Suggestions/28th-Nov-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.

Detection.

Timestamp:	by Lonewolf17a at 2006-11-28 08:14:23 (Put into format by Mark 15:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	First off i wanna say i'm new at this posting stuff (NOT A NEWB ON THE GAME!!!) so if there is any critacism it won't be taken in the wrong way.... Okay Sorry for that last bomb on dectection uhh... anyways i hope this about sums it up thought okay let me evaluate... Dectection-Enables a human to track down a zombie who has recently either tried to kill or talked or gestured at you! I.E. Lets Say a message comes up that say "a zombie has attacked you for 4 dam.""Following the trail of your own blood it looks as though this zombie is at 3blocks north 2 blocks east."This way it would be a little bit easier to dish out revenge anyway I hope that is enough to sum this up and I'll start shuting up on this subject if it's getting annoying. Thanks for taking time to read--Lonewolf17a 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lonewolf17a

Keep Votes

• Re - This would be in response to your Author Vote, which you get one of and yet didn't take. - Ev933n 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [non-author --Funt Solo 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)]

1. Keep - I agree. There should be more investigation-based human skills. It should be under the Cop tree, and it should be activated... oh wait, this was what you were supposed to do. Ah, well. I like the idea anyway. - Ev933n 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Author Vote-Okay yeah of course I'm going to like this idea because there for one should be more human skills and two It's my suggestion--Lonewolf17a 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. First of all, more detail. You didn't say much. Second, zombies have the scent trail because they're zombies. Work on it a little more. -Mark 15:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Kill - Needs a ton of work, no where near enough detail. Well done Mark for putting up the correct format.--Mr yawn 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Kill You need to be a lot more specific. --Jon Pyre 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Kill - You haven't actually said anything yet except that there should be a survivor equivalent to scent trail. Be a little more detailed, please. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Kill - You should outline exactly how a suggestion works mecahnically. What will trigger the detection, how far do you have to travel not to be detected by this skill etc... -- Nob666 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Kill - I think that not all zombie skills should have a survivor equivilent. I also think that you should get in the habbit of capitalizing your I's if you are refering to yourself.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Uuumm... Eeeww... - so you are saying that humans should be able to SCENT zombies!!??? Anyone in their right mind would not want to sniff a zombie... --Poopman9 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Kill - Details please. --Wikidead 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Kill - I am not voting against this to preserve zombie anonymity, something I've never understood or supported. I personally like the idea of a survivor analog to Scent Trail. No, this just needs to be better described and presented on your part. It's good that you want to get involved with the wiki (I'm also pretty new, especially to the suggestions section), but a little style and clarity goes a long way towards earning respect for your ideas. --Nosimplehiway--Nosimplehiway 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Kill - Frankly, if I've just been ravaged by a zombie, I'm not about to go tracking my blood for blocks on end (bleeding as I go) just to bash some rotter in the head. The idea of deductive skills for humans is good, but this iteration is not so good. Daniel Hicken 06:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Kill - Daniel makes voting easy he says What I want to say and also humans are indoors with barricades all they need to do is go outside and shoot a zombie; it also seems like you want to grief the people that hurt you. its a game don't make it war.--Wbleak24 06:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - No.--Gage 16:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Spam - Err... What the hell are you suggesting- where a recent encounter of a unwanted foe will leave us hot on there trail- isn't that scent trail at the moment? --Marie^{The Grove} 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Spam - This needs more justification and detail to be considered a complete suggestion. --IrradiatedCorpse 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Spam - just like in real life - if you want to find your enemy, you'll have to look for them. --Funt Solo 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Spam - Only because no-one has bothered to scream that human scent trail is a dupe. Of many bad ideas. - David Malfisto 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Spam - Even if your old at the UD, the wiki is a whole different game of hopscotch. --Officer Johnieo 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Spam - This is an incomplete suggestion. Please flesh this out with more detail and specifics or possibly come up with a different idea. This one is unlikely to pass even with more work. It nerfs zombie anonymity and seems generally illogical/unnecessary. Also, proper grammar and spelling seem unimportant but they make entries more readable and actually likely to be kept. Just a thought.--Wfjeff 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. spam this is an incomplete dupe of several recent tracking suggestions. BTW, most of them were better thought out and discussed than this one. I'm surprised the author didn't pull this one for revision. Sorry. Asheets 16:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Take Cover!

Timestamp:	Reaper with no name TJ! 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Game Mechanic
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Have you ever slept through a gunfight? No? And you say you've never been in the vicinity of one, either? Well, even if you haven't, let me assure you that guns are LOUD. You can't sleep through them. So, why is it that people can sleep through gunshots in UD? I propose that anytime someone uses a firearm, all survivors (doesn't affect zombies) in the area/building at the time of the shot gain a 10% evasion chance towards all firearms attacks for the next 10 minutes. This is essentially the same as reducing the accuracy of all firearm attacks against you by 10%. This effect can not bring a person's accuracy below 30% (so those with 30% accuracy or lower are immune to this). Also, the benefits of this do not stack. As an example of this, let's say that Player A fires a shotgun with an accuracy of 65% at Player B inside a building where Players C and D are also hiding out. If Player A tries to attack Player B again with a firearm within the next 10 minutes, his accuracy will be 55% instead of 65%. If Player A decides to attack Player C or D instead, his accuracy will still only be 55%. Now, to illustrate the limitations of the effect, if Player C attempts to fire her pistol (accuracy of 5%) at Player D during this time, her accuracy will still only be 5%, because her normal accuracy is below the 30% threshold. This whole thing is basically supposed to simulate people taking cover while they are under fire. It could perhaps be construed as a form of auto-defense, but the fact that it is an inherent game-mechanic for all survivors (rather than a skill) that doesn't affect the survivor-zombie balance may make up for it. In any case, flak jackets are much more of an auto-defense than this could ever be (reducing damage by 20% means a lot more than reducing accuracy by 10%). One could also argue that this weakens PKing. And while that statement may technically be true, it also weakens bounty hunters just the same, which balances things out.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

1. Author Keep - It's just a little bit more believable. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep - I like it. It sings to me of daffodils. Honestly, being around gunfire does raise one's adrenaline, and as such, reaction time. - Ev933n 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep - And how is this an auto-deffence? If somebody walked up to you and started shooting, your not just going to stnad there.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep - I agree with Ev933n, whatever the !@#$ that means??!! P.S. Gage, u should just quit the suggestions page. how many of your last votes have been spams?? try almost all of them, and most were on suggestions which were probably pretty good. If you dont have nething nice to say, say nothing at all. lol.--Poopman9 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep - I like the idea. - Nicks 00:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. keep - and KEEP TRYING TO NERF PKing! ITS THE BIGGEST PAIN IN THE @$$ LEFT! i mean come on, its more annoying than the zombies! --Kaminobob 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep - Regardless of the specific game mechanic I do agree with this: Humans can take cover from firearms when being shot at, zombies can't (or don't bother...) having said that.. perhaps: if a specific survivor hits you once with a firearm in a building all subsequent shots from that survivor at you in that same building are at -5% to hit, until one of you leaves? Keep that in mind if you re-post this later.. I dig though, humans shooting at humans, you should be able to lower the accuracy after taking that 1st blast in the shoulder (makes shotguns even more scary for PK purpouses.. 1 hit is enough to make a big dent in anything living or dead.) I agree with the entrie philosophy behind it. Just don't nerf pk'ing per se.. just make the living have a defense against firearms, all good. MrAushvitz 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Keep - very good a never liked the idea of being able to sleeping through a gun fight --Zombie Spray 10:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill I don't think this is necessary. I see your point on realism, but I like the present system just fine. Should the people who were woken up suffer an AP penalty for losing sleep and jumping around the safehouse?--Burgan 20:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Kill I don't think it'd make that much of a difference. --Jon Pyre 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Kill - Mechanically, how does this work? How does this interact with zombies in the building? --Wikidead 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - The zombies in the building aren't affected by the bonus, if that's what you mean. Obviously, if someone shoots a zombie inside the building, then the survivors are going to get the evasion bonus. However, that evasion bonus only applies to firearm attacks, so this really doesn't interact with zombies at all. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Kill - Calm down with the spam votes guys. If this is an autodefense then so are flak jackets and if it nerfs PKing then so does the halved XP penalty. My problem with it is that having zombies in the building would have to do the same thing. If a safehouse is breached people will be screaming in terror and frantically barricading. That'll wake you up just as quickly. And why wouldn't shooting at zombies when either inside or outside give the same bonus to nearby survivors? It would have to take effect so frequently as to effectively reduce all firearms attacks against survivors by 10%. That's too drastic. I might vote keep if it were only 5% to account for the fact that it's a lot easier to hit slow stupid zombies but it's still a close call. --Wfjeff 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Kill - I like the general idea, but what is essentially a drain against someone else's hard earned accuracy should only be available through an equally hard earned skill or item. That said this is not, not, not spam. Just because a suggestion nudges towards someone's sacred cow does not make it spam. I would remind PKers that it also helps them if someone in the building starts shooting back. It's a pretty good idea, with very good goals. It just needs better implementation. --User:Nosimplehiway--Nosimplehiway 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

1. No auto defense. Rheingold 20:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Pointless - The currently system is perfectly fine and doesn't require any change.--Mr yawn 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. as above --Funt Solo 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. This suggestion is positively moronic. Ever read this page? Or maybe this one?--Gage 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - Yes, I've read both of them. Several times, actually. Frequently suggested has nothing like this, and this doesn't quite apply to the free actions part of the suggestion do's or don'ts, because this is something every survivor would have and wouldn't affect game balance, and therefore cannot be unbalanced. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
     • Re - How about A: No arguing for realism, and B: Don't penalize the players. as for arguing for realism, have you ever been woken up by gunfire? It kinda makes you drowsy. -%10 accuracy to all attacks by anyone who has been around gunfire. - Ev933n 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [not the author --Funt Solo 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)]
5. Spam - No. Also, Bounty Hunting is much rarer than PKing, in my admittedly limited experience. Additionally, I don't exactly like your rather cocky assertion that your suggestion "cannot" be unbalanced.--J Muller 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - I'm not trying to be cocky. I'm just saying that if all survivors get the same benefit, and the benefit doesn't affect attacks made by the zombies, then there is no balance change. And if there is no balance change, then it cannot be unbalanced. However, none of that necessarily makes the suggestion a good one. And the fact that bounty hunting is rarer than PKing is because of meta-gaming. Game balance is considered independent of that. Otherwise, zombies would be considered grossly underpowered due to their inferior numbers.--Reaper with no name ^TJ! 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Spam Because it nerfs PKing. -Certified=Insane^☭ 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Oh and just for the record, I don't give a shit about bounty hunters. -Certified=Insane^☭ 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - Would you please stop calling it a nerf? Under normal circumstances, a fully trained PKer using a shotgun on a flak-jacketed survivor would have a Dmg/AP of 5.2 (if we discount search rates). Under this suggestion that Dmg/AP would be 4.4. That's only a 16% difference in damage! To be a nerf it would have to make PKing so ineffective as to become almost pointless. And that sure isn't the case here, as it's still a much bigger hassle for the victim to get up and be revived than it is for you to kill them. And all of this also assumes that you're using firearms rather than melee weapons (which are unaffected by this). --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Spam-Orignally, I was thinking of creating an Uber Flak Jacket to discourge PKing, which is what this does. But to be honest, it's basically an autodefense. To defend yourself AUTOMATICALLY. We already have Flak Jackets and Barricades that can do that, and there is balance, so there is no point to add this in. And, it will affect game balance, there is something known as Death Cultists, which play a huge role as PKers who assist the Zombie Cause. Nerf PKers and you nerf Death Cultists, and by extension, Zombie Hordes who rely on Death Cultists, like Shacknews. And would it make the game fun? Or just drive out PKers, making the game die a more quicker death?--ShadowScope 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - How does this nerf PKing? Sure, it might make them fire an extra couple of times, but that's certainly not enough to be a nerf. Also, you assume that making PKing more difficult would drive away PKers, an assumption for which there is no evidence. This is also true of your assumption that driving away PKers would kill the game. And by the way, the fact that flack jackets and barricades are an auto-defense is exactly why spamming something on the basis that it is a auto-defense is ridiculous. If it's already in the game in two separate ways, then clearly there's nothing wrong with the concept. If you don't like the details, that's fine. But the concept is clearly and firmly in place in the game already. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Spam - Next we can set up an auto-searching mechanism, an auto killing mechanism, and pretty soon we wouldn't have to actually play the game at all! --Joe O'Wood TALKCONTRIBSUD 02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Spam I've said it once and I'll say it again STOP TRYING TO NERF PKING!! IT'S THE ONLY FUN THING LEFT IN THE GAME TO DO! --Officer Johnieo 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Doesn't really make any sense given the context of the game. And if PKing is the only fun thing left in the game, then there is some SERIOUS problems in the game (unfortunately, this doesn't correct that).--Pesatyel 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Question - I assume this doesn't apply to zombies... they tend to not react to things like being shot. If that's the case, and person A shoots person B, then is person C less likely to hit zombie D? In other words, are shooters less accurate or is there a defensive bonus (like a flak jacket) to survivors only? --Uncle Bill 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - The bonus only affects firearms attacks against survivors. It's supposed to simulate the survivor ducking behind something and taking cover (hence the name). --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Spam - Blah blah blagh blah blha blah lah- You want areason? BLAH! --Marie^{The Grove} 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Spam - nice flavour but its just about antiPKing and how people can't pk the Pker as well, All I'm saying is if you keep it the same would it really matter? Pkers like killing people cause it floats their boat.--Wbleak24 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Spam - True for realizm, but honestly, nerf, nerf, nerf. Daniel Hicken
15. spam hiding has been declared a no-no. Asheets 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---