Suggestions/19th-Jun-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

The End Of Barricade Zergs

Timestamp: 00:25, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Survivors/Barricades
Description: For too long the Survivors of UD have had a distinct advantage when zerging. Barricades. If a zombie has a 'Zerg Flag' on them it's near impossible to take down barricades, yet Survivors can just as easily put them up.

My suggestion is simple. If a Survivor is zerging, they have a 0% chance to build barricades.

I've seen this with both my Survivor and my Zombie, and it's annoying both ways. This is just something to help curb cheating and make the game a little bit more fair for the Zombies.

Votes
Votes here

  1. Keep - Fair suggestion.Why wasnt something like this set up before to counteract human zergers?--LCpl Mendoza 00:32, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep-I think it is rare, but if someone is a zerger, he should be punished. Plain and simple.--ShadowScope 00:29, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Author Vote -- Tirion529 00:31, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - I'm all for this, although i think the humans Barricade % should be at 5-10% instead of 0%--SirKill 00:31, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep Why not. Though it would be hard for those one to two people who are accused zergers that are innocent. HamsterNinja 00:59, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • RE - But the punishment for attacking barricades still applies for an innocent zombie, so I don't see why they wouldn't be treated the same. -- Tirion529 01:01, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - If zerging zombies are punished, why should zerging survivors be left untouched? --Nob666 01:09, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - By Zerg Flagged you mean the people who are considered as zerging by Kevan's (deliberately secret) game mechanic, right? If so there's really no way this could be abused. If Zerg Flags = people on a zerg list somewhere, then Kill. --Rheingold 01:27, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Yes, I mean people who are flagged by however Kevan does it, not someone else guessing. That'd be competely unfair. -- Tirion529 01:29, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Good idea --DJSMITHCDF 01:45, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Kill teh zergers! --McArrowni 01:47, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill Keep Just messing with ya. Awesome suggestion. Maybe Caiger can fall if this is implemented. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:29, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  11. KEEP -Zergers are scum and should recieve painful penalties, such as scalding milk on their genitals. --Matthew Stewart 03:31, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - The problem is false positives; an innocent barricader fleeing into an empty building and being told they can't barricade it could end up dead as a result. But some buildings being apparently empty of useful barricade materials (if only to one player for a few days) doesn't seem too thematically unreasonable, I suppose. --Kevan 03:47, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Well, then you could say the same for a zombie. He might get caught up with a zerg flag accidentally and not be able to attack harmanz/barricades. I just don't think there should be a double standard for zergers, Survivor or Zombie.... And if this is nowhere near what you were trying to explain, I apologize. Long day. -- Tirion529 04:03, 19 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Not being able to attack a barricade isn't going to get you killed. There's no double standard, though, zombie barricade attacks aren't affected any more than survivor barricade assembly, under current rules. --Kevan 07:50, 19 June 2006 (BST)
        • Re - True, but were talking (for the most part) About people who are cheating the game. I assumed that penalty applied to zombies due to the fact the 'zerg flag' completely nerfs attacking, and you have to attack barricades. We might want to continue on the talk page if you wish to repsond. -- Tirion529 11:48, 19 June 2006 (BST)
          • Re - As I say, zombie barricade attacks aren't affected any more than survivor barricade assembly. --Kevan 02:20, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep Why am I even voting keep after Kevan has approved the suggestion? --Jon Pyre 04:30, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Good question, Jon. Good question. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 05:51, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - An end to double standards. If you are going to punish false positives, do it on both sides. –Xoid 06:46, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Yay! --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 06:49, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep- This would be nice. As it evens up the playing field a little more. --Kamron 23:17 18 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - I don't understand this, and I don't think any of you (Kevan probably excepted) really do either. When someone can explain, to my satisfaction,
    1. what a 'zerg flag' is,
    2. how one acquires one, how long it lasts, and how one gets rid of it, and
    3. how whatever "zerg profiling" might be in effect is actually acting to the detriment of zombie actions as opposed to survivor actions,
    why then hell yes. I'll be all for this. Until then, 'kill' sez I.--Keep - Thanks everyone for your pleasant responses. I find that The FAQ states that characters found to be cooperating "in a suspicious fashion" will be automatically penalised or banned by the system. I'm just curious about the 'suspicious manner' bit. I felt that not understanding that made voting on this specious. But as long as the rest of you don't care, I don't see why I should either. Full speed ahead.--Bulgakov 07:32, 20 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Zerg flags mark the users who are suspected of zerging. --Ashnazg , 0841, 19 June 2006 (GMT) Although an illegal RE, I support it. Bulgakov, see zerging and multi abuse for more information on how you attain the 'zerg flag' -- Tirion529 11:54, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep - I don't see this happening so often, but yes, punish the zergers. --Ashnazg , 0841, 19 June 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Bulgakov, RTFM. --Niilomaan 09:45, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep - Niiloman, on the Wiki people try to share their knowledges to other users: thats probably the main reason why this Wiki exists! He said that he was changing his vote as soon as he got the info, so why insult? --Matthew Fahrenheit 10:07, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep - Down with Zerggers! David Malfisto 10:30, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - Caiger will fall within the week of this implemented. I just wish it would decrease baracade levels. j/k 343 U! 13:42, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - Stands to reason since barricade zerging is just as disruptive as any other form. --Alicia Jennings 14:39, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  25. Keep - I'd even go a step further and make all actions like attacks, healing, and revives 0% success chance when you're zerging --Mookiemookie 14:56, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Keep - The idea behind the zerg penalties is that your efficacy is reduced, but not too conspicuously so. If the penalty were obvious -- such as being unable to barricade -- you could move your alts around until you found exactly how far apart they needed to be. That's information Kevan doesn't want us to have, because it would encourage players to "toe the line" of alt abuse. And since all barricade actions short of Heavily have a 100% success rate, any downgrade will be obvious. I would simply suggest severely reducing the success rate for barricading beyond Very Strong. This will still curtail 'cade bots in the situations where you're most likely to find them: malls. Edit: I totally missed that Kevan had already chimed in. Since that was my only objection, I guess I should Keep. --Ember MBR 15:42, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Very good point, but at the moment there is no reason for them to 'toe the line' because there really isn't a line when it comes to Barricade zerging. It's not affected in the least, to my knowledge. -- Tirion529 17:43, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  27. Keep -Oh this ones staying. I didnt realise there was an apartide on zed/survivor zerg nerfs Nazreg 16:16, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  28. Keep - Good idea. Why didn't someone think of this before? –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 18:50, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  29. Keep - Accidental hits on this are no worse for survivors that zombies, either way it spoils approx 1 day of play (personal experience on revive speed) Mortificant 14:44, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  30. Keep - although something should be done about false positives. -- Mettaur 19:17, 20 June 2006 (BST)
    Re - Nothing it done for zombies when it comes to that, so I don't see why there should be any diference for Survivors. -- Tirion529 20:14, 20 June 2006 (BST)
    • Tally: 28 Keep, 1 Kill, 29 Total
  31. Keep - The ambiguity of zerging rules is the only terrible idea in this game. It presents zergers with a massive advantage, because they test and test until they know that line, while non-zergers exercise caution and likely steer clearer of multi-abuse than is necessary. (Never mind that tens of millions of people have easy access to multiple IPs via free wifi, destroying the effectiveness of every anti-zerging measure against all but the most innocent violators.) --einexile 20:24, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  32. Keep - Excellent idea!--Cheese sdc 20:35, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  33. Keep -Works for me. Zergers need to be punished.--Paradox244 21:14, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Barricade Improvements

Suggestion Withdrawn by author for reworking --DJSMITHCDF 20:29, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Zombie Barricade Awareness

Timestamp: 03:18, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Game change
Scope: Zombies (buff)
Description: This suggestion is pretty simple, inspired by the failure of the suggestion immediately above.

When inside a building, zombies should be notified when the barricade is strengthened. For example: Joe Survivor added an item to the barricade (7 minutes ago)... and again... and again. (1 minute ago).

Zombies already notice when someone attacks them, when someone speaks near them, or even when the radio in their building receives transmissions. They should notice when someone adds to the cades... especially when they just spent half an hour breaking through them. The message would not give the level of the barricade or anything fancy, nor inform you when someone tries to add to the cades and fails.

This would not require much to code, and it would not add much to spam, as zombies breakins are pretty rare events, and of short duration too. :P Survivors would never see any message, and zombies would see it only when INSIDE the building.

It's impossible to deny that this is a major boost to zombies. "Barricader anonymity" really helps when defending during a breakin, in a mall etc. As such, I don't think it's fair to implement this alone. It should be packaged with something new that helps survivors a bit. Keep that in mind when voting with respect to the suggestion's balance.

Votes
Votes here

  1. Author Keep - credit to ShadowScope for starting the ball rolling on this idea. --Rheingold 03:20, 19 June 2006 (BST).
  2. Kill Because the above suggestion does the exact same. I'd dupe it but I'm not sure if its legal. HamsterNinja 03:40, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - not correct. The other suggestion gives messages to survivors and lets both zombies and survivors know the exact level of the barricade. Actually, as Sonny and Grim have noted, the other suggestion is a huge boost to survivors, not zombies. This suggestion lets only zombies identify who is barricading, and only when they have already broken in. None of the reasons for "Kills" above apply to this suggestion. --Rheingold 04:27, 19 June 2006 (BST).
  3. Kill Because a zombie in live combat is more than difficult to equal and that'd be unfair to the lone active survivor during a break-in when an organized zombie horde of five bursts through the door together. Zombies can time their attacks to coincide. You can't time a defense. --Jon Pyre 04:35, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Actually, in practical terms, this doesn't ring true - through my time in the Barhah Brigade I have seen the damage a single active player can do to even the most ruthlessly coordinated zombie raid. - Nervie 15:40, 19 June 2006 (BST) Non-author Re. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 17:55, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep I think that would be a good idea. If it is unfair for the lone surivior to barricade...then don't barricade, or have a mob of people barricading at one time. Though, if there is other objections to this that I find legit, then I might change my vote. For now, it's keep. And thanks Rheingold.--ShadowScope 04:40, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - would barricading a building leave a scent trail to the zombies? If so that would be amazing. Love the suggestion to remove the anonymity, if at least to zombies. --Gage 04:42, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - No, nor should JoeSurvivor's name become a link to his profile, or anything complicated like that. In flavour-terms, the zombie is only immediately aware of the survivor as distinguished from the rest of the harmanz because he's trying to rebarricade the same hole the zombie came through. Once Joe stops this action the zombie loses interest in him. --Rheingold 04:47, 19 June 2006 (BST).
  6. Keep - But I think this could be a skill instead of an innate ability. All ya whiners above: in the rare realtime occurences where this might actually matter, the breather can flee. This change would add mucho verisimilitude. Actually, I don't think this would be such a catastrophic advantage for zombies; I think this could be implemented without any other changes.--Bulgakov 09:10, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - As Mr Pyre. --David Malfisto 10:36, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Zambahz hate active re-caders. Make re-caders pay... in pounds of flesh. --Ember MBR 14:43, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - As David. --Abi79 AB 14:52, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - Coordinated zombie players already know the virtue of watching the player list for active characters, while this won't help the seasoned player, it could open the eyes of many young zombies to the survivor's greatest weapon - Nervie 15:40, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - For many of the same reasons Nervie says "keep". It's not needed. You can see the 'cades going up, so you know the harman at the bottom of the list is active.--WibbleBRAINS 17:51, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - Just because we need more zombie buffs or the game will die. Thomas mill8 18:00 19 June 2006 (BST)
  13. keep boost zombies a little bit means you ahve to kill 1st cade later--xbehave 18:41, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - It's an interesting idea, and I would be more willing to vote Keep if it were a skill instead of just a change. But as it is, I think it's too powerful. (Edit: I somehow voted Keep instead of Kill; fixed). –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 19:00, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - I'd be much happier if this was a Skill under the Brain Rot tree. -- Tirion529 21:50, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - And why wouldn't survivors notice? I wouldn't mind locals knowing my group is keeping their 'cades up. Also, I find this skill overpowered, coordinated zombie attacks are already deadly. If they can also detect who is using all his APs to save the rest of the people sharing the same building, then they become too powerful, as 'cades will stay down too long and too many zombies will pour in for the survivors to handle. (Edit: This is taking into consideration your comment on adding something new to help survivors, I just think this is to powerful even for that.) -Certified=InsaneUG 01:51, 20 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re: Is it fair that zombies would not notice someone throw a file cabinet right next to him? And the reason suriviors won't notice is to prevent spam. For a zombie, knowing who is barricading is useful information. It will make zombies more feared. 'Cades are supposed to fall...and once they are supposed to fall, stay fallen. Have you wasted 50 AP to bring down a EHB, only to gobble up a couple of humans and then see the building go BACK up to EHB? If one does this, then it makes new zombies happy and not disenchanted by the long time it takes to destroy barricades. It would create a new dynamic in Mall Seiges...and shows nothing is safe. If so, then it would truly make a Surivior Apoc occur...I know this is illegal, I just had to have a say to defend a suggestion that I made.--ShadowScope 04:25, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill Right on, Jon! --Ron Burgundy 03:27, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill Balance for one, for another, why wouldn't/shouldn't survivors be able to notice it? -- Mettaur 19:19, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - Further damage to the sense that these breach fights are taking place in a building rather than in the lobby of a building. There's also the risk that this would be implemented for both zombies and survivors, destroying the effectiveness of zombie spies. I'd much rather see barricading get you dragged into the street. --einexile 20:44, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - Zombies need a buff and this is an excellent way to do it.--Cheese sdc 21:57, 21 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep -Survivors don't know who is the one barricading, so why should zeds?--Paradox244 21:16, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep - It just makes sense --Rozozag 22:23, 25 June 2006 (BST)

New Zombie Hunter Skill: Horde Recognition

Timestamp: 05:36, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors, Zombie Hunters
Description: The player knows about zombie horde patterns and can recognize differences between different zombie groups on sight. When they see a crowd of zombies they can tell what the largest group present is and how many members there are. Only one group would show up. It'd look like this:

There are 27 zombies here. 14 of them belong to the Ridleybank Resistance Front.

This wouldn't hurt the horde since there's really no reason to treat a particular group of zombies differently. You'd still just barricade, revive, and heal per normal. But it would inspire fear in survivors. Imagine that scene in a western where a group of outlaws rides into town and everyone panics. This would be the zombie apocalypse version of that. Survivors would say to each other "Oh crap, that isn't just 20 random zombies outside it's the (group name goes here)!" And they'd be able to identify the horde if they're wiped out, adding to the prestige and fame of the zombie group.

This would not tell you which zombies belong to that group or target that group specifically or anything ridiculous like that. Zombie anonymity isn't touched. This is just a way for zombie groups to get credit for their grisly work. This would also be a crossover skill.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Gives survivors information they'd like to have, but mainly serves to frighten them. Allows zombie groups to gain terrifying reputations among survivors. --Jon Pyre 05:36, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Looking at The Many and the RRF, somehow I don't think that zombie hordes really need help building reputations. Also, this would be a major buff to humans, as it would allow them to definitively track zombie hordes. Some hordes, such as MotA, rely heavily on surprise for their assaults. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 05:57, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re But there'd still be no way to counteract a surprise attack. You'd still have no way to predict where or when they'll strike. So you might see a big crowd of MotA standing somewhere. That doesn't tell you anything except a lot of survivors will probably be getting killed nearby at somepoint. --Jon Pyre 06:26, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - I like the idea. Seriously I do, but I have to agree with Jimbo Bob. Also you didn't specify as to if only one group will pop up or every single Zombie group will be listed. - Jedaz 06:21, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re Only one group will show. --Jon Pyre 06:28, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill -MAYBE if groups actually meant something in the game this would be useful. But since you can just type anything in there, it doesn't really matter. Not to mention groups could EASILY get around this.--Pesatyel 06:24, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re But why would they want to? Instead of survivors thinking 30 random zombies wiped out the mall they'll know who to be impressed by. --Jon Pyre 06:28, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - This will encourage a lot of flame/edit wars on the wiki, with lots of groups claiming that they succesfully repelled attacks led by the RRF, TSO, Church of the Resurrection or any group that has a reputation just because there were 3 lost guys on the crowd. --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:53, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - why the hell not? One suspects--in this uneasy, grey area between meta and Malton--that if it is possible for zombies to "horde" (i.e., metagame), then it ought to be possible for zombie hunters to determine how exactly those zombies are related to each other, and to take heed when a whole rotten pile of them is on his/her doorstep. F'ing QED if you ask me. Jedaz, dude: read harder next time.--Bulgakov 07:13, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - I think this is a good idea, although it needs to be elaborated on a little more. It'd be nice as a survivor to know what group of zombies you are going up against. This isn't overpowering or even a huge advantage, but a nice add-on. Zombies may see who they are going up by clicking their profile when there is a survivor in this room. Survivors have no such ability. --Kamron 1:43 P.M., 19 June 2006 (PST)
  8. Kill - Group tracking would get a lot easier, so groups would just get around this. This would be just extra effort for no actual use. And what group is shown when there are multiple groups present with the same amount of zombies? --Nob666 11:30, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Flavor wins by me, although it shouldn't require a skill... Anywho, I wish this was in effect when the many were still here. Imagine, you see a group of 738 zombies, and recognize 724 to be from the Many. 343 U! 13:48, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Your suggestion works for the largest hordes -- they get additional notoriety and it's not going to throw them much -- but for medium to small hordes you're giving an advantage to the humans. If you add in some kind of group size threshold (only works for groups of 100 or more members, that sort of thing), I'll keep. --Ember MBR 14:46, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re But as a person playing a survivor now I can tell you that it doesn't change the way you defend a suburb. Sure, you might be more alert if the horde was directly outside your building, but if there are 20 non-grouped zombies there you'd check in all the time anyway. If you told me there was a group of 30 zombies from X group standing 8 spaces away that information wouldn't change how I play at all, except I might doubt survivor ability to hold the suburb. --Jon Pyre 15:16, 19 June 2006 (BST)
      • Extended discussion and non-author Res moved to the talk page. Please do not hold long conversations on this page. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 20:04, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill-Agreed with John Ember. Make it only work for groups of 100 or more members.--ShadowScope 15:49, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - As per Jimbo Bob. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 19:04, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep I can't see how it would be a huge survivor boost, but it would be interesting information every now and then HamsterNinja 21:34, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Should be a skill, and be available/useable to/by zombies. Zombies should also have the option of "acting as per their group" or something. Thus hordes could move partially hidden, whilst still being part of their group. Should probably require a minimum number of members of a same group to show an effect. Ideally, could be two skills, one under brain rot, and one as a zombie hunter skill--McArrowni 23:17, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep That'd be great! It'd make things interesting for survivors and it would give hordes a good way to get their name out- small and large, provided the small pack themselves together. Normally I'd dislike the "no longer a faceless horde" thing, but this makes them sorta... like wild game- and we all know, zombie hunters hunt zombies. --Ron Burgundy 03:33, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Adds some nice atmosphere. -- Catriona McM 18:51, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Cool idea, and I'd support it if the group in question had to opt in to being identified. Otherwise it's a survivor advantage. I have an advantage over other survivors because I know whether the zombies in my area are organized or feral. I spend both time and AP to learn this information, and I spend AP telling other survivors what I know. --einexile 21:27, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - I don't care what you say, this does violate zombie anonymity --Rozozag 22:34, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - I think it loses some of the flavor of the game. Zombie hords anonymous in the game (despite RP on the wiki), and I see that as a feature. Jenny D'ArcT 20:04, 30 June 2006 (BST)

AP Gain Change

Timestamp: 06:04, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: All Players
Description: When I first started playing NexusWar I was wondering what it was going to be like to gain AP at twice the rate of UD. As I played, I found out that there really isn't much difference other than one getting twice as much opprotunity to play. Here's how it goes:

This change would cause AP gain Rate to change from one per half hour to one per fifteen minutes. The Maximum AP would still stay at 50, but that max would be reached twice perday instead of once per day. Also, in order for this to be fair to people who aren't satisfied with one or two characters, the IP hit limit would be raised to compensate, at Kevan's discretion.

Now, I know messing with AP is often considered Taboo, but as this would affect all players, It wouldn't threaten game balance at all, and it certainly couldn't be any worse than playing UD in real-time.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote -- Mia Kristos 06:04, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - IP hit limit would render this spectacularly pointless. Sorry, Mia. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:07, 19 June 2006 (BST) Edit: The thing is, the IP limit's there for a reason. You might be able to play twice as often with this, but it'd be twice as slowly. Besides, I really don't see the need for UD's pace to be accelerated dramatically. Yes, NW's AP system works well - for NW. Let UD be UD. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:29, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re: "Let UD be UD?" Excuse me, but aren't we discussing this on a nest of pages meant specifically to make changes to UD? -- Mia Kristos 06:34, 19 June 2006 (BST)
      • Extended discussion moved to the talk page. Please do not hold extended conversations on this page. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 20:10, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Why not? I play NW as well, and its AP system works fine. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 06:08, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Unless the IP hit limit is raised, then there will be players with 2 or so alts who'll miss out. –Xoid 06:12, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - IP hit limit, and I don't think this would be any good for UD, just a hunch. Anyway it's a pain trying to log in twice to take advantage of it - Jedaz 06:14, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Nah… Urban Dead has epic siege battles. Those sieges would then be won by whoever is persistant enough to spend all day clicking at the computer. I don't want to have to play Urban Dead 24/7 to be able to win. I like that you can check in just once a day and not miss out on any AP. --Jon Pyre 06:34, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Because differences are good. I play NW too, and im happy to play 2 different games, i don't want them to become the same. --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:56, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re: …Because this will make them the same game. -- Mia Kristos 06:59, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - It won't, but it's a step towards that goal. And even if that argument isn't enough for you, look at Jon Pyre's Kill. The differences are good, and people likes UD as it is. Don't change the basis of the game, or it won't be the UD we love anymore. --Matthew Fahrenheit 09:37, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Urban Dead is supposed to be on the slow-paced side IMO. --Ashnazg , 0833, 19 June 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I don't think we should move on so quickly, it could ruin all we have. --Niilomaan 09:52, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - you know, there could be something here if you also doubled everyone's HP, and everything else in proportion, etc. I'm not being sarcastic. Wouldn't it actually make a statistical difference in that you'd have less variance? You'd be able to predict the needed AP cost of an action (tearing down an EHB barricade fr'instance) with greater accuracy since you'd have the same fluctuations around a higher average. Therefore the game would be a bit more consistent = fewer frustrating "almost-kills" or "almost-breakins" if you plan correctly. Anyone have a confirm/deny on this? Interesting thought... --Rheingold 10:37, 19 June 2006 (BST).
  11. Spam - The Pace... is... slow! The beauty of UD is that you can log in once a day and not lose anything (well you can if you play a maxed Z :P). I love the fact that I can spend a hard day at uni, write an essay and then log in and hit up some 'cades having lost nothing from not having to log in four times a day to spend all my AP. Keep it nice and slow. Oh, and don't mess with AP. David Malfisto 10:41, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Spam - Enough messing with AP for me to vote spam. --Nob666 11:21, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - One of the main reasons why I dont play Nexus --wcil 11:48, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - I play once daily, and that works out just fine as it is. Urban dead does not need a simple overclocking to make it more fun, this would make the game incredibly harder to people like me who can only play once a day, unless you bump the AP stores up to 100 as well. But that's not necessary, we've got a good AP system here. As to Rheingold's comments: sorry, no, not on any appreciable level. Besides, statistically, for every near-kill there should be a corresponding easy kill where someone rolled above the average. --Burgan 14:53, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam - Different games have different systems. Just because it's a neat thing in Nexus doesn't mean it's needed here. – Nubis 15:40, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - UD and NW are really only superficially similar. For example, if you go into NW expecting it to play like UD -- you will quickly make a mess of your character. (Surely I need both melee and all the firearms skills! And barricading!) NW needs the faster recharge rate partly because you lose a lot of AP for dying at higher levels, and partly because there's just a lot more area to move around in (several islands plus realms). --Ember MBR 16:41, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - One of the nice things about UD is that it's slow. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 19:09, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  18. KIll - one of the guidelines for suggestions is that a sugestion won't mess with AP... well there ya go ;P --DJSMITHCDF 20:27, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - What Jon Pyre said. --McArrowni 23:19, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - NexusWar Sucks! Stop trying to over complicate a great game like UrbanDead! --Spraycan Willy MalTel 00:50, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill - The only thing I don't like about Nexus war is I'm forced to come online every 12 hours or waste AP. I love the fact that UD lets me just come on just once a day. I don't mind the double AP gain in NW. but I like the UD rate of AP gain as it is. --TeksuraTalk 00:56, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep - I STILL only play Nexus War once a day, even though the AP rate is doubled. I see it as a more flexible time frame for playing. There have been several times when I skip a day of playing UD because I'm waiting to be close to max AP, then when I am, it is unfeasible for me to actually play. Instead of having to wait 25 hours (give or take) to play UD again (to be max AP), I can play NW at any time after half that time. And, bear in mind, KEVAN has already talked about altering AP (recharge rates, etc.). He just hasn't done it yet.--Pesatyel 02:13, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Spam - [Urban Dead runs under a slow-pace principle.] [Suggestions that alter the AP system... will not be accepted.] As Kevan said,"[The limit of 50AP per 25 hours is to keep the game balanced and to stop too much from happening overnight.]" --Raystanwick 02:17, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill - I'm playing NW, and I enjoy the fact the fact that it regens twice as fast, altough its annoying to log on twice a day. I still play UD since taking it slow is fun. Agent Heroic 04:38, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  25. Keep - IIRC Kevan played Vampires! before making Urban Dead and chose a slower AP gain rate than that game has. I also hesitate to recommend radically changing the frequency with which everyone plays a nearly perfect game. I'm voting Keep because it would encourage donations, and because it might increase enthusiasm for the game among casual players. --einexile 21:42, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill -This is a slow game, and we don't mess with AP. Those are two things to remember when playing UD. I play Nexus War and like it a lot, but UD is UD man. It just rocks. So don't mess with the formula. Like they say, if it ain't broke, you're not trying don't fix it.--Paradox244 21:22, 23 June 2006 (BST)

"List Names" Improvement

Timestamp: 0836, 19 June 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Everyone
Description: This is regarding the "List Names" function when there are too many survivors. I understand that it helps the page load faster, but I have a slow computer and a survivor alt that lives in a mall, so it's getting somewhat tedious to always have to click "List Names" to find out if anyone needs a heal. I suggest that there instead be an option to toggle "List Names/Do Not List Names". When "List Names" is active, regardless of the number of survivors in a building, they will always be listed. When "Do Not List Names" is active, you just see "There are X survivors here". This also reduces the server pings somewhat.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --Ashnazg , 0833, 19 June 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I swear this is a dupe, but I forget where I saw it, I'll have a look and see what I can find... - Jedaz 09:46, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Nah. Just have an option to only list the wounded. –Xoid 09:52, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - As Xoid said. --Matthew Fahrenheit 10:13, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - If this passes I can just press "Do Not List" and see how many survivors are inside (5-49) and I don't need to manually count them anymore. --Niilomaan 11:34, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - as Xoid & Matthew --Gage 12:55, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Good ideas for peer review only please. Also, see Gage. David Malfisto 15:37, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - As David. Nazreg 16:43, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill As per all people referenced via proxy through Nazreg. Also someone should turn the "just show wounded survivors button" as an aspect of the diagnose skill into a Suggestion. --Matthew Stewart 18:21, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - As per Xoid. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 19:10, 19 June 2006 (BST)

GPS Upgrade

Removed by author, replaced with improved version below. -Canuhearmenow 16:00, 19 June 2006 (EST)

GPS Upgrade(improved)

Timestamp: 16:15, 19 June 2006 (EST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: GPS improvement
Description: This is supposed to make the GPS more useful. What this does is, when you click the GPS it "saves" a location for 1 (or 2, depending on what Kevan makes it) AP. Then when you click the GPS in a location that you have already saved, it brings an overhead view of the suburb, showing all of the areas you saved as visible and all the places you didn't save are just black. Possibly you could even have a "marker" you put over a discovered suburb if that suburb's building is a designated safehouse, revive point, etc. This improvement is meant to make the playing experience better for Newbies who got lost yet found a safehouse, and even for experienced players who want to keep the shortest distance to their groups' (if they have any) HQ. This does NOT show the # of survivors or zombies, and now this new suggestion makes it so that you can't look at the barricade level when using the GPS.

Votes

  1. Keep - Thanks for the constructive criticism!--Canuhearmenow 08:46, 19 June 2006 (EST)
  2. Kill- Not sure I understand this. So could you flag a whole suburb, and know exactly where everything is, like the building details are listed, or would it only show the building in white so that if you flagged the whole 'burb you wouldn't know what's what? Peterblue 21:31, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Quite happy with this, but 2 AP is too much. A cache limit of 10-15 points would be quite reasonable for Peter's concern. Each point should come with a one line description about it, which would default to the name of the square, but is user changeable when making the point.--Burgan 22:18, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - I'm reasonably happy with this now, but I think it would be better if you could pull up the map even if you weren't currently at a square you had flagged. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 22:21, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - I don't see any harm in it. Most people use the wiki map, though. SmartyMart 23:19, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Kevan should just link to the map from the front page, just like he does to the wiki. And the map is on the wiki anyway. --Rheingold 23:27, 19 June 2006 (BST).
  7. Kill - yeah and while you're at it give the survivors playstation while the zombies all slowly quit. --Gage 01:50, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam - Let's give extension authors the finger and reward players for not learning the game. --einexile 21:49, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Objective Race

Moved to discussion. 343 U! 16:56, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Fires

Removed by author. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:26, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Help the Doctors

Timestamp: 22:19, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill Alteration (sorta)
Scope: Anyone with Diagnosis
Description: Well, Matthew Stewart, here you go. Basically, add a simple button to the interface allowing anyone with the skill "Diagnosis" to display the first 50 people in the same room that are injured any amount. Simple really, I'm surprised I couldn't find this anywhere. If you find it, please put the link to the dupe.

Note of Clarification: Yes, this does transfer over to zombies. Note that it says anyone with diagnosis. --Pinpoint 23:32, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Giving Credit Where It's Due: Credit has to be given to Matthew Stewart for the main idea of this suggestion, just to be fair. Thank you, Matthew Stewart. --Pinpoint 13:55, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Votes

  1. Keep - Author keep. Seems like a good way to help doctors prioritize with healing. --Pinpoint 22:19, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - After reading other people's comments. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 02:08, 20 June 2006 (BST) Kill - Make it cost 1 AP and I'll probably vote keep. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 22:24, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep Thank you. --Matthew Stewart 22:26, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep Sounds good, but I have a question. What effect would it have on scroll down listings? Would they show the first 50 that are at all injured or work normally? HamsterNinja 22:29, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Well, IIRC, right now it shows whichever names are on your screen, right? That makes sense to go with for this thing. Basically, this button would be in addition to the "list names" button we already have, and function just like it, except the list would be only injured people. --Pinpoint 22:39, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Heal 'em... or kill 'em --McArrowni 23:22, 19 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - You bring up a good point. Should this cross over to zombies? I think so, as that would be a nice balance. *Goes to add clarification.* --Pinpoint 23:32, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Sure, why not? SmartyMart 23:28, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - sounds good. No AP cost please, it's just a utility. --Rheingold 23:38, 19 June 2006 (BST).
  8. Keep - Why the hell would you have an AP cost associated with an interface tweak? That argument is silly. It's like saying that clicking the "list names" link should have an AP cost associated with it. --Mookiemookie 23:56, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Damn, I didn't think this would be good. I owe you a coke. --Snikers 00:43, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - Be nice to have others see when I'm at 50/60 HP --TeksuraTalk 00:59, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - an easy way to do what the UDTool already does to some degree--Gage 01:56, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - But im concerned about bodybuilding/not bodybuilding survivors detection. Anyways, it's not anything Kevan can't solve, is it? --Matthew Fahrenheit 03:18, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Simpler than a lot of diagnosis modification suggestions. --Spraycan Willy MalTel 03:26, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Nice job, it makes sense as well as you would group all of the wounded in one spot so that doctors could find them easier. - Jedaz 05:12, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep Well this is better than my idea I guess. --Ashnazg 0522, 19 June 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Giddyup. --Otware 10:29, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - I don't mind this going to the peer reviewed suggestions. --Nob666 12:41, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - I like that zombies can use it, too. That's going to be... handy. --Ember MBR 15:07, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep - Handy, especially as it works for zombies too. --Catriona McM 18:54, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - Less fingerprints on the screen. -- Mettaur 19:22, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Spam - Yet another miserable attack on a good extension. --einexile 22:28, 20 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - What the heck are you talking about? Move to strike this vote as invalid reason. --Pinpoint 03:17, 21 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - The motion to strike (had you made it yourself rather than telling me to make it) is itself invalid, as you are feigning incredulity at a valid criticism I've made here several times before. There are extensions that take care of the useful part of your proposal. I happen to think that's a better reason to reject your suggestion than had it simply lacked merit. Others are free to disagree, but it's really not your job to decide when it's okay for someone else to find your ideas ridiculous. Don't you think that's just a little bit undignified? --einexile 17:48, 21 June 2006 (BST)
        • Re - Saying that an extension covers the suggestion is not a valid kill reason, let alone a valid Spam one. Not everyone can use those extensions, and it's being elitist to say they can't have the functionality. So I'm still asking a mod to strike this vote, not that it matters much. --Pinpoint 19:14, 21 June 2006 (BST)
          • re - You seem to have misread "Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote" as a rule against the validity of placing priority on the extension community. Can we also add an imaginary rule against elitism? --einexile 22:51, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep - no reason not to. Jenny D'ArcT 20:11, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Zombies open doors when leaving a building

Deemed a dupe of this with 7 Dupe Votes, 11 Total (counting mine, i just decided to delete instead of adding mine then deleting...) --DJSMITHCDF 03:21, 1 July 2006 (BST) }}

Malton City Hall

Withdrawn by author for further refinement. Consensus seemed to be that suggestion needed to be more detailed. SmartyMart 23:59, 21 June 2006 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/19th-Jun-2006&oldid=311322"