Suggestions/1st-Feb-2007

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

Blockade

Timestamp: Nibiletz 01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Zombies
Description: To begin, I apologize for the mistakes I made above; I'm new to this and don't know what to do with the time. My skill is pretty simple and would be believable in a real zombie apocalypse. I would like to make entry points more signifigant, because survivors can go in and freerun into a nearby fortress whether it is in survivor hands or zombie. I think that survivors should not be able to enter a building, (without free running) if there are 25 or more zombies standing outside. If zombies were surrounding a building, I really doubt that you would be able to slink into the crowd of corpses without being eaten, unless you are shaun of the dead. Even though zombies are not intended to be able to hold a building, this would make their standing around an entry point during a siege useful, and would be resonable. Thank you.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep A vote from the author--Nibiletz
  2. Keep - Reasonable enough. And by the way, he said: "I think that survivors should not be able to enter a building, (without free running)", meaning that if you do not have Free Running, you cannot enter. Just to clear it up, I see we have a Spam vote from that. Leeksoup 07:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - This suggestion does not prevent someone from free running into the blockaded building from a neighbouring one. It only prevents a survivor from entering the blockaded building from the street - cutting off the entry point. Non-free runners would have to find a different entry point I guess. Exiting should still be possible - A Mad dash through the undead horde is very in theme. –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Makes sense; and if they don't have free-running they shouldn't stick around a place where there are that many zombies anyway (VS cades won't last long against that many zombies, since they are lower-priority with regards to defense). --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - I love it, its so true. Blackzilla1 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Cautious Keep This does give zombies a benefit to mobbing up.. and basically just standing there attacking a barricade all day. For that reason alone, keep. Doesn't nerf free running (you have to already be inside for it to be used.) But this does make it harder for survivors outside to get inside.. but only if zombies really want this building. Ok, keep. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I like suggestions that boost those zomboys a bit. But this is way too powerful. Make it about 100 or more instead of 25 and it gets my keep.--ρsych°LychεεELT 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    Kill - I'd prefer it the other way round, actually; that survivors couldn't enter via the street (regardless of barricade levels) if there's x zombies standing outside/inside. Sorry! --Karloth Vois RR 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Abstain On rereading I'm confused- not enough sleep! --Karloth Vois RR 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill How could they retake the building if they were unable to enter? Being forced to kill possibly hundreds of zombies before you can even get in the building, assuming they don't just stand up, is unrealistic. --Jon Pyre 07:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill Would make sieges quick and one sided - BzAli 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. I personally think Free Running is overpowered. But regardless of whether it is or not, THIS doesn't help. What about all the newbies who can't get in (ie. don't have Free Running)? They are all screwed. What about zerging?--Pesatyel 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - who does this hurt? New players. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - As Funt. --c138 RR - PKer 11:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Kill - Unbalances groups of zombies, and causes more problems with Zerging - if you can make a number of zombies, and stand them outside of a building (such as a mall, or, even worse, a fort) and, just by doing that, prevent people from entering the building, it will cause a lot of problems for everyone, both high level and low. Essentially, the potential for damage is greater than the advantage of making the game more realistic. Unsigned vote struck --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Nah, Funt's right. I don't think this does anything except hurt newbies. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - I don't think they should be able to totally block the doorways, perhaps making your way through them could either do 5HP of damage (as they claw you on the way through), or take extra AP (say 4 or 5 again)? Oh, and Mark, you in the Spam section, re-read the suggestion, it's got nothing to do with making it harder to free-run through the building, it's talking about entering from the street, through the horde milling around -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - And by analogy, Memories of Life fails when there is 25 or more survivors inside a building. --Wikidead 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill -As many other kill voters. --AlexanderRM 9:16 PM, 4 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. No, that's not reasonable. You free-run between roofs. Zombies standing below have no effect. -Mark 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ransack Change

Timestamp: ThreeSided 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: action change
Scope: Ransacking zombies and Fixing survivors
Description: Simply put, the idea is that ransacking occur in levels. When a zombie first ransacks a building it becomes "lightly displaced". Then if a lightly displaced building is ransacked, it becomes "displaced", then "largely displaced", then "ransacked" and then "Heavily ransacked", making for a total of 5 levels of ransacking. Once the fifth level is reached, the ransack button disappears. When a survivor tries to fix up a ransacked building, they will only be able to fix one level per action. This way, it is harder for survivors to reclaim a building, which would make the balance more equal, and it would be more realistic in the sense that a heavily ransacked building would take quite a bit of effort to fix back up.

Keep Votes

  1. Authors Keep - It would be nice for the much needed balance change. ThreeSided 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - I'm pretty sure that not only is it a dupe, but the point of ransack is that the zombie is the "barricade" if you will. I still like it, however. --Karloth Vois RR 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - This sounds fair. It helps the zombies a lot who often get the short end of the stick. --6deg 03:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Should help smaller zed hordes out a bit.--J Muller 05:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Ransack should be renamed "Making A Mess" --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 06:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - GENIOUS!!! :O ThreeSided 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Excellent idea! --Wikidead 06:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. *Axe Hack ransacks this suggestion, creating a big mess.* --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - A good idea, and one that will balance ransacking a bit. --Saluton 15:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Its so true it reminds me of Dawn of the Dead. -- Blackzilla1 00:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep I'd be against it, but.. zombies have so few things they can do with their AP. Attack stuff, move, groan and ransack. So yeah, sure, gives you something else to do. I'd only totally ransack out major resource buildings.MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Well thought out. Very fair. Rolo Tomasi 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - i like the idea of that now if only we could get barricade a 2:1 or 1:1 ratio--Mazu 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Meh - its nice, but getting the zombies out is the real work. What's another 5 ap after you clear out a whole mob of zombies? --S.Wiers X:00 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - a massive increase in power for no reason that I can see, and with no chance of failure, it's overpowered. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill Nothing new. Anyone want to find the Dupe? Anyway, the purpose of ransack isn't to pointlessly drain survivor AP but to prevent barricades and searching when occupied. Don't make it "Zombie Barricades" --Jon Pyre 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Yuck. Zombies need more fun than multiple ransacking. Smashing genny == fun. Smashing rad-tranny == fun. Single Ransack == fun. Multiple ranscak != fun. Zarrah.--SporeSore 13:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - I think this may almost be a dupe of one suggestion I made a while ago. Thing is, I think mine had the potential for more levels than 5, enough to differentiate them. Still, the same logic that killed my suggestion works on this one: ransack already has levels: the number of zombies standing in the building. --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Pfft, how about having to remove all of the zombies in there in the first place? It would take a lot more AP than to repair some damage. And this is totally a dupe, although I just can't be bothered in finding the suggestion. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - For reasoning, see above. - BzAli 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Kill zeds, dump bodies, waste time repairing ransacked building, barricade... What's the point in making the game very hard for survivors? --Abi79 AB 11:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - While this would help balance, I would prefer something other than zombie barracades. Gm0n3y 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Act Command

Removed with 7 Dupes, 4 Kills and 2 Keeps. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

DNA Extracting a Contact

Timestamp: Wikidead 06:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Minor Change
Scope: DNA Extraction
Description: When you DNA Extract a zombie that happens to also be in your contact list, the name of the DNA Extracted zombie should appear in the color in which you have assigned that contact.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - If you ask why, then I ask why not. --Wikidead 06:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - If it's not already like this, it should be. No more reviving red people. --Toejam 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep Choo-Choo, here comes the obvious train. --Jon Pyre 07:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep But off course - BzAli 07:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Why? (just had to try this) -- ρsych°LychεεELT 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Why not? (Sorry, I just had to do this. I think I have OCD.) --Wikidead 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep Train - oh, where have all the voters gone? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Now the chance to suck up to Gage is gone, they all scurry back to whatever it is they do. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 09:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. All Aboard the Keep Train Express! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - I can not see why anybody would killl this. Easy useful addition.--SporeSore 13:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - It's so obvious, I'm speechless!--Lachryma☭ 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep --Deras 14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - YES! --JohnRubin 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Why wasn't this here already? --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - This should already be in the game. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep - Same as above. SuperMario24 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep - This is a good, simple one. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - This isn't already in the game?--J Muller 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keepage Sometimes the best suggestions are the ones that do something that should already be done. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Keep - While some have arrived on the keep train, I took the obvious cab.--John Blast 15:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Keep - I like it, simplifies things greatly for revivers. ZombieCrack 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. keep - i like the idea of it even thogh i hazve no contacts lol--Mazu 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Contagion

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 08:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill would be designed to tempt survivors with no zombies skills into trying the other side for a while by temporarily letting them sample the zombie skill Infectious Bite.

Contagion would be an Infectious Bite subskill. When a zombie with Contagion kills a survivor when the slain survivor rises they can temporarily infect the living with their bites as if they had Infectious Bite. They would lose the ability the next time they are headshot or revived. Flavor wise the zombie has temporarily become a carrier of the infectious form of the disease, but they haven't become a natural producer of the virus yet and any disruption to their body will set them back to normal. If the killed survivor has Infectious Bite already this provides no added ability.

This way after you kill someone they might think "Huh, I have infectious bite for a while. Maybe I should try this out, see how I like it" instead of marching directly to the revive queue.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Want to get someone hooked on something, give them a free sample. --Jon Pyre 08:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep Should interest newbs long enough to get them to try zombie. --08:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG
  3. Keep Sounds interesting. --Deras 14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. conditional keep only if you alter it slightly and make it work only 50% of the time. of course given their chances of hitting with a bite thiat might be a moot point!--Honestmistake 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - but see discussion --Gene Splicer 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Wow Helps zombies, and makes infectious bite less.. well.. shitty. Of course as a Z you could choose to just go to your revive point, and wait.. and wait. Another means of spreading infection, tres cool. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - If a zombie wants to use infectious bite, it should buy the skill. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Infectious Bite is still much better. As soon as the zombie is headshot they lose the ability. Infectious Bite is permanent. --Jon Pyre 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Above. Zarrah.--SporeSore 13:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Interesting idea, but... - It doesn't require the zombie to bite the survivor at any time. It doesn't make sense that a slain survivor would get the ability to infect people with something they were never exposed to. Change that and I may reconsider. --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Hmm, so they should be bitten too? I figured that after the kill the zombie is assumed to feast on the fallen survivor a bit per genre. But that could be a good requirement. --Jon Pyre 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re-Specify that it does one of the two and I might vote keep. Although, there is also the concern that if something like this works on survivors, it should also probably work on other zombies...Hm, I smell another potential "help the newbie zombies" suggestion! --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Look, there is not much point in giving people free temporary skills. When you reach lvl 10 and up, gaining xp becomes pretty easy. Now go buy that skill. Oh, and I'm pretty sure I've heard a similar idea before, although probably not similar enough for a dupe. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Same as above. SuperMario24 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - I'm not a big fan of temporary skills. Maybe if you tweaked this suggestion a little bit... --Wikidead 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill They need Vigor Mortis far more than infectious bite. Missing Vigor Mortis is what really makes it suck being a newly dead survivor. - BzAli 09:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/1st-Feb-2007&oldid=1879254"