Suggestions/22nd-Jan-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

Ankle Grab Change

Timestamp: 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill change
Scope: Survivors with Ankle Grab
Description: The skill Ankle Grab should no longer work for revivifying survivors. It is one of the zombies' only advantages over survivors in the endless cycle of death, and making survivors spend 9 more AP to stand up will definitely increase the number of survivors caught outside sleeping, which will work wonders for our flagging local zombie population (and, though I realize that I am opening up a nasty can of worms here, this change ought to provide some modest compensation for the whole 'headshot' affair).

Keep Votes

  1. Author keep. --MordredMalTel 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Makes sense. I reccomend a new survivor skill like Ankle Grab. I mean come on, a person coming to life doesn't grab ankles. --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Big honkin' old survivor nerf. Unneeded, the living have it hard enough as is.--J Muller 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Honk honk, here comes the Nerf Train! --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill Sweet, combat reviving will cost the target 10AP now! --Jon Pyre 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, snap. Didn't think of that one. MordredMalTel 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Re : ( --Jon Pyre 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Too much work for such a minor change. And too many people would get pissed off about it too. --Rocker820 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - When a native zombie becomes a survivor, it can commit suicide; when a native survivor becomes a zombie, he must wait for a revive. Therefore, the statistical gap between the number of zombies and number of survivors is not due to any "weaknesses" zombies have but due to the limited number of gameplay options presented to a zombie. In short, the reason there are fewer zombies than survivors is because most people find survivors more interesting to play, and a penalty attached to playing as a survivor will not change that. Besides, when a zombie dies, it can stand back up at full HP. When a survivor dies, it becomes a Mrh Cow. --Wikidead 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Stupid, not needed. Even the author admits a hole (see above response to Jon Pyre). --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. kill - I agree completely with wikidead. The Mad Axeman 10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Uber-Strong-Kill/Spam - I see you've included part of Labine's horrendously bad remove ankle grab from survivors suggestion. Nice. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Didn't even think of the combat-revive angle. What I did think of was the fact that survivors have to wait for a revive, and that's what gives zombies such a large advantage in the death department. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - Why can't revivifying survivors grab ankles? Survivors have a hard enough time standing up. They have to stand up to become a zombie, stagger around looking for a revive point, get shot at by a newb while he's in the revive point, wait for three days, have another newb kill him and say, "OMG PWN ZMBIES!!!!!!!!!!", stand up again, wait two more days, get revived, still infected by the zombie that killed them with 25 HP . . . we don't need to make it harder.Waluigi Freak 99 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill- What's the frickin point?--Grigori 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill -You fail to realise that this would make combat revived zombies also suffer. no. --AlexanderRM 7:03 PM, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  13. Kill - Hindering survivors does not zombies more interesting to play. --Nosimplehiway 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam This would do nothing exept make survivors play less. Fully upped survivors should not suffer from the enermous pain new zombies have. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. There's something in thesuggestions dos and do nots that says not to mess with other people's skills. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Well, more specifically, the Do and Do Nots page linked at the top of the page tells you about balance, and how changes need to be a lot smaller than you think or they'll destroy the game entirely, and that temporary fixes suggestions are not required. --ExplodingFerret 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Huge survivor nerf... Guess you didnt fully think this one through... --GhostStalker 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Shells/Clips

Timestamp: Mark 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors with guns. Lots of guns
Description: We all know how you can click on a pistol clip and load it into a pistol, or load a shotgun shell into a shotgun. Simple mechanics. However, whoever heard of a gun that couldn’t be unloaded? It’s easy for pistols. Just press the magazine catch and let it slide. Assuming these are double-barreled shotguns, or even if they are pump, it’s still easy to unload.


What this feature would do is simple. The inverse of loading. Currently, clicking on a weapon does nothing. With this, clicking on a weapon would unload the ammo, and create clips or shells with that ammo. Click on a shotgun, and it will unload 1 shell at the expense of 1 AP.


Now the pistol is a little more difficult. Clicking on a fully-loaded pistol will remove the clip. When you click on a less-than-full pistol, it unloads the pistol and creates an item: "Partial clip (#)". This would be two-space, due to mechanics. When the clip reaches six bullets or more, a clip will be created, the partial clip will be destroyed, and any leftover ammo will create a new partial clip. This partial clip could also be used to load partially-full pistols with its ammo. For an example, click here.

Why even need this? Shotguns are the biggest problem. If you found a shotgun loaded with 1 shell, while having another 1 shell shotgun in your inventory, you can rearrange the shells to save space. If you have lots of less-than full pistols, you can turn those into clips, and drop pistols you don't need. It’s simple, and it works. Please remember, this is not a skill. Everyone that has a gun can do it.


Clarification: This is not a dupe of Redistribute Ammunition. That suggestion added a button to reorganize the ammo inside guns to the highest guns. This uses clicking on the weapons themselves and removes the ammo from the guns and turns it into clips/shells.

Note: - (I keep forgetting this.) Huge thanks to Pesatyel, who came up with the "partial clip" idea in raw format, and helped overall. Everyone who voted keep give a big round of applause.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep -Mark 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Useful. I don't see why you'd vote kill. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 04:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep Logical, useful, and even takes the data storage aspect into account. This could be done in real life. --Jon Pyre 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Guns! Guns! Guns! Yes, this is pretty useful, and there's no penalty for those that choose not to spend the AP needed to use it. --Uncle Bill 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Sure, although I think redistribution between guns is better than unloading and creating partial clips. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 08:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. I think this works in conjunction with "Redistribute Ammunition." Redistribute Ammo moves the ammo, keeping the guns loaded at the expense of inventory space. This one moves the ammo, saving inventory space at the expense of having to load the gun(s).--Pesatyel 08:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep- I despise having to drop a gun because it's low on bullets when I find it. Good job.--Grigori 21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. This seems an interesting enough solution to an ongoing problem that it should get into Peer Reviewed. Even if there are other possible solutions, this one is simple and works. For Axe Hack and friends, just because this suggestion addresses a problem you don't have (fiddly ammo management), doesn't mean you should vote spam. Maybe you use almost all your 51 slots for ammo, but some people don't and need to pack as much fighting punch in as little space as possible. --ExplodingFerret 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - I changed my vote to keep. For some reason where it read "partial clip" my mind inserted "clip loader" from the previous discussions. Fortunately my vote did not matter. --SporeSore 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - This might be useful... I have to keep 2 extra inventory spaces open, but I guess its better than tossing away pistols that I pick up with too little ammo. The only problem I see with this is spending the AP to make clips and having to throw them away to make room in my inventory for other stuff. --GhostStalker 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Here's how you remove ammo from guns: You pull the trigger. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam in the kill section - Doesn't Redistribute Ammunition do pretty much the same thing without the need for the confusing "clip-but-not-a-clip" item? I think so. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re: - You don't get it. This is designed to remove ammo from the guns, and turn it into raw clips and shells. Plus, if you want to put it that way, this is more realistic. -Mark 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Ammo, pistol clips in particular, are so easy to find that this wouldn't be worth the hassle of doing. I frequently end up with too many pistol clips so I shove them into half-loaded guns then throw away the surplus clips. I know I'd never use this if it was implemented, and I doubt many others would either. --c138 RR - PKer 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Kill - I do not understand why a new item(clip loader) is needed. Why not have it take the removed clip, try to fill previously unloaded existing partial clips, and throw away the empties? This is simpler, and achieves the same goal. Either get rid of the clip loader or convince me I am wrong and I will change my vote. Players should be able to unload their weapons.--SporeSore 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC) vote changed
    Re: - That's what it does already. You didn't read it, did you? There is no clip loader. Only partial clips. -Mark 02:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill lol you click on the gun by accident=you just wasted 2 AP unloading and then re-loading! make an "are you sure you want to do this" screen and you have my vote. --AlexanderRM 7:09 PM, 24 January 2007 (EST)
    Re: - Really? Tell me, how often do you accidentally click on a pistol or shotgun? One every month at utter most? Plus, adding an "Are you sure" screen would add in aggrivation. Also, there is no "Are you sure" screen for clicking on anything else in the inventory, and they also waste 1 AP. -Mark 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Mournful Moan

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Sometimes a lone zombie knows there are survivors in a building and wants to call over reinforcements. But if the building is not a resource building and it's kept heavily barricaded it is unlikely one zombie will ever be able to break in and use feeding groan.

A zombie bashing barricades without a horde is not feeling too good about its chances and groans quietly, much like a dog unable to get to food. If a zombie with the Feeding Groan subskill Mournful Moan spends 25AP or more in a row attacking a building's barricades it will automatically begin to moan. Unlike Feeding Groan this noise is quieter and can't be heard as easily.

Only zombies that they themselves have Mournful Moan would be able to pick up on the sound. Because the zombie has to carefully listen moans wouldn't leave messages the way groans, talking, and flares do. Instead these zombies would have a display on their interface below their attack, death rattle, and gesture buttons:

[Most Recent Moan: 3n 1w (timestamp)]

There would be no record of any moans that came before, keeping this spam free. There's also no real need to know more than the most recent one. One zombie's efforts is equally valid as the next. So the skill would only let zombies know the most recent nearby location that a zombie spent 25AP or more AP in a row attacking barricades. The range should be the same as Feeding Groan's maximum, six spaces.

Feeding Groan is ideal for helping newbies. They can't break into buildings so it tells them when there's a chance for xp. Mournful Moan would be for more advanced players. These zombies have the attack skills to take down cades and can build on the destructive work of the zombie that let out the last moan. You'd still give preference to a recent Feeding Groan since that could mean actually killing a human, but in the absence of feeding groans or if the only groans are several hours old going after the moaning might be a better bet.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Zombies need more communication methods. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Looks really good to me. It achieves most of what I'm aiming for with my X:00 group idea, but in a much much much simpler fashion. It communicates the one key piece of information zombies seem to need- the activity status of of other nearby zombies. The one thing I'd add is a variable that indicates how strong the barricade being attacked currently is. A low mournful moan would indicate the barricade was still pretty strong, while exited moaning would indicate one that had been taken down to (say) light or less by the zombie being "listened" to. --Swiers X:00 04:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Might be worth adding. Of course that would take away a little of the risk that this shares with Feeding Groan. You know a zombie made the attempt but not whether it's been barricaded back up since then. If Kevan does decide to put a version of this suggestion in that'd be something worth considering. --Jon Pyre 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Author vote I support my own suggestion. --Jon Pyre 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - This seems well thought-out. I like it too. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - I like the idea, unless Pesatyel can come up with a significant example of what he means -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Similar, but vastly improved, to an idea that I tried on the discussion page that got ripped to shreds w/ omgwtfspamuselssherecomethegrieferz!!11!. I like and support this version wholeheartedly. Rolo Tomasi 14:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Sounds good. But don't give in to Swiers' idea. Taking a risk is what makes it balanced - BzAli 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Very useful for ferals. --Toejam 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Very useful. I've often wished for something like this. --Preasure 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Very interesting. Very useful. -Mark 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - I've always hated that problem that zombies have. Feeding groan can only help zombies if they break into a building. But to do that they need other zombies. And to call more zombies they need metagaming, luck, or feeding groans. This helps fix that. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep- Definitely.--Grigori 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep- I'd like it if survivors still benefited from this. That would make for good RP opportunities. "Poor thing's starvin'. I'd better go put him out of his misery for a while." --Gateking 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - I misread the suggestion and have now changed my vote. It is a keeper.--SporeSore 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. I don't think I've actually voted keep on one of Jon Pyre's suggestions before. I'm shocked at how good this suggestion is. --ExplodingFerret 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep - Zombies working together=more fun. And zombies hammering away all the time should get the satisfaction of thinking that their work counted for something.--Lachryma☭ 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep no spam groan variant, yeah that's a good one! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 04:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keep Good to know where the fellow working zombies are at, it will help ferals group up especially in area with low zombie populations. ZombieCrack 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Keep - Gives zombies a shiney new toy, without seriously hurting survivors. --Nosimplehiway 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Doesn't seem too bad. The only thing is, what if there is no one inside? If I were one of the summoned zombies, I'd be pretty pissed. Also, there IS the potential for "griefing" is there not?--Pesatyel 08:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re That's the risk any zombie takes in attacking the barricades of a building. That's why a feeding groan would be prerrable. Feeding Groan means "dinner is served". Mournful Moan means "a zombie did some work, will you finish the job?" There's no certainty for the zombie, but this certainly improves their odds of breaking into a building in the absence of a recent feeding groan. I don't see how there's a potential for griefing.--Jon Pyre 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Admittedly yes, there isn't all that much griefing. Zombie "summons" other zombies into an ambush or draws zombies away from a "better" target to rampage an uninhabited building to waste their AP. Because of the limited payoff for the "summoned" zombies I see limited use of this ability. The summoning zombie has a reason to get inside which might not be shared with the summoned ones.--Pesatyel 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. As above. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - feeding groan gets zombies together where there is definitely a survivor presence. This mournful moan may actually serve to disband the horde, as some head to feed and some head off to help smash down cades that may or may not contain food. I think it makes more sense that newbs should join a horde, rather than serve as the focus for a mini-horde of their own. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re That's why this is only audible by players who can afford a third-tier skill. It can't really be used by newbies. And no player ever has to listen to the moans. If they're in a horde already or they want to breach the specific building they're in front of now they can choose to ignore it. But if they just want to get into a building, any building, and the most recent feeding groan is two hours old the moan would probably be a better option. Ideally the zombie responding to the moan would be able to break in and then release a Feeding Groan. --Jon Pyre 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Dupe - Asi I said above: Dupe of Seige Groan by Mr Aushvitz. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re That is similar but has significantly different mechanics. This only displays the most recent moan, while the other released a message each and every time a zombie attacks barricades 35 times in a row. That'd produce a lot of spam since most zombies spend most of their AP attacking barricades. This just keeps a tiny display on your screen with the most recent. I actually missed that old suggestion, I guess there's no entirely new idea under the sun. But I believe the differences are enough to prevent this from being a Dupe. --Jon Pyre 14:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. clarification -Would survivors with mournful moan recive messages? and would they send groans to? (I assume not) --AlexanderRM 7:19 PM, 24 January 2007 (EST)
    • Re No they would not. Survivors are not inclined to instinctively murmur, nor can they hear as well at those frequencies. --Jon Pyre 06:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Help Book

Original time: 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)|

Removed by author for a small edit. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Running and Barricades

Timestamp: Big Vic 15:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Balancing Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: An AP penalty to free run heavy and higher barricades. I was thinking of as you go from one building to another 1AP entering and 1 leaving.

Example

Building A has Very Strong Barricades Building B Has Extremely Heavy Barricades Bulding C has Heavy Barricades

Moving from A to B will cost 2 AP. 1 from the move and 1 from moving into heavy or higher barricades. A move from B to C will cost 3 AP. 1 from the move, 1 from leaving a heavy or higher barricade, and 1 for entering a heavy or higher barricade.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep- makes sense, why should it be as easy to get out of an EH building as it is to get into a wide open one? --Ropponmatsu 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep- 'tis a good idea - it makes sense & it'll help reduce overbarricading. --Ashadoa 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - This makes perfect sense to me. I mean come on if there's a big barricade in the way then how is it not harder to leave/enter these buildings? One question for John though, how does headshot benefit zombies in any way at all? Since you know, it's a survivor skill and all... ~Kalshiar
  4. Keep - Free running was introduced well before barricades, and was a movment mode slightly more efficient than going outdoors, and never the only way to get into a building (excepting junkyards with uncut fences). This would help re-balance it as a skill, and discourage over-barricading. --Swiers X:00 19:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Though I think a simpler implementation would just be to set it at +1 for entering a building only, perhaps +2 if barricaded over VSB. As Swiers points out, the addition of barricading later greatly changed the effectiveness of free running. This would encourage more players to travel outside over distances and encourage people not to over barricade as much. In embattled ares that had no choice but to cade higher, it limits survivors movement, which makes sense to me in a high risk, highly barricaded area. --Gilant talk-DEM 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - It's a start. --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - This is a great idea. And hopefully it will teach people not barricade to EHB around a revive point. --Captain P4X639 DEM MFD 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - I would simplify it; 2AP to enter a Heavily(or up)'caded building.--Raystanwick 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep The price of a heavily barricaded suburb. Hell yeah, spend some AP ya bastards, it's only fair! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep I like it, something needs to be done to restore some balance to the game. ZombieCrack 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Nah, 3 AP is just to much. Hey, even 2 AP is to much. - BzAli 15:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam in the Kill - no thankyou. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill Highly highly highly unbalancing. Both sides have a couple really awesome skills. Free Running is what survivors get. Headshot is what zombies get. Don't mess with either. EDIT: WOOPS, Ankle Grab is what zombies get. Big difference. Thanks for pointing out my word-typo Kalshiar.--Jon Pyre 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill Jon said it all. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Makes it way less efficient to stay indoors than to go outside. I would be fine with doing this if most of the buildings in Malton were reliably barricaded, but as it is most are EHB so it'd leave people stranded outside, and have them wasting AP moving to where they want to play, rather than actually playing. Does this suggestion increase the fun level of the game? NO. Does it eat into AP without giving anything special in return? YES. Therefore, it should die. --c138 RR - PKer 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - See Mark's point. But even if we discount that, 3 AP is too much. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill- No, thanks. Freerunning is fine the way it is. Also, I think the actual act of free-running as per this game is jumping from roof-to-roof, so barricades wouldn't really affect it in a logical sense. But I could be wrong.--Grigori 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill- Booo! Boooo! Slime, filth, muck, garbage, putresence! BOOOOOO! --Gateking 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Sorry, but I think freerunning in its current status is acceptable. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - This needlessly nerfs an essential survivor skill.Waluigi Freak 99 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - What is it with the survivor nerfs recently? Do zombies want more than they already have? If anything, the game is unbalanced in favor of zeds already. Why make it worse?--J Muller 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill - Why are zombies always trying to nerf survivors? Free running is as important to survivors as Memories of Life is to zombies. If Free Running is limited, then so should Memories of Life. --Wikidead 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill - Kidding me, right? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. I think it should just be 2 straight. I don't see how Free Running is all that limited as, once you have it your essentially safe behind barricades (especially given how easy those are to build, not to mention take down by survivors with crowbars) and "having" to find a VS building isn't all tha difficult either. ALL resource buildings have "Free Running" access points, for example. And Mark, Free Running hasn't been specifically "defined". Besides, wouldn't it be HARDER (ie. need more AP) to jump from roof to roof?--Pesatyel 03:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Kill - What happens if you only have 2 AP left and try to move into a EHB building? Do you fall asleep stretched out between the two windows? Do you fall and get eaten by zombies? Also, I vote kill because on a personal note, this nerfs me. --Uncle Bill 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. As all kill voters. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Kill As everyone else who voted. let survivors use free running to enter hevily barricaded buildings from the street, and I'll give you this. because then it... just might be slightly more realistic. maybe. --AlexanderRM 7:27 PM, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Where are the barricades? The lower levels, so zombies can't climb in. Where do you free-run? The roof. How does lots of furniture on the lower levels affect the roof? -Mark 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Maybe it's time for a free-running nerf of some kind; but this isn't it. This needs thought to make it more balanced, and so that it won't annoy the crap out of survivors. --ExplodingFerret 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Make reading newspapers a 0 AP action

Timestamp: Asheets 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: AP change
Scope: Survivors
Description: Currently, reading a newspaper has a 1AP charge. Due to the recent change where game information, hints, and propaganda can now be gleaned from reading the newspaper, I suggest that the AP cost of reading the newspaper be changed to 0AP (which is the same cost as merely dropping it).

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep Asheets 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep Why nickle and dime newbies out of AP when they want to get some advice? --Jon Pyre 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - IP hits will be the same that if you drop it, so why not? It's not like you get something by reading a newspaper... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Ok. Why not? --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - stop making good suggestions - some poor sod has to put them into Peer Reviewed, you know! --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry... I couldn't find a way to tie wirecutters into this suggestion. Asheets 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Yay!--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Because reading a newspaper is really exhausting. Police Officer Jesus 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Helps the poor newbs.--Lachryma☭ 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Be nice to have this for the poetry books too... I love reading 'em but don't like wasting AP, hehe. --c138 RR - PKer 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Finally, I can read books without saying f*#@! --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - But you still are an idiot.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep FTW- Now if it could only cost 0 ap to find them...--Grigori 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Huzzah for freebies. --Toejam
  14. Keep - Brilliant, and poetry books too. --Dead Man Wade 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep - As if reading the advice was even worth 1 AP. --Wikidead 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. I agree that since the newspapers are now supposed to give good advice, it's a bit annoying having to spend AP reading them as well as finding. However, I don't particularly like 0 AP actions. Maybe if you read the newspaper as soon as you pick it up? I'm not sure if this will annoy FAK searchers; I have no idea what reading a newspaper in the game looks like in the UI. --ExplodingFerret 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Dropping newspapers takes 0 AP. I find it hard to believe that Newspapers should be a 2 AP item. --Ev933n / Talk 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keep - Yeah, after all you only scan the headline and the first paragraph, hardly worth noting in game time. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. I'm kind of inclined to agree with the kill voters. However, this is meant to be a NEWBIE HELPER. The only thing I'd consider adding would be to allow zombies to use them too (somehow).--Pesatyel 03:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Keep Adds flavour, without costing AP, or dropping, yeah sure! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Keep - Sounds reasonable.--Raystanwick 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. As everyone who voted keep. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Keep - Help for noobs is always good. --Mosqu GCM GRR! 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Keep - Same for poetry books. Won't increase server-load, as dropping them does also waste no AP but one IP-hit. But we really need help for zombie-newbs.--ρsych°LychεεELT 06:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Keep - Help the newbies.--Nosimplehiway 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - If they want advice, they have to make sacrifices. I didn't even think it was fair, giving survivors newbs extra advice while zombie newbs got none. We don't need to increase that problem.Waluigi Freak 99 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - I'm with the freak on this one. If they want free info, they should come to the wiki, if they're to stupid to find there way here, then they'll make good zombie fodder -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/22nd-Jan-2007&oldid=590376"