Suggestions/17th-Nov-2005

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

17th November, 2005 - VOTING ENDED: 1st-Dec-2005

Alphabetic Sort

Timestamp: 12:42, 17 Nov 2005 (Tokyo Time)
Type: Display
Scope: Universal
Description: Sort lists of names alphabetically when more than 1 person is present in a place. Please.

Votes

  • Keep - Yes. --Kulatu 05:23, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep for selecting names in drop down... Kill for the list of names at the top. I love that names are listed kind of according to length of time in the room up top, but hate having to find the name to use a first aid or something --Thorbrian 10:13, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT -8)
  • Keep Alphabetizing would make it a hell of a lot easier to pick on specific people. --Zark the Damned 09:53, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I agree with alphabetizing names in the dropdown menu as stated, but I like knowing who got where first. --Schlagwerk
  • Kill - On dropdowns you can already hit a key and it will go through all the people with that letter starting their name, so no. --Zaruthustra 13:52, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, but keep log of who arrived when. Zarathustra, key-tap is browser-specific. --Squashua 15:44, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • RE: It works on IE... it works on mozilla compat browsers. I stand by my remark, if only to ostracize the hippy 1.4 percent of users who INSIST on using opera. From a design standpoint it doesn't make sense to cater to an extreme minority of people who use opera and play UD. --Zaruthustra 01:53, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As with others, I like knowing who's been around for a while, who left and came back in. G026r 18:18, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill echo what thorbrian said--Spellbinder 21:12, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd assume many zombies will attack the first person on a list. Why should Aaron be in more danger than say, uh, ZZoolander? --Shadowstar 23:02, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Alphabetical organization would make it so much easier to select a target, and as Squasha said key-tap is browser specific. --Argus Blood 23:22, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Would replace useful info with a meaningless convenience. --LouisB3 03:52, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Alphabetising inventory and contents of drop down lists would be very welcome. Alphabetising building occupiers would be a bad thing. --terryintransit 12:10, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Alphabetical order provides no useful information; you may as well randomize them. --Dickie Fux 00:34, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The current order is important, both for humans and zombies. --Jorm 06:27, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - for the map and the description. Keep for the drop down box. --Nov 08:48, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Cull the Weak

Timestamp: 00:06, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: This skill would be placed below Headshot, and would allow survivors to see a full list of zombies on their block in the attack Drop-Down list. Each zombie would have its HP listed next to it, allowing Zombie Hunters to thin out a crowd by selecting and killing the weakest. Alternately the ZH could take a strong zombie down a few pegs, making it easier for others in the group to take out. I'm basically suggesting this as a high-level skill that will help even things out when there's a mob of the undead knocking on your door. If a Zombie Hunter is on a block with only a handful of zombies, he/she would probably kill them anyway, so exposing their HP count wouldn't make too much difference. This skill makes perfect sense because one would realistically be able to tell a haggard, weakened zombie from a lively one.

Votes

  • Kill This is very unfair to zombies. --Carfan7 00:13, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Yeah, playing a zombie's hard enough with headshot - why add another skill to make it worse? --Elijah 00:30, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Uber Ninja Zombie Killers Stay Out. We don't need to give zombie skills to humans. --Zaruthustra 01:04, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Voting on my own idea to respond in one fell swoop. - If it's unfair then the Zombie skill against Survivors would have to be unfair. Adding another skill against zombies could possibly help balance the game because currently it's easy for a Zombie horde to take any given building if given enough time. There's nothing ninja about looking at a zombie that's full of bullets and seeing that another shot might kill it. -- Amazing 02:17, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree it doesn't matter much in terms of combat. It doesn't really matter which zombie you kill, and the most injured one will likely be the one you automatically attack. What this would really be useful for is selecting zombies to revive, especially if extracting DNA allowed you to see the identities of zombies in the drop down menu. --Jon Pyre 02:19, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's my understanding that you automatically target the weakest zombie when attacking a mob. If this is not the case, then let me know and I'll change my vote to keep. --VoidDragon 02:52, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree to this. The zombies can attack anyone they choose but the survivers can only get the one on top of the list. This would really balance this game.--Deathnut 04:20, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill it tastes bad, zombie movies are scary because there is a nameless mob coming after you, this game has the flavor of a movie for the same reason. and you can already recognize people on your contact list. (right? if not my vote may change) -- P0p0 05:52, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Good idea I guess, but too complicated, and hurts the flavour for no reason because of it. Just make it always hit the weakess zombie, and if your feel it really needs this as well, in a tie hit the highess level one. --McArrowni 14:52, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - a Zombie Hunter Skill to see Zombie HP levels? That's fine since the zom's already have something similar to work against survivors. --Squashua 15:45, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Too powerful. if it only showed the ones at your location then i would vote to keep.--Mattiator 8:48 AM Mountain time
    • Re: - It's already written just for zombies on your block. -- Amazing 18:37, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If we want everything to be equal then give zombies headshot and something akin to shotguns. THE GAME ISN'T EQUAL, stop trying to turn survivors into zombies and zombies into survivors. --Pyrinoc 18:29, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Then take Bodybuilding and other skills from Zombies, right? There are already crossover skills and such, this is no different. -- Amazing 18:37, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Your surrounded by walking staggering dead and you'r going to think? just fire !--Adrian 19:37, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: I said this before but I guess it was deleted somehow. Basically, it would take more concentration to give a headshot to a moving target than seeing which zombie looks the strongest and fastest or the weakest and nearest to death. -- Amazing 00:05, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill i like the nameless zombie hoards. and most of the time, everybodys fireing on the same zombie anyways, arn't they?--Spellbinder 21:15, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill No, one wouldn't. --LouisB3 03:51, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: True, I guess some players might RP a blind character. -- Amazing 06:14, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too powerful for survivors. --Dickie Fux 00:38, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Overbalancing. --Jorm 06:28, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Zombies are supposed to be nameless and part of the horde. --Nov 08:49, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- this would make the game hell for new zombies as they have the lowest HP--Heamo 12:36, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Don't all characters regardless have either 50 or 60 hp (with Body Building, of course)? Makes sense a professional zombie killer would be able to recognize zombies in various stages of damage/decay. --Pesatyel 09:08, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Survivors still outnumber zombies 72:28 on latest statistics. They don't need to get any better. Niggle 09:45, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Eat Brain

Removed as has allready been suggested. See Suggestions/8th-Nov-2005#Mind_Munch

Not different in any way, shape, or form.

Hand-to-Hand Master

Timestamp: 05:46, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor, Melee Combat
Description: Grants a +20% chance to hit with all melee attacks. Requires Hand-to-Hand Combat.

Votes

  • Kill - Explicitly designed to unbalance melee attacks. --Zaruthustra 06:11, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe if you changed this to affect only punches, I'd vote to keep it. Nah--not even then. By the time a survivor can buy this skill, he probably won't ever need to use it. X1M43 06:37, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill too powerful as it sits, maby half the bonus. I think axes are underpowered. -- P0p0 09:13, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL There is no such thing as a keep but change vote. Read the voting guidelines. --McArrowni 14:57, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Existing skills make this not necessary. --Squashua 15:47, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is silly and would make axes too powerful. They're fine the way they are. --Pyrinoc 17:34, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, too powerfull. try working with the numbers a bit--Spellbinder 21:22, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Far too powerful. That would grant axes a 60% chance to hit with Axe Proficiency. Tone it down. --Xamnam 22:34, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Obviously ridiculous. --LouisB3 03:50, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Axes are extremely underpowered as is. This game needs balance! --Mendel 07:47, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: - You don't need to search again and again to use axes. --Nov 08:51, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill You're kidding, right? Axes are the best damage-to-ap weapon in the game. This is totally overpowered. --Jorm 06:28, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Upsets the Gun/Melee balance. --Nov 08:51, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Boxing and Martial Arts

Timestamp: 06:37, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill, Civilian
Scope: Survivors
Description: This is a suggestion for two skills. First is Boxing, which increases the chance to land a punch to 50%. Boxing would be a prerequisite to Martial Arts, which would make the chance of landing a punch 80%. I think this skill progression is balanced since it does less damage than the fire axe per AP spent. At the same time it could be useful in some situations, such as when an enemy is at 1 or 2 hp and you have limited AP.

Votes

  • Keep Bruce lee vs zombie, advantage Lee. would it transfer as a zombie? i hope not-- P0p0 09:14, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yes it would. Have u ever heard of "Drunken style"? AllStarZ 13:02, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is not a Bruce Lee movie. A rehashed knife combat would achieve the same thing while staying in flavor. And come on, 80% to hit? I dont care how worthless the damage is, thats just not cool. --Zaruthustra 13:49, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - An eighty percent chance of doing 1 damage compared to a 40% chance of doing 3 damage. The axe is still better overall. But I do agree with you, I'd rather have a knife as a high hit % low damage option rather than these skills. --Jon Pyre 14:13, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, but I would like to add that (1) barehanded combat against an infected zombie should have a % chance of getting infected and (2) everyone has melee weapons, so this would really only be useful for (a) starting characters or (b) if we implemented some sort of weapon breakage chance. --Squashua 15:50, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't see why not. Swinging your fist at something that can't move very fast, such as a zombie, and only being able to hit it one out of ten times doesn't seem very realistic at all. --Arcibi 16:04, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Do you know how much I hate the randomization engine when I have only 4 AP left and the zombie only 2 HP? --Fixen 18:03, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. You don't punch zombies. That's not how zombie movies/games work. --Sknig 19:19, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Flixen, you just need to suck it up. Thats the way probility works. max out a pistol and keep one around for that last little oomph. and really, i think kevin has punch AS a joke, not as something serious--Spellbinder 21:24, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill 50% chance to hit with a punch would be ok. Maybe even a bit more. But nothing else. It should only be useable in very rare occasions --McArrowni 01:44, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep 80% chance seems like a lot, but remember that that would require 50 hits on a zombie to kill it since this is punches we're talking about. Not only is that a days worth of AP, but it can still miss! Thus, it will be more likely as a finishing move than an actual weapon, as people WILL continue to rely mostly on guns and axes, they'll just use the more reliable punch when a zombie is low on HP since they don't want to waste a ton of AP, only to end up missing a lot. --Volke 03:03, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the genre - you're probably fighting zombies, who don't dodge blows anyway. --LouisB3 03:49, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Zombies don't have the dexterity to dodge blows so the chance to hit should be high. --Mendel 07:51, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I love it for all the reasons above, plus it's a non-military skill to help improve damage and it would actually make the RP stuff cooler (seriously, only 10% chance to hit a zombie with a punch? I start to wonder what's wrong with my character... does he even have arms?) --Thorbrian 04:51, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think the numbers for other attacks are still better than this (I may be mis-reading), so it won't hurt anything. I don't like the name Martial Arts, though; make it non-ninja. --Dickie Fux 00:43, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Plenty of ways to kill zeds already. --Jorm 06:29, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- but the percentages might need some fixing. --Nov 08:54, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I like it a lot. --Patrucio 16:26, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Out of genre. Niggle 09:45, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If only for the reason my RP character has a better chance to get XP, practicing punching meatbags around Warehouses.

First-aid kits don't work on zombies

Timestamp: 10:23PM Nov 16 GMT-8
Type: change balance
Scope: Survivors using first aid kits
Description: The proposal is that first aid kits have no effect on zombies, no healing, no xp gain. I found that a decent way for me to get xp was to use first aid-kits on zombies I hacked with an axe (everybody in the hospital was full on hp) - it wasn't very fun and didn't make much sense (band-aids and neosporin for the living dead?) Zombies should heal by consuming flesh and rising again when down

Votes

  • Keep - Would prevent "zombie farming". --VoidDragon 14:59, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just makes sense -McArrowni 15:04, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Common sense ftw. --Zaruthustra 15:22, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hey, when some kind human heals me, I'm quite thankful, because it (typically) means they didn't headshot me. --Elijah 15:38, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - it's either this or this ; I do think that zombies should have a percentage chance of healing mechanic by feeding on dead bodies. --Squashua 15:52, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Digestion lets zombies heal damage by biting survivors. --VoidDragon 16:06, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sensible. --Fixen 18:02, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not all zombies take digestion when they hit second level, so that's not an excuse. Besides, is people healing zombies really that big of a problem? — G026r 18:32, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • - It's "zombie farming". You attack a zombie, then use first aid kits to heal them, then attack them again to gain more XP than you would by just attacking and killing them. --VoidDragon 19:14, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea this....--Adrian 19:20, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - What everyone else said. Also, it would be more realistic. --Sknig 19:26, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep allready been replyed to, but yes, it is a problem, go26r.--Spellbinder 21:27, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good. --Seagull Flock 21:58, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Bandages and stitches work on anyone with flesh. (I also can't believe that people say things in a zombie game are unrealistic, though that's tangential to this subject.)--LouisB3 03:47, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, prevents repeated EXP abuse and possible zerging tactics. --LibrarianBrent 04:09, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Makes realistic sense, makes good game sense, improves the feel of the game. --Mendel 07:53, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies do not have organs which can be repaired. This makes sense. --Otona 09:01, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Bandages and stitches work by keeping wounds protected and closed (respectively) while they heal. Zombies have no metabolic activity; their skin wouldn't heal normally. Sounds to me like FAKs wouldn't work on them. And yes, I'm applying logic to a game about zombies. You try and stop me. X1M43 06:18, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - How do you even apply bandages to a zombie without it attacking you? --Dickie Fux 00:45, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense. Shoot, FAK's should be an offensive weapon versus zeds. --Vellin 01:22, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Reduces farming. --Jorm 06:30, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Nov 08:58, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Makes sense. --Pesatyel 09:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense, prevents farming. Niggle 09:45, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Improved Player Killing Attempt Visibility

Timestamp: 10:00PM Nov 16 GMT-8
Type: improvement
Scope: Messages/display for players in the same room
Description: The proposal is that the first time a player attacks a survivor after entering a room, a message will be sent to all the survivors in the room, naming the player saying that they have attacked a survivor (showing up similar to a speak)). The player would also be marked with a flag until they leave the room, to prevent multiple messages from being sent, but the players name could also be highlighted to show that they have attacked a survivor. The effect I expect it to have on the game is that it would help with the roleplaying because you'd feel better that you are aware of your surroundings and because it would help in having more surety about PK'ers and Zombie spies once they start attacking, it would help survivors be able to feel a better sense of comraderie.

Votes

  • KILL--It's not necessary. It would be one more thing to clog up the server. And a little distrust of your fellow breather does a lot for atmosphere. X1M43 06:46, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: - To explain the thinking behind the "comraderie" thing, this change wouldn't eliminate your distrust of fellow breathers, it would just make it easier for other survivors to have your back when somebody attacks you. Thorbrian 11:36, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT-8)
  • Keep- PKers anger me, and in the current format its basically impossible to ID them until your already dead. -- P0p0 09:15, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too much information stored on the server, unfortunately. I don't like PKers either, being a target of Jamoomba, but... that's life. Also, what if someone made a mistake and attacked once? Good idea, but it won't work like that. --Shadowstar 11:08, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - More server spam. --Zaruthustra 13:45, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - only show messages of who killed who. --Squashua 15:55, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill perhaps a flash of showing when a survivor actualy kills another.--Spellbinder 21:28, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - PKing makes the game interesting. The fact that you can't permanently die and that there are numerous revivication stations around would make this a waste of server space. --Schlagwerk 22:04, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --LouisB3 03:45, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Log in clutter. --Dickie Fux 00:46, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree. Clutter. --Jorm 06:30, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I would prefer the killing blow be displayed instead. --Nov 08:58, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

XP for Finally breaking a barricade

Removed for posting a repeat suggestion. See Suggestions/10th-Nov-2005#XP_for_Barricade_Assault

Revivification Syringes Cure Infectious Bite

Timestamp: 08:03, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: Both syringes and first-aid kits should be able to cure infections. This makes sense since if it can revive a rotting corpse it should be able to halt the early stages of the zombie plague. You still would want to use first-aid kits instead (except when desperate) because they're less rare but this seems like it should work.

Votes

  • Keep sure, makes since. and i dont see any balance issues w/ it -- P0p0 09:16, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I dunno, not bad I guess. But there isn't really any reason. No self respecting necrotech would waste a syringe to cure an infection unless they were about to die of it, and thats why you're supposed to be carrying first aid kits to begin with ya know? Alot of survival horror, specially UD, is item management. We could coat shotgun shells with life saving medicine and shoot you back to health, but that wouldn't make the game better either. Its just kind of redundant to existing mechanics. --Zaruthustra 13:58, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Survivors who were infected at time of death are still infected when revived. Having the Necrotech Syringe cure infections upon revival wouldn't waste a syringe any more than revives did before, it might actually save somebody else from having to use up one of their syringes. --VoidDragon 14:39, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Zaruthustra. --Pyrinoc 14:45, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Infection makes it hard for the newly-revived to not die again. As for the rest, it's silly but would be a side-effect of giving needles that ability. --Shadowstar 15:19, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's supposed to be hard to get survive! Be thankful you can even be revived, even if you're infected. Just try to find a hospital and go inside there. Gosh. Survivors only think about making their experience easier, when it already is easy. Plus, you can't tell me it's not fun to stand up while infected and run into a survivor safehouse, die, and start murdering humans! --Elijah 15:33, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As I understand it, this only works on Revivication; if someone infected was revived, I'd say they take a -5HP penalty on rising if they are now cured. I'd also like to see a FAK heal health OR an infection (preferencing infection), not BOTH. --Squashua 15:57, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As it stands now, if you are attacked and infected and a survivor, and you die, then are revived, you will be infected again once you stand as a human. I'm thinking that this is what this suggestion seeks to change, and I agree with it. If a Necrotech Syringe can reverse undeath, surely it can cure infection. --Arcibi 16:10, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If a zombie succeeds in killing you or you die of infection, I don't think it's sensible that you still have the infection after undergoing a massive healing process that actually brings you back from the dead. -- Amazing 18:42, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It doesn't make any sense the other way....the syringe gave you 25 HP from the death... so can't it just heal your infection? since even stupid first aid kits do that--Adrian 19:01, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Same reasons as above. Bentley Foss 20:35, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's all been said --McArrowni 21:57, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, your revived in the first place, what more do you want? your in bad need of healing, and you might be infected. this is a hazzard, not something that needs to be fixed.--Spellbinder 21:58, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Infections are mundane, not NecroTech-ish. Will also make revivification even easier for the subject. --LouisB3 03:44, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I mean...this zombie affliction is to a virus, right? There is a reason to it then. It could be one of those items that are unnecessary, but okay for a last-resort. It will be uneconomical to use it to cure an infection, but that should be your own fault for not keeping a first-aid kit with you, right? --Fixen 04:24, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The NT juice cures you. Enough said. -Otona 09:06, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I've never understood why reviving a zombie (who is a zombie due to a virus) and making them human would not equally cure the infection. All for this. -pinkgothic 18:04, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I kind of like it when I am revived but infected - it feels right that I have to keep worrying about pulling through... I think I'd even vote keep on a suggestion to force infection when revived... --Thorbrian 04:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Infection just shouldn't carry over after you die. Don't tie it to syringes. Syringes shouldn't work on infected humans before they die. --Dickie Fux 00:51, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Reduces the horror of infection. Depowers infectious bite. --Jorm 06:31, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Would make the syringe too powerful. --Nov 09:00, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Just another nail in the coffin of this suggestion because I don't like it--Matthew-Stewart 09:07, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Smoke Bombs

Timestamp: 15:50, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Active players in limited area
Description: When activated, a smoke bomb fills a block with thick smoke. Instead of the normal list of occupants, players in adjacent squares see only the text "A thick cloud of smoke" or similar. Players in the affected square see all occupants of the affected square, but cannot see the occupants of adjacent squares. The efect lasts for a limited amount of real time---4 hours, say. (Note that normal complaints about realtime-sensitive effects are less relevant here, as smoke bombs are only meant to have an effect on active players. If you sleep through a smoke bomb, it has no effect on your decision-making---just like in real life!).The rationale: Allows assault parties to do more interesting things, makes reconnaissance slightly harder and more risky, and generally allows an extra strategic option with minimal additional server load.

Votes

  • Kill - Stupid and Useless--Mattiator 14:45, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. It's unrealistic for the scenario of Urban Dead. X1M43 17:36, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Timed area of effect attacks won't add much to server load? Do explain, I'd be interested to hear this one. --Zaruthustra 17:57, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See Tear Gas. --Fixen 18:06, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I know I saw this one a week or so ago. Tear Gas or something..? Bentley Foss 20:35, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A less-complex version of Tear Gas. Still not the Grenade I'm looking for. --Squashua 21:59, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A four-hour smoke bomb? --Argus Blood 23:31, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ick -- P0p0 01:37, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --LouisB3 03:42, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Go to Wikipedia, type in "Griefer" and read the article. -Otona 09:10, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not badly designed, but I don't think a smoke bomb should do much against a zombie. --Dickie Fux 01:08, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Tear gas redux. --Jorm 06:32, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- Third Spam. Someone please remove. --Nov 09:01, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Change Diagnosis to Survivor-only skill

Timestamp: 17:24, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Zombies
Description: Change the Diagnosis skill so that only survivors can use the skill. The current implementation renders the Zombie skill Scent Blood useless, and Scent Fear still has to be taken in order to use Scent Trail.

Votes

  • Keep--Dead people probably wouldn't be great at making diagnoses. X1M43 17:34, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kevan intentionally did this. And why can't they? Scientist to zombie converts get precious little help as is, it isn't as if this is unbalancing. --Zaruthustra 17:59, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Diagnosis means... examining the person for illness bla bla bla.... hmm Dr. Zombie is here
  • Keep - As I see it, the Diagnosis skill represents years of medical training, and some good analytical thinking. Zombies can't really think, therefore they shouldn't be able to Diagnose. --Sknig 19:28, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sknig sums it up pretty nicely. --VoidDragon 19:32, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Who says you lose the ability to think?? to quote the UD FAQ "Can I still use my life skills when I'm a zombie? Some of them, but any that rely on the dexterity or agility of a living body become dormant while you're undead." says nothing of cognative or perceptive ability.--Matthew-Stewart 20:25, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Change this suggestion to "Zombie use of Diagnosis and non-dextrous skills, etc. requires having the Memories of Life Zombie Skill" and I'd vote Keep unless I'm swayed by a voter argument. --Squashua 21:57, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies can think, it just takes them a while, hence the 2 AP starting for movement and the message "You cannot think anymore" when you run out of AP. In addition, diagnosis is an standalone skill; you don't need it to get others. --Schlagwerk 22:21, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill i agree with squashua -- P0p0 01:39, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Implementing this suggestion would improve game balance as well as improve the internal consistency of the game. Mendel 07:56, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I can't imagine a zombie testing my reflexes or poking a tongue depresser in my mouth. And no, zombies cannot think, regardless of whatever chapter and verse you quote. If they could think they would be able to open doors naturally. Or climb over barricades. No, they are simple beasts that simply are attracted to the braaaaiiinssssss...--Rhebus 13:10, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Agreeing with Squashua. -pinkgothic 18:05, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Actually, zombies are capable of thinking. They're simply incapable of reasoning, speaking, feeling pain, learning from their mistakes and a few other things, which pretty much separates them from humans. But as they can think somewhat, they can tell if someone is hurt or not, based on smell of blood or something. -AllStarZ 23:20, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - *CoughCough*Scent Blood*CoughCough* --VoidDragon 23:19, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like Squasha's suggestion about making memories of life a pre-req for keeping diagnosis. But removing the ability to keep diagnosis as a zomb I don't, crossover skills are cool --Thorbrian 4:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sknig said it. --Dickie Fux 01:11, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nerfs zombies. --Jorm 06:33, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - *CoughCough*Scent Blood*CoughCough* --VoidDragon 02:10, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Zombies already have the equivalent. --Nov 09:02, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Survivors still outnumber zombies 72:28 on latest statistics. Zombies need all the help they can get. Niggle 09:50, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Death (Version2)

Timestamp: 18:37, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvment
Scope: All
Description: As already stated, death is too easy; yeah true zombies are supposed to be large swarms of unstoppable dead, but sometimes, you need something to break a siege; and just wasting them 10AP (or 1AP) doesn't work. Also survivors don't mind dying, if they can get a revive.

So the idea is this: When you die, you lose 5 HP off your maximum, this is so as to say that you died because of your wounds, and when you rise up.. well you aren't going to be 100% This 5HP should be applied for everytime the person dies, and will remove its effect at the rate of 1HP back per half hour. This will ensure that if you kill a zombie or survivor, and it rises again; that in the end, it gets easier and in the end the guy is going to give up... for then.

Votes

  • Kill - Do you have any idea how often zombies get killed? This is equivalent to making all zombies have 0 hp, as well as every suvivor that will get turned into a zombie. --Jon Pyre 18:49, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - My own vote for my own suggestion....--Adrian 18:59, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep but modify- While this is a good idea, give survivors a chance in a gigantic zombie siege, and balance out Ankle Grab they should probably not lose so many health points or change the recharge rate to something like every half hour. This should really only slow down the speed of zombies getting back up in order to give surviors time to throw them outside. Good idea, though. ALIENwolve 19:17, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. A zombie in a seige already gets nothing but a feeling of content thanks to Headshot, and now you're wanting to make them walk away worse off? Why not just delete all zombie accounts? --Elijah 21:03, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • REGARDING - Read the text carefully; its temporary, to prevent zeds getting up again and again. There are 300 zombies in the mall i'm told; how do you suggest you get rid of them? Go get 300 syringes? and the ones with brainrot AND Ankle grab? Kill them, they get up again ad nausium... Zombies can never lose unless the player gets tired of them; but they can win if they kill all survivors, so it is ironic.--Adrian 17:59, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No thanks; I'd prefer a +1AP to Stand Up per level of Zombie penalty using a Zombie Hunter Skill. --Squashua 21:56, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill i'd change it if this were a new zombie hunter skill.. or a revamp of headshot
  • Kill --LouisB3 03:40, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Seems like a good idea to me. :) -pinkgothic 18:08, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is a poor attempt to stealth-nerf ankle grab. --Jorm 06:33, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Combined with Headshot, this is going to hurt the zombies a lot. --Nov 09:03, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hurts zombies far more than survivors and they're already outnumbered. Niggle 09:45, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The way to impliment this would be to remove 5 or 10 hp (or ap) each time they stand up, until they get to zero, then restart them at the full 50. --Kenny Eatabagadonuts 17:04, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Make different weapons have different results upon a kill

Timestamp: 18:45, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill, improvement
Scope: Suvivors
Description: Right now it does not make a difference how you kill a zombie. I suggest tying different weapons to different zombie hunter skills to add an element of strategy to the game. For instance only allowing headshot to work on a kill made with a gun. And maybe having a zombie hunter axe skill that causes ankle grab to only reduce AP loss by 5 instead of 9. Or a knife skill that causes a killed zombie to come back with only 40hp. And there could also be a bat skill, a crowbar skill, etc. I'm not saying that these would be the skills, I'm just suggesting that it would be nice to have different weapons have different results to add an element of strategy as well as make all those worthless weapons useful.

Votes

  • Keep - I like it... bit of coding work ,... but i like it--Adrian 18:58, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - And probably gives a point to using a knife.
  • Keep - I like this. It would make zombie hunters much more interesting. --Sknig 19:30, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I hate people who nix suggestions because of server load. If the server isn't able to handle something as is, Kevan won't implement it--it'll sit in Suggestions until the hardware gets upgraded. And this is a good way to make different weapons actually have differences other than damage/AP and ammo needs--people would actually use other weapons than the Big 3 again!--'STER 20:02, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. Headshot only working with guns makes lots of sense, and this would give survivors a reason to use weapons that aren't shotguns or fire axes. --Arcibi 21:00, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill i just disagree. A dead zombie is a dead zombie, not something you can disect and deside what parts you want to attack and what parts you want to leave alone. --Spellbinder 21:39, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Different effects against a zombie at kill time? Nice; flesh out a comprehensive list somewhere before the 2 weeks are up. --Squashua 21:55, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very cool idea. You sir, are a genius --McArrowni 22:07, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this idea. Probably would take a bit of time tweaking to ensure Zombie Hunters don't become incredibly powerful, but a good idea all the same. --Schlagwerk 22:28, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Looks a lot like Ace Skills to me (which was laid out much better - both in terms of logic and legibility), yet people came down on that with both feet. Hypocrisy much? --John Taggart 22:39, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See Spellbinder. --Xamnam 22:40, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Complicated and vague. --LouisB3 03:39, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it, though needs some more work Brizth 17:25, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam/Kill -- Too much "maybe". If this was less vague, it might get my vote. -pinkgothic 18:10, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - This is rather pointless and would require obscene amounts of coding. --Stroth 05:44, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kepp Like the concept, adds flavour to the game. Id like to be able to go all Ash with an axe on a zombie :). --terryintransit 25:26, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Interesting concept, but needs details. Could also include a zombie equivalent. --Dickie Fux 01:15, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Another stealth-nerf to ankle grab. --Jorm 06:34, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Too vague. --Nov 09:04, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too vague. Niggle 09:55, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • keep - Not really that vague fokes, the message is clear, different weapons do different things... I would absolutely love this idea, it would increase the variety in the usage of weapons... Even if this was too powerful, Id happily take on more uber zombies to get something like this.--Ringseed2 16:02, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You can bash a zed's head in with the pointy-end of a fireaxe just as well as you can put holes through them with a pistol. --VoidDragon 19:11, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

"Since your last turn" change.

Timestamp: 18:53, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Interface alteration
Scope: All players
Description: I'd like to see the "Since your last turn" dialogue archived for the past three turns, with a link reading "Since your last three turns.." My main reason for suggesting this is that there have been a couple times where I have lost the "Since your last turn" dialogue due to mistyping or mistake. Though this is my own mistake, I think others have probably experienced this. If you miss something important, it would be a life-saver if one could view an archive of the last few turns. I don't know how this would affect server load and all that, but I think it would be useful. Instead of clearing dialogue with every turn, it would just be cleared every 3 turns. (is it possible that would actually reduce server load?) Also useful for those who have forgotten or missed something they want to look up.

Votes

  • Keep - Not the only one....maybe just the important ones are kept? Such as Who attacked/killed you... but sometimes you get LOONG conversations which are useless--Adrian 19:08, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Back button? --Raelin 20:35, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill *snickers* --Spellbinder 21:36, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Vote Keep on the Gossip suggestion. --Squashua 21:53, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Note - Actually, I suggested something that is pretty much what you suggest. See [[1]]: --McArrowni 22:13, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Nope. Different on many levels. -- Amazing 00:15, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Browsers have back buttons for a good reason. Pointless. --Schlagwerk 22:30, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yeah, I'm with Schlagwerk on this one. Unnecessary, with downsides.
    • Re: Feel free to elaborate on the down sides on the discussion page, because I don't see any. -- Amazing 00:15, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Guys... I don't know what browsers you use but going back, then forward, or going back after some time has elapsed will only show you your current gaming screen again. This may vary from browser to browser, but don't assume your experiences are the only ones that have taken place. There are other people playing, too. -- Amazing 00:10, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The server shouldn't have to do the job of your browser - there are other people playing, too. --LouisB3 03:39, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Notepad, copy, paste. No need to make the server do the same thing, IMO. -pinkgothic 18:12, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Goes against the 'safeguard' nature of the suggestion. -- Amazing 02:11, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too much log in clutter already. --Dickie Fux 01:18, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Again, too much clutter. --Jorm 06:35, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Server spam. --Nov 09:05, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Specific Search: Revised

Timestamp: 21:16, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: My original idea for Specific Search was met with mixed feelings. Some liked it, as it reduced the chance to find worthless items. Others disliked it because it seemed like too much work for the server, or disliked the idea entirely.

One idea in one of the votes appealed to me, so I decided to make a revision to my original suggestion. The revision is as follows.

When searching a building, the survivor may specify an item to look for exclusively. This is handled with a drop-down box. However, instead of listing what items can be possibly found in the area, the drop-down box contains a list of items that are currently in the character's inventory. For RP purposes, this reflects a list of items the character knows exists. Whether an item in the list can actually be found in the building is irrelevant.

If the survivor selects an item that can be found in the building, the chance of finding that item while searching is doubled. However, the chance of finding all other possible items in the building is reduced to zero. If the survivor selects an item that cannot be found in the building, the results could be A) a regular search of the area, or B) no item found.

One problem with this idea is having to keep an item in your inventory so you can Specific Search for another one later. I proposed this, instead of being able to search for any item that has ever been in the character's possession, because I believe this would be easier on the server. Another possibility could be to limit the search to item "types", such as Guns, Ammo, Melee, etc. Some items would have their own type, such as the First-Aid Kit and perhaps the Syringe. The problem with this, however, lies in doubling the chance to find them. Perhaps the chance of finding item "types" would simply increase by 1.5x?

Votes

  • Keep - My own suggestion. --Arcibi 21:16, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep but change. Keep with the flat "ammo, guns, other" on the drop down menu. also, you need to carry over your old suggestion's number workings. alot of people who are going to see this arn't going to be familure with how the old version worked.--Spellbinder 21:35, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - it costs 0AP to drop something you didn't want, and some guns come pre-loaded with ammo. --Squashua 21:52, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I voted kill on the other one because 1.5 more chances of finding some items (First aid kits, syringes) seems to me like too much of a bonus. This is even more powerful. --McArrowni 22:17, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the idea of Specific Search being limited to what a character knows exists (i.e., has in his inventory). And with the success percentages of finding a specific item being as low as they are, if you favor shotguns but are running low on ammo, you should be able to search for just what you need instead of coming up with maybe two or three of the item you're after and a bunch of stuff you don't need that clutters up the inventory. Also, as I read it, if you're searching for a specific item in an area where you're not likely to find it (i.e., searching for Medical items - FAKs, syringes, etc - out on the street), you get a normal search result: "You find Item X" or "You search and find nothing.", whereas if you search for a Medical item in a building where it's likely to be found, the chance of finding an item from that particular class is increased, while the chance of finding any other item drops to zero. Doesn't seem too overpowered to me. --John Taggart 22:33, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe 2 AP to specific search types of items with a bonus of 33%? Right now, it's far too powerful to implement in my eyes. --Schlagwerk 22:36, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Like someone else said: put the info from the old suggestion in, because I'm not going to bother finding the old one to figure this out. --Dickie Fux 01:22, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Specified Search already made it into Peer Review Suggestions. You did good enough the first time mate. --Vellin 01:29, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- It's already in Peer Review. --Nov 09:07, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Add Note to Barricade Weight

Timestamp: 21:41, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Minor Interface Upgrade
Scope: Survivor View of Barricade Descriptions
Description: Heavily Barricaded, Very Heavily Barricaded, Somewhat Extremely Barricaded, Very Somewhat Heavily Semi-Barricaded. The descriptions, though "flavorful," are not gameplay conducive. It's not easy to keep track of which levels of "barricaded-ness" allow Survivor entry and which levels block Survivors from entering a building.

I recommend that a very minor text snippet be added to the end of each "This building is very foo barricaded." to read as-is for passable barricades and to read "This building is very foo barricaded. You cannot enter." for those that are impassable. From the inside, it should read "This building is very foo barricaded. You cannot exit.".

Note to the Kill-ers: You want flavor? Fine. Instead of appending "You cannot enter." append something like "You cannot see a way [in/out]." That's not unbalancing at all. Not everyone's a brain surgeon (just Biscuit, check his profile. :-) ).

Only Survivors will see the additional text, as zombies cannot pass any barricades (not that they can't just click an adjacent square to leave...).
Adding this will potentially reduce server hits.

Votes

  • Keep - This is the mother of all suggestions! I r a jeanyuss! --Squashua 21:41, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Simple suggestions = <3 Monstah 21:56, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP! - Hell yes! God only knows how many times I've beenfrustrated by trying to enter a very foo barricaded building, only to get "This building is too heavily barricaded. You cannot enter. If we knew in advance, it would help us conserve APs with which we could find a building we COULD enter! --John Taggart 21:58, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep well, arn't we above the need for shameless self promotion, squashua? *friendly nudge*--Spellbinder 22:05, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, 'binder? :-D --Squashua 23:07, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Looks good. --McArrowni 22:18, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Simple. --Schlagwerk 22:38, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great suggestion. I like it. --Xamnam22:44, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - NO. I seriously can't believe you're actually unable to tell when you can and cannot enter a building. None of the barricade labels are ambiguous, and none of them contain the word "somewhat". This is an unnecessary change that detracts from the immersiveness. --Biscuit 23:14, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - You've got to be kidding me. Use of "somewhat" is a semi-sarcastic play on how uncategorizable the existing labels are. Unclench, Biscuit. --Squashua 23:17, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - From my experiences with trying to get some of my friends to play, this game can use all of the additional newb-friendliness it can get. This is a step in the right direction. --Sknig 23:34, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Is it that hard to read the word "heavily"? For those who don't know, if the barricade level contains the word "heavily" you can't enter. Otherwise you can. It's that simple. --Argus Blood 23:39, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - My original instinct was to vote "kill." If you see the word "heavily," you're not getting in. Pretty simple. But a lot of beginning players might not figure that out immediately, and this change certainly doesn't hurt anyone. X1M43 00:07, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Adds flavour and helps the newbies. I'm all for it. --Kulatu 00:18, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What's so hard? Anything with the word "heavy" means you can't get in. --Shadowstar 00:28, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep simple = good, but the above guys are right, its not hard to read the word heavy... but it is hard to figure out that thats what your looking for, as a newb. i had to read the wiki to figure that out. -- P0p0 01:58, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to be able to see whether it's possible to enter or not. --LouisB3 03:35, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I might know that the keyword 'heavily' means unenterable, but what about newbies? All for this. -pinkgothic 18:15, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Oh, for the love of all that is good in the world please keep. -terryintransit 15:18 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Helpful to new players, does no harm to anyone else. No brainer. --Dickie Fux 01:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Minor but useful enhancement, improves quality of life for newbies. --Jorm 06:36, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unnecessary. --Nov 09:08, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Affiliation in Contacts

Timestamp: 21:44, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Interface
Scope: Contact list
Description: Your contact list should display the contacts' affiliation just beside class. Makes it a lot easier knowing if you added that guy because he healed you, is in your horde or headshot you.

Votes

  • Keep - Nice to have extra info. --Squashua 21:51, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep adding your own notes might be nice.--Spellbinder 22:02, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Lots of games have this already, and it comes in handy. Why doesn't UD? --John Taggart 22:04, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea, and fairly easy to implement. --Seagull Flock 22:15, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice --McArrowni 22:21, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yep. Good thinking. -- Biscuit 23:15, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd vote for this twice if I could. I can hardly remember whom to heal and whom to bludgeon to death with my crowbar. X1M43 00:08, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes. --Kulatu 00:17, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Always nice to know. A small reason thing would be enough if notes are too much. Like, dislike, ally. --Shadowstar 00:30, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Agreed. I'd like a way to distinguish from those on my friends list, those on my "hit" list, and those on my teammates list! --Volke 03:10, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - And when it gets implemented, those bastards that killed me are fucking dead. -Otona 09:20, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I've been doing this manually so far. This is good, especially for people with more contacts than me with my measly handful. -pinkgothic 18:16, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Useful to some, harmless to others. --Dickie Fux 01:27, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Useful. --Jorm 06:37, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The extension UDTool currently does this too. --Nov 09:10, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. And should be simple to implement. Niggle 09:45, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Materials

Timestamp: 23:35, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors with construction
Description: Barricading requires you to search for materials, which have a 75% chance to be found inside every building.

Votes

  • Kill - As I recall, barricading already has a success percentage, based upon how heavy the barricade is already. The "official" explanation is that, as the barricade gets stronger, there are less places you can find to put new furniture. But you could also say that, as more furniture is used, there's less furniture left to add to the barricade. Adding a second percent chance to succeed would be redundant and would just be a drain on the server. X1M43 00:11, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The ability to barricade is perfect as is. Please stop trying to change it. --Kulatu 00:16, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't humans have to use enough AP on everything else? Although, suddenly I have an image of survivors dragging hospital beds behind them to barricade police stations... haha... --Shadowstar 00:31, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No thanks. I agree with Kulatu - barricades are fine the way they are. Bentley Foss 01:11, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricading is fine how it is. Let it be. --Lucero Capell 01:12, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- P0p0 01:59, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricading is fine as is. --Squashua 02:41, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM - See one of the incarnations for the Engineer suggestion. --Fixen 04:18, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- For reasons mentioned above. -pinkgothic 18:17, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, The AP usage, the fact that they are innafective against larger hoards, and the % to miss chance at the highest levels are perfect balances in themselfs.--Spellbinder 23:25, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricading could stand to be made a little more difficult, but not with an extra search beforehand. --Dickie Fux 01:29, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree that barricading should be made more difficult, but this is too much extra work. --Jorm 06:38, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Hasn't this been suggested before? --Nov 09:12, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/17th-Nov-2005&oldid=136258"