Suggestions/18th-Jun-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.

Non-combat experience reajustment

Timestamp:	02:36, 18 June 2006 (BST)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Several days ago a suggestion was made saying that almost all non-combat actions should grant no experience. It was a good suggestion IMO, but it nerfed DNA extractors. The submitter didn't resubmit it with the requested changes, so im doing it. Im going to keep most of the original text as it was on the original version, so don't just vote Dupe because you think its a dupe (doh). It a resubmission, nothing else, of XP Gain Issues made by Savat Both Zombies and Humans gain XP equivalent to the damage they do to an “enemy�? (halved if the attack is on an “ally,�?) plus a 10 point bonus for making the final kill. However, Humans can also gain 5 points for healing either a zombie or a human with a FAK, 4 points for using a DNA extractor on a zombie, a whopping 10 points for reviving a zombie, 1-2 XP for spray painting a message in certain places, 1 for dumping bodies out side, 1 point for repairing a ransacked building, and a 10% chance of gaining either 1 or 2 points of XP from reading a book (depending on if they are a scientist or not.) Many attempts have been made to try to balance this by giving alternative ways for zombies to gain XP. All of these have been Rejected so far. So in response, I suggest that the XP gain on already beneficial skills and tasks be removed to some degree. For instance: Combat will be left alone even though zombies are still being short-changed by the fact that humans are often hidden behind barricades and zombies are forced to attack each other, however this is the core of the game so it must stay. Reviving zombies will also not be touched, even though any smart military would see bringing zombies back to life to help fight off the remaining ones as priority one, but as it is the only way to allow zombies the chance to play as a human without making a new character. Book XP can stay to help keep the humans from getting cabin fever and start killing the other survivors, while they are hiding behind their barricades. DNA extractors should still gain XP since they are the only means to level up for a whole class (the Necrotech class). Tagging Should not get XP as it is a way to leave a lasting message for your allies/enemies to see. Repairing a Ransacked building so it will be possible for you to barricade it and easier to find needed equipment should not be a source for XP too. And lastly, Dumping bodies that could potentially stand up and attack you again while you are busy fixing your broken barricades should not be an XP source. The main logic on wich this suggestion is based is that the "nerfed" actions should not grant experience as the consecuences itself of these are reason enough to carry them on.

Votes

1. Keep - I am the author resubmiter so im allowed to vote once on my own the resubmited suggestion. --Matthew Fahrenheit 02:36, 18 June 2006 (BST)
2. Keep - I agree. The EXP from those actions is really disheartening, especially that humans get from cleaning up ransack. It makes zombies feel like an exp farm. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 02:54, 18 June 2006 (BST)
3. Keep - the XP is insignificant imho, but it shouldn't be there in the first place. Heck, take the XP for books too. Remember: "Books should be useless, just like in real life." --Rheingold 03:00, 18 June 2006 (BST).
4. Keep - lovely suggestion. I always wondered why the harmanz had so many more ways to gain xp that they shouldn't. Some of them don't even make sense; can someone explain to me how carrying a dead body gives you xp? --Gage 03:13, 18 June 2006 (BST)
5. Keep - Sounds good! However, I believe I pointed this out last time, but there is no explicit mention of FAK xp change in this suggestion, I would kill if that XP was dropped. --Burgan 03:21, 18 June 2006 (BST)
6. Keep - What Burgan said. Including the "kill if heal XP was dropped" --McArrowni 03:44, 18 June 2006 (BST)
7. Keep - As Burgan too. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 03:46, 18 June 2006 (BST) Kill - Changed after reading 'STER's vote. Thanks for the reasoning, 'STER! --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 04:03, 18 June 2006 (BST)
8. Keep - As per Burgan. BANDWAGONING WOOO! --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 03:49, 18 June 2006 (BST)
9. Kill - For pete's sake. First of all, this utterly kills several classes. Second of all, zombies are much better at killing people and getting XP from it than humans are, even without recent events (which I'll get to in a minute). Third of all, the point of EXP is to reward you for doing what you're supposed to do by making you better at it. Fourth of all and finally, you really want to nerf survivors more after the ransack upgrade? It's gonna be hella hard staying alive as it is. You tell all those newbies that all their healing skills and so one are funcitonally useless, and then dump them in a world where they're dying every day, you think they'll stick around long?--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 03:59, 18 June 2006 (BST)
   • Re - First, i didn't say anything about healing, neither did the original author in his version: healing is a main point on survivor cooperation and must stay as it is. Second, zombies newbies and survivors newbies WILL die, a lot: you want to make them invincible? go on. Third, anything that gets on Peer Reviewed is a resource for Kevan to look trough and implement as he wishes WHEN HE WANTS TO: maybe now it isn't the best moment to do so, maybe not , maybe he will implement it later when the balance leaves some space for changes (and i don't know why survivors are making so much fuss about the last upgrade, it's just a day and you already feel defeated?). BTW in the last point i did NOT say that is up to Kevan if he likes the skill: i completely hate that kind of argument. Fourth, zombies ARE better at killing, but they must go trough barricades first: given enough time, even a survivor only with a maxed axe can make more experience than a zombie with maxed claws (remember barricades? theyre hard to tear down). And lastly, if experience is a way to reward users for doing what theyre supposed to do, why barricade killing doesn't give zombies experience? why PKing and ZKing does? why reading a book does?? Your argument lacks of sense. --Matthew Fahrenheit 04:39, 18 June 2006 (BST)
     • Moved further discussion to the talk page, as this is getting lenghty. --Matthew Fahrenheit 05:50, 18 June 2006 (BST)
10. Kill -Agreeing with the comment above, you get EXP for doing what your supposed to. Dumping a body outside is obviously something you should always do. --someonewithoutaname
    • Invalid vote struck. You may unstrike it when you sign properly with four ~'s - Jedaz 09:32, 18 June 2006 (BST)
11. Kill -If you're taking away the XP for tagging that means you'd have to remove the Tagging skill and that makes no sense. It's 1XP, just a drop in the bucket compared to combat. --Rogue 05:35, 18 June 2006 (BST)

    Re - Tagging makes spray cans last longer too. It's not useless, so it won't be removed: just wanted to say that. --Matthew Fahrenheit 05:50, 18 June 2006 (BST)

12. Kill It's not worth Kevan's time. 1xp is a pittance. A pittance I say! Reading a book or tagging or any of that crap is a huge waste of time, AP wise if you're seeking to gain points. The only practical ways to gain xp are fighting and DNA tagging. Even healing doesn't cut it. You're focusing on stuff that doesn't make a difference. --Jon Pyre 05:42, 18 June 2006 (BST)

    Re - Why you use that argument so much?? Are you Kevan's secretary? Im focusing on things that needs to be corrected (if people agrees), not every suggestion has to change the whole game aspect. --Matthew Fahrenheit 05:50, 18 June 2006 (BST)

13. Keep - As the original Author, I am happy that somone saw fit to resubmit this. Just as a side note though, I did make mention about FAK XP in my comments, but it seemed like few people read them.--Savat 1:12, 18 June 2006 (EST)

    Re - Cool! You didn't piss off! Nah, it was a cool suggestion from the beggining, it just had that little mistake with the DNA extractors that had to be removed. Anyways, all the glory for you! --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:18, 18 June 2006 (BST)

    • Re - "Even though it would be in a survivors best interests to keep allies alive as it is, XP should still be given since, in the game world, few people seem to really care if the guy bleeding to death right next to them lives or not, since you can get more XP by killing his reanimated corpse with the right weapon than wasting a FAK that you could use on yourself..." Those where my exact words. --Savat 1:32, 18 June 2006 (EST)
14. Keep - Either this or give zombies XP for destroying barricades, because that's what zombies are supposed to do. --Nob666 11:08, 18 June 2006 (BST)
15. Keep - I'm voting keep 'cause it's a good idea, but I do think the change would be pretty insignificant. It's not like you can "farm" these XP sources. --Raystanwick 11:24, 18 June 2006 (BST)
16. Kill - The XP from those things are a small bonus that you only sometimes get, for eksampel noone runs around looking for rooms to clear of corpses and repair, not many people bother to tag those buildings for XP when you can just kill a zombie. I am in favour of zombies gaining a small amount XP from destroying barricades not killing the small bonus survivors get (though gutting the tagging bonus wouldnt be that bad). - Whitehouse 12:00, 18 June 2006 (BST)
17. Kill - I see. So we're going to make playing human suckier as a way to fix The Zombie Question? Dig on the words of the immortal Gandhi, brethren and sistren: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I concur that zombies absolutely need more ways to gain XP--if for no other reason than to get the people who cry nonstop about how hard it is out here for a Z to just shutthef**kup for a minute--but I think there have to be better ways to fix it.--Bulgakov 18:42, 18 June 2006 (BST)
18. Kill - Some of you know I always hope to make the most of the game while never gaining XP at all. Removing the fear of dumping a body would free me to new heights. While this suggestion would open a lot of activities for my character it breaks a lot of advantages to new (survivor) players making it several times more difficult for them to gain their first several skills. I've never gained XP from repairing a building. Is this a recent change? --Spraycan Willy ^MalTel 19:10, 18 June 2006 (BST)

    Re - After several tests I see XP awarded for repair but it does not stick. The Single point falls off as soon as you refresh or take another action. If this suggestion turns into a really wordy way to say No XP on Dump then I vote Keep. --Spraycan Willy 04:23, 19 June 2006 (BST)

19. Kill - I have no problem with getting rid of tagging XP. But the number of trencoats who don't repair damage, or dump bodies, or heal or rebarricade because they want to go hunt zombies makes me wanna cry. Buff zombies. David Malfisto 19:21, 18 June 2006 (BST)
20. Kill If it encourages things that need doin, then I like it. And since its not really enough XP to make a living off of so why is it important to get rid of it? The most xp per day from a book is 5/10, and thats if you never "finish" the book and have to search for a new one. Its just helps characters who want to roleplay a character who's an avid reader and doesn't hunt zombies and yet still be able to improve. HamsterNinja 02:46, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Tally: 10 keep, 9 kill, 1 unsigned --03:41, 19 June 2006 (BST)
21. Kill -While I think it is stupid (the way the game is CURRENTLY) to get XP for tagging, dumping and reading, I think there should be MORE ways to get XP. Just concentrate on zombies for now.--Pesatyel 05:13, 19 June 2006 (BST)
22. Kill - Think of ways to make things more fun, not less fun. –Bob Hammero ^T•W!•P! 19:32, 19 June 2006 (BST)
23. Kill (1) There should be ore ways to get XP, not less (2) Combat is still the best XP-per-AP BY FAR. The "whopping" 10 XP for a revive costs you 10 AP, tagging and dumping isn't better, books are much worse. -- Mettaur 19:27, 20 June 2006 (BST)
24. Kill - I'm always in favor of an XP system which encourages non combat actions. One could use the 'own reward' arguement to nerf killing zombies as well. Jenny D'Arc^T 19:52, 30 June 2006 (BST)

---

Smooth Operator

Timestamp:	06:26, 18 June 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies and humans
Description:	This is a skill idea for radios designed to make them more useful, and to counteract some of the spam created by their addition. Advanced Radio Operation would be a subskill of Radio Operation. The player is an expert at radio communication. This provides two abilities: 1. The player has mastered the art of annunciation and can speak clearly and distinctly. The Broadcast text box would have a check box next to it. When checked the player speaks in a manner that allows people who have them listed on their contacts to recognize their voice. When not checked the broadcast would remain anonymous. It'd look like this: Jon Pyre 27.55 MHz: "Avoid the mall. The only thing on sale there is death." 2. The player has an ear for interference and radio static and can infer the relative distance of the broadcaster based on whether the signal is clear or spotty. Broadcasts originating within 10 spaces of your position are crystal clear and marked like so: (near) 27.55 MHz More than 20 spaces away marred by mild static: (far) 27.55 MHz More than 50 spaces away has significant interference: (distant) 27.55 MHz The message itself would not be altered in any way, and it doesn't tell you which way the signal is coming from or the position of the broadcaster. Note that this skill would be a crossover ability useable by zombies carrying a radio. This would be a useful ability allowing players to identify themselves over the air, and to know how close to them a broadcast was made. Players could sift through spam by looking for messages from contacts, and judge a message's relevance based on the distance of the broadcaster.

Votes

1. Keep Author vote. This makes radios more useful and less prone to the problems caused by spam.--Jon Pyre 06:27, 18 June 2006 (BST)
2. Kill - Because you did the same to my suggestion above =P. Nah, its because the transmitter location is something that must not be even hinted, its part of the advantage (and disvantage) of radio broadcasting. About the "recognize contacts voice over the radio" part, there's already a suggestion in it's way to Peer Reviewed like that. --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:34, 18 June 2006 (BST)link to said suggestion here --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:38, 18 June 2006 (BST)
   • Re I actually made that suggestion but as an improvement. I thought it would be better suited as a skill, since this provides the option to remain anonymous (as well as giving a use to all that stored xp high level players have). And as for your suggestion above...I agree with you on the whole tagging thing. --Jon Pyre 07:03, 18 June 2006 (BST)
3. Keep - I do like this suggestion... However, I would like to put out a counter suggestion that you tone it down a little. I mean, It borders on to manny bonuses of what the skill does. This isn't a strong suggestion from me, atleast not strong enough for me to vote kill. Just something to consider. --Savat 1:40, 18 June 2006 (EST)
4. Keep - I love the distance part, though I can only guess at the potential server impact --Gage 07:11, 18 June 2006 (BST)
   • Re I doubt it should impact the server. The game already informs you of the distance to groans and flares. This is just more of the same except it provides less precise information. --Jon Pyre 07:19, 18 June 2006 (BST)
5. Keep - One of those small things that make the game even more fun. --Nob666 11:05, 18 June 2006 (BST)
6. Kill - It sounds like you just want an easy fix for determining "legitimate" communiques from false ones. How about an "Encryption" skill? The first 'recognize contacts voice' portion of the suggestion is okay(but has already been suggested and approved, as matthew pointed out. Give it time...), but the second part is just silly. 1)This would have virtually NO effect on anything(I don't see how this would make a message verifiable OR more "fun") 2)In RL you need special equipment to determine distance, direction, ect; it can not be done by 'careful listening'. Creating and using your own secret code sounds like more fun then having the game present "verifying data" for you... Finally, don't forget the mobilephones! --Raystanwick 11:44, 18 June 2006 (BST)
   • Re Would coded transmissions on current frequencies would result in everyone without the code seeing 27.35 MHz: "X$&#)*@A(*3#"? Determining the exact distance is impossible. The player can simply infer whether they are really close, kinda far, or really far based on the quality of the message. The same way when you turn to channel 50 on broadcast television you can tell the station that sent out the signal is far away. --Jon Pyre 15:44, 18 June 2006 (BST)
7. Kill - I don't really like the distance part --McArrowni 15:57, 18 June 2006 (BST)
8. Kill - Also don't like the distance part. David Malfisto 19:24, 18 June 2006 (BST)
9. Keep - Looks good to me. Really don't understand what the objection is to the distance bit, as it seems like it would add significantly to the flavor without impacting gameplay in any negative manner. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 22:00, 18 June 2006 (BST)
10. Keep - I like the distance part. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 22:04, 18 June 2006 (BST)
11. Keep Name recognition, thank God! Have my baby, Jon! --Ron Burgundy 22:15, 18 June 2006 (BST)
12. Keep The distance part is good, and could be useful every now and then. So, Keep. HamsterNinja 01:00, 19 June 2006 (BST)
13. Keep being able to confirm that someone is speaking is good ;) --DJSMITH^CDF 02:01, 19 June 2006 (BST)
14. Keep -I think it works.--Pesatyel 05:22, 19 June 2006 (BST)
15. Keep - Sounds useful. I like it. –Bob Hammero ^T•W!•P! 19:51, 19 June 2006 (BST)
16. Keep - Not bad. --Rozozag 22:15, 25 June 2006 (BST)

---

DNA extractor fix

Retracted by author and resubmitted it with changes just below. 5/10 Keep/Total. - Jedaz 14:03, 18 June 2006 (BST)

---

DNA extractor fix

Timestamp:	06:37, 18 June 2006 (BST)
Type:	Equipment Change/Game fix
Scope:	People who use DNA extractors and Zombies
Description:	I was extracting DNA from Zombies just the other day and I got to them second to find that they had all been scanned alredy. So I wanted to know if there were brain rotters in the pile, however the DNA extractor kept scanning the last Zombie in the stack. So what I purpose is that the DNA extractor to scan a random Zombie in the stack once all of the Zombies in the stack have been scanned. For the people with concerns THIS IS NOT A DUPE TO THE SUGGESTION ABOVE - See the part in BOLD, thats the difference, it changes how the whole thing works so it's not a dupe! THIS DOES NOT NERF BRAIN ROT - How could it? You don't get an idea of the order of the stack so survivors can't defend themselves any more then they do now against the strategy of Zombies clogging revive points. THIS DOES NOT NERF DNA EXTRACTORS - If you think it does read it again, currently you get stuck on the last Zombie when they are all scanned, this makes it so you scan other Zombies after they are all scanned. It doesn't change the normal opperating of a DNA extractor when there are still Zombies to scan. It helps give useful information as you get more variaty of specimins then the same one over and over again!

Votes

1. Keep - Jedaz and Grim made me see the light. Spam - Once all zombies in the stack have been scanned? Meaning that you start scanning a random zombie if you manage to get through the entire stack? Really, I expected better the second time around. You can only reach the bottom of a stack when there are no rotters there. Which means you'll practically never get to "randomly scan" a zombie. Your suggestion negates itself. has no practical use. –Xoid 04:57, 19 June 2006 (BST)
   • Re - How do you mean? You do realize that you are able to get to the bottom of a stack even if there are rotters because it is posiable to successfully scan them so I don't get how it negates itself. Please explain as I obviously have over looked something. - Jedaz 14:23, 18 June 2006 (BST)
     • Re: Oh yes… by constantly failing you never reach the bottom within an appreciable time limit. Waste 50 APs because you hit a rotter, just to get to the next one in the horde? No really, that does seem pointless to me. –Xoid 14:34, 18 June 2006 (BST)
       • Re - Yes, an individual wouldn't be able to get to the bottom, however this is more useful for when a group of scientists have scanned the same pile. Can you tell me why an individual would keep scanning the pile if they got to it first? I don't think there would be any reason, this is more useful if someone gets to it first. - Jedaz 23:47, 18 June 2006 (BST)
2. Spam - As Xoid. And now for a limerick: There once was a whinger called Jedaz / Who cried 'cause his ideas were shit as / Xoid pulled out a gun / And told him to run / So no longer a threat is Jedaz. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 13:39, 18 June 2006 (BST) Keep - Looking at Grim's vote... I guess so. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 05:23, 19 June 2006 (BST)
3. Spam - If you want to be a hero that deafeats the evil zombies and saves the pretty, big breasted girl then go play RE 4. If you want stark realism (Zombies are so much better than humans) Then go play RE Outbreak and quit posting bad suggestions. And Your suggestion is the same as the first time around. --John Z. Delorean 14:25 18 June 2006 (BST)
4. Keep I thought you meant to nerf Brain Rot. Now I know what you mean, your idea is a sound one. --Jon Pyre 04:28, 19 June 2006 (BST)
   • Re - Can you elaborate? I don't quite get what you mean? - Jedaz 00:04, 19 June 2006 (BST)
5. Spam - As above. David Malfisto 19:25, 18 June 2006 (BST)
6. Keep - I see no problem with this suggestion. Xoid should play more with the DNA extractors before voting (as should everyone else, it seems). Jon Pyre should read the suggestion before voting. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 21:57, 18 June 2006 (BST)
7. Kill May I ask you why you wanted to see if there were any rotters? If you were reviving the top one is the only important one to check, and you can't target them specifically, so, just why? HamsterNinja 00:57, 19 June 2006 (BST)
   • Re - Yes thats true, but if we have it so it cycles through or scans the first Zombie it nerfs the stratergy that Zombies have and this wouldn't pass. However don't you think this is much more useful then how it currently is where you just keep scaning the same person over and over again? - Jedaz 05:58, 19 June 2006 (BST)
8. SPAM And WTFCENTAURS too, as Mr. Delorean --John Taggart 01:16, 19 June 2006 (BST)
9. Keep - I hadn't realised that the game worked like this. It would be immensely frustrating to go to a revive point only to find that you couldn't revive anyone because the only zombie you can scan has brain rot. --Toejam 02:12, 19 June 2006 (BST)
10. Keep - It's a simple suggestion that doesn't hurt anyone. Kevan added "rotter awareness" to scanning in one of the recent updates; getting "stuck" on a single zombie in a stack and thereby being prevented from assessing the rest seems contrary to that addition. --Ember ^MBR 02:50, 19 June 2006 (BST)
11. Keep - All the people who voted spam on this are abusing the fuck out of spam. This doesnt hurt anyone, and lets people find out the composition of a pile without insight into the order of zombies, allowing the zombies to go undisturbed with their brain rotting. Of course brain rotters are more difficult to scan than a regular zombie, but then again, they are no more difficult to scan than it is to bring down a barricade level, and zombies have to do that. All. The. Fucking. Time. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 03:12, 19 June 2006 (BST)
12. Keep -It IS a pain in the ass to only be able to scan a single zombie in a stack of 3 or 5 or whatever. I walked into a square with 3 zombies and was only able to scan one (who happened to have Brain Rot) because the other two had already been scanned. But a side note is what about XP?--Pesatyel 05:35, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - The XP would be the same as normal, thats because the specimins have already been scanned you don't gain any extra XP. - Jedaz 06:00, 19 June 2006 (BST)
13. Keep - Eh, what the hell. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 05:49, 19 June 2006 (BST)
14. Keep - Sounds reasonable. –Bob Hammero ^T•W!•P! 19:55, 19 June 2006 (BST)
15. Keep - Reasonable, not game-breaking. Aplogoies for the people who aren't bothering to read the suggestions. -- Mettaur 19:30, 20 June 2006 (BST)
16. Keep - Like previously stated, it's reasonable. --Rozozag 22:18, 25 June 2006 (BST)
17. Keep - Scientists are under represented at all exp. levels, this gives them a small boost, at any rate. Jenny D'Arc^T 19:56, 30 June 2006 (BST)

---

Chainsaw

Deemed a Dupe of various suggestions including this. 7 Dupe votes. --Rheingold.

---