Suggestions/31st-Jan-2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

Swords, and shields

Timestamp: Apex 00:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: New Items
Scope: Living Players
Description: A new Melee Weapons and Defense object, both that can brake, to make the game more interesting. First the Sword, it will start off with 5% Accuracy and 3 damage. With the Hand To Hand Combat skill it will add on 15% Accuracy. Then with the Knife Combat skill it will add another 30% Accuracy. The problem is that after a long time of use it will brake. The shield will work like a Flak Jacket, but will offer 2 points of extra protection, and will brake after some time. Like say 30 or 40 attacks.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Author Vote.--Apex 00:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. I think not - Shields stop bullets? And you don't even have details...and your grammar/spelling is horrible!--Lachryma☭ 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. You spelled break wrong --Schizmo 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. kill Out of genre. --Jon Pyre 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - If you want swords, go play Nexus War. This is a zombie apocalypse, not a Ren Faire. --Vanankyte 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Incomplete AND suggested before. Take a look through the older suggestions. Sword: The game doesn't need any new melee weapons UNTIL the ones we have are useful. Shield: I actually kinda like the idea, but needs some significant penalties. And the whole "breaking" thing is stupid.--Pesatyel 03:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - If they won't put chainsaws in this game, than wtf makes you think that they'll put swords or sheilds in it? Second, if they did where would we find them? The Renissance Fair? This isn't WoW where you pwn n00bs and r-tards with your mystical spells and swords. My answer.... HELL NO!!!! -Rocker820 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - As Pyre put it excellently, out of genre. --Wikidead 06:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill + 2, +3 vs. Stupid Suggestions - wrong genre --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. This is Urban Dead, not Lord of the Rings. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - I don't think these items are meant to be in the game. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. kill - Out of genre. However, guys, be polite. Not everyone has English as their native tongue. - BzAli 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill - Out of genre, incomplete, the whole "breaking" thing makes no sense if it's the only item that does so, and we don't need any more melee weapons right now (half the ones in the game are useless as it is). The shield especially makes no sense. "2 points of extra protection"? Huh? Flak Jackets reduce the damage dealt by firearms by 20%, not by a set amount of damage. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Incomplete - Not that I think it has any merit but, where's it found? What are the find percentages? What do you mean by Like say 30 or 40 attacks? please be more specific. Youronlyfriend 01:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. As above - Explains itself. SuperMario24 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. I like the idea of breakable weapons, but you haven't given enough detail or specifics here. Perhaps have a look at some of the previous weapon suggestions for an idea of how much detail is required. --ExplodingFerret 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam - This is a zombie apocalypse in a modern, urban setting... swords and shields do not compute -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Super Poopy Ass Mat --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Spam - This idea is so out of game ambiance that I am forced to Spam it. You made me do it.--SporeSore 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Spam - I agree with boxy. Also, learn to spell correctly... --GhostStalker 15:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. SPAM Riot shields found in a PD only which reduce hit chances by 5% for ranged and 10% close would get a keep (especialy if tangling grasp negated the bonus!) they should automatically break on death as zombies in self repairing flak is annoying enough but zombie shield walls would really suck! another point, while you have this you should not be able to use 2 handed weapons ie SHOTGUNS an possibly axes! As for swords... they got the SPAM!--Honestmistake 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. WTFCENTAURS --Deras 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Spam - Not before chainsaws, and hopefully not even after that. --Uncle Bill 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. THREE, SIR! - ARTH THOU MAD, THY PROPOSAL IST UNHOULY --DinkyDao 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Barricades (Nerf)

Timestamp: Gage 02:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: balance change
Scope: Everyone
Description: Survivors can no longer barricade a building while zombies are present.

The purpose of this is to create more fun for zombies, and more danger (and therefore more fun) for survivors. Because really, how fun is it for your survivor character when he has been alive for the last 2 months holed up in Caiger? Not very IMO.

It also isn't very realistic that a survivor would have the presence of mind during a zombie attack to barricade a building instead of shooting the thing that is trying eat him and his buddies.

This suggestion is going to be wildly unpopular. I know it. It will have fervent support from my zanbah brothers though. You might dig through the archives and pull up a "dupe" from somewhere. It has been pointed out on the talk page that times change and so I think you should give it a chance.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Kevan has to do something for the zombies, and I think this could it.--Gage 02:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - YES! --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep This will also be a huge boost for the feral, casual zombie player because it will allow them to find cracked safehouses easier. It will also make sieges more exciting, since there will be added pressure for survivors to clear out breached defenses.--Bassander 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - this suggestion turns me on! --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep i dink dis is good idea 4 my zombi i eat peples and dey don lik dat but i don care. Grundo 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - This will make life in Malton dangerous, finally. Let's have a zombie apocalypse with some actual death and destruction.--Lachryma☭ 02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Makes sense, altough I fear this would nerf ransacking.--ShadowScope 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Something that would stop smelly Harmans from cading up when loads of Zombies are in the way seems like a great idea.--Xyu 03:03, 31 January 2007 (GMT)
  9. Keep - "Hey, look a zombie chewed on my leg. Well, gotta build the cades up again!". I think not. Also being an on striker, I am voting yes for obvious reasons other then what I stated before.!--Mayor Fitting 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - The most effective mode of defense in a siege is currently to barricade first and deal with the zombies inside later. That seems really absurd and counterintuitive. God forbid people actually have to get rid of the zombies first before they can secure a building. --Vanankyte 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Sexy Assed Logic Zombies in your face should make it hard to do manual labour, one would think. More than anything, this would be a hassle for active survivors, who of course have access to high damage firearms (cough, shotgun, cough). I think it's time for a change in tactics, and besides... the zombie makes it in and you have to deal with him, he'll feel better about the 40 AP he just wasted getting inside, for no XP. Humans in malls & well defended safehouses will laugh even if this is implimented, they won't be in much danger as a result. Oh, survivors can still close the door, keeping out zombies without MOL.. which prevents newbie zerging. Aha... MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Rrh - Zrmbrrh rrh rrrh! Rh rra rrh hrh, Zrmbrrh harh nrrrh hra brh rrh ahrrh rMrh. Basically, Me likey. --CaptainM 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep My zed broke into Stickling Mall today. He was headshot in six seconds. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - it shure as hell would help, and its not like the first thing you do when a zombie comes in is close the door behind it. :P -Bullgod 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep - Sounds Good. Smart Man. ;) Vulnavia 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep - Makes sense. Barricading takes focus, and if there's a zombie in the room or building then you're going to want to focus on keeping away from it, not nailing various items to each other. --Zorinth 07:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - I've been cogitating on this for some time now. Prothero 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keep - Me like. --Gut stench FU BAR 09:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Keep - why should you be able to throw more plastic trees into the doorway when theres a zombie biting your face off? surley you have more pressing matters to worry about. --Ropponmatsu 10:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. I was wondering why barricades could be built when you're being eaten alive. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Keep - This may help and makes sense to boot.----Priapus 12:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Keep - Love It!!--Captain911 13:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Keep - A little tweaking that makes sense for zombies and survivors. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 13:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Hesitant Keep -- This does actually make sense. How many survivors barricade the entrance where the zombie just entered while it is still walking around trying to bite your fellow survivors. My only fear is that it will make it near impossible to hold a building. But that would also make the game what it is supposed to be. Keep for now. -- Whitehouse 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Keep - Makes sense, plus it would make invasions become blasting gunbattles instead of barricade-bot fests, which would be more fun for everyone. Can you gun down the zeds before more get in? --User:Snuffleuff 15:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Keep - Make sense and not overpowered. I've bashed my way into Stickling a few times and more often then not theres a survivor shooting me while I'm chewing, I like it and I play a survivor as well as a zombie. ZombieCrack 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Keep - Definitely makes sense to me. I have both zombie and human players in UD and it has ALWAYS amazed me how easy it was to barricade while zombies were inside, it doesn't make ANY sense at all how one could have a dozen or more zombies inside and then casually stroll around and find objects to cade with. Seems to me that the zombies would make it harder to cade. BUT, I HAVE A SUGGESTION ON A COMPROMISE: Cading while zombies are present should be limited to "Lightly", would be like closing the door and tossing some quick items in front of it so more can't get in while you are trying to get the current ones out. After all zombies are out then you go back to reinforcing the cades. This would seem realistic to me. Being able to build an extremely reinforced cade while zombies are running around the building is NOT realistic at all.-Braggledorth 15:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Keep - I have played survivor for nearly a year and only recently switched sides, so I still see this mostly from a survivors view. This is NOT overpowered, it seems like a reasonable change. To those that argue it is "against the genre," well, so is revivification! Think about that before you try that arguement. To the person that equated this somehow to zerging, a small flame! I guess this would make your cade bots less effective once a zombie was in. Seriously though, the game is no longer a zombie apocalypse, something needs to be done, if not this. User: Pvt. Shicklegruber proud to be Feral Undead 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)~
    I came back to put the proper name in. I'm just a noob at Wiki stuff, so why is everything lined out now?
    Improper timestamp. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC) To top that off...illwind seems to be a nonexistant user... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Keep - Kevan isn't likely to implement this in this exact form, but I'd like seeing something like this in "PEER Reviewed". "Don't mess with barricades" is a bullshit, arbitrary "rule" that somebody just made up and we all take as gospel. Fuck that noise- barricades NEED to be messed with. --Swiers X:00 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Keep This is a very good idea, although maybe a scale matching the number of zombies inside the building to the level that can be built, so that 10 zombies - only build up to QSB. Robert McFarlane 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Keep Barraghadaz need indeed nerving. They are to overpowered. But, with eye on the 'OVERPOWERED X10' comment down below in the Kill section I would like to suggest that perhaps this suggestion could be altered somewhat so that the building is only unbarraghadable when there is an active zombie. More detailed, a zombie, with AP, and who has done something in the last number of minutes. That amount could be anything from half a minute to five minutes (for example), depending on what Kevan wants and what the server can take. - Deyd 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. Keep Just the sort of thing we need to even things out and make it all exciting again. Good plan. --JoineeZombie 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Keep - Votin' keep!--Slayerofmuffins 18:46 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. Keep - I think that with a little bit of tweaking, this skill is definitely worth keeping!--Jambalaya 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Keep - I vote yes but maybe a little tweeking as to the number of zombies that activate it, perhaps two or three in a room would do. (PS, hell I'd even like to see a RNG change to make it easier to decade, damn overcaders, but I highly doubt that happening)-- JD 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    actually strike what I said, After reading both side's comments I think its a good suggestion as is -- JD 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. Cautious Keep - What would happen to Ransack though? It's so satisfying to ransack a building... --JohnRubin 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Keep - ONLY if it is at least 15 zombies... otherwise way too overpowered :D - JohnWilcox - 21:16, 31 Jan 2007 (GMT)
  38. Keep - Barricades closed due to AIDS! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    <3--Gage 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  39. Keep with very complex reasoning - Something needs to be done. Personally, I think this isn't necessary (all that needs to be done is that barricade strength be reduced by 1/2, which would make zombies almost as efficient at killing survivors as PKers). But this would still be better than things are now. Survivors would actually have to be on the run, like they're supposed to be. Plus, if the zombies manage to breach the building in the first place, it means that the survivors weren't maintaing the barricades (if x number of survivors are constructing barricades at the same time as x number of zombies are trying to tear them down, the odds of the zombies successfully breaching the building are about the same as getting struck by lightning). I'm almost certain Kevan will not implement this, but it will send him a message: Barricades Are WAY Too Strong!. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Keep - BUT, add a limit. Say... 10 people to prevent barricaded. That's the size of your average strike team. And it also stops people bitching about it. --Heiki 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. Always been pretty dumb that you can do this. --ExplodingFerret 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. Keep - Sure, as it stands, it's a bit overpowered. However, if it were altered to something like "More zombies in the building than survivors" then it wouldn't be quite so bad. At any rate, something MUST be done to barricades, regardless of this being it or not. Maybe something so severe getting so many keep votes can pound into people's heads that barricades need nerfing. --Craer 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Keep - DAMN RIGHT! It's really annoying that a group of 70 survivors can keep out 200+ zombies with little/no effort needed. This is a change that -NEEDS- to be put in for balance. -- BeefSteak WTF 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Keep - If you've got a gun and a wardrobe, and there's a zombie going for your throat, you're not going to be rearranging the furniture. -- Funk McBogey 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Keep - Unthinkable in the days of the great apocalypse, it's a sign of the times that this has got so many keeps. --Karloth Vois RR 03:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Keep - Repeat of all the reasons above. -- Murray Jay 7:03pm UTC, February 1, 2007
  47. Keep - The game desperately needs a reworking, and this looks to be the sort of thing to do it.--Bongo 2143 PM, UTC, February 1, 2007
  48. Keep - Down with barricades! Rargh! --Graaaaaaagh 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Hellz Yea! Best suggetsion ever!--Kenneth irons 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Keep - This will either kill the game, or revive it. Considering the current state, it's worth the risk. –Xoid M•T•FU! 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Keep - I like it. Adds a bit of realism to things. --Icefox2k 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  52. Keep - YOU CANT WORK ON BARRICADES IF YOU'RE BEING EATEN ALIVE --DinkyDao 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill: Minor Rework See talk page in ust a minute. --SirensT RR 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. OVERPOWERED X 10 Good lord this is overpowered! Do you know how frequently zombies break into buildings during a siege? If 3 zombies enter a building with 10 survivors it might take a few hours before they can all be cleared out. If the barricades are down those zombies will be replaced faster than they can be felled. Also imagine this. 5 zombies metagame to break into a building simultaneously. Once inside they just wait for survivors to kill them. As soon as one dies and is dumped he stands up outside, goes back into the unbarricadable building and completely undoes the survivors work for 7AP. Any break in, even a small one, would spell doom for any building. And breaking into a building ain't hard. Two zombies can break down any level of barricades. Also, note that in pretty much any zombie movie the first thing survivors do is barricade a building so more zombies can't enter, so it's against genre too. --Jon Pyre 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Unrealistic - You are suggesting that I couldnt work on a barricade due to a SINGLE zombie while other people shoot it's arms, legs, and head(s) off? To hell with that! At leat make it like so once 10 zombies enter a building, that would be understandable. --Nimble Zombie 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Not ONLY is this overpowered (not to mention ZERGING), but this is better AND in Peer Review. A barricading survivor has a choice, let the zombie get some hits in while trying to barricade or deal with the zombie first. Why should they NOT be allowed that choice, especially in a life or death situation where they best tactical advantage is to not let more of the enemy inside. If your issue is with malls, make malls less "powerful" or "fortress like" (get people to spread out). Times may change, but this IS not one of those times. WHAT about the game has changed to introduce something THIS overpowered?--Pesatyel 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    The stats page?--Gage 03:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Wait wait...how is sthis zerging again? --SirensT RR 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Non author RE struck. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    And THAT is enough to introduce something THIS overpowered? I'm sure you've been playing awhile and would, thus KNOW it has ALWAYS been that way. I REALLY don't believe your considering the ramifications of this suggestion. Also your "stats page" arguement DOESN'T counter any of the other stuff I said.--Pesatyel 09:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Way overpowered. Something needs to be done about the situation, but not this... not this -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 05:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Would you post your ideas on the talk page?--Gage 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Why the hell did you ask me to post on the talk page if all you were going to respond to was the frigging flames? Way to meta-game the suggestions page though, kudos -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't flame you. I didn't flame anyone. Also, I don't know I can "metagame" something that is in fact in the metagame... but whatever.--Gage 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - So a single zombie could potentially hold a building? --Wikidead 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Not if someone comes and headshots him...--Gage 07:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - I see a lot of people who don't usually bother to vote have come out of the woodwork for this one, so it'll probably pass. For me, it's a total game breaker. I think Gage is just bored of Urban Dead - so now he wants to break it. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - As Pesatyel --SporeSore 14:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - I wouldn't like it if you changed it, but it is way overpowered right now and there is no way I would support it. SuperMario24 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - Would encourage zerging, and it wouldn't let survivors hold a building. The odd thing is it would encourage zombies who do break in to not attack the survivors, since their AP would be better spent if they waited to be killed, stood up and came back inside. IMO, the flavour for zombies to break in then wait patiently for their zombie brethren to arrive rather than eating the tasty harmanz is even more strange than people barricading before killing. --Toejam 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Edit - What are survivors supposed to do when zombies break in? They can't barricade, if they run away all the other survivors will get eaten, and there's no point in fighting zombies if they can just stand up and walk back in straight away. --Toejam 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. kill - Ransack. 'nuff said. - BzAli 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. kill but only just! As presented this is just too powerfull. However if instead every zombie present reduced the chance to barricade by say 2% and every zombie also automaticaly reduced the maximum barricade level by 1 while still standing then that would be an undoubted keep for me! Sure this would not really matter in most cases but it could make the mall a lot less pleasant to be in!--Honestmistake 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill - Hellz no. This would mean doom to survivors. Protomorph 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Kill - No.--Jattern3434 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Kill - I would be for this IF you could still barricade up to at least LB. If zombies were attacking MY home, even if one got in, the first thing I'd do is shut the door and push something against it. Then I'd deal with the one that got in, and then if I survived I'd improve the barricades. Kudos for getting everyone and their mother to vote on this though. --Uncle Bill 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Kill - as per Jon Pyre; 7AP per Zed vs. 11AP per survivor in active combat? Use Ransack instead or make a more logistical suggestion (reduction of barricade rates, for one) --Karlsbad 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Kill - A little overpowered. Change it so either you can't barricade above QS or you can't barricade with 5 or more Zs inside.--Gm0n3y 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Kill - Too powerful - a killed zed can simply stand up and walk back in at full health. Ten zombies would be able to take over any building at will, against any number of survivors. Dst3313 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Voting has finished (2 weeks) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 09:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - See discussion page.--J Muller 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Stops a tiny step short of asking for complete barricades removal. Chicken! Bluetigers 05:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Charlie Echo November Tango Alpha Uniform Romeo Sierra! - How many times does it have to be said? DON'T RUTTIN' MESS WITH BARRICADES! This is overpowered, survivor-nerfing "WTF CENTAURS WITH LASER-GUIDED MISSILE LAUNCHERS AND ATOMIC BOMB-CARRYCING CYBORG MIDGET ZOMBIES"-class spam. --Sgt. John TaggartUNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ! 13:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam - It's called "Ransack." -Mark 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spam - Yes, it is called "Ransack". --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Spam - I know this one! Read the suggestion dos and do nots! Do not mess with barricades! Omglol but I am Gage and I don't abide by the rules I RIGOROUSLY SPAM OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR BREAKING AS FAST AS I CAN TYPE --Gene Splicer 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Spam - --Deras 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Votes must provide justification.--Gage 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Spam -John Pyre makes several good points. and also, hmm... say, what do we have ransack for? if a zombie with ransack makes it into a building with even 1AP left and enough HP to use it, no barricadeing till all the zeds are gone. --AlexanderRM 8:41 PM, 4 Febuary 2007 (EST)

FAK Either Cures Infection or Heal, Not Both

Timestamp: ShadowScope 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: FAKs
Description: Listen, getting Infected is like getting licked by a puppy. Painful, but not really.

Infection is somewhat balanced, but there needs to be some benieft for zombies to start infections, so that they can be happy. How can one make infection better without overcomplicating it?

And Peastyl came up an idea. You use a FAK, and then you heal your Infection, and that's it. After that, you can then search for FAKs to heal your HP.

RP reason? Well, FAKs has lots of tools of the trade (bandages and what-not) to heal people. If you are hurt, you use the FAK to heal you. But if you are infected, you have to use all those tools not to heal the shotgun wound, but to heal the greater Infection wound (since it would be more lethal to you in the long-term).

How much does it cost to gain a FAK? I'm guessing 6 AP. How much does it cost to Infect? Only 4. Congrats, you got a Surivior to lose 2 AP, and zombies can feel better that their infections actually hurt suriviors. If you are terribly wounded, just find ANOTHER FAK to heal you, and no need to worry about the fear that you are going to lose HP...your Infection is over and all you have to do is spend enough AP to aquire the FAKs needed to surivie.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Better idea than making a new item like a vaccine -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - I think he meant puppy bites. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. keep i would go further but it wouldn't pass (looks like this won't either but...) As for the arguements that Infectious bite is not underpowered; I just don't beleive them! Every zombie with it attacks for tangle then bites for infection then goes back to claw but its not because infection rocks its because its better than nothing! And if anyone mentions "Oh but you do get 4hps as well!" i will scream. In over a year with a maxed out rotter i have gained HPs twice! big friggin Woo. Come on survivors have the balls to make this game scary again!!!--Honestmistake 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. --ExplodingFerret 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. keep When I've been stuck as a zed, I've found biting to be basically worthless, even with the combat skills maxed. Claws are the only thing worth attacking with as a Zed currently. Dst3313 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill The power of infection isn't that it drains AP but that it forces the survivor to stop fighting zombies and instead worry about not dying. --Jon Pyre 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Getting licked by a puppy is painful?-Rocker820 05:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill Infections are plenty hurtful, especially in beseiged neighborhoods. Besides, I think that things should remain as is just because of your point that the FAK has a lot of tools in it. If you're dressing a wound, you'd obviously treat for an infection if you saw one, and probably put antiseptic on anyway just to prevent one from starting up.CatEar Alucard 06:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Enough with hindering FAKs. Think more productive ways to improve the game. --Wikidead 06:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I don't see a problem with how things work right now.--Gage 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - see all the things I've said to everyone else who wanders in here and proclaims that the infectious bite is underpowered - when actually it isn't. At all. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. You dress your wound to prevent the infection from...continuing infecting, then you use the rest to patch up other injuries. -Mark 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - But it's better than the antiviral vaccine suggestion. - BzAli 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - The tools to cure an infection are much different than what is required to treat an injury. So FAKs clearly contain both, and trying to make it only able to do one would require the ridiculous assumption that each FAK only had anti-infection-stuff or only anti-injury-stuff and you don't know which it is until you use it, at which point it miraculously turns out to be what you needed. Furthermore, what if an infected survivor has only a couple HP left and there are active zombies around? They might want to heal the damage instead of cure the infection so that they could potentially survive long enough to get another FAK to cure their infection if they happen to be attacked. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - No, I just don't like it. Infections and FAKS are fine as they are. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill I'am not convinced. I think infection/curing infection is fine as it is, also for RP terms to cure an infection you need to heal the infected wound as well. --Matt 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Away with the wirecutters

Author Removed: Found to be a Dupe of this suggestion. Too bad. -- ρsych°LychεεELT 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spread Infection

Timestamp: J Muller 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: So I've been recently contemplating the issue of zombies being less fun to play than survivors, and the problem I've encountered is that it's difficult to find something that makes playing zombies more fun to a degree higher than it makes playing survivors harder. However, I think I may have come up with something agreeable to both sides.

New Skill: Spread Infection (Cost: 100XP) (Prerequisite: Infectious Bite, Neck Lurch)

Any zombie with this skill can use it on a building lower than EHB. By using it, they have a 30% chance to hit on the building. If they hit, there is a 50% chance to infect the last active survivor inside. If that survivor is already infected, it targets the next most active, and so on down the line. This meaning that the survivors who are barricading in a building will put themselves at risk of being infected, meaning they'll need to search for FAKs and heal themselves instead of cading, or take damage while they cade. I hope this will solve some of the issues with cading, and I don't think it'll nerf survivors unduly. Thank you for voting.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - --J Muller 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep I had a similar idea just a few hours ago. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill I don't think it's realistic to infect someone through barricades. --Jon Pyre 05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    There have to be holes in the cades somewhere. They're not reaching in and biting people, they're spreading infection disease in liquid form. Kind of like spitting poison. Or projectile vomiting. Whichever you prefer.--J Muller 06:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re If it doesn't break the skin I don't think it's a problem. Plus, I don't zombies should get attacks that can't be defended against. --Jon Pyre 07:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - After reading the title of this suggestion, for a moment, I thought you were suggesting some way for survivors to catch infections from other survivors. What a bummer... --Wikidead 07:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - what, is everyone on some kind of special sauce today? Stop eating the 'shrooms, people! (No attacking through 'cades, thanks.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - For me, it's not infecting loads of people that makes playing as a zombie fun, it's eating harman brainz. That's because when you infect someone, you never get to see the results. I'm glad you're trying, J Muller, to make zombies more fun, but, sadly, this isn't the way to do it. -Cutlet 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. As all who killed. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Urgh.. I can spot heaps of holes in this one. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - No matter how hard I try, I simply can not imagine the undead spitting or poo-flinging over a barricade. Perhaps make it an Exploding Zombie suggestion on the Humorous Suggestions page. When the zombie explodes chunks of flesh and blood fly over the cades into the building spreading infection. I promise to vote funny.--SporeSore 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Attacking through barricades=bad. What if there are no FAKs in the building and no nearby buildings with them? --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Exploding zombies! Yay! But really -- attacking through barricades is a retarded concept. --ExplodingFerret 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Catch My Disease

Timestamp: Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Thing.
Scope: Infected survivors.
Description: Okay, been toying with this for an hour, and came to this. I think interacting with (attacking, healing, hugging..) infected survivors should give you a 5-10% chance to contract the infection from them. Killing an infected survivor could give a higher chance like 10-15%. Helps zeds infect more people, and helps the nearly dead, infected survivors by making them an unattractive target for PKers. Healers? Well, healing makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it's as exciting as reading. If you knew you might get the infection, a little bit of danger in a boring job. Risk is what makes UD fun.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - Your spam better be salted. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Great suggestion. Makes it more fun. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 07:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill Why present random penalties against healers? --Jon Pyre 07:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. I...kinda like it, but this doesn't help zombies at all.--Pesatyel 09:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - This needs work. For example, it shouldn't happen in a powered hospital/infirmary because of the sterile environment. There should be less chance when healing someone - but then what other close contact is there? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Work on it. FAK's would have latex gloves to avoid infection? Barricading too close to an infected survivor could do it? Killing, esp. when mellee weapons are used? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - A spreading infection would be fun, but it really doesn't help anybody very much. Still, you did give me an uncontrollable urge to make a "hugging" suggestion. -Cutlet 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Needs work. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - I don't think that current game mechanics would work well with this suggestion. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 13:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Infection is achieved with a bite, not touch. Not to say they couldn't catch it through the blood, but the kit probably includes gloves. SuperMario24 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - How would shooting someone give you an infection? More importantly, how would an infection that the zombies can only transmit through bites and not hands (implying it is only fluid-borne) be transmitted by survivors' touch. I guarantee you that a corpse is more virulent than a sick survivor. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. I like the general idea of having the infection occasionally mutate into a communicable form, causing mini outbreaks in the game, but liking it doesn't make it reasonable. Any suggestion that will cause survivor-friendly people to purposely not heal infected survivors is going to buff zombies through the roof. --ExplodingFerret 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - Newbie healers have it bad enough. Why hurt the humanitarians? --Wikidead 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill - Let's not, for reasons stated by people above me.--J Muller 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill - What, shooting someone gives you a chance to be infected? Perhaps if it only applied to users who had less than a certain amount of HP (representing the problem of fluids from the attack coming into contact with their wounds), and had a much, much lower chance when using firearms. Having a chance to be infected if you move an infected corpse out of a building would make perfect sense, however - it's a pity that that is not one of the features of this suggestion. --Saluton 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Feeding Drag Newbie Aid Subskill: Feeding Frenzy

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 08:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Feeding Drag is in part an altruistic skill for advanced zombies to aid newbie zombies. Feeding Frenzy would be a Feeding Drag subskill to allow advanced players to aid newbies even further.

When a zombie with Feeding Frenzy drags a survivor outside it knocks them down as well, making it easier for other zombies to bite them. The fallen survivor wouldn't be added to bodies just because they're down, they'd stay alive and in the survivor section as normal. We'd just italicize their name to signify that they aren't standing. If the survivor performs any action that stands them back up again.

A fallen survivor can't move out of the way as easily, making it easier for zombies to bite them. This doesn't really aid advanced zombies though, they're quick enough that their misses are usually from the survivor struggling rather than moving away in time. Instead this aids the slower, newer zombies.

Any zombie without Neck Lurch gains 10% accuracy against fallen survivors with the bite attack. Since Neck Lurch provides 10% accuracy all the time, not just against survivors dragged outside, newbies would still want to eventually give up the bonus and get neck lurch instead.

Much like the knife was recently upgraded to have a purpose as a newbie weapon this would give the bite attack an additional non-infectious purpose as a newbie attack against survivors that have been dragged outside.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Makes bite.. more bitey. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 08:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Author Keep Aids newbies and gives the bite attack a purpose even if the survivor is already infected. And provides something interesting for the zombies when they could use a new tactic to liven things up. --Jon Pyre 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - hurrah - a good suggestion. (I'd call 'em "stunned", not fallen over, but that's just me.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Stunned is also good. --Jon Pyre 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - An interesting adaptation. I like -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Giving zombies interesting and useful things to do is always good. -Cutlet 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. As all who keeped. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Love It!--Captain911 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Good idea, certainly thought out. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 13:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - I salute you sir --Ashadoa 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Mikey likes it!--SporeSore 14:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - It will help newbie zombies, but is not overpowered. SuperMario24 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Lovely - An excellent idea.--Lachryma☭ 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Sure - Seems like a skill I'd buy. I might even start a new zed just for fun if other's had this skill. --Swiers X:00 17:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - I don't particularly like the way it is worded but I like the idea. --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. keep I like this and have been thinking something vaguely similar. Just in case of a sudden rush of complainers a good my version would be to allow the draggers tangling grasp to remain active for other zeds, that is if the dragger stays outside the next zed to attack his victim gets the bonus and provided he hits keeps it! in other words the dragger 'donates' feeding drag to the next zed without it!--Honestmistake 19:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep - Makes perfect sense to me. --Mayor Fitting 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - --Deras 20:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Stun/daze. --ExplodingFerret 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Bandwagon --Karloth Vois RR 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Keep - we like. -Bullgod 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Question If a survivor is "knocked down" does he have to spend AP to "stand up?"--Pesatyel 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re By performing any action they automatically stand back up. So they would have to spend AP to stand, but that AP would be spent in the purpose of something else. Probably going back inside if they come back before dying. --Jon Pyre 06:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Keep - --J Muller 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Keep - Helping other people out=fun. --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Use for Fuel Cans + Flares: Pyromanic Special

Timestamp: Valore 09:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Improvement (Additional Use for Fuel Cans) Addition of item (Fire Extinguisher, Fire Suit Maybe).
Scope: Survivor Option.
Description: Basically, this adds the ability to use fuel cans and flares together in order to start a fire, which works as follows:

Step 1: Douse an area with fuel, by using a fuel can. Step 2: Fire off a flare.

Using the fuel can in an area that a fuel can has not yet been used at:

Costs 3AP: You douse the area with petrol from your fuel can. Area description has the following line added to it: The stench of gasoline fills the air. A flare would probably set off quite a conflagration.

If a fuel can has already been used in the area, the following message is displayed, after user loses 1AP:

More gas would probably produce deadly fumes.

Fuel not ignited within one tick over evaporates, as suggested below by HonestMistake.

If a fuel can is used in an area that is currently on fire, the following message is displayed:

It would be fair to say affairs are heating up enough as it is.

When a flare is used in an area doused with fuel, a high or guaranteed chance (discuss) the following occurs:

Your flare strikes a particularly large patch of gas. The whole area ignites into a roaring conflagration.

Effects of an area being on fire: Entering the area has the following effects:

This message is displayed in the area description: This area is on fire. Staying here would not prove conducive to continuous survival.

For each AP spent by a SURVIVOR in an area that is currently on fire, that survivor loses 3hp. For each AP spent by a ZOMBIE in an area that is currently on fire, that zombie loses 1hp. Zombies that RISE in an area currently on fire: Use 5 more AP to rise

Every tick over with a fire burning in a barricaded area, barricades in the area have a chance of being weakened by 1 level.

Every AP tick over, fires have a chance of BURNING OUT. I am currently in favour of having the percentage chance at about 60-80%, as suggested below.

In addition to BURNING OUT, fires also can be SPREAD to adjacent squares by zombies.

Fires have a chance of being SPREAD by zombies. Zombies attacking a barricade in an area on fire have a chance of causing a fire to spread to the building/area they are assaulting.

Fires can be EXTINGUISHED by survivors, at a cost of 10AP, with a fixed chance of succeeding, possibly affected by the number of survivors in an area. Fires that are EXTINGUISHED automatically burn out on the next AP tick over, and have no chance of spreading. Firemen possess the FIRE MANAGEMENT civilian skill(wow, however did they learn that…) which halves the AP cost to attempt EXTINGUISHING a fire.

Additionally, consideration could be put into implementing a new item, the FIRE EXTINGUISHER, which can be used to either immediately put out or raise the chances of putting out a fire.

Fire Extinguisher Item: Found where/%:

As Fire Axes, but at half chance

Takes up 2 inventory slots

Uses: Either increases the chance of putting out a fire, or puts out a fire automatically. Expended after one use.

As well as a:

Fire Suit Item: Found where/%: As fire stations, 1%

Takes up 1 inventory slot

Reduces fire damage by 1, minimum 1.

Uses: Possible utilization by specialized ‘fire break’ team of humans who emerge in zombie infested burning areas to finish off burning zombies. Also useful for zombies, who intend to spend time Mrhing in fire choke points, pawing at barricades.

Possible problems:

Server drain My solution: Utilising already in place ‘AP tick overs’ to determine the length of a fire’s life. Also, with the current in place ‘ransacked’ conditions for rooms, adding an ‘on fire’ flag should not be too hard.

Griefer Exploitation: I don’t fancy trying to defend Caiger while some idiot griefer proceeds to set the inside on fire making me lose 2hp every time I try to shore up barricades, along with damaging the barricades I already have up. My solution: I’ve addressed this problem by making it a lot easier to extinguish fires than it is to start them, especially when considering the AP required finding the items necessary for a fire.

Area Effect: (Technically) This is technically an area effect, insofar as it has the potential to cause damage over a wide area/multiple players. However, I believe this is balanced by both the ability for fires to be put out, as well as the random natures of fires going out as well as spreading. Though Survivors have more control per se over a fire, the penalties to zombies as a result of fire are less severe. This ‘severity balance’ or the difference in how inconvenient a fire is to once side as compared to the other, can be discussed and adjusted accordingly. I am considering stiffer damage/penalties to humans, since there remains the potential for enough survivors defending a small area, i.e. fort gate, to keep a fire perpetually burning. Conversely, zombies that die from fire simply spend an additional AP standing back up. Big deal, unless the ‘ap cost for rising in a currently on fire area’ is implemented.

Conclusions: I came up with this concept thinking about what would provide survivors who were looking to defend a fortified location, e.g. a fort with more strategic options, since I’ve always liked ‘backs to the wall’ scenarios. However, since I play a zombie character, I also considered various things, such as whether these would make zombies less fun to play. The result you can see above. A strategic fire, only available to humans with the right resources, and one that once started, quickly moves beyond their control. I included fire extinguishers both to aid against griefers, as well as give humans the ability to take precautions against unexpected fire breakouts. Zombies, though not able to control fires, are less affected by them, and I’m sure will be dancing in their undead booties at the sight of not so smart and not so prepared humans roasting in their own stupidity. Imagine a zombie barricade breakthrough at the same time a fire accidentally spreads to a human barricade! Or a select fire team timing fire runs to perfection, pausing to nick outside barricaded areas to pick off burnt zombies…

Thank you for your reading time and voting!

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Despite the fact this will be spaminated, I like it. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 09:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - This kind of suggestion would make me want to play survivors again. I mean, what's an apocalypse withough a bunch of raging fires? The one thing I don't like is the barricade damage. It's potentially very powerful, and could completely destroy a building's defenses quite quickly. If you really want the barricade damage, make a low % chance (5-10) at destroying 1 barricade level. -Cutlet 10:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - FIRE BAD! Er, I mean . . . . FIRE GOOD! Yeah, that's the ticket! *lights the suggestion on fire* --Sgt. John TaggartUNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ! 14:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. keep a few suggestions though; make it use more than one can of gas with each one causing 1 damage per AP with a max of 3 damage per AP. Make spilt but unlit gas automaticaly evaporate on the tick over. Make it only effect barricade actions (ie build or attack) and make the barricade damage 1 full level each tick out plus 10% per fuel can of a second full level. Lastly make the chance to burn out something like 75% or more per tick out. I like it as is but i think including at least a few of these may persuade some voters not to SPAM.--Honestmistake 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Burn baby burn! - My firefighter needs something to do, so I vote yes. A couple of considerations in case this doesn't make it through. Don't make fires too easy to spread, and let burning zombies do extra damage but take a slow burn (sort of like infection, but probably slower.) --Uncle Bill 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Author - Keep - I've added some alterations, and I believe that from the kill votes its received, people are more put off by the length of the suggestion rather than the substance. I really do ask if you have any criticisms to let me know what they are in more detail, rather than 'its too long/complicated'. Thanks! --Valore 09:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Cautious Keep - I'm a little worried, but the idea intrigues me nonetheless. And if it were implemented, I'm sure Kevan would change it to ensure that it wouldn't be too powerful. --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I know there are a heap of under-employed firefighters in Malton, but can we please not set the whole town ablaze just to give them something to do -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Why not? Those bastards dont have anything better to do than fireaxe people anyway! On a serious note, as I mentioned above, actually starting a fire isn't that easy, with the need to first find a fuel can, as well as a flare. Also, I have yet to decide the percentage chance a fire burns out. If I placed it at 60/40 to burn out, the AP cost required to 'set the whole town ablaze' would make it quite impossible. --Valore 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      Re - There are players out there, who would search for a week, stocking up on fuel cans and flares, then go to an area and set every building alight in order to grief their enemies. It would also be used outside mall sieges to weaken the zombies as they were standing/bashing barricades (and they've no way of putting it out). And even if it was feasible, the rate of spread/persistence needs to be worked out before voting here -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Which is why I proposed that flares did not have a 100% chance of starting a fire. In the case of griefers, sure, they could spend a week maxing out (lets say 25/25 flares and tanks) If we had a 30% chance of a flare starting a fire, the griefer would realistically start 7 fires, remembering they need AP to both douse and fire off a flare, and move to a new location to start a new fire. Also, yes, it would be used to weaken zombies in mall sieges, but at the same time, you have to consider that the damage to the zombies who drop dead and stand up with ankle grab means they are penalised a mere 1ap, or 25hp, depending on which penalty people find more appealing. AND LASTLY, the MFD would finally be back to having a job! I believe that your argument has a lot of merit, the percentages do need to be worked out, but instead of a pure kill vote, I would like you to consider for a moment perhaps the viability of having a real FD dealing with these issues in game, albeit in a balanced way ensuring people who set fires to grief are not able to do so to a game breaking extent.--Valore 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill As much as the idea of self-perpetuating area of effect infernos that empower griefers and PKers appeals to me I'm going to have to vote kill. --Jon Pyre 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - As above, and also, fires would be set as having a higher percentage chance of being extinguished than spreading. If a griefer were to set a fire, it would most be quickly extinguished, or go out on its own, not turn Malton into Pompeii. Also, how would it 'empower Pkers?' unless you're daft enough to stand in a burning area and search for items, you just lose 3 hp at most exiting the area. I should also put down the idea of 'self perpetuating' as well, the percentages aren't going to make the fires akin to rabbits breeding. --Valore 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      Re Preventing people from using a building without losing 3hp a turn unless someone has an item that requires 20AP to find (assuming you can because the fire station isn't set on fire) is not balance. --Jon Pyre 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Hmm...fire station on fire, that does seem somewhat ironic. But, to reply to that, you dont NEED the 20ap to douse the fire. Anyone can extinguish fires as stated above, firefighters have a higher chance in doing so, and fire extinguishers merely ensure 100% a fire is put out.--Valore 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yea, sure. Let's burn Malton to the ground! What inspired you to make this suggestion? Kip from the Roomies Web Comic??? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Just a few points, the fires won't burn Malton to the ground, and they can be put out. As for why I made this suggestion, I mentioned it above, and you would have read it in the last paragraph, which would have been nice if you wanted to vote kill. --Valore 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - There are Fire and Molotov suggestions already in Peer Reviewed. This offers nothing better. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Funt. The other suggestions aren't as complicated and the silly balancing act stuff. --ExplodingFerret 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - I'll work on it. I do agree its complicated, but maybe it'd be nice if you remembered its complicated because things that aren't usually mean its a bonus or penalty for one side. With my suggestion, I tried to think of something that would be useful for both sides depending on how it was managed. --Valore 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - It's up to you to prevent forest fires. Or building fires, in this case. Griefers and pyromanics would love this suggestion. --Wikidead 00:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Griefers will exist no matter what happens. I never agreed with the idea that 'oh, a griefer would love it, we can't do that'. Fair enough, if fires were easy to start and destructive, and guaranteed, costing more AP to stop than start, I'd agree with the griefer potential. However, as I already stated above, its not. It'd be nice if you could take a look at the mechanics again before voting kill. --Valore 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Funt. Also, there is NO reason the fire extinguisher should be a weapon (though I would have made it use the same mechanics as the spray can). Oh and REing every (or nearly very) against vote can be considered vandalism.--Pesatyel 04:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    *note* while over use of the RE can be seen as vandalism this clearly is not as each addresses a different point/concern!--Honestmistake 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Overcomplicated.--J Muller 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Changed after voting I think he actually stated that it was changed after voting. also change goes in the kill section, not keep. --AlexanderRM 9:09 PM 4 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Hugging

Removed as humorous. Do it again and I'll consider it vandalism.--Gage 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Time Out!

Author Removed: Found to be a Dupe of this: Mark Inactive Contacts --SirensT RR 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/31st-Jan-2007&oldid=590385"