Suggestions/23rd-Feb-2006

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

Aberrant Form

Timestamp: 02:04, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The following 2 skills be added as a tree under "Brain Rot".
  • Aberrant Form - The zombie has mutated, gaining in size and durability. The Zombie gains 10 HP (not stackable with bodybuilding), and it's skin has grown taunt and leathery - providing it with protection that works like a Flax Jacket (not stackable with Flax Jackets).
  • Pry - The zombie has learned to use it's new size and power to its advantage against barricades. The Zombie now has an effect that functions like Tangling Grasp against barricades. When this zombie makes a successful attack against a barricade VSB or lesser, it gains an additional 10% to its success rate with attacks against those barricades until it looses it's grasp (to clarify, the same ways and percentages you loose your grip on survivors with Tangling Grasp is identical for this skill).

This suggestion does combine two peer reviewed suggestions (similar to Necro Net combining a few peer reviewed suggestions together, as did the new generator/pker notification) Dead Flesh, and Preserved Ligaments are incorporated into this.

Votes

  1. Kill - Aberrant Form is great, as long as Brain Rot is a prerequisite. But Pry? No, no, a thousand times NO. --Arcibi 02:42, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - :) You probably wont be happy to know that this already passed peer review unanimously. Pry is a slight deviation from it (different mechanics, and the flavor of Aberrant Form), but not much in terms of damage per attack. --Blahblahblah 03:06, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep For the simple reason that this is two suggestions in one --McArrowni W! 03:08, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - What??? It's one suggestion, with 2 skills - both related (and the later dependent) on each other. Is that really the only reason you are killing it? What about the Necro Net, and PK/GK notification - you'd have killed those two great implementations because they were two (or more) ideas tied together? What's a person to do if they have a great (or good.. or bad) idea that has multiple parts to it? Not suggest it, because it has layers? --Blahblahblah 03:22, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - This is not such a case. The first skill works perfectly on it's own. The second I have problems with even with the other one as a pre-requisite, but could probably be suggested on it's own as well. +10% vs barricade seems a bit much, and I dislike the idea of so vital an ability being restricted to rotters. I'll do the math tomorrow and maybe change my mind--McArrowni W! 03:46, 23 February 2006 (GMT). Changed to keep. Did the math. The barricade bonus is small but nice. But I'd appreciate if you could make it less text on my talk page next time, or at least use paragraph breaks. --McArrowni W! 23:21, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Dupe - There's already some peer-reviewed mutations with much more thought-out mechanics, like [Aberration/Monsterous Form] Giltwist 03:26, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Apart from the similar names, these are two wholly different suggestions --CPQD 03:33, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I like the fact that you combined several peer reviewed suggestions into one, and added a nice secondary skill. --CPQD 03:29, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Edit: (Original comment mirrored my Re's and was redundant) I've been racking my brain over the last few weeks, trying to come up with a good skill to benefit zombies. The % always swings back to strongly favor humans (as listed in the stats page), because humans have more options to them and zombies don't have much incentive to commit to playing as zombies. I did a lot of research through old suggestions (and on vocal zombie players user pages, as well as drawing from my own experiences playing zombies) to work out something that would be useful, consisting of things zombie players wish for, and give incentive to commit to playing as a zombie. The first part of the suggestion helps to solve the issue with zombies not wanting to commit because there are skills they need to acquire as a human. The second part is something that would be useful, though not massively overpowered - as it is not a flat 10% increase (the mechanics speak for themselves - it's not any more unbalancing than Tangling Grasp was for combat) - if you are multiplying it by a billion, the billion zombies are going to crack down the barricades with or without this skill (and in keeping with the theme of a "zombie apocalypse", they should) - as well as giving the extra incentive to commit to brain rot. Purposely kept simple and using existing mechanics, as overcomplicated suggestions have a very hard time making it into the game. --Blahblahblah 16:45, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Pretty good skill, doesnt unbalance anything, and gives the big zombies only a slight improvment to barricade cracking. --Grim s 03:59, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - It is just plain good - --ramby Talk 08:16, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I'll go for it. Sounds reasonable enough, and the barricade thing wouldn't be unballancing. It's pretty hard to hit those barricades anyways, so I immagine I'd be losing my grip fairly often anyways.--Catwhowalksbyhimself 12:40, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Dupe (and a pretty low-quality one) of Abberation/Monstrous Form --John Taggart 14:55, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - The word "Aberration" is the same, but they are completely different in content. The other one only gives an attack bonus, if you missed that, take a second to reread it. Simplicity does not constitute low quality, or lack of thought. --Blahblahblah 15:15, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - This is good. The first part doesn't give zombies anything they can't already get, just achieves it in a more zombie-like way. The second part is a small but not insignificant bonus to zombies who have committed themselves to the undead lifestyle. --John Ember 15:24, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - (edited) works--Agent 24601 16:23, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - However, the author stated it works like Tangling Grasp and the grip can be lost in the same way. That suggests to me that only one zombie can have a hold on the barricades at the same time. Perhaps the author can clarify this. --John Ember 20:42, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Exactly - that's why I took care to include preemptive clarification in the suggestion: (to clarify, the same ways and percentages you loose your grip on survivors with Tangling Grasp is identical for this skill) --Blahblahblah 20:52, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - That's what I thought. I like that because it means huge hordes will actually be less likely to be able to achieve the extra % bonus (too many zombies working the cades at once). --John Ember 21:18, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -Don't see why it has to be under brainrot, the copying of graps is not functional nor particualarly suited to the object but they might work. I would however modify it to fit barricades better. I like the first skill on its own. but that has been in peer review for months now. sorry for being so short on your suggestion...--Vista 18:11, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - No need to apologize. It's under Brain Rot to provide greater incentive to acquiring that skill and committing to zombie kind (as brain rot has a way out, it's not absolute, it's just a greater commitment - as such, a greater reward for a greater commitment) - as well as flavor of the brain is rotted, removing it further from human kind - the virus has now moved beyond rotting the brain to mutating the body. Pry's functionality is translated as you grab hold of a piece of barricade and have greater % to pry it off. As you can loose your grip on the item, it's not a flat % increase as you have to grab hold again. Functioning on lower barricades because they have space freed up to grab hold on, as opposed to heavier barricades because the items are packed in too tightly. If you have any ideas to modify it to fit barricades better, please drop em on my discussion page. --Blahblahblah 19:13, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Would make VS+2 and lower barricades even more useless, which would lead to more places going EH, which makes the game ever harder for n00b survivors. I like the first skill, and if you changed the second from affecting barricades below VS to affecting barricades above VS, I'd be in favor of this. (bigger barricades are bigger targets, have more spots you could hit them, etc) --Brett Day 12:18, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - 'Cause I like it. I've been wanting a suggestion to come up that gave zeds a little boost to barricade destruction. --Pinpoint 13:29, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Hmmm, I was 50/50 on this one. I like the idea of zombies not having to become a survivor to get survivor skills, in this case Body Building, or needing to hunt for a Flak Jacket. I also agree with it being under Brain Rot, as that would be aimed at more hardcore zombies... ones that are too inhuman to ever come back (errr, if not for NecroNet powered NT buildings, that is). A real zombie shouldn't have to waste their time pretending to be a "human". What puts me off is that this suggestion has been bundled with Pry. If it were just one, and not both, I would have voted Keep. As Brett Day suggested, survivors are skittish enough as is and this would just fuel paranoia that would have barricades going above VS all the time, which would be a real pain for lower-level survivors just trying to start the game as survivors. -- Mobius187 11:56 PM, 24 February 2006 (EST)
  16. Keep - I would like not having to resort to playing a puny harman to get the body building skill and flack jacket. Plus as a Zombie, I would max out my damage potential first, then go for Lurching Gait and ankle grab and finally go brain rot. If others felt the same as me, then only the highest level zeds would have these skills.--Jim Stevens 23:27, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - This would make already weak barricades even weaker. In addition to that you have a skill that gives you the advantages of two seperate things. --TheBigT 01:03, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - For the love of god, kill. Zombies do not need to break into buildings easier. It should be harder since not all 600 zombies can reach the barricades at once. Also zombies do not need more HP. Saromu 15:37, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Zombies can already get the HP through body building. However it requires them to go human - this attempts to make it so if they want to play as zombie, they can play as zombie & not need to do that. In hopes of helping balance the numbers on the game stats page - in the 5 months I've played the game, zombies have never been equal or above in numbers. The game looses some of it's "zombie apocalypse" feel when the numbers tip too far in survivors favor. --Blahblahblah 17:42, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
      • The way it current stands zombie players feel obligated to play a survivor so they can benefit from:

        a) Body Building (+10HP)
        b) Diagnosis (cheaper than Scent Blood)
        c) Flak Jacket

        If they're going to get these things anyway, why not just let them get them as a pure zombie? I only voted Kill because I didn't like Pry being bundled together with Aberrant Form, as the wording for Pry leaves it open to certain issues, namely the line that reads, "...When this zombie makes a successful attack against a barricade VSB or lesser, it gains an additional 10% to its success rate with attacks against those barricades..." which implies it's a +10% on top of any barricade attack, or future skill (i.e. Body Slam) that allows a player to attack barricades. Not that Body Slam is a sure thing, but if it were a 5th level zombie could have a 60% chance to successfully reduce a barricade each time it attacked with Body Slam. I know Pry limits its bonus to VS barricades, but that's usually what survivors try to keep them at. But yeah, this aside, the suggestion specifically states it doesn't stack with Body Building so after zombie players get Aberrant Form they wouldn't need to bother with Body Building, and if they have it they get no further benefit. -- Mobius187 3:04 PM, 25 February 2006 (EST)
  19. Keep - I like the Pry skill.Timid Dan 16:51, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill Take out the "pry" and you get a keep from me. Or at least change it to only affect VSB or higher, as once they're below VSB, its already not that hard to take them down! This would force more people to make barricades heavy to prevent intrusion, which makes n00bs sitting ducks! Believe it or not, hordes don't have too much trouble reducing barricades to rubble before storming the insides, so its too much to add to their power. --Volke 22:34, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - I like it. It gives zombies the powers humans have, and it makes sense. Plus, it seems realistic without overbalancing anything. --Erados 01:15, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Pry sounds exciting. --Daednabru 04:20, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Sounds like a good idea. I do get bored of hearing survivor players saying 'OMFGZOMBIENERF' when all the numbers point to a zombie shortage in the game, and new stuff like this might help.Strapon Bev 11:58, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - The Aberrant Form aspect gets a definate keep from me, but the pry, not 100% sure on. If it was MORE than VSB then I would like it, but no major complaints with it this way. --RAF Private Chineselegolas 12:42, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Yay, A good zombie skill set --Lord Evans W! 23:50, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 16 Keeps, 7 Kills, 1 Spams/Dupes. -- 06:00, 27 February 2006 (GMT)

Chemistry

Timestamp: 8:27 23 Feb 2006
Type: Skill
Scope: Scientists
Description: A skill that can only be obtained by players. Being in the Science skill set (helping balance the number of Scientist's skill with Military ones), it is the subskill of NecroTech Employment, Lab Experience, NecroNet Access (to reduce the number of people who can actually reach to those seemlingly overpowered skills).
  • Grey Potion: The actual product that the whole Zombie project was created for:Immortality. This potion, when created in a powered NecroLab (similar to Mrk2 Rev Syringe) and drinked, will granted the survivor who used it a buff that last 24 hrs or the moment that its effect is used. The buff granted the person the ability to stand up as a survivor after being killed once. Need 30 AP for creation.
    • Mark 3 Revivication Syringe: Allow the manufature of "Mark 3 Revivcation Syringe". Cost 30 AP for creation (that's more than half a day of AP). When used on a Zombie, it will revive it, "Brain Rotted" Zombie included with a 75% succeed chance. Give 5 XP as normal Syringe.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote - --Nam 08:45, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - If they seem over powered they aer over powered - --ramby Talk 08:56, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Rare != balanced. Exactly five seconds after this was implemented hundreds of people would have it. Hell, I have 300 or so XP laying around right this second. And that's with Arathen.--Arathen 09:10, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Spam - Humans killed as humans stand up as zombies. Allowing humans to get up as humans completely breaks the game. Similiarly, keep your filthy hands of Brain Rot. We bought it for a reason, and it exists for only one reason: To prevent zombies from being revived if they dont want to be. --Grim s 09:59, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I agree with Grim, although I disagree with his use of the Spam vote. Leave Brain Rot alone and deal with being raised as zombies. That's the way the game works. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 09:59, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Overpovered. Standing up as human after death is a weird way to implement immortality, and immortality itself would remove the fear of death. Also, brainrot is good as it is. --Cannibalcomfort 12:17, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Way too overpowered, and humans standing up as humans takes away one of the basic fundamental premises of the game--Mookiemookie 12:29, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Seems like inherently broken mechanics. What I mean is, you could put them in the game without them being overpowered, but only at the cost of a pricing that makes them near useless. The reason for this is it shakes the very foundations of the game. Finally, "players only" reeks of zombicism. Zombies are players too. --McArrowni W! 14:13, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Nerfs Brain Rot and changes the fundamental mechanics of the game for the worse --CPQD 14:50, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Spam - Rotters already have a suitable revive method. Death already means too little to humans. Overpowered. --John Ember 15:21, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. kill - Humans =/= Zombies. I like humans being humans, and zombies being zombies. This blurs that line.--Blahblahblah 15:33, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - All of my reasons are listed above. Bentley Foss 15:37, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill This suggestion actually has good flavor but is far too overpowered. For 30AP I can essentially become invincible in UD. I can go outside to rest and stand up the next day with no consequences. And the whole point of brain rot is that they can't be revived. I personally don't want to revive brain rotters, what's the point? They're just going to kill themselves again. --Jon Pyre 17:36, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - All survivors would end up buying and innoculating themselves with invincibility and immortality. Don't you think there is something a tad wrong with this? --WibbleBRAINS 18:00, 23 February 2006 (GMT) EDIT: Hmmm, I see this was proposed by Tranhanam0027. Suddenly it all becomes clear..
  15. Kill -Humans =/= Zombies. Zombies =/= Humans. lets keep it that way. lets not blur the line any further.--Vista 18:03, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - This is a bad plan. that will hurt many people. many people, that are good. It is so bad it is great. maniacal cackle -Banana Bear4 18:09, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Rare is not balanced and it's a lot easier to reach those levels then you think. Velkrin 19:29, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill Widens the gulf between the newbs and the experienced players (not that I like newbs). AllStarZ 20:23, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill I saw the word "Potion" in bold and immediately wanted to vote kill without even reading the idea. Seriously, it was like a D&D flashback. Then I read the idea it did nothing to change my opinion. I think what you have to understand is that zombies don't fear death, but survivors seriously do need to. If you take that away survivors would start acting like zombies. I've actually mentioned the exact opposite before (when it comes to zombie communication, zombies just shouldn't do that). I'm pro-survivor, but seriously we can't start walking all over what's basically zombie territory. Immortality is their thing, just like barricades are the survivor thing. --Mobius187 12:02 PM, 24 February 2006 (EST)
  20. Kill - Last I heard, immortality was only available after death. So, let there be death. --Gene 08:02, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - Drinked? No magic items. Changes basic game mechanics. Overpowered.Timid Dan 16:54, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill Handy, but to handy, overpowering!--DicktheTech 17:47, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill The suggestion rules also state that making something overpowered hard to find does not make it balanced. It just means that the people who do get it will have a huge advantage. The same applies to skills. Sticking a hugely over-powered skill at the end of a long chain of prerequisites does not change the fact that it's overpowered. Ontop of that immortality for the survivors? No thanks. Alters the whole game mechanics and IMO would make it no fun if there was no element of risk for the high-level survivors. --Tethran 00:52, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 20 Kill, 2 Spam - 20:36, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Stylin' outfits

Timestamp: 12:08, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: new search item
Scope: applies to survivors who need some style
Description: Searching in malls and clubs (well stylin clubs anyway) will let you find a stylin outfit. Takes 1 AP to put on (much like a flak jacket) and when ever an action is taken displays something like "Wearing a stylin outfit Joe Smith heals you 5 hp." or "Dressed in a stylin suit Jane Doe says 'like my outfit'" This text remains in front of the player name until you take damage (cause a suit with blood on it just ain't stylin). At that point the suit is removed from your inventory and a new one is needed to be worn (unless you just ain't stylin). Cause everygame needs some style and a splash of colour.

Votes

  1. Kill - A "styling outfit" is not a great way to add style to the game, in my opinion. It's way too generic, too. Something like "wearing a pink Adidas tracksuit, Joe Smith attacks you for 3 damage" would be funnier. --Cannibalcomfort 12:21, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Spam - That's what your profile description is for. Survivors wearing ridiculous clothes (stylin' suits), especially in a zombie apocalypse, seems very out-of-place. Anyways, given that there would only be a limited set of clothes to draw from, it would get old fairly quickly. --mikm W! 12:56, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Trenchcoats?! "Bangs head against table". Funny idea though.... Blue Wild Angel 13:17, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Why this suggestion? It's silly and out of genre. Who wants to be stylish in a zombie apocalypse..? --General Viper 14:30, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Well I know I do. Come on everything is so bleak and serious. Bang lets knock it up a notch. --Guy Stu
      • Re - Hmmm...hard to implement, humor is. The dark side clouds everything. --General Viper 18:23, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam - If it was a trenchcoat, it would have been ridiculous, but justified. As is, it's just plain ridiculous. --McArrowni W! 14:27, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam - That's what the profile descriptions are for.--The Fifth Horseman 14:38, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - Nice try, but this adds to much to existing messages and introduces a destructible item, completely unlike any other item out there. --John Ember 15:20, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam - "Wearing a stylin outfit, Blahblahblah votes spam on this suggestion" (You did make me laugh while reading it though) --Blahblahblah 15:35, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - What they said. Bentley Foss 15:38, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. spam -It's a zombie apoc. not a catwalk. The game is getting sillier per suggestion it seems.--Vista 17:59, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Bizarre. --WibbleBRAINS 18:01, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I personally have been surviving in stylish threads since the beginning of the Super Zombie Apocalypse, the real issue here is that if this were implemented everyone could cop my style just by searching. no way. -Banana Bear4 18:12, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Just add that you're stylish into your description. Velkrin 19:28, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - "Theres zombies scratching at the 'cades... lets got clothes shopping!"--Uncle Willy 20:06, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Patently absurd. Nice try though.--Arathen 20:15, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam GRAAAARRRGGGH!!! AllStarZ 20:21, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - Attempts at humor should go on the humourous page. --Dickie Fux 03:01, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Hahaha! Seriously, why does this suggestion make me think of the Sims? Character profiles are for character descriptions after all. This idea really should go into the humorous suggestions section. --Mobius187 12:10 PM, 24 February 2006 (EST)
  19. Spam Sounds like it was written up by Derek Zoolander--Mookiemookie 03:10, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Spam I had trouble not giggling after reading this one.Timid Dan 16:55, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - nothin' like looking sharp!! - Nicks 22:22, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Spam - I'd like to eat the brainz of a sharp lookin' dude. Move to Humorous.--Jim Stevens 23:26, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Is this eligible for a spamination yet? -- Andrew McM W! 23:56, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  23. Spam - Adds nothing to the game. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:16, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  24. Spam - Humor? You're looking for Shaun of the Dead. --ALIENwolve 02:35, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  25. Spam - No. --Brizth W! 14:29, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keeps, 10 Kills, 14 Spams

The Walkman!

Timestamp: 12:12, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: new item
Scope: survivors
Description: The Walkman would be an item that can be found with a small probability in Malls (in the tech store) or in schools.

It would be possible to switch the Walkman on/off with a tick box or a drop-down menu. Once activated, the Walkman would entertain its user with music and prevent him/her from hearing any noises, e.g. people talking, zombies groaning and helicopters flying. In my opinion, this would be useful for all the lonesome player types out there who are annoyed by spam and people talking in general, while adding some flavour to the game: every time you switched on a Walkman, a message indicating the music you play would appear. Here are some possible examples:

  • "you switch on the Walkman. The angry sound of ______ invades your head"
  • "you switch on the Walkman. The sweet voice of ______ helps you forget the cruelty of this world"
  • "you switch on the Walkman. ______'s 3rd symphony covers all surrounding noises"
  • "you switch on the Walkman. ______ are so funky you have to move your body!"

A set of silly band/composer names would fill the spaces above. A contest could be made to find amusing names.

Zombies would not be able to use the Walkman. Other players wouldn't be able to know whether somebody is using a Walkman or not. Flares, of course, would still be seen.

I think this would be fairly easy to implement, fun, useful for some players, and would not increase the server load. (Could it actually decrease it thanks to the quantity of text it wouldn't have to print? Maybe somebody can answer this, I just don't know).

I know Walkman is a copyrighted name, but it's the cooler and the most old-school. Alternative names for the device could be "portable music player", "cassette player" or "mp3 player"

Any other suggestions to improve this item are welcome.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. I want a Walkman! I need funky music to blow up heads. --Cannibalcomfort 12:12, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - You don't want a stylin outfit, but a walkman is ok? Man, am I so out of touch... --Guy stu
      • Re - I get your point, but the Walkman would have a practical purpose besides the flavour, and would not generate as much extra text as the styling outfit would do. --Cannibalcomfort 17:51, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Seems a bit unnecessary to require an item to ignore speech. --mikm W! 12:57, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Maybe fun to some people, so why not? Too bad zombies can't use it though. I would love to see zombies with MP3 players gather to dance on the music of Thriller from Micheal Jackson! --General Viper 14:27, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I thought about the possibility of zombies keeping the walkman after death, but being unable to switch it on/off because of their lack of technical skill. This, however, would prevent zombies from hearing feeding groans thus penalizing them. I decided to scrap the idea. --Cannibalcomfort 15:30, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I can't believe I'm voting keep on this. Still, this is ridiculous, but justified, and has a good use too. --McArrowni W! 14:28, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Weird, useless... and yet does make sense. Besides, I'd love to get a message like "With Manowar hammering into your ears, you hack the zombie apart using your fire axe" or "Listening to the theme of "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly", you put another hole in the zombie's carcass". --The Fifth Horseman 14:42, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - An optional tool that allows players to turn off messages and adds flavor, good idea. Personally I'd like to hack zombies to pieces to the soothing sounds of Zamfir, master of the Pan Flute. --CPQD 15:01, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - If you want a way to disable speech spam, make it a checkbox or something. Another item is too much. Bentley Foss 15:40, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Fun flavor to preform a useful function - I like having flavor added rather than just a bland box to check. I'm not sure how you'll be able to get a vote for musician names (without chaining suggestions).. Maybe not list musician names, but just music types? --Blahblahblah 15:46, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I wasn't thinking of real musician names. My idea is to invent some band names that go well with the game, and display them randomly. Using only musical genres could also work. --Cannibalcomfort 15:53, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - I know you didn't mean real names - I'm just pointing out that since you've already suggested it, I don't know how you could get a vote on names. I can't see Kevan putting up a request for name votes on the Wiki - and if you wait till implemented, it will already be past the fact. --Blahblahblah 16:10, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep Fun Flavor, i woudlnt use it, should be low priority. --Kirk Howell 15:56, 23 February 2006 (GMT)'
  10. Keep - I like flavor and I don't see why it shouldn't be here --Lord Evans W! 16:23, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - fun flavor that serves a purpose. --Arcibi 16:29, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill Why would you want to ignore other people and at a cost of having to carry an item around? Also you can easily ignore anything people say just by scrolling to the bottom of the screen in less than a second and performing any action. --Jon Pyre 17:34, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - just refresh the page if you don't want to read any messages. It's not that hard to do. If you don't want to have people talking around you, don't play a game where social interaction is the most important bit. grow up.--Vista 17:57, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - this is really not awful. It may not be neccessary, but It seems a little fun. -Banana Bear4 18:16, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - There are times when you need to talk to someone and have them hear you. "Help, I'm infected with 1 HP!". There are times when you have to hear what someone has to say. "OMG! 50 zeds outside! Run for your life!" This suggestion would end up killing people, and have no positive value beyond that given by refreshing.--Guardian of Nekops 18:48, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - That would be the players' decision: you want to listen to everybody? Fine. You don't want to, at the risk of missing vital information, but with a small funny bonus? Your choice. Just like in real life you can turn on your iPod and not hear the car that's coming around the corner, and get splattered. --Cannibalcomfort 19:32, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - But the player shouldn't have the right to stay in the building I'm barricading, get the advantage for my killing the zeds that come in, and not even hear me when I ask for a first aid kit 'cause I got infected saving their hide. They're free to ignore my desperate pleas for help because they don't have an extra kit, but if they choose to, in all cases, ignore the needs of others, I want to know it, so I can get myself killed for someone who gives a damn. Just like in real life, intentionally drowning out other people's words with music is an issue of basic decency.--Guardian of Nekops 21:25, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - I see no need for the lazy man's refresh. Velkrin 19:27, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Its a suggestion page, not a necessity page.--Uncle Willy 20:11, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Anything to cut down spam.--Uncle Willy 20:07, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 11 Keep, 6 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe
  18. Kill - I don't get the point of blocking everything else. And flares are part of that spam, you know. Just refresh. Now, if this was resubmitted as a pure flavor item (ie: click on it, and get back a random song/band name/whatever) like poetry books, I'd vote keep, just for the flavor.--Arathen 20:12, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I respect your vote, but I thought it would be interesting to have a flavor item that actually has a drawback/advantage depending of the type of player you are. --Cannibalcomfort 20:20, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Nice. It's completley pointless, but a good laugh. Plus it would be fun to nail zombies to the beat of 'Oasis' or 'The Beatles'. ROCK AND ROLL! Grant Page 21:14, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Fun for all the above reasons - a nice idea puts me in mind of the radio stations in GTA. re the bands -could have tapes of particular bands/types music in appropriate locations - Malls, Cathedrals and Mansions (gift shops), warehouses, nightclubs etc--KyleTravis 22:40, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep/change- Walkmans? Havn't you heard of ipods? If i was trapped in a mall first lisitening device i'd go for first is those ipod nanos Drogmir 23:01, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Note - Keep/change is not a valid vote; please change your vote to either Keep or Kill
    • Comment - Doesn't it say Only the valid part of the vote is counted? --Lord Evans W! 03:39, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Yeah, but iPods need an access to a powered personal computer with mp3 songs on it and an usb2 cable. Also, multiple users couldn't use the same computer to load the iPods as the RIAA would get very angry and send the Black Ops to raid the malls and pkill everybody. For a walkman to work you just need a low-tech magnetic tape and a set of batteries. Oh, and the iPod nano screen would get scratched way too easily in a zombie apocalypse situation. --Cannibalcomfort 23:54, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Realistic + flavorful way for people to accomplish I can easily see them wanting to accomplish. If you're just out to kill some zombies and don't go in for other players, which many don't...--'STER-Talk-Mod 00:42, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  23. Dupe - Walkman. That one was spamminated since it didn't make sense that someone would want to ignore Feeding Groans, for example.--Pesatyel 10:02, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - This is a neat little suggestion and it would make me happy that i dont have to see You heard a groan from close by several thousand times when I login. VinLumbtin
  25. Keep - HeHe You hack the zombie to the tune of Holiday. -Monkeylord 21:52, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - We have poetry books, newspapers, baseball bats, metal pipes, crucifixes, and the punch option. Personally, I consider the speech the whole core of the game, but I am not everybody. --Snikers 03:16, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - That's *so* last millenia. (Besides, killing a zom while listening to "I Will Survive" is a bit pointless.) --Gene 08:07, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - Useless to zombies. --Jim Stevens 03:22, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - Really stupid.. Like Guardian of Nekops said earlier there are some things you need to hear... --Toast Boy 04:45, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - You fire at the zombie for 10 damage to the tune of "Why can't we be Friends?" They take a headshot and die. MaulMachine 04:53, 27 February 2006
  31. Kill - I'm concerned about the new player who picks one of these up and turns it on, never realizing how much essential information he's going to be missing out on. --John Ember 16:11, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  32. keep - seams like a nice little extra --Xbehave 20:28, 02 march 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 19 Keeps, 11 Kills, 1 Invalid Vote. 1 Spams/Dupes. -- 06:00, 20:28, 02 march 2006 (GMT)
  33. Keep - It gets rid of all that yammer in the Mall and only lets you deal with flares, heals, and damage, etc...! I want one!--DicktheTech 17:52, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 20 Keep, 11 Kill, 1 Dupe - 20:35, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Power Station Usage

Timestamp: --HVLD 20:27, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement (also building modification)
Scope: Power Stations (and therefore every building)
Description: Ok, this is a suggestion about how the power stations could be used. Currently they are just abandoned buildings with certain items findable within. However, I propose we (read: Kevan) have them power Malton.

Of course to just say, "The power stations now work." would be a bit off, so what I think is:

Each block of the station, which has a fueled generator, powers a certain group of suburbs in Malton, ie, the NE quarter of Krinks Stations powers a 4x4 group of suburbs, NW, SE and SW each power a 4x4 group.

Now, there are only 6 blocks of power station, so it'd be a cack-handed split up, but say 4 groups of 4x4 suburbs from Krinks, and 2 groups of 18 suburbs powered by Tolman.

The need for a powered generator in each part of the stations means they will need to be protected and controlled.

(Edit): There will be a need for one generator per suburb in each part of the station (1 per suburb that is powered from that block - not 100 per block), and when one is destroyed, one random suburb will be deprived of power, this will help balance the much smaller amount of generators.

This will create another potential pair of hot spots on the map, similar to malls in importance (having no power can be a bit of a downer).

It would also allow hospitals, NT and all other buildings to run at full effect without the constant need to protect a generator, which would in turn effectively destroy GK'ers from most buildings (but of course they would become rampant in the stations themselves)

This will severely reduce the need for generators away from the stations, but when/if a station section goes offline the generators will be needed again for power. But then, if you don't need a generator at the building you're in, you can always run over to a station, keep it for later if needed, and so on - so generators will still be useful, and may be even more so, and I doubt that lights in every building would overbalance anything. Its possible that we could exclude some buildings from the electrical grid, like military installations, or NT buildings (possibly), as this would make more use for generators away from the main stations, and could potentially keep up with some RP elements - maybe the military don't want to rely on civilian services (although I'm pretty sure they do)

(Note: The edit was made early on, and I am saying now that no more edits will be made)

Anyway, I'm open for all comments, criticism, change or applause, and this is by no means set in stone.

Votes

  1. Comment - Substituting one generator in the station for tens and tens of generators throughout the area is too overpowered. If you were to change things so that the plant required multiple generators to run at max capacity (perhaps with its effective radius dropping as the number of generators fell), this could work. --John Ember 20:38, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I think it should take at least one generator to power a whole suburb. Make that your final answer -- don't give us options, that makes it hard to vote -- and you have my support. The actual suburb that gets powered might be random, such that adding a generator or destroying one would have somewhat unpredictable effects. --John Ember 21:13, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Ok, that does make sense, although I hope it doesn't take too much coding to change the station. Altered.
  2. Keep - Revised version is well balanced and would make things interesting. (Though the way you've worded it makes it sound like you'd need 100 generators per each block of power station -- I only recommended 100 generators total, spread across the six blocks, but that's your call.) --John Ember 21:22, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Re-worded.
  3. Kill - Personally, I like where you are going - making power stations hot spots, and functional - but it's too much for too little. I'd reconsider if stipulations were included to balance it out better. --Blahblahblah 20:49, 23 February 2006 (GMT) Edit - Withholding vote until I am sure the suggestion isn't altered further. There is no rule as of yet against altering suggestions (though hopefully soon). Nothing against you personally, but I don't want to vote on something and have it altered later. --Blahblahblah 02:01, 24 February 2006 (GMT) Keep - As you've said "no more edits to come", I'll vote keep in light of original edit. --Blahblahblah 03:09, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Not a problem - it was only a change that you indicated you would prefer, and seems to be more popular - these are meant to change the game for everyone after all, so everyone should get a say.
  4. Keep- It's a good idea to put some use to buildings. It would also make a VERY high priority place for zombies to attack (A new caiger mall might appear). One thing that I think would be good if you decide to make a revised version of the suggestion would be to have circut boxes in each building and if they get destroyed there'll be no power(which would be a way of limiting it), and have fuses which would be found in factories, malls, werehouses (or any appropriate building)to fix them (It just came to my mind when I saw it, but you might aswell see how well this version does first). Razzlero 21:24 feburary 2006.
  5. Keep Anything that will make Power Stations useful needs "Keep" --EnForcer32 21:51, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep I like the idea of the Power Stations actually doing something. Next thing to be done is getting teams to play at the Stadium... Saromu 22:35, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Although I think all of these useless buildings becoming important will wear zombie siegers of each building thin. --ALIENwolve 23:27, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - There are only 2 power stations and having all buildings in a suburb lit won't make them useful all of a sudden, which is why it should be ok.
  8. Keep - It's decent. Something bothers me about it partially inelegant. But generally it's decent -McArrowni W! 00:09, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Would that be the 100 generators thing? If so, this is just a first trial of the suggestion, but if it goes through Kevan will decide, if it doesn't, I will revise it and resubmit will the alterations.
  9. Keep - excellent idea! combine this with an ability to turn off/on generators (conserving fuel) and some real tactics start to emerge - if the power in a suburb goes down, anywhere with fuelled generators can turn them on as backup power. --Charax 01:02, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Was thinking they auto shut-down when power is on, and auto-start when it is cut off. But we'll see.
  10. Keep - Author vote - I love my idea, like it was my child...if I had a child that is...--HVLD 03:20, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Hell yeah! --The Fifth Horseman 12:56, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Although I think a better idea would be that players would contribute to the rebuilding of the generator inside a power plant, much like players contribute to the building of effective barricades. As the generator was built up or broken down, it would be reflected in the number of suburbs being powered. Don D Crummitt 13:26, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - That's actually a very good idea, would help alleviate the stress 100 generators would cause, will keep in mind definitely.--HVLD 17:38, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - There are a couple of power suggestions in peer reviewed already. I like those just fine. Bentley Foss 16:11, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I only found one, although there are quite possibly more. (Edit): No more I could find other than Electric Company, which is, I now see, partly similar, but this has lots of differences.--HVLD 17:38, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - This idea works for me, although I readily admit to not reviewing any of the suggestions that have already passed review. Still, I like the idea of making buildings useful, finding another use for portable generators (well, another place at least), and the fact that it creates another "interest" point for zombie players to meaningfully siege (i.e. not just malls and forts). It really brings a lot to the table. --Mobius187 12:22, 24 February 2006 (EST)
  15. Kill - Makes those two power stations waaaaaay too important.--Mookiemookie 03:08, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
    • And that's a bad thing because...? Right now power stations are completely worthless property. I mean, they're large buildings that lack any of the resources granted to similar-sized buildings like malls or forts. Also we have to ask ourselves, why is Mall Tour '06 the largest zombie horde in Urban Dead? It's because malls are one of the few buildings in the game worth attacking, and even though I'm pro-survivor I see that as sort of sad for the zombie players bored with the same old (and limited) attack options. Why not make a few more important buildings, buildings worthwhile for them to attack? Survivors win because they get use out of a useless building, and zombies win because they now have a new target where before it was just "a large building that was hard to defend". It might even spawn new groups aimed at attacking or defending those 2 locations. --Mobius187 12:42 PM, 25 February 2006 (EST)
  16. Kill - Violations of Newton's law of conservation of energy aside, this basically means that buildings that need power (Hospitals, NT buildings) have no control over their own destinies whatsoever. The generators will be up in the power stations for ten seconds before they're smashed, and they'll be replaced fifteen seconds later. Now, you could still put gennies in the buildings themselves - but they'll be smashed by well-meaning idiots, who say that it will alert zombies to their presence (because they'd never check in a hospital or NT bldg otherwise, of course). Think of the implications, man! You could eliminate genny use altogether! --Snikers 03:23, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - What law of conservation? And anyway, this is quite a basic idea, someone earlier suggested that there is a main generator that gets built up like a barricade. Maybe if that happens, there could be something that stops survivors attacking it? And anyway, if the Hospitals don't have power from the station, they can use a portable one, which means they do have control, I never said get rid of portable generators.--HVLD 19:55, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - The law of conservation states that energy (as well as matter) has to come from something - it can't just come out of thin air. You're taking gennies capable of powering only one building, and using them to power the stations. The stations then power the city using electricity that comes out of, apparently, nowhere. That's neither here nor there, though; the fact that power could come from the stations will have a psychological effect on survivors. They won't put gennies in their Hospitals or NT buildings because, they think, the gennies would be better put into power stations. Power in chunks of Malton is now a binary affair - either it's on or it's off, based on the stations. The only people that may be keeping their generators will be those who simply can't be assed to get to the stations, which is the only reason they would set up the gennies on their own property. --Snikers 02:52, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
        • Re - Although who said the generators couldn't power a suburb? Yes, logic would dictate that they probably couldn't, but it is still possible.--HVLD 22:18, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Great idea, although GKing and Genny replacement would be left to someone's alts as a "It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it" kind of way. Survivor numbers would soar as I don't think there's yet a penalty for placing generators and fuel cans when you're zerging. But on the other side, it'd be a great place for characters to have the time of their life fighting constant invasions instead of sitting in a mall waiting for some group to decide to lay siege on it. The good outways the bad, and the bad can be easily fixed. - Erados 17:19, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - I like the Idea of making the power stations useful, but I like the suggestion of repairing the big generators better. If I understand you correctly, you have 100 portable generators sitting in a row to power the city. What about fuel?--Jim Stevens 04:35, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - The powr statiosn should have a use, but by making the phone masts ovsolete isn't a great idea. Maybe you need the pwoer station running to allow generators to run. That'd still cause a big struggle for the stations and keep portable generators useful. --Ju Ju Master 17:39, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - If you needed the stations on for the gennies to work, that would destroy all the sense of realism the generators have in the game. Think about it. What use would a portable generator be if it needed the power stations up? It'd be redundant. - Erados 17:45, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - did you mean generators when you said phone masts? Because phone masts need power which they can get through either generators (or using this) or through the stations. By having power constantly running through them, does that make them obsolete? If you mean generators, they would still be useful, incase of station shutdown or for powering the station itself (unless the building of the generator is used)--HVLD 22:16, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Dupe - Sorry dude, this is almost exactly what my suggestion was. [1] -- samsurfer117
    • Maybe in the same way a paper airplane and a 747 are both "airplanes". You suggestions refers to power stations powering only the suburb they are in and then using sub-stations to power every other suburb so long as the vaguely referenced "power station supporting the suburb's sector is functioning". On the other hand HVLD's suggestion refers to the power stations powering all of Malton by themselves from those 2 locations. Also, you never did explain how you planned to have the power stations power the suburbs other than to say, "I propose that power stations can be powered up", while HVLD specifically refers to using multiple portable generators (in place of sub-stations). I would hardly call this suggestion a Dupe of yours or are you saying that any suggestion that tries to use the power stations in both an obvious and practical manner is a Dupe? -- Mobius187 8:29 AM, Feb 27 2006 (EST)
  21. Keep - Supplying power is the entire reason why a powerstation is on the map, and this as a game mechanic adds to the "human effort". Without power human beings would have a hard time defending themselves in a sustained conflict with zombies. but they will have to work to keep them running. Makes sense. --MrAushvitz 15:57, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - If this is implemented id like to see higher rate of fuel consumption to balance it out, also i dont like the 1st edit id rather if 1 generator went down the whole station failled instead of just a section. --Xbehave 20:40, 02 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - But at the moment, there would be a lot of generators in the stations so if one went out, it wouldn't be fair to take out all power, since there would be many more, but if the main generator idea (suggestion here by Don D Crummitt) was used, then as parts were destroyed, then certain areas would lose power. But well, that's ultimately not up to me.--HVLD 02:03, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - A better version of a good idea :) --Lord Evans W! 23:54, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 14 Keep, 5 Kill, 1 Spam/Dupe

Cars for cruising across the city

Timestamp: 21:55, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item:Cars
Scope: Applies to humans who acuire a new skill driving
Description: In junkyards there would be a low like 1% chance of finding a non destroyed or partial destroyed car. Humans would have to spend 1AP to get in the car and use a a portable fuel can to power it. to make sure that people do not over use these cars there would be high chances of them breaking the car such as "the car makes some strange noises and stops" Once the car has stoped you would have to spend 1 AP to get out. there would be a 10% of your car crashing reduced to 2% with the driving skill the text displaded would be "you look down distrated and crashing into a pole or sign" it would then destroy the car and damage you 10Hp and take 5ap to get out of the wreakage.to make sure that it dosent over load the sever once a car is destroyed it is "reduced to scrap" and disappers. The cars would only be good on streets not buildings. Only one person could be in a car at a time and the fuel cans would only be good for 25 spaces of movment this would add more depth to the game becuase you could sleep in your car and it would offer the lowest level of barricade before a zombie could get you.(Edit): When a car is viewed from some one else on the map it would say for zombies and humans "you see a car inside is ____" or "you see a car speeding by" when a car chrashes people with in a 5 block radius would hear "a loud screeching fallowed by a crash" this crash sound would aleart both zombies and medics to the crash site to eather finish off or heal the guy who crashed To prevent people with multiple fuel cans from moving all the way across the map the car after 25 spaces of movement would "the car sputters and the engine dies" There would only be a maximum of 20,000 cars in the city of malton at a time. the car would NOT be an AP free way of movement it would cost you 1 ap per 2 spaces moved. (Edit):This may seem like alot of extra movment points but when you take into account getting in and out and the 12.5 spent to move you only get 60.5 moves if all you do is move.

Votes

  1. Keep - I vote for myself once --Deadeye207 21:56, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Spam - poor templet use, poorly thought out and movment is just fine as it is. - --ramby Talk 22:00, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I would have to spend about 100AP in a junkyard, another 20AP searching for a fuel can, and 14-15AP to move 25 spaces. No thanks, but I'll walk --CPQD 22:06, 23 February 2006 (GMT) Re its about luck not searching to find a car
  4. Kill - A 25% chance of crashing PER BLOCK?!! I don't think anybody drives that badly. Unbalanced and useless overall.--Guardian of Nekops 22:08, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re then change it to start with 10% chance then down to 2% chance with driving skill
  5. Kill - Lots of Car and vehicles ideas already been proposed - never really good, nor is this.--HVLD 22:09, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - What HVLD said - and you've left out many details such as how would the car show on screen (for sleeping inside), and other things as well. (P.S. - you forgot to name your suggestion too). --Blahblahblah 22:19, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re oh I dident think of that yeah It would be for zombies "you see a car through the windows you see a human sleeping" or "a car speeds by nearly hitting you" for humans it would be "You see a car _____ is inside" or " a car speeds by nearly hitting you" also please tell me the other things I left out I think we can make this work with a little tweaking and polishing
  7. Spam - Utterly worthless given AP/distance traversable, horrid formatting, spelling, and grammar, vehicles are suggested WAY too often, and the suggestion was modified mid-vote. And noone drives so poorly they crash one out of every ten blocks, either, much less one out of every four.--Arathen 23:14, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam BAD SUGGESTION MAKE HULK ANGRY!!! AllStarZ 23:21, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam See above. --mikm W! 23:22, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - How do you move two squares when you can only see the next one? Also, hardly worth the effort. Also has most of the standard car suggestion problems. Still, this is better than most car suggestions. However, please do not alter your suggestion once it has started to collect votes. --McArrowni W! 00:15, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: thanks for the kind words Ill try to make this work ill think it over and re submit later
      • Re:Re: I don't want to discourage you, but car suggestions are usualy doomed to failure. If you will go ahead with this, pleae read previous car suggestions to glean more info on the problem of these other suggestions, and you should probably wait a few weeks, or even months, and see if you still think it's a good idea. --McArrowni W! 00:50, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - why'd you kill it banana bear? why do we need you suggestion! We're through this suggestion! Your things are on my lawn!-Banana Bear4 01:29, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Most suggestions also fail because people want to change too much. For example, you want to move 2 blocks/AP. But you can only look one block ahead! You want to implement driving skills as well, which is also very radical. Then you want the car to have the lowest kind of barricading, which is quite easily breached and thus not worthwhile. You don't want the car to be on building blocks, is that right?? Then you should consider the possibility of dead ends, cause the buildings may close in on you. Or spend extra AP to drive around great buildings such as malls or forts. And my final thought is: if you can drive a car, you could use it as a weapon right?? Driving over a zombie is not so far fetched, so that's why cars probably aren't implemented anyways.. Too much trouble you see.. --General Viper 9:43, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)
  13. SPAM makes my brain hurt tryin to understand it.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 20:00, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Spam - Transportation suggestions are almost universally horrible. This is no exception.--Mookiemookie 03:03, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - There have been better vehicle suggestions already. Bentley Foss 16:14, 24 February 2006 (GMT) Edit- Restored my deleted vote, which was removed by Deathnut. Bentley Foss 06:14, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam - One word: Vehicles. --Grim s 06:32, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Nope...don't like it! - Nicks 22:23, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - The car crash messages would cause severe spam that would be annoying and repetitive. Sort of like the groans and flares that are constantly being shot and emitted. Plus, it'd be highly unrealistic. Imagine you're driving near Caiger Mall and there's 400-something zombies in the block you're in. How do you drive? You wouldn't get through the wall of bodies after running over them. - Erados 01:19, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Spam - Good God man use a SPELL CHECK!!!--Jim Stevens 04:40, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Spam - Why did I vote spam and not kill? Because you edited your suggestion instead of taking it down and putting up a revision. Velkrin 21:54, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - All those corpses lying on the streets would really clog up the wheels. --RAF Private Chineselegolas 12:58, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 11 Kill, 9 Spam - 20:35, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Security Cameras

Timestamp: 22:11 GMT, 23 February 2006
Type: Building modification
Scope: Survivors
Description: In buildings that were used before the outbreak for civic or business purposes, the networks of security cameras were bulit to be easily reparable and usbable by laymen. Therefore, the following functions should be available in any powered buildings except Schools, Junkyards or Churches:

Spend 1 AP to see who is outside that building (denoted merely by amount of characters and Zombie or survivor) OR Spend 5 APS to see the last 3 hours worth of messageable actions inside that building (representing rewinding and checking the last security tape). Outside a building where a security camera has just been used, a message could come up along the lines of "Over the door of the building, a security camera swings from side-to-side, regarding you with a cold electronic eye", thus informing the characters outside that they're being watched. Security Cameras could be smashed, much like generators, and be reparable by spending 3 AP. For extra fun, they could be vandalised with spraycans, with the same effect as smashing them.

Votes

  1. Dupe - Many suggestions like this exist already. --mikm W! 22:45, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Dupe - withdrawn due to "viable differences" --HVLD 22:51, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - "For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion." - I see no links, therefore the dupes are invalid. I especially like the ability to rewind on message logs, as I often find myself missing some detail like "who killed the generator" or "how many zombies did he say there were?. Not unbalancing in the least and highly useful. I'd probably limit the buildings it can be used in, though. --Charax 01:00, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I don't like the idea of looking outside from inside with no real risk, although more things to vandalize, is good, and your idea about looking at the backlog of tape was a good one. -Banana Bear4 01:31, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Actually, I think this one is pretty good (idea wise). Different enough from the others (linked) that it's not technically a dupe. And great to giving generators functions in other buildings - however, depending on where you live, no building is free from security cameras - least of which junkyards and schools. I like the vandal aspect, however, they would always be destroyed if they are easily accessible outside. Lastly (and IMHO most importantly), the AP cost to check outside is lower than actually going out - which is very bad. A survivor should be paying more for the luxury of seeing who's outside without actually leaving the building. --Blahblahblah 01:44, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Dupes are similar or exact copies of other suggestions, not just copies.--HVLD 01:46, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Comment - A good idea, but needs refinement. Specifically, can they be destroyed from the outside (I'd say have it be like attacking barricades, only with 1 HP and harder to hit), specify that the internal and external cameras have to be destroyed (or repaired) seperately, limit the number of survivors who could repair them (maybe requiring one of the pre-existing science skills), mention that it requires the building to be powered. Perhaps different was to repair them if they're taken offline via destruction versus vandalism (spraypaint)? I think 1 AP to see outside is reasonable; it *should* be easier to glance at a monitor than go walk outside and back. And, given that England is completely litered with CCTVs, I don't see any reason why these shouldn't be in every enterable building. All that given, it's a nice idea but needs too much revision for me to vote Keep right now --Brett Day 14:48, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I pretty well always vote "Kill" on suggestions that let you see outside without exposing yourself to danger. Plus, this one you don't even need to buy a skill to use.--WibbleBRAINS 15:12, 24 February 2006 (GMT)x#
  8. Keep - voting for myself, perhaps with the rider of ditching the exterior view aspect and just staying with the message logs. Unsigned Vote. Remove strikeouts when you sign. --Blahblahblah 19:50, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Few buildings would have these anyway, and the ones that did would probably be destroyed. --Norcross 17:31, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I was thinking about almost the exact same idea, minus the Rewind action, today. I would suggest though that rather than including the ability to target/repair the security camera you simply have it cease functioning when the portable generator is destroyed (or runs out of fuel). In this way it would work more like NecroNet at NT Buildings, in which case same result and less new code/actions/options required. Also, I would suggest all buildings have security cameras. Seriously, junkyards can have security (not just guard dogs) and some schools also have them. Churches, no, but why go to the trouble of excluding a single building type? Personally I see no problem with "letting players see outside without exposing themselves to danger" because it requires a working/fueled generator which can be destroyed and has the extra side-effect of diverting generators/fuel survivors usually just save for resource buildings (i.e. NT Building or Hospital), increasing the likelihood of a power shortage. I would suggest though that you make it 2 AP to view outside, so as to somewhat mitigate to benefits. After all, you're letting survivors stay snug inside and suffer less hassle with high-than-VS barricades when it comes to recon already. --Mobius187 12:33 PM, 24 February 2006 (EST)
    • Comment - Some churches have them too (where I live anyways). --Blahblahblah 20:23, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Well even more reason to just have every building have security cameras and let a working portable generator be the deciding factor. I'm surprised so many people are against it. Right now both portable generators and fuel cans are being stockpiled. And what are they being used for? NT Buildings and Hospitals, that's it. While people complain about griefers/spies destroying generators in a half-hour a new one is back and fueled. That's because when you have something that's important, but gets used very little, you stockpile them for when you need them. This suggestion would allow those resources to be diverted elsewhere, putting a strain on the survivors capability to recover quickly from multiple generator attacks and for what, they can look outside? I do that all the time for 2 AP. How many zombies attack me? Nil. Because even if they're there they're asleep and by the time they realize someone there (if they are awake) you're back inside. As for major sieges, like Caiger Mall, for that you don't need to step outside to know they're there and if you want numbers go access NecroNet. --Mobius187 8:00 PM, 24 February 2006 (EST)
  11. Kill - Not being able to see outside is the price you pay for being inside. --Grim s 21:54, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - Since when does there HAVE to be a tradeoff for everything? Its not like survivors will be able to see outside all the time, these cameras can be destroyed. READ EVERYTHING. Slavik 22:48, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Should also be used for Malls. It's good but it could also be called "looking out the window" to see the same thing. Saromu 00:17, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - i like it, how about camera's are something you find (like generators) and can be set up outside of any building? that would be cool. Slavik 00:34, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - I still think it would be better to keep it simple, rather than adding a new item just have it be "activated" with the generator like NecroNet. Also "looking out the window" implies anyone can do it whenever they like while linking it to a working generator allows for complications, like generator sabotage or having it run out of fuel. --Mobius187 7:50 PM, 24 February 2006 (EST)
  14. Kill - If you want to see outside, go outside. Lack of information is the tradeoff for the safety of barricades. Bentley Foss 16:16, 24 February 2006 (GMT) Edit- Restored my deleted vote, which was removed by Bigbad wolf Bentley Foss 06:15, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Sorry, that was unintentional. I'm still getting used to the editing process here. And, to be picky, lack of info isn't the tradeoff for the barricades, it's the tradeoff for being in a building. The state of the 'cades doesn't have any effect on what you can see outside ;)Bigbad Wolf 11:03, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Voting for myself, although I think ditching the "look outside" use would probably be for the best.Bigbad Wolf 11:03, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - This idea makes sense. VinLumbtin 2:04 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Makes perfect sense, is very realistic, and would generally be very enjoyable to have it implemented. - Erados 01:22, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - What's in it for the zombies?--Jim Stevens 04:46, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Contrary to popular belief not every suggestion has to benefit both survivors and zombies. In this regard there are suggestions being posted that only benefit zombies, and yet it's not a question of, "What's in it for survivors?". Your vote should be based on determining if you feel the suggestion improves or hinders gameplay balance, with hindering referring to the intentional (or unintentional) griefing of survivors or zombies. --Mobius187 10:54 AM, 26 February 2006 (EST)
  19. Keep - Why the exceptions? Schools like them, as do junkyards, and the recent spate of torched churches is certainly a market of some potential... Heck, given the trend of traffic ticket enforcement, they should be available to mere streets as well. (Not sure if they should be an option in parks or cemeteries though. Do we *really* want to see the odd things that go on in those places?) --Gene 06:24, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - no XRAY vission --Xbehave 20:46, 02 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 8 Keep, 8 Kill, 1 Dupe

HeadShot Revision V,2

This suggestion has been Spaminated with 8 spams and 1 kill. --CPQD 02:57, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Hole in the barricade

Timestamp: 23:42, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Humans below level 3 with out free running
Description: This will help low level (human) characters to find shelter.Come on when are barricades perfect I suggest characters with out free running be able to search barricades higher than very strongly barricaded for holes with a percent chance that decresses the higher over VSB the barricade is. This will give low level humans a chance to find a hole in the barricades and get into the building. Zombies will not be able to find holes due to lack of intelligence this ablillity goes away after level 3 or when you get freerunning scouts do not get this abillity.At level 3 you are assumed to be able to take care of yourself. it would work just like searching "you search for a hole in the barricade but find nothing" or "you find a hole in the barricade and sneak into the building"

Votes

  1. KeepI vote for myself once --Deadeye207 23:46, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Passable idea, but a bit too complex, and even newbies can often find places to rest overnight.--HVLD 00:44, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re hmm maybe then give it to all humans but make the chance extremly low like 2% for all barricade levels
  3. Kill - You haven't given numbers as to percentage of finding the hole in the barricade. A large part of making a suggestion is providing numbers for people to vote on, it's not so much to see what people think of a general idea. Also - I'm sure I've seen suggestions dealing with this before, you may want to look through old suggestions for versions of this. Not voting dupe, because I don't have the time to find an old one right now. --Blahblahblah 00:26, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - There is the Pry Barricades which is very similar to this, but actually breaks parts of the barricade instead--HVLD 01:31, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - It's not all that hard to find shelter. --mikm W! 00:27, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Ill re submit tomarrow as a 5% chance to enter a HB 4% to enter a VHB and 3% to enter a EHB for all humans regardless of level or freerunning sound good? as for beliveabillity how is it not belivable? when humans barricade things its going to be perfect there will be holes but the more strongly the building is barricaded the less holes there are thus the less chance of getting in
      • Comment - Deadeye207, before you do that - think how hard it will be to succeed with that %. Low level characters would be better off using the AP to look for a VSB building. Recommend taking your idea to the discussion page and gathering input there. It's a good way to get a feel for what voters will think of your idea, and hammer out the details. Also, it's appreciated if you sign all your Re's and such as a courtesy to voters. --Blahblahblah 01:31, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re I'm STILL voting kill. First, I think barricades greater than VSB should be impenetrable. Period.
  5. Kill - When are barricades perfect? When a human in danger of his life makes darn sure that he's closed up a hole large enough to fit a zombie through. --John Ember 01:48, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - What mikm said. Why was my vote removed?--McArrowni W! 14:05, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Even at a 20% find rate, it's probably still a better idea to just go find a VS building. Not helpful. --Brett Day 14:54, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - No. Use the map for nearby PDs and hospitals, , check buildings as you walk by, then buy FR. It's straightforward. --WibbleBRAINS 15:19, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Way too inefficent, and think about it, do you REALLY want to trust the RNG with your survival like this?!--Arathen 22:13, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - "Help newbies bypass barricades" suggestions tend to always die. Why? Because they need to learn as quickly as possible that this is a difficult and unforgiving game. Bentley Foss 16:18, 24 February 2006 (GMT) Edit- Restored my deleted vote, which was removed by Mobius187 Bentley Foss 06:16, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - It ain't broke, so let's refrain from "fixing" it. --Gene 08:12, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - If you have enough AP to search for holes in a barricade, you have enough AP to search for a VS- building to hide in. Timid Dan 17:01, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - Voting spam due to the use of "run on" sentences. Please edit and use spell check.--Jim Stevens 04:51, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Don't missuse the spam vote. It's not a strong kill, and it's most certainly not supposed to be used just because the author hasn't spell checked!--The General 20:48, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/23rd-Feb-2006&oldid=264003"