Suggestions/12th-Feb-2006

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

VOTING ENDED: 26th-Feb-2006

Finishing Kick

Template:Author Retraction should be redone to something more reasonable and with a better name

A "Hey, Being Dead Isn't Losing" Message For First Time Zombies

Timestamp: 02:18, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors that have been killed for the first time
Description: I was reading the "free death" suggestion up on the page and I thought of an alterative. What if upon logging in after the first time a survivor is killed and turned into a zombie they receive a message to inform the player that the game indeed does continue, that you can play as a zombie and that you can also be revived and be a survivor again. Maybe something like: "You have died and turned into a zombie. Attacking the living will earn you experience and grant you powerful undead abilities. You also may attack barricaded buildings to weaken their defense and make it easier for fellow zombies to open the building's door for you. It is also possible to be brought back to life by a player with a Necrotech syringe." It could probably be worded better but this would be a small and helpful change that would prevent many new players from being discouraged and quitting the first time their survivor gets killed.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Good for newbs. Good for zombies. Good for survivors. Good for everyone. Just makes the game have fewer level 1 die and quitters. --Jon Pyre 02:21, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep Wording would have to be worked on, but other than that, it's a solid idea. --Mikm 02:24, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Perhaps "You have been killed, you amy now stand up as a zombie, if you wish to return to life: Find a scientest willing to revive you. You may also play as a zombie and help other zombies harm as many survivors as they can. welcome to the horde"? how is that - --ramby Talk 02:38, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - "That which kills only makes us deader" and all that rot. :-) --Gene 02:40, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Might increase the number of dedicated zombies. There already plenty of similar helpful messages. No reason not to. --Sindai 02:43, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - That is cute, but useful. Monstah
  7. Keep - Yeah, that's a better idea. A lot of newbs probably get the impression that dead is game over. --Arcos 02:49, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Good idea. --Dickie Fux 03:21, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Another Idea that would have motivated me to play more my first time --Lord Evans 03:32, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep --Martin Odum 03:49, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I like it but I think it should state that you can attack other zombies for 1/2 XP as well. --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 06:00, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Certainly better than the "free death" thing. I like it. --Abi79 06:23, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Good idea. It might get a few players who's characters die the first night to stick around a while, and doesn't hurt anyone. --Norcross 06:48, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Nice and simple. --07:45, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Simple enough. This is a point that does need to be made to new players. Bentley Foss 08:02, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Much better idea than the free death one. Nice. -- Andrew McM 10:43, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - I think the mainsite FAQ deals with this fine, but a friendly reminder might be helpful...assuming we can impliment this. --MorthBabid 11:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - The wording would be up to debate of course, but this is so much better then giving freebie revives.--Vista 13:46, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 18 Keeps, 0 Kills, 0 Spams dupes. -- 13:46, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - This would defenitely be helpful --Ju Ju Master 15:14, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Very helpful, even in combination with the other suggestion or on its own. anything that keeps more players in the game is great. --Kirk Howell 15:49, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Better than the free death one, and more informatively helpful to boot. Good call Mr. Pyre. --Blahblahblah 16:35, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Do I really have to justify this??? This is KEEPTASTIC! (info straight in newb's faces is good. So is zombie propaganda :P) --McArrowni 17:12, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - No reason why not!--Mookiemookie 18:07, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Me likey breadsticks this suggestion. --Reverend Loki 18:17, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Text additions seem to be favorable for people. --ALIENwolve 18:40, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  26. MUST KEEP This may help with the MASSIVE number of level 1 zombies (most of which are killed survivors who don't know about revivication). A must for newbs and helpful reminders are always nice. --lordofnightmares 3:12 12 Feb 2006 (PST)
  27. Keep - a good idea to help out new players --CPQD 00:32, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - Lets see how many keeps we can fit in here. Velkrin 02:14, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - Here's another one! --Pinpoint 08:17, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - I had a friend who quit because he thought he lost by dying. This'll help people from making that mistake. Saromu 15:09, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep - Keep it. MaulMachine 15:24, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - This should be a simple edit, and I think it's a really good idea.--Bulgakov 15:56, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  33. Keep - what a great idea.--Freakarama 16:49, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - good idea it took two deaths for me to realise that being a zombie was fun too--xbehave 15:30, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - Great idea for us newbies! --DeadieBetty 16:20, 17 Feb 2006 (PST)
      • Tally - 35 Keep, 0 Kill, 34 Total. --xbehave 15:31, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep - Good idea, it would be nice if the process of revivification gets explained more because that's what most survivors want when they die -- Craw 00:29, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 36 Keep, 0 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:16, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Changing Your Name

Timestamp: 03:01, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Everyone
Description: I have a character with an unrealistic name. I know that many of you do, as well. My suggestion is that you would be able to choose a 'display name' for the purpose of in-game RPGing and such, in addition to your login name. I would recommend that for this, you could choose your custom name only once, perhaps at registration or (in the case of current members), prompted for one at your next login. It would be completely optional, and, if omitted, your login name would be used instead. As for people stealing other's names, your login name could be displayed on your profile page.

UPDATE: For those of you who've killed this, I'd already thought through this a great deal, and many of the issues you pointed out, I've already addressed in my mind. However, I have a problem getting stuff from my head to the screen... call it a character flaw. =D In any case, I'll give this one its two weeks (or however long) and Re to individual kills. The new one will be named something along the lines of Custom Name or Display Name to avoid the confusion evident in the first part of vote 2. ;)

UPDATE 2: See the Talk for what I plan on saying in the next version of this.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --Dinoguy1000 03:01, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - To much room for abuse by PKer's, Kill somebody, change name, Repeat. Amazing Make's a good point, Read the suggestion, I was kinda an idiot because I voted based on the title and I see that this is a good idea, but It is too bad they say no in the FAQ. So this is just a how it would be done? Ok. --Lord Evans 03:34, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Yeah, I knew about the FAQ thing before I posted this, and so intended it more as a how it could be done thing than anything. --Dinoguy1000 18:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Unless you can see who's the person origional screen name when he/she kills a person, unless the person in the contact list will show screen name next to user name, unless you chance it to make custom change more than once, unless you can't copy your name off someone else for purpose of confusion, then this vote will remain a kill. Nice idea though. --Shadow213 18:44, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Easy to impersonate someone else. --Nov 03:44, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Easily abusable. There already are too many people with names like 'mikm, m1km, etc. --Mikm 05:13, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - The display name would be intended solely for having a realistic name. It could be made so that you couldn't take a name already used, whether it is a login or display name, and how it is displayed could be user-customized to an extent. --Dinoguy1000 18:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Some of you are so obviously not reading this. Especially the ones who don't realize it said you can only pick your display name once and not that you can change it after a kill, etc. I think the "Display Name" should automatically disallow taking an existing name, though. Silly knee-jerk voters. -- Amazing 05:55, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill Or.. OR! You could NOT be a smacktard and not choose an unrealistic name AT ALL! EVER! *gasp* --Jak Rhee 06:15, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Yes, we could, but many people here have used their names for some time elsewhere, some for years, so they use them for convenience more than playability. --Dinoguy1000 18:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam - Spam because this is directly addressed in the FAQ. This suggestion would be a nightmare to administrate, and I cannot see how it does not conflict with the FAQ. Bentley Foss 08:04, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I would vote keep if taking existing characters' name (both of them) was disallowed. --Brizth 11:21, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -Actually I believe the main gist of it is that you choose an account and a screen name at startup. login names can't be equal to another, but screen names can. In that case I believe that having the login name on your profile would stop mistaken identities. nearly inpossible to differanciate in speach. most people don't hvae the patiance to check and double check. Besides as much as I dislike the unrealistic names, they would still be around. and now I have a thousand "zombie jesus" "Badass McBadass" "A zombie" to annoy me as well. AND it is the FAQ as NEA, NEVER, NO MORE.--Vista 13:56, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill Although its a nice idea, this would be abused by the PKers and griefers. --Kirk Howell 15:51, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I wish to god it was easy to do that (and so have a few other people who suggested the same type of name change thing as you since I've been on the suggestion page). It's already been said why this can't work though. --Blahblahblah 16:42, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Well, I haven't been around that long, could you give me a link? --Dinoguy1000 18:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Sorry, don't have time to find them. You can search old suggestions for anything with "name change" in the title, and find them that way. --Blahblahblah 15:56, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 3 Keep, 9 Kill, 12 Total. --Dinoguy1000 18:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Uh: - Where did you learn to count? Its 2 Keeps, 9 kills, 1 spam, 12 total. --Grim s 19:19, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
        • Uh: - Spams count as kill, but still should have only 10 kills. --Shadow213 23:36, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
          • Re - Sorry, I can't count. :) Fixed. --Dinoguy1000 15:01, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Correct Tally - 3 Keep, 8 Kill, 1 Spam, 12 Total.--The General 17:40, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Drag (Revised)

Timestamp: 11:01, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies and Survivors
Description: Survivors may purchase 'Drag' (or 'Drag Survivor') at the cost of 100 XP points from the "Miscellaneous Skills" section, this skill carries over into undeath just as bodybuilding does. This skill allows Survivors to drag a fellow survivor into or out of an unbarricaded building on the same block at the cost of 3AP per move, similarly Zombies may drag a Survivor in or out of an unbarricaded barricaded building at the cost of 3AP per move. This skill would NOT allow Survivors or Zombies to drag players into other blocks ONLY into or out of an unbarricaded building on the same block.

I feel that this skill would increase comradeship of Survivor as a player is bound to feel a certain affection towards a player who brings them in from the cold.. angry horde of Zombies. Zombiewise this skill is in character thematically, who wasn't seen a Zombie movie where an unwilling human is dragged to their, oh too certain future. This skill contains none of the vulnerability to abuse that the previous 'Drag' had, as the farthest one might find him or herself is inside or outside the building he or she left themselves outside or inside, respectively. I do not think that this would be unbalancing as the loss of the plentiful, ignorant, new Survivor flesh, would be counteracted by the gain of Survivors of all levels drawn unwillingly from their hiding holes. Further more this would create interesting real time moral dilemmas (especially in sieges with) of an active survivor witnessing an unconscious fellow be drawn from the room by the walking dead. Does he/she barricade the building and leave the unfortunate Survivor to his/her fate or does he/she go on a rescue mission risking the majority?

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. MIA 11:02, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - See my comments as to why on the Talk. --MorthBabid 11:38, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - You have removed the possibility of griefing, but in doing so you have made it useless.--The General 12:04, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Spam -Far to much exploitable by griefers, Pk'er groups would love this. you destroy the barricades (50AP), drag out all the survivors(4 AP per survivor). rebarricade to EH(20AP). and if you really want to be a bastard you include one zombie player to groan in the street. you could clear safehouses up to 20 people with 3 players this way. Before people tell me that won't happen, they should look at the groups page concerning Pk'ers, deathcultist, etc. There are entire groups dedicated to destroying generators. That sure is a lot less fun then this to them.--Vista 14:20, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam - This would starve newbie zombies, who, without other zombies around to open doors for them, are completely dependant on those low level humans to level. In other words, this completely breaks low level zombie levelling away from large organised hordes, which is already in pretty serious trouble. The recent hand attack revision has helped a bit, but it is still in poor shape. --Grim s 15:18, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam - For the reasons above... Drag will NEVER be a useful skill. Its impossible to get right, because there is no right. Period --Jak Rhee 15:19, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - You can't imagine how many times this gets suggested and shot down. Maybe add to frequently suggested if it's not already? --Intx13 15:58, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam - I've seen so many different drag suggestions, and none of them are free of grief potential. Don't see a grief free one ever being possible. --Blahblahblah 16:47, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - With the "drag" skill, zeds could just wait outside a building while a zed spy would go in and drag some humans out of the building to allow zeds to kill them. --Abi79 17:13, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I have no desire to go outside to shoot some Zeds, and have an over-eager survivor "save" me by pulling me back inside! As for the Zombie use, what's the point? If the building is unbarricaded, the others might as well just enter the building instead of waiting for one to go inside and pull out lunch for them (wasting several APs just to let another Zed take the XP for the kill). --Norcross 17:18, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Spam - At this point, any sort of "Move someone's body" suggestion needs to die of spam. These things are always unbalanced and have extreme griefing potential. Heck, there's even a section on the guidelines page that deals with this explicitly. No, no, no. Bentley Foss 17:23, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - First I'll congratulate you on one of the best drag people skill written yet. Then I'll remind you how bad those skills are in the first place. This one dodges many of it's problems, but ends up with other weaknesses. Rest of explanation on talk page --McArrowni 18:07, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - Been suggested 68576576 times before and still just as bad as the first time. And by my count my vote is Spam #7, but someone else can delete it, because I'm lazy.--Mookiemookie 18:11, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Following the new rules, deletion of this suggestion would be invalid because it does not have 2/3rds or more overall Spam votes. It's not Spam anyway.--The General 18:26, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Although a moderator could still do it as long as there are 3 Spams and Spams outnumber Keeps.
      • ReAh, I missed the 2/3rds part. I stand corrected.--Mookiemookie 23:35, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Best drag suggestion I've seen, but still not good enough. --Brizth W! 18:27, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill The only distinction between this and other "drag" suggestions is that it allows you to pull people out of buildings which really is just all kinds of terrible. --Jon Pyre 18:35, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam - No moving other people. Dead or otherwise. Velkrin 19:26, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Zombie's dragging survivor's out of building's sounds good, but other survivor's doing the same? No --Lord Evans 19:48, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Spam Pker heaven. A team of 4 Pkers can easily take 12 people outside and have enough AP left over to rebarricade the building to heavily. AllStarZ 20:53, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Even if only zombies could do it it would be obscenely overpowered. Small groups of organized zombies could drag several times their number outside of a cracked safehouse. --Sindai 21:32, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Spam - Dragging ideas just don't work --CPQD 00:30, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Spam - Don't foribly move players. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 01:11, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  22. Spam - No fucking Pied Piper skills, damnit! - CthulhuFhtagn 07:37, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Points taken... MIA 07:50, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally: 1 Keep, 9 Kills, 12 Spams = 22 total
  23. Kill - Griefers could just drag everybody outside of a building and leave them to rot. Saromu 15:12, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - Since it can only be used at unbarricaded buildings, its essentially useless for saving survivors. Sadly, as a griefing tool, it rocks. Rhialto 13:19, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - What Rhialto said. Craw 00:31, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 1 Keep, 12 Kill, 12 Spam - 19:16, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Real Estate Swap

Timestamp: 11:09, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: All endgame players with XP to spare.
Description: The game in its current itineration does not allow players with a maxed out Skill Tree with anything to put its EXP towards, unless he/she decides to play as 'The Other Side' for a while. I find this to be disappointing and shortsighted. So I was thinking... why not allow players or groups the ability to purchase lots of real estate with accumulated experience? I know nothing about coding, or what would need to be done mechanically for this to be put into effect, but in terms of play, here's how I view it.

1) To unlock a building for purchase, you must first squat in it for some period of time. Lets say a 3 days to a week in Real Time.

2) Once the building is available for purchase, the squatting person or group may begin depositing EXP into the Mortgage value for the property. This number should be sufficiently high, nothing less that 10K, just so it's not TOO easy to do. More valuable buildings, like Hospitals, PD's or whatnot should have a much much higher Mortgage value, maybe 100K?

3) Once the Mortgage value is paid, then the puchasing group now "owns" the property. The purchaser may now have the right to edit the Title and Description of the property in the game (within reason, of course.)

4) There are no in-game benefits to owning property AT-ALL. They are simply bragging-rights for a particular group to let the rest of Malton where they call home. This also gives the additional benefit of creating a giant bullseye for every other Group in Malton to target for raids.

This idea is very unpolished, but I think there is definitely a niche available somewhere for Group Representation other than tagging buildings and this suggestion gives the bonus of giving endgame players something to put their EXP towards!

What do you think?

Votes

  1. Keep - This is a great idea, just needs polishing. --Flopsie 11:09, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)Author.
  2. Kill - I really don't see the point. Ok, sure, it would be nice owning few blocks of Malton, but compared to amount of confusion with changing building names, no thanks. --Brizth 11:30, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Doesn't take measures to limit abuse via XP Farming; simply doesn't seem interesting, more imho. --MorthBabid 11:32, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Section 3 makes this suggestion dead. Changign building names make navigating the city impossible, not to mention that controlling what the buildings name/disc says to be... appropriate... would be nigh impossible. I do NOT want to end up seeing the "u r gay" Building or a building with a name in 'leet' speak. Also, who gets the authority to edit if a whole group is depositing exp? Just the last person? If so then what keeps... say, CDF from depositing exp after exp into a building and then having me run in and drop the last few exp and then editing the name to say "CDF sucks!"? Or if its anyone within the group what keeps me from changing my group affiliation just long enough to bastardize the name? This is the essential flaw with all suggestions that involve Group benifits. There's no control over what someone makes their group in the engine. Finally, please dont submit suggestiosn you KNOW and admit need polishing here. This is the place for voting on FINISHED suggestions... feel free to bring them up in the Talk page and we're help you polish them there for eventual (if warrented) submission. --Jak Rhee 12:48, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Yes our new relocating point is the "you smeell like Unwashable Socks" building, right next to the "Zombie can't get in!" mall On second thought, NO.--Vista 14:09, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I'm going to have to disagree with this, its too easily abused and too pointless, plus most groups already 'Own' suburbs or buildings. 'DHPD Ownz!!' --Kirk Howell 15:54, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill Yeah, Jak Rhee makes the points. --Intx13 16:02, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill I don't really want to see the "Pen Island Building" in my suburb. --TheTeeHeeMonster 16:18, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - The retard factor is too great. --Grim s 16:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Spam - This is really just not a good suggestion... besides if you want to have a home that bad any you're maxed out, go find an empty reg buliding, put it to very heavily barracaded to keep out n00bs, and spray paint the outside "(players name) home" that would make more sense. Besides, there is not enough places in malton for homes (as unrealistic as that may sound). --Shadow213 18:42, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I don't think people would buy buildings in a city attacked by zombies...just my point of view :P --Abi79 17:07, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - And now for stupid movie showing. Title #1. Home Moving. Sir, how much for this lovely junkyard. Mrh? Ohh ok ummm so how much? Graagh. Sir that is not tellin me anything. Graaaagh! *bite* AHHH YOU LITTLE... YOU BIT ME! Grh. Ah just ____ you I'm leaving! Brnhr. Not authors reply. --Shadow213 17:23, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Lol. This made me laugh the second I saw it. (and I'm still laughing) --Abi79 18:59, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - It definitely needs some work, but I think it has potential (voting "Keep" just to keep it from getting all Kills). --Norcross 17:20, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Other people (mostly Jak) already beat me to my objections. And really, 100,000 XP for a building? No one has that much XP, not even players who have been around and kept playing since the beginning. Bentley Foss 17:25, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - I don't want building names changing. --Mookiemookie 18:14, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill I eagerly await hiding in the recently bought "yUOr MOM LOLOololOLOLOLOL!!!!1onee" building. --Zaruthustra-Mod 19:51, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill No. AllStarZ 21:16, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill I agree with Jak, someone could easily abuse it, also I dont want to live in a building with some weird name. Whitehouse 21:59, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep Why not? Give users a chance to re-name buildings. Sounds fine to me. Catwhowalksbyhimself 01:08, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Non-Author Comment It's because not everyone is mature. Do you want to stay in a building called "The Whore House"? Actually bad example. Do you want to stay in "Meuser's House of Shit" overnight? AllStarZ 02:09, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Oh yeah, I've killed 1000 zeds, now I can own this building. Yeah, because I'm so expirienced in zombie killing. Man, that's not good --EnForcer32 09:28, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - I don't think that "the building gets a weird name and I don't like it" argument really counts because there are already buildings like "The Manly Motel" or "The Beer building". Can it really get any worse? But I think it's enough when the building gets "This building is owned by the mighty ninja pirate" + maybe profile in the description. The idea wouldn't be too bad if you modify it, you should only allow buildings without use for purchase, such as libraries, towers etc. It shouldn't be like "bought once - owned forever", and to sweeten the deal: only donated characters. --Craw 00:45, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 3 Keep, 16 Kill, 1 Spam - 19:15, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Mk II Equipment

Timestamp: 20.30 GMT
Type: Item Upgrade
Scope: New MkII Equipment
Description: Here's (hopefully) a new idea. I think it would bring a bit more excitement to the game, if there would also be an upgraded MkII version of them available. Basicaly they would be more effective than the normal ones, but more rare to find. Here are the MkII objects.


First Aid Kit MkII :

Locations: Mall Drugstores 10%/17% (original FAK 20%/34%), Hospitals 7% (14%), Churches 2% (5%. Generally the odds of finding one are twice weaker than finding normal one. The act of healing another character earns you 8 (5) XP regardless of the number of HP gained.


NecroTech Revivification Syringe MkII :

Locations: Necrotech Buildings 3% (6%, also twice harder to find)

Used to revive a zombie. Reviving a zombie requires the Lab Experience skill, and earns 10 XP (twice as much as original). Syringes are single-use items. Unlike original one this cannot be created with NecroNet Access skill.

When reviving a zombie with normal NRS zombie has half of their normal HP (usually 25, but 30 with Body Building) MkII alternately revives zombie with 30 HP (35 with Body Building) If the zombie has Brain Rot then same rules apply as with normal Syringe.


Only these? It would propably change things too much if there would be MkII versions of things that are not single use items. For example I considired of Flak Jacked MkII, but it would have propably been too effective, especially becose you can use it forever. MkII weapons are an another matter then. This is the stuff for now. If you don't agree with HP, XP or locations value partly or fully, still please don't kill it just because of that, since the idea is still good. I am sorry if this has been suggested before, however I checked and could not find one.

Votes

  1. Keep - I think this idea has potential, but it does need a bit of working on. I have fixed up some of your spelling and grammmar and I would also like to point out that you would have to call it a MkIII Syringe (or MkIIII) as the one used presently is already called the MkII (the original Syringes revived the player and left them standing up where they could quite easily be re-killed).--The General 20:45, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - The FAK suggestion seems somewhat arbitrary - WHY does the FAK heal better? If it is significantly improved, why wouldn't it replace the current FAK (when the revive syringe was upgraded, it replaced the old version)? The revive syringe upgrade (technically, it should be at MkIII, as it already is MkII) seems useless. 5 extra healing points isn't very useful when a (smart) survivor would find healing anyways. --Mikm 20:49, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill Syringe is useless. Why spend time to look for those syringes, when you can be sure that you get at least 2 normal ones? And the advantages of using those syringes aren't big enough. Too lazy to talk about the med kits, so I will say this: your items are just not worth the trouble of looking for them instead of the normal ones. AllStarZ 21:00, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - People wouldn't look for them instead of the other one's but find them with the other one's --Lord Evans 21:37, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Seems kind of pointless to have multiple items that are identical except for minor health increases. --Jon Pyre 21:48, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Healing 10hp with a FAK with first aid kits is already highly efficient, and doesn't need to be more. Syringes are good enough already. --McArrowni 21:52, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam Read the Do's and Do Not's before suggesting. Rare does not equal balanced --Mookiemookie 22:07, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - This would make it harder for medic to get XP, and I just don't see the point of the MkII syringe --CPQD 00:35, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Comment - Aren't the revive syringes called "Mk II Revivication Syringes" anyways? --Sylanya 00:57, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - They're fine as they are. To answer your question Sylanya, yes, they are currently Mk. II, ergo these should be Mk. III, or Mk. IIb. Velkrin 02:12, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - two things first this is a bad idea and cant be fixed for me to like. also that would be the MK III Revivification Syringe we are at MK II now.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 03:45, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - These items are only marginal improvements over their predecessors. It's also unclear as to whether the FAK II heals more HP. At any rate, I don't think survivors really need more items to manage, especially items that perform the same functions as existing items. Bentley Foss 08:45, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - What Bentley Foss said. --Blahblahblah 15:58, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 2 Keep, 9 Kill, 1 Spam - 19:14, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Zoo animal

Timestamp: 22:34, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: animal, location alteration
Scope: tourists, sightseerers, people who go to the zoo
Description: The City Zoo has no animals. Most of you have probably never been to the City Zoo. That's because it's empty. I think there should be zoo animals. Of course due to the apocalyptic situation, the animals would have escaped (seeing as they already have escaped). Since the zoo is the animal's home, the animal would probably come back some of the time. Animals would only appear in the zoo areas. Animals would not be interactive. NPC's are bad for this type of game. I am merely suggesting that on some days there will be an animal in a certain area of the zoo. Maybe one day there is an elephant in the aquarium, and the next day a lion is in the reptile house. On the third day there may not be any animals there. The animals would do nothing except be in the description.

ie: (the original description) + You see a lion roaring inside the building. It would make the long hike to the zoo, worthwile.

Votes

  1. Keep - zoo animals are cool --Poodge 22:35, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Bit of flavor. Can't be bad. --Brizth W! 22:38, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Change it to 'the half-eaten carcass of a lion lying in it's cage. More realistic. -- Andrew McM 22:46, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill "You see the bones of an elephant that no doubt starved to death" --Jon Pyre 23:01, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - "You see two homeless people peeing in the monkey exhibit." --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:18, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Two reasons.... 1) The zombie group A.T.E.P and 2) The Malton Zookeepers --Blue Wild Angel 23:25, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep You see two monkeys. They throw poop at you. 1 minute later, you see two lumps of torn flesh. AllStarZ 23:32, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - "You see 10 strippers locked up. One of them is yo momma" --Shadow213 23:38, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I would think that they would have moved the zoo animals out when the city was evacuated.--Mookiemookie 23:39, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Non-author comment, but do you know how illogical that sounds? Oh yes, they evacuate the animals but not the people. Brilliant. AllStarZ 00:17, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re "Some months on from the first reported outbreak, military quarantine units have closed Malton's borders, and are moving in to eliminate the looters, to forcibly evacuate those civilians who still refuse to leave their homes." Sound familiar, hombre? --Mookiemookie 04:07, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Gives a little flavor, which isn't bad. I changed the layout of your suggestion Blue, since it was messing up the format. --Pinpoint 23:42, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - "You see members of the RrF lowering screaming humanz into the zombie shark tank. You laugh and gain one XP." --MaulMachine 03:49, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Eh, why not. I can't come up with any reasons to explicitly kill this one, so Keep it is. Bentley Foss 08:47, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Wanna wanna ice cream for the polar bear~! --Leit 11:50, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - It would give me a reason to visit the zoo. --Blahblahblah 16:01, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Good flavour.--The General 16:14, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - evacuating the zoo is usually what happens. I've been through evacuations, and trust me people go nuts over the thought the treehumping blackstriped whoopie monkey might be in danger. and as mor people pointed out, zoo animals need a lot of specialized upkeep that can't be giving during a zombie apoc. So either their safe and sound outside the quarentine or their dead as the norwegian blue parrot.--Vista 20:10, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 9 Keep, 7 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe, and 16 total.--The General 16:14, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Some of the votes above shouldn't count since they are just trolling.--Pesatyel 05:05, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Change the description to animal corpses instead of live animals.--Pesatyel 05:05, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - would make the zoo abit more fun for family visits-- Xbehave 15:40, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Yup, it would. (...familiy visits? hahaha) --Abi79 10:41, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 12 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:14, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Wine Effect

7 Spams, 2 Kills, 1 Author Keep. I want to be able to eat my SPAM with Wine --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 03:46, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Cortical Surgery

Timestamp: 23:58, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Brainrotters, Necrotech Employees and Doctors
Description: This is actually a set of two skills that would allow a person with the right skills to remove the brain rot skill from a revived survivor. The first would be named something like Advanced Necrotech Lab Experience; It would obviously require Necrotech Lab Experience. With this skill A button will be added to powered necrotech buildings or hospitals with a something along the lines of ?prepare cortical surgery lab?, doing so would cost 5 ap. And add the description ?a cortical surgery lab has been prepared, it is un-occupied?, there will only be a miniscule XP reward, perhaps 1-3 XP. With the lab prepared, the button becomes ?enter cortical surgery lab?, a revived brain rotter who clicked that button will be warned, that this could remove brain rot in a similar fashion to jumping out windows. A survivor without brain rot will be informed that they do not need cortical surgery. When a brain rotter enters the surgical lab, it changes the description to ?a cortical surgery lab has been prepared, it is occupied?, the brain rotter cannot perform any actions until he either leaves the lab or gets his brain rot removed. Here is where the second skill comes into play. This skill ?cortical surgery? would require the surgery skill. A button would then become available which states ?Perform Cortical Surgery (20 AP), If clicked the doctor will then remove brain rot from the subject, and gain 5xp(the same cost/benefit as manufacturing a reviv-syringe).

So the procedure for removing brain rot is

-Prepare Cortical Surgery Lab (needs ?advanced lab experience)+ Powered NT building), 5 AP, 1-3 XP reward

-Revive Brainrotter (already implamented)

-Have Brainrotter Survivor enter Lab (no way to force him)

-Preform Cortical Surgery (needs ?Cortical Surgery?+ Powered NT building), 20 AP, 5 XP reward

This skill would allow players that screwed up and got brain rot to fix the problem. This is DIFFERENT FROM OTHER MULTI STEP SKILLS, because the steps are tracked by the building. The Cortical Surgery Lab can use the same code for generators. Just add 1 additional button to NT buildings. It encourages team work, and will finally validate getting the surgery skill. It would not encourage XP farming, as a lab cannot be set up again until it has been used, and the the surgery would require a brainrotter. Further more it would require reviving brainrotters (not an easy thing). It cannot possibly result in greifing because the subject must A) agree to do it,IT IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY! and B) he/she was warned. From a role playing stand point, it can be justified that curing brain rot needs to be voluntary because the subject must be thinking a certain set of thoughts (ALA eternal sunshine of the spotless mind).

While the XP rewards are going to be low, this skill is really meant for high level players, who really have nothing else better to put their XP into.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Self vote. --Falcus 00:22, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Problem is that you're removing the skill. They can break into a Necrotech and get lucky... --ALIENwolve 00:10, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - they would have to have been revived already, and they still have to be rendered helpless until unrotted --Falcus 00:17, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - If you get Brain Rot, you know what you are getting into. This is really dumb and unnecessary. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 01:05, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Spam - Don't mess with other people's skills. --Mikm 01:50, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. kill - Don't mess with other people's skills. But in fence this is not spam this is just a bad idea --User:ericblinsley 02:23, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - But only for reasons of complexity. I wouldn't mind having a way to voluntarily remove Brain Rot, and that's all that's being suggested here. But requiring two skills and so many steps is too much. Try simplifying it and submitting again. --John Ember 03:16, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - hell it adds a good part to the game. the only problem is that I think that if it does get implamented it needs to be later in the game. --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 04:01, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Let's remove your headshot skill, or your barricade skill and see how much you like it. Leave other people's skills alone. EDIT: Ok so its voluntary. Kill vote still stands since I'd rather the time spent coding this be spent on actual improvements to the game instead of another "undo" feature as the brain rot revivification thing has already been addressed. --Mookiemookie 04:11, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Too complicated, if players want to remove brainrot, they should be forced to perform brain surgery on themselves. --CPQD 06:32, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Becuase it's completely voluntary, and it's not really that complex. Guy prepares area, revived rotter goes in, 'nother guy removes brainrot, done. Simple really. Oh, and this doesn't mess with other people's skills. Note the voluntary nature of this. So Mookiemookie, Eric, ALIENwolve, and Mikm are CNR. --Pinpoint 06:48, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Spam - You knew what you were getting into when you bought the skill. Deal with it. --Grim s 06:55, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Under no circumstances should one user be able to remove a skill from another user. It's just prone to a lot of problems. Bentley Foss 08:48, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Because of (game mechanics) complexity, not because removal of brain rot. --Brizth W! 14:28, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Coding complexity is not a good Kill reason. Oh, and Bentley Foss has also been Caught Not Reading. It's also not Spam.--The General 16:03, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 4 Keep, 8 Kill, 2 Spam, 15 total.--The General 17:29, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - A huge elaborate complex way to do something not needed. You buy the skill, you know what you get into, If you didn't, you just do some extra trouble to get revived. It's your just punishment. And as you can get revived, this isn't needed.--Vista 20:00, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 4 Keep, 9 Kill, 2 Spam - 19:13, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/12th-Feb-2006&oldid=193684"