Suggestions/16th-Apr-2007

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


Crime & Punishment

Timestamp: Fuster 01:36, 16 April 2007 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Artworks
Description: Since it is now after midnight, a second suggestion: some tweaks concerning artworks, stuffed hippos and the like.

"Survivors who are carrying an uninstalled artwork can now have that artwork removed from them by another survivor, if they are killed by them. It is also possible to remove installed artworks from the wall of a safehouse, adding it to the survivor’s inventory. Art theft is visible to anyone present in the safehouse at the time of the theft."

No wait, hear me out…..

Money is worthless in Malton. However artworks provide the basis for a barter system to encourage player group interaction and payments. Powerful groups can amass large collections but doing so will present a tempting target for ransacking zombies and wannabe thieves. It is a question of status: the more bling your safehouse has, the longer it has stood unransacked and the more AP has been spent collecting the stuff that is inside it.

Although art theft from a safehouse is a possible griefing behaviour, it is low level griefing behaviour which does not directly victimise players by preventing them from playing the game (i.e. it does not carry with it the AP loss and zombification that is caused by death). Allowing players to take items from someone they’ve just killed allows for the retrieval of stolen items and shouldn’t increase malicious PK activity greatly because players do not know if the item is being carried unless they’ve seen a player remove it from a wall.

Edit: I have some slight concerns.... does this turn museums into unlimited banks? If so, does this matter since the resources needed to defend a museum (ammunition, FAKs) must be sourced elsewhere and since ransacking will always remove artworks from the game? I think the suggestion should still be OK. - Fuster 01:49, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - I recognise that this causes negative knee-jerk reactions but I'm convinced that a little grief enhances the game and that this could really add to the richness of player group behaviour. - Fuster 09:06, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill-Sorry, but this doesnt make any sense to me. Firstly, it is not fair for people to be able to remove any item from the inventory of someone who is dead. Secondly, there are so many museums in the city that there must be hundereds of each type of artwork ect. Iv'e seen more contempory painings than I can count, so anybody who has had their stuff pinched will probably just pop over to a museum and nick something else. I just dont think it will add anything to the game.Sorry to be so pessimistic. Seventythree
  2. Kill This seems to be your idea from my money suggestion above. The point of my suggestion is to allow peaceful trading of worthwhile items. This just lets people PK and steal worthless items from each other. It seems counterproductive. --Jon Pyre 02:34, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    • ReYes, this is an expansion of my earlier comment to turn it into a game suggestion. Your suggestion tries to bring peaceful trading into a zombie apocalypse game - changing the essential character of game play. Survivors are simply not peaceful. My suggestion accepts and embraces that this is a game about conflict and looks for a way to encourage team play within that context. Think of it as a version of 'capture the flag'. - Fuster 08:57, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re There's nothing inherently wrong with a zombie game where survivors fight each other. Except this game is not designed for survivor vs. survivor conflict. There's no defense against a rampaging human. The only reason humans don't slaughter each other is that there is no benefit from killing another survivor, and harm in the loss of an ally. Another game might support stealing and looting. Not UD. --Jon Pyre 18:17, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill - Drama causing waste of time. Survivors don't need Kevan giving them NEW ways to waste their time and piss each other off. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 03:18, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re - Hmmmm. Interesting. You see I think a drama causing waste of time is exactly what the game needs. The game is pointless unless it is about surviving in the conflict of a zombie apocalypse. That's why PK activity is not just tolerated by the game but is essential to it. Without this sort of thing to add texture to the game world, just killing zombies gets rather repetitive for the average high level player. But if we disagree on that, I can certainly see that you'll not appreciate the suggestion. - Fuster 08:43, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Kill - As Seventythree--I'm against anything that allows you to loot a dead player. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 07:09, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Kill - i don't like any aspect of this suggestion --Duke Garland 10:31, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Kill - Stealing art is not very beneficial. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 11:36, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  7. Kill - No stealing -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:53, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  8. Kill - I actually like this more than the other kill voters, because it encourages PKing and theft. But, even as a PKer, this is a waste of time, it doesn't hurt anybody or have any effect in the game at all, so what's the point? This would just get annoying. --Gm0n3y 18:54, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Kill - i really like this and well done. Its very craetive and does not appeal to the lets kill zombies part of the game. but i feel it will encourage PKing and stealing from another player is annoying and unfair. however, i like the safehouse 'bling' bit and with a bit of revising i think it will go far.--Jakey07 20:01, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  10. As above and beyond. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:02, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  11. Kill - I don't like it when people knick my stuff! --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:29, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. spam - I don't like to encourage PKing. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:38, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    Discussion moved to the talk page--Vista 19:57, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Revive Revision v5

Timestamp: 13:12, 16 April 2007 (BST)
Type: item revivsion
Scope: NT syringes and scanners
Description: This suggestion aims to overhaul the revive syringe and related game factors (skills, etc) to make thier use more "player friendly". Overall revive rates are intended to (statistically) remain about the same, with a slight boost in revive ability going to characters with Necronet Access skill.

Replace all existing DNA Scanners (including those in inventories) with the following "weapon":

  • Item- Necrotech Injector: 6% encumbrance. Functions as a DNA scanner, but also (when loaded) can be used as a weapon with a 10% base chance to hit. 1 AP to use to "attack" with, like any weapon. Found in NT buildings (replaces scanners), can be loaded with the NT Serum Vial below. The Injector is always found with 0 doses left, as the vials expire not long after being loaded. The Injector can not be manufactured. New Necrotech Lab Assistant characters start with this item (unloaded) instead of a scanner. A hit on a zombie from a loaded NT Injector uses up one dose, and has a variable chance of reviving the zombie (which earns the reviver 10 XP). If this chance fails, the zombie instead takes 5 damage (which earns XP as per any attack doing the same).

All existing NT Syringes would remain in character inventories, but when searching NT buildings or Manufacturing a syringe, the "NT Serum Vial" would be found / produced instead of syringes:

  • Item- Necotech Serum Vial: used like a pistol clip to (re)load Necrotech Injectors. Holds 4 doses. 2% encumbrance. Found in NT buildings at instead of syringes, or manufactured as per a syringe, using Necronet Access.

Modify NT skills with following:

  • NT Employment: The user has a +10% (20% total) chance to hit with an NT injector, and a 20% to revive a zombie with a hit, in addition to current abilities- survivor could still scan zombies, for example.
  • Lab Experience: the survivor has a +10% (20% total) chance to hit with an NT injector, and a 40% chance to revive a zombie they hit, in addition to current abilities- survivor could still use any NT Syringes they had, for example.
  • Necrotnet Access: the survivor has a +15% (25% total) chance to hit with an NT injector, and a 40% chance to revive a zombie they hit, in addition to current abilities. Can manufacture NT Serum Vials (but not syringes) in a powered NT building for 20 AP.

Modify powered NT building effects:

  • All current effects remain (eg, Necronet can be used, zombies can be revived with existing NT Syringes)
  • +10% chance to revive zombie hit with NT injector
  • Zombies with Brain rot can be revived by survivors with the Necronet Access skill, with a flat 40% chance per hit of revival (no bonus for powered NT building).

Brain Rot' would remain unaffected; the zombie is still harder to scan and can not be revived except in powered NT buildings.

Here is a comparison of the likely costs of performing a revive:

  • Currently: 10 AP to revive (Requires Lab Experience) plus estimated 10 AP to find syringe = 20APs
  • Per above proposal, with NT Lab Experience: 12.5 attacks with Injector = 2.5 hits = 1 revive. 12.5 AP attacking, plus using 2.5 doses from a vial with 4 doses (62.5% of the 10 AP per syringe estimate = 6.25 AP) plus .625 AP to load the injector = 19.375APs.
  • Per above proposal, with NT Employment: 31.38 APs
  • Per above proposal, with Necronet Access: 13.5 APs

Note: Revive Revision v1, v2, and v3 were all developed in discussion. V4 (that was up for voting) contained some significant typos based on cut'n'pastes from those three versions. Sorry about that.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Maybe you should re-read it Funt, each "vial" contains 4 chances to revive. I had the same issue with the previous version but it was clarified here. Also that 10% chance is for people who couldn't revive before. Check the math, it works out better for survivors. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 12:41, 16 April 2007 (GMT)
  1. Keep - Authors vote. I'm gonna let this one ride to the rejected file, but would like a note made when votes are recorded that the majority of the Kill and Spam votes (some by their own admission, some by obvious comparison of vote comments vs suggestion text) show a clear misinterpretation of the suggestion text on the voters part. This suggestion very clearly does NOT do away with DNA scanning, for example! --Seb WiersctdpImagine 23:52, 20 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I can see what it is you want, I can even understand most of the math. But I think the DNA extractor is needed. Or else random reviving will go up, and people don't want that. Also the chances of me killing a zombified friend while trying to revive him, allthough small, would be annoying. - Whitehouse 16:15, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    • Quote from suggestion: *Item- Necrotech Injector: 6% encumbrance. Functions as a DNA scanner... - so no, random revives would not go up, you can (and should) still scan anybody you are going to revive. Its just, now one tool does BOTH tasks. As for the extra 2% encumbrance, that effectively vanishes the second you load it with a NT Serum Vial. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 00:15, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Kill - Whitehouse makes some good points, and the current system works quite well too. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 16:26, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    • Its not a question of the current system working or not; I tend to agree it does, which is why this suggestion goes to lengths not to produce a statistical shift. What the current system lacks is entertainment value for the player doing the revives, and flexability; being forced to spend 10AP in a chunk is very limiting. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 00:15, 17 April 2007 (BST)
    Re - It would be nice if revives were more exciting, but the proposed changes make the system more complex than it needs to be. It also reminds me a lot of the Romero Cannon. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 00:35, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill - I actually think that we SHOULD get rid of the DNA extractor, since it is far too easy to die, take a couple AP to walk to an RP and get revived in a single day. It would encourage survivors trying to help everybody become human and not just mrh cows. Other than that though, the rest of this suggestion isn't good. --Gm0n3y 19:00, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  4. kill makes reviving a combat activity and frankly if i wanted to 'shoot' zeds i would get a gun! Gm0n3y is right though mrh cows suck! --Honestmistake 19:05, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Change - I think it's needlessly complicated. It needs to be more streamlined, as it has a lot of unnecessary stuff. Also, the DNA extractor is a necessary and important tool. However, the idea of syringes as "ammo" works fine for me. Maybe you should make it so that DNA extractors serve the dual purposes of scanning and allowing the option of reviving someone (with syringes as their ammo). But I don't think that players should be able to use DNA extractors without NT employment; it's practically the whole purpose of the skill. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:38, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    • That is in fact EXACTLY how the above suggestion functions! The NT Injector works as a DNA scanner (which you can only use if you have NT employment) and can be used to try and revive somebody (although your chances are 0% withut NT Employment, and pretty slim without Lab Experience). --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 00:15, 17 April 2007 (BST)
      • Re - Upon closer inspection, I think I see what you mean. But the way you word it implies that it only works as a DNA extractor when it is not loaded (which would mean it would then have to be loaded after scanning in order to revive someone, preventing use of the DNA extractor ability to selectively revive). Plus, there's the concern brought up by the vote below me (something I had not considered). --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:51, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Kill -When i try to revive someone it is possible that i kill him? Not very nice, I don't like that --OrangUtanKlaus 15:10, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - ignoring your difficult to fathom arithmetic - I see this: I find these new syringe-bullets at the same rate I found the old syringes - except instead of a 100% to hit, I now have 25% to hit, and then only 40% chance of an effect. Isn't that like reducing my chance of an effect from 100% to 10%? Sounds like a big old complicated nerf to me. No thanks. You might want to take a look at the map - the zombies have taken out the entire north-west quadrant of Malton. This isn't the time to be nerfing survivors. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:36, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    • Nope, that's not what it is at all. Instead, you find a syringe that can be used four times for 4 AP each time (attack 4 times with 25% to hit), with a 40% chance of reviving the person for every 4 AP spent. Which is FAR from a nerf. As for looking at the map- I do, every day, because I play a hard core, dedicated reviver in Roywood. He's brought back 17 people in the past week. Hell, I designed a little thing called the NT Status Map so that people can know exactly what the situation actually is up there! --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 00:22, 17 April 2007 (BST) Funt, in your below reply you continue to assume the Injector must be re-loaded after every 4 "attacks". This is what is throwing your math off, and making mine look faulty in comparison. The injector only needs to be reloaded after every 4 HITS, not after 4 attacks (3 of which will statistically be misses). Try your math again on that basis, and I think you will see why this is actually a buff, not a nerf- you've got it figured so people use up 4 times as many "syringes" (vials) as the suggestion actually requires! I'll be happy to take further discussion to the talk page, I'm just in a hurry now. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 12:54, 17 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re - I think your math is wrong. I calculate that, with your system, for 5AP (1 to load the gun) you get a 34.39% chance of reviving. With the current system, I've got a 100% chance of reviving for 1AP. Why would I want your system? (I get 34.39 from that fact that your hit rate is 25%. 25% of the 40% to effect the Zed is a quarter of 40, which is 10. The chances of getting a 10 out of 100 with 4 goes is 34.39%.) Maybe I'm missing something obvious but it looks like your system is a bit crap. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:23, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  2. DNA Test - How can we tell who to revive without DNA extractors?--Lachryma☭ 15:31, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Spam - Hard to understand the reason for this... to say nothing of the mechanics. Syringes work well, there would need to be a damn good reason for such a change -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 16:00, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Spam -- Not useful, not needed. --Anotherpongo 18:35, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  5. As Funt. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:00, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Spam - How is this supposed to help survivors? By giving them a item that can harm an ally zed and have a chance at failure, and a high one at that, instead of letting them keep a syringe that is harmless and has a guarenteed revive? Sorry, I think I'll keep shooting up.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 00:18, 17 April 2007 (BST)
    • It helps survivors in several ways. First, it significantly decreases the time NT techs need to spend searching in NT buildings to get the gear they need, or (even better) effectively boosts the amount of equipment they find per AP spent. Second, it lets low level NT's kill brain rotted zombies about as effectively as a fireman does (woot, XPs and clean revive lines). Even higher level NT's may benefit from this, as it saves them having to go to a mall or police station to get ammo to kill brain rotters with. Third, it lets an revive tech spend less than 10AP's trying to revive a zombie, handy for AP use optimizations. Fourth, it encourages all those trenchies who like "attacking zombies" to maybe try a different sort of "weapon" that plays very similarly to using a gun, but has a much more useful effect. The cost for all these benefits is that yes, you might have bad luck and fail to pull off a revive when you need it, or even "kill" a friendly zombie, forcing them to spend a few AP standing up again. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 00:55, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  7. Spam First of all, I don't like that it can be used as a DNA Extractor as well. We want to make items MORE useful, not LESS. I have to take NecroTech Employment to take Lab Experiencd to take NecroNet Access. Shouldn't those numbers add up? If the base is 10%, NT Employment is +10%, Lab +10% and Access +15%, shouldn't that be 20%/30%/45%? And how is this NOT a nerf? In your RE to Funt, you didn't even counter his argument. At least as far as I could tell. You just reiterated what you said in the suggestion. Are you also suggesting to get rid of DNA Extractors?--Pesatyel 09:31, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  8. Spam - Oh, come on now - 5th revision? And no, I don't think this really fits in with current mechanics at all.
  9. Spam - Pretty much as most of the people above. And really, if the first four versions fail, what makes you think the fifth with work? Eventually, you just have to give up, because people will start voting spam just because of the number of times it has been suggested. --Saluton 14:44, 17 April 2007 (BST)
    • Like many voters above, you apparently did not read the suggestion; it clearly explains that the first three revisions were handled entirely on the discussion page. These were (if you look at said page) in fact improvements on an idea that had a decent level of support. And the Fourth was just a vote submission that had typos in it. --{{SUBST:Swiers}} 12:29, 20 April 2007 (BST)

Drugs

Incorrectly formatted suggestion removed (invoking Rule #5). --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:06, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Revive Gun

Timestamp: Tryce of Thunder 22:11, 16 April 2007 (BST)
Type: New Item
Scope: Reviving
Description: Found in Necrotech buildings at a search rate of 5%(up to debate). Is reloaded via NecroTech Revivification Syringes, at the cost of 1 AP per Syringe loaded, with a max capacity of 4 needles. One "round" costs 3 AP to "fire", with a 30% chance to revive the zombie. The encumbrance level is 6%. You trade off a garunteed revive for a chance to revive up to 4 zombies in a 12 AP period. The XP gained from reviving is 10XP as usual(this is up to debate as well).

This was inspired by Revive Revision v5, but I took out the extra complications, and made it simpler.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - I like the idea. It may be mine, but I like it. Tryce of Thunder 22:21, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Keep - I can't say I'm glad that you basically stole part of someone's idea (and their thunder), but to let this suggestion die just because of that would prevent it from ever getting to where it deserves to be (since future attempts would inevitably be removed as dupes). And aren't we supposed to vote on suggestions, not users (ie, our votes on a suggestion are supposed to be completely unaffected by our opinion of the author)? I mean, it was a rule (rather than a guideline) last time I checked. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:11, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill / Change - As a stripped down version that captures the essence of the above idea, its not bad, although mine goes a lot deeper in revising the NT skills and such. One problem I see is that adding a new findable item generally decreases the rate at which other items (including in this case syringes) are found. Another is that the description of the revive procedure in now way implies it could be done without careful hands on work. But I actually was considering an "injector use optional, reloaded with syringes" version of the above suggestion, based on some of the above suggestions, so the basic notion seems decent enough, and those problems can be pretty easily removed. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 00:37, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Kill Its a bit nasty to use someone elses idea so soon after it went up for posting. Plus, NEcrotech stuff does not need any changes. It works, dont muck about with it, please.--Seventythree 01:25, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill I want to be a doctor and not a madman behind a gun --OrangUtanKlaus 15:14, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - I like the current system as is. The Spam vote is for nabbing someone else's idea and posting up your version on the same day. It's not cricket, what? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 22:49, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:59, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Spam - Almost a dupe of the Romero Cannon, but still very similar. The possible max amount of revives performed is way too large. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 00:18, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Spam - Har Har! --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:31, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Firestarter

Timestamp: 8 Bucks 23:15, 16 April 2007 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Applies to Survivors level 15 and above
Description: Here's the thought: I've found an occasional fuel can and I've found an occasional flare gun, and it's well understood that zombies hate fire. My concept is one of using existing tools in a new combination.

Any survivor who is level 15 or above can purchase (for 150XP) a Zombie-defense skill called "Firestarter". Anyone with Firestarter skills and in possession of a Fuel Can and a Flare Gun will have the action button "Start Fire". With the same accuracy as they have using a Flare Gun for attacks, they can attempt to ignite their Fuel Can in the same space they currently occupy.

A successful Firestarter attack will disperse from 1 to 5 zombies (1 - 10%, 2 - 25%, 3 - 35%, 4 - 20%, 5 - 10%) in random directions up to 3 spaces (even chance from 1 to 3 for each involved zombie) from their original location. The zombies lose no HP because the zombies aren't going to care about a little charred skin, but they will use up twice the number of AP's as they would have by walking, because flaming zombies tend to zigzag. So, a burning zombie that has the Lurching Gait skill that gets dispersed 2 spaces uses up 4 AP's because he's too stupid to stop,drop, and roll. A zombie that does not have Lurching Gait that gets dispersed 3 spaces uses 12 AP's in the process.

The cost of launching this attack is 4 AP's for the survivor (because it's a more complex process than just aim and fire). Plus, starting a fire indoors will automatically ransack the room, so any successful Firestarter attack that is launched in a room that has power, etc. will wreck the room and damage the Generator (if the Generator is already damaged, it will be destroyed) . Firestarter attacks indoors will burn a random number of survivors from 0 to 4 (20% chance of each) and cost those survivors from 3 - 5 HP each. Firestarter attacks outdoors will not injure Survivors since Survivors typically don't tend to stand in puddles of fuel, but will damage Barricades.

The thought is that this could be an effective (although dangerous) defense against zombie mobs by dispersing them and causing them to run out of steam from the resulting zombie panic and disorientation. It's not free, and will screw up a safehouse in a hurry.

Successful Firestarter attacks will result in 15XP for the survivor who launches it regardless of the number of zombies scattered or survivors injured or killed. The Fuel Can and Flare Gun are used up and gone regardless of the outcome of the attack.

Finally, whoever holds the name "Trashcanman," he or she should have a 90% chance of successful firestarting. Because let's be serious, whoever chose that name was MADE to start fires. Oh, and that's not me, I just checked and the name is taken. (This would be a "nice to have", but my suggestion doesn't have to keep this last concept)

Keep Votes
For Votes here
Kill Votes

  1. Kill - While this deserves a spam, I recognize you are new, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. First off, suggestions involving fire generally get scorn around here, and secondly, people hate group effects even more. So sorry. Welcome to the Wiki!--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 00:08, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Uh...as Canu up there above me. And...um...maybe you should post this on the talk page before summiting it here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:09, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill - As above. Go to discussion and discover the wonder of the discussion board! ...anyway, one of the main rules is not moving other people's characters, even though feeding drag goes against it.--Storyteller 00:20, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  4. kill - I like fire, i don't like this! I can think of a few ways i would like to see something like this go but I think the WIKI voters are afraid of FIRE.... --Honestmistake 00:40, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Kill Sorry, but you just cant have anything that moves peoples characters around for them. I'ts just not fair. Maybe if you toned it down a little, somehow using the fuelcan/flaregun combo to create an attack that hurts more than one person, honestly i don't know, but that is what the duiscussion bord is for I guess. Don't feel bad, every idea I post gets shot down. Just stick at it.--Seventythree 01:16, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Kill - I was almost gonna vote keep until I sa the bit about it using up the zombie's AP's. The moving pisses most people off (not me so much) but this is a bloody AP attack, that (to make it worse) is extra hard on those without lurching gait. Gee, I can just see this being a HOOT for the death cult mayhem crew to do at revive points... actualy, just the ability to use it at revive points would make the moving bit DAMN unpopular, so I don't think it can be salvaged. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 03:23, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  7. Kill - My Fire Zombies Suggestion got shot down faster... Mattiator 04:35, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  8. Kill - too complicated, vastly overpowered. I far prefer the Peer Reviewed Molotov Cocktails suggestion. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:01, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Kill - Please use talk:suggestions in future. Ta --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:32, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  10. Kill - Well, it's about time someone made an AoE attack that wasn't completely broken due to the AoE aspect (max of 5 zombies affected prevents 100+ target attacks). Unfortunately, this suggestion still doesn't work. For one thing, it moves people against their will (not bad in itself in my view, but forces people to waste AP getting back). What happens if this is done at the border? Do the zombies go outside Malton, never to be seen again? Why don't the flames hurt them? Zombies aren't fireproof; otherwise they wouldn't dislike fire. And this takes away their AP, which is generally a no-no. How would you like someone taking away your AP? Zombies already have to waste nearly all of their AP standing up from headshots and tearing down barricades. Why would you want to make it worse for them? And how is it fair for one particular player who happens to have a certain name to get a buff that no one else can get? And don't even get me started on how much Griefers and Death Cultists would abuse this. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:29, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  11. Kill - As above. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 20:29, 17 April 2007 (BST)
  12. Kill - I really want to vote keep just for the fun it would be as a PKer, but it would be pretty unbalancing. --Gm0n3y 21:57, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/16th-Apr-2007&oldid=1879274"