill my fellow zombie brethren.Penance 22:06, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love this. --Seagull Flock 17:16, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. --Basher 21:08, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Good suggestion! I'd personally rather remove Headshot completely, but this is one of the fairer compromises I've seen. furtim 21:22, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Obsolete now that headshot has been changed to effect AP.--The General 17:48, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • RE - Depends if you think the new headshot alteration is satisfactory. Personally, I think this suggestion is still valid: all I'm saying is that if you want to use headshot (whatever it does), you pay 2AP and take your chances on whether it hits or not. So no, I refute the suggestion that this is now spammable as obsolete. By all means vote 'kill', but not 'Spam' --[[User::Throctukes|Throctukes]] 15:29, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Sorry for breaking the not-so-sacred Rule of Re, but this is absolutely NOT SPAM. --LouisB3 15:32, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Critical Attack

Timestamp: 23:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: New Skill(Zombie/Survivor)
Scope: Skill
Description: Ever had one of those situations where the other player is online at the same time as you, and you want to nab them good before they duck into the barricades, but your last strike misses? Under each attack skill tree branch add a new skill option: Critical Attack XXX, where XXX might be 'gun', 'bite' etc. A character with Critical Attack in the relevant attack type will get a Critical Attack button with the relevant weapon choices that it is enabled for in the drop down, identical to the standard attack dropdown. Using Critical Attack requires 2AP instead of 1 AP, but grants an increase in accuracy of +20%.

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote: The odds say go for 2 attacks, but sometimes you just want to be more sure to hit once. MoFo Jones 23:40, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Survivors do not need this skill as its just overkill, and zombies would become insainly powerfull in hoards.--Spellbinder 00:57, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't like uberizing attacks at the cost of AP. Not a bad idea, but its just not how I'd like to see things go. --Zaruthustra 01:06, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I just don't think combat moves themselves need to be more deadly at this point; it's at a pretty good point where it is. --Drakkenmaw 01:14, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Maybe if the ap cost was 3. Then it would be more balanced, this way yea, you can get that last shot in when you desperatly need it, but you damn well better need it desperatley because you just used three times the normal ap. I dont know, I like the basic idea, figures are up to kevin. -- Mr. Mcdoogles 01:59, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • No vote I'm not sure what to think about this. At a glance, it seems okay, but when I think about how it would affect the efficiency of firearms - more shots hit, so less searching is needed - I realize this isn't something I have time to figure out during finals week. --Everyl 02:30, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Note: Try not to put "no pref" votes on the front page, as they take up room. Limit discussion to the talk page. --Zaruthustra 06:54, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/12th-Dec-2005&oldid=139411"