Suggestions/4th-Feb-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

VOTING ENDED: 18th-Feb-2006

Metabolism

Spaminated with 3 spam votes. There is no such a thing as free lunch here. --hagnat 00:36, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Drop of Blood

Timestamp: 02:32, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill can only be activated when zombie turns level 10, has aquired Grab, and acquired neck lurch. When a zombie has killed a survivor, he/she will gain 2 ap (Negotiable on how much, want to see if this survives before I try to think what number would be reasonable. Remember that this is an idea, and should be voted spam if it shouldn't be on at all, if it looks overpowered or overweaken, just put which one so I can change it).

Edited: Lowered the amount gained to 2 based on popular demands

Votes
Votes here

  1. Abstain Actually, authors comment mostly, but I don't want to have my comment be in the suggestion. I do think that this would be a devils advocate type of skill, so that while survivor's head shot takes ap, drop of blood regains ap (but smaller so it won't be too much of an ap gain). Do I have a problem with headshot? No! But still, I do believe a zombie should have some type of elite skill. --Shadow213 02:32, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Interesting, but consider the potential for abuse. We actually designate a "kill" zombie on some days, to make all the fatal blows. Such a zombie could end up with 40 or more extra AP on a really good day. As interesting as that might be, I think it's probably a bit unbalanced. --John Ember 02:36, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I have yet to see the day when zombies cooperate that well. (Especially if you look at the mall tour how loosely planned it is) --Shadow213 16:32, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill Massively overpowered, messes with AP worse than my energy drink suggestions, and I'll leave it to others to point out all the other flaws. AllStarZ 02:38, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - No, sorry, I will never vote on something that allows AP gain on a massive scale. In seiges this allows people to pick off the weakest survivors, over and over again.. --Cabbage cookies 02:41, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Weakest? Can you be more specific. The n00b survivors have 50 hp while the expert survivors would possibly have 60 hp. And in terms of weakest in health wise I still don't understand. Don't zombies attack the weakest person because they want ez exp? --Shadow213 16:32, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam - Nope. SHouldnt be at all. Nothing should restore AP. Especially a repeatable act. --Jak Rhee 02:49, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I disagree with Jak, I think AP should be able to be restored. And I disagree with you, it's a bad idea.--Uncle Willy 02:59, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Massively overpowered, completely unbalanced. --TheTeeHeeMonster 03:04, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment I actually suggested something along these lines a while back which I gave the joke placeholder title of "Harman Hunter". It was pretty much the same as this except it restored 5AP instead of 4. I don't feel like voting Dupe, or really voting at all on this one. It's not that overpowered, I'm just not sure it's a good idea anymore. --Jon Pyre 03:12, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I've said it many, many times before: don't mess with AP. Bentley Foss 03:54, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam I say it all the time dont mess with AP.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 04:30, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Kevan said it once of the time, "There will eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same." and that 1 time is good enough for me. --Shadow213 17:30, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - A zombie with 10 or more zombie skills can expect to make two kills a day, so a bonus of 8 AP would be a bit much. Lower it to 2 and I'd say Keep. --Dickie Fux 04:33, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - neat idea. ericblinsley 04:33, 4 Fed 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - This is too strong. In a good siege my zombie character can pick off 3 maybe 4 wounded survivors, an extra 12 to 16 AP for me and other high level zombies would spell doom for any survivors. --CPQD 06:15, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Most of the time, unless your in groups, you will only see 1 or 2 people. Also, unless you've wounded the survivor (in groups it's harder since groups attack 1 person and individual you hardly ever see a wounded survivor) it will be unlikely that you see anything that would be low.--Shadow213 16:32, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - What Bentley said. Velkrin 06:37, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - I have the same qualms as the others --KWild 10:01, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - You know, I'm going to laugh at all of you "don't mess with AP" guys when Kevan actually does introduce those skills and items. Oh, and what about Headshot? That messes with AP. But it's okay? As for the idea, I like the concept, just think the number is too high, maybe only one or two AP. To CPQD, zombies are supposed to spell DOOM to survivors. By the way, I do play a survivor. --Pinpoint 15:45, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - To be fair I still said dont mess with AP when the headshot= AP came up. --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 07:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill -zombies are already for more powerful in combat then survivors, and pinpoint, It's game it has two sides that need to be balanced, not one side pummeled into oblivion by the other. wether it is zombies or survivors, both side are to have fun. And think, your version of fun isn't evertbodies version of fun. so claiming that for a survivor zombies need to spell DOOM might be fun for the majority of main zombie players most main survior players don't agree. and thus we need to find middle ground.--Vista 17:27, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - With judicious monitoring of survivors HP and picking out the weak ones, my paid-for zombie would never run out of AP! --WibbleBRAINS 17:52, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - (I apologize in advance but...) Get Real! The average kill a zombie is usually around 3 injured people, or even worse, 1 healthy person a day. It is Literally Impossible to get infinite ap by killing people. It takes (taking in if grab is on all but 1) 28 ap to kill 1 person at full health if the person could never get out of a grab with it's best attack. For people at 15 hp, 9 ap. So far, that's the lowest I have just founded a survivors health at. Now if you could kill infinite people in only 2 hits each, then tell me what are you smoking. --Shadow213 21:04, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Aside from this being a little too much in AP bonus granted - I really think the next person to suggest an AP raising something or other, would do well to do one for Zombies and one for Humans in the same suggestion. Even if they are good, the ones catered to one side or the other seem to be attracting some kill votes (more so on the last one, than on this one) solely because they are for the other side and not for theirs. And honestly, someone pointed out in one of the last suggestions of this nature hit the page - exactly where Kevan had said he was intending to make AP adjustments available to characters, but that he hadn't decided on a good way to do it yet. A little help from suggestions is not bad. Give the man ideas where he might need it, and let him decide if he thinks the idea should be in or not (unless the idea is bad in mechanics and deserves to be killed, of course).--Blahblahblah 18:35, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep If I voted on this before could someone remove this vote and palce it over my last one, I could not see if I voted or not. - --ramby- Part of my talk page]]] 20:56, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - As long as it only provides a gain of 1 or 2 AP, then this makes for a great, balanced skill. --Reverend Loki 23:03, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep --Lord Evans 07:10, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 5 Keep, 13 Kill, 2 Spam --20:53, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Look Around

Timestamp: 02:47, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Interface simplification
Scope: Survivors, possibly Zombies
Description: Message spam is becoming more and more of a problem. Between chatter, groans, flares, kills and generator busts the Urban Dead UI can fill up pretty fast. However, this is all important information; and there's probably even more information that could be added if it weren't for the problem of reader fatigue. I'd like to propose that the Search button take on a second function.

In addition to searching the building for useful items, hitting Search would also reveal details about activity in the vicinity that wouldn't otherwise make the cut. For example, it could list info about who placed or fueled a generator while you were there, or who added to the barricades. It could list persons who recently entered or left the building. The point is simply to provide a place for those additional details that folks might like to know, without forcing everyone in the building to read through even more text.

If this were implemented, it might be advisable to change the Search button text to "Look Around" or "Inspect the Area."

Votes

  1. Kill I really dont feel Message Spam is as bad as people act like it is... and I'm in Caiger Mall. --Jak Rhee 02:49, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill Likewise reasons as Jak Rhee. And I'm using IE when I play UD as well, for the record. --MorthBabid 02:53, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I'm one of the hundreds of zombies OUTSIDE of Caiger mall and im playing on internet explorer, the mass messages arent so bad. I kind of just scroll past them, look at the most recent one(s). And use my day's AP. I DO NOT sit there and moan about how many messages are there.--Uncle Willy 03:02, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill I agree Jak. People make a big deal about "spam" but honestly, you can skip by it in a second and its gone with a click. I don't want to have to spend AP just for that mostly unimportant but nice to have stuff. --Jon Pyre 03:08, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - They all pretty much beat me to it. Bentley Foss 03:55, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I dislike the idea of seeing actions done in the past by searching in the present... It's just weird. I liked my version better (shameless plug, but then you can't vote on mine anymore, it's in the old undecided bin): http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Undecided_Suggestions#Character-perceived_event_page --McArrowni 04:20, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I just have a shortcut to map.cgi, which refreshes without using any AP and without duplicating the previous action. Reviewing the previous events might be handy, but if you missed them the first time around then that's not a game issue. --Slavedriver 16:43, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - you have one page of info when you start, that info leaves the screen after one click. learn to live with it.--Vista 17:30, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - It seems rather pointless. -- C tiger 18:19, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I agree with those above - I have a zed at Caiger and yeah, there are a lot of messages, but just scroll through them and get on with it. No need to complicate things. --Eliazar Foy 03:13, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 0 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 Spam --20:51, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Fumble Those Doors Open, Already

Timestamp: 04:01, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Minor addition that should already be in the game
Scope: Zombies who open doors
Description: I just realized that zombies don't leave doors open when they exit buildings. It only makes sense that they should leave them open when they both enter and leave, y'know?

This is a simple suggestion: zombies exiting a barricade-free building with the "Leave Building" button will leave the doors open, just as they would ("fumble the door open, and leaving it ajar...") if they entered.

Votes

  1. Keep they do leave them open. sorry miss read.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 04:32, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Sounds about right to me. If I'm reading this right then an unbarricaded room will have its doors opened if a zombie walks out. Would this definitely require Memories of Life, however? -- Amazing 04:33, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - If they can open them from outside, it makes sense they can open them from inside. --Dickie Fux 04:35, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Adds an extra AP for the survivors to secure a building, I'm all for it. --CPQD 06:24, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep As long as it required Memories of Life and the building isn't barricaded. --Jon Pyre 07:21, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep — But I think there ought to be an analog for survivors who want to close the doors from the outside. 'S only fair. Bartle 08:30, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - as already said above. Must have MoL, no cades. --hagnat 10:13, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I like it as is, but i would also wish to have this modified to include an "open doors" button when inside, so zombies who are inside can open the doors for those outside without having to walk outside. It seems a little silly for them to have to walk out to open the doors for others, then walk back in to feed. --Grim s 10:51, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - After all why would a zombie bother to close the doors in the first place? Good idea. --ZedKilla
  10. Keep - Logical, ftw. --Mikm 13:00, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Yep like the idea, nice and simple - Jedaz 13:09, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep --McArrowni 14:37, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Sensible. -- Andrew McM 16:09, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Those damn rude zombies, forgetting to close the door on their way out. For shame. --TheTeeHeeMonster 17:02, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - combine with Bartle's and Grim s's suggestions.--Vista 17:32, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Zombies close doors on the way out? hmph, who woulda thought?--Uncle Willy 17:33, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - I just experienced this problem the other day, took me all 50 AP to smash the barracades and just managed to step out and hide myself in a group with my last AP... Felt bad for all the fellow zombies I left locked inside. So make this change and I won't have to feel bad any more. --Terrgn33u 17:41, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - MoL required, or it should be assumed the zombie exited through an open window or something. If they don't know how to open doors in the first place, they shouldn't be able to open a door to leave the building.. otherwise a great idea. --Blahblahblah 17:54, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep Good --Kirk Howell 18:05, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - I just noticed this, it's really annoying! Someone closed the doors in a building which had been recently breached (probably the guy who I had just killed!) I didn't have the AP to go back in again after going out. I also support the idea of having an "open door" button.--The General 19:39, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Yeah, what they said. This seems pretty unanimous...--Arathen 22:00, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - as above. - Serpico 22:09, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Balanced, realistic and fits game mechanic, and damn near perfect. Yet I wouldn't be one bit surprised if some twit voted "Spam" just for the hell of it. Additionally, I would be in favor of a "Open the Doors" button while inside an unbarricaded building with doors shut as well. --Reverend Loki 23:06, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - I think it's a good idea. --Alli4000 00:31, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Just makes sense. -- Ju Ju Master 01:34, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 25 Keep, 0 Kill, 0 Spam - 05:11, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Single Out

Timestamp: 07:25, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A zombie with this skill may groan (point?) at a specific human or zombie of their choice, and everyone else in the room sees "A zombie groaned at [target]." - it'd give coordination for zombie sieges, allowing higher-level zombies to point out the biggest threats, and it'd be an easy way to add atmosphere, that it'd make zombies appear more intelligent, and lots of zombies groaning at the same survivor would freak them out. (This was posted to the forums somewhere by LittleLisa, although I can't find it again to give a link.)

Votes

  1. Kill Seems like it'd result in a lot of spam for the people that logged on after after the target was killed. Besides, zombies already can already see who's injured and attack them. --Jon Pyre 07:56, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: It's no different to speech (it would cost an AP, still). You can think of it as an improved Death Rattle that only works for player names. --Manq 08:26, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Zombies are stupid. Too much headshots made them this way. --hagnat 10:22, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
too many --Uncle Willy 17:44, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  1. Kill - lol, have to agree with Hagnat. I also agree about the spam it would create as Jon Pyre pointed out - Jedaz 13:11, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill While it would result in spam, we are not stupid! - --ramby 15:00, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - zombies are already way smarter in this game then flavor would allow. lets at least leave the intact that their better orginazation and coordination isn't through better in game mechanics, but because they worked harder at metagaming. Survivors should be the ones with better in game mechanics allowing coordination and orginazation because they are the ones who still have living brains.--Vista 17:38, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Zombies are like bears. They're not the smartest of creatures (no offense to bears, but its true) but they can still hunt and eat. If something bothers a bear, the bear can growl at it, so I think a zombie, like any animal, should be able to growl at something.--Uncle Willy 17:44, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    a bear growls in the direction of a group of humans, not spefically at alfred D Humward out of a 150 people. what you decribe is represented by feeding groan--Vista 17:58, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - It does make sense in the game, but frankly I think if coordinated zombie attacks are targeting specific humans (personally all I've seen is top of the list chaos) then that would probably just be done through metagaming. To me this just seems like the zombie equalvalent of the Cell Phone in that its really just a waste of AP. --Terrgn33u 17:46, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Seems like a waste of AP. I'd rather use that to let out a Feeding Groan, or try one last attack. Metagaming, or just viewing the people in the buildings profiles points out the threats without AP cost. --Blahblahblah 17:57, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - With a fair grasp of death rattle, it's already easy to single out one breather to get mobbed. - Serpico 22:11, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - What they all said. Bentley Foss 00:39, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 7 Kill, 0 Spam --20:50, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Roof Access

Timestamp: 08:42, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: survivors
Description: As it is right now, every mall is completely heavily barricaded. This action is a simple one; malls have roofs and roofs usually have a roof access door (a la Dawn of the Dead). So why can't survivors climb a nearby building (say an apartment building or some such) and use the roof access to enter, keeping the barricades intact? Zombies wouldn't be able to climb, and there can still be mall sieges between survivors and zombies. This improvement is mainly aimed at making the civilian class easier to level with, but it also adds flavor to the game. Its even in genre. Naturally a player could jump off the roof to kill themselves, but this can't really be abused in terms of large groups of players on the roof for three reasons.

1) If everyone goes to the roof, and zombies break into the mall, they could climb the stairs to the roof. (memories of life would be required)

2)Even though the players are safe from zombies, they have no way of earning XP (except player killing or healing.)so they'd HAVE to go outside eventually.

3)Because you would be jumping from a multilevel building to the roof of the mall,it only makes sense that you can't jump backwards back to the building-you have to leave through the mall, which means breaking down barricades, a dangerous tactic. (This would also make malls easier to get into more often, for zombie and survivor alike.) JokerofSkulls 09:03, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Votes

  1. Kill - No. And you didnt used the suggestion template as it should have been. --hagnat 10:19, 4 Feb 2006
  2. Kill - So you basically want to make zombies have to pay to access resting or hiding survivors even when the barricades are down and some friendly zombie has opened the doors for them? No. A thousand times no. --McDave 11:57, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Pretty much what McDave said. This is horrible. --Grim s 13:12, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Just a bad idea - Jedaz 13:13, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - There already is a way to get from the roof of a building to another building, through the rooftop access. Read Free running. Also, allowing humans to access rooftops but not newbie zombies mean that for 2 AP every day (they'll still gain xp, there's a little something called moving out and moving back in, or on, the rooftop), humans are immune to newbie zombies without memories of life...--McArrowni 14:46, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill -get free running, thats why its there.--Vista 17:41, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - You make zombie kittens cry. --Terrgn33u 17:48, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Sounds like free running, use one building to enter another.--Uncle Willy 17:49, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Free Running... and please stop making kittens cry - even if they are zombie kittens and have no functioning tear ducts. --Blahblahblah 18:02, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill This just sounds like a second door combined with free FreeRunning for everyone. No.--Arathen 22:03, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - This is exactly the type of action, along with a few others, that Free Running was designed to represent.--Reverend Loki 23:09, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - They all pretty much beat me to it...again. Bentley Foss 00:41, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - After reading your comments, I realize its a pretty bad idea.JokerofSkulls 17:04, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 0 Keep, 13 Kill, 0 Spam --20:49, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Movement Restrictions based on Enemy Count

Timestamp: 08:58, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Modification to movement
Scope: Everybody
Description: So I have no idea why a survivor can run straight through the Mall Tour '06 horde and not be shredded and eaten alive. Since I did just do that carrying generators for the Necrotech buildings near Caiger. Therefore I propose the following.

When there are over 25 of one 'faction' member in a block (i.e. 25 survivors or 25 zombies), anyone entering that same block will take one additional AP to LEAVE. That is, if there's a blob of 30 zeds somewhere a survivor will spend 1 AP to move into that block. Moving away from that block would require two AP.

The next tier is at 100, and adds another additional AP. So if there are 150 zeds in one square it will take a survivor one AP to move into that square, and 3 AP to move out.

This also applies indoors - when zombies smash the barricades of a mall and break in, it will take them additional AP to fan out into the mall. Shouldn't be a problem if the mall is already falling, and if it's very well defended you'll probably not want to bother fanning out into the mall anyhow.

Votes

  1. Keep - Would fix those who enter a large mob, ask who want a revive and just step out when see their neck being bitten. --hagnat 10:21, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I see no problem with this, since it affects both species equally. --Grim s 10:48, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - A clever idea that adds flavor to the game without being too annoying. --ZedKilla
  4. Keep - I like it. I'm sick of seeing survivors free running out of a building, taking a few pot-shots at a horde and running and hiding at the first sign of trouble with no penalties. The fact that it applies to both factions makes it nice and fair too. --McDave 12:00, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill I'm sorry, have you actually been a survivor fighting the Mall Tour? You're lucky to step outside and not get more than ten hits of damage on a GOOD run. We do get torn up...if the zombies are paying attention. --MorthBabid 12:59, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - This is unbalanced. Why you ask, it affects both sides the same, yes that is true, but have you ever seen a Zombie run away from a group of 25 people. No, they stay there and start chewing on the soft flesh for health and XP. This only hurts survivors (more so NT guys). So thats why I'm against it. - Jedaz 13:17, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I tried to scan in a group of over a hundred zombies. I only scanned 5 before I was down to 5hp and infected, I survived though. It's already too dificult, why make it harder. --Poodge 13:45, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep It doesn't affect both species equally (zombies don't run away), but neither does adding a skill on either side... I don't see those suggestions voted down. Technically, it might even cause survivors to act smart (going to scan a group of hundred zombies in a siege? Realism would have you dead. This costs you a few AP, which you can plan ahead for)--McArrowni 14:55, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep Those runs are getting annoying and are for the most part only to shot up zeds. - --ramby 14:56, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Sounds good to me. Even though zombies don't have to wade through piles of survivors as survivors must do with zombies, it's still balanced. --Omega2 15:02, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill Survivors are supposed to run when faced with many zombies. See here. -- C tiger 15:27, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - We're supposed to run when out-numbered. This is really well thought-out, more so than all of the other "extra-AP-cost-when-outnumbered" skills, but I just don't really feel it belongs in the game. --TheTeeHeeMonster 16:58, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - This would add a trapped like a rat feeling.--Uncle Willy 17:31, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill It would add to the trapped like a rat feeling but I don't want to try fighting a horde of zombies and lose 5AP to get away. If we start making consideerations like this one we could also have things like zombies have trouble attacking when there are a lot of people, or zombies take 1 additional AP standing up for every 10 survivors in the room. --Jon Pyre 17:49, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - I like the idea, but perhaps it should apply cross race? I mean if you're in a hotel lobby with 100 other people its hard for you to walk to the otherside even if you're still living. --Terrgn33u 17:52, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Ap in no way shape or form represents the difficulty, the energy cost or time spend of the action. It simply represent an action regardless of the kind. this adds nothing to the game except annoyance. and at the moment this reeks like arguing realism. there is already a cost for wading through zombies, you get beat up pretty badly. Besides that, leaving a square is easier then entering it no matter how populated it is. try playing rugby or football, if you run away from the hostiles they have a hard time catching you, if you run towards them you get beat up. if anything it should be harder to enter then to leave.--Vista 17:53, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Nowhere did I insinuate that I'm arguing realism. I'm arguing for balance, as I have a character that's been doing nothing but taking potshots at zombies with virtually no penalty and running through massive hordes as easily as through blank spaces, which is less than appealing for zombies. There's already an AP imbalance between zombies and humans, and this serves to lessen that imbalance a bit, since you're the type that argues balance at all cost. FireballX301 21:43, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • The fact that you don't insinuate that you are arguing realism doesn't mean that you aren't. Just saying "I'm not!" doesn't carry much weight. you gave no other reason then that it isn't realistic in your suggestion. In your re you did. let me respond to that. First off all for your suggestion to work there has to ba an AP imbalance, prove it to me. 'Cause I sure as hell don't believe it. you got two differences in AP, the cost to build a barricade vs taking one down and the cost of standing up as a zombie and getting a revive. the rest is all pretty equal. some things favor survivors some things favor zombies. (and yes you got 2AP to walk as a zombie untill you hit level 2, but I think you waste just as much AP as a survivor newbie) now if you can prove me wrong, perfect and I would be glad to have learned something. knowledge is power. HOWEVER, even if you did, this suggestion would still be horrible to counter act it. You see In order to right a wrong, you change the part that gives the problem not insert more wrong someplace else. 2 wrongs don't make a right. but it isn't about balance as you said yourself. Yes, that's kind of the point. Survivors avoid gigantic masses of zombies. This would encourage that type of behavior. This would encourages nothing, this would punish. And punishing people for not playing the game as you like it not the way to go about it. And certainly not a suggestion I'd vote keep for.--Vista 23:55, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Nope... Don't like it. -- Nicks 18:01, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - While I do like the "realism", If you are running through a horde of that many zombies - chances are very good that at least one of those zombies will be on line and will bite the crap out of you. I think that does a good job of representing the dangers of passing through a horde that size in itself. Even if this were to get in, I would like to see Free Runners not be effected, because they have the ability to jump across roof tops, and logically should be able to figure out how to get around the horde without being hindered in movement from it. --Blahblahblah 18:08, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill — This is punishment. Bartle 18:19, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep — However, if the player has Free Running, this should be overridden. --Janzak 19:29, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill — It's bad enough that I have to face 25+ zombies, I don't need addiotional troubles. --Rani 19:38, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill This assumes a person walkes into the center of a horde before leaving. Also, as Vista said, AP doesn't represent how much energy it takes to perform an action! --Volke 20:36, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill- Urgh i just have a bad feeling about this one Drogmir 21:31, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill- this is stupid because you can go around the block and use less AP then runing straight.Example: move diagonaly up then diagonaly down is the same as going 2 left or right. Plus i dont like the idea of slow moving. if this passes then 100 other things that make you use more ap will pass. --Kirk Howell 21:40, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Yes, that's kind of the point. Survivors avoid gigantic masses of zombies. This would encourage that type of behavior. FireballX301 21:43, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - Ideas identical to this have been shot down about ten times already. The moral of those many dead ideas: don't mess with people's movement AP. Zombies already have a lot of advantages--they don't need survivor disadvantages added in. Likewise, we don't need to penalize zombies who want to move through a human crowd. Free Running and Lurching Gait are there for a reason. Bentley Foss 00:43, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill - We already are torn up... -- Ju Ju Master 01:39, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - Twice if I could. AP costs for actions are already imbalanced IMHO. We all just accept it and deal with it (ie. 1AP to reload ONE shotgun shell vs. 1AP to freerun between adjacent buildings?). The last thing I want is a heavier AP penalty than what we already have. Even if I was playing a zed character (which I won't). Bad idea. --Killa Mike 17:11, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 10 Keep, 17 Kill, 0 Spam --20:49, 27 March 2006 (BST)

V.I.B (Very Important Building) for Zeds

Spaminated. No Free lunches, please. --Grim s 13:00, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

This wasn't spam, as much as it was a poor suggestion. Spam isn't an uberkill. --MorthBabid 13:03, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
It was giving away free experience for standing still in wastelands (Which would detract from combat, especially with regions such as Ridleybank). Not only that, but it was introducing a divine element that has been excluded from this game. That is what made it spam worthy. EXP farms are NOT a good idea, and that was what this suggestion wanted. --Grim s 13:05, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Note that it is now required to have 7 spam votes (and 2/3 of the total votes being spams) to spaminate a suggestion. The rule change has been put in place at 03:21, 4 Feb 2006 , by SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel, according to the voting done awhile ago (which was misinterpreted when he implemented it the first time). I guess this means this should be unspammed?--McArrowni 15:23, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
That only applies if there are non-author keeps. 3 spams and no non-author keeps still takes the suggestion behind the house. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:27, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
But it was spaminated after like 15 mins after it was put here!!! --tranhanam0027 6:25, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Horde Identity

Timestamp: 13:31, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Interface
Scope: Everyone
Description: When 10 or more zombies of the same group are located in the same block, they will be shown on the map by a single box with their horde name -- "Ugly Undead:12". "Large Scary Horde:155". Unaffiliated zombies are displayed as usual. The horde name doubles as a link to the horde's wiki page, if there is one, a la the Stats page.

See an example of how this looks here

Votes

  1. Kill - If you want to know which hordes are attacking, check the profiles of the zombies that eat you. --Grim s 13:53, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Yeah, it would be pretty neat to know what band of zombies is attacking you... but that's meaningless. --Omega2 14:34, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep Faceless horde is the name of the game. Well actualy it's urban dead but both are sort of synonymous. However, I do agree that fellow zombies should be able to learn about zombie groups in game somehow. I just don't think this is it. It's the best we have yet, though I would really like something better-McArrowni 14:52, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Aren't group names already displayed in profiles?--Uncle Willy 17:26, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Author vote. As noted, zombies need a way to learn about zombie groups in-game. This is an extremely simple way to make that possible. --John Ember 17:28, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill -This breakes the faceless horde, there is nothing wrong with meta gaming, there is a lot wrong with destroying the admosphere of the game. I don't believe the need for zombies learning in game about hordes is more important then that, especially with feeding groan making semi hoarding possible for ferals.--Vista 18:14, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Uncle Willy you've got to know by now that you cant click on zombies to see their profile (unless they interact with you - which isn't involved in this suggestion in any way)... But this still would (IMHO) help survivors out in knowing where the organized zombie groups in their area are. I'm not a fan of anyone creating an alt just for spying (I think it's weak, and an abuse of the 'no characters from the same user working together' clause), and this would give humans one hell of a reason to create a zombie alt just for finding the zombie groups in their suburb. --Blahblahblah 18:15, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I like to know how many zombies are in a block at a glance. I don't want to have to do math. Imagine if there were zombies from 3 or 4 hordes all standing on the same block? Too clunky.--Mookiemookie 18:54, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I like it. And the math can be fixed - maybe add this as an option in the game. --Janzak 19:27, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill Meh, I don't think this will really work all too well. If this was implemented and a major siege occurs, the front page will be just as swamped with zombie group names as it would be with normal survivor names! I suppose if it only showed the groups of hordes with 10+ or something it might work, but there are a ton of minor zombie groups out there, and listing them with the major ones can cause some big lists! Especially if you have a lot of them on your contacts list! --Volke 20:33, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Zombies are supposed to be anonymous. --Mikm 21:07, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I like it, I think that hordes are pretty much fundimental to the game, and it allows for a much better feral groupings. - --ramby- Part of my talk page]]] 23:34, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Being a zombie brings anonymity with it. That's just something to live with. Bentley Foss 00:45, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Hordes are great, but displaying their names in-game like this would detract from the atmosphere. Not to mention the stacking and server overload issues it presents for large or multiple hordes--Eliazar Foy 03:25, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 4 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 Spam --20:48, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Consolidate drop menu

Timestamp: 14:41, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Interface
Scope: Everyone
Description: Show one of every kind of item you're holding in the drop menu rather than the whole list. It's more elegant and there's no need to scroll through all these First Aid Kits to remove the newspapers.

Votes

  1. Keep - Good. Just make items with variable uses appear in different slots. And I think this might be a dupe. --Omega2 14:46, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    1. Re: This is the only thing I could find and it's somewhat different (although having the same spirit.) -- C tiger 15:33, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - But if you make another including a Drop X items textbox, I will be in heaven. --McArrowni 15:02, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - There is a firefox extension to do this, but then again not everyone wants to use it, so for IE users, yup, can't see any problem. --Blue Wild Angel 15:30, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Why not? --TheTeeHeeMonster 16:50, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Good idea. Also this would fix the annoying little thing where if you have multiple copies of the same item (say flak jackets) and you try to drop the last one in your inventory, you drop the first one instead (I know it doesn't really matter, but things like that bug me).--Terrgn33u 17:05, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - these kind of suggestion are the ones that make it all worthwile. not trying to make a big mark on the game, make one side uber strong or nerfing the otherside. no zombies with rocketlaunchers or midget suvivors that are harder to hit. simply a small inobtrucive suggestion to make the game ever so slighty easier to use. If only all suggestion were like this.--Vista 18:47, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - This is a great idea. And so is the midget survivors. --Mookiemookie 18:49, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Just make it so I can see how many of each item I have in the list. I.e. "First Aid Kit (7) and "Newspaper(11)" --Janzak 19:19, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I like it. --AlliX 00:36, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep --Lord Evans 07:20, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Excellent idea for a variety of reasons, one of which is my sanity when trying to go through my inventory and figure out what I've got.--Eliazar Foy 03:27, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 11 Keep, 0 Kill, 0 Spam --20:47, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Activity Report Addition

Dupe --Brizth 19:30, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Already Scanned Results

This suggestion has been Removed by Author for the reason that it has already been suggested before. Word by word accedently --Shadow213 17:21, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
For those interested, the original --Brizth 17:24, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Sniper Rifle

Spaminated with seven Spam votes (including mine), one Kill and no keeps. Sniper rifles are bad idea, unbalanced, game-mechanic breaking, and duped as hell. (By the way, first spamination. Go me!) --Omega2 17:25, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

NecroTech Rifle

Timestamp: 19:07, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Weapon
Scope: Humans, scientists
Description: Ok, I've spammed enough rifle suggestions in my time, and it suddenly occured to me that I'm quite good at saying why rifle suggestions are bad, but I've never tried to improve them, so here's a try.

The good people at NecroTech have finally decided that things are getting a little out of hand in Malton and have decided to release their brand new, high-tech, anti-zombie rifle! (They'd probably be doing some research on how to make the undead stay dead, right). I?m guessing some sort of Railgun like thing, ala Return of the Living Dead 3 (I might have the wrong movie). Here's how it works
A. Rifle would NOT be able to fire into other blocks.
B. this Rifle will appear under the science skills and can be found in NecroTech buildings, why? Because right now with the exception of the fire axe every decent weapon is chiefly located in PDs and it'll allow scientists to be a little less passive. Besides the Military have enough weapons to play with.
C. Ammo (Cartridges?) would be found singly (like shotgun shells) and only one could be loaded into the rifle at a time.
D.The following related skills should be introduced:
Basic Rifle Use - a science skill, no perquisite or maybe NecroTech employment, adds 30% to hit (high but this weapon WON?T be affected by basic firearms).
Advanced Rifle Use ? requires Basic Rifle Use, adds another 30% to hit.
E. Damge would be 8 per hit (affected by flak jackets of course), to hit ratios would and expected damage over 10 AP (given you are carrying all the ammo you need and the rifle is fully loaded to start with,it gets 5 shots this way) is:
No skill: 15% to hit, expected damage 6 (Best gun without skills)
Basic Rifle Use: 45% to hit, expected damage 18 (same a shotgun with basic firearms skill)
Adv. Rifle Use: 75% to hit, expected damage 30 (slightly higher then fully leveled pistol, which is 29.25, and worse then the shotgun which is 39)
F. Possibly the weapon would allow sniping in that if you are hit with a shot instead of saying ?Bob hit you for 8 damage?, it would say ?A sniper hit you for 8 damge.? I?m aware this has a lot of potential for abuse? so perhaps there would be a fixed chance of spotting the sniper? Cheifly I?m thinking that this would provide defense in sieges for humans so that the zombies don?t all attack the sniper (we all know we go right for the one unloading shotgun blasts into the room). I?m not really crazy about this part, but people really seem to want some snipering. So if you want to drop section F that?s ok with me.

Ok, so kill this if you like, but at least I can say that I tried, and now I can trash sniper rifle people mercilessly. Also I'm not wedded to any of these number, but I think they work pretty well.

Votes

  1. Keep - I'm the author, and I like stroaking my ego. --Terrgn33u 19:09, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Well... this one is... original, I must admit. Even though the background is a bit sloppy (since rail/coilguns aren't effective enough by the current times, and that it would take much more than a few months to get such a weapon mass-manufactured), the idea sounds well thought-out. Maybe it could use some tweaking, but giving the NTs (usually the "specialists" of any survivor team) something to play with without unbalancing things (zombies usually don't care to search for names, anyway) is really awesome in my book. Maybe make it useless against survivors (by injecting some kind of anti-zombie serum/toxine with a hollow dart instead of damaging because of kinetic force, lowering the damage to around 2 against survivors), and keep the "a sniper hit you for X damage" part. After all, if the NT is going to do something, it's definetly NOT against survivors! As a last note: I'd consider this one to be introduced in the game waaaay later, after the zombie population increase a bit, so people won't whine as much. --Omega2 19:17, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Neutral - I don't know about this one. I think that the hit % with the rifle use is way too high (45% with only one skill vs. 40% with two skills for the fire axe - and it does 3 damage). So if you would want this, a prerequisite or a lower hit % is a must. --Janzak 19:24, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill I like the idea of military being offensive, science being curative and informational, and civilian having basic utility skills. Also the sniper rifle could be used to anonymously PK which is no good. --Jon Pyre 19:31, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - A little lower hit ration and I will vote keep, maybe 55% chance maximum? That way you have a balance for not being seen, you are less likely to hit. - --ramby 19:36, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Best rifle suggestion i've seen yet. I like the necrotech flair. But instead of it being a weapon where it shoot and does solid damage, maybe it could do less damage, but have a special effect when attacking zombies. For example it would do 4 or 5 damage(not a lot so it wouldn't have a PK benefit) but it would inject the zombie with a slow acting revivication syrum kind of like infection. It could say, "You are Zombiename, and you are being revived." you would lose 1Hp/AP and when you ran out, you would be revived. It would also have the sniping ability mentioned above. --Uncle Willy 20:24, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - That would make the ammo almost impossible to find, right? Because you'd be basically flinging syringes at distance! --Omega2 20:28, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re- Yeah, but the ammo wouldn't be syringes. They'd be "syringe-like." Hehe, syringes dont fly well. It'd be like Infection that humans could cause. --Uncle Willy 20:40, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Maxed hit percentage is way too high and I don't like the anonymous part at all.--Mookiemookie 20:27, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Might as well rename it "PK Rifle" --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:29, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - God damn, this is horrifically overpowered. 75% at 8? This is one of the worst suggestions here that hasn't gotten a spam vote. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:30, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - It's not horrifically overpowered, as the search/load AP required would be comparable to shotgun but with less damage - definitely not spam. However, I think 75% is a little too much too. It seems like the benefit from such a weapon would be in that it holds 5 shots instead of 2 - rather than increasing the hit % so much. I like where Uncle Willy and Omega2 are going in their comments, a little like this, but fired from a gun... very interesting. I'd like to see that/this idea hybrid go to suggestion talk for further evaluation, personally. --Blahblahblah 21:22, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    Comment - I added a similar version for discussion: Dart Rifle --Omega2 22:36, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Neutral - Make it a dart gun a'la Tranquiliser Rifle and you have my vote --Shaft121 22:04, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -the most importent fact of guns is the search rate of its ammo next time it's better to include that. otherwise you cant calculate the HP/AP. Sniper gun=bad. But basically another gun just isn't neccersary--Vista 22:15, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Honestly, I would feel better about this if the percentages were lower - turn my weak keep to a strong keep. I also favor a chance to hide the name of the shooter as sniper, as long as there is a chance to ID them. --Reverend Loki 23:16, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I like.. -- Nicks 23:17, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - I commend your effort, but it's just weird having a conventional firearm associated with NT instead of the normal weapon-find places. I think the "Dart Gun" idea on the discussion page is much better and would Keep it. --Sindai 00:06, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - The only "new gun" suggestions I've ever really liked are the "Combat Shotgun" and "Yet Another SMG" (the one that actually passed) suggestions from way back when. Otherwise, I don't really see the need for another type of firearm. Both of those had value for reasons other than straight damage: the Combat Shotgun helped with both inventory management and getting people to move around the city (as they were only found in Armories) and the SMG had the unique distinction of allowing hits on multiple zombies in a stack without being overpowered, making it possible to weaken a horde instead of just killing off single zombies. A slightly different AP/damage ratio is just...bland. Bentley Foss 00:52, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - There's already not enough distinction between classes, let's not make them MORE similar. --Jak Rhee 01:41, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 3 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 Spam --20:47, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Groans Audible From Inside

Timestamp: 21:13, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: general change
Scope: survivors and zombies
Description: Both zombies and humans inside a building will now be able to hear groans coming from outside the building. This will allow zombies to "occupy" buildings, because they can investigate groans that they hear from the outside or from the inside of other buildings, then return to the one they were inside when their AP is running low. --Stare 21:13, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Votes

  1. Kill - Make us suffer the groan-spam, too? No way. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:15, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - This was the original version and was changed with good reason, inside audible groans= survivors come, kill zombs and barricade before any ferals can get to eat --Kingreaper 21:47, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill--Simply because groans are audible inside anyway (at least the most important ones are)--Shaft121 22:06, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill Exactly Kingreaper. There's good reason it can't be heard indoors. --Jon Pyre 22:19, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - What Kingreaper said. This would just draw humans. Feeding Groan would eventually have a lot more in common with Flareguns, instead of just the initials. Let's leave it at the initials, please.--Arathen 22:15, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - as said above.--Vista 22:17, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill Keep - As a member of the WCDZ, it is my sworn duty to auto keep any suggestions that will advance our cause to destroy all zombies Oh, screw it - this is just a bad idea. It was changed for a reason, and that reason is well stated above. --Blahblahblah 23:49, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Dupe AND Spam - Spam because, like it's already been said, you CAN hear groans from inside buildings...at least the ones that happen on your block. Also, Dupe because of this. Come on people, that was yesterday! Read the old suggestions first! Bentley Foss 00:55, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Dupe - I hate people that don't read --Jak Rhee 01:36, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. KILL I like the quietness that not hearin groans provides.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 07:09, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Dupe Yup... Not too hard to check even just a few days past worth of suggestions, is it? --Volke 08:17, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 0 Keep, 8 Kill, 3 Dupe --20:46, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Change Phone Interface

Timestamp: 23:51, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Mobile Phones
Description: Currently it costs 2 AP to send a message to a person via mobile phones since you have to open it first and check for new messages (1 AP) and then spend another AP to message a single person. I suggest that opening (clicking) the phone will cost no AP and once you have opened the phone you'll have the option to message someone for 1 AP and an option to check your messages for 1 AP, so basically you won't have to waste 1 AP (for checking messages when you know you have none) when you just want to send a message.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author's vote. --Rani 23:51, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - The two ap cost is deliberate --Grim s 01:46, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: How come? can you please explain? --Rani 01:50, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 07:06, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep --Lord Evans 07:25, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep The action I spend an action point on should be "Making a call" not Part 1: Opening phone Part 2: Dialing Number. --Jon Pyre 09:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - What Joon Pyre said. --John Taggart 13:13, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 5 Keep, 1 Kill, 0 Spam --20:30, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Forward SMS to Group

Timestamp: 23:51, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Mobile Phones
Description: Currently mobile phones are useless due to low efficiency (2 AP to message one person) and people rather communicate outside of the game (forums) then using them. I suggest to add a new option in the mobile phone, "forward message", which will allow you to send a message to the mobile phones of all other members who have the same group name like you (under "group" n their profile). The AP cost can be the same or a bit higher, I don't care. This suggestion is just about adding the option to message your teammates.
  • NOTE: The message will be forwarded only to the players who share their contacts list with the sender (to avoid spamming).

Votes

  1. Keep - Author's vote. --Rani 23:51, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I don't use a phone much for exactly that reason. I think it sounds ok, and it will give me a reason to use the stupid thing. EDIT - This also would solve the problem many people have with wanting to communicate with teammates in overly crowded buildings.. --Blahblahblah 02:19, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Same as Blahblahblah. --Omega2 00:08, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Definately agree with above. --Brizth 00:29, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Kill because of the annoyance potential. How annoying would it be if somebody changed their group, spammed a message, changed their group, spammed a message, change their group again, etc., etc. ? Bentley Foss 00:58, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Everyone receiving the message, would have share their contacts list with the sender for it to work. Not any different then now - it's someone you both went through the trouble to add each other to your contacts list. Disclamer: Non author comment. --Blahblahblah 01:51, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - That was changed after I voted. That addresses the spam concern, but, eh, I just don't feel compelled enough to change my vote. This suggestion just doesn't appeal to me. Bentley Foss 02:29, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam The suggestion doesnt say that Blahblahblah. IF a new version (REPEAT NEW VERSION) does, I'll vote Keep. Author If you alter this suggestion I WILL SPAM it. --Jak Rhee 01:34, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: I altered the suggestion. If you would have provided a reason to your demand I would have considred it but since you didn't... --Rani 01:58, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Because altering suggestiosn midcourse is WRONG and needs to STOP. We shouldnt have to recehck suggestiosn we alreayd voted on to see if we need to change our vote. --Jak Rhee 03:00, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      Re: The suggestion remained exactly the same. I just added a note to clarify things for people like you. Making people recast their votes just because of that is plain dumb. --Rani 08:16, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep As long as you had to be mutual contacts. --Jon Pyre 02:12, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Same as Blahblahblah. --Perticus 02:33, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep --Lord Evans 07:27, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 7 Keeps, 1 Kill, 1 Spams, 0 Dupes, 9 Total. --13:59, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/4th-Feb-2006&oldid=263050"