Suggestions/5th-Jan-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 SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

Shotguns that fire shot

Timestamp: 00:33, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: weapon change
Scope: shotguns
Description: Currently, shotguns are calculated as a single attack that does 10 damage. I propose that this be changed to two attacks that do 5 damage each. The maths works out as follows:
          65%      | 55%      | 30%      | 5%
          new  old | new  old | new  old | new  old
10 damage 42%  65% | 30%  55% | 9%   30% | >1%  5%
5 damage  46%  0%  | 50%  0%  | 42%  0%  | 10%  0%
0 damage  12%  35% | 20%  45% | 49%  70% | 90%  95%

This will not affect the total average damage. What it will do is give the chance to simulate how a shotgun works better. A direct hit (10 damage) becomes less likely, but because of the scatter effect of a shotgun, the chance of getting a glancing blow good enough to do damage is much higher, much like a real shotgun firing shot.

Note that this is intended to reflect the scatter effect of the gun. It is NOT intended to reflect firing two rounds at once. The ammunition usage is not changed by this.

Edit: If you examine the maths, the average damage per AP spent is completely unchanged. The balancing factor remains the same - high AP requirements for searching. Equally, the damage potential remains the same. This shotgun change would effectively move the shotgun from the high damage/high variance position to the medium-high damage/low variance position. It's not the same tactical role as before, but it opens the gamespace for a new rifle weapon, should one ever be implemented.

Votes

  1. Keep - author vote. Rhialto 00:33, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Quite the same as mine but less complex.. :) I wanted 1 damage for hands and legs.--Vuohiz 00:54, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill -The shotgun is meant to fill a gap in the human arsenal. It has a high damage but low 0.8AP/HP efficiantcy. changing the damage and to hit percentage, you change the role of the weapon. Now it is just a Pistol with better to hit % but cost more AP to use. It takes away differsity and thus fun. And only for realism. Why?--Vista 00:55, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT) What shall I select to attack with, My pistol that mainly does 5 damage or my shotgun that also mainly does 5 damage? Yes, that adds to the fun of the game...
    • The damage/AP ratio remains completely unchanged with this suggestion. Rhialto 03:19, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • So? the HP/AP damage of shotgun sucks, it's the least powerful weapon in the game in that regard. what it is used for is his high damage capabilaties. 65% is high enough for a hit miss percentage. I don't need a more sure fire weapon weapon, a 88% to hit percantage is just boring. having two weapons that meanly do 5 damage is boring (your own statistics say that 5 damage is the most likely outcome). Why is this needed? it doesn't do squat for game-mechanics and it detracts from the game-fun. Why is this needed? --Vista 17:24, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - so, you are basicly cripling the Shotgun and making it a Pistol with Critical attack... is that so ? --hagnat 00:56, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit Wait ! Wait ! What do i see here now ?! You are ALSO proposing that the chances to hit with shotgun become 88% tops ?! You have got to be kiddin ! --hagnat 01:12, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • If you are complaining about an 88%/5 damage attack for this, why aren't you also complaining about the 65%/10 damage that is currently in play?
      • First, always sign when you are replying. Second, shotguns were made to cause 10 damage, not 5 OR 10 sometimes. If shotguns are going to start causing only 5 damage then its better take them out of the game --hagnat 16:15, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - And now people start complaining about server hits and nerfing the gun... *sigh* I still vote to keep it. --Omega2 01:01, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - The Shotgun is good the way it is now, you want to fire more? Get a pistol. Dickus Maximus 01:03, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Having read what Vista wrote, I change my vote. --Daxx 01:04, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I like it the way it is now. --Brizth 01:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Shotguns work fine as they are. My pker no like this suggestion. --Grim s 01:53, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - This vote has a condition. It's a sound concept and I do like it, but you're only weakening a vital weapon. Always think of "give & take" when proposing alterations. I'd like to see two shots, each doing damage between 3-6. Minimum damage, 6. Max damage, 12. Statistically more likely to hit less than 10, but greedy folk will want the possible 2 damage extra than they get now. There should always be a tradeoff for the "nerf risk." --Carnival H 02:23, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • There's give and take already built in. The give factor is that it increases the odds of getting some damage. The take is that it decreases the odds of scoring 10 damage. This change moves the shotgun's role. Rhialto 02:53, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Same damage, less variance. I like it. I don't like things that rely on luck, and the fact that luck is generally against me has nothing to do with it... --Hexedian 03:04, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - --Mikm 03:11, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Fits true shotguns well and opens a tactical niche for a rifle. Well thought out. --LtMile 03:18, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I'm only voting for it to piss people off. I also like it. --krupintupple 23:01, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)
  15. Keep - Because (as half the people who voted kill don't realize) unchanged DPA means that this will just make the game more interesting without affecting anything else. --Signal9 04:49, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Doesn't affect DPA, so it certainly can't hurt. --Sindai 04:52, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - dont F*** with my shotgun. --RAF LT. General Deathnut 04:55, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - as written. Right now there's a clear place to use the shotgun (zeds without flak jackets & speed) and one to use the pistol (zeds with flak jackets & dmg/AP). This blurs that line too much. Also, 'true' shotguns spread approx 1" per 10'. Finally, this cuts variance in half. --RSquared 05:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • At a 30 yard range, that comes out as 9 inches, which is plenty enough for this kind of variance change. Rhialto 14:14, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • 30 Yards! You dont hunt do you. Shot guns are used to knock down or kill a target at medium to close range. < 5 Yards shotgun, 5 - 20 Yards Pistols, 20 + Yards Riffle. --Tom mot 02:40, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - I Like it, I makes the damage more random, which may scare some people, AKA the killers, but it mixes it up a little. Also Im sry if i was supposed to do something with the varience but i have no idea what to do.--Argus Nole 06:31, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT
    • Variance: SUM((Xi-Xbar)^2 * Pr(Xi)) where Xbar=6.5. Current Variance:22.75, Proposed Variance:11.25
  20. Kill - Shotguns and pistols work quite fine (and are balanced to one another) as they are. It's difficult enough to find ammo for the things. Leave it alone, or the WCDZ shall rain its wrath upon you. Bentley Foss 05:36, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - While an interesting concept, I have a problem with it. If you're saying it changes *nothing*, and just makes the game a bit more realistic, I would feel that it's unnecessary. The game is not about realism, and making a shotgun do two moderate hits instead of one big one is not that realistic anyway. Besides, would anybody really be sitting in front of their computer, getting a better experience out of the game because their shotgun does half as much damage, twice as often? And then, if it *does* change something, I think it's a bad idea, as the balance between pistol and shotgun is fine as it stands. intx13 07:39, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep an interesting idea for Kevan to consider if nothing else. --Matthew Stewart 07:40, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep --Thelabrat 08:26, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill -- It nerfs the shotgun, and isn't realistic either. Contrary to what video games lead you to believe, real shotguns are just as effective at longer ranges. The scatter effect is exaggerated so that the weapon doesn't become the dominant weapon in the game. --PatrickDark 09:28, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: depends on the ammunition, I think? Most shotguns I saw weren't so accurate at 50+ meter-range. We're talking about people shooting zombies in city blocks of 100x100m, I think the range would be pretty variable. Sorry for breaking the Re rule, but I had to comment this. --Omega2 13:16, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill We don't need another gun that does 5 damage at a rate lower than pistols with harder to find ammo. Removed unsigned vote. --Daxx 14:10, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill Shotguns are for heavy damage and I like them that way. I don't want to have a reduced chance to deal 10 damage, that's what I use them for. Rani 12:12, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. kill Interesting, but I don't really like it. --McArrowni 16:39, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill I LOVE IT! No I dont. The old shotgun is fine. ITS FINE! AllStarZ 16:51, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill -- i agree with your logic, but until such a weapon is introduced to take the "high damage" place of the shotgun - i can't vote keep on removing that title/effect of shotgun. survivors need a heavy weapon. the zombie population is on the rise. --Firemanstan 16:57, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep/Change I like this, but can I suggest a slight change? How about having two types of ammo: solid shells and fragmenting shells. The frag shells affect 2 zombies/5 damage each (or even 5 zombies/2 damage each), whilst the solid shells work as current. Norminator 2 17:22, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • I don't think that would help realism. As noted earlier, scatter at 30 yards is 9 inches. That's sufficient for this effect, but not for hitting two different targets. Rhialto 00:18, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep -- nice work. --Frosty 17:33, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep ----Kcold 17:59, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  33. Kill The shotgun works fine as it is. As said before its merging too much with the pistol --Kotu 19:38, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  34. Kill - This sounds to me like changing something just for the sake of changing it.--WibbleBRAINS 23:02, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  35. Kill - For the record, I'm loading with solid slugs, not buckshot. --Slicer 23:27, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  36. Kill - Shotguns are broken as it is (I play zombies) - what you are suggesting is like duelwielding pistols - even more broken --Jorge 00:19, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  37. Kill -- I think the shotgun works just fine. I've always pictured zombies as lumbering, clumsy creatures...that's why shotguns should be so consistently effective. --Tom Magnum 00:30, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  38. Kill --Shotguns work ok, and if anything they are too expensive in AP, there is little realism in this game so please don't try and use that as an excuse to nerf the shotgun any further, if there was only a chance of doing 4 points to a flak jacketed zombie then noone would waste the time loading these darn things. --Stoy Winters 3:25 6 Jan 2006 (GMT +3)
  39. Kill Third time I've had to put my vote back in. --Velkrin 05:30 6 Jan 2006
    • Tally - 16 keeps, 21 kills out of 39 votes 09:38, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  40. Keep - More variety=good, and as the suggester said, SAME DAMAGE/AP, PEOPLE.--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:30, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  41. Kill - its the same damage an ap..so why complicate things? --
  42. Keep - Like the concept although some of the arguments in favor are flawed. --Tom mot 02:40, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  43. Kill - Neat idea on paper...but do we need it in-game? No. --MorthBabid 08:39, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

dragonboy218 02:35, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Pagers

Timestamp: 02:42, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: survivors
Description: Anyone who works in emergency services knows about carrying a pager. And if you have one, anytime there is an emergency/disaster/problem you get a page, usually with a little text blurb from the dispatch center and information about the call. In my village, we also get information about public works turning off water, road work, FYI, etc…

I'd like to see one-way "pagers" with 4 “dispatch centers” located inside 4 random PD/FD buildings (forts maybe?), each covering a 4th of the city.

What can they do? A dispatch center with a running generator can send messages (at a cost of "N"* AP per length message) and the pagers can receive those messages (along the lines of the mobile phone messages in terms of cost to read).

What can't they do? They wouldn't be fancy, large text block two-way pagers (you know, like the mobile phones we already have).

Why do it? Those dispatch centers could be great tools for organizing people IN GAME (I'm not a fan of groups that focus on meta-communication for organization). They could serve as “news center” for the truly altruistic folks. They might even become, dare I suggest, focal point for various factions fighting for control.

Who could send messages? Survivors in front of dispatch console.

Who couldn’t? Zombies, pets, survivors who aren't in front of the dispatch console...Lutherans maybe?

What can Zombies do to it? Let’s see..How about if zombies are in the building, messages can’t be sent? (“You try to send a message but a zombie appears to have stepped on the cord and unplugged it…message not sent”, “You try and send a message but the zombie in the room stumbles against a toggle switch and the screen flickers….message not sent”. I guess that zombies could also beat the hell out of the generator…or the operators. It would really be their choice.

Shouldn’t they be tied to the cell phone towers being powered? I’d say no. I’m modeling these after the ones that I’m use to using, and those are satellite based (I know, pretty silly for a pager that never leaves the village use a satellite provider, but I just work there!).

  • As far as the cost of sending a message, I’d ask for help there. If should be something that makes sending message from the dispatch center pretty expensive (“You type your message on the keyboard, patch dozens of cables and toggle several switches ….and your messages is sent!”) but not crippling. Any ideas?

Votes

  1. Keep - author vote...be gentle. Nicks 02:43, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I'm not a gentle person. This is way way redundant with cellphones. Sure there differences, but they are negligible. This is completly unessacary. Not to mention, you know your pager? The one that gets sattellite signal? Well so do CELLPHONES! The purpose of towers are to essentially route and enhance the sattellite signals. Your pager uses towers too, which then go to sats. --Jak Rhee 02:56, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Pagers still use the same re-transmitting infrastructure as cellphones. Cellphone net is out, so are pagers. Rhialto 03:01, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Not a bad idea, but I don't think it is necessary to have both a pager and a mobile phone for recieving text messages. A better idea is to allow mobile phones to send to a list of people (this suggestion has already been made) --Mikm 03:05, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I'd be into pagers being more background junk for flavour, but the cellphone already does all of this. Maybe the pager could recieve sent messages from the cellphone? It wouldn't be able to reply, but if it only recieved them it might be just different enough to keep. Not the most useful thing in the world though and I'm sure someone would have to lower celly find %'s. --krupintupple 23:05, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)
  6. Keep - When you look at it as a one-way mass-message reciever, It's a great idea. I prefer getting messages about emergencies in the Suburb you are in. Option to turn off your Pager needed. Overall I think my advice on this is to make it simpler if you re-submit. No need for messages to be blocked physically by Zombies, IMHO. -- Amazing 04:52, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I read that twice, and I still have an unanswered question: what's the point of having a pager? Bentley Foss 05:38, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I'm voting keep, even though I want to suggest a few changes. I'd say one console per suburb (the one per quarter of the city seems a bit counter to the way the game is organized) and messages are broadcasted only to those players *in that suburb* who have a pager. Recieving pages would have to be relativly cheap, though sending should be high (say 20 ap or something). The only downside I see is that it might be too overpowered. Imagine 100 people in a mall, all sending "HELP US" to the (assumedly, since they can eat the reading cost) high level players listening nearby. If the costs weren't balanced it could produce a lot of spam, too. The concept seems cool, though, so I'll vote keep. intx13 07:22, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I vote kill since this issue is partially covered by the mobile Phone and the Flare Gun. In the setting of the game, everywhere is a disaster area. Having that sort of distress call presupposes that there are enough working facilities to maintain that type of network. Plus this type of thing is ripe for abuse for sending "spam" to users. I would recommend instead of pagers, a PA system, but this role is partially covered by the Spray Painting messages. Quasispace 08:23, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - in real life the alarm numbers are horrible abused. the majority of all messages are spam or frivolous. In a game that's all it going to be used for.--Vista 11:54, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill REDUNDANCE! We already have cells man. AllStarZ 16:54, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Invites too much spam, doesn't bring enough to the game. --Daxx 17:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - nice way to communicate with large groups without metagaming (which I dislike because of the amount of assholes on these boards). --Frosty 17:36, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • agree with you lol--Kcold 18:05, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT) original author responses only
  14. Keep ---Kcold 18:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Just because the opportunities to use this might be limited, doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Maybe a low priority idea, but... --Reverend Loki 18:23, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Cell Phones are enough. --Basher 22:11, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - There are some strengths to this suggestion, I like the dispatch idea. I think for simplicity's sake you should focus on suggestions that modify the cell phone. --Tom Magnum 00:35, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep It would be a great way to get rid of metagaming which i dislike--grassman 02:39, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep Really good idea, nothing worse than being two doors down from a slaughter and not knowing about it. I would think it would be easier to get a pager network up and running than the mobile phone. I would also say it should have a limited range or given the situation maybe only a % chance of reaching everyone on your contact list.--Stoy Winters 03:44, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep It's a good idea, and being a part of the MFD I think it'd be cool. But take out the Lutheran slur...It's offensive. Won't do it myself because someone might complain. --Grim 02:19, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep Useful, and with a high enough AP cost spam shouldn't be a huge problem.--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:35, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill We can (and have) do the same thing via clever use of mobile phones. --MorthBabid 08:40, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Last Gasp

Timestamp: 05:08, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Fluff
Scope: Survivors
Description: When a survivor has less than 10 HP they recieve a new button and drop-down somewhere near their speech box marked "Scream".

The player will then scream one of the pre-set messages loud enough to be heard on one layer of surrounding blocks and inside buildings. (or outside buildings if they are indoors.)

This can only be used once for a cost of 1 AP. When the Survivor is killed and revived, or healed to full HP, they will then be elligable for this again once they are below 10 HP again at some point.

Inside the drop-down would be something akin to these selections:

  • Dear God, NOOOO!
  • Somebody help me!
  • Oh God Oh God Oh God!
  • Let go of meeeee!
  • Is that all you've got?!
  • Uuuaaarrrghhh!!

Picture the setting. You're hunkered down in your safe house.. feeding groans are heard nearby.. suddenly.. You hear a desperate voice in the distance scream Let go of meeeee! before being cut off.

If the player is on your Contact list.. You hear Tito Jackon's defiant voice in the distance scream Is that all you've got?! before being cut off.

The chance for abuse is Zero. You can't do it more than once until you DIE AND GET REVIVED or HEAL TO FULL, and you have to be low on HP first.

AND you have to use one of your presumably last APs to do it.

This is just flavorful fluff, folks.

Votes

  1. Kill - There are very few cases where a person would be online at the time they are being attacked. The opportunities to use this are so small as to make it more effort than it's worth. Rhialto 05:25, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I would just run away rather than clicking the scream button. - Jedaz 05:33, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - You might be too low on AP and outside Heavy barricades. Or you might actually walk a few blocks away, and scream for help because you're infected and too low on HP.. :X -- Amazing 06:25, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I appreciate the dramatic atmosphere this would add to the game. So, for the first time in what seems like months, I'm going to vote keep. C'mon, you gotta admit, it would make things a bit more tense to log in and hear the screams of various dead people. Bentley Foss 05:40, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - But kill will change if you make it automatic when you die, but only with a few people, like 20% of a building ocupants will make the scream, to avoid yyou hearing 50 screams when a mall section is taken out(Though that would be very cool. - Argus Nole 06:40, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT
  5. Kill - There was a "screams of the dying" suggestion a few days ago that was better than this. -CWD 05:47, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Might be better, but what about letting me know what's wrong with this one? -- Amazing 06:25, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: Sorry. It's just...it's not bad, but it's not as good as the previous suggestion, which was, IIRC, quite well-recieved. As Rhialto pointed out, most people aren't online when they get killed, and I doubt the ones who are will use even one precious AP to scream for help. Better it be an automatic thing triggered by a certain number of deaths as in the previous suggestion. -CWD 06:42, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Re: - ... only... authors... can... reply. Automatic screaming based on a certain number of deaths is needlessly complex. No automatic action, people. -- Amazing 23:50, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I'm voting kill because you used the phrase "hunker down". Go fox news! - krupintupple 01:09, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
    • Note: Obviously-joking vote removed, defend on talk page. --LibrarianBrent 06:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Nice flavor. --Mikm 05:50, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep, excellent work. --LibrarianBrent 06:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I think the once-per-day rule needs to go though. That would require some extra flag for the server to keep track of, to see if it's time to reset your scream-time. I doubt such a thing would be abused... who would sit around screaming while a zombie tears them apart? And if they did, so much the cooler! I think of this being used when you escape death with 2 HP left and only a few AP. Give a scream out and maybe some wandering doctor will come in your direction and help. Also, it gives doctors and necrotech people targets, which might stop them from sitting around in hospitals by the dozens. Maybe up the limit to 20HP to make this aspect more useful. --intx13 07:35, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. KillKeep - Great flavour, good dynamics. all around keep, but I do agree it should be trigerd automaticlly of you die before you log on with one of the random screams - --ramby 07:42, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT) Sorry, but good points have been made and I will not change unless there is an automatic action at death to do the same scream. with a choice that is off when you first join so it ahs to be turned on - --ramby 16:39, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep -I think it should be a button you can take before you log out "scream if you die? (cost 1 AP)" If you die before you log in you scream the phrase you selected automatically. Many times in movies people die and no one knows, other times they scream. People will have the choice of spending an AP avoiding death or warning others, which is good. --Matthew Stewart 08:00, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -to marginal. a free flare, with the same problems. It would atrackt more zombies then survivors.--Vista 11:45, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - I like the idea alot but not the implementation, I think it should automatically yell something when you die (even when not logged on), that's it. would have voted "Change" if it was allowed. Maybe repost the suggestion in this new format? Rani 12:16, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - I usually like flavour improvements, as these make a more interesting game, but this seems to me to be a sort of counter to Moan. Humans have Flares, zombies have Moan. Flares require no skill, but they have to be found and can only be shot outside. It's main purpose is to call assistance. Moan requires 200XP, but is unlimited, and can only be heard out of doors. It is used to call assistance. Last gasp is... what? Used to call assistance? A distraction? Will this mean zombies will require a one-shot flare counterpart, too? It is a bit too much like moan. No thanks. -- Andrew McM 12:26, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - WTF? Someone deleted my vote. -- Andrew McM 12:53, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - This would help add some more FEAR to the game. --John Taggart 13:02, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Nice flav'!. --Nicks 14:50, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - I perfer Screams of the Dying --Jak Rhee 14:59, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Pardon the somewhat improper use of Re:, but we've been rude in going on about that previous suggestion without providing a link. [[1]] -CWD 17:20, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep "You hear a survivor screaming 'DIE YOU FUCKING BASTARDS...' and his voice quickly dies away. A moan rises from the street." Nice idea. AllStarZ 16:57, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - i think this will help the zombies along the lines of their moans more than it would help any survivors - but regardless, i like the flavor. --Firemanstan 18:04, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT) Kill - LtMile & Rhialto make good points - needs a better trigger to be worth-wile. will vote keep on a resubmission with a better trigger though, i do like the flavor. --Firemanstan 22:13, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Having any other trigger would only increase spam possibilities. -- Amazing 23:43, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - lol why not it can't be bad so you have my keep vote--Kcold 18:07, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - I like the idea and the flavor, but it needs a better trigger. No one is online when they're dying. --LtMile 18:35, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - That's not true at all, plenty of people are, I have been. Slight mistake and you're stuck outside of overbarricaded safehouses. Plus you're ignoring the fact that people may become infected and injured and may want to call for help. -- Amazing 23:43, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep -- It adds to the RP part of the game which many people value above all else --Kotu
  23. Keep - Sounds good. --Signal9 20:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill/Dupe- no, way too big a disadvantage to zombies attacking a large building, ruins any element of supprise a zombie attacking in the area might have, people are hardly ever online when killed so it will not often be used and we already had this suggesting in screams of the dieing. enough reasons for you? --Freakarama 21:12, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - First of all, your Dupe vote is baseless. The "element of surprise" is a bad argument as well because of flares and free-running to alert others. Plus one of your zombie friends may let out a feeding groan. Saying it woudn't often be used is like saying it wouldn't be used to spam - So what?? No, not enough reasons for me, especially since they're questionable at best. -- Amazing 23:47, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. kill - Nice flavour, but when you're on 10HP the last thing you're going to think of is looking for the "Last Gasp" button. The auto-triggered "Screams of the Dying" is better. --WibbleBRAINS 23:11, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - No. This would be less spammy. What part of "No automatic actions" do you guys not get? -- Amazing 23:43, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill - What Wibble said, decisively. If I log in with low HP in a room full of Z's, my first action is going to be GETTING THE FUCK OUT! --Slicer 00:03, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Everything I've said so far still applies here. I don't know why everyone is mentally writing in their own "You can't run away before/after you scream" addition. :P -- Amazing 00:38, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: We aren't, it's just that we don't think anybody's going to waste even a single AP on the scream when they could use it to run away. -CWD 02:56, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill -- I agree with others, the chance of being online when you die is so slim. It seems like a waste of Kevan's time for something that would rarely be used. Perhaps an automated, involuntary scream...? --Tom Magnum 00:41, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - Frankly I'd rather spend that last ap unloaded a bullet into a zombie than screaming. Now if you made it that once you hit 10 hp you would scream automaticly without a AP penalty. I would dig it Drogmir 04:37, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep -given the average people in my immediate area is 500 survivors even given 50% non regular players there would be an average of 10 players per hour out there, I have yet to play a day without meeting another online player, but still is anyone likely to come to your rescue....Stoy Winters 04:37, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - Even though there ARE better things to do with AP? Sometimes I wish I had this already. --MorthBabid 08:42, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep - Reasons stated, but it amuses me that this is called Last Gasp. -- C tiger 16:14, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Scanner Fix

Timestamp: 09:32, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Fix
Scope: Survivors
Description: I'm not sure if it's just affecting me, but I'd like to suggest a fix to the DNA Scanner item. I'd prefer it if "Self" wasn't the primary/First target option of the DNA Scanner. I've wasted AP accidentally scanning myself. As an alternative make scanning yourself cost 0 AP and grant 0 XP, possibly with the Message "Meditation is better at granting knowledge of oneself.".

Votes

  1. Keep I forgot to vote for myself. --Quasispace 11:37, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep I know I'm not the only one who failed to pay attention to the target. I would suggest a different self-failure text however. --Velkrin 10:43, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Yeah its silly to have yourself as a target, I noticed it but didn't pay much attention to it. This will also reduce server load if just removed compleatly. - Jedaz 10:47, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Well now you've learned the hard way to pay attention.--Vista 11:48, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I accidently did that too.--The General 14:00, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - The change is useful, and can't be that hard to make. --Daxx 14:12, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Yeah i did that alot too, it was really annoying, good job. --Argus Nole 14:33, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - It should have been like this already.. wow. Two Keep votes made by me? This is insane --Jak Rhee 15:02, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Why should you be able to DNA scan anything but zombies anyway? --Hexedian 16:24, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - but still, it MUST cost 1 AP to scan self. If not, one could use the DNA scanner as a refreash button, always scanning self to refresh the page. --hagnat 16:24, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Out of interest, how is that different to following the link to your profile and then back again? --Daxx 16:44, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • You have to wait for the page to load 2 times, not just one... which is kind of annoying :\ (imho) --hagnat 16:55, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep ---Kcold 18:08, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I just like this idea. --Reverend Loki 18:21, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - In fact, why should you even have the option to scan at all if there's no-one around? I like the little "meditation" message though, very clever :) Seems easy enough to implement, and only helps. --intx13 18:32, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep ---LtMile 18:35, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Solid. --krupintupple 13:58, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  16. Keep - For all above reasons. -- Catriona McM 19:47, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - It should be simpler to give the scanner the weapons' targeting list. --Signal9 20:10, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - I like the error message. Heh. Is "Self" a target for NecTech needles as well? Something similar should be done for them as well. (I can't remember if you appear in the revive list as well, personally...) Same for barricades/gens/medkits on the aformentioned, if just to clean up a little.--Arathen 22:00, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Why hasn't it been this way all along? --Basher 22:01, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Yes please. It's common sense, and good UI. --Tom Magnum 00:45, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Exactly the way it SHOULD be. --Penance 01:30, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Makes sense. --Seagull Flock 10:12, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - ...You're a medical warning label makers worst nightmare. --MorthBabid 08:43, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - There are so many times I have wished for this! --Soarin 18:02, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - that would make more sense --Cah51o 18:41, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Doctor change

Timestamp: 11:28, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Starting Skill change
Scope: Doctors
Description: Doctors start with the Diagnose skill instead of the first aid skill. This would make it alot easier for them gain the first couple of levels: I think only the first 1-2 levels because any doctor in his right mind will get that skill as soon as he possibly can, and it's one of the first ones he has access to in anycase, for only 75 EXP. This would also differentiate him from the Medic a little more, and imho in makes sense too: first aid is more of a paramedic sort of skill, whereas a doctor, who usually has time to look things over etc. will be able to diagnose the ailment. Perhaps in this case his starting items should be reduce to just 1 first aid kit, although this remains to be seen.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author's Vote. Author who is chuffed at the general acceptance of his first suggestion ^_^ --Xiad 20:28, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Helps scientist a little bit. they're the most marginal class in the game, so it won't hurt.--Vista 11:40, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Helps to differentiate between Medic and Doctor classes. -- Andrew McM 12:16, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - What, now you want to make things unbalanced again *gonk* you do not need more help - --ramby 12:17, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Even if doctors do need help? Being a doctor is quite possibly the worst starting class you can take. They can't tell who needs healing and first aid ensures that they will be able to heal people half as much for XP. Consumers even get to heal the person more times and find more aid kits, and they're widely considered a joke class. So please if you have a real reason to dislike this state it. --Zaruthustra 06:05, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - What's there not to like? good idea. Rani 12:18, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep --Mikm 12:46, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Good point. --Omega2 13:29, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep Rhialto 13:45, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I always thought this was sensible, since someone suggested it waaaaay back on the Yahoo! lists. --Daxx 14:13, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I Like it, and it makes sense. --Argus Nole 14:42, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I beleive this is the first positive skill modification for Suvivors, I've voted for. It really makes sense, does what AndrewMCM said, AND doesnt horrible unbalance the game --Jak Rhee 14:58, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Very nice! And medics get a cross-class skill, so there's nothing to complain about.--Hexedian 16:22, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Can't say that it was hard to decide what to vote --McArrowni 16:45, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Good idea. --Dickie Fux 17:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Nice, quite nice. (Um, is there a reason we're numbering votes instead of using bullet points all of a sudden?) -CWD 17:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It is a new vote-tally system to keep count of number of kills, number of keeps etc. See here and here. -- Andrew McM 17:14, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: That was my guess, and then I saw the talk page and confirmed it. Thanks. -CWD 17:17, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep Good idea, makes doctor worth taking. Norminator 2 17:28, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep First aid is USELESS to the person using it. Diagnosis is INVALUABLE to the person using it. Easy call. Keep keep keep keep keep! -- Amazing 18:03, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - keep!--Kcold 18:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - i've always wondered why doctors don't start with diagnosis. --Firemanstan 18:10, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Makes perfect sense to me! Also makes sense plot-wise... doctors without experience can still diagnose in real life, they're just not as good at actually healing you. --intx13 18:34, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep ---LtMile 18:37, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Even more solid. --krupintupple 13:58, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  23. Keep - I coulda sworn this had already been suggested and kept long ago. Maybe it was so long ago that it was only on the Proboard forum or Yahoo lists or something. --Elderdan 19:31, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Rarely does one see a suggestion of such simplicity and appeal. A definite keep. I say it shouldn't be retroactive though. - Skarmory 19:44, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep --Lord Evans 20:12, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - As above. --Signal9 20:13, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - What Skarmory said. --Basher 21:59, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - Though they should still start with two medkits, since they get less healing from them. However... I'm inclined to say MEDICS should get Diagnosis, since they need to identify the most wounded and tend to them first IRL, until professional docs can look at them, while a doctor is going into the OR knowing who he's working on. But that would make medics newb PKer heaven.--Arathen 22:10, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - intx3 makes a great point...a medical intern would indentify your broken femur, but would be less able to do anything about it. I vote 1 first aid-kit though, to balance the easy levelling. --Tom Magnum 00:48, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep --RedMage13 Good Idea.
  31. Keep - Riktar 02:45, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - What Basher said - Jedaz 03:06, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  33. Keep - I like this idea. The idea of a doctor having to learn first aid is a little ridiculous, though. I think the whole system for doctors in this game is flawed, though. For example: doctors don't use first aid kits in surgery in real life, they use advanced tools. --Horje 03:34, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Actually they apparently use the medical facilities in hospitals that are powered by generators, which is why surgery can only be used in a powered hospital. -- Andrew McM 09:47, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - What's not to like? --Alcoholic 19:35, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep -I've thought that this would make more sense for a long time, thanks for actually submitting it as a suggestion. --Matthew Stewart 21:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep- Its simple and it works--Etherdrifter 01:09, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  37. Kill - This would create a character able to generate quite a lot of xp far too quickly. --MorthBabid 08:45, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  38. Keep -- I agree. Being a doctor sucks when you can't even tell who to heal, and you get half as much experience as everyone else. At least a medic can get gun skills fairly easily to gain exp.-- Soarin 18:07, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Fast Reload

Spaminated and Dupe - 3 Spam votes before any non author keep votes and 4 dupe votes [2]. Jedaz 03:13, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Modify Brain Rot

Duped by the WCDZ. Someone's gonna be pissed about this. --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:18, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)


The Horror

Timestamp: 15:14, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Search Odds modification
Scope: Survivors
Description: You're ransacking through an old office; running a fine toothed comb over the place, looking for that all-important first-aid kit. Suddenly a zombie breaks into the room. You're panicking. You don't have time to search, because of the shambling monstrosity lurching towards you.

Search odds are halved when there is a zombie in the same building as you (or in the same block outside, if you're outside).

Simply that. I don't believe many people will search whilst zombies are in a building (except for freerunning into a resource building to quickly search and then duck back out again), but it adds a more urgent touch of "Kill the zombie!" whenever a zed breaks into your safehouse.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --Daxx 15:14, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Much more "realistic"...but my survivor is going to kick my ass! DarthMortis Jan 5th 10:15 am EST
  3. Keep - Helps us zombies hold buildings and suburbs insted of just passing through like a truck over a bridge - --ramby 15:19, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Good one. --Brizth 15:25, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I like it, but perhaps 3/4 search odds instead. --Kryten 15:26, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - good idea, but i dont think it have to be applied to mall. a mall is uge, and if i was attacked in a mall, the first thing i will do is search for a weapon. good idea!! --spetznaz21 18:25, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Won't do much, but it's nice. --Hexedian 16:17, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I like it --Qwako 16:20, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - because it is a simpler version of Fear Factor. --hagnat 16:57, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep Works well and doesn't alter the game too much. Norminator 2 17:17, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I love it. --Sindai 17:22, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Survivors should either run from zombies or fight them, not continue about their business. Note: someone deleted my vote. --Dickie Fux 17:27, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - very nice. Is there mileage in affecting survivor odds for building barricades, as well? --Frosty 17:42, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - A truley, most excelent suggestion. However, i would like to suggest that odds not be affected as much by zombies in adjacent squares of large buildings (malls, mansions, ect). --Zeek 17:48, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Makes sense fluffwise. --Matson Jade 17:52, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I'd prefer it slightly stronger but I suppose stopping searching would be too imba, on Large Buidlings a small effect from neightbours might make sense, and for malls I'd say disabling "shopping" (not bargain hunting though) might make sense to, but the suggestions simple for now, which is good --Kingreaper 17:57, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep ---Kcold 18:12, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - i like the flavor, but what about suburbs with only 1 pd, or 1 hospital. those suburbs are hard enough to defend as it is - this would make it nearly impossible. --Firemanstan 18:26, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep ---LtMile 18:38, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Mmm, say bye bye to your Necrotech buildings during seiges. --RSquared 18:42, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - I like Ransack better, works not only if the zombie is there but afterwards as well. It also gives zombies an extra skill and something they have to do instead of attacking. And it isn't automatic.--Vista 18:50, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Just because I dislike the amount of times the word ransack was used in the previous suggestion. That and the fact this is far surperior. --krupintupple 13:58, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  23. Kill - What about malls? With the recent change to malls, they're much harder to defend... now imagine that the horde breaks through a wall, and you get your search odds cut in half! Defending a mall would be impossible. --intx13 19:08, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: - Malls shouldn't be easy to defend. If anything, they should be harder than normal buildings to defend, unless you can get a lot of people in them to cover every entry point. I mean, malls are designed to have easy access! Besides which, if a horde of zombies breaks into your mall surely you should be worried about getting them out, not searching? --Daxx 19:19, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Discussion moved to Talk Page.
  24. Keep - simple to implement, significant in its ramifications, helps the tone of the game without being just another zombie buff or a nerfing of barricades, and survivors who actually work at surviving will manage it just fine --Elderdan 19:29, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Makes sense. Gives zombies another incentive to hold buildings. -- Catriona McM 19:35, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - Simple and effective. Prevents my tactic of freerunning itno a police dept. with two or three zombes in it, searching for ammo, then cleaning it out. -- Skarmory 19:38, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - Good one, Daxx. -- Petrosjko 19:54, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - You deserve to die if you're stupid enough to keep searching instead of fighting or running when your safehouse has been breached. Bentley Foss 20:10, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep --Lord Evans 20:16, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill -- Edit: You're in a city full of zombies. By now you'd be fairly jaded in terms of zombies breaking. Velkrin 09:04, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: - That's a fair comment, but I still don't believe you would keep on searching with a zombie right in front of you. --Daxx 23:02, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep --Xiad 21:20, 5 Jan 2006
  32. Keep --Basher 22:19, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  33. Keep Aww, why not? I was already mean to the zombies today. --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:20, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - Excellent suggestion!!!Kashara 22:31, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - Makes sense. phungus420 2234, 05JAN06 (GMT)
  36. Keep - Hell yes. - CthulhuFhtagn 22:35, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  37. Keep - Adds more Realism and more fun the the game. --Technerd 22:36, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  38. Keep - I like. It makes things a little more difficult for suvivors, but its not cirpplingly so, liek the brain rot suggestion. Kill Volke convinced me. Like beign nibbled to death by ducks. ooo Zombie Ducks.. hey Jason 0 if you read other peoples suggestions... you havent made a Pets Suggestion yet! --Jak Rhee 22:42, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  39. Kill - Would make malls too easy to conquer. Also, zombies could just attack the NT buildings to lower the syringes finding rate way too much.--Denzel Washington 22:49, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  40. Kill - nice idea, clunky implementation. Needs some refinement before it gets seriously considered. Doesn't take into consideration things like horde size. If one zombie was in my house, you can be damn sure I'd take the time to find a fire axe to kill him. If one hundred zombies, I'd run. Hash it out a little more, maybe edit it so that it's zombies in area > 5. Then it'll have my vote. Mojo 23:26, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  41. Keep - Makes perfect sense. Only in an artificial game world can people search in a building full of Z's! --Slicer 23:30, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re This is an artificial world. Realism has to take a back seat sometimes no? -- S Kruger - Non- Author RE: --Lockew 14:18, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  42. Keep - Jirtan 23:41, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  43. Kill I know it's futile now, but I don't care! With this, it becomes impossible for any place in the game to be held as a fort to try and hold off the undead, as with even a small group of zombies full on their AP, there'd be no point in the survivors trying to defend the area since they can't search well enouge once their ammo supply runs out, since by the time they DO find anything, they'll be too low on AP to fight! I agree that survivors should fear the undead, however, with this, they can no longer choose to either fight or flee, they can only choose to flee, otherwise, they'll just use up all their ammo and die quickly! This makes it pointless for survivors to do anything but run, which totally ruins the game since the choice is what survivors thrive on! --Volke 00:35, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: - You seem to think that guns become useless with this addition. They are not. You can still use them, and you can still search for ammo for them. Besides which, you should really be stockpiling ammunition when the zombies aren't around. If you do use up all your ammo, just switch to axes until the zombies are gone, then collect more ammo again. It's not that hard. You shouldn't be searching for ammo with a zombie in your building anyway! Are you really going to just let it stand there? I would kill it however I could as a first priority. This would not have the effect that you say it does, pure and simple. --Daxx 12:53, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  44. Kill What about the survivers like me who enjoy rushing into breached areas to have a chat with the zombies while picking up some stuff? Their grunts and groans are certainly more conversational then the garbage some survivers spew, and at worst they'll take a bite out of you. ...okay enough being just silly. If this were implemented, it would be pretty darn hard to hold any building without stockpiling munitions before hand, and make it pretty near impossible to hold a mall(which from what I've seen as a feral zombie is allready darn hard) in the long run.--Homunculus 01:08, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)Edit: PS. Survivors allready have some urgency to remove a zombie from a safehouse, as medium/high level ones tend to get a bit bitey and infect several people before actually going for kills--Homunculus 01:16, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  45. Kill The incremental effect is neglegible. This would be better as an actual Zombie skill, something like Fearful Glare that caused a loss of AP and a gain in XP (or just an AP loss) - Len Whistler 01:17, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  46. Keep - Sounds logical, and it's not a skill that will disrupt the balance too much in my opinion. I think it gives the survivors a good reason to clear an important building in combined effort and prevents players to simply walk towards the neighbours when they are being attacked and freerun inside when they need to restock. Survivors that don't want to abandon the place can usually still restock somewhere nearby and attack the building again if it is truly so important to them. It also gives zombie hordes a reason to stay in a building after they have cleared it instead of just barging out and hitting the next one, so it gives orginised hordes a reason to start thinking about tactics and spreading their lines. --Paddy Fitzgerald 01:58, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  47. Kill- well unless that add the better serch odds when the lights are on for all buildings which I'm pretty sure was not added yet. I find it unbalanced. Note: Will change to a keep if someone provides me a link that you get better search odds when the lights are on being added to the gameDrogmir 02:05, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  48. Kill This breaks too many suggestion rules, including arguing realism and temporary bonuses and penalties. Search values are already quite low and well balanced, no need to mess with them. -- S Kruger
    • RE: - I will quote someone else on this one. "Temporary bonuses are things that must be kept as a seperate variable, such as infection. This is not temporary, as the server already processes weather or not a zombie is in the area. On an unrelated note, the outside and the inside of a building are treated as seperate areas, so it would in no way hinder survivors in a barricaded building during a siege." Jirtan 03:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT) I think that explains it quite nicely. Also, being realistic is different to arguing realism, and is not against any rules I've read. --Daxx 12:53, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  49. Keep This is beautiful. -Torfin 02:29, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  50. Keep - Yeah sure why not - Jedaz 03:16, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  51. Keep - Cements the idea of area control, which is good. Encourages teamwork in zombies. It does slightly worry me that malls are basically taking it up the cornhole, and this would make it worse. I've seen three of them go down in three days. --Zaruthustra 06:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  52. Keep - HOLY SHIT! Zaruthustra voted keep! The apocalypse has come! --Grim s 17:42, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  53. kill - On the whole I like this idea, but it pretty means that if the only hospital near your safehouse is continually infested with at least one (or always just one) zed, then it becomes nearly useless. Also, it would be very easy to abuse this by zeds creating useless characters, whose only purpose is to be left in buildings and make thing more difficult on survivors.--Torin Mai 18:33, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  54. Keep - I like this. "They're getting closer! Find something!" "I can't! I can't! It's all too jumbled!" Panic, even simulated panic, is good stuff. --ScottyD 19:09, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  55. Keep - Makes sense, I suppose, and the effects it would have on area control are a nice bonus. --Alcoholic 19:43, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  56. Keep - I think a perfectly good suggestion was shot down because humans could run in, search, run out. --ALIENwolve 22:56, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  57. Keep - Nothing more to be said--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:56, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  58. Kill - I love the idea, but it should be changed so that if there is a certain number of humans in the same room as you, say 50, The Horror has no effect. Most people would be brave enough to search for things when there're 50 other humans to fight beside them. --Zaknrfama 03:29, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  59. Keep - I like this, but I'm wondering if it'd be better if the numbers were tweaked a bit. It feels to me like the presence of one zombie in a room with 75 survivors shouldn't make it harder for me to search, while a 5Z vs. 5S population should. I don't know what sort of code it would take to bring about that sort of improvement though; if it's too hard, maybe keep the suggestion as-is. --MoonLayHidden 10:41, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  60. Kill - I like it, but as Vista said, I think Ransack is better. And it's already been Peer Reviewed. --Seagull Flock 10:15, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  61. Kill - I prefer the more fair mechanic that Ransack gives us; the zombies have to actually work at it, not just show up. --MorthBabid 08:47, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 43/14 02:56, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  62. Kill - I like the realism, but it entirely nerfs the survivor strategy of running in quickly (with or without Free Running) and searching and leaving. This makes resource buildings an even bigger target, since once a suburb is overtaken, the horde just parks a few zombies in the NT buildings and other resource buildings and it will never be retaken. --C tiger 16:09, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  63. Kill I understand the thinking, but it's very poorly implemented. Not everyone panics at the same rate. What would you care if you were in a Target store with one zombie? You would still look carefully to get the gun or axe to kill it with, and you could always run away from it if it got in your aisle or something. Why would 100 seasoned zombie killers freak out if one zombie is in their mall? 100 zombies would be an entirely different story. Some people are brave, some are foolish. Why not let the foolish people search and risk getting eaten? -- Soarin 18:25, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Mutation (Or something)

Spaminated with 3 Spams and 11 Kills. Absolutely overpowered. --Brizth 00:30, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Counterattack

Suggestion Spaminated with three Spams, one (author) Keep and 11 Kills. Jason, here's hoping your next one is better. --Daxx 23:48, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Tracking

Timestamp: Jason Killdare 21:46, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Tracking (Survivors and zombies that have been in blocks you can see on your map, within the last 24 hours, show as a tally (one for zombies and one for survivors) in each block.)

Votes
Vote Here

  1. Keep - Author Vote --Jason Killdare 21:46, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Great, great, we do, in fact, need a few hundred thousand extra chunks of data just hanging around on the server, for the purpose of....what? Wait, what was the purpose again? How would this make the game more fun to play? No. Expect a WCDZ "pacification" squad on your doorstep in four hours. Bentley Foss 21:55, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Sorry I'm late. World Civ term paper. Anyway, DIE SUGGESTION, DIE! Adds nothing to the game experience at all, and makes the server do extra work. The WCDZ asks you to think your suggestions through a little bit more. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:58, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill What they said.. and I'm not even a member of WCDZ. This is just yet another horrible pointless idea. Shame. We've actually had some GOOD suggestions today. --Jak Rhee 22:08, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Sorry Jason, the WCDZ does not approve. --Daxx 22:12, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - why? --Firemanstan 22:23, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - As said above, why? Also, this would make the server implode into a miniature black hole.--Arathen 22:35, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Sorry Jason, this doesnt reach the WCDZ standards. --hagnat 22:52, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill And he keeps coming with the bad ideas... AllStarZ 23:15, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill Honestly, do you think about what these ideas would do if they were implemented? --Zaruthustra 23:22, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. KILL - I refuse to vote keep on anything that has lees than 50 words in it's description! DarthMortis 23:24, 5 Jan 2005 (GMT)
  12. Kill - --Mikm 23:27, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 11 Kill, 1 (Author) Keep, 12 Total --Mikm 23:27, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill -the WCDZ has spoken Jason --Vista 23:47, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. KILLRhialto 00:23, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill -Yeah, what the WWF said! --krupintupple 21:31, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  16. Kill - Just plain old horriable... - Jedaz 03:20, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - If implementing a suggestion will turn the server into a very expensive space heater/fire hazard, don't suggest it. --Signal9 04:31, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - My somewhat related suggestion was hacked to pieces, so don't feel bad. This just isn't that useful. FireballX301 06:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - This would be a PKers salvation...and they really don't need any of that. "I killed him, now I'll stalk his corpse and keep killing him! Joy!" --MorthBabid 08:48, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Change of "Fifty People Nearest to You" Speech Idea 1

Timestamp: 23:30, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: All
Description: Instead of having the speech affect only the fifty most recently active members, I suggest that speech is placed in the same style as a crowded building's member list: with a link you can click that shows the speech. It's either that or a small scroll-box that dosplays the text on a small space. Some members aren't very active, so they might miss an important message. Some people might want to message a person, but will be unable to. This would solve that problem. I rather liked having many people talking-- gave the game more life.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote --Zacharias Cross 23:30, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - It was implemented so to save the server from some work. As for messaging certain people, you can use a cellphone. Jirtan 23:38, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I might vote Keep, but I don't think speech works that way. Speech is stored in the db with your character until you see it and is then removed. Essentially, this stores the speech for every character rendering the change itself useless because it's the same amount of server load as before. That's how I see it, at least. Someone feel free to explain it in more detail if I'm wrong. --Daxx 23:38, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: Perhaps, then, we make it an option that someone can select by going to their "Edit Profile" page, whether or not they want to see the speech? THat might work. What do you think? --Zacharias Cross 23:45, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • RE: - That might be a good idea for another suggestion, so you can see what people think. --Daxx 23:47, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. comment I would vote keep, but as Daxx said, can it work that way?--Vista 00:00, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Comment - I think there might be a way to implement that, which involves the server saving one copy of all conversations, and then sending them out on-demand to the players, the problem is that then it would also have to remember when each player was last active - I just don't know if it's better or worse than what we have now. --Signal9 04:36, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - That would be far too much information to store for long. Hence why it is as it is now. --MorthBabid 08:49, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Change of "Fifty People Nearest to You" Speech Idea 2

Timestamp: 23:30, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: All
Description: Instead of having the speech affect only the fifty most recently active members, I suggest that showing all of the speech is an option. People can select to turn it on or off by going to their "edit profile" page. If it was "off", then the speech would be shown as it is now. If it was "on", then it would go back to showing all speech, no matter the level of activity of a person. Some members aren't very active, so they might miss an important message. Some people might want to message a person, but will be unable to. This would solve that problem. I rather liked having many people talking-- gave the game more life.

DEFAULT SETTING WOULD BE "OFF"!!!

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote --Zacharias Cross 23:30, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - If, and only if, the default is off - so people have to actively turn it on. --Daxx 23:55, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - see above--Vista 00:03, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - What they said Jorge 00:05, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep --Lord Evans 00:09, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - the same as Vista --hagnat 00:11, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - The speech was restricted because of server overload issues. Wanna break it again? Rhialto 00:12, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: There would be many people choosing to forgoe the speech, thus allowing the servers to stay normal. --Zacharias Cross 00:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep --Mikm 00:17, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Ditto to two up.--Argus Nole 00:18, 6 Jan 2006
  10. Keep - The "Closest 50" addition was just a punishment placed on all of us for the actions of the Strikers anyway. -- Amazing 00:41, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - i liked your first speech idea better, but if it doesn't bode well with the server - i'll go with this one. --Firemanstan 01:22, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I'm having a hard time uderstanding what you're trying to say. Are you trying to make the speech number unlimited? Or to have a scolable speech window?Drogmir 01:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - --Kcold 02:27, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Plumsauce sandwiches, this would be a good idea for the server's sake, i reckon! --krupintupple 21:33, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  15. Keep - Riktar 02:49, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I'm fealing gernerous today - Jedaz 03:25, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. KILL. Assuming choices of the players will keep the server free of overload has proven false in the past. The current implementation is a safeguard against groups of individuals without regard for other's game play or the server load. --Matthew Stewart 18:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - If action has been taken by the admin to prevent server meltdown by malicious players this is not the forum to countermand it. Don't like it? Write your own zombie game, pay for your own server time and bandwidth. -Torfin 03:24, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Still doesn't really address the sever load issue. Defeats the purpose of this game trait. --MorthBabid 08:50, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Corpse Discernment

Timestamp: 23:58, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: This is a Scientist skill, not under anything else in the skill tree. Players who have it will no longer see the generic message "dead bodies"; instead, they will see:
  • Fresh Kills: Dead bodies who were survivors before they were slain.
  • Rotting Corpses: Dead bodies who were zombies before they were put down.
  • Reviving Bodies: Zombies who were stuck with a Mark 2 Revivification Syringe.

They will also have the options, when appropriate, of "Dump all the dead bodies" and "Dump all non-reviving". This lets recently revived survivors stay in safehouses... unless some n00b throws them out. (I suspect that graffiti to this effect will be used.)

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. After reading all the crap suggestions I really wanted to add something worthwhile. --Slicer 23:58, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill Keep - If you remove the "dump all non-reviving" part, I'll vote Keep. Good stuff. --Daxx 00:02, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Okay, I changed it. Can someone please tell me WHY this is broken on the Talk page? --Slicer 00:10, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep Hmm, not bad. -CWD 00:05, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill Keep I like the idea, but the dumping part is broken. Okie, Better now. Thanks --Jorge 00:06, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep -same as Daxx (again, boring not?) --Vista 00:08, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep Kill - the dumping part is broken. Remove it ASAP, and i give you a cookie and a Keep. --hagnat 00:09, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit: Here, have a cookie. --hagnat 00:14, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep --Lord Evans 00:12, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep --Mikm 00:15, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep -- Shiny like this! -pinkgothic 00:22, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep -- I had to think about it for a minute before I could see any use for it, but yeah, it would nice information to have. --Dickie Fux 01:19, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep -- i mainly see this as a flavor skill (although i can think of a few minor uses for it), and most people would probably wait to get this skill last... i would like this as an innate scientist class ability - but i like the flavor either way. --Firemanstan 01:44, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep Best suggestion in days. But I'd put it under Surgery or Diagnosis, since only a highly trained medical doctor would be able to do that kind of diagnosis. The Re-dead may or may not be all that discernable from the recently dead. -- S Kruger
  13. Keep--Kcold 02:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Change the name to Necrology and I'm in. Hell I'm in anyway, just work on the name. --krupintupple 21:36, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  15. Keep - Meh, don't see problem with the dump. Don't see their points on the Talk page. So it saves the revived player an AP. Most zulus killed in sieges plan on returning to unlife anyways - so they can save an AP to jump out of the building they're in. (Regrettably removing an unsigned vote.) -CWD 03:30, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT) (I could have sworn I signed this. I'm not in the habit of unsigning my votes.) Umm, resigned? Riktar 00:59, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - This sounds pretty cool. And it's not like it would really be impossible to tell the difference between a guy who just died, a guy who's totally rotted and a guy who is regenerating flesh right in front of your eyes. --Horje 03:36, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - I very much like the idea of being able to tell how many dead bodies were actually survivor kills and how many are fallen zombies. --Sindai 03:50, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep --McArrowni 03:55, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - What's the point? How is this skill beneficial at all? Bentley Foss 04:46, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep = I like this. --Jak Rhee 04:59, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep although might want to put this under diagnosis. imho makes more sense that first you can diagnose live people before you conduct autopsies. Xiad 10:14, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - What Xiad said. --John Taggart 13:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. KEEP - DarthMortis 14:35, 6 Jan 2006
  24. Keep - Makes sense to me. --Norminator 2 18:14, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Sounds good and not to difficult to implement--Etherdrifter 01:11, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)