Suggestions/16th-Feb-2006

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.

VOTING ENDS: 2nd-Mar-2006

Inform of Brainrot Upon Successful Scan

Timestamp:	17:42, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Scientists
Description:	The zombie practice of standing in revive points and using brain rot to intercept syringes is completely valid. But there's currently no way to discern if they are brain rotted or not unless they are unscanned, and you fail scanning them. I suggest that upon sucessfully scanning a brainrotted zombie a simple addition is added to the information you get, undearneath their name and class: "Cortex Damaged." It makes sense you could get the information you get automatically by failing if you succeed! Also if a zombie is already scanned players with NecroNet access should be informed that they were found to have brain rot. These players have access to Necrotech's database of info on already extracted zombies, it makes sense they'd get more information through the wireless connection of their DNA extractor. It'd simply add to the "Already scanned" message one line: "Their file is marked with a red flag." This allows scientists to use DNA extractors to avoid wasting syringes, but still allows one brain rotted zombie to prevent the scientist from reviving. It'd just prevent scientist players from losing 20AP's worth of effort all the time, but still allow brain rotted zombies to disrupt revive points.

Votes
Votes here

1. Kill - --ramby Talk 17:51, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
2. Kill -I like the first part, but I don't think you should be able to use necronet to check previous people's results. take tht bit out and I'll vote keep --Marianne Wells 17:56, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
   • Re I only suggest that because otherwise low level scientists DNA extracting for xp would actually be impeding the efforts of higher level scientists to revive people by not allowing them to scan the zombies themselves. --Jon Pyre 18:01, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
3. Keep - It seems fair.--The General 18:23, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
4. Keep - Makes sense. --McArrowni ^W! 18:32, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
5. Keep - Balanced and well-written. Two thumbs up, way up! --Matson Jade 18:37, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
6. Kill - Um...no. Last time I checked (about twelve hours ago), you still get the "Cortex damaged, repeat extraction" message before you get the "already scanned" message. "Cortex damaged" == brainrot. If that's the information you seek, then it's already provided to you. Bentley Foss 18:40, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
7. Kill - What Bentley Foss said. --WibbleBRAINS 18:50, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
   • 'Re You do not get a message if you succeed on your first try. --Jon Pyre 21:06, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
8. Keep - Good idea, balanced, and makes sense, both as a game mechanic and a reality/flavor point. Even with Brain Rot, there is a chance for a successful scan on first attempt - there is no guarantee to get a "Cortex Damaged" error before you get a successful scan. --Reverend Loki 19:00, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
9. Keep - Yep, what Reverend Loki said. Happened to me yesterday. --Brizth ^W! 19:03, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
10. Keep - Nice. I'm not so sure about the second part, though. -- Andrew McM ^W! 19:07, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
11. Keep Author vote. Simply prevents scientists from wasting tons of AP while still allowing brain rotters to disrupt revival points. --Jon Pyre 19:36, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
12. Keep - would help scientist's stop useing syringes on rotters --Lord Evans ^W! 19:54, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
13. Keep - Bentley, you can still get a successful scan on a rotter, there's just a smaller chance of it. It's happened to me. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:08, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
14. Kill - It's already far too easy for humans to get revived, thanks to the invention of revive points. Takes a lot of the danger out of playing as a human, in my opinion. I won't vote for anything that makes revive points easier to maintain. --John Ember 20:36, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It shouldn't be easy to be revived. But having to essentially gamble with syringes is annoying. I once hit three brain rotted zombies in one day, losing 60AP in total. And as I said, brain rotted zombies can still stop revives just by standing there. --Jon Pyre 20:50, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
15. Keep - Nice idea. Doesn't hurt the rotters, anyway. --Omega2_Talk 21:12, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
16. Keep - Nice idea, but hasn't this already been suggested? --Shadow213 22:23, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
17. Keep - What Reverend Loki said. --Blahblahblah 21:24, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
18. Keep _ Anything that stops or slows the 20 AP wasteing jerks. --Kirk Howell 21:33, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
19. Kill - Brain rot is a nasty suprise. Deal with it, dont whine about getting suprised. Also, revive points are a player construct and in game measures should not be taken to protect such constructs. --Grim s 21:57, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • re This applies not just to revive points but any instance where someone tries to revive a zombie. --Jon Pyre 22:08, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
20. Kill - Brainrot was supposed to be a surprise, right? I'd get it for two reasons: staying dead, and wasting syringes so that zombie next to me doesn't get revived. -Kraxxis 22:59, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re The zombie next to you still wouldn't be revived. I don't think it's necessarily meant to be a suprise, I think it's to gain immunity to revivification. --Jon Pyre 23:02, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re I still have doubts as it makes zombies (with brainrot) who sleep in groups stick out, unless you can clarify that. There shouldn't be any way to tell one zombie from another that have brainrot like telling survivors apart that have headshot skill. -Kraxxis 23:18, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
21. Keep - Makes sense to me. -Dude70 23:36, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • • Tally - 14 Keep, 7 Kill, 21 Total. --Cabbage cookies 00:29, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
22. Keep - I think it makes sense and gives everyone a chance to lookout for rots. --TheBigT 01:54, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
23. Kill - I think the current system of brain rot anonymity is the premium you pay for the benefit of the availiability of guaranteed syringes.--Mookiemookie 03:08, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
24. Kill - Sometimes zombies will attack the barricades and fail to damage them. Sometimes they'll claw at a survivor and swipe only at air. Sometimes you'll fire at a zombie with a shotgun and miss. Sometimes you'll search and find absolutely nothing. And sometimes you'll use a revive syringe to discover you've used it on a rotter. Them's the haps. --Navigator 03:14, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
25. Kill - Forgive me if I don't share your opinion that being robbed of 20 AP that you spent in safety is a tragedy. But rotters are how zombies prevent survivors from being revived faster than they can kill them, and you should try figuring out ways of dealing with them yourselves instead of asking for a quick fix from the game engine. Since it's still remarkably easy to get a revive even without being part of a group, rotters can't be so much of a problem that you can't find ways of dealing with them yourself. At least try working out a solution before begging Kevan for an answer! --TheHermit 03:35, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
26. Kill - Eah, I like the Russian roulette style of reviving we have going now. Keeps things interesting. Velkrin 07:30, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
27. Kill - The last thing NTs need is anything to make their life easier. Strapon Bev 10:20, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
28. Kill - As an NT im finding life (And re-life) too easy anyway Xbehave 13:40, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
29. Kill - I'm a rebel. --Qwako 16:43, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
30. Kill - The risks of reviving zombies: trying to revive one which has the brain rot skill --Abi79 15:13, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
31. Keep - Makes plain horse sense. Brett Day 15:46, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
32. Kill - That's the risk you take with rotters. Sometimes you get lucky on the DNA extraction. - CthulhuFhtagn 17:54, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 16 Keep, 16 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:22, 9 April 2006 (BST)
    • NOTE: HAS BEEN APPLIED TO GAME.

---

---

Emote

Timestamp:	19:55, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type:	interface improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	This would allow survivors to use an Emote, much like the /me command in IRC or similar features in many other games and chat programs. This would be available to Survivors, and would manifest either as a new textbox/button combination, such as "Speak" and "Graffiti" exist now, or simply utilize the Speech textbox, where any string beginning with /me is interpreted as an emote. Appearance: If the character John issued the command /me jumps, it would simply appear as ---John jumps. This would also appear in a different color to distinguish it as an emote, to prevent it from being confused with speach, or an action. A person can't sit there and type /me attacks you for 58 damage. I am currently imagining that the color would be distinct but subdued - perhaps like a Burnt Sienna, though the actual color is not a part of this suggestion. Also, the exact appearance is not written in stone - ***John jumps, or other variations may end up being implemented, as Kevan's choice. Why Survivors Only? Well, there is a limited number of actions that the Zombie mind can carry out, namely things like shamble, bite, claw, and moan. As there already exists actual functions to handle these already, there just isn't much need for them to have this ability otherwise. Furthermore, the anonymity that zombies enjoy as "just another face in the crowd" would make emote abuse amongst zombies too attractive - at least with survivors, we can see who's doing what. Some may feel that zombies deserve an emote anyways - if so, I feel that the zombie version of the emote feature would be different enough from the survivor version that it would be deserving of it's own suggestion. In other words, let your hopes for a zombie emote stand on it's own merits; this suggestion does not preclude the existence of yours. But this is a Dupe! - No, it isn't. You may be thinking of this /me suggestion, or of the "Emote" suggestion that was made earlier this week. The former is currently residing in the "Undecided Suggestions" limbo, and as such is not a valid basis for a Dupe vote, while the latter was removed by the author, after some folks had erroneously convinced him it was a dupe. So please, save us the trouble, don't bother, and just debate the merits of this suggestion. If you are interested in discussing this suggestion, the discussion thread already exists on the talk page.

Votes

1. Keep -Author vote. --Reverend Loki 19:55, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
2. Keep- The General claps. This would be nice.--The General 20:45, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
3. Keep The main reason zombies shouldn't get an emote like this is it could be used as speech: "A zombie stands up and says hey guys I just came from the firestation and it's crawling with people". But this seems perfectly reasonable for survivors to have. Why should a survivor have to say: "Jon Pyre says *wipes blood off his axe*" instead of people just seeing "Jon Pyre wipes blood off his axe"? --Jon Pyre 21:03, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
   • RE: - Ya know, I had that reason in mind when I began writing the suggestion, but it slipped my mind. Thanks for mentioning it. --Reverend Loki 21:09, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
4. Keep - Finnally someone listened to my suggestion from my last vote! -Shadow213 21:13, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
5. Kill - *scratches his head and wonders why a player wouldn't just enter actions like this when speaking, and not waste an extra AP emoting*, if I'm missing something, please inform me - but it seems a useless function if it's already pretty universally excepted to enter action descriptions inclosed in *'s. --Blahblahblah 21:30, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
   • RE: - **s provide for a kludge, a cheap hack, a poor workaround. They are what you settle for until the real thing is available. It used to be universally accepted to sent letters written on paper in envelopes with stamps and wait days for delivery, but we got e-mail anyways. --Reverend Loki 21:56, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

   • Re - Ah, I see. I'm gonna keep my vote as is, because it's so low on my list of things I'd like to see in the game. Plus I'd never use it personally cause I wouldn't want to waste the AP emoting when I can just use *'s and keep it with my speaking text. :) --Blahblahblah 00:49, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)

6. Keep - Nice --Kirk Howell 21:40, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
7. Dupe - State on the submission that you are not duplicating, but have revised and are resubmitting for approval. A resubmission from undecided is just any other resubmission, and as thus it follows the same rules as any other. the fact that it is in undecided does not in any way, shape or form gives it protection from duplication. the fact that it is in undecided only gives it the distinction that it was reasonable idea and not deemed entirely meritless. The last time this was suggested it was a valid dupe as it had no changes in the ingame mechanics. the same as yours. the changes are too marginal as there is no change in the game effect, at all. It is still emote. simply defending it more verbally does not change that.--Vista 21:44, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
   • RE: Even if you are correct regarding dupes and "Undecideds" (which I don't think you are), consider that one reasoning behind the voting on the /me action was that nothing distinguished a properly worded emote from the display of an attack. This revision successfully deals with at least one of the issues that effected voting on the previous suggestion. Therefore, it is a significant revision. --Reverend Loki 21:51, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

   • Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions undecided does nothing, has no extra perks besided being a nicer resting place for failed suggestions than rejected. All the rules say nothing about protection from dupe. if you don't think I'm right on that regard, show some reasoning behind it, backed by actual rules or established practise. the fact that you can't resubmit undecided suggestions has actually bothered some of the people for a long time now. And although some talk about a timed resumbmision has infrequantly sprung up nothing ever came from it. If you want to change the rules and put it up to a vote, I'll support you, but in the mean time your assumption is wrong. And although I think your change is rather small. All it'll do is change the fact that the colour part moves from the 'note' part in undecided, to the actual suggestion itself. for Kevan that won't make a damn difference, he doesn't implement suggestion one on one. Hell he doesn't even implement 99% of them. Sure you can resubmit and resubmit untill you've tailored it enough that it just gets enough votes to sit in peer-reviewed. but what good will that do? for all your hard work on this, it's still just emote. we've got it already in undecided. I don't doubt that Kevan has at least seen it once, so why suggest it again, and again, and again? Dupe isn't here to punish people it's just because the suggestions that get it have nothing new to inform Kevan about. This just isn't needed.--Vista 23:52, 17 February 2006 (GMT)

8. Kill Equal fun for zombies. --Grim s 21:59, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
   • RE - By all means, you are welcome to right up that suggestion and submit it. Please reread the last two sentences of the "Why Survivors Only?" section. --Reverend Loki 22:29, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
     • Re - I did, and it said a whole lot of nothing. It boiled down to "I dont want to include zombies in this, make your own". --Grim s 22:39, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
       • Re - See the third vote for a very good explanation why it shouldn't apply to Zombies the same as it applies to survivors. A zombie implimentation would basically be a seperate feature, and should be voted on as such. Brett Day 15:52, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
9. Kill - Doesn't show any importance to gameplay that speaking can't do. Just a luxurious thing to have. Does encourage roleplay, however, but really has no significance otherwise. --Kraxxis 22:42, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
10. Kill - Really just a waste.. You can just use asterisks or something.. It's really just not needed :\ --Toast Boy 23:01, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
11. Kill - 95% of everything said in this game is pointless crap, so providing another way for people to act like idiots and spoil the setting would just make things worse. --Dickie Fux 23:23, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • How would it be worse? It'd still cost an AP. It's basically identical to speaking, only the game-inserted stuff around your text string is slightly different.
12. Keep - *Rumisiel groans in pain. *Tsuru Akira makes a toast to the fallen. *Rumisiel screams a battle cry. *Tsuru Akira points to the graffiti. And so on. More RP = yes.--'STER-Talk-Mod 23:25, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
13. Keep - No reason not to, but this definitely has very low priority compared to actual gamechanges. -Dude70 23:39, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
14. Keep - I like this. And I really don't see how this would increase spam. --Brizth ^W! 23:41, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
15. Keep - We can already do similar things with spraypaint (ie: describing something rather than writing a message)... and the kill messages are kinda like emotes in of themselves... why not have emotes? Still, there probably are other things that have higher priority (not that this would really take all the much effort all it really would require is to change the speech button to not print "says" and not have quotes around the message... --Zarquon 00:24, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
16. Kill - /me attacks you for 16 damage. /me successfully revives you. /me destroys the generator. --Bert Krutters 02.40, 17 Feb 2006
17. Kill - Unfortunately, even if you write it in a different color, Bert Krutters has a point. And whilst you and me will not have that problem, newbies might not see the difference. --McArrowni ^W! 02:49, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
18. Kill - See both Dickie fux and burt. - --ramby Talk 02:55, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
19. Kill I agree with the abuse potential already pointed out, and with the fact that asterisks work just fine for what you're suggesting. No need to go to the trouble of adding this in.--Mookiemookie 03:36, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
20. Keep Even a new player should be able to tell that they haven't actually been attacked for 16 damage, even if somebody decides to write that to be funny. I'm a fan of typing something like, You're a good guy," as he claps you on the back, "I could get to like you. in the speech bubble, which comes out looking alright, but I think this is still worth putting into the game. Edit: Oops. Forgot to sign. Time will be wrong, but hey, what can you do?--Guardian of Nekops 18:28, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
21. Keep - More roleplay is always good. To "Dickie Fux": Yeah, because Zombies forming a religion is TOTALLY going with the setting and not spoiling it at all.[/sarcasm] --Devin Wright 12:58, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
22. Keep - It sounds like a good idea, to prevent abuse a filter could be used so you cant use the same phrases that get used by the game itself--Xbehave 13:46, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
23. Keep - For just about all the other Keep reasons stated before. Also, say it with me: "More RP is GOOD." --John Taggart 14:42, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
24. Kill - You need to do more work on making sure that emotes absolutely cannot be confused with genuine game messages. Also, there's no reason to completely exclude zombies. If Death Rattle zeds can speak (sort of), why can't they emote? --John Ember 15:03, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
25. Kill - Weak Kill. If the Zombie side of this suggestion was included I would have voted yes. As for the zombie side I think that a simple set of canned emotes would be all that the zombies should need. Just remember Flavor==RP --Scorpius 16:51, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 13 Keep, 11 Kill, 1 Dupe = 25 Total. And remember, accurate reasoning behind your vote helps to make sure that your reasoning is considered on any subsequent revisions. --Reverend Loki 17:16, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
26. Keep - I like this idea because it makes RPing so much more fun and interesting. I have three characters, and two of them are mostly the silent type, and I hate not being able to portray them through actions without typing some speech as well. It'd be better in my opinion if I could have them perform actions. --Sylanya 21:52, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
27. kill - Indeed a kill because this version is for 'survivors' only. Zombies want emotes too and it should be easy to come up with a few good zombie emoted that they can use (indeed different from the survivor ones) and maybe perhaps even some silly ones ( Give us a 'squaredance emote and ill sing praises to in your honor for as long as I can groan :) ) I disagree with saying zombies can abuse this in anomity (or how ever you write that bloody word) because I figure the word 'zombie' becomes clickable just like when they 'graagh' or 'mrh?' --Paddy Fitzgerald 23:02, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
28. Keep - Nice enough idea, doesn't hurt nothing. Brett Day 15:52, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
29. Dupe - It doesn't matter that it's in Undecided. It's still a Dupe. - CthulhuFhtagn 17:57, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 14 Keep, 12 Kill, 2 Dupe 08:37, 23 April 2006 (BST)

---