Suggestions/18th-Feb-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

Ultimate Emote Deluxe

Timestamp: 01:51, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Feature
Scope: Survivors and zombies (in different ways)
Description: Ah, the emote. It keeps getting suggested; it keeps getting shot down. Here is my suggestion for an emote feature that addresses the most common problems.

For those who don't know, an "emote" is typing "/me does something" in the Speak field and having "/me" translated into your character name. Hence "/me waves" typed by "John" would become "John waves" when seen by others.

One of the major problems is that emotes make it easy to fake game messages. John could type "/me attacks you for 3 damage" and suddenly everyone in the room thinks they just lost 3hp to John. Hilarious! Or not so much.

Another problem is how to apply the feature to zeds. Since an emote is not technically speech, but a narrative description, it doesn't make a lot of sense to run zombie emotes through Death Rattle. However, giving zeds a plain text emote feature would provide an easy loophole for using human speech all the time.

So, I suggest a two-pronged approach. For survivors, we change the tense. For zombies, we provide a few standard emotes.

A survivor emote should work a bit differently from the traditional emotes seen in internet chats. Instead of typing "/me waves" to get "John waves," I suggest typing

/me wave

to emote

You see John wave

to other players. (Your own message would be, simply, "You wave.")

This makes it impossible to mimic real game messages. Under this system, if you type "/me attack you for 3 damage," the game will output "You see John attack you for 3 damage." As this is quite different from a real attack message, and just sounds odd, it should be pretty immediately obvious that no real attack occurred.

However, it does make all the genuine emote uses possible:

You see Sgt Boots toast you with a glass of wine.

You see JaneGirl shake her head vigorously.

Players will mostly just need to remember to leave the "s" off their verbs when they type emotes. While this is different from IRC emotes, IRC emotes are not exactly the paragon of grammatical virtue either.

Now, for zombies.

Zombies should simply be afforded a pull-down of four or five standard emotes, much as zeds without Death Rattle must choose from common zed phrases. When any of these are selected and emoted, other players will see things like

You see a zombie take a step toward you.

Here are my suggestions for zombie emotes:

  • glare menacingly in your direction
  • take a step toward you
  • back away cautiously
  • gesture angrily, while uttering strange sounds
  • attempt to breakdance

Votes

  1. Keep - I honestly didn't think you were going to be able to come up with a good way to do emotes (and certainly not one that would make zombie only players happy), but you've done well. Even changed my mind about it being useless as you could *'s actions. Good job. --Blahblahblah 02:00, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Rock on. No reason not to. -- Amazing 02:08, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - New user, but read everything, looks like ownage Shadowslasher Corp 02:10, 18 February 2006 (GMT
  4. Keep - Been hopein real hard for someone to come up with an emote suggestion that works. I know it's a little late, but will you be my valentine? :D Kripcat 02:16, 18 February 2006
  5. Keep - Seems to have taken care of all the problems --Lord Evans W! 02:19, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Whilst some newbies will still probably get confused, some newbies will always get confused to some extend, and this is reasonable. And thus makes this Keeptastic! --McArrowni W! 02:42, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Sounds good to me! -- angelamaria 02:49, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Looks good. Might be an idea to have a preview that shows what will come out, though. [e.g. Action [wave at John.] And under it, automatically generated, You wave at John. [Or just put "You" in front of the text box. Dunno. Ignatius Newcastle 03:01 18 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep If I vote keep on these will you people please stop suggesting it? --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:26, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep Sounds ok. I have an idea for a zombie emote skill that could probably work with this. I'll probably put it up soon. --Jon Pyre 05:14, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I didn't vote for the other suggested ones so I guess this one is mine. --ALIENwolve 05:43, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I like it. What about additional zombie emotes?--Pesatyel 06:00, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 10 Keep, 0 Kill, 0 Spam, 0 Dupe
  13. Keep - At last! Zombies are included! And we Squaredance. --Grim s 06:28, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I am compelled to shake your hand. Good job, I think this one covers everything. --Arcos 06:31, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - This one looks like it will work properly. --MLF 08:21, 18 February 2006 (GMT).
  16. Keep - Yay! More RP-ing. *thinks of Abi2 waving at the Abandoned members and exiting the building. --Abi79 15:04, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Wow. Really nice solution for emotes. This will encourage RolePlaying and add a nice flavour to the game. --EnForcer32 16:01, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Neat, no downside, and will perhaps settle all the kvetching about emotes. Brett Day 16:12, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Aaah, you stole my thunder!! Really, though, pretty good, along the lines of what I was thinking for my next revision. Good job... --Reverend Loki 16:49, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - *You see Masterofpsi attempt to breakdance.* I like this, adds some flavor. --Masterofpsi 19:50, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - *You see John Taggart gesture frantically towards the northwest. Not just flavor, but useful as well! --John Taggart 00:16, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - "*You see TheTeeHeeMonster spelling his name out with piss in the snow.*" --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:51, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Author vote. I was actually going to vote Kill on this one, but I have no resistance to peer pressure. :) --John Ember 02:11, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Cheers. - Skarmory 13:51, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - You see Norcross give you a high-five for making the best "emote" suggestion yet. (Are you serious about the breakdance, though???)-Norcross 16:31, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Absolutely. --John Ember 18:42, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep Meh... (insert comment here) AllStarZ 17:40, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - Meh more...MaulMachine 20:10, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - har. why not? --Bulgakov 20:26, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - I see no reason not to have this awesome addition. You see Monkeylord pick his nose-- Monkeylord 22:30, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - Issue previously causing me to vote kill has been resolved --Scorpius 22:37, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  31. kill - So many unnecesary suggestions today. I don't think emotse are needed, why not just say it or speak it. Overall I don't want to sift through spam emotes saying "kool aid gropes your mom in the broom closet" or "jumba wumba pisses on the ground. I think it is absolutely unnecesary. --Poodge 23:39, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep -I like this idea.Emotes are good. --Penance 17:49, 20 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  33. Keep - Yup... thats exactly what i wanted to see in the previous suggestions.much better. --Paddy Fitzgerald 20:38, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - good idea --Xbehave 19:52, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - Nice way to work it, though I think more Zombie drop downs would be good... like "You see a Zombie lose an eye" or "You see a Zombie drooling in the corner" or even "You see a Zombie drop its jaw to the floor"... you know it isn't nice to give the Civies all the fun, and one last one "You see a Zombie hold up a sign saying 'Revive me please'" because newbies might not know about the Mrh having a meaning. --Pvt Joke 08:11, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 34 Keep, 1 Kill, 0 Spam - 04:59, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Tally Alteration

Timestamp: 03:03, 17 Feb 2006
Type: Suggestions Page Template Improvement
Scope: Tally section
Description: This might be a bit minor, but... why not make the template have '''Tally:''' Keep 0, Kill 0, Spam 0, Dupe 0 - it's the format the Tallies are usually in anyway, and would save the first person always having to set up the Tally list.

Votes

  1. Spam - It's a great idea, but it belongs on the talk page :) --McArrowni W! 04:34, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - See, the problem is that it's not automatic, and it's some other random thing for editors/voters to work on. No. It's inaccurate as soon as one person forgets to change it, or when one person modifies it to just mess around. And whoever did it to all the suggestions today: please stop. Bentley Foss 04:40, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Spam What McArrowni said. The suggestions page is only for game suggestions. Wiki discussion goes on the talk page. Repost it there and we'll discuss it. --Jon Pyre 05:11, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Go to the talk page. Velkrin 06:49, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam - This section is for suggestions for the game. Put suggestions for changing this page on the talk page. --Grim s 09:07, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam -I like the idea, but this isn't the place for it as voting on the suggestion page rules, format, etc. is on the talk page. on the talk page there is a explanetory text on how to suggest changes for the wiki suggestions page. I suggest you read it and ask a moderater move this suggestion please to it right place. or do it yourself by retracting it here and start a discussion on the talk concerning the tally--Vista 11:15, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally: Keep 0, Kill 2, Spam 4, Dupe 0
  7. Spam - This isn't the place to discuss this. but since you asked, its a stupid idea. The tally item is inline with the votes because that way, it is clear it refers only to those votes above the tally item. It isn't in the suggestion header suggestion to save people from scrolling around to edit all the bits they would need to and to keep clear the context of what the tally is referring to. Finally, usual English grammar is to have the number before the noun, the opposite of what you proposed. Rhialto 13:32, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam - Nothing against your idea, but it's in the wrong place. Move it to the discussion/suggestion talk page. --Blahblahblah 16:04, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • NOTE: NOT A SUGGESTION ON GAME. 04:58, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Signaling

Timestamp: 05:55, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors, Civilian
Description: Flare guns currently are worthless as signaling devices. They can be fired at will for any reason, and usually for no reason. It's not worth traveling across a suburb to check out a flare that likely was fired for fun. Here's a skill to make flare guns more useful for communication.

A player with the skill Signaling is adept at using flare guns. They can fire them in ways other than straight in the air, and when seen will appear differently. The purpose of this is to allowing flares to convey different meanings depending how they are fired. You would select which method you would want to use by selecting from a few options in a drop down window. The default would be the current flare message and in the drop down menu would be "Up". Here would be the other options and how they'd appear:

  • Low
    • A flare was fired at a low angle that barely took it above the buildings 2w 5e.
  • Down
    • The bright light of a flare burning on the ground was visible 3w 2n.
  • Diagonal
    • A flare streaked across the sky 1n 4e.
  • Bright
    • A flare illuminated the sky 4w 3s.

Now obviously what these different methods would mean is up to interpretation but the same way "Mrh?" eventually became a revive request I'm certain these would get meanings attached to them even with no set guidelines. Perhaps "Bright" could be used to signal a huge crowd of zombies, "Diagonal" could mean "Reinforcements Needed" etc. They would get a meaning over time and give flares a useful purpose.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Hurray, a use for flareguns! --Jon Pyre 06:00, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill I DO like the idea. I just believe it better to specify what each one means.--Pesatyel 06:08, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I don't think it'd be possible to force it on people, after all they would be able to select whatever option they want regardless of the situation. But a group consensus would form and give each method a meaning. "Mrh?" means revive me, "Graaaah!" means "attack", and so on. Those meanings aren't programmed into the game but they evolved on their own. --Jon Pyre 06:13, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I like it, and it does specify what each one ment, it would basicaly be a diferent way of signaling flares. Diferent groups would use it for diferent reasons and colored flares would be great, but I think it was voted down I would have loved to have seen "A red flare shot across the night sky starting at 1w 10n and ending at 3w 5n"- --ramby Talk 06:13, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep I like it for the lack of what it is supposed to mean.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 06:23, 18 February 2006 (GMT
  5. Keep Because a use for flares would be awesome and because of this "above the buildings 2w 5e.", perhaps better names though "Diagonal" doesn't seem very flavourful. Kripcat 07:33, 18 February 2006
  6. Keep - I like the playerinterpertation part --Lord Evans W! 07:51, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Flares are utterly pointless as it stands, this will fix them --MLF 08:16, 18 February 2006 (GMT).
  8. Kill- Not that in essence I think it's a bad idea, but newbies wouldn't know the difference at first. I know that the "Mrh?" "Graaagh!" and whatnot have taken on the meanings that you outlined, but I just can't vote "keep" for this because I think it adds to the (already steep) learning curve. But I do agree that flares need some work, but I don't think this is the way to do it.--Mookiemookie 09:01, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep- This would give something new to do, although this might just mean four flavors of flare spam. also I don't think it would matter to n00bz if they understood the flare system.--Banana Bear4 09:39, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - It still doesn't fix the single biggest problem with it. That they can be fired at will for any reason, and usually for no reason. and that it is not worth traveling across a suburb to check out a flare that likely was fired for fun. (yep I cut and pasted your own words, I'm lazy today :P )all the zombies communication that works does because it's forced into the gamemechanics, groan because you can only use it when a survivor is there and Mrh? because you either get something you want. or are punished for. (either by getting a revive you don't want, forcing you to spend a lot of AP to kill yourself. or if you are brainrotted it gives out your profile to check for it. killing your anonimaty) we need to find a way to do that for flares in order for them to be usefull. Just thinking out loud. how about you can't decide the traject yourself but it is forced by conditions on the ground. a bright flash if used as weapon, An arc in any direction if there are zombies there, the longer the arc the more zombies there are. striaght up if there are no special conditions at all, etc. it needs to be polished but I think that might have more effect. leave a message on my talk page if you want to discuss it.--Vista 11:32, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I agree with Vista. The suggestion doesn't address the inherent problem with flares, namely that they can be shot in any situation. --Brizth W! 11:55, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - This doesn't fix the basic problem that flares can't provide any actual information. Any agreed-on signal rule by consensus could easily be spoilt by a griefer. Rhialto 13:35, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - This would only work if people would play the game as it is supposed to be played, not just ruin it by playing as zed spies, griefers... (I mean how the hell do zeds think about spying the survivors? I thought they weren't smart). Since this isn't the case, I'm sorry, but I'll vote to kill the suggestion. (but this doesn't mean it ain't great; it would be great if the players would not use it for fun) Keep - Regarding the re below, I think you have a point there. Assuming that the skill would cost ~100 XP (like the tagging and the other skills cost for the military guys), the idea would be good. (and since flares are hard to be found...) --Abi79 09:05, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Zombies are automatic and operate on instinct. Humans however have to make a choice between good and evil. I could walk into a building lie and say "People are dying 12 north! Go save them!" just so people waste their AP. But usually people tell the truth. You could still fire a flare for no reason but doing so would be like saying a lie. It would happen but probably less than you think. And newbies wouldn't send off the new flare signals without knowing what they mean because they'd need to stick around long enough to earn the skill. By the time they got Signaling they wouldn't be a newbie. --Jon Pyre 15:07, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I like where you are going with this. I preferred the colors (in the suggestion that came up some time back) to the directions (strictly for flavor reasons), but your directions make it a skill - and that cuts back exponentially on the abuse potential. Sure, some people would abuse it - but not so many, as it would be a skill, and not so many would be willing to spend all the time getting the skill just to grief with it. The fact that each team could come up with their own codes, and allies working together could share the same code (and even go so far as to not divulge it to others) helps buffer from abuse. I generally know where various team mates are located and would know a flare fired from their building from a flare fired from outside the area of operations. I would recommend taking it to the suggestion talk so people can put in their input and you can better make your case though, as this is looking undecided. And lastly, you make an excellent point in your Re above my vote. Zombies work on instinct, Humans have the choice between "good" and "evil". --Blahblahblah 16:28, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Almost all flares are fired at someone. What message would pop up then? - CthulhuFhtagn 18:12, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re This would not change flares as a weapon. Only flares as a signal. And perhaps if this change were implemented flares would be worthwhile signaling devices. --Jon Pyre 18:53, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Something needs to happen for flares to be of any use. However, let me point out something about the zombies' parallel technique, Feeding Groan. Zombies can only groan if there are survivors present; and the strength of the groan is proportional to how many there are in the block or building. At first, I thought this was a limitation. Later, I realized it was genius; because you can always be sure that every groan means something. There are no "false" groans in Urban Dead. I think something of this contextual dependence will need to be added to flares for them to be really useful. Humans shouldn't be able to fire them off for no reason at all and get the same response from other survivors. --John Ember 21:19, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Aren't I brilliant? --Jon Pyre 01:13, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Ah, that was your idea. You definitely nailed that one. --John Ember 02:09, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill Four times the ambiguity. --Zaruthustra-Mod 22:35, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - but I'd suggest adding one or two two-flare combination signals (for example, *You see two flares streak just above the buildings 2 north, 3 east. or *A pair of flares flashes brightly in the air six south, four east. --John Taggart 00:26, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - I like the options...people could/would work out there own meanings to the various shots. - Nicks 00:29, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. keep - Nice idea. It would mean survivors could communicate much more effectivly. Grant Page 16:15 (GMT)
  21. Keep _ very nice idea, groups would make up their own meanings, i like the down idea, of puting one on the ground can be interpreted many ways, perhaps the different signals can be seen different ways and distances. for example one on the ground can be seen 1 or 2 blocks away, but you can see it for some time after its fired and when you walk into its range. and the others can act like standard flares(seeing them when they are fired)--Kirk Howell 17:47, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Any attempt to fix the Flare Gun is bound to run into problems inherent with the fact that it's unnatural to dictate when or why a flare should be fired. Flares are often ignored, I know I ignore them, because anyone including griefers can use them to mislead people. Still, while this does not resolve that fact I think possibly adding a colour-coding to flares, as ramby suggested, would at least make them a little more informative and thus potentially more useful than they are right now, which is that they're basically useless as signals. I say add this for now and fix the griefer-associated problem in another suggestion. --Mobius187 12:46 PM, 19 Feb 2006 (EST)
  • Tally 15 Keep 7 Kill 0 Spam 0 Dupe --Jon Pyre 00:31, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

Graffiti Strength

Timestamp: 12:22, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement to Spraypainting
Scope: Survivors
Description: Survivors are able to spray paint an identical sentence over an existing one to "strengthen" it. Stregthening graffiti would make it more difficult to spraypaint over by requiring more "sprays" to cover it up. This would work on a halving scale (rounded up), like so

No# of Times Strengthened 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12.

No# of Times needed to------1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 -5 - 6 - 6.

spraypaint over.

This scale would go to a max of 12 to prevent super groups (with too many members and too much time) from effectively permanently labelling a suburb with a 1000 think layer of paint. In this way dedicated groups could clearly mark their territory without unaffiliated loners wandering in and, on a whim, ploughing a whole through a groups carefully laid propaganda, without making markings permanent so as to be capable of removal by a new group who has moved in our over time as individual survivors whittle it away. This could be explained away RP wise, by applying an extra thick layer of paint or numerous duplicates of the original message.

In game players could be informed as to the "level" of the paint by messages much like barricades. E.g "Somebody has spraypainted "so and so" numerous times onto a wall", "Somebody has spraypainted "so and so" countless times onto a wall". Upon reducing the level of the paint by spraypainting a different message a player might receive "You spray paint "this and that" onto a wall but "so and so" is still the predominate message.".

Votes

  1. Keep Author Vote MIA 12:22, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill As a zombie spending much time outdoors. I humbly ask "DO NOT CLUTTER UP MY SCREEN WITH POINTLESS GUNK!" thank you. - --ramby Talk 13:19, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep As far as I read, there is no more useless gunk than with normal graffiti. --McArrowni W! 14:53, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • 'RE You got it, the only extra text would be "numerous times" or "Countless times" MIA 22:37, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill "Streets is watching joo!" to x12 strength?! God, please no.... Blue Wild Angel 15:05, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill It's nice being able to spray over dumb messages. And if someone doesn't like mine they can spray over them too. --Jon Pyre 15:10, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Would probably reduce the number of stupid "Streets" or "Your momz ROLF!" messages. I don't see those people being organized and dumping a full quarter of their daily AP into that crap, while organized groups could afford. And if Streets wants to dump 1/4th his AP into spraypainting one spot, that means he hits less than four locales a day instead of twenty five. Win-Win! Brett Day 16:21, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - I was just about to kill it, but Brett Day made such a good point. I'm still not overly happy with it, as I think 12 is a bit too much - maybe 1/2 that... I don't see too many people wasting days searching for spray paint to solidify their "gunk messages" (cause that's a long and boring process) as I would see groups solidifying their group tags. --Blahblahblah 16:36, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I feel spray painting is fine as is. Velkrin 18:15, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I think spraypainting is fine already, and I really don't want to have to deal with nigh-permanent "STREETS IS WATCHIN" tags all over the town. Bentley Foss 19:14, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - No need to unnecessarily complicate something as simple as spraypainting.--Mookiemookie 19:30, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep- I like it you people are thiinking of only the bad it would bring with people saying yo mamma all the time. Think about how many times you had to keep writing over than crap when your recruiting in your territory and you have like 12 cans of spray Drogmir 19:42, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -- No thank you. Bartle 13:08, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill -- a coat of paint is a coat of paint. besides if you have the cans and the AP to do tag 12 times you just need to walk around retagging all the disappeared tags now for the same effect.--Vista 13:31, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Perhaps having just a button that 'Strenghtens Tag' THis is a great idea, to slow down the noobs that come in and pain over the useful messages by groups such as revive point locations. I think it should take multiple people to do it though, and only allow you to streghten a tag once, so one person cant do it over and over again. --Kirk Howell 17:39, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally: 6 Keep 8 Kill 0 Spam 0 Dupe
  15. Keep - Good way to keep mesages and reduce spam --Xbehave 20:03, 02 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - I don't think it would be all that good an idea. Allready we have a sufficient (In my opinion) graffiti system. If players want to waste cans spraying meaningless rubbish on the wall then that is fine. I think that this would lead to spam being more pernament rather than reducing it. --HighlandZHunter 12:21, 04 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 7 Keep, 9 Kill, 0 Spam - 04:57, 13 April 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/18th-Feb-2006&oldid=199585"