Suggestions/12th-Jan-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

Preserved Ligaments Alteration

Timestamp: 01:06, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Peer reviewed skill alteration
Scope: Dedicated zombies and dead survivors
Description: It's not a new skill, just an alteration to the Preserved Ligaments peer reviewed suggestion. Instead of just making it a non-stack-able clone of Bodybuilding, it could be changed this way:
  • Bodybuilding wouldn't carry over. Even though your living "self" is well-built, your dead status would most probably render all those muscles stiff and easily rotten.
  • Preserved Ligaments wouldn't carry over either. Makes sense, I think, since it's about something all the survivors already have when they're alive (all their ligaments in place and stuff).
  • Characters with bodybuilding would have to pay only 50 XP to get Preserved Ligaments, as a bodybuilder is at least supposed to be strong and with ligaments strong enough to survive the zombification proccess.
  • Characters with Preserved Ligaments would have to pay full XP for Bodybuilding. As I said, all survivors already have their ligaments in place when alive.

That would add some originality to Preserved Ligaments (that is just a clone of Bodybuilding right now), and would hopefuly make the lives of those dead survivors a bit more interesting if they ever plan on going zombie for a while. Not a big change for balance of whatnot, either, just some flavour.

PS: those changes are to make Preserved Ligaments different from Bodybuilding. The lowered XP cost for zombies with Bodybuilding reflects that idea. Refunding or replacing skills by the time of implementation (if it ever gets implemented) is something that only Kevan could decide, on his own judgement about balance or the annoyance factor for players.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author's vote. --Omega2 01:06, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Doesn't seem like it'd hurt anything, and at least it won't just be two identical skills.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:33, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - This is better than the current ligaments in Peer-reviewed definatly. I like the idea of eliminating cross-state skills. EDIT: I will say this... Im not sure the lowered 50 exp cost for the other skill would work. A little too much coding. Let them both be cost whatever the 100xp they'd cost normally. --Jak Rhee 01:39, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Well, the lowered XP cost is there just because I found it would be somewhat realistic. Also, without it, Preserved Ligaments would still be a Bodybuilding clone. And about coding, I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't that be a simple routine to check if the character have the Bodybuilding flag, if yes, subtract 50XP from the Preserved Ligaments flag? --Omega2 10:48, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - No refund no keep vote Edit: Or if you have a choice of which one you want would be fine when it is changed - --ramby 02:27, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - As I said, it's beyond my scope. The most I can do is to put it as a request if this suggestion ever gets Peer Reviewed, saying that some people asked for refund and that Kevan should consider it when implementing the suggestion. I can't do much more than that. --Omega2 10:48, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Sorry ramby, I don't think you'll gey that refund... unless all brain-rotted zombies will lose bodybuilding and get this upon implementation. Regardless, it's a great idea - carry-over skills aren't a very good thing anyway. --Signal9 03:00, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep -Nice alteration--Vista 07:03, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Very smooth implementation. --Thelabrat 07:20, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - But get rid of the cheaper xp cost if you already have one. I'd say any zombie with brain rot and body building should automatically receive this new skill as a freebie when it gets implemented (it's not as if they could ever actually use the body building anyway). Characters who are dead when it gets implemented, I'm undecided on how to handle them. They shouldn't get both skills automatically though, as both are still useful for them. Rhialto 07:24, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I don't fully understand your point... if you don't have the lowered XP cost, then take a look to my first reply above. About anyone getting this skill automatically, I highly doubt Kevan would do that. --Omega2 10:48, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - --Kcold 12:49, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - i too would like to see carry-over skills done away with. this one would take care of bodybuilding.. --Firemanstan 19:43, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - For reasons stated by others --McArrowni 20:26, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Can't see why not. -- Norminator 2 21:43, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Sounds good, where on the skill tree would you put it?-- Stoy Winters01:06, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Wherever Preserved Ligaments (the original skill) would be. Probably in the base skill tree. --Omega2 01:10, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill You lost me on the XP alterations (They're flavorful but meaningless), and the fact that this isn't really a significant change outside of your XP suggestions. --MorthBabid 09:29, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Keep - I would change the name though. --Mr NoName 16:06, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT) No votes after the deadline.--The General W! Mod 20:04, 18 May 2006 (BST)
    • Final Tally - 12 Keep, 2 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:58, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Desperation Attempt (Pending Title)

Timestamp: 01:54, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The Zombies seemed to be gaining knowledge about how hard the doors need to open. They now can learn to break through the windows now and attack the survivors. Now now I know that it is nice to attack only in groups... or to attack only n00bs who wander in the streets... but I guess I am not one of them. This skill would only be used if you are a level 10 zombie and if the building is very strongly barracaded or higher. The zombie will use 1 AP point to use this skill. Once used, he has a 30% chance of breaking in. If he fails, then he is automatically knocked down and looses 10 hp and it will cost an extra ap to stand up. (this might be a little too high write in keep/kill change hp/ap cost ______ (higher or lower)). This way the zombie won't be forced to stay in groups just to break into a building, but having only 30% chance to break in with a costly cost will be even then.

Note: IF you complain about realism, think about that in other movies zombies are breaking in. IF you are complaining about ap cost to stand up after being knocked down, REMEMBER that this is only applies to level 10, and most likely unless cheated and started out as survivor, you arn't going to have problems with standing up (even though the 10 hp will be a lil problem, but I think it balances it out)

Votes

  1. Kill - This is overpowered. Zombies should not be able to bypass barricades. Barricades are the only thing that give Survivors ANY chance of.. well.. surviving through a night. They can't stand up as easily as zombies can, people, so the need protection in the night. This is even worse durign seiges with 300 Zombies seiging, you could have 30 Zombies all of a sudden just.. appear in the Mall. DOn't complain that its too hard for Zombies to seige... look at the domino fallign of Malls. --Jak Rhee 02:01, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - What Jak said. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:12, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Makes barricades practically worthless --Mikm 02:16, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Just another newb who thinks the game is too hard for himself and doesn't understand the bigger picture.--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:28, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Yea I do see what you mean, but for SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel please don't flame. This is a voting for suggestions, not just attacking the person.--Shadow213 03:08, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • How is this a flame or an attack on the person? We were all newbs once, and generally didn't really understand how the game worked on a greater level; I'm not mad at him for this. I'm just stating a fact. Furthermore, I only said it because it was relevant to the suggestion and why it was not a good one.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:15, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Easy there...try voting on the issue and hold off on the personal attacks. That said, kill this thing! This makes barricades totally worthless anytime you get even a small number of Zombies outside. I like this whole "Movie Flavor" aspect of smashing in thru a window, but in this format, it would be a zombie neutron bomb. --Nicks 02:38, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Yes, your suggestion is perfect when you assume that only lone zombies will use this... but when you have a horde of 100 doing this, everything falls apart. --Signal9 02:56, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - This one could almost go onto the humorous page... I see a horde of 90 zombies trying to jump over a barricade and impaling themselves on rebar and chairlegs -- but the first wave makes it! The next wave groans a little louder and *schlup* yanks their impaled bodies off the barricade -- and tries it again! Each wave, fewer and fewer remain outside until there's this one lone zombie outside who looks like he's been used as a giant's pincushion... The cost of using this proposed skill is waaaaay too low given the waaaay too high chance of success, and a bit of HP damage is nothing to a level 10 zombie who's probably gonna bite people once he's inside anyways. -Torfin 03:41, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill/Spam, this would MAYBE be balanced if it was a 1% chance at 10 AP. MAYBE. As is, this skill is ridiculous. --LibrarianBrent 06:36, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Well, we've had a "make it too easy for survivors" suggestion today, we might as well have a "make it too easy for zombies" one too. Bentley Foss 03:50, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill You're shitting me right? Can't you assume that maybe the windows are too high off the ground, are too narrow, or perhaps the survivors simply aren't that stupid and have barricaded the windows? Everyone has said everything I wanted to say so, I will say this. It is very easy to purchase uranium for a simple atomic weapon. AllStarZ 04:57, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill -not only for all those reasons above, but also using vairable numbers. Look if we don't like the numbers we'll tell you. If you can't agree on them yourself, why the bleep should we?--Vista 07:08, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. killRhialto 07:26, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - A Zombie can alredy take out a VS building on their own so there is no reason to add this, and not to mention that it nerfs barricades. - Jedaz 09:03, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. kill What a rip!! you would sooner kill yourself using this than in a horde!!!-Mattiator 16:58, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE:It isn't hard to check version history of the page and fix the signature, if previous voter forgot that. I think I start to feel enemity towards you. --The Fifth Horseman 19:06, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT) original author responses only
  15. keep As said in the vote Mattiator was oh so kind to delete, the core of the concept makes sense, but the AP cost and percentages will need some rebalancing. --The Fifth Horseman 19:06, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill This is overpowered, plain and simple --McArrowni 20:29, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill Even giving zombies a remote change to bypass barricades is bad. In theory these might be good (though not to me...), but in practice hordes will abuse them. Barricades are supposed to hold back the undead, and if brain-eaters can get past them like this, nothing can stop them! It's a recurring theme that people seem to forget the "multiply it by a billion" rule when they make suggestions like these... --Volke 23:54, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill Gah! Awful! as if zombies need any more help killing the harmanz--Stoy 01:09, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill "This skill would only be used if you are a level 10 zombie and if the building is very strongly barracaded or higher ." Pardon? Why would something that affects heavy barricades not affect loose, light, or strong ones? That makes no sense. "...unless cheated and started out as survivor, you arn't going to have problems with standing up," also begs a few questions. --Thelabrat 08:20, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Dupe -- Crawl, which was rejected. --MorthBabid 09:32, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 18 kills, 2 dupes. --Thelabrat 00:29, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - What Mattiator said. --Salicyclic 13:52, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - The percentage is too high, make it level one only, and only make it do damage. --Mr NoName 16:08, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT) - Late.
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 20 Kill, 2 Dupe - 19:59, 21 May 2006 (BST)

equipment faliure

Timestamp: 03:34 Jan 12 2006 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: DNA Scanners
Description: After repetitive use the DNA extractor should wear out, break, be contaminated, or otherwise become unusable and be auto-dropped (like the book sometimes is). This does not grief scientists, any respectable scientist spends plenty of time searching the Necrotech buildings and excess scanners just take up space and time to drop (I just dropped 8); this makes that process part of the game. Ideally I’d like to see a scanner last 25 successful scans before it wears out. If that’s too much tracking give it a basic 2.5% chance of breaking.

Votes

  1. Keep - I think this should be okay. --Signal9 03:35, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep -Hi. bbrraaiinnss03:38, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - While you're at it, why don't we do something about GPS locators too.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:42, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - In general, I don't like limited-use equipment suggestions. Let's just pretend that the scientist knows how to clean and maintain his equipment, and leave it at that. Bentley Foss 03:51, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Seems kind of pointless. This would just penalize scientists in the field, forcing them to waste a day's AP as they return to a Necrotech building to find a new extractor. I prefer a suggestion I read a while back to make DNA extractors able to produce syringes after a certain number of scans...maybe something that required 25 scans and then allowed you to expend the DNA extractor to create a syringe? --Jon Pyre 04:00, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep Makes the currently useless additional Extractors you find suddenly useful. I would prefer a large usage limit, however. -- Amazing 04:46, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill If you have excess, just drop them. Is it really that much of a hassle? AllStarZ 04:53, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Malton products are known for their durability. Velkrin 05:01, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill I just can't see a reason that this is necessary. Having unnecessary scanners doesn't matter, since it's not as if someone else will have to go without because you got an extra one. And having the same scanner forever doesn't really matter... it's not real life. Beyond the added realism, I don't see a purpose... and realism alone doesn't make it worth it (for me at least). --Intx13 05:22, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Because you find it annoying to drop scanners, everybody should be annoyed when they break? learn to live with it.--Vista 07:14, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. killRhialto 07:27, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep --Kcold 12:47, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - You are out of your mind. MORE SEARCHING?! and for SCIENTISTS which already spend too much searching for syringes?! it adds nothing to the game, only makes it less fun, horrible idea... --Rani 01:03, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Why not just lower the chances of finding extractors, so people don't end up with twenty of them? --Dickie Fux 14:22, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Would add a bit to the depth of the game. --The Fifth Horseman 14:28, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - although i find no fault with your suggestion in terms of technical attention, i don't think it is worth bothering to implement into the game. i don't see how it would really effect anything aside from not having to drop 1 of your excess scanners from time to time... --Firemanstan 19:52, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Scientists already have the most expensive skill tree in the game, don't make things harder on us. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:17, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - I do appreciate the idea of making delicate scientific equipment fragile, but you've got to look at the fact that it just boils down to, as mentioned above, making people carry an extra scanner. I *love* the idea of charging scanners up to produce syringes, whoever mentioned that. --Bert Krutters 20:24, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill -Among Other Do Nots Scorpios10:07, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • this is directed towards Skills used to attack someones items. Currently there exists numerous items in game that are perishable. Am I alone here in viewing the do's n dont's with utter contempt? well atleast he didn't spam me for disobeying the rules. bbrraaiinnss 22:58 Jan 12 2006
  20. Kill - no fun playing a scientist at the best of times don't make it even less fun for them --Stoy 01:12, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - DON'T PUNISH THE PLAYER! --Daednabru 06:01, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill So it breaks. And you drop it. Unlike when you find another one normally. And drop it. How does this improve/add/enhance the game again? --MorthBabid 09:33, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill I don't see the point of this --Salicyclic 14:03, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. keep - can't see any harm in it and personally i would like to see equipment fail for most items, guns jamming, axes blunted forcing us to rely on inferior stuff etc... bring it on what are we men or bleating sheep!--Honestmistake 17:12, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Keep - Though people who produce seringes may grump a bit. --Mr NoName 16:10, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT) - Late. Velkrin 20:01, 21 May 2006 (BST)
    • Final Tally - 7 Keep, 17 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:01, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Zombie XP

Spaminated with a vengeance. 4 Spams.. and an author-keep who all but admitted it wasn't serious. To November7: be careful when you post.. you deleted this suggestion's SPamination marker which is a no-no. --Jak Rhee 05:07, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Personal Traits

Timestamp: 01:24, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)
Type: New but optional feature
Scope: All players
Description: Okay, this idea is semi-ripped off the Fallout series, but I like it.

Put simply, when you start a new game and/or purchase a new skill called "Personal Growth" or whatever, you can pick and/or drop up to two traits which are, put simply, a buff and a weaken. Each trait gives a bonus or advantage while also giving a disadvantage at something else. You DO NOT have to pick ANY AT ALL AT ANY POINT IN THE GAME, YOU ARE FREE TO JUST IGNORE THEM IF YOU DO NOT CARE FOR THEM. These are simply options open to players to add a more specialised approach to the game and added flavour.

Also, Zombie can have their own set of traits. The set of zombie traits and human traits will be separate and you will not have zombie traits while human and vice-versa, e.g. a zombie trait you chose can not affect you if you are revived but you can get human traits, when/if you die, your zombie traits will take over and your human traits will not be active.

I don't think any of these should affect skills cost, as that pro/con would then vanish once the character has maxed out. You'd then have a character with a con and no pro, or worse for game balance, a pro and no con. No trait should affect the EXP number needed to buy a skill, this has the upside of forcing the player to make good decisions on what skills they buy, as so they will be advantaged by a trait more then they are disadvantaged.

If you want to modify your traits after starting the game, you have to spend 25 EXP (50 EXP if you're above level 5) to access Personal Growth (human) or Viral Changes (zombie) from your buy skills menu. THIS DOES NOT COUNT AS A SKILL PURCHASED OR A LEVEL GAINED. After you hit level 7, you can gain an extra 3rd trait, due to the fact the zombie crisis has made your personality more extreme. By spending the EXP, you can drop, change and take traits as you see fit, IF YOU WANT TO. Gaining levels past 5 can also open up new, more advanced traits to get, with new traits opening up with level 6, 7, 8 and 9 and such.

Any extra or decreased damage inflicted as a result of your/your target's traits do NOT influence the amount of EXP you gain. The EXP you gain is the same as if you and your target have no traits. Unless specified by the trait description.

If this is implemented, you can suggest traits as well, in a similar style to skills.

Some suggestions for traits are:

Open Minded

Pro: You can take in the ideas and thoughts of others well, +15% to gain EXP when using a book and +1 EXP gained by using a book.

Con: You're less forceful in conversion, it costs 2 AP to speak.

Mutated Metabolism

Pro: Your undead innards have shifted biologically and now you can heal naturally at a faster rate. Each time you do an action that isn't speaking you have a 15% chance of being healed 1 HP.

Con: The virus you harbour has been weakened by your strong bodily systems. Every infectious bite attack you hit with has a 10% chance of dealing 1 less point of damage and a 4% chance of not infecting the target.

Any more suggestions would be appreciated.

Votes

  1. Keep - Shameless author vote. -- November7 01:24, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)
  2. Kill - Personally I feel that this is a very complicated system, both from a gameplay point of view and a technical point of view. I didn't say it's a bad idea--I just don't believe that it's right for Urban Dead. I am in favor of clearly delineated skills (for example, axes always deal 3 damage, no matter what) and clearly delineated effects of said skills (for example, Infectious Bite always infects the target). Bentley Foss 05:45, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep --Lord Evans 05:52, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -- Ugh. I agree with Bentley. Too complicated. Good idea, but not an Urban Dead idea. I've seen better way at making your character distinguished from others. And the thing is, even if I liked it, I couldnt vote on it keep with a whole 'the list of involved skills will be decided later' aspect. --Jak Rhee 05:56, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Bentley and Jak are right. Whatever. I was barely paying attention. I'm watching. Family Guy episodes. Now. AllStarZ 06:30, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I loved this in Fallout, But would hate it in Urban dead. in this game it just wouldn't work by reasons stated by bentley and Jak. Each game has it's own mechanics and rules how things work. Just transplanting one part from the other won't work right. This game doesn't work well with negative adjustments . let Fallout be Fallout, let Urban Dead stay Urban dead.--Vista 07:24, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill Cool idea but not right. I don't know if negative adjustments are impossible with this game but if this idea could work at all you'd need to get real specific and spenc some serious time pouring over the various paired effects. --Thelabrat 07:33, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep --Kcold 12:46, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Too complicated for UD. --Dickie Fux 14:22, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I like the genral idea, but it would be difficult to balance in an MMO. Perhaps if you make some better examples. --Arnesio 14:43, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - As above... good idea, but not in UD. --Intx13 16:31, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Worth reading, unlike most suggestions these days, but too complicated for a simple
  13. Keep I love Fallout and one thing this game lacks is customization. Great suggestion. However, peopel are saying it's complicated and it's really not, you just need to show them that a little better and it might pass next time. Scorpios 10:13, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - a decent idea, but not for Urban Dead the way it is presented. however, i'll give you a fair shake if you work it over a bit more & resubmit it later for peer review.--Firemanstan 22:23, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. keepRhialto 10:03, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep Neat. But you should be limited in how many total you can get, so you don't just eventually pile them all on, for humans and zombies.. --MorthBabid 09:35, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Add age related ones, like children are more spry but are weeker and old people are smarter but weeker. --Mr NoName 16:12, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT) - Late. Velkrin 20:02, 21 May 2006 (BST)
    • Final Tally - 6 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:02, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Flak Jacket Wear (Not a dupe of Nov 13 sug, read below)

Timestamp: 08:57, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item Change
Scope: Everyone
Description: To be more precise, this combines that earlier suggestion with the 'callous skin' suggestion for zombie flesh protection.

Flak Jacket. All flak jackets currently in-game and newly found will be tagged as Flak Jacket (50). The counter goes down as the jacket takes damage, i.e. absorbing a shotgun blast would tick it down to Flak Jacket (48). Multiple flak jackets at this point would now have a purpose.

Now, the main reason why some people rejected the last suggestion was that it would screw rotters. Now comes the suggestion that there be a new skill under Brain Rot that gives the same protection as a flak jacket, i.e. calloused skin.

This may, however, be construed as unfair to survivors. Why should survivors be forced to keep searching up flak jackets while rotters enjoy permanent protection? For this, I suggest a few more changes -

1. 'Calloused Skin' (bad name, I know) may only be bought after all other zombie skills have been bought. That is, it would be the last skill in the zombie tech tree.

2. This is probably going to be the contested part of this suggestion. Calloused skin would work as a different type of skill, and wear off. Here's how it would work - instead of outright buying the skill, you put a certain number of exp points into it, to 'buff up', at the rate of 1 exp to 1 protection point. Ex. a zombie could sink 50 spare exp they had to get the calloused skin counter of 50 - the same practical effect as a brand new flak jacket.

3. Jackets and Callouses won't stack, and if a rotter has a flak jacket the jacket will take the beating before the zombie's calloused skin does.

Net effects? It's one less thing a zombie has to do as a survivor to be effective (search up a flak jacket), the rotters who missed out on the flak jacket could get an equivalent effect, a touch of added realism, multiple copies of a flak jacket would become useful, and veteran rotters have a place to sink otherwise useless exp into.

Please discuss why you voted the way you did, and point at things that can be improved.

Votes

  1. Kill - Just a bad idea - Jedaz 09:08, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - not bad, but just terrible. Items that break are bad, swapping XP for a flackjacket is bad.--Vista 09:18, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - So think of flak jackets as ammo. I don't see people complaining that their ammo runs out. FireballX301 22:49, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Atleast you would get rid of the terrible zombies wearing Flackjacks all the time. And yes i like the idea, makes it even more exiting.--Rilem 14.45, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT+1)
  4. Keep - Zombie equivalent of a flak jacket is a good idea.--The Fifth Horseman 14:28, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Certainly a hell of a lot more realistic than the Flak Jackets Of Infinite Durability we have now . . . I know I shouldn't be arguing realism in a freaking zombie apocalypse game, but that's the way flak jackets work in the real world! --John Taggart 14:46, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep --Lord Evans 16:08, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill For possible server issues with counting all the flak jackets that would be warn, also it griefs people. - --ramby 16:32, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Does this suggestion attempt to fix something? If it ain't broke... I see no reason to mess with the flak jacket situation, except perhaps for realism, which for me, isn't worth a change. --Intx13 16:34, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill If flak jackets are free a zombie is glad to have it. But considering death means little to a zombie and they'd probably get killed anyway... --Jon Pyre 17:34, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill Erm, no. Velkrin 20:09, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill Uck. The whole ZOmbie Callouses thing kills it for me. And it was half-dead anyway. Plenty of Zombie Skill suggestiosn that give a Zombie what's basically a flak jacket are already in existance(here) , the only difference here is the need to keeep pouring EXP into it,m while Surivors only have to 'search'. Degrading Jackets just.. suck. Finally, its mad mojo to assign ANYTHING as the 'last skill' in an ever-expanding tree. --Jak Rhee 21:14, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill Don't screw with flak jackets. Scorpios 10:17, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - while it would be nice to have something to do with my zombies oodles of XP that i currently have no use for, i don't care to see items that break. if breaking for realism applied to flax jackets, it would have to apply to every item (consistency).. and that would get very messy. --Firemanstan 22:33, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Kill because you shouldn't connect suggestions (Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots -- man I wish I could click a button and insert that, as much as I type it...)--if this got implemented without callouses, brain rot zombies would be quite upset. Also, leave items alone. Items that were previously unlimited-use should not suddenly begin wearing out. Flak jackets work fine as they are. Bentley Foss 05:41, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - This isn't a dupe, but its darn close. You didn't really change what was wrong with the original ideas. Maybe another time. --MorthBabid 09:36, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - although I must admit that I love the idea of an item that can be recharged with XP. --Salicyclic 14:10, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Kill it, because now everyone can search for their own flaks. - Serpico 00:33, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Kill - Two suggerstions, one pakcage. No! --Mr NoName 16:15, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT) - Late Velkrin 20:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)
    • Final Tally - 4 Keep, 13 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)

DNA Scanner tagging

Peer Reviewed Dupe and Dupe. --Brizth 15:04, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Corpse Destruction

1 Kill, 4 Spam, 1 author keep. Removed 2 and 1/2 hours since being posted. (Fixed by --The Fifth Horseman 18:53, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT))

"all spam and one author keep. pitiful Mattiator 17:03, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)"

  • RE:I understand it was your right to remove that and so you did. But jeez... that remark was completely unneccesary. Ever heard of a free Human skill called "Tact"? --The Fifth Horseman 17:39, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • There's no time for decency on the internets! See, he was in such a hurry he lost all his capital letters. — Bartle 23:02, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Interior Barricades

Timestamp: 14:38, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Big Building tweak
Scope: Everyone
Description: Okay, we all know what the Big Building upgrade did, right? It cleared the insides of stadiums, malls, mansions and the like so that survivors and zombies alike could move around freely - no stepping outside and back in for zombies and survivors without Free Running.

What I propose is this: that survivors could create barricades between sections of malls and other large buildings, using whatever they had available (food-court tables, arcade machines, trash barrels, et cetera). However, the main differences between interior barricades and exterior ones are as follows:

  • Interior barricades can only go up to Very Strong.
  • Interior barricades don't completely block zombies from accessing other sections of the mall. They can attempt to climb over the piled junk, but have a 5-25% chance of losing their footing, depending upon how heavy the internal barricade is - for example, a Loose internal barricade (consisting, let's say, of empty wastebaskets and cardboard boxes) would be easier to scramble over than, say a Strong barricade made of tipped-over arcade machines and food-court tables.

Also, if a zombie lost its footing, there's a chance that it was a loose item on the barricade that caused it to lose it's footing, with a 10% chance that the item in question falls off the barricade.

Possible success/failure messages could be:

Failure:

  • Zombie falls, barricade weakens: You see a barricade to the (north/south/east/west) and try to climb over it, but step on a loose (item). The (item) tumbles off the barricades, and so do you.
  • Zombie falls, barricade does not weaken: You see a barricade to the (north/south/east/west) and try to climb over it. However, you step on a loose (item) and lose your footing. The item wobbles precariously, and you fall off.

Success: You see a barricade to the (north/south/east/west) and climb over it.

N.B. - The entire interior of large buildings can still be seen by anyone inside. This suggestion does NOT eliminate the recent Big Building modification, it is merely a logical extension of it. Nor does it completely block zombies from accessing other sections of the mall, as a previous suggestion would have - at most, it reduces the chance of successful zombie movement from one mall section to another from 100% to 75%, with a 10% chance per failed attempt of weakening the barricade.

Votes

  1. Keep - This is my suggestion, and as the author, I am allowed to vote for it once. -John Taggart 14:41, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Spam - I didn't read all the mechanics, but the basic concept has already been shot down, with the exact same title. --Dickie Fux 15:08, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit: Read the whole suggestion for the discussion on the discussion page. I still think it's a spam suggestion that just negates the large building upgrade. --Dickie Fux 02:03, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Perhaps you should read the mechanics, then, instead of reflexively spam-voting it just because "Oh, look, it's in Peer Rejected.". The concept is the same, I grant you, but the other had much less detail - which appears to be the main reason why it was shot down. EDIT: It also appears that the Peer Rejected version would have completely blocked off access to other sections of the mall to anyone inside. This does not - there's only a chance that zombies would fall off the barricade as they tried to climb over to get to the tasty harmanz on the other side. --John Taggart 15:23, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. KEEP - As it is now, large b uildings are impossible to hold, humans need this! DarthMortis 15:40, 12 Jan 2006
  4. Keep - Yes, this concept is better than the old one, and viable. Definetly not spam. --Omega2 15:52, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep --Lord Evans 16:13, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - this suggestion has merit.. and adds some realism.. i like it --dragonboy218 16:19, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Malls and large buildings should not be easy to hold. They should be Not possible/Bearly possible for a short period of time and impossible to hold over an extended seige - --ramby 16:25, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - What is this shit. If Malls and large buildings are hard to hold.. Don't hold them.. Makes sense right? Is it that hard to stay nextdoor and spend 1 AP moving? --Qwako 16:38, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: What about mansions and stadiums, genius? People like to stay there too. --John Taggart 16:55, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Better than the old one, but I wouldn't want to see it implemented. I'm not entirely convinced that big buildings need to be easier to hold nor do I think an average 1.33ap movement cost would really help survivors. --Tekgo 16:39, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - As ramby said, malls are supposed to be big battlegrounds, meant for sieges. Not easy to hold. Just because the malls have been falling recently doesn't mean we need to radically change how they work. --Intx13 16:41, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: It's not a radical change, just a minor (and logical) tweak. To my mind, making a large building secure doesn't just mean blocking off the outside doors, it means doing anything you can to slow down enemies who've managed to breach the outer perimeter. It's not "OMG, letz maek impassabel pilez of debris in teh mallz0rs!11!1!1eleventyone", it's more like "Well, we've got a narrow corridor here, and it would be a great place to set up some obstacles . . . Let's grab some of those tables and see what we can do!" --John Taggart 16:55, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill The Big Building modification is beautiful.. Malls are a HCALLENGE to hold now, as they should be, lets not mess with that --Jak Rhee
    • Re: Without secondary tactical options (such as interior barricades to slow down the hordes), large buildings are difficult to hold prior to breaching, and damn near impossible to hold/retake once breached. I'm not saying I don't like the Big Buildings mod, I do - I just think it needs some adjustment, because as is it seems to favor zombies much more than it does survivors, and this was my "give the survivors a fighting chance to drive back the invading hordes and seal the breach" idea. As I said on the discussion page, this isn't "OMG let's build EH barricades and keep the zombies out of our section of the mallz0r!" (which is what it was pre-BB), it's more like "Well, we've taken care of the first line of defence, now let's work on setting things up so that we can at least slow them down a little . . . " (which is all that can really be accomplished inside a mall). And it's not just malls either, it's large buildings in general - Mansions and Stadiums too. (Why is everyone obsessing over the freaking malls, anyway? There are people who want to use other large buildings too, you know . . .) --John Taggart 18:13, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re John, I think you and I are at a Philosophical Impass.... but I've discribed my thoughts a bit more in Talk. --Jak Rhee 19:08, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill ^Agreed. Malls give a lot of goodies. The downside is they're big obvious targets and you have to guard all four entrances. --Jon Pyre 17:50, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep I like this suggestion. Limiting the barricades to VS means that the best they're going to do is slow the horde down, especially since the hordes have a pretty decent chance of climbing over them anyway. It makes sense that people inside a mall would try to block the major walkways, even if it wasn't very successful. --Pinpoint 18:38, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - ^And that, my friends, is precisely what this suggestion's all about - not stopping the hordes, as some seem to think, but slowing them down! Thank you, Pinpoint! --John Taggart 18:57, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - You're welcome. I do try to be logical about my votes. --Pinpoint 19:02, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - honestly, i like it. i agree with others that malls and other large buildings should be difficult for survivors to uphold, but i don't think that your suggestion nerfs that. if i was holed up in a mall in a zombie apocalypse you better believe i would try and block the halls as best i could to slow my impending doom. --Firemanstan 20:04, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Not much to add here. (Unsigned vote.)
  16. Keep - I think that this is a fun idea that would add flavour to the game, depending on how easy it is to implemet.Benpage26 21:52, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. KEEP! I know the new update was made to make it easier for zombies, but we've seen how easily lately 150 zombies *cough cough Mall Tour '06 cough cough* can take one.Scorpios 10:13, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Because someone won't let me just sign my unsigned vote, I'll just repeat it. Velkrin 22:48, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Not unbalanced, and I'm tired of random people thinking their version of UD is *the* version of UD. FireballX301 23:08, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep, good idea! --LibrarianBrent 23:14, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - good idea but mabye some tweaking.--revoso 00:09, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Survivors already are at a disadvantage since killing a zombie (both attacking & searching) rquires alot more AP's then it takes to the zombie to get back up (even with headshot) and the latest change to big buildings made it ridiculous for survivors to hold a mall, even if they outnumber the zombies 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1... so I vote keep. --Rani 01:10, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill -Stop complaining about malls, they have been changed for a reason and are now no longer a safe camp house, Visit them ,spend your 40AP searching then move out like the rest of us. Stop pining for the good old days--Stoy 01:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - I don't see how bad it would be. --Felix Fitzpatrick 03:20, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - This requires two different barricades in each square. Jirtan 03:26, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill -This suggestion give all the benefits to the survivors of the Big Building Implementation, does best to remove zombie benefits. Malls should NOT be more defensible that military bases. --Jack-Swithun 03:43, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - Don't see any reason to make malls easier to hold. Kramer 03:50, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Tally - 14 Keep, 11 Kill, 1 Spam, 26 Total. --Cabbage cookies 03:52, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - Do you people just hate any forward movement in this game at all, or just that in favour of zombies? --Snikers 05:23, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • 'Re: I hate "forward movement" that puts the balance out of whack for either side. Pre-Big Building, malls were way out of whack in favor of survivors; now, they're way out of whack in favor of zombies. --John Taggart 14:27, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - Give the new introductions a little time before you begin proposing modifications. If, in a month or two, it turns out that survivors find it impossible hold multi-block buildings no matter how organized they are, then resuggest. Bentley Foss 05:44, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill - Too early to judge necessity or math. Wild guess; this should be a delay tactic at best. Make it easier for zeds to tear down the internal barricades and/or harder for survivors to place them. Too early to judge my wild guesses, as well. Edited to remove what I didn't understand at first. I finally realized what you were saying once I got to the discussion page. I still say it's too early to tell if this will be necessary though. Basically I'm a ditto to Bently Foss's comment above me. --Thelabrat 08:45, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - That's precisely what it is, thelabrat. 75% chance of zombie entry into a VSIB big building section as opposed to 100% without barricades? I'd say that slows them down a little. --John Taggart 14:33, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill - No changing new additions to the game untill we've seen how they really work, while I believe that Malls should be able to withsatnd a siege every once in a while, increasing organization and adapting new survivor tactics are first to that. Barricading seems the wrong way to go about it to me anyhow. And Snikers please, grow up. --Vista 09:04, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  32. Kill There is no part of this sugestion that I like. --Stroth 13:29, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  33. Author Note - It seems like a lot of the people who've voted Kill on this don't seem to understand the suggestion. This was designed to act more like caltrops than a wall - it is intended to slow down an advance, not stop it completely. Also, some people have been focusing on Caiger Mall as "proof" that this suggestion is worthless. May I remind you that organized big-building defence both before and after Caiger has been smashed by organized zombie attacks, and big buildings have fallen faster than ever post-Big Building? --John Taggart 14:27, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  34. Kill - Not too bad. What about "zombie succesfully climbs over the barricade and barricade is weakened?"--Pesatyel 07:07, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - That's a thought. Will include it when/if I resuggest. --John Taggart 17:09, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  35. Kill - It's ideas like this that make the undead wonder why they should bother getting up off the ground in the morning. Why do we need this? Seriously: Ask yourself that. --MorthBabid 09:38, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  36. Kill - This is functionally so close to rolling back the big building change it's not funny. I notice you don't put anything in there for if a survivor fails to climb the internal 'cade, nor do you mention them slipping and bringins it down. From that it's plain that you're intent is to lessen the effects of the big building change, and that's about it. - Serpico 00:41, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Keep - It would slow the invading tide, but wouldn't be very usful if the building wasn't going to be lost. --Mr NoName 16:18, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT) - Late. Velkrin 20:05, 21 May 2006 (BST)
    • Final Tally - 14 Keep, 8 Kill, 1 Spam - 20:05, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Looking Out Windows

Duplicate of Windows and Rooftop Access, both peer reviewed. Thanks Dickie Fux for finding those two. --Brizth 17:22, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

    • Re - oh i must have missed that one thank you.--EvermanX 18:23, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Colored contacts display (selectable)

Timestamp: 18:31, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement to how Contacts work
Scope: Everyone
Description: This is quite similar to some of the previous suggestions, yes, but I hope different enough to warrant a vote.

I've noticed that after ~15 entry count in one's contact list, it's hard to identify who-is-who when you recognize them in a Zombie horde or pick them out in a group present in the building.

Basically, what I'd like to propose allowing a player to assign any of his contacts in the list into a colored group (about 4-6 pre-defined colors to choose from). When the player is in the same block as his contact, the contact's name is displayed in the pre-selected color. It should also be possible to not assign a person to any group - then the name would not be colored.

Also, an additional suggestion - because of the name display cap - would be that when one enters a building but does not select "show all survivors", the names of those in his contact list are displayed - or if there are too many of these present, the game displays a message "You recognize X of the people" to notify the player of his contacts' presence.

This allows recognition of one's allies and enemies (both among survivors and Zombies) the moment they see their names instead of laboriously going through their contacts list, during which time they can currently be attacked and killed. saves some time and data transfer, IMO (especially in case of longer contact lists)

Also, it (at least in theory) should limit accidental killing of a zombified ally while hunting for brain rotters in revive points.

Similar (but not identical) former suggestions: 1 2 3

The Fifth Horseman 18:33, 12 Jan 2006

Votes

  1. Keep - I like this one. It lets you keep track of both friends and enemies, works for both sides, and eliminates the need for a sheet of paper to do the same. Kudos! Had to fix the formatting a little. --Pinpoint 18:45, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep Hey, it's those little colored file tags! This would be quite useful! P.S. In response to Firefox controversies below I'd like to remind you all that this is not "Firefox Presents Urban Dead". I can't always access UD from a computer with both Firefox AND additional Downloads. Plus I don't like downloading stuff. --Jon Pyre 18:54, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep This suggestion makes sense, is beneficial to just about anyone you care to name, and could be used on its own or in conjunction with any of the aforementioned suggestions. These, to me, are some of the hallmarks of a Good and Worthy Suggestion(TM). I salute you, sir! --John Taggart 19:05, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill There is already an extention for firefox for this, it can be done without adding more stuff to the server - --ramby 19:20, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE Oh, woe! Does that mean that we must use Firefox if we want to play UD? ;) What about Netscape? Or Opera? Or any of a hundred other web viewers, like Konqueror? --The Fifth Horseman 19:29, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE Wait, there's an extension that retireves the [View Names] link and parses and displays parts of it automatically? Because that's part of this suggestion, and I believe nothing does this. --Tyroney 21:53, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep --Lord Evans 19:23, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - You don't have to use firefox for UD, just if you want this feature. I just think that it would be a waste of Kevan's time to add something to the game that's already avaiable. And it wouldn't kill you to use a particular browser for one site. Unless it was IE. Then it might kill you. Or at least your computer. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:11, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Sure, make this kind of thing available for non-FireFox users. UDTool is about the only reason I haven't switched to Opera. -CWD 20:49, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - We're not here to argue about the way Kevan uses his free time developing new features. If he deems interesting for zombies to fart and nauseate survivors in the area for two days, giving them a 50% penalty on all attacks, then he will do, no matter how stupid the idea is, or how much time would it take to code it. The idea got merit, so I vote Keep. --Omega2 21:44, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - This is a really handy idea, i always add to my contacts people i want revenge upon and people i should revive when i see them, but then i get confused. It would good if there was a button on profiles such as 'seek vengance' and 'alliance' or similar. A fun stat would be how vengeful and friendly people are... lol. Benpage26 21:55, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill UDTool. Get Firefox, stop whining Scorpios 10:13, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Note: Blatantly trolling vote struck out. A lot of people don't use Firefox because they either A) can't install it, B) prefer another browser (such a Opera or Netscape), or C) are on an operating system that doesn't support Firefox (such as Linux). --John Taggart 00:24, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: Regardless, only Admins have that authority. On a side note, Firefox does support Linux. Most new distros even come with it. --Mikm 00:56, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep This is a good idea. Firefox is a choice, not a requirement, asshole. -- Amazing 22:47, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Well formed idea, doesn't affect game balance, so I don't see why not. FireballX301 23:12, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill It depends on how much you want it or need it. If you need it alot, you would probably get firefox for the tool. If you don't wanna bother getting firefox, then you don't absolutely need it. AllStarZ 23:42, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep I'm afraid I have no choice but to agree with Amazing on this. Firefox shouldn't be a requirement, it should only be an option! Otherwise Kevan would close the game to all but Firefox users! --Volke 23:44, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - What's there not to like? --Rani 01:11, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - No reason not to, but it's a low priority improvement - I mean, firefox is free, relatively non-space-consuming, and works on all OS's. --Signal9 01:26, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: All OS'es? Umm... are you sure there are versions for Mac-OS or DOS (there are DOS web browsers, you know).--The Fifth Horseman 15:03, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Extremely useful. --Felix Fitzpatrick 03:18, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - I see nothing wrong with this idea. --Snikers 05:24, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - All of it would be fine by me but "would be that when one enters a building but does not select 'show all survivors', the names of those in his contact list are displayed" makes me giddy. --Thelabrat 08:51, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)You misunderstand...that's my favorite part. But cutting it as you say below would work too. This would basicaaly allow survivor lists the same functionality that the zed lists have in-game. "You see 50 zombies and recognize Grim among them. You see 50 dead bodies and recognize Petrosjko among them." --Thelabrat 02:04, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: I guess that part wasn't the brightest idea I had. Cutting it to a message "You recognize a few people." would probably work as good.--The Fifth Horseman 15:03, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - good idea to make this aviable for every one--Vista 08:54, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. keep - UD shouldn't have to require the latest web browser with 3rd party plugins to be decently playable. Rhialto 10:11, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - Unnecessary. --Daednabru 06:03, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill Wouldn't just having a "You recognize <X>, <Y>, and <Z> amongst them" after the list of "You see <#> survivors" work just as good with less effort? --MorthBabid 09:39, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Kill - I would rather have notes on the contacts list ,not colors. --Mr NoName 16:20, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT) - Late.
    • Final Tally - 17 Keep, 6 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:06, 21 May 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/12th-Jan-2006&oldid=256113"