Suggestions/21st-Feb-2007

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.

Making wirecutters useful again

Timestamp:	QuantumEcho 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	New Use for Old Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Everyone knows that wirecutters are now useless, as every cuttable thing in the game has been taken care of. I thought that perhaps a great new use for wirecutters would be making them able to cut the wires on a portable generator, so a survivor can pick up the generator and take it with them, i.e. to a new safehouse location. Yes, this does bring up the problem of generator stealing, but since most places with generators are group HQ's that are heavily guarded, I don't think it would be much of a problem.

Keep Votes

1. Keep - I have no idea why someone would use this, besides griefing, but what the hell!--Lachryma^☭ 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - I like the idea of stealing a genny. If yours is destroyed, don't search for it. Searching is for suckers, just go next door and steal theirs. Trust me, they won't notice. Me likey. Doc Garden 04:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Combines my love of Genny stealing with my love of Wirecutters usefulness suggestions! --Ev933n / Talk _PPGC 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. AlexanderRM uses his wirecutters to steal the generator from this suggestion -Either you think this is jailriot where you can block other players, or you don't know what free-running is... you also haven't been outside riddleybank since you joined, generators are everywhere where I live... but of course they wouldn't be if this suggestion was implemented. Also, I just thought... what would happen if you removed a fuelled generator? --AlexanderRM 9:12 PM, 20 Febuary 2007 (EST)
2. Throw in the Meat Grinder -Let's face facts: there's always going to be junk in the game. Wirecutters were useful, but that was then. I don't really think there's a way to breath life back into them, especially not when one of the new uses is larceny. --User:Eatatjoes 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - Wouldn't it make more sense to unplug the generator instead of cutting the wires? That way you could use it again without having to scrounge for electrical tape. --Uncle Bill 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - "I dont think this would be much of a problem". That's because you're not the one looking for a new generator and its fuel! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill I don't want survivors to start stealing from each other. --Jon Pyre 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. kill resubmit it so the wirecutters disable the generator but leave it repairable... all fuel should be wasted!--Honestmistake 08:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re*note for Funt (and others) if it cuts the fuel line and wastes the fuel it makes it mor of a pain than just turning it off, less than it being destroyed but ??? I see this way as being very usefull to cultists who time attacks to match break ins. a garaunteed hit that can be fixed rather than multiple attempts!--Honestmistake 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   • Re - Sorry, your note killed the list-numbers, fixed that by making it a Re. --Jay Clarke 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Kill - repairing / disabling generators is the same as having an on/off switch - which is a no-no because then there's no detriment to having lights on. Stealing generators would be a pain in the proverbial - all this does is promote griefing. --Funt Solo 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - Nice idea, however I do not agree with it. We need junk. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 10:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - I need junk items to laugh at the newbs who try to attack me with wirecutters. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - Generator killers would be replaced by the even more hated generator stealers. - BzAli 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Stop! Thief! I agree with everyone who voted kill. And plus...there already some good wirecutter suggestions in PR. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Kill - The suggestion is missing certain elements needed for absolute clarity. -- 17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Kill - I assume that this would be a 100% success action, therefor making the 'wirecut genny, then drop' even easier than just smashing the genny. --Gm0n3y 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Kill - for all the reasons listed above. And boy, are there a lot. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Kill - The only way I'd vote keep on this is if there's a moderate chance you'll be electrocuted and lose a sizeable chunk of your HP, or if there's a chance of failure. Otherwise it's like one-hit genny bashing. Snip wires, grab gennie, drop it. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Kill - Oh noes! Someone just came and stole my generator! This suggestion is just an invitation to griefers. Even in a well-defended building, the stealer would just run out. Free run in, steal generator, dash out. How much AP spent? 3AP. Assuming the "cut wires" action would only cost 1AP, but even if it didn't, griefers would still be able to steal several generators every day. --Anotherpongo 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

1. Dupe/Spam - 1)Next time, don't remove the |'s. 2)This has been done before. 3)Generator stealing would be a problem. 4)Do Not edit the content of this suggestion once voting has started. (Which it has)--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Map Redraw, Concept 1: Mall Reduction

Timestamp:	Valore 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Balance Change, game improvement.
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Map Redraw EDIT Deleted other suggestions, so to better focus on idea of Mall reduction. Alright, a not so encouraging sign, but I’m going to start this suggestion with a disclaimer. This suggestion is quite radical. It is quite big. Kevan’s going to have a hell of a time implementing it. I hope those who vote will do so on the merits and concept of the idea, rather than voting ‘Kill- Too Radical/Big, etc.’. Now, here goes nothing. What: I vote for the redrawing of the entirety of Malton. Demolish everything, start all over. Basically, gameplay wise, skills wise, everything is still the same. I’m just hoping that by redrawing the map, we can abolish many unfortunate organic developments in UD that have made the game less fun, and stale over time, as well as improve the game by making it more challenging, but not increasing the learning curve or difficulty level for new players. This redrawing will be a community project, organised here on the Wiki, if there is sufficient support for it, as well as some sign of willingness of Kevan's part. The first concept of this is the reduction of the number of Malls present in Malton. Proposed overall changes: Fewer Malls Why: The Method behind the Madness I believe in the reasoning of ‘high reward, high risk’, for any game. Malls are currently the most rewarding building in the game. With Shopping and Bargain Hunting, any survivor can fully equip himself with anything he needs in a single day or two. As for risk, unless you’re at Caiger, there isn’t any. Mall about to fall? No worries, lets move on to the next. I myself have been a mall migrant. ‘Oh lookie, Mall Tour has us next on its itinerary, goodbye, I’m off to another Mall. This in my opinion makes the game unfun in a number of ways. Firstly, it often forces players to play and purchase skills in a certain way, ala Bargain Hunting, followed by shopping, and then moving to the nearest mall. No matter if you’re a healer or a zombie killer, there are few situations where a mall would not provide some advantage, no matter how small. This itself defies all Urban Dead reasoning, Malls currently, are a free lunch. They also negate the uses of all other buildings which previously performed certain functions, which to those who are familiar with game design, is poor game design. Those who play the RTS game Starcraft will be able to understand this concept. One of the reasons Starcraft is a fun game to play, and is currently still around, is because no unit ever lacks a purpose, whether at the beginning of the game, or towards the end. With UD, there is absolutely no reason I’d search at a PD for weapons and ammo, or at a Hospital for first aid kits, if I could instead opt to go to a Mall. So what is to be done about this? Simple. Malls should be reduced in number. I’ll go as far as to suggest there should be no more than 4 malls in Malton, one in approximately each quarter of the entire map. What will this accomplish? Malls will become hotly contested areas. Survivors can’t simply flee to the next nearest Mall, simply because the next nearest Mall is 50AP away, and the next Mall will simply be next on the Mall Tour itinerary anyway. Malls will become far more dangerous, because they become much higher profile targets, which will often come under siege, the way they should be. Survivors will be forced to defend malls more viciously, because Malls full of stupid survivors will be wiped out time and time again. Zombie hordes will be better able to concentrate their forces at wiping out human strongholds. Conclusions: I hope by redrawing the UD map, there will emerge new possibilities for gameplay improvement and changes. Also, with fewer malls, hopefully Malls become less of a ‘free lunch’, and more of a ‘high risk, high reward’ area, and also that malls stop serving as the end all of Urban Dead gameplay.

Keep Votes

1. Keep - I don't necessarily agree with the entire suggestion, I dislike the idea of redrawing the entire map, but I would like to see some random malls taken out of the game. Who cares if you're in a mall that turns into a park and get killed? Its not like death is much of an inconvenience anyways. --Gm0n3y 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill I am against radically changing the map to the point it more or less a reboot. But UD is deliberately mall-centric in a nod to Dawn of the Dead. Survivors are supposed to want to take malls. To balance their benefits they are large buildings and highly obvious targets. --Jon Pyre 08:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - This is where I must disagree and ask you look at the facts. We have 20 malls in Malton. of the 20, only ONE is in zombie hands, and only two more are under attack. That leaves 17 yes SEVENTEEN malls that are a free lunch, safe for humans to just hang around without any worries. I would not in any extent of my imagination be able to call this balance, or these malls 'high risk'. Yes, humans in UD want to take malls, because they're valuable. That fits. But unlike in Dawn of the Dead, I don't feel like I'm in any kind of danger or threat. I'm simply having a good time shopping, with no risk involved, before I get back to the usual business of Zombie slaying in my suburb. --Valore 09:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - Malls are one of the most dangerous locations in the game, even when there are no zombies nearby. Everytime I've been PK'd, it's been in a mall. Also, when a suburb is invaded by a horde - they all head to the mall - takes the heat off my characters. I like malls - good for shopping, good for a distraction, good as PKer magnets. Good for a challenge for a horde. It's all good. --Funt Solo 09:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - So if you want danger Funt, having fewer malls will concentrate even more danger in the ones that remain! What are you complaining about=P On a more serious note, I spend quite some time in Malls, and other than the occasional Bounty Hunter, there's little to no PKing going on. And as for hordes, maybe I haven't seen enough of the game yet, but I haven't met any traveling hordes besides Mall Tour 07, so perhaps my experience in this area is somewhat limited. But I have visited several malls, and other than the St Valentine's Day massacre, have not seen significant PK activity there. So I'm really not sure how we could have such differing views. --Valore 09:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   • Re - You misunderstand - the more malls there are, the less danger my characters are in. --Funt Solo 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3. I agree with Funt. And please! REing every vote is considered abuse! As well as the fact of one RE per vote is another rule... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)EDIT:AlexanderRM, I don't think this qualifies as edit after voting. True, it was edited after voting, but the original votes have also been removed due to that edit. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4. kill - How about closing a couple of malls instead of redrawing the entire map? - BzAli 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - In my opinion the amount of malls in the game is sufficient and they are spaced in a good manner. Additionally, I think it would be easier if the search percentages were changed instead of redesigning the whole map of Malton. -- 17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill Some good basic logic, but it could be done without such radical re-tooling of the game. Kevan could just change some of the malls (1 at a time, say 1 per month, at random- or maybe say he could do this to ANY MALL THAT GETS RANSACKED) into different buildings, to represent supplies running out, making them "despoiled malls". That way, nobody gets thrown in the streets at random. Hell, barricade / ransack conditions wouldn't even change. The "despoiled malls" would still be large building structures, but (for example) one corner would otherwise function the same as a police department (representing collected items from the gun store and an ad-hoc survivor armory) another as a hospital (items from drug store / survivor organized emergency triage center) a third as a junkyard (representing the hardware store / a place where all the dropped items went / badly damaged corner that lost its doors), and the 4rth as an arms (food court), school (where kids were staying in the mall), or whatever (maybe even a second police station / hospital). Overall they would be weaker than a normal mall, weaker even than the 4 independent buildings would be, BUT the "despoiled malls" would in fact be MORE useful to newbies than a current mall or set of similar independent buildings is. The newbs would get access to a hospital and police station (plus potentially 2 other semi-useful buildings) if they could find even one corner at VSB, so they wouldn't need free-running or the mall rat skills to make good use of a "despoiled mall". If Kevan did do this, he could also maybe integrate the NT's that contact the "despoiled malls" into the large building set, to make them reachable without free-run, and drop one or two of the existing sections as "walled off for defensive purposes", turning them into Junk Yards (with cut fencing). This alteration would not need to be permenant; if the "despoiled mall" went an entire month without any section getting ransacked, it could be restored to normal "mall" status.--S.Wiers ^X:00 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Hesitant Kill - You fail to take into account two huge factors. 1) There is no need to redraw the entire map to do what you are trying to do (remove a lot of malls). You could just suggest that several malls be turned into wastelands with the explanation that the military bombed it or something in an attempt to kill the zombies. 2) The more survivors congregate in a given mall, the more impossible it is for zombies to take it, because it decreases the odds that zombies will be able to attack en masse when the survivors aren't on (which is the ONLY way zombies can possibly take malls). Decreasing the number of malls would cause more mall congregation at the remaining ones and make them even more invincible. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill with a vengeance - Don't go messing with where people are at. This would leave hundreds, if not thousands, of unsuspecting survivors out in the cold with no warning for the zombies to get them. It's basically a free banquet for z's. --Gateking 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - Let's see... Blocks can be 200x200 metres, making Malton 20x20 square km in size. Such an area is bound to have a lot of malls. Also, the VSB buildings are good for newbies, and are still heavily protected in many places. But if you complain about mall safety, with 17 safe, you ignore the fact many suburbs in itself have sieges too. Fort Perryn and Whittenside, for example, are currently receiving a massive beating. Sure, the zombies don't concentrate on the malls enough, but is that a reason to kill them? --Jay Clarke 01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
10. First of all, as I said last time I think, if you want a "new map" then MAKE ONE. Don't force Kevan to do all the work for your crappy idea. Secondly, I agree that the game is too centered around malls/nts, but I don't believe making FEWER of them is going to solve the problem (won't it exasperate it?). I mean who runs from mall to mall anyway? Most people, if the "live" out of a certain mall, usually stay within spitting distance of it. And, for example, Calvert and Caiger are within 19 moves of each other. That isn't significant already? There might be closer ones (I don't have the inclination to check), but you also have to factor in Free Running. Besides malls are what 80 of 10,000 squares on the map? If we want to make them less game centered, we need to improve the other 28 locations then focusing on one.--Pesatyel 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Kill While I do agree with you on reducing the number of malls, (I mean come on, twenty malls? What city HAS that many?) this is just far too dramatic. And Malls are already quite dangerous, seeing as they are PK'er hunting grounds.Monkeylord 05:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Kill, hang, slice finely and make into a tasty stew to feed to the zombies. Low-level survivors (other than scouts) can't get into malls, they are often under siege and without shopping they are a frustrating lucky dip. There are fairly few malls as it is. Malton is a grid of 10,000 squares. You are suggesting having four malls. Malls take up four squares. You are suggesting having sixteen squares of mall out of the ten-thousand squares in Malton. Uggh... malls attract enough zombies as it is. --Anotherpongo 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Kill - This is one of those things that are not needed. At all. Why? I can think of a thousand other things that could be done to make the game better instead of wasting time o redraw the map. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - You see, if we have few malls, those few will be jam packed full of survivors, making it even more hard for zombies to take them. Zombies already have it hard. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 08:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - Most of the time, when a mall goes under siege, unless its one with particular significance, like Caiger previously was, survivors tend to move on, to the next nearest mall. This comes from the fear of being feeding dragged out of the Mall in case of an accidental breakin, accidental breakins that do not occur in 17 of the 20 malls present because of a lack of zombies. This change will force survivors to fight for their mall or stop camping in them. It would not make the lives(or deads, whatever it is zombies have) any harder, because the numbers of zombies around a mall would increase accordingly with fewer malls present, and the likely resulting exodus of casual mall hanger ons would mean a tougher, but more entertaining battle for all. --Valore 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
   • RE: Yes, but there is still the three hundred or so that stay and fight. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 09:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
     • Re - Which would mean a battle between 300 and an about equal number of zombies, as compared to the current situation of about 200 survivors in a mall with no zombies in sight. --Valore 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2. EDITED AFTER VOTING (I think...) -also kill: "oh goody, the building I was staying in got turned into a park! and there are 500 zombies who were laying seige to the mall next door who are now wandering around with nothing to do! yeah I'm DEFINETLY gonna vote keep!" --AlexanderRM 8:31 AM, 21 Feburay 2007 (EST)

   #* Obviously all characters would be set to "hidden" so that they can't be killed before their next login. --Uborkapete ^YRC 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Non-author reply struck. -- 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3. kill you are right, there are far too many malls. personally i would make them 3x3 squares with the outside of the cenre one being a rooftop enterable only from below (inside) I would then reduce their numbers down to about half (10?) surounding squares would all be carparks making free run a no-no! want to stay in the mall, go ahead but the zeds will bring ketchup!!! Of course if this got implemented it would have to be for a restart as you just can't drop people who were in a mall into the middle of a newly formed street...--Honestmistake 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Spam AGAIN - You didn't change anything. You edited after voting began and removed votes. Don't do that. Like I said before, completely resetting the game because you don't like something is stupid. I have characters, zed and human alike, who have never been to a mall, so your initial premise is somewhat flawed. --Sgt. Expendable ^JG 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Text Color Change

Timestamp:	Pickmansmodel 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Visual change
Scope:	Text
Description:	While the current background and base character-name (those not assigned a specific color in a Contacts List) text is pleasing to most of us, a friend of mine who wanted to join in recently found a problem. He's red/green colorblind, and so he sees "You are inside Braker Cinema.            is also here." Granted, this is not common. However, a quick tweak to the name-text color might open up the game to a few more folks.

Keep Votes

1. Keep Because I hate the current pinky-red colour. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep Allow users to select their own default colors for each character. This could be done in the same fashion as coloring for contacts. This would make for more interesting game play- or more interesting screen shots, at least- while also likely solving a wide variety of "special need" issues besides just color blindness. --S.Wiers ^X:00 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep Close enough for me. I like the CSS suggestion below. That would be an easy implementation similar to selecting a skin for a forum. --Gm0n3y 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - and I think, in this instance, it would be appropriate for you to add a NOTE to the suggestion with a suitable colour. --Funt Solo 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep anything that helps bring in more players is a good idea.--Blood Panther 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - Sure, add in a disability option in the settings. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep - I'm sick of the current color and Swiers's statement about changing the colors is perfect. -- 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep A color preference menu in your edit profile page might be nice. --Jon Pyre 04:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - But the standard colors should not change. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 09:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep - S. Wiers said it well enough. --Mold 11:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - It won't hurt anyone, and will help a few others. --Anotherpongo 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

1. Incomplete - I would definitely vote keep for this (no reason not to, and it helps people who otherwise would have trouble playing the game), but you haven't actually stated what the change to the text color would be. Are you suggesting that the color be changed to blue, or that we set the color ourselves, or what? Be just a tiny bit more specific, and I'll likely vote keep no matter how you want to make it work. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Change - I don't want the standard colours to change, but your idea is a good one. I'd vote Keep if the colour changes could be done on an alternative skin. Since UD's interface is already pretty much fully CSS-defined, it shouldn't be too hard, nor put too much load on the server, to create an alternative CSS file that could be manually selected by people who have difficulty reading the current pink/green combo. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---