Suggestions/5th-Mar-2007

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.

Group Flags

Timestamp:	00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Flavourish
Scope:	buildings
Description:	Flags that belong to teams could go on top of buildings and be added to the description. For instance: "you are standing outside of ------ there is a "Group name" flag fluttering from the roof". It could be used by any survivor group that has say 50 or more members. if 5 or more people were in the building, then one could elect to "raise group flag". The game would assume that the materials were in the building, save for a spraycan. they could be removed by another person, and would disappear if there were no members of the group left. It could also maybe read "groupname" and a 10 character player message, such as "HQ"

Keep Votes

1. Keep - This is alright, however I think that it needs refining. Although I like the idea of groups having more ability to call a place home. Maybe only allow this in certain buildings, not malls, groups of 25> and only one active per group? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - A bit rough, but the basic Idea makes sense. However, only zombies would ever really see or care about the flags, as survivors spend 99% of thier time free-running. Still, if survivors want to announce to zombies that the soup kitchen is open, let them! --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - Author vote. I think survivors would read it as well. The reason it's so rough was because i had the idea earlier in the day, forgot it, then remembered it again. I was going to include the idea that you could put the group name under the name of the building as well. --User: Graaj 00:51
4. Keep - Allow more than one flag on a single building; it'd help to avoid drama and it'd be cool to go to a mall and a dozen flags flying. Oh, and no 10 character messages on a group's flag: it'd be a dream tool for griefers. --Toejam 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) and 10:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - The Basic idea is good--Carnage 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - Change it, so flags could only be put on those building defined as tall. - BzAli 10:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - Only a flag, waves in the wind and marks territory.. it's kind of hard to sing a national anthem to a spraypainted wall. Okay, zombie flags would be cool.. hee heee hee (probably entrails on a bedsheet..) MrAushvitz 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep. -TheDictator 11:27 07 March 2007 (MST)
9. Keep - i like it. especially if with the possibility to raise more than one flag if there is more than 1 group with enough numbers. Maybe make in mostly for malls - that won't give away intel to zeds as malls are usually well populated. and unlike tagging it should be harder for random player to overpaint/remove the flag. --Duke Garland 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Not needed.--Gage 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

   Re I realise it's not a necessary addition, but its not a huge one and it would make hq's cooler. --User: Graaj 05:58

2. Meh - Tagging buildings as if they "belong" to the group is bad enough. Survivor groups shouldn't be aiming to own territory exclusively, they should co-operate -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 06:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - We already have graffiti and billboards. Still, what I really dislike about your suggestion is that you're saying only a large group can raise a flag. I hate group-centric suggestions like this. Essentially, you're duping the result of outdoor graffiti. Why? --Funt Solo 12:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Above. Other then that, this is useless. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - Completely unnecessary. Would suddenly see a vast number of 50+ groups appear, as those who want a flag create a bunch of group tagged zergs and waste 50 IP logging into to each one every 5 days to keep the numbers up. Sprays and Billboards are more than enough. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 13:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - Easier to use spraypaint. -- 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - As above. --Bill Dawson 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - LOOK ZOMBIES WE'RE IN HERE!!! Oh damm they can see our HQ- damm we're dead. And 50+ is too high... --Marie^{The Grove on Tour} 16:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - As Funt. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Brain Rot > Headshot

Timestamp:	Valore 06:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Change, Improvement
Scope:	Survivors with head shot, zombies with Brain Rot
Description:	A previous suggestion I made to improve the usefulness of Brain rot was dismissed (Spammed and killed to hell I believe is the term), so I've toned it down. This suggestion is far more simple. If you have Brain Rot, you are not affected by Head Shot. Why? Your head is blown away, you have no brain, its only logical you don't feel disadvantaged. Carry on.

Keep Votes
For Votes here
Kill Votes

1. Kill - and headshoot this suggestion. Without headshot, a zombie death costs 1AP, and there would be absolutely no penalty for just standing up again, and again, and again, and again. Got to leave survivors with some way to put a zombie down, at least for an hour or two -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 06:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - There is a way, its called barricading. Headshot, with its 5AP penalty, hardly punishes anyone aside from newbies without AG, who have to spend 16AP to stand up. --Valore 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

   No, headshot punishes every zombie equally (5AP). Your suggestion means that higher level zombies (those who have achieved brainrot status) are exempt from it, but newbz still have to take the headshots (unless they waste their first XP on a skill that doesn't help them gain more XP) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Kill - Shooting zambahz is already a foolish thing to do unless you're desperate for xp or clearing the last few holders of a ransack: if they've got AG you can't break even on the AP exchange, let alone win it. This change would just discourage triggerhappy survivors from wasting their AP. I do think Brain Rot needs to be improved, but this way seems to be more harm than good, to me. --Mold 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - You've said above that this would discourage trigger happy survivors, why is this a bad thing? Barricades are the only way the game can be won by survivors anyway. --Valore 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
     • Re - I like survivors wasting AP killing zombies. AP burned up searching for ammo and firing it is AP not going into those silly barricades, healing infected barricaders, and the like. --Mold 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3. kill So Headshot would become a skill only usefull against newbies? aka. 'those who need to learn why UD is fun'. -BzAli 10:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - I'd argue that the large percentage of UD veterans who play zeds don't have Brain Rot. This would simply encourage those without Brain Rot to get it by providing incentive. --Valore 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - One of the things I like about UD is the openness of it. It doesn't matter what class you pick at the start, ultimately you'll be free to go into healing or shooting or reviving or any other role you choose. I don't want new abilities to be blocked off from me by brain rot. --Toejam 11:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - It's called "Brainrot", not "Complete Lack of a Brain". --Funt Solo 12:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
6. This completely nerfs Headshot in a siege. Besides, Brainrot does not mean you don't have a brain. It means your brain is rotten. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - As Funt Solo said. Zombies with Brain Rot are often in fact among the most intelligent acting creatures in the game, and have fully functional brains that in fact can be revived under the proper circumstances. --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - Interesting, yet I think the benefit is a little too much. -- 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - Nerfs Ankle Grab, sorta, and would nerf those poor, defenseless trenchcoaters even more.--Lachryma^☭ 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - When did encouraging trenchcoat behaviour become a good thing?? --Valore 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - How would YOU like it if i was limping towards you and you shot off all your precious ammo and ap just to see me get right back up like nothing happened and eat you . --EL Zillcho 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - You wouldn't be limping towards me, you'd be outside, with me pushing up desks against the doors, hopefully being helped by the rest of the idiot trenchcoaters who realised shooting you was futile. --Valore 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Kill - And bury this. It just isn't needed.--Priz 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Kill - Headshot is a necessary and very important counter to ankle grab. It's the only way to semi-effectively directly damage the one thing that matters to zombies: their AP. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Strong Kill -Brain Rot>Headshot, otherwise known as "Headshot nerf" --AlexanderRM 6:25 PM, 9 March 2007 (EST)

---

Cooking/Food

Mod-Spaminated with 8 spams and 8 kills. Voters thought it was too complicated.--Gage 08:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

---

There are N Members of your Group Here

Timestamp:	S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 14:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	anybody in a group
Description:	Simple enough- whenever you are in a location, in addition to seeing information about who is present (survivor names, number of zombies, etc) you would get a message saying "There are N members of your group here." There are a few limits on this. Survivors can aways be recognized, so they would always count towards the total if they were members of your group. A zombie with Scent Death can determine if somebody is a member of their group, and certain Scent Death effects carry over into life, so all characters with Scent Death would also count zombies who were members of their group towards this total. This is intended to benefit both survivors and zombies. Survivors would potentially get great use form this are revive points (if they had Scent Death) and always benefit when in locations with over 50 people present. Zombies (including dead survivors at revive points) would potentially know how many group members were in a location with them, without having to have them all on their contact list. It adds tactical information, and it just makes sense.

Keep Votes

1. Keep - Makes coordinating shamblers with a bad sense of direction easier. I suppose the Mrh? cows might also benefit.--Dread Lime 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - Ah, more to help your own X:00 theory. Well, seems decent enough. -Mark D. Stroyer 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Yes, that to. As one of its active users, the flaws of the "scent death" upgrade were pretty glaring, and AFAIK nobody in ANY group is getting use from that feature. --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - Helpful to see how many group members are around. -- 16:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - Funt, since when did "server load" become an acceptable kill? Vote on the merits of the suggestion, not directly how it's going to be implemented- the specifics are unimportant. --Karloth Vois ^RR 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - Why not, I don't play in a group, but I can't see this hurting. Midly nerfz zombie anonymity. Also, coding issues and server load are invalid voting points. EDIT: As for coding concerns, I think that issues with the server are more of a bandwidth limitation than any sort of computational or database related problems. Selecting the top 50 users from a building is virtually the same amount of load for the database, it just takes up more bandwidth (i.e. sending data to the client). This suggestion doesn't require very much bandwidth at all so this isn't a big issue. --Gm0n3y 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - If you are survivors, you could just check each person's profile to find out, but this will make it easier for the survivor. For the zombies, since you can't tell one from another unless you are attacked by them, so the groups with zombies will benefit in that they know who to hit and who not to hit. --Storyteller 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
   • No, it actually would not do that for zombies. For example, if there were 20 zombies present, and 10 members of your group present, you would have no idea WHICH 10 zombies were in your group, unless you had them on your contact list already. But it might inspire you to ask them to talk, so you COULD add them to your contact list when they replied. --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - Nothing wrong that I can see. --Preasure 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep - Splendid! This is great for people in large groups or who might not otherwise recognise new group members. I'd like to see a way to keep people from changing their group description to match an enemy group and then changing back. --Uncle Bill 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - If the server can take the punishment... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - I can't think of any reason not to have this other than server load, and I'm with Karloth on the voting only on the suggestion's merit thing. If you can't think why you'd need this then you've clearly not spent any decent length of time as a zombie. --Ashadoa 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep - usefull for big groups.--Duke Garland 11:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. Kill - the reasons that you can only see 50 people are to do with server-load, I believe. Searching all those people for their group stat would negate the saving, wouldn't it? If you tie this into the current functionality for viewing all the people when in a location with more than 50, then I'd vote Keep. --Funt Solo 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (Karloth, when it's directly relevant, the guideline about not mentioning it in a vote seems pretty daft. I don't tell you how to vote, so... --Funt Solo 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
   • Keven could handle this, I think. For example, each hour when the server resets the stats page, it could compile a list of who the members of various groups are. When a character logs in or edits their profile, they could grab a cookie that contained a list of (only) their own group's members. The cookie would then be used LOCALLY each time the page refreshed to create the proper effect. Voila, no increased server load for basic page serves, and only a very minor increase over all. This might not produce EXACTLY the effects described above (and might only apply to groups with more than 10 members) but that is exactly why suggestions do not require tech details. And since profiles are already infinitely searchable (you could download every profile in the game if you wish, and some people / groups / programs have) this would not risk disclosing "secure information" about who is in what group. Or, locations could each have an associate aray that lists how many members are present, and is modified when (and only when) they enter / leave the location. S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

   • re - I disagree. --Funt Solo 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

   • It would probably help us voters to better understand your reasoning, Funt Solo, if you would tell us how and why you disagree. Just a thought. --Storyteller 20:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC) - non-author re struck. --Funt Solo 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Couldn't this be used to grief...? -Certified=Insane^☭ 22:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - This can be used for griefing - it's not hard to change your group name to that of the people you are after for a few turns while you search a Mall for them. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
   • And how would that help you grief them? You would know how many of the group in question were present, but not which people present were in that group. So you would have to open a bunch of profiles and look at the group names. Which you already can do, if that is your intention. Hence, this adds no new potential for griefing in that case. --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, true enough that it provides already available information in a new, easier to use format. And I suppose anything that makes already available information easier to obtain could be abused for griefing. Gee, maybe we should shut down the internet- I hear its full of information on how to build bombs! S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
     • It would help because you would be getting information you otherwise wouldn't get; i.e: that members of a particular group are present. As it stands there is no way to tell if a particular group is wihtin a well populated building without searching the profiles of every single one of them. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 14:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
4. As the 3 above me. And can you not RE every single kill vote, please? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - I just don't see it as being of any use at all, other than interest value, unless there are very low numbers of zombies... and then it's a way around zombie anonymity. Instead of having to DNA extract a lone zombie, to ensure it's not one of your mates before blasting him, you get the info for free if s/he's part of your group -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
   • True enough as to what happens when you find a lone zombie member of your group. And isn't rapid recognition of allies one of the the main reasons why / methods by which people organize in groups? --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 14:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - Contact lists. Userdefined colourcoding. Not needed. - BzAli 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

   The contact list is limited to 150 members. I'm in some groups with more than 150 members. What you seem to be suggesting (contact listing my entire group) is simply not possible, even if I had access to their profiles. And that ignores the fact that I may want to contact list interesting folks OUTSIDE of my own group. Also, editing your contact list consumes IP hits, so if possible, it is often disadvantageous, even for members of smaller groups with fewer contacts. --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC) edited reply to use full sentences with proper grammar.
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - I don't know how big your group is but can't you see/recognise everyone in your group? And why does it matter anyway? All groups these days have forums for comminication and we all have contact lists- coloured in to recognise people. And anyway surely this would only work if everyone in your group had the same typing of the group so The Grove and not the grove/elder or whatever. Just use your eyes. --Marie^{The Grove on Tour} 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

   See above for BzAli's kill vote as to why that doesn't work for everybody. For zombies, you can't "use your eye's unless they are on your contact list. The biggest groups in the game, just happen to be zombie groups (and that only counts the people who typed it identically) - so yes, this is needed by many people (600 or so, which is about 2% of the game).

   And if formus are such a wonderful way to organize a group, why do we need group names at all? Why not remove them from the game entirely, as they really serve no actual purpose? --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---