Suggestions/21st-Jan-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.

Piece of Meat

Spaminated, 4 Kills, 3 Spams, one author keep --Jak Rhee 04:35, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT) }}

---

Fort Fencing (Revised Revised)

Timestamp:	04:23, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type:	Skill/Improvement
Scope:	Malton's two forts
Description:	Malton's two forts are comprised mainly of open land. Many forts are like this but they usually have fences around them. This suggestion proposes fences as a way of making forts more defendable but in a way that won't seriously impede zombies that work together. Here's how fences could work: What fences would do Fences would be added to the description of open fort squares and to the non-fort squares touching them. The description would be similar to this: "To the east a fence seperates Fort Creedy from the street" or inside the fort "To the west a fence blocks off the street." Fences would have two statuses; broken and repaired. When broken the description would be amended to look like this: "To the east a fence seperates Fort Creedy from the street. There is a large hole torn in it." When outside the fort next to an intact fence the fort squares from that position would not be clickable links and entry to them from there would be impossible, for both survivors and zombies. If the fence where you are is broken than all fort squares on the screen would be clickable links. Each open fort square would have it's own seperate fence and corner squares would would have two. Fences would not prevent you from leaving, only entering the fort. There would be no fences between open fort squares, or between fort squares and the armory. Fences are only between the fort and the outside world. How to destroy, fix, and bypass fences Zombies through sheer force of numbers would be able to overpower the fence and tear through it. When a crowd of twenty zombies or more are next to a fence any zombie can "Tear Fence" for 1AP, leaving it broken and open to other zombies. Zombies could tear through the fences from either inside or outside though they'd need 20 zombies where they were, it wouldn't matter how many were on the other side of the fence. Zombies in corner squares or in the square diagonal to the fort could choose which fence to break ("Tear through North Fence" "Tear Through West Fence"). Survivors would have a new subskill of Construction: Repair. This skill would allow them to "Repair" a fence for 2AP from inside the fort. They would need wirecutters to cut replacement fencing but that's all the items they would need. It would be assumed that all the other materials they need to repair the fence are on the base, the same as it is assumed that buildings are filled with furniture for the purposes of barricading. Survivors would be able to pass through fences even if they were not torn if they had a pair of wirecutters. A survivor with wirecutters would be able to walk through fences without any additional cost of moving, and would get this message upon entry: "Using your wirecutters you snip a small hole in the bottom of the fence and squeeze through." This would not change the fence's status from repaired to broken. Using wirecutters this way would not require the Repair skill. Questions I will attempt to answer before they are asked Q: What's the point of this suggestion? A: It would make forts impervious to attacks by small groups or by a large group spread out. It would still be extremely easy for zombies to break fences but only if zombies worked together. I could imagine zombies breaching the fence, entering the fort and laying siege to the armory but no longer bothering to tear down the fence. If zombie players didn't work together it would prevent reinforcements from being able to aid them. It would give the forts an additional and potentially quite effective defense but nothing that a group of zombies couldn't tear down with even a slight bit of strategy and teamwork, and feral groups of 20+ zombies form on their own all the time. The low cost of 2AP to repair it would make maintaining the fences worthwhile for humans even if they were constantly being destroyed. Q: If a zombie is killed inside a fort square can you dump them outside the fence? A: No, the zombie is already outside and thus can't be dumped. Once zombies are in the fort you cannot throw them outside the fence. Q: If humans use wirecutters to make a hole in the fence to enter why can't zombies enter through that hole too? A: The hole is next to the ground and very small. A human is smart enough to squeeze through, the same way they're smart enough to squeeze through barricades. Zombies lack the intelligence and coordination (no offense zombies). Q: How come you can exit the fort if the fence is intact? A: The same reason you can leave a heavily barricaded building: because it's not good to trap players. But if you want an in game reason...The fence has barbed wire at the top on the outside. You can climb up the inside and then jump over the barbed wire but it's impossible to climb up the outside and get past it. Q: Is coding this worthwhile for just two places in the entire city? A: This suggestion is created with just forts in mind but it could also work for other locations, such as the city zoos, the power plants, and more. It could be a way of making unique compounds like zoos and forts have a distinctive defense. Q: Why 20 zombies to tear it down? A: I wanted the number required to be large enough to be considered a horde in order to make fences worthwhile, but not too large that it would require a ridiculous amount of zombies to converge on one square. This number could be changed of course depending on how potent you wanted fences to be. Q: Does this change the armory? A: No. The armory would stay exactly the same. Once a zombie was past the fence it could be attacked as normal. Q: This is incredibly implausible! Forts never have fences around them! A: No, I'm pretty sure they do.

Votes

1. Kill the fence idea has been done and killed.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 05:09, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Re Suggestions for fences have been made before true. But before Feeding Groan and NecroNet were implemented there were other killed suggestions that put forth the idea of audible zombie noise flares and Necrotech facilities. The whole point of the suggestions page is that concepts can be improved upon or presented in different ways. --Jon Pyre 05:36, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
2. KeepKill - I would like a smaller number maybe 10? - --ramby 05:35, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)Edit: could someone strike that out for me? After rethinking, i think ti si a bit to powerfull. Maybe I will change to keep again it you add 1 ap per zombie to repairing the fence but leave the zombies at 20? It will keep zombies from the amoury a bit but will also alow ferals to take part after a little awhile --ramby 08:31, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Re Both numbers would work. It really depends on how powerful you want fences to be. I think anywhere between 10-30 is a feasible number. --Jon Pyre 05:38, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
     • Re - Done. --Daednabru 06:04, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
3. Kill - why not force fields? and gun turrets on the forts.... oh and helicopter pads where helicopters could be flown to the other fort and on the way over drop supply crates. --Uncle Willy 05:41, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Re A moderate defense that is not difficult to overcome that only exists in two locations in the entire map just to make forts actually fortified is hardly overpowering. They'd still be worse than malls. Back when infectious bite came out I could have used a similar argument saying "What, zombie plagues that drain our health? Why not just make the air toxic and have a 10% chance to automatically zombify us and when a survivor dies that way it can spread spores in the air that makes Ankle Grab restore 30AP!" --Jon Pyre 06:04, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
4. Kill - It is not an awful suggestion, but it just doesn't strike me as the right way to go. I like the fencing idea--in my opinion it's a better approach than barricading all the squares, for example--but I just don't like the specifics of how to break through and repair the fence. Who knows, give me some time and I might change my mind. Bentley Foss 06:08, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
5. Keep --Lord Evans 07:23, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
6. Keep - I think this is a simple idea that would enhance the role of forts in a realistic way. --Jmwman 13:21, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
7. Keep -- I think its a smart idea. Its NOT overpowerd in anyway because forts are huge and it would take forever to constantly repair every hole in the fence. WHy is it the Zombie players b**ch whenever there is a suggestion that might give use to a particular building. I mean, forts are useless, stadiums, and office buildings, zoo, ect.. most buildings in Malton dont do anything useful. So come on, ITS A FORT! there should be a concrete wall, with gaurd towers that you can shoot into the next block!! There should be better guns and equipment in it, there should be tanks and helocopters and jeeps and Hummers. All he is Suggesting is a damn fence what is your problem? --Kirk Howell 14:36, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
8. Kill - This is a very well thought out suggestion, but I vote "Kill" for this version. I think needing different skills (survivors), and certain numbers present (zombies) is a little too complex for just two compounds in the city.--WibbleBRAINS 18:47, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Re Fencing could theoretically be used on other places such as the city zoo so the coding change could modify a few places on the map. It could be a way of seperating compounds like zoos and forts from the outside world. As a matter of fact, I'm going to add this to the suggestion Q&A part as a possible use for fences beyond forts. --Jon Pyre 20:58, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
9. Keep - A good first step towards making forts have any significance, though survivors will still prefer malls IMO since they will still be easier to defend and the chance to find stuff is still better in a mall's gun store (fort is ~25% while mall is ~23% without bargain hunting and ~34% with it). --Rani 21:19, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
10. Keep Author vote. This suggestion provides a way to provide a definite defense to forts (and possibly other locations) but also leaves zombies an easy way of overcoming it. Forts would not become impervious strongholds but they'd have a unique defense malls would lack. I think this would add interesting conflicts and strategies to the game. Zombie hordes would have to ensure the fences were down to allow ferals and allies to enter and humans would have to run around repairing eight squares of fences. It's in flavor, adds strategy, it's balanced, and fun. --Jon Pyre 21:20, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
11. Kill -- I know I said I liked fort ideas, but I'm not sure if it is worth only having fences just for Forts. I would also prefer to actually have buildings in the fort spaces. Meh. -- Andrew McM 21:43, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re You could still have buildings in the fort spaces if fences were added. This suggestion does not require the fort squares to be empty. And while it may not be worthwhile to do this just for forts in the suggestion I also say that other parts of the city could also be fenced when deemed appropriate, like zoos and maybe power plants. --Jon Pyre 22:22, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
12. Keep I Agree with the Dude Above but until Kevan puts buildings in there this provided an extra defence. and He's not suggesting that Forts are invincable, he's just makeing it a little harder. Ohh and by the way, for those of you objecting to thje large Numberof Zombies needed to break though, right now im playing zombie and just about every seven ot eight building there is a horde of twenty or more. Eith that or a group of fifty. --Argus Nole 21:57, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
13. Keep This sounds good. And for the record, I'd rather have fences around forts than buildings (you shouldn't be able to freerun into them) --Signal9 23:14, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)\
14. Kill - Unnecessary hassle. Like you said a group of 20 zombies forms all the time - if any zombie in a group of 20 can tear down the fence for 1 AP that makes it completely useless for survivor purposes. The suggestion is well-intentioned, but inherently flawed. --Daednabru 05:58, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re True, but survivors could kill the zombies and if the zombies were not standing it would prevent active zombies from breaking the fence no matter how many corpses there were. --Jon Pyre 18:43, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Tally - 7 Kills, 7 Keeps, 14 Votes
15. Kill - I like the idea, but I hate the implementation. I'd prefere if you could simply barricade the fences like a mall square. --Poppins 09:12, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
16. Kill - Fences are bad. This is too powerful and means ferals cant get to fort squares. --Grim s 01:28, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)
17. Kill -This suggestion is vastly inferior to the fort fencing one today. --Penance 21:38, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
18. Kill - Why try to change the fundamental navigation of the game, to include a 'forbidden' and 'non-forbidden' toggle for areas on the map? I feel fairly positive that it would be much much simpler to just make the 'ring' around the armory into a large building. Presto, you get your barricaded fort, people inside can leave, it takes effort for zeds to get in, each section of the fort-building has it's separate barricade. All just as if a fence was implemented, but almost none of the fuss. You also would get the unasked bonus of freerunning in/out of the armory building as well, which gives you huge mobility that invading zeds can't match, as you move in 2 ap's from NW corner to SE corner crossing the armory, while a zed uses 4. Why not suggest that? - Serpico 03:29, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
19. Keep - Forts should be forts. --Mr NoName 01:12, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 8 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:10, 24 May 2006 (BST)

---

Knife Mastery

Timestamp:	06:31, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors, Military
Description:	Knives are currently useless in game. Previous suggestion that raise the damage per AP spent to the point that it surpasses the axe would make the axe useless. Therefore I don't think the way to improve knives is with a skill that improves either damage dealt or hit ratio. Knife Mastery would be a subskill of Knife Combat and would take advantage of knives being a far faster weapon to use than an axe. A person with knife mastery could either attack normally with a knife or could spend 5AP and attack 5 times with a single click, normal attack percentages applying to each attack. Now I know what you're thinking: "Woah! Woah! Hold on! A skill that let's you do multiple attacks with a single click? This would make combat unbalanced! You could click and kill off enemies before they had a chance to respond!" It's a valid concern but consider this: the average damage per 5AP spent with a knife is only 4hp. The maximum damage you could do in a day would be 40hp and it would still take 10 clicks, giving your opponent time to respond or flee. Knives would be useful in live combat but come with a steep price. If you could weaken a foe with a shotgun or fight an already wounded zombie a survivor would have a fighting chance at expelling them from their safehouse by dealing more damage in a shorter period of time with the knife at the cost of doing far less damage overall than they would have if they used the axe. This would make knives useful but keep the axe as the preferred melee weapon except in rare situations when encountering an active foe that needs to be defeated ASAP.

Votes

1. Kill - Application is too limited, and I'd take my chances with using the axe. FireballX301 07:00, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
2. Kill - Advanced Knife Training is a very good suggestion that makes knifes useful, you suggestion is a bit strained, as you yourself already noticed. --Vista 11:39, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
3. Kill - What they said. Bentley Foss 18:03, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
4. Dupe - http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions#Advanced_Knife_Training Sorry, links are giving me trouble (Putting in the link in a neat, clickable phrase won't allow my signature). Scorpios 20:00, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Tally - 0 Keeps, 3 Kills, 1 Spam/Dupe -- 20:06, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
5. Kill - Compared Advanced Knife Training, this is worthless --Jak Rhee 20:55, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
6. Kill - Copy that above^. Not a dupe, but not nearly as good. --Blahblahblah 22:42, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
7. Kill - Agree with the above.--Uncle Willy 04:35, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
8. Spam - The weapons are good as they are. plus it takes up to 12 shots from a pistol(w/o flack jacket) to kill a zombie why spend time with a knife?--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 04:44, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
9. Dupe - See other dupe. --Mr NoName 01:13, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)
   • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 6 Kill, 1 Spam, 2 Dupe - 18:10, 24 May 2006 (BST)

---

Barricading Notice

Spaminated, 6 Kills, 3 Spams, 0 keeps. --Matthew Stewart 22:24, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT) PROOF THAT SPAM VOTES ARE BEING ABUSED. PLEASE REMEMBER TO PROVIDE LINKS TO SPAMINATED IDEAS. ---

Healing by clicking on survivor's HP

Timestamp:	07:37, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type:	interface change
Scope:	survivors with diagnosis and FAK(s)
Description:	If a user has diagnosis skill and at least one FAK then HP values on survivor list would become links that are equivalent to applying the FAK to corresponding survivor. As of now one needs to first find a wounded person in the survivor list and after that find their name in the FAK menu. This change would make healing easier by eliminating the second step--Cah51o 07:37, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT).

Votes

1. Keep - show a plus sign near the name of a survivor everytime one has a FAK in his inventory, and by clicking it you heal it. This would clear away a bunch of dropdowns. --hagnat 08:25, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Re - '+' sign would add an extra element to the interface, which some people would not like. I chose an unused element to keep things safe--Cah51o 19:03, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
     • Re - the plus sign would only appear to those who dont have Diagnosis. This way the FAK combobox would be render useless, since people with FAKs would only have to click on the '+' sign to heal. But, hey, thats just another suggestion. --hagnat 21:43, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
2. Kill - While this is a useful idea, it adds needless complexity to the interface. Regular (those without Diagnosis) users would still have to go through the "2nd" step to identify and treat individuals. So this particular alteration would only affect a few people. The cost/benefit of this change isn't warranted. -- Quasispace 02:12 21 Jan 2006 (PDT)
   • Re - Players without diagnosis cannot determine if anyone needs healing by looking at the survivor list. So they only need to go through one step. --Cah51o 18:31, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
3. Keep - Excellent idea. --Brizth 10:28, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
4. Kill - you'd still need everything as it is now for those that don't have diagnosis. two ways to do things usually only makes things worse.--Vista 11:25, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Re - How this change can make anything worse? It only replaces a number with a link. If you don't click it everything stays the same.--Cah51o 18:49, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
5. Keep - but this has an extremely low priority for impelmention in my opinion. Rhialto 13:12, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Re - This is very small change, so it is safe to game balance and is straightforward to implement. Why should it be given low priority? --Cah51o 18:57, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
6. Keep --Lord Evans 16:04, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
7. Keep - It would make my life easier. --TheTeeHeeMonster 17:14, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
8. Kill - Because this essentially makes Diagnosis useless. Vista beat me to it (again...)--either you're going to have to change diagnosis, or make this change not appear until Diagnosis is purchased. Either way, I like the current system. Bentley Foss 18:05, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Re - this change would apply only IF a player already has diagnosis--Cah51o 18:35, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
   • Tally - 5 Keep, 3 Kills, 0 Spams -- 20:02, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
9. Keep --Scorpios 20:05, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
10. Keep This would just save people with diagnosis a little bit of time when healing someone. --Jon Pyre 22:58, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
11. Keep - With some work might be kickass. Now it's just hella good :) - Skarmory 23:12, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
12. Keep - This makes things simple. Riktar 02:18, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
13. Keep - Having tried to find a wounded persons name in a mall with over 300 people I really appreciate how much hassle this would save. Trish 05:41, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
14. Keep - Author vote. Useful and very conservative change, I think --Cah51o 17:26, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)
15. Kill - It wouldn't be good on newbs --Mr NoName 01:14, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - can you give ne any reason how this would affect newbies at all?--Cah51o 04:00, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 11 Keep, 4 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:10, 24 May 2006 (BST)

---

Bolt action Sniperifle

Spaminated Sniper rifle suggestions are BAD --Lord Evans 16:15, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

---

Malton Fire

Spaminated 10 Kills, 8 Spams, and an author keep -6 Be Polite and make no additional comments.

---

Lower the AP cost for manufacturing syringes

Removed by author due to the overwhelming amount of kill votes.

Removed suggestions template thingies. AllStarZ 05:35, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

---