Suggestions/19th-Nov-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.

A Simple Idea For Forts

Timestamp:	Jon Pyre 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Malton's two forts
Description:	There have been numerous suggestions to improve forts by adding additional resources to the armory or putting new resource buildings in the surrounding empty squares, so this may seem familiar. It's building on these past concepts so I hope you won't consider it a dupe but an improvement of an old idea. I suggest making the eight squares that surround the armory a large building. Instead of being a block like a mall, this large building would be a ring, with the armory acting as a seperate building in its center. While this is mostly outdoor space so are junkyards and they are also considered buildings, with an interior. Most of the building would be simple training and storage areas searchable for flak jackets (1%), binoculars (1%), pistols(2%), pistol clips(5%), shotguns (1%), shotgun shells(4%), flare guns (2%), radios (2%), radio transmitters (5%), generators (2%), fuel (3%), and knives (5%). Two squares would be different. One would be an infirmiry and turn up FAKS at the same rate as a hospital (but no other items) and allow for surgery when powered. The other would be a barracks, searchable for books and alcohol (but no other items) at a high rate. And of course Kevan can tweak these numbers if they turn out to be too high or too low. This change would make forts a very unique and interesting stronghold/target. It has lower search odds for most individual items than a mall, armory, or PD but has that balanced by possibly turning up a wider variety of items with each search. It is also much more difficult to hold than a mall, with eight squares to guard and protect from ransack instead of four, but unlike a mall has a seperate resource building to fall back to in its center. You could imagine how most sieges would go. Survivors would hold the outer fort as long as possible to enjoy the wide variety of items available. Soon though any powerful assault would overrun one of the eight squares and cause everyone to retreat into the armory, nothing left to find but guns for the last desperate stand of the army. It should make for some interesting battles. Best of all this should be easy to implement since everything this change requires is already programmed.

Keep Votes

1. Keep This is an easy change to make that would result in some pretty amazing battles at forts. It doesn't make forts better than malls, just different and should result in different sorts of fights than the ones we're used to. --Jon Pyre 10:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep - It would make some interesting battles.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep It would provide a unique setting for some very large epic battles as well as making role-play since it is a Fort after all. --Tahoe 01:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep - I think it's a good suggestion as is but I certainly don't object to modifying it so forts stay off the free running network, and it seems like that's the only way it'll pass. --Wfjeff 05:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Unsure - This would attach the forts to the Free Running network - making them far easier to hold, and meaning that one could free run into the Armoury. In order to place a 1-square no-building perimeter around the forts, you'd need to move/destroy 23 buildings, including a hospital and a PD. --Funt Solo 13:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re I don't think forts getting part of the free running network would necessarily be a bad thing. Right now they're just really sucky police stations. If they were part of the free running network then there'd actually be a chance to hold them during a siege since they could be barricaded above Very Strong. This wouldn't make them easy to hold, eight squares is twice as difficult as a mall, especially since you'd be unable to see if there was a zombie break-in on the other side of the ring! --Jon Pyre 18:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

   • Re - But I like the fact that forts aren't part of the free running net. Sure, they need a buff, but if that's possible to achieve whilst retaining the already unique aspects, all the better. That's what I'd vote Keep on, at any rate. --Funt Solo 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Uncertain - Though I do genuinely like this idea, I'm against connecting the forts to the freerunning network, and think a lot of the charm in them is that there is no possible freerunning into the one single building. --Karloth vois ^RR 13:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re Right now forts have no advantages over a PD but a really big disadvantage. If it were removed people might actually try to hold it. While they would lose this unique aspect they'd gain a different one. And there are many other "island" building in the game too. --Jon Pyre 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Kill (Suggested changes) - I agree with the views above, but I also suggest why not just embed some code to make the building inacessable via free running. In other words one can free run from the 8 block large building to the armoury and vice versa, BUT cannot be free run to the fort itself (the 8 block large building) from outside (Suggested flavour : high walls?). This would maintain them as off the free running map but also make them a more desirable location to hold. --Etherdrifter 13:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Kill - Its a nice idea, but remove it from the free-running grid and you've got a keep from me.--Mr yawn 16:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
5. As the others have said make it inaccessible to Free Running. RP arguments could be that, since they ARE fortresses, they was designed specifically to keep people out, beyond the "approvied" entrances (ie. the doors).--Pesatyel 18:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Change - Ditto Funt. --Officer Johnieo 21:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Change - Agree with everyone else's suggested changes. However, a possible alternative to the above changes could be to make the eight squares around the armoury buildings accessible via free-running but not have them contain any items (ie: be like standard office buildings). --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re One alternative is make it so the outer squares can't be accessed with free running except to/from the armory, leaving the armory to serve as the fort's sole entry point until the outer fort gets ransacked and then it serves as the armory's entry point. --Jon Pyre 00:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Kill - Etherdrifter's got the right idea. Make the 8 surrounding buildings impossible to freerun into except from the armory and vice versa, and you've got my Keep vote.--J Muller 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Change - I agree with all those who say that it should be cut off from the Free-Running network. And I was thinking about developing this suggestion myself... I just never had the time to put it down. --GhostStalker 16:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
10. hold off for awhile and resubmit later We just got a fort modification, so let's work out the mechanics of THAT first. Asheets 18:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - No. Forts are supposed to be worthless areas to attract pseudo military leaders to their deaths. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Scan Failure Change

Timestamp:	Reaper with no name TJ! 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	DNA extractors, zombies without brain rot
Description:	Currently, if a DNA scan fails, it's an unmistakeable sign that the zombie has brain rot, because they never fail on non-rotters. Therefore, I propse that there be a small (10%) chance that DNA scans will not work on normal (non-rotted) zombies. This way, unsuccessful scans will no longer be the last word on whether or not a zombie has brain rot. Roleplay-wise, this can be explained in the same way that the brain rot skill itself does: the abnormal DNA of the undead can confuse the DNA extractor.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

1. Author Vote - Yeah, I'm voting keep on my own suggestion. What of it? --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Nah, I don't see a problem with rotters being identified by failed scans. -Certified=Insane^☭ 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Kill I don't see any reason to nerf the only purpose of the DNA Extractor. --Jon Pyre 22:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Kill Yea I see new Scientists shivering at this suggestion. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 23:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
4. I can see the reasoning behind this suggestion, but I think it's fine that failure indicates brainrot. This result is a small but useful piece of information which I see no reason to get rid of. --ExplodingFerret 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Kill - No, sorry.Waluigi Freak 99 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Kill - It's nice from a roleplaying perspective but it punishes low level scientists and they have it hard enough as it is. --Wfjeff 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
7. kill no need for this change. I'd rather see an occasional needle failure. Asheets 18:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - I think the current process is fine. --Funt Solo 21:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
2. d000d!!!12!@ - No. Ok? No.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Spam - Its fine as it is, there is no need for change.--Mr yawn 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
4. 2 way Spam - It's not needed, and if you think about it, it sorta nerf's brainrot. --Officer Johnieo 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - All right, I don't mind your vote. What I do mind is that you don't seem to understand what the word "nerf" means. Making something weaker is not a nerf. Making something pointless is a nerf. Get it right or don't use the word. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Spam - As Funt.--J Muller 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Spam - Erm, that's like saying a chest x-ray won't work because someone's bones are made of skin. --Joe O'Wood 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Blathering Blatherskites!! - What a horrible idea! Great... now I'm gizmoduck!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 08:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Spam - No.--Gage 08:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Territory Stats

Removed by author because it was a bit pants. --Funt Solo 08:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Ankle Bite (another version)

Timestamp:	Pesatyel 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombie
Description:	Requires Ankle Grab. Costs 3 AP. Bonus +10% (for surprise) to hit. Thus a maxed out zombie would have 40% (Tangling Grasp does not apply). A zombie is killed. Next to the [Stand Up] button is a new button [Attack]. Pressing the button the zombie to grab and bite the person who just killed him. A successful hit will do normal bite damage and infect (if the zombie has the skill) but will NOT allow Digestion (if the zombie has the skill). The target will see "The zombie you thought you just killed grabs at you and bites your leg for 4 damage. You shake it off and stomp on it's head." Restrictions: The attack can ONLY be used against the person who killed the zombie and ONLY so long as that person remains in the square with the zombie after the kill. If the person leaves then returns before the zombie can attack, the [Attack] button disappears. This attack can only be used once before the zombie has to stand up again. If the zombie does not have the AP to use the skill, the AP cost is added to the stand up cost when they (eventually) stand up. This is similar to Ankle Bite in Peer Review, but I believe it is different enough to not be a dupe.

Keep Votes

1. Keep - I definitely want to stomp on some zombie heads. You really should change the AP cost to 1 though, it's underpowered enough as it is. --Wfjeff 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill I think zombies already have a pretty low penalty for dying. They don't need to get a bonus attack. --Jon Pyre 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I don't get how this is a "bonus" attack. Considering how limited this is (compared to the Peer Review version which is similar. Given the responses thus far, how did THAT one even make it into Peer Review?), I kinda figured people would complain it wasn't that useful.--Pesatyel 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re That one let you stand up and attack at the same time, targeting whoever's there. This one lets you get an attack in after being killed, aimed at your killer. Once someone spends all that AP and kills a zombie I think they should get a little break from fighting. --Jon Pyre 07:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
     • Thanks, that clarifies things.--Pesatyel 04:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Kill - Actually, He's right.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Kill - Why not just stand up? --Officer Johnieo 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Because you might not be ready to. I was trying to provide a more tactical skill to zombies that kept within the limits of zombie capabilities.--Pesatyel 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
   • - Not if you've got Ankle grab, which is also a prequiste if you recall. --Officer Johnieo 04:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
     • Yes, but if you only have, like 10 AP, what's the point of standing up, even if it only costs 1 AP?--Pesatyel 06:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Kill - Pyre's right on this one.--J Muller 00:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Kill - 3 AP for a 40% chance to do 4 damage? That's 0.533 damage per AP. With a normal bite, you could do 1.2 damage per AP. And with claws, you could do 1.5 to 1.7 damage per AP. Does anyone see a point to this? - Ashnazg - 0745, 20 November 2006 (GMT)
   • The point was the surprise factor. The idea came form Resident Evil in that when you walk by a corpse, it might not be dead and start gnawing on you until you stomp on it's head.--Pesatyel 04:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Kill This idea won't work. Zombies can just get up after being killed at a low penalty, whereas survivors must stand up, shamble over to a nearby revive point, risk having some stupid n00b attacking them, not paying attention to the message saying it's a revive point, and then, once they FINALLY get revived, spend another 10 AP standing up. Zombie's have it far easier when it comes to death, we don't need to give them a bonus.Waluigi Freak 99 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Zombies have very small penalties when they die in comparison to survivors. They don't need a buff in that area.--Mr yawn 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
2. We don't need a ?superrise. People complain about ?rise enough already. Also, I don't like attacks that cost more AP in exchange for being overpowered. --ExplodingFerret 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
   • How is it overpowered?--Pesatyel 03:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
     • It would be overpowered if it used the normal amount of AP for an attack -- one. Making it cost more as a balancing measure weakens the idea as a whole. The Balance section in the Suggestion Dos and Do Nots happens to agree. --ExplodingFerret 05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
       • So your saying it's UNDERpowered then or what?--Pesatyel 06:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Spam - I don't see the point in trying to push through suggestions that are "similar to, but marginally different to" suggestions already in Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   Different options don't hurt, do they?--Pesatyel 04:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

4. spam 2 moves from 1 ap... not allowed, I should think... Asheets 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

---