Suggestions/23rd-Oct-2006

Closed Suggestions

1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.

Added questionaire

Timestamp:	Canuhearmenow Hunt! 01:03, 23 October 2006 (BST)
Type:	Start-up page change.
Scope:	Adds RP value.
Description:	There are some people that don't use the Wiki, yet still want to RP. This would add a new set of OPTIONAL questions on the Urban Dead Character Creation Menu, which are Previous Occupation: Self-explanatory, Favorite Hobbies: Need I repeat? and finally Country Of Origin: Yet again, self-explanatory. As A finale, this is what I mean, it would be on the Profile Page 3 new additions, like "Canuhearmenow, Born in United States, used to be a College Professor, Likes Studying".

Keep Votes

1. Keep - Author Vote, Adds a nice RP touch.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 01:03, 23 October 2006 (BST)
2. Keep I got a feeva for tha flava MrAushvitz 01:13, 23 October 2006 (BST)
3. Nice flavor - Tastes like mint.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 01:37, 23 October 2006 (BST)
4. I like it. Kevan hasn't done enough with the potential roleplaying aspects of the game as it is.--Pesatyel 01:48, 23 October 2006 (BST)
5. Here's a question for ya? What am I voting on this suggestion? A Keep duh! --Axe Hack 03:31, 23 October 2006 (BST)
6. Data Entry - tis naught but a couple of doo-dahs in a database --Funt Solo 08:48, 23 October 2006 (BST)
7. "Gage, bitter Wiki mod, majoring in math (probably), likes banning vandals."--Gage 08:50, 23 October 2006 (BST)
8. Keep, but change previous occupation to occupation. Makes more sense. --BBM 12:46, 23 October 2006 (BST)
9. Keep - Hey, its painless, optional and interesting. Whats not to like? --Marie^{The Grove} 13:04, 23 October 2006 (BST)
10. Keep - Good for RP purposes. better than including it in the profile description, since that's just a description, and people can't just "see" what you used to do for a living. --Rgon 20:20, 23 October 2006 (BST)
11. Keep- I like it. So long as a filter is added for the words trenchcoat, katana and desert eagle.--Grigori 21:42, 23 October 2006 (BST)
12. Keep - Officer Johnieo, born: 10,000 feet in the air, Likes: That sweet sweet spam vote . Dislikes: Streetz is watching and all of there ilk. --Officer Johnieo 23:28, 23 October 2006 (BST)
13. Fair enough, can't see any reason not to have it. --ExplodingFerret 10:44, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    

Kill Votes

1. I hate it. This is what the Bio Square for.--ShadowScope 02:40, 23 October 2006 (BST)
2. Kill - Not needed, since you can just do this to your profile. Why not able your profile to have more room rather then add something like this?--Mr yawn 08:22, 23 October 2006 (BST)
3. Kill - If this is for RP as you say, then it's useless. Information like this should be learned about other characters through IC actions - you can't see what another person likes to do or where they were born just by looking at them. --LazerZero 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Gnaw

Timestamp:	Edited Version MrAushvitz 02:35, 23 October 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombie
Description:	Gnaw: Sub-skill of zombie skill Neck Lurch, adds no benefits to your human character. Whenever your zombie scores a kill on a human survivor as a result of a bite attack, 1 AP is stored up towards your zombie's next standing up cost. Simple enough, you can kill and kill and kill all day.. and sooner or later, your zombie will die. But all those successful survivor kills help pay your AP cost of your next stand up. The computer just keeps tallying them up, until you stand up, then they are all used. Limitation: The minimum AP cost to stand up is always 1 AP, regardless of how much extra AP you had stored up, or whatever other skills you have to reduce this AP cost. However it never hurts to have "extras" if need be. This skill is a buff, of sorts for killing survivors using bite. Technically digestion indirectly helps this skill, by possibly keeping you alive longer. And survivors who use FAK's on your zombie may inadvertently be helping you save up for your future stand up after a headshot.

Keep Votes

1. Keep Does it nerf headshot? Not really, unless you can kill 5 survivors before you get headshot... No free lunch you earn this extra AP for standing up, different from ankle grab! More often than not, it's just going to save you 1 or even 2 AP. MrAushvitz 02:35, 23 October 2006 (BST)
2. Remember, it requires the KILL be with a BITE. Doesn't appear to be overpowered since even a maxed out zombie can only get 1 or 2 kills between "deaths" and it only lasts until killed.--Pesatyel 03:20, 23 October 2006 (BST)
3. Gives an actual use for bite outside of infecting (which really doesn't do much anyways with the incredibly easy-to-find FAKs). Doesn't "nerf" headshot, since under realistic examples, you'd only be saving 1 or 2 AP each time you died, and that's only if you actually got headshot (since Ankle Grab would probably be taken before this). So, good skill, and definitely not overpowered. Anyone who considers themself a reasonable voter should vote keep. --Pinpoint 06:25, 23 October 2006 (BST)
4. Seems like a pretty fair trade... you're "losing" an ap (using the much less accurate Bite to finish off an opponent) to (possibly) spend less later (1 less ap to stand up). The uncertainty of being headshot negates the fact that you are gaining slightly in the trade --Gene Splicer 11:26, 23 October 2006 (BST)
5. Doesn't nerf headshot Realistically, zombies will have to die many, many times before even killing one survivor, so this is actually a very small buff. And if we consider anything that could potentially have a small effect on headshot to be nerfing it, then anything that gives zombies a combat boost is a nerf of headshot, since more dead survivors would equal less headshots. --Reaper with no name 14:31, 23 October 2006 (BST)
6. Keep - I like the idea...might need to make sure that storage doens't carry over from one stuand-up to the next, but that's just a minor detail. - Nicks 17:57, 23 October 2006 (BST)
7. Keep - Nice idea. I'm all for it. MTSkull 20:21, 28 October 2006 (BST)
8. Keep - the bite line needs some freshness, this could work. Pchem 02:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Keep - The fact that the points don't carry over after you stand up balances this skill. --Mikkle 07:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Keep - I'd love to see this implemented. Carl Panzram 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. Kill - I am worried about the "multiply it by a billion" thing.--Gage 03:13, 23 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re Even if you had a billion survivor kills saved up the minimum AP you'd pay to stand would be 1 AP. A billion headshots, now that would suck.. lol. MrAushvitz 04:22, 23 October 2006 (BST)
2. Kill - I'd like something clarified: When you are killed or revived, and your cost to stand up is reduced to 1AP, what happens to the rest of your stored AP? Is it simply lost? Or does it remain stored until it is needed? --Rgon 20:17, 23 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re It's lost, no carry over AP from kills stored up. If you're revived you're no longer a zombie at the time so all those AP's go bye bye, because it's a zombie skill only in effect whilst being a zombie.MrAushvitz 21:52, 23 October 2006 (BST)
3. Kill - An elegantly phrased idea, and the name made me giggle...but do zombies NEED this? From conversations and dealings with zed groups like the RRF, I'd have to say no. --MorthBabid 20:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spams go here...

1. Spam Although I like the skill and its concept, it becomes pretty useless once you have ankle grab (which should be the 3rd or 4th skill you acquire as a Zombie, and beyond that it nerfs headshot and I think most of the more active folks rememebr the last time a skill tried to do that. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 03:29, 23 October 2006 (BST)
2. Still nerfing my headshot. I don't like it. And besides that, standing up for 1 AP? That's the equivalent of Ankle Grab. --Axe Hack 03:34, 23 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re Nothing is the equivilent of ankle grab, not even this skill. If anything it's a weak version of ankle grab. But that's ok, because it's bite related, so what the hell. MrAushvitz 04:24, 23 October 2006 (BST)
3. Leave other people's skills alone - This nerfs headshot. --Funt Solo 23:44, 22 October 2006 (BST)
4. Spam - Nerfs headshot, powers up an already powerful attack (bite)--Mr yawn 08:24, 23 October 2006 (BST)
5. Headshot Spam - Mr Aushvitz's suggestion takes a spam shot and dies. It will cost several edits to stand up. It may not mean to interfere with headshot but its my 100xp I spent on that skill and no zombie is getting away with it. --Marie^{The Grove} 13:06, 23 October 2006 (BST)
6. Spam - As Marie. I waited till level 10 with 100XP to get this skill you want to make weaker.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 14:47, 23 October 2006 (BST)
7. It weakens headshot, but more importantly, I think this sort of skill is the kind that isn't needed. The best thing you can do as a zombie is kill survivors, and the worst thing that can happen is having to waste AP from standing up... so you think that when you manage to do one you should get a bonus to the other? Make the strong stronger... --ExplodingFerret 17:27, 23 October 2006 (BST)
8. Spam - As all the above. --Sekoku 21:28, 23 October 2006 (BST)
9. Spam - Funt Solo beat me to it. And I applaud that. Bentley Foss 06:02, 24 October 2006 (BST)

---

Submachine Gun

Author removed One person pointed out that's it's a dupe, and that's good enough for me.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 02:49, 23 October 2006 (BST)

---

Point Blank Combat

Timestamp:	Kaminobob 09:01, 23 October 2006 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope:	Humans over level 10
Description:	In light of the fall of Blackmore, i believe that it should be obvious to all that zombie hordes have massive and maybe even minutely excessive power. If enough zombies gather somewhere, that place falls, period. As such, the poor humans should be given SOME way to survive a seige (other than being at Caiger), which is why i make my suggestion. i propose that a zombie hunter skill be added that grants a small, but noticeable bonus to hit in the face of hordes, which increases indoors. since 50+ is the zombie group size needed to make a suburb "dangerous" in the suburb map, so that is where i will define a "horde" When confronted by a horde of zombies (50+) outdoors, a zombie hunter with this skill will get a 5% bonus to hit with all projctile weapons (pistols, shotguns, flare guns). If a horde of 50 should get inside, the end is probably near, but the close quarters would make the guns even more deadlier. As such, the bonuses would go up another 5% indoors. And now, cue the mis-sectioned "superkill" spam votes. Holy crap, people, especially pinpoint. (take some blood pressure medicine dude) let me go over this slowly. THIS... IS... A... GAME! wait, this isn't even a game, this is a bunch of people talking about a game! i made a suggestion, an idea, a thought, a flight of freaking fancy, and you are all turning into the rabid zeds you play! oh, and by the way, i was one of the zombies at blackmore. i was never even shot, and it looked to me that combat might be obscenely balanced against humans, who i need to be able to find to level up! If there is no reason to stay and fight, they won't, and low level zombie characters, like mine, stay weak. thank you for your time and anger, spam voters, vote kill if you have an actual game reason to shoot my idea down.

Keep Votes

1. Author keep vote i was at blackmore as a zombie and i still think that it was ridiculous how fast the place went down once there was a gap in the defences. humans need some hope in the face of a horde. maybe then they'll stick around long enough to be eaten? Kaminobob 09:01, 23 October 2006 (BST)
2. I like it but you're right about how it's going to be spammed for overpoweredness. Youronlyfriend 09:11, 23 October 2006 (BST)

   i did TRY to keep the bonus slight yet realistic... 5% outside (where lots of zombies are) and 10% inside (where if there's 50 zombies, you're probably screwed) is as low as it can get while still being a boost. and on top of that, its only available to lv 10 and ups, so there won't be armies of people with this right away! oh, ang about the flare gun getting huge greatness now i have responses: #1- its still a MAXIMUM of 25% to hit, and 2#: a flare gun is basically a small rocket. if you cannot hit SOMETHING in a crowd of 50 zombies with a rocket, in a hallway, at least a quarter of the time, you should not still be alive after a zombie apocalypse. NOTE: this comment is for the benefit of all voters. --Kaminobob 09:29, 23 October 2006 (BST)

3. Keep Regardless of the Blackmore situation this deserves a keep. Its not that big a buff and in situations when you have "rich target enviroment" it makes sense.. Also Since it only works in the presence of 50+ Zombies it self regulates the x1billion worry I might have had. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 10:46, 23 October 2006 (BST)
4. The mechanics work, but your reasoning doesn't. If you had just put this forward as a suggestion on its own with the flavour "More zombies mean easier to hit", may have gotten through. But be prepared for an infinite amount of "Blackmoor didn't fall because of overpowerdness!". --Gene Splicer 11:28, 23 October 2006 (BST)

   heheh... i was ready for that. i was not, however, ready for pinpoint. --Kaminobob 02:40, 24 October 2006 (BST)

5. Keep - makes sense, and it's simple. Funt Solo's suggestion (though it may be more "correct") just adds unneccesary complications. --Karloth vois ^RR 12:53, 23 October 2006 (BST)
6. Keep - I'm surprised this disn't get any spams (as of yet), but I do think that survivors need a boost and this is something that could help it along. --Marie^{The Grove} 13:09, 23 October 2006 (BST)
7. Keep! - Finally, a non-overpowered survivor buff that works!--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 14:52, 23 October 2006 (BST)
8. Keep - Nice flavor(like bacon) and not overpowered. Ignatz 10:05, 23 October 2006 (EST)
9. Yes. It needs a little more umph to it, though. -Mark 16:28, 23 October 2006 (BST)
10. Keep - I think this makes sense... With more zombies around, it should be easier to hit one of them in the mess. --GhostStalker 17:00, 23 October 2006 (BST)
11. Keep - Forget about Blackmore, that's just the mechanics of organization. The reason that I like this is because it just makes sense. If you are shooting at a mass of 50 zeds, you've got a pretty good chance of hitting. Of course, if something like this is put in place, the zeds should get some sort of bonus for grabibing at massed groups of survivors.. - Nicks 18:02, 23 October 2006 (BST)
12. Keep - Chances are, with that many zombies your ammunition is starting to get less and less.. so each shot counts a bit more, what the hell. If humans get a skill for picking off gigantic zombie mobs, maybe after that zombies can have skills for buffing huge zombie mobs.. in a way. MrAushvitz 19:22, 23 October 2006 (BST)
13. Keep See above ^--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 22:41, 23 October 2006 (BST)
14. Keep - It makes sense in some ways. It also might slightly help out during sieges. It would be a nice little thing to have, that's all. I've seen worse. Oh boy, have I seen worse. Bentley Foss 06:09, 24 October 2006 (BST)
    

Kill Votes

1. Spam Kill - The Blackmore Building fell because there were 300 zombies to 200 survivors. You'd expect the zombies to win. There isn't a problem to fix. --Funt Solo 09:28, 23 October 2006 (BST)

   thank you for at least voting spam for the correct reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaminobob (talk • contribs) .

   Changing to Kill on the basis that the Blackmore reference is a red herring. Still, a 10% bonus is a large bonus - 75% chance to hit. If the flavour of this is "there are so many zombies you should at least hit something", then I think you should change this, so that if you miss, there is a chance that you hit a random zed in the horde. Math: you get 5/10 % cap on top of your normal hit chance - if you hit as normal (ignoring the 5/10 cap), this has no effect, but if you miss and are also within that 5/10 cap, you hit a random zombie in the horde. Now, it's not overpowered, because it doesn't allow you to concentrate over-accurate fire on your target zombie, but the flavour remains intact. --Funt Solo 11:47, 23 October 2006 (BST)

2. Kill - I don't see that there is really a problem that needs to be addressed here. Zombies having an advantage in seiges is just the nature of the game, and this just seems to be overpowering. The extra 5%, or in zome instances 10% would excourage survivors to more activly seek out seige environments. And winning wouldn't even be the point, since you're getting more XP for your ammunition. Basically, zombies forming large formidable groups would be helping survivors, and that seems a little wierd. --Rgon 20:15, 23 October 2006 (BST)
3. Hmm - I see valid points on both sides of this issue. If someone can convince me either way, I'll change my vote. --Officer Johnieo 23:34, 23 October 2006 (BST)
4. Kill - The game is already obscenely balanced in favor of humans. DeathToSpam 15:25, 28 October 2006 (BST)
5. Kill - That is way too in favor of humans. MTSkull 20:23, 28 October 2006 (BST)
6. Kill - This one is plain silly. The whole point of the game is that zombies attack in packs. Humans should be scared of hordes, not get an extra bonus. This benefits humans without benefiting the game as a whole. UDvanger 23:56, 28 October 2006 (BST)
7. Kill - Humans should be terrified of zombie hordes, not looking for them to get that extra to-hit bonus! ConfusedUs 04:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Kill - I would argue that projectile weapons would be less effective in close quarters, being the zombies are eating your appendages and such. Zombie Hunters are powerful enough already, no need for more bonuses. Bounty838 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Kill - new skills should as such: spend 100 XP for a certain ability. not just a wholesale bonus. plus, this one doesn't even make sense. Pchem 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Kill - Overpowered this would upset the balance even further. Carl Panzram 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Numbers and activity is what wins the day. Its why zombies are so damn effective at taking whatever they want.--Mr yawn 11:43, 23 October 2006 (BST)

   yeah, sure, whatever... that seems like a game issue... maybe something that you should actually have voted kill for? --Kaminobob 02:37, 24 October 2006 (BST)

2. Prehaps zombies are overpowered and this is a zombie apoc? But, if so, then you must be warned. For one thing, your suggestion keep track of horde size, and does the game do that? I think it is against the Do and Do Nots. However, more importantly, it boosts gun. Guns are already powerful, they don't need a boost.--ShadowScope 15:03, 23 October 2006 (BST) EDIT: Oh...and here is something: Don't Knowingly Post Unacceptable Ideas!.--ShadowScope 15:12, 23 October 2006 (BST)

   i read the suggestion, i read the everything. i still posted my idea. i thought it had a small bonus, and a ingame reason for happening. --Kaminobob 02:37, 24 October 2006 (BST)

3. Spam Zombies are supposed to win. We've got lots of cool toys to play with, because we need them to survive. The game should be hard as a survivor. I was at the Blackmore and I'll probably head back there in the future. Besides, Only Skills and Items Should Confer Gameplay Benefits or Penalties and No Stopgap Balancing Measures. If you're worried about surviving a siege, remember that the best way to do so is to barricade and heal, not going hunting. --Burgan 16:09, 23 October 2006 (BST)

   point - me is zombie. zombie --Kaminobob 02:37, 24 October 2006 (BST)

4. Ignoring the reactionary nature of this suggestion, I agree with Mr yawn and Funt specifically. Anyhow, really big zombie hordes are supposed to win. Big zombie hordes are the only way zombies can win, and that's why there are zombie hordes. Getting one together is a major feat. Consider running away next time? --ExplodingFerret 17:33, 23 October 2006 (BST)

   me zombie! ME... ZOMBIE! i was in the horde, not running from it! and second, my idea is not intended to kill hordes, it is supposed to make them LAST LONGER! more fighting, more hurting, more exp for all! --Kaminobob 02:37, 24 October 2006 (BST)

5. You sir, are one the most idiotic fucking morons I have ever seen! This is early-Aushvitz-bad. This is so insanely bad, I can't even begin to describe it! Oh, and screw all you keep-voters, too. You do realize that this zombies are supposed to be capable of doing something, right? Obviously you don't, but I guess your tiny, itty-bitty brains can't handle that. I'm calling for a mod-deletion of this suggestion, as it doesn't deserve to waste space anywhere. As to your claim of "there's not that many people who could get it", A) Rare != balanced and B) there's well over 10,000 people who could get this skill right now. Zombies should win sieges! So screw this suggestion, screw people who want the game to fucking die (people who voted keep on this suggestion), and screw the author. Come back when you've learned what the word "balance" means. --Pinpoint 19:48, 23 October 2006 (BST)

   holy crap, how do i even respond to that? you sir, should calm down, and remember that this is not EVEN a game. --Kaminobob 02:37, 24 October 2006 (BST)

   You can respond by removing it from the page. The fact that you think this will help zombies shows that you don't understand how sieges work. Sieges last until zombies get bored. What's the best way of boring zombies? Killing them lots, especially with headshots, and keeping barricades up. This makes killing zombies much easier (that 10% adds up quickly), which means sieges would be shorter. I apologize for my initial rudeness. See my talk page for a reply to your message. However, my ire at the voters still stands. I know they've seen enough suggestions to know what this would do. --Pinpoint 08:24, 24 October 2006 (BST)

   Its not meant to fake help zeds, its meant to help battles. which i like. and i did give the same bonus to zombie in another suggestion further down the page... well, in my defence, at least my spelling and grammer are better than some others. uh... the spelling anyway. --Kaminobob 08:29, 24 October 2006 (BST)

   Note - Invalid comment struck. "Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote". --Funt Solo 09:31, 24 October 2006 (BST)

6. Spam - Don't penalize zombies for grouping. That's what they're supposed to do. -- Nob666 20:37, 23 October 2006 (BST)
7. Spam - I don't think the fall of one building in the middle of zombie-central is much justification for anything. Furthermore, the idea that you make aimed shots against the zombie at the top of the stack more often because some other zombies are about is ridiculous (why I spam here). There are clearly reasons your aim could be worse. If you want to miss and hit somebody else or buff fire directed randomly into the crowd, fine, but do not buff aimed shots against any single individual in the crowd. --IrradiatedCorpse 21:12, 23 October 2006 (BST)
8. Spam - Totally wrong reasoning. Zombies are made to gather and survivors are made to hide. When enought zombies know where you are, you will die. --Niilomaan ^GRR!•M! 22:19, 23 October 2006 (BST)
9. Spam You forgot about Free Running and how easily a survivor can escape. If active, which is key, as Mr. Yawn pointed out. If survivors wish to hold buildings, death is the risk they take when they can easily escape. I liked Funt's idea better and THAT one has already been tried and, I think failed. And it makes more sense given the "flavor" reasoning provided.--Pesatyel 03:16, 24 October 2006 (BST) EDIT: I could understand getting a bonus to hit a RANDOM target, but a bonus against a SPECIFIC target? I'd think you would get a PENALTY to hit (that specific target) because there are so many other people present. Not to mention zombie anonymity.--Pesatyel 03:22, 24 October 2006 (BST)

   i think you might notice which zombie you just blasted a gaping hole in their chest... --Kaminobob 03:46, 24 October 2006 (BST)

   That argument doesn't work on the grounds that with 50+ zombies milling about, it is EASY to lose sight of your target. AND if I can't recognize Bob, Aunt Betty or little Billy, no, I won't recognize the zombie I just shot. Zombie anonymity is a powerful tool but, ironically, this would break that BECAUSE there are MORE zombies around.--Pesatyel 06:28, 24 October 2006 (BST)

   i admit you make a good point or 3, but i have something in my defence. my idea was to reflect the reality of having dozens of targets in the simplest way possible. Yes, the hit SHOULD be random, but calculating even 10 survivors fire in a battle would be a mind-boggling task. --Kaminobob 07:29, 24 October 2006 (BST)

   Note - Invalid comment struck. "Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote". --Funt Solo 09:31, 24 October 2006 (BST)

---

Computer Hacking (one edit today)

Timestamp:	Basil 20:30, 23 October 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When in a powered NecroTech building, players with this skill can hack into the computer systems' protected files. There they can read information about the company's secret testing and some backstory for RP purposes. Additionally, there is the option to Instant Message other NecroTech buildings, which would be a bit like using a telephone text message, but anyone in a powered NecroTech building recieving the message would be able to read it on the screen. New messages replace old, like spraypaint. You message an NT building by putting in the building ID number, which is the coords without a comma. For example the NT building at 100,100 would have the ID number 100100. The notice would show from which ID number the IM came from. "An instant message on one of the computers read: hay guyz how is blackmore holding? lol!!!" would be added to the room description of a powered NT building that has recieved the IM. IMs only go to the ID Number you put in. Unpowered buildings recieve no message, and the user sending the message to them gets "That ID Number is currently offline." I'm sure people would love to volunteer to write the "NecroTech files" that people can read. The files can be long or short, complex or simple, etc. Here is one edit I forgot: Files would have a % chance of not opening (due to you not hacking them correctly, wrong password, etc.) but the perentages would be based upon the importance or secretive nature of the files, therefor I cannot actually list the numbers here, not knowing what would be written.

Keep Votes
For Votes here
Kill Votes

1. Revise - Get rid of the IMing, and keep the flavour. This is one of those rare suggestions that's good for the flavour alone. Of course, at that point it shouldn't require a skill. Hmm.... either come up with something better than the IMing (which isn't really all that necessary, nor good) to make this worth a skill, or... actually, this could be the skill that drops the manufacture cost for syringes. Drop the cost to whatever the accepted amount was (I believe it was 15 AP) and keep the flavour. That's my recommended change. --Pinpoint 20:35, 23 October 2006 (BST)
2. Revise - As Pinpoint, and can I pretty please write some of the secretive files? I know some really good ideas.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 20:54, 23 October 2006 (BST)
3. Sure Why the hell not? MrAushvitz 21:57, 23 October 2006 (BST)
4. Change - I'm the opposite - I'd be for the messaging but against the secret files. It's a personal thing - I hate crappy fiction stuck in the middle of a game. --Funt Solo 22:15, 23 October 2006 (BST)
5. Dito. - I can name many things that you could be doing with your time in a zombie apocolypse rather than instant messaging "Hay bob how did ur d8 wit julie go?" and as Mr. Yawn pointed out, the last thing we need is one more thing for zombies to go "ZOMG SURVIVORS IS TEH STACKED" over.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 22:47, 23 October 2006 (BST)
6. Kill - I'm with Funt, I do not want user submitted fiction presented in game. If Kevan's got a plan or some story, I'm happy to hear it, but I don't want user written plot and fan-fiction in the game. The instant messaging actually makes them more handy, so that sounds good. --Burgan 22:55, 23 October 2006 (BST)
7. Change - I'm part of the pinpoint crowd, but I think that some of the files should be user created, and some kevan created. And they should be like newspapers where you randomly read a certain message. --Officer Johnieo 23:31, 23 October 2006 (BST)
8. Confusion! - People are voting kill in spam! Auschwitz votes keep in kill! WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS PEOPLE! As to my actual vote: Eh, could be fun, but none of these are really "hacking". Just make the skill "Necrotech Administrator Access" --Gene Splicer 13:09, 24 October 2006 (BST)
9. Kill - It seems like we've regressed back to when votes were all put together and you had to specify what your vote was. In any case, I would vote keep on this if only Kevan writes the files. There's a reason we don't know exactly why all of this is going on. We might not know what that reason is, but that doesn't change it's reality. --Reaper with no name 02:22, 25 October 2006 (BST)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Kill - Half and half, i like the RP idea, but not the IM bit. There are enough ways of communication as it is and the zombies will most likely start whining about this.--Mr yawn 22:27, 23 October 2006 (BST)

---