Suggestions/1st-Oct-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Rules for Previous Suggestions

  • These suggestions can only be voted on now, and only up to two weeks from the day they were submitted.
  • You can make new suggestions on the Suggestions Page.

Voting

  1. You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated.
  2. Before voting please read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested Ideas Page to read about concepts that have been generally considered unworkable in the past. You do not need to follow the guidelines on these pages but they are worth consideration before casting a vote.
  3. One vote per user. No exceptions. You cannot use multiple wiki accounts to vote on a suggestion.
  4. To Vote, use the [edit] button next to the suggestion you wish to vote for. Then enter your vote in the suggest_votes field. Please ensure that your vote is placed before the double brackets of the particular suggestion (ie the "}}")
  5. Votes must include a signature in order to be considered valid votes. To sign a vote, use --~~~~. Please remember to sign your votes! Unsigned votes will be deleted after 30 minutes or when found.
  6. Each Suggestion will be open to voting for two (2) weeks, measured from the suggestion's Timestamp, unless it is a Dupe or Spam. If, at the end of that time, there are two thirds (2/3) more Keep votes than Kill votes, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page. Otherwise, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Rejected Suggestions page.

Rules for Discussions

Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions. This page and archived suggestion pages are only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss any of the suggestions or votes here, please select a specific vote's page by clicking on its link under Current Day's Suggestions and use the associated Talk page. Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. The Suggestions talk page can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted.

Valid Votes

  • Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit.
  • Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit. If you need to discuss a rule fix, use the discussion page.
  • Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions.
Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described below in the Removing Suggestions section. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.
Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM. Spam votes will be counted as Kill when votes are tallied.
  • Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion.
Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described below. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied.

Invalid Votes

  • Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide.
  • X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote. You are voting on the merit of THIS suggestion, not how it compares to others.
  • Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote.

Comments

  • Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.
  • Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout <s></s> in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

All Caps

Try to avoid YELLING, writing in bold, or using italics, except when emphasizing a point which has escaped other voters.

VOTING EXAMPLES

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Best. Suggestion. Evar. --Bob_Zombie 04:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Good sugestion. no signature --FakeSuggester 07:39, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - This is a terrible idea, but you can totally fix it up. --NegativeGal 06:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Please be more specific about how to fix it on the discussion page. --MrSuggester 14:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re - Sure, I have detailed my proposed fixes here. --NegativeGal 23:38, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Kill - You will eat my poopie and love it! --PooEater 11:12, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Note - Inane vote removed. Defend in discussion. --DaModerator 11:13, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels is an inappropriate Survivor Class. --NoFunAtAll 09:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Dupe - Duplicate Suggestion --AnotherSuggester 05:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)


Removing Suggestions

Suggestions can be removed for two reasons:

  • Dupe If a suggestion is a duplicate of an earlier one, and has recieved at least 3 Dupe Votes linked to the Duplicated suggestion, then it can be deleted as per the guidelines below.
  • Spam If a suggestion is deemed by the community to be either not made seriously, or simply completely awful and not worthy of inclusion on the Suggestion page for a two-week period, it can be Spaminated. The suggestion may be sent to either the Peer-Rejected or Humorous suggestions pages.

Eligibility for Spamination is acheived if there are at least 7 Spam votes and the number of Spam votes are equal to 2/3rds or greater of the total number of votes, with the author vote included in all these tallies. In addition, A Sysop can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps; this includes their own spam vote. Suggestions may not be removed as spam unless voting has been open for 6 hours.

Authors are not allowed to use Re: to defend their work or correct the editor after a suggestion has been removed.

When removing a Suggestion, you take the responsibility to be mature regarding the situation. Each Suggestion is an author's child and they can be come quite passionate in regards to the Suggestion's removal. Please do the following when removing a Suggestion:

  • Duplicate - If the removed Suggestion is a duplicate, you must:
    1. Confirm that there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate.
    2. List the number of Dupe Votes received.
    3. Provide a link(s) to the Suggestion that it duplicates.
    4. Optionally note the Linked Suggestion status: Reviewed/Undecided/Rejected.
    5. Sign the removal.
    6. Be Polite and make no additional comments.
  • Humorous - If the removed Suggestion is deemed humourous, you must:
    1. State that the Suggestion has been deemed humorous.
    2. Move the Suggestion to the Humorous Suggestions page.
    3. Sign the removal.
    4. Be Polite and make no additional comments.
    5. Bring fourth a vandalism case against the user who posted it citing rule 13 of making a suggestion.
  • Spaminated - If the removed Suggestion has become eligible for Spamination, you must:
    1. List the number of Spam Votes received and the total number of votes.
    2. State that the Suggestion was Spaminated.
    3. List or summarize/paraphrase the comments/reasons made on the Spam votes.
    4. Move the suggestion to Peer Rejected Suggestions page.
    5. Sign the removal.
    6. Be Polite and make no additional comments.
It is your responsibility to be a mature editor.


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



DO NOT PLACE A VOTE AFTER DEADLINE

If the two week deadline for voting is passed, your vote WILL BE DELETED AND IGNORED.

Option to Show Donation Status on Profile Page

Timestamp: Jehrenzweig 00:46, 1 October 2006 (BST)
Type: Cosmetic; Public Profile; Profile Editing Page
Scope: All Characters
Description: If a user has donated to Urban Dead (via Paypal or otherwise), add a checkbox to the profile edit page ( http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?mode=edit&id=XXX ) that allows them to display so on their public profile page.

I posted this suggestion earlier, but it got shot down for a few reasons. I'd like to address those concerns here:

  • Make It Optional - Many voters thought contributors (i.e. people whose characters can access the main game script more than 160x per day) should have the option of not displaying this info on their public profile. I wholly agree with this idea, which is why I'm resubmitting this amended suggestion. If a person hasn't contributed anything, the profile editing page would appear to them exactly as it does now.
  • Elitism - My suggestion isn't meant to be elitist. The manner in which this information is (optionally) displayed on a person's profile could take any number of minimalist forms: a small icon somewhere on the page, an underlined name, a tiny-text message at the bottom of the page, or any other idea you guys can think of. It doesn't need to be, nor should it be, gaudy or ostentatious.
  • Donation Amount Is Not Shown - Under no circumstances do I think the amount donated should be shown; THAT is what could rightfully be considered elitism, in my opinion. I didn't address this at all in my original suggestion, but after somebody brought it up, I thought I'd explicitly state that nothing about what a user contributed should be displayed.
  • Same As IP Unlocked Status - This is really just another way of saying a user is not subject to the 160 hits-per-day, because they've contributed $5 or more. Can displaying that fact be considered elitist, anymore than displaying a person's level or group name?

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Hmm, people might choose to not PK you if they see you made some kind of donation. Kevan's Chosen Pk group. I dunno. MrAushvitz 01:19, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - As MrAushvitz.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 01:29, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - I don't donate. But I'd be more inclined to help out those who do than other freeloaders. - David Malfisto 03:19, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Lol - Kill the freeloaders! Youronlyfriend 03:47, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Lampchop Am I a donator, or aren't I, YOU DON'T KNOW!!! --Officer Johnieo 01:48, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - You know, ... I don't really have anything to say, but it looks like a good idea.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 21:13, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. No. The place for donation status is a list of donors, not on profiles. Rheingold 02:59, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  2. I don't really see the point. How does this help the game? I agree with Rheingold. Just make a list of donors or a person can just list it in their profile description.--Pesatyel 05:53, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - But I would keep with one change. The people in the keep section have illustrated the problem. Zombies might check your profile, see you donated, and leave you alone, as a survivor. Might seem nice, but without zombies attacking, and with people helping you out more, this sure would be a dull game. I propose that either you can choose who can see this status (survivors, zombies, both or none), or it can only be visible to those players in the same state as yourself (survivors donation status would only be visible to other survivors, or, if they choose, to no one). I'm partial to the latter, but I suppose I could see fit to keep either. --Rgon 16:13, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  • Re: Burgan, you do know that only shows it to you, right? I know which of my characters I have donated for, but no one else can find out unless I tell them or show them a screenshot. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:34, 1 October 2006 (BST)
Non author reply --Gold BladeVote Abstain! 06:07, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  1. Spam - Exactly why is this needed? This will only cause discrimination between those who donate and those who dont. Besides, every game with donation benifits have been ruined because of it.--Mr yawn 06:45, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam - My Spam is because of what the Keepers are saying: "let's only help those who wear the badge". The trouble is, that's got nothing to do with the game, and it's a dubious method of measuring the people playing it. Talk about nerfing roleplay. Whether or not a player has paid has nothing to do with their character. --Funt Solo 10:13, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - It may be all very well and good for those who can afford or choose to help the game but do people need to show off about it in their profile? It hardly seems a good use of the money they donated to get the server to put up more information for those who have donated. --MarieThe Grove 10:26, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - So I'm less likely to be revived because I'm a freeloader? One of the best things about this game is because there's no eletism between paying users and non-paying users. This destroys that. --Karloth vois RR 12:24, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Spam - I see this as elitism, and elitism is stupid. - Whitehouse 10:48, 2 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Spam - You haven't changed the suggestion in the slightest since it was spam-killed, you've just moved your arguments from the replies to the main suggestion. --ExplodingFerret 14:31, 2 October 2006 (BST)

Zombie Walk

Spaminated with 7/8 Spam votes.--Gage 04:44, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Radio Voices

This suggestion was found to be a duplicate of this peer reviewed suggestion.--Gage 03:11, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Critical Mass

Timestamp: Patrucio 05:34, 1 October 2006 (BST)
Type: Advanced level of Ransack
Scope: Zombies; Building Defenders
Description: Proposing a new skill for the Memories of Life tree, to be placed under the Ransack skill. It would allow zombies to ransack buildings with humans still inside it. Skill would cost a number of AP equal to the number of humans in a given building divided by the number of zombies present to use. Zombies would not be able to use the skill unless the cost to use it was 25 AP or less. There would, in any case, need to be at least two other zombies in the room. This skill would represent the difficulty in shoving plastic trees in front of a door when a large number of zombies were bursting through, and would also allow zombies to capitalize on breeches in large-scale sieges. This would also requre defenders to focus more on active zombies rather than afore-mentioned christmas trees, which would add more depth to the current large-scale siege considerations humans consider.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Author supporting his idea. --Patrucio 05:35, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep It's kinda overpowered, but the initial idea is there and it's a good one. That's worth a keep to prevent it from being spaminated because misused votes, alone. --Ron Burgundy 12:10, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep Perhaps I'm biased as a Zed, but it does seem to easy for survivors to rebarricade a building full of Zombies. --Murray Jay Suskind 10:22, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
  4. Keep It's reasonable, and it's realistic. --Elizabeth Vignelli 15:27, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep Why yes, some balance may be in order, for those who actually want to play a zombie horror game instead of a 'stomp stomp stomp zombies!' game. It's ridiculously easy to maintain fortifications in sieges, and it kills the drama of the game. Petrosjko 17:51, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep A more expensive version of my Rampage suggestion. But at least people bothered to vote keep on this puppy, so what the hell! Make a mess.. I vote Keep just to spite myself, hee hee. MrAushvitz 23:48, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep: What Petro said. The current barricade mechanics are fuxored, grossly overpowered in favor of survivors. This would turn big breakins into a problem that survivors would have to deal with immediately, as opposed to treating them like a cleanup on aisle nine. --Centerfire 00:27, 7 October 2006 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. I wonder how it would work with, say a minimum number PLUS the number of survivors? Say 5 plus 1 per survivor. Or perhaps double the number of survivors (and/or base amount plus double). I'd also include a minimum level. Like 10. --Pesatyel 06:00, 1 October 2006 (BST)
    Pesatyel, then you would have to let survivors unransack it in the same way. --Gold BladeVote Abstain! 06:02, 1 October 2006 (BST)
    You are not the author.--Gage 06:04, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - See Gold Blade's answer, if you can... Youronlyfriend 07:51, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - zombies cannot ransack buildings with humans in, humans can't repair buildings with zombies in. That works, this doesn't. Sorry! --Karloth vois RR 12:22, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Hmmm... I would vote keep if you gave humans a skill under construction to repair damage with zombies inside, with the math same as in your suggestion, but reversed. Because 200+ survivors should be able to hold of the zombies long enough to allow one survivor to tidy up a bit.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 21:16, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Unless there's an equivalent for survivors to allow them to repair. -Certified=InsaneUG 21:27, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  6. kill - not a strong kill, the idea has definite merit, but it is too overpowered, it is interesting, but unless humans get a counterpart to un-ransack with zombies inside, with the same AP costs perhaps?, it's too unbalanced. --Kiltric 00:23, 3 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - As several others have pointed out, there should be some way to balance this for survivors.--Atticus Rex A M P 07:43, 14 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spamtarded - oh god no.--Gage 05:34, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Patrucio - I like your name, but your suggestion is utterly moronic. Sieges wouldn't last an hour.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:39, 1 October 2006 (BST)
    • Note - Invalid vote.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:45, 1 October 2006 (BST)
      • - Strikeouts removed. It is considered a valid vote as long as it is under the keep/kill sub-heading. Youronlyfriend 02:49, 2 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Utter trash There's a reason you can't ransack with people in it. --Gold BladeVote Abstain! 05:43, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - This sucks and is unfair to survivors.--Mr yawn 06:43, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Spam - Yeah, it's another one of those skills to make one class overpowered. Just think before you post if you could deal with a survivor class having an equivalent skill while you don't have this one. unfair? THINK FIRST.--Impulse 20:47, 1 October 2006 (EST)
  6. Spam - Get right outta town. Ransacking don't need no steenking buff. --Funt Solo 10:16, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Who Keeps Editing Out The Votes? You do realize that under the new system we can vote with whatever bold part we like as long as we enter it in the right section, yes? Rheingold 10:19, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam Spam Spam - I started reading this and I had to read it twice because I thought you suggested that ransack should happen when survivors are still in the building. What the hell? Ransack is a hard skill to deal with already, no barricades, no searching, but at least it works so zombies can't always use it. Rubbish. --MarieThe Grove 10:30, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - Just hopeless. --Nob666 12:51, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - Uh, nuh. See Gage's vote for my reasoning. Nuff said. - David Malfisto 15:32, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  11. Spam - Unless your going to suggest that survivors can repair ransack damage while zombies are around, then no. Overpowered, just hands seiges over to zombies, and survivors and groups in smaller safehouses would be especially vulnerable. Basically, unless someone here is excruciatingly clever, I can't see a way that making ransack available when survivors are in the building could be a good suggestion. --Rgon 16:07, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  12. Merry Christmas - If a zombie breaks into a building, wouldn't he be more concerned about Sweet sweet brains then ripping up the floorboards? --Officer Johnieo 16:55, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - Way out of style. Also crippling to survivors. --Burgan 00:27, 2 October 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - Zombies have to clear buildings to ransack and survivors have to clear buildings to repair, lets keep it that way, why? Because a siege would only last one zed break-in wih this addition to the game. - Whitehouse 10:55, 2 October 2006 (BST)

Coordinate Marking

This suggestion was found to be a dupe of this suggestion.--Gage 17:06, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Malodorous

Spaminated with 8/10 Spam votes, who felt that my suggestion nerfed newbies when I was trying to help them. Oops :o Kestrel 13:32, 1 October 2006 (BST)

It was actually 8/9, unsigned or timestamp-free votes don't count. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:36, 1 October 2006 (BST)
Bleah. My own vote got baleeted because I didn't know the timestamp shiz. Just gets better and better, huh? ;) Kestrel 13:44, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Rigor Mortis (was called Stiff Corpse)

This suggestion was found to be a Dupe (4 votes) of the peer reviewed Dead Flesh --Funt Solo 13:00, 2 October 2006 (BST)

Wait a minute! That one says nothing about requiring brain rot, just be good for it. Isn't that a difference? The voters WANTED it to have brain rot. But it didn't. --Gold BladeVote Abstain! 22:17, 2 October 2006 (BST)
Four voters decided it was a Dupe. Nothing personal. --Funt Solo 22:40, 2 October 2006 (BST)

Objectives

suggest_time=Impulse 24:20 2 October 2006 (EST) Removed by author for edit.

Generator On/Off Switch

This suggestion was found to be a Dupe (3+ votes) of the peer rejected Power Down --Funt Solo 16:41, 2 October 2006 (BST)

Safe area in NT Buildings

Spaminated with 7/10 Spam votes --Funt Solo 15:58, 2 October 2006 (BST)

NT/Mall gameplay

Spaminated with 7/9 Spam votes. --Funt Solo 16:44, 2 October 2006 (BST)

RAMPAGE

suggest_time=MrAushvitz 19:20, 2 October 2006 (BST)

Removed by author for edit 20:53, 2 October 2006 (BST) Fine, even simpler then...

Enhanced Endurance

Spaminated with 8/10 Spam votes. --Funt Solo 21:43, 2 October 2006 (BST)

Mindless Rampage

Spaminated with 7/8 Spam votes. --Funt Solo 21:41, 2 October 2006 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/1st-Oct-2006&oldid=1879250"