Talk:Suggestions/21st-Nov-2005

Carry Comrade

• And what's to stop "helpful" spies and cultists from carrying me out of my safehouse and leaving me to the zombies? Everyl 14:17, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• • Re - (I know only the author of the suggestion is supposed to Re:, but...) ONLY people who have added the skill-holder to their contact list can be carried. This prevents griefer abuse, or alternately, carries a penalty for stupidly placing trust in the wrong person. Can't you read? - KingRaptor 14:22, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • You've never added a dangerous zombie to your contact list so you can recognize them in a crowd? More in the discussion page. Everyl 16:41, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

So as to minimize clutter in the voting section, I'll put the extended version of my comments here. I voted "kill" because the skill would require a rethinking of the function of the contacts list - you would only be able to add people you trust with your life to the list. As is, it functions as a friends list, a means of tracking dangerous zombies you've encountered before, and a way of not forgetting the names of people who do nice - or not-so-nice - things for you. I've read comments in other suggestions sections in which people have referred to adding strangers who raise or heal them to their contacts list, for example. As a personal example, roughly half the contacts my characters have are survivors they met in passing who had many zombie skills, so I decided to mark them so I would see them coming if they later switch side for any reason. Implementing this version of comrade carrying would require many users to purge their contacts lists for fear of being thrown to the zombies.

In short, I don't think it prevents griefing effectively enough.

Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, logins are tracked as cookies on the users' systems, rather than on the server itself. This would make it rather impractical to implement login-checking in the first place.

If I'm wrong about the login issues, and other suggestions about dividing the contacts list into "enemy" and "ally" (or something similar) lists are implemented, I'd change my vote to a keep. --Everyl 17:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• • You know, Everyl, I was about to mention splitting the contact lists into "hostile", "friendly", and "neutral". Methinks I'll make it a suggestion. --John Taggart 23:53, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Proposal's weaknesses are implementation, not conceptual difficulties: The best rebukes of this idea are those regarding its complexity and resultant difficulty to implement in the game code. I reject these arguments as the basis to offer a Kill vote, however, since I am not the game coder and only Kevan really can make the determination that it is too difficult to code in. Let us vote on the merit of the idea rather than speculate about its implementation, and let Kevan make the final call.
  • Does not give survivor class undue advantage: Survivors would not receive an AP boon from this as it would take a lot of APs to move with a guy on your back (3) and, assuming these are different people moving each other, most people will not want to lose all their day's AP dragging another person unless it was necessitated by some dire circumstance. In practice, it wouldn't be practicable for people to try to horde AP off of this since someone, namely the carrier, would be losing a lot of AP at a very fast rate for no tangible reward--and if it cost 3AP to move with someone on your back, you'd both still be better off running on your own, together.
  • Advances Role Play and Teamwork: If you have a dedicated band of comrades, it would really enhance the RP element of the game to allow someone to drag his friend to safety at the cost of great self sacrifice (i.e. losing massive APs). This sort of teamwork should be encouraged as noble, honorable service and dedication to your fellow survivors, not discouraged as abuse of the game.
  • Potential for Abuse: Clearly this could easily be abused by someone using multiple characters--just as virtually any other game function could be. While a simple argument that "any feature could be abused by someone using multiple characters and therefore we shouldn't consider this argument" is overly simplistic, there are certainly degrees of abuse potential, and I don't see the potential for abuse in this case as any more insidious than the potential for multiple character abuse in any presently existing feature (e.g. using multiple characters of your own to kill a mob of zombies).
  • Possible Changes: While I am voting to keep this, if the author or the implementor thought that this proposal could be amended, I would humbly offer the following possible changes:
    • Increase the movement AP required to 4 or 5 to further allay abuse concerns and to simulate the heavy burden of carrying another human being.
    • Eliminate the policeman/fireman distinction and simply make this a subset skill of bodybuilding.
    • Allow users to have a button that allows them to toggle on or off whether they will allow themselves to be carried, thus allaying concerns of involuntary dragging.
    • Perhaps, as a most extreme amendment, only allow players to drag dead bodies rather than sleeping ones.

--SCOS OJ 2145 GMT, November 21, 2005

Holy... This belongs on the talk page! (no vote) --Shadowstar 00:02, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I guess I'm strange in that I've only added one random person to my contact list so far, then. - KingRaptor 03:50, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

---

Woundwalking

The following are votes and responses to them that were deleted from the main suggestions page (and probably should have been moved here originally rather than being just deleted.) — G026r 02:08, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• Kill Even if I were to follow your logic, is there a particular brilliant reason why this would apply only to Survivors? Madalex 15:08, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT) *Kill Even if I were to follow your logic, is there a particular brilliant reason why this would apply only to Survivors? Madalex 15:08, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re Because zombies don't mind pain and because they already shamble. At least the lower level ones do. - Skarmory 16:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - A good idea that would seriously mess with survivors. Maybe add something to counteract this? Give scientists the ability to cauterize wounds or something. --Zaruthustra 15:54, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT) *Kill - A good idea that would seriously mess with survivors. Maybe add something to counteract this? Give scientists the ability to cauterize wounds or something. --Zaruthustra 15:54, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re Say, a Zombie Hunter ability which decreases the HP barrier to, say, 10 or 15? I woudln't want to see it completely removed, as it's the best hunters who are most deadly. - Skarmory 16:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Has a future.. but the percentage is too large (50% and you'r walking almost dead?) good idea though .. i think just revise it a tad--Adrian 17:57, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT) *Kill - Has a future.. but the percentage is too large (50% and you'r walking almost dead?) good idea though .. i think just revise it a tad--Adrian 17:57, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - Nothing's stopping you from entering a building. I chose 25Hp as that's when the 'scent fear' kicks into play. But it seems a lower percentage might work just as fine.
• Keep - I like it. Might apply for zombies with lurching gait too, for balance purposes. Monstah 18:01, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT) *Keep - I like it. Might apply for zombies with lurching gait too, for balance purposes. Monstah 18:01, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re Don't forget, zombies can barely heal up, other than digestion, which means putting themselves in more risk. Still, not too dumb an idea either.
• Kill - Everybody say it with me now: messing with APs is bad. Bentley Foss 19:19, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT) *Kill - Everybody say it with me now: messing with APs is bad. Bentley Foss 19:19, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Re I agree. However, this isn't really messing with AP. As I understand, messing with AP means remotely changing their value. Wounwalking won't take away your APs per se - at worst, you will have to limp to cover, or just heal yourself in plain sight. The moemnt you're over the HP barrier, the move penalty is gone. It's no more messing with AP than Lurching Gait is.

Rail Travel

You guys are going to be the death of me--Spellbinder 02:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• Kill - It's not that I don't like the idea, it's that I don't like the idea right now. Personally I don't think that trains will be running inside a quarantined city during a zombie apocalypse due to a lot of factors: debris on the rails, lack of fuel, etc., etc. Also, I don't think that a portable generator is quite up to the task of running a train station. Perhaps this'll be good to re-suggest once the main power stations come back on. Until then, I cannot vote keep. With apologies, Bentley Foss 19:45, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Don't take this as disagreeing with your vote, but lemme just tackle a few points :) - I was thinking that the trains hijacked by survivors would basically run on coal. I know it's a stretch but it explains the electricity problem. heh heh. The generator for the train station would just serve to 'make the train stop there' because the lights would be on and it'd be possible for those running the train to see that you're there trying to get their attention. Admittedly the whole thing is a stretch, I just thought it'd be a good travel system. --Amazing 19:50, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• kill - Nah. It sounded interesting, but I don't see it fitting the theme. I have nothing against the generator thing, just... nah. Monstah 20:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - It seems like a good idea, but you would need to have the city power back on before you could run a train station. Do you know how many generators it would take to run a train? Bently Floss pretty much beat the questions out on this one. --ThunderJoe 20:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: - Generators aren't used to run trains in the suggestion. --Amazing 23:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Sorry, I ment to say Train stations. I have used those portable generators, and the blow up when you try to use a refigerator, a TV, a PS2, and a Microwave at the same time. --ThunderJoe 19:14, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• Keep - I like the idea. Also - to those who say "omg do j00 know how many generatorz it'd taek to run a trane" - let's not forget the two-person handcars (basically a simple platform with railway wheels and a simple, manually-operated lever-and-cam drive system). And to deal with the debris problem, you could have a %chance of the train/handcar derailing, thus dumping you in a suburb somewhere between the one you left and the one you're headed for, maning you'd have to walk the rest of the way. --John Taggart 20:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - See Bentley's comments. Also, a town like Malton would probably have rail lines going out of the city. If the trains are running, why would people still be stuck in town? X1M43 20:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Because the military quarantine forces have ripped up the tracks that connect Malton with other towns, naturally. Also, has nobody seen The General (or any other movie dealing with railway transportation)?! You don't need electricity to run a train - coal worked for decades before electricty was feasible . . . and I've already mentioned handcars (one of which can be seen in the aforementioned movie.) --John Taggart 20:25, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • It also occured to me that The General is a movie made in 1927. I think we have agreement that Malton is in modern England. --Fixen 20:33, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • A) There's still plenty of coal-fuelled rolling stock around (I'm probably going to get trashed for this, but they've been using it in the Harry Potter movies) and B) handcars are still in use for track inspection. --John Taggart 20:36, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Good. Stay with handcars so I won't bash this too much. Now...consider my reasons to kill this below. --Fixen 20:47, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
        • considered, and I say just vote kill on the uber-ninja-pirate-zombie-killer-running-over-zombies-with-trains suggestions when they crop up. You have valid concerns, but you're also throwing out the baby with the bath water. (Also, if there's a train station in Ridleybank, it's highly unlikely that a survivor's going to get in there to set up a generator at the train station - and the trains will only stop at stations with lights.) --John Taggart 21:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - No...never, ever, ever. This means that people can go from the almost zombieless outskirts of the city into zombie-congested places like Ridleybank, pop a few things, then hop on a train and come right back. It kills the meaning of a safehouse. This suggestion also means that there are tracks in the city too, and then some idiot will think up a suggestion about running over zombos and crap...just NO. --Fixen 20:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: I agree that it might be a good idea for trains to only run at certain times of day. There are tracks in the city, since there are train stations and railyards. -- Amazing 23:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Nice idea, but not K.I.S.S. Madalex 22:14, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Basically it's teleportation from one block to another, dressed up in a realistic, reasonable form that works IC. Point A to Point B. Simple. :) -- Amazing 23:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• Kill Good idea, but who can pilot a train, get a generator or generators powerful enough to power a train, and also intra-city coal-fueled trains are very rare nowadays. Point is, all ideas about running trains wont work until they introduce NPCs into this game(not bloody likely) and/or a functionning power plant (eventually likely). The train can also run on diesel, but where are you going to get all that fuel? You need several dozen jerry cans to do that. AllStarZ 23:41, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Well, the NPCs are implied but do not actually exist. It's a "train run by a small group of surviors" but the survivors exist in text explainations only and require no coding of NPCs. Any imaginary fuel used for the train was gathered by these imaginary NPCs. It's sort of like when Kevan said Necrotech was spraying the city - The spray, the planes, and the pilot NPCs didn't exist beyond the text explaination. All questions are answered by "The imaginary NPCs did it." lol ;) -- Amazing 23:58, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • AllStarZ's Response Um... what i meant is that NPCs dont exist at all IN the game. Technically, if you have people running the train in the game, they exist.
      • Re: Ah, I see what you mean then. Still NPCs exist in the news updates which are associated with the game world. Even so I dunno how big a deal it would be to add one or two that don't personally affect gameplay beyond a minimal task. -- Amazing 00:15, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
        • AllStarZ's ResponseBut then NPCs exist and are interfering with gameplay. Sorry man, I cant see how you can fit your idea. Also you lack a solid example of what to use as a power source for the trains, and im going to assume the trains are intra city trains
• Kill It's already said in the message in the railway station that all trains have left town, so how could more trains come? --Carfan7 23:59, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Just off the top of my head: Repair of existing trains that hadn't been fixed in time for evacuation (Who here believes that every single train in any given rail yard is in working order?), A train brought in for further military evacuation whose crew was killed by the undead, or a simple removal of that line from train station descriptions. -- Amazing 00:09, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • COMMENT: Carfan7's supported response that "all trains have left town," when coupled with Taggart's assumption that "the military quarantine forces have ripped up the tracks that connect Malton with other towns," means that no readily usable trains exist in Malton. Plotline's kinda broken here. I'll see you in 2 weeks. --Fixen 02:02, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Response to comment - 1) I only mentioned the ripped-up railway tracks as a response to people asking "If we can use trains in Malton, why can't we take them out of Malton?" 2) And as for trains operating in Malton proper - take, for example, the Grand Central Terminal railway station in New York City. It takes surface trains, true . . . but it also has subway (aka Underground) access. What's to say that there aren't subway tunnels connecting the train stations, and why shouldn't people be allowed to manhandle pushcars down into the subway and use them? Alternatively, what's to say anonymous groups of survivors haven't manhandled multiple portable generators down into the subway tunnels and adapted them to power the subway cars (much like the mysterious survivor groups first seen carrying portable generators around, or the NecroTech aircraft spraying the city)? - -John Taggart 17:31, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
• '"'Kill'"' It would be good "IF" the trains were powered by the powerstation, "IF" were only to-from, and "IF" required an engeiner like person to run them... would only work when the power was on and even then poeple would need to hone the ideas --Mr NoName 00:22, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Just .... wow. -- Amazing 00:32, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Antibiotics

To Amazing: I apologize if you think my Spam vote wasn't called for. To me, it seemed like substantially the same suggestion as Antiseptic, and it faces exactly the same criticisms that Antiseptic faced. Voting Spam is a judgement call, yes. The basic issue I address in both of these suggestions is: why bother? Who would really want to carry around an Antibiotic/Antiseptic that only cures (or potentially only cures) infection when they could carry around a First Aid Kit that both cures infection and heals them guaranteed?

As for the "under 10 minutes" thing...Hey, sometimes the logins just happen that way. :-)

Bentley Foss 04:05, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

---

Moved Text:

Dude. tempers are flairing. if its a good idea, it'll be a good idea tomarrow. take it easy, before you hurt yourself--Spellbinder 05:52, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

You're exaclty right. And if it's a bad idea, it'll be a bad idea tomorrow, too.. so people should leave it even though they're personally angry, right? :\ -- Amazing

06:03, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT) but see, i'm not removing your idea because its good, or bad, or because people are or are not angry. your idea is too similer to a previously suggested idea. i'm not alone. flareing tempers aside, carfan, brent, Z and I can plainly see that your idea is a rehash of a previously voted apon suggestion. comeON dude!--Spellbinder 06:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

In actuality you removed a Revision of a defeated idea. Not a defeated idea. You also cannot come up with more than one way it is similar to the other idea, and that one way is 'cures infection'. Think about that.. how you can't come up with more than one way it's the same when it's such a wordy suggestion with different facets. I know this belongs on the discussion page, but hopefully this will be moved OR we can take it there from here on out instead of spamming up my suggestion space. -- Amazing 06:16, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Nobody is being a jerk about it except you. I'm sorry that your idea was allready suggested. but life sucks like that! your not a baby or stupid, i'm not going to treat you like you are. i EXPECT you to take this like a man, accapt that this is a reasonable person, and begrugeingly accapt that you MIGHT be in the wrong. and in doing so, you can read the previous suggestion, see that NOBODY liked IT either, and relize that even if you do get this idea up, in a suitibly different way, its going to end up in peer rejected!!!!--Spellbinder 06:13, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Gents, take it to the discussion page. --X