	Archive Page
	This page is an archive page of Talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the Suggestions page do so at Talk:Suggestions.

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

These suggestions are currently at vote. Please hold any extended discussion about them here.

Limited IP Sharing

- - Zergers have already proven that they're willing enough to pay to get around the IP limit. Letting people cheat because they've donated is so wrong that it warrants a spam. --Mookiemookie 16:05, 6 August 2006 (BST)
    - Re - But said zergers can(and do)already bypass the system via proxies. I do not see why legitimate players should be punished to prevent something which is occuring anyway. If you beleive that the restrictions I put forward are not enough, a Kill is more than warranted. But spamming the base idea(Some method whereby two people wo have to share the same ip can still play together) is unwarranted--Gene Splicer 16:07, 6 August 2006 (BST)
      - The "Its happening anyways so lets go ahead and make it easier" argument doesn't fly with me. And it's MY vote and I'll be the judge of MY vote being warranted or not. --Mookiemookie 16:14, 6 August 2006 (BST)
        Well, I'm not going to change your mind. I am curious as to whether you read the whole suggestion and also you feel it would benefit zergers more than players, or if you just do not want anything that could in any way benefit zergers --Gene Splicer 16:19, 6 August 2006 (BST) Edit: And it's not "It's happening anyway, let's make it easier". it's "It's happening anyway, let's stop punishing bystanders" --Gene Splicer 16:31, 6 August 2006 (BST)
        I do agree with your plight, but this just goes about trying to solve it the wrong way. Use a proxy or a work/school computer. We don't need to make it any easier even though its happening already. Thats a flawed line of thinking, and thus my spam vote. --Mookiemookie 17:50, 6 August 2006 (BST)

Thrash (Tear V3.0)

I should have done this in the first place. Basically I want this skill, which I have renamed thrash, to be stronger than bite, weaker than claw, and have a chance of giving status effects. People would still use claw for raw damage and bite for healing and infection, this would be for those who just want to go wild! Could someone do the damage ratings to tell me what the numbers should be?--Paradox244 00:59, 4 August 2006 (BST)

I think this might be what you are looking for (MBR). I take it that it is stronger than bite but has a small chance of actually inflicting status effects?--Pesatyel 10:08, 4 August 2006 (BST)

That's the basic gist of it, yes. --Paradox244 16:57, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Rotate URLs

Keep - I like the idea alot. A possible change to ward of the issues that Jedaz and the two Bobs speak of; How about a 2 minute "overlap" where the url for the button changes yet both the old action and the new action are accepted until the end of the 2 minute "safety period"? --Karlsbad 03:10, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Re - This is a non author re, so strike it if you want, but please hear me out: this idea can't be fixed. If you make it too lenient (e.g., time delays), bots will be allowed through. If you make it too strict, it will catch innocent players. If you somehow "encode" the correct command into each page, it will be trivial for the bots to pull it out. This is the same kind of problem that surrounds DRM technology and why it is always broken. Anything that works well enough to allow a person through will allow a bot through. Even many of those annoying CAPTCHA images that are supposed to stop bots have been broken. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•T•A•C} 03:16, 29 July 2006 (BST)
- Non-author Re struck out but still responded to; then how about the "doesn't cost AP" 'oh ha-ha, I must have touched it during the change' idea that Gage is suggesting? --Karlsbad 03:21, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  - Other non-author Re struck and responded to: still doesn't work. Think about it for a minute: if the next page load would contain the correct command somehow, then the bot could just carry on as it was doing before. If the page continues to give the bad command, then the legitimate player is screwed. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•T•A•C} 03:28, 29 July 2006 (BST)
    - Non-author Re struck and responded to... Wait, isn't the vote-maker considered the author of his own vote? Anyway, the correct code would only be kept in the server, and you would have to change/rotate the urls of the pictures that contain the new code as well. Therefore the page in the programming/viewsource world would become a maze of letters and numbers that shift under your feet, only allowing those that actually view the page to find the correct code. --Karlsbad 03:34, 29 July 2006 (BST)
      - So if I understand you correctly, you're basically talking about a CAPTCHA? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 03:50, 29 July 2006 (BST)
        Yes, but it doesn't require a person to type in some whacked-out word into their browser. And since everything gets rotated, you don't get to worry about the "special" things being found out. So yes, it really kinda is. --Karlsbad 03:59, 29 July 2006 (BST)
        I'm lost. What's being rotated, and what's this about pictures and a "viewsource world" and a maze of shifting things under your feet? I have no idea what you're talking about now. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 04:00, 29 July 2006 (BST)
        Okay, okay, here it is: First, you have three functions on a page with three buttons for said functions. Button One does Action A, Button 2 does B, Button 3 does C. Every 24hrs, the "Button" names are changed from Url -+- or some such into Urls --+, and the actions they do are changed in the same manner. Therefore attempting to find button one through programming would be impossible because the gif of the action would change it's url constantly, and the actions done would change as well. Is that clearer? --Karlsbad 04:22, 29 July 2006 (BST)
        Actualy it would be quite easy to bypass, just look for the button with the lable "Barricade the Building" in the code and you have your URL. - Jedaz 04:28, 29 July 2006 (BST)
        Exactly what Jedaz said. Besides which, if you used GIFs instead (it's just a normal button now), it would still be pathetically easy to crack through some image analysis. Trust me, I really do know what I'm talking about. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 04:45, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Well it's implemented now. - Jedaz 03:01, 30 July 2006 (BST)

So, what WAS the suggestion in the first place?--Pesatyel 09:26, 30 July 2006 (BST)

More or less to go and make the URL for barricading random so it'ld be imposiable for bots to barricade. Of course it's easy to get around but it'll catch out the botters and Kevan will be able to identify them. - Jedaz 09:38, 30 July 2006 (BST)

You'll only catch out those who are using an older bot and are too stupid to notice the change. The moment someone with even a modicum of intelligence sets to coding the workaround, the bots will be back in full force. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:46, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Suggestions Page

~~the suggestion page is quiet... too quiet--Gage 17:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)~~ Not a suggestion, struck. Plus you broke the silence. You do know that silence is better then crap suggestions. -- 343 ^U! 17:03, 25 July 2006 (BST)

I could suggest a new skill, that would allow you to use baseball bat or length of pipe to reflect bullets. Skill would be called "Use of the Force" and it would also allow you to jump inside a building from next block, even if you were outside. To make it less imbalanced, zombies would get "The Death Stare", that would allow them to destroy mall just by looking it. Neat huh? I'll prepare the suggestion later today. --Niilomaan 17:32, 25 July 2006 (BST)

You bums, I could have had a day off and not had to cycle the suggestions, lol. - Jedaz 08:53, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Second Server

Timestamp:	14:10, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Large
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Please place pet concepts relating to this suggestion here. Currently being discussed(ish):

Votes
Non-Linear Exp Progression:

Newbie Areas:

New Map: (A given, but what would you like to see in it?)

Zombies go down-under! =P - Jedaz 14:43, 26 July 2006 (BST)

WTFKANGAROOS!--Gene Splicer 14:57, 26 July 2006 (BST)

The new map would be easy to make becuase you could just make it in the center of Australia and every square would be wasteland more or less, lol. - Jedaz 15:08, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

This section is for suggestions which have not yet been submitted, and are still being worked on.

Visibility (V.2)

Timestamp: -Captain Leah- 19:21, 9 August 2006 (BST)|
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Visibility is a 100 XP civilian skill that survivors can use. Upon logging in, or just viewing the map screen, players with this skill will see a button marked, 'View Surroundings.' Upon clicking this, the player will be taken to another map screen that is a 5x5 grid, with the player's present location in the center. While viewing his surroundings, the player cannot use any options other than 'Exit Visibility.' While viewing this map, a survivor can click any of the buildings within his viewing range and move there for the normal AP cost.

Before you say that this is ridiculously overpowered, wait for the other thing. Entering the visibility mode costs on AP, to leave it does as well. Also, while viewing your surroundings, you will NOT see zombies in squares other than those adjacent to you. So here's an example.

Great_Fighter is standing next to Ackland Mall. He sees around him about 200 odd zombies- that is, 200 zombies in the squares adjacent to him. He enters the visibility mode, and is shown ALL of Ackland Mall and the surrounding buildings. He still sees 200 zombies- but ONLY the ones around him. Those two extra squares of Ackland Mall he sees remain blank- he can move there, but he can't see if there's anything in it.

So what's this skill for? Namely, its for looking for that resource building you really want to find, without bumbling off in the completely wrong direction. The AP cost and inability to see faraway zombies and figures prevents players from using it to see where the largest amount of zombies/ survivors are and trying to use it for escaping purposes. Also, though it costs 1 AP to enter the mode and one to leave, it helps when you're trying to cover long distances- the page only has to load 1/2 of the time it would if you were moving square by square.

Visibility is shut off once you enter a building.

Votes:

Keep - I think this will work on this swing around. ---Captain Leah- 19:21, 9 August 2006 (BST)

I'm confused, I don't understand the advantage this has over the normal map.

  NW N NE
  WCE
  SW S SE

  A B  C  D  E
  F NW N NE  G
  H WCE  I
  J SW S SE  K
  L M  N  O  P

Something like that? Normal play not withstanding, but HOW is the person able to view that far? And I'd think that it would be better if the person had to EXIT this "extended view" in order to move. Or did you mean that, if I want to move from C to E, I can do it automatically (thought it costs 2 AP)? I believe it is easy enough for players to get around that they don't really need to waste time using this. It provides to little a benefit that can't be provided by clicking (from C) NE and seeing what is in E, including zombies and survivors).--Pesatyel 23:11, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Re: You move automatically- 2 AP cost and it routes you correctly. IT does prevent zombies from whacking you, so it's safer, but sometimes, you don't want to USE it for seeing zombies. Say, you want an FAK, and you're not in a mall. You THINK there's a hospital somewhere, but you forgot where. So you switch this on, and you'll probably find the hospital rather quickly. ---Captain Leah- 01:54, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Well, as long as I had it understood right. I can already tell you this will be spammed out under no free movement. Even though it still costs you 2 AP, you are STILL skipping a square. 2,000 zombies in that square? You just bypassed them all and, while you won't know if there is another 2,000 in the square you go to, you could just as easily avoid THOSE as well. Secondly, there was a suggestion for an ingame map of Malton which can be found, as well as one to allow GPS units to act as "route finders", both of which would be a LOT more useful. Besides the fact that the wiki (and a map) can be easily found through the link.--Pesatyel 04:51, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Are you saying it would cost 1 AP to move 2 Spaces? please explain this movement aspect. --Kiltric 05:38, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Mall store names

Timestamp:	01:12, 9 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Building change.
Scope:	Flavor...(Mm, Flavor).
Description:	This is to add names to the mall stores in a mall. This wouldn't confuse noobs or newbs because the wording would easily imply the functionality. Each store in each mall would have a unique name. For example, a Hardware store in Caiger would be called "McHandy's hardware" and the Gun Store? "Hunting Shack gun store." (Names taken from the stores in Dead Rising.) And Sports Store? "Kokonutz Sports Hut" This would add some variety in the otherwise dull mall store.

Votes

Keep - Author Vote, would be nice.--Canuhearmenow 01:11, 9 August 2006 (BST)
Kill - doesn't really change anything. Not worth Kevan's time--Gage 01:46, 9 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - Couldn't Seperate people code it?--Canuhearmenow 01:48, 9 August 2006 (BST)
I don't know what to vote. I think it's cool...but at the same time I'll end up ignoring it. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 01:53, 9 August 2006 (BST)
Keep - I think it's a good idea. Flavor is always nice. --Paradox244 ^W! ^TJ! 22:06, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Would this be for each mall store? Would all malls have McHandy's Hardware? I don't see how it hurts the game. Something Kevan can do when he feels like.--Pesatyel 23:18, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Hindering Clutter

Timestamp:	22:29, 7 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Skill
Scope:	Zombies attempting to lay seige to extremely well-fortified areas such as malls.
Description:	Hindering Clutter is a new Zombie skill, with Ransack as a prerequisite Flavor: Some zombies have been able to figure out that many humans frequently enter and exit buildings through the windows, and spitefully shove furniture and other wreckage in the way. Prerequisite: Ransack Cost: 100 XP to buy, 5 AP to use. Function: A zombie with the Hindering Clutter skill is able to block the windows of an already-ransacked building by clicking a "Block the windows" button (which costs 5 AP). When the windows are blocked, humans and zombies alike are prevented from entering or exiting the building through the windows (anything other than clicking the "Enter Building" or "Leave Building" buttons). A human trying to enter such a building via Freerunning would be given a message such as "The windows are blocked; you can't enter <building name> this way. Try entering through the front door.", and no AP would be used. When a human repairs a building (to clear its "ransacked" status), this effect is removed as well. The description of the interior of the building should reflect its status if the windows are blocked. Purpose: This would change the character of zombie seiges of strongholds, making malls a little riskier to treat as "home base". Instead of simply "attack the barricades, again, and again, and again" versus "go outside and make a guerilla attack on the zombies again", it would become more like a classical seige, where the zombies would fight to take and keep the entry points, while humans fight to keep at least one clear. If the zombies manage to successfully block all current "entry points" to a stronghold, humans would still be able to enter or exit -- they may have to weaken the barricades, though. I think this would add interesting elements to the game. Discussion point: I really like this idea (making seiges more about holding entry/exit points than eternally attacking and repairing barricades), but I'm afraid it's way too powerful as written. A more balanced idea would be to make it cost X AP (instead of blocking it totally as suggested above, and compared to the 1 AP it normally costs) to go through a window, but I'm afraid that would have implementation issues, such as informing someone that it will cost extra AP, in case they're trying to enter the building through a window or in case they didn't pay attention to the description while quickly Freerunning by. It could be made into a warning on the first click, kinda like when you attempt to barricade past VS+2, but that seems like a horrible way to do it. And I've got no other ideas for how to make this work. Any ideas? (Small wording edits: 22:46, 7 August 2006 (BST))

Votes
Comments? Please don't vote yet, I'm looking for suggestions to improve balance (especially as mentioned in the "Discussion Point" section above).

So, basically, this just cancels out Free Running? Seems over-powered. Ransack can ONLY be repaired once all zombies are removed. If survivors can't escape either, they would be slaughtered. The only thing I can think of, at the moment, is to make it "repairable" seperately from Ransack (people are going to want to escape a bad situation a HELL of a lot more than trying to find stuff, especially if zombies are present).--Pesatyel 23:13, 7 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: Hmm, I see what you mean. As written, it does kinda just cancel out Freerunning, though that wasn't how I was thinking of it. I was trying to think of some way for zombies to control buildings more substantially -- Ransack lets them gimp searching and prevent construction, I was trying to think of some way to stop some human from walking into a Ransacked building filled with 100+ zombies and just stepping out the window into the EH barricaded mall with no problems. It seems to me that zombies should be able to control a building as a movement path as well. So here's maybe a different implementation that is a bit more involved but perhaps more elegant: instead of a 5AP chunk to block the windows, it could be more like a zombie barricade (which probably dupes another suggestion somewhere... doh). It takes 1AP to barricade the windows (still only possible in a ransacked building), and it can be barricaded up 4 times by zombies with this skill (making "lightly" the max). Normally it takes 1AP to go in/out a window; for each barricade applied to the windows, it takes 1 extra AP. At max barricade, it is impossible to pass through. The window barricades can be attacked just like door barricades, with crowbars still doubly effective. That way, even if it is barricaded to max, it wouldn't be very hard for a survivor to take it down one notch and then Freerun out. How about something like that? --Zacronos 00:20, 8 August 2006 (BST)

I can see where you are coming from, but the basic idea just won't work. If a survivor can walk through 50 or 100 zombies (regardless of WHERE), it really doesn't matter if the character has Free Running or not (the character could, just as easily just go out to the street). Same is said for zombies. A zombie could pass through an area of 50 or 100 survivors (granted, sure, that doesn't happen very often, but it CAN happen) without inhibition. I guarantee most people will say that zombies aren't intelligent enough to do something like that (barricading) anyway. It just seems too out of genre. Take a look at the Previous Days suggestions about survivors moving through large hordes for more feedback.--Pesatyel 10:57, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Frenzied Looting

Timestamp:	19:56, 7 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	New skill.
Scope:	people with AP to burn looking for things.
Description:	This is a new 100XP Civilian skill, called frenzied search. Upon buying it you will be able to search frenziedly. If you have this skill and find things 4 times in 4 searches, you get the message "Your feeling elated, and maybe lucky too, do you want to begin a frenzied search?" upon clicking "Yes" you get a +15% search increase for a total of 5 searches, drawback? All of those 5 searches cost's 2 AP each. This search bonus goes away upon moving to another building. So someone who searches a Library can't move to an NT building..

Votes

Keep - Author Vote, a nice search bonus in my opinion.--Canuhearmenow 19:56, 7 August 2006 (BST)
Kill - This would only be useful in situations where the original search odds were less than 15%, which means nowhere. For instance, if the original odds were 20%, you could spend your 10 AP by either: searching at 20% 10 times, or searching at 35% 5 times. .20 * 10 = 2, .35 * 5 = 1.75 In other words, you;d be better off searching 10 times. The imbalance gets worse the higher the original odds were. Looking at the Search_odds page, it appears most places have odds in the 20%-35% range, so this would never be useful. Zacronos 22:40, 7 August 2006 (BST)
Kill - would only pay off in the long run if the original search odds were <15%--Gage 01:45, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Looter

Timestamp:	16:14, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	New Skill.
Scope:	People who are tired of the Mall/NT centric gameplay .
Description:	I still remember someone saying how the game is extremely Mall/NT centric. My idea is a skill that would be a 100XP Civilian skill called Looter (In no way similar to the suggestion Looting) this skill would be more or less a mixed bag. What this skill does is give you a +10% search rate when searching a non-mall building but the penalty is a -5% lowering of Mall search rates. Because this is a developing suggestion any ideas on how to make this unspammable or otherwise just not bad will be appreciated!

Votes

Keep - Author Vote, please tell me of some ways to improve this, I am trying to lower, if not nerf, the need to just huddle in the hundreds in a mall.--Canuhearmenow 16:14, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Kill - take away the reduction of the mall search rate, no one wants a skill that hinders them in any way. it will help a ton to do this. then I'll vote keep. --Kiltric 17:11, 29 July 2006 (BST)
- Yeah then its overpowered, you trenchy survivor monkey. Does the concept of "balance" have any meaning to you? --Mookiemookie 01:44, 30 July 2006 (BST)
  - Trenchy survivor monkey? I'm a career zombie thank you very much. and frankly I don't believe that any skill should have a negative effect on another skill, period. and does that 5% have a huge impact? really? The way the dice roll sometimes you can get around 10% hits even if you should have 50%. 5%... not that big a deal. --Kiltric 07:59, 31 July 2006 (BST)
    - I just really really wanted to use the term "trenchy survivor monkey" --Mookiemookie 21:41, 8 August 2006 (BST)
      - lol, fair enough, I have to admit, I laughed a little when you called me that. --Kiltric 05:42, 10 August 2006 (BST)
Re - Wait. So do you think I should add the mall penalty? Also, remember, if you are going to use malls as your primary form of searching you don't need to buy this skill.--Canuhearmenow 01:57, 30 July 2006 (BST)
Keep - Keep the penalty. Youronlyfriend 08:33, 30 July 2006 (BST)
Kill - I don't know, something with a penalty? The only thing with a "penalty" would be brain rot. I don't like the idea of being a stub in a mall if I mess up my skills.--Thari ^CFT 08:46, 30 July 2006 (BST)
- With Bargin Hunting I think a five percent penalty is acceptable. --Paradox244 00:16, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Something important you are forgetting is that, in a mall, there is NO junk (after mall skills of course). So a piddly little -5% to search a mall is negligable. And +10% to search PDs/hospitals is good, but with all the extra crap one finds....-Pesatyel 09:30, 30 July 2006 (BST)
Re - Remember, with the Big Bash most malls are already destroyed, this would be the ultimate skill to survivre without a mall, which all search bonuses are applied to.--Canuhearmenow 14:20, 30 July 2006 (BST)

You do realize that surivors can just repopulate once the zombies leave. Besides, you didn't bother to respond to the rest of my comment.--Pesatyel 05:15, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Keep -- I would keep. Makes a lot of sense to me, and well balanced too. --Paradox244 00:13, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Scent Horde

Timestamp:	02:19, 28 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	This suggestion would add a new skill to the zombie skill tree, Scent Horde, located under Scent Death. The skill would have two uses: When standing in a group of other zombies, the player would be able to tell how many other zombies have the same group affiliation (e.g., There are 10 other zombies here. 4 of them smell strange, and 3 of them smell familiar). Zombies would gain a new button, "Scent Horde." This would have the same effect as Scent Death, but instead of finding the largest nearby group of zombies, this would find the largest nearly group of zombies with the same group affiliation. The skill would not cross over when the player is revived.

Votes
Let me know what you think of this one. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•T•A•C} 02:19, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Unlike Nexus War, group affiliations means nothing in Urban Dead. It would be easy for a player to change group affiliations on a whim just to affect an idea like this.--Pesatyel 02:42, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Yes, it would. Your point being? It would only affect zombies, you know, so if a bunch of survivors want to get themselves killed and change their group affiliation just to nerf this, let them. They would be too stupid to be a threat anyway. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•T•A•C} 08:09, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Whatever happened to the "familiar groan" mechanic that was supposedly introduced a while back. I never noticed it in action. But I would keep this. --Darth Sensitive 00:46, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Engineering

Timestamp:	20:27, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	New skill
Scope:	Barricades and Ransack
Description:	After becoming proficient at working around the zombies and salvaging items from the rubble, some survivors are becoming brave and strong enough to erect barricades where they could not before I propose a new skill: Engineering. This would be a subskill of Construction, purchasable for 100XP. Engineering would allow a survivor to barricade a building despite it being ransacked. This would allow survivors to tone down the large and negative effect ransack has had on the survivor ability to reclaim a suburb from zombie hands, while still keeping the skill useful and not nerfing it completely. Survivors with the skill could barricade a ransacked building normally, as long as it has no more than 3 zombies inside'. (Dead bodies are not counted, 3 zombies is not set in stone, and can be changed is necessary). The building could only then be barricaded up to Very Heavily barricaded. Adding the final item would give the message Using X, you reinforce the barricade. The room is now too badly damaged to find any more items. You cannot barricade further. The barricade button would then disappear and only reappear if the barricades fell or the ransack damage was repaired. Therefore, the zombies still keep some of ransack's power, and in significant numbers will still be able to deny survivors a building. Barricading to very heavily (again, not set in stone) will still allow survivors to become trapped outside, and prevent barricades from becoming too strong to be broken again easily. Those without Engineering will still have to clear a building completely to barricade, and the search odds of ransacked buildings will still be lower for all survivors. By slightly lowering the power of ransack, but not removing it, survivors will be able to gain more of a foothold in abandoned suburbs, and therefore move the game balance more towards 50:50, but not back into the pre-ransack survivor domination.

Votes
{{{suggest_votes}}} I think a lot of people think Ransack needs to be nerfed some. I think, for this suggestion, there should be a % chance to barricade (same as if trying higher than VS) for EVERY level. And I also think the maximum level should be, perhaps QS. That's all I can think of at the moment.--Pesatyel 22:11, 26 July 2006 (BST)

This will only help barricade-strafing. No. Zombies will waste AP breakign barricades, and then storming in, only to see Zeds. That's the whole point of this skill, nothing else. Not to establish safehouses, not to search. But only to waste Zeds' APs.--ShadowScope 23:23, 26 July 2006 (BST)

No. While some believe Ransack is over-powered, this isn't the way to go about it. Besides, isn't there a rule about not introducing a skill simply to counteract another? -- BeefSteak 01:58, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Well. Ransack technically counteracts Construction, and this suggestion only tries to make the magnitude of the counteracting less severe. It's not technically an AP sink any more than zombies demand survivors to attack them and survivors demand zombies to eat them. I agree with Pesatyel that this suggestion is quite overpowered as it stands, however. --Kenny Matthews ^W! 04:50, 27 July 2006 (BST)

But isn't barricade-strafing a valid tactic? Of course it's a little annoying for zombies, but the Coalition for Fair Tactics has no problem with it, as far as I know. I see what you mean about not making safehouses though. The building would still have to be cleared to be used properly, of course barricades would stop more zombies entering, and could force those already inside to leave, thereby clearing a building with a few AP. I understand that overpowers it somewhat, I'll have to review it somehow. Possibly by lowering barricade odds? I'm open to ideas. --Preasure 12:18, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Why would barricading past a zombie possibly force them to leave? The basic idea is that either a zombie wants to keep survivors from repairing the ransack and is willing to be bored enough to do so (or is a zerge). What might work better would be, maybe if the survivors could toss zombies (without having to kill them and dump the body). Maybe for 15 AP, a survivor can knock the zombie out an open door and onto the street.--Pesatyel 21:17, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Cable Ties

Timestamp:	17:10, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	New Equipment
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Cable ties could be found in any number of different buildings (after all, they're not exactly uncommon are they?). However, Mall tech stores and factories are two immediate possibilities for places to find cable ties. These could be used to tie back together the holes cut through wire mesh (such as in junkyards.) They would be able to be used either from inside or from outside the junkyard and once in place would block movement into the junkyard until a set of wire cutters is used to make either a new hole (or to cut the cable ties.) Movement out of the junkyard would not be a problem and would be treated much as movement out of a heavily or extremely heavily barricaded building is (to prevent anyone being trapped inside) and zombies would also be able to remove the cable ties if they have Memories of Life. Memories of Life would give zombies the option to use their claws to break the cable ties (to prevent an impenetrable barrier being created.)

Votes
Perhaps we could call them, uh, "doors"? --Manig 18:00, 22 July 2006 (BST)

So you want to add something to junkyard that says 'close doors'? ;-) Seriously though. It adds a little extra flavour, a little extra difficulty and interest for both zombies and survivors. The 'cable tied' tag would have to be separate from the barricade status - so you could have it just tied, barricaded and tied or only barricaded. Whereas with doors once the 'cades are up the doors are closed (something else that should be changed.) Plus you'd need an item to tie the junkyard closed whereas you don't need an item to close doors. --Tethran 18:15, 22 July 2006 (BST)

I would kill this if they could be found at the mall. We don't need to have everything in one place. --Darth Sensitive ^{talk • W!} 18:49, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Factories, towers, police stations, fire stations, hospitals and even junkyards themselves are alternate possibilites for where to find them. Any objections to it being 2 or possibly 3 buildings from that selection? --Tethran 18:56, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Sounds great to me. Towers and fire stations are preferable I think. --Darth Sensitive ^{talk • W!} 19:02, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Like Darth Sensitive said, with the inclussion of Factories to the list. It wuold be great to have closed Junkyards again, even if only for flavour reasons. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 19:56, 22 July 2006 (BST) Maybe you could make it so only zombies with Neck Lurch could take them off (biting them off) and with a success rate equal to the bite suiccess rate. That's because if the only requeriment for taking them off were MoL, zombies wuold have it a lot easier to take wires off, while Survivors have to carry everywhere some Wirecutters, thing that no one does as of now. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 20:10, 22 July 2006 (BST)

I've been thinking about this (a little). It seems to me something else that would be needed would be to make Junkyards unbarricadible. the "barricade" being the fence (and cable ties). Maybe just treat the cables themselves AS the barricade of up to a certain level (say max QS). But, if that is the case, would Junkyards be part of the "Free Running chain?" And, maybe have zombies with MoL get a bonus to destroying a "cable tie" barricade.--Pesatyel 22:57, 24 July 2006 (BST)

Free running chain: I'd say yes. Big piles of scrap metal and fences to run along and then leap into upper story windows (or, that's what I always assumed free running was, leaping from rooftop to rooftop). I like the idea of the cable-ties being the barricade... how about junkyards being barricadeable as normal, with the cable-ties being an insta-barricade to level 1 qs? Or making junkyards impossible to barricade beyond VS without them being cable-tied? Edit: Forgot to sign --Gene Splicer 14:29, 26 July 2006 (BST)

One of the things I've been most worried about with this suggestion is making it so junkyards suddenly become impossible for zombies to breach and I feel that enabling one item to instantly barricade it up to QS or VS would be doing that. On the other hand I don't want to make it so that it's useless to survivors. I don't see the need for zombies to get a bonus for destroying a cable tie. Survivors don't get a bonus for placing it (beyond making the junkyard a little harder to breach) in the same way survivors don't get a bonus for closing doors and zombies don't (to my knowledge) get a bonus for opening doors. Since the cable tie would need to be removed for the zombie to enter the junkyard the reward would be the brains inside (braaaaaains...)

Junkyards would be handled in respect to freerunning the same way they are now - you can use a junkyard as part of a freerunning chain at the moment and I don't see any need to change that. --Tethran 15:01, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Just something to consider as we discuss changing the nature of Junkyard barricades.--Pesatyel 22:15, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Unless something was added to allow Zombies to destroy the fence, It'd be a spam vote from me. Unless I'm mistaken, those buildings were basically fortresses that were competely unenterable unless the fences were clipped or through Free running. -- BeefSteak 02:01, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I'd rather cable ties remain distinct from barricades -- I think that making wirecutters useful again is part of the suggestion. Also I'd rather Memories of Life NOT be the skill required to break (undo?) them, in order to differentiate cable ties from doors more clearly. --Kenny Matthews ^W! 04:55, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I think that is the point of the suggestion. I wasn't playing back when fences were still uncut and I don't know whether or not Free Running was available at that time (Wirecutters were "added" July 7th and Construction was added July 30th, so I suspect Free Running wasn't that far behind). The thing is, Junkyards don't have "doors." What I want to know is are you saying both barricades AND fence repair should be in Junkyards? I'd think it should be one or the other.--Pesatyel 21:29, 27 July 2006 (BST)

You would be able to put on cable ties and barricades - if you were only able to repair the fence then everyone would abandon junkyards as you'lld only have one level of protection. --Tethran 22:49, 28 July 2006 (BST)

I think the idea, as I've stolen it (heh), is that the fence would BE the barricade. Doesn't seem fair that Junkyards would get "double" barricades.--Pesatyel 09:42, 30 July 2006 (BST)

It would not really be much more of a "double" barricaded area any more than a building with its door closed has double barricades. --Tethran 13:42, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Cool way to bring back wirecutters. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 05:42, 27 July 2006 (BST)

This is how I see it: A person uses, say 3 ties to "mend" the fence to Loosely (2 for lightly). Each additional tie after that would increase the barricade, as normal. A survivor with wirecutters can enter a fenced in area as normal (with, say a 20% chance of destroying the ties that blocked a hole; the other times it would be a new hole). Zombies could attack the Ties as a normal barricade. Perhaps the difference could be that each Tie represents one level (thus instead of QS needing 3 hits to drop to Lightly, it just needs one to represent the Tie that enforces it to that level being destroyed). Or maybe the zombies just get a bonus to destroy the Ties due to the ease at reaching them (the zombies could interact directly with the Ties, unlike a normal barricade which is one the inside of a building). I'd also say that survivors could NOT Free Run through, due to the ease of getting in/out (using the wirecutters). One thing interesting would be WHEN Free Running was added, relative to fences/wirecutters.--Pesatyel 09:42, 30 July 2006 (BST)

And suggesting it like that I know I'd be voting kill. That way of suggesting it would be making the barricades harder to put up and easier to destroy --Tethran 13:42, 31 July 2006 (BST)

So, the question is is it the IDEA that is bad or the implmentation? What I said was more an example of what I was thinking. I think the basic idea would be to make them difficult for a survivor to put up (but easy to remove via wirecutters) and difficult for a zombie to tear down.--Pesatyel 08:06, 1 August 2006 (BST)

How about this: Cable Ties. Useable in Junkyards only. Adds the text "A hole in the ~~door~~ fence is tied shut." to the indoor and outdoor description. Zombies may not enter a Cable Tied junkyard. Zombies can destroy Cable Ties by biting them (chance to break equal to zombie's bite chance). Cable Ties can also be removed by wirecutters (chance to remove equal to your Punch skill). Cable Ties can only be added or destroyed when the barricade is at lightly or below. This makes it more powerful than a door due to it being harder to get through, giving the survivors a chance to start rebarricading. At the same time is weaker than a door because it requires an item to set up each time it is destroyed, and does not need MOL to bypass. --Gene Splicer 16:42, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Door or fence ("A hole in the DOOR is tied shut."). I'd think a person with wirecutters would automatically be able to cut the ties, like when wirecutters were first introduced. And this would still be in ADDITION to normal barricades? What about Free Running? I'd think this would preclude that (why else would you need wirecutters?). I also think zombies should have to make, say TWO successful bites to get through. What do you think?--Pesatyel 21:10, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Meant to type fence. Changed it. If cutting is automatic, then it would result in, well, people cutting them just to be dicks. It shouldn't be easier for a Survivor to remove a barricade type device than a Zombie. Additionally, cutting tightly applied cable ties with bulky wirecutters is harder than cutting a large wire fence, because the ties tend to be flush with the items they are tied to (Try removing ties tied tightly around a block of computer wires with a wirecutters without slicing through the wires too). Free running would work as normal, but maybe make Survivors unable to enter directly when the hole is tied shut? (as with heavy barricades). Only one succesful bite should be required to break the ties, because otherwise it gives survivors too much time to rebarricade past biting level --Gene Splicer 02:53, 5 August 2006 (BST) Edit: Urgh, those sentances hurt my brain, but I am too tired to reqrite them to be more appealing. I promise my literary skills are considerably higher than those demonstrated here --Gene Splicer 02:55, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Good point. One thing I mentioned earlier is that the person could, technically, be cutting a NEW hole in the fence (as opposed to actually cutting the ties). What about the rest of my comments (regular barricades and Free Running)?--Pesatyel 07:38, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Dismemberment

Timestamp:	7:00 July 21st
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Dismemberment will be yet another Zombie-hunter skill on the list. Using a melee weapon or a firearm, a zombie-hunter has a chance of dismembering or severly damaging a Zombie's nervous system. Although the target is primarily dead, the nervous system on a zombie still functions through the spine. By hitting a leg, the zombie hunter hampers movement from the zombie. This presents a fail chance in movement for the zombie, making it much easier for the zombie to be hit (10% increase in accuracy towards affected zombie). When hit in the arm, a zombie loses motor functions in the arm, rendering it less powerful (10% decrease in zombie accuracy). This is dealt on the finishing blow of the zombie and continues until the zombie is revived or heals itself (via digestion). The probability of getting an arm (20%) is lower than getting a leg (40%) and a probability of it failing. However, if the last hit was a melee weapon, the probability increases by 10%. Passing back to relevance, it's not hard to imagine how agonizingly difficult it is to fight with one leg or one arm. It presents a new sort for survivors to resiliant zombies.

Votes

Spam - One of the suggestion do's and do not's is not to mess with other peoples AP. Are you suggesting that after headshot, a zombie could end up having to spend 25 AP to stand up? That's half of the day down the drain. (I think there was a very similar suggestion to this but I can't find it.) Ybbor 03:23, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Kill - Change to 1 dismemberment and only dismember opposite kind of player. I don't want to dismember a fellow zombie. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:35, 22 July 2006 (BST) Keep - Holy shit! Zombie headshot. Though I will say make it only 1 dismemberment instead of 2. That's just unfair. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:25, 22 July 2006 (BST)
- Re - (Author) I've changed it to 1 limb, but I'm not sure if even that is fair to exclude ZKing or PKing to all the people that do. 7:41 P.M. July 21st 2006 (PST)

First of all, you CANNOT interact with DEAD BODIES (except to dump from a building). Secondly, we ALREADY have Headshot (force someone to stand for 20 AP? Yeah, right). XP would only be abused.--Pesatyel 07:40, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Wouldn't the obvious way around that problem be to change it so that 'headshot' only affects firearms and the survivor portion of this suggestion only affects knife / axe attacks? That way you wouldn't force someone to stand for 20AP --Tethran 17:14, 22 July 2006 (BST) EDIT: And / or make it so that the two don't stack with each other. --Tethran 19:02, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Your still ignoring the most important part of my comment. You CANNOT interact with DEAD BODIES (except to dump from a building). This ENTIRE suggestion rests on the ability of a character to do that, which is not possible. Thus it doesn't matter WHAT weapon you use.--Pesatyel 22:18, 22 July 2006 (BST)

I was going to let the author of the suggestion deal with that problem. Although one possible way of altering it would be so it works kinda like a 'final shot' similar to headshot. In the end though I think any suggestion that gives the zombies a headshot skill is going to be spammed into oblivion simply because you're making it more difficult for your own kind. Because if you think about it, however it works, a zombie with any sort of headshot-like ability attacks a survivor and kills them. The dead person then has to spend an extra X ammount of AP standing up as a zombie. So you're making the new zombie spend more AP. --Tethran 13:08, 23 July 2006 (BST)

- Re - (Author) Currently, the game only has one mechanic to affect dead bodies which is dumping. This would require the game to be able to target specific bodies, but I don't know if that's impossible or not. If Kevan could implement that into the game, this would really work. I'm also considering changing it so dismembered parts have different percentages and different AP dwoemers. Like a leg has a 25% chance of being cut off while an arm may have 50%. With Tethran's idea, it only copies headshot. I want this skill to be unique and not copy what something already does. 2:49 A.M. July 23rd 2006 (PST)

Well, if you don't want to just make it a copy of Headshot, what about giving penalties when the person stands. Maybe for a leg hit the person has, say a 25% chance per movement AP spent of it costing 2 AP to move (though that would be bad for zombies...can't think of a counter at the moment). An arm hit could just be a penalty to hit (say -5%). Penalty goes away when the person is healed (maybe not until healed to max?). The basic problem is that this would be much worse on zombies (which is what most targets of this suggestion would be) than survivors. I suppose Digestion would work, but since pre-Digestion zombies would be SERIOUSLY hampered I don't know. And, as for actually TARGETING dead bodies, the only safe way I could think of would be if it was completely random (no "picking your target").--Pesatyel 01:43, 24 July 2006 (BST)

- Re - (Author) Changed a few things on it. It's a survivors only skill, but fixable for zombies through digestion. Thanks for the idea, Pesatyel. Give me some feedback on the new changes. Maybe something that attacks random revived corpses. 4:49, 26 July 2006 (PST)

Destroying Barricades Gives XP

Timestamp:	21:49, 20 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Currently, destroying barricades as a zombie is a thankless task. While humans can easily build barricades, zombies have a much harder time destroying them, and often, after breaking down barricades, zombies don't have enough AP remaining to kill even a single survivor — assuming that the barricaded building had anyone in it at all. This suggestion would give zombies 2 XP for each level of barricades that they destroy: not successful hits, but actual levels destroyed (Loosely, Lightly, Quite Strongly, Very Strongly, Heavily, Very Heavily, and Extremely Heavily, for those who don't know), for a maximum of 14 XP gained. This is roughly equivalent to successfully attacking a survivor a few times, and would help offset the cost of destroying barricades, create a small gain for zombies when they break into empty buildings, and create an incentive to help destroy barricades.

Votes
Votes here

Zombies FTW, anyone? This is actually an improvement on an old suggestion in Undecided Suggestions, so I'm curious to see what people think of it now. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:49, 20 July 2006 (BST)

Dupe - The Peer Reviewed suggestion said 1 XP, but there was a note that said some people thought it could be 2 XP.--Pesatyel 02:30, 21 July 2006 (BST)

what i think is that it sucks. Not trying to be rude but as people always say to this (many times over) dupe is: whats inside the barricade is the reward, you dont get xp just for doing what you are supposed too! Usually a fairly lame excuse; but not in this case. I might be convinced by 2xp for collapsing the last section only though?--Honestmistake 17:02, 22 July 2006 (BST)

While I hate that excuse too (dumping bodies "is its own reward" yet they get XP for that), but what ARE you talking about? Giving an XP reward to zombies is in PEER REVIEW, where I got the dupe link. It just hasn't been implemented.--Pesatyel 22:21, 22 July 2006 (BST)

If it's been in Peer Reviewed for a while and hasn't been done yet, don't you think maybe Kevan has looked at it and deemed it something he doesn't want to implement? --Mookiemookie 15:50, 24 July 2006 (BST)

There are a LOT of things in Peer Review and, ironically, he's implemented quite a but from Peer REJECTED (Ankle Grab, I believe, came from their for example). Maybe he thinks zombies should only get XP from combat (which is a rather foolhardy ideology). Point is, other than simplicity (as in the recent change to the map regarding NT buildings), we don't really know what ideas he has or hasn't got in mind.--Pesatyel 22:47, 24 July 2006 (BST)

basically from prior comments on similar suggestions it seems that people just haven't liked it. i've not checked the one you linked cos i would still vote kill on almost any version you could think of. My main concern (apart from the needless reward) is that it can very easily be an xp farm. that said it would be usefull for newbs who too often smash the 'cades only to find they cant get in anyway. Perhaps if this only worked while you are a first level zombie but i still just don't think its needed!--Honestmistake 17:54, 24 July 2006 (BST)

The basic thought on it that a lot of us use is that zombies have VERY little they can do. Attacking being 98% of it (be it survivor, zombie, barricade or room). Yet zombies ARE played by players and, given the inherent limitations of zombies, there is very little said players can do to gain XP. So suggestions for new XP sources tend to limit themselves (or be limited to) things that zombies can do. Like hitting barricades. It isn't like people are asking for zombies to be able to get XP for reading or healing...just in things they can do. Look at it this way, if a survivor gets an XP for repairing a ransack, why doesn't a zombie get it for DOING the ransack?--Pesatyel 22:47, 24 July 2006 (BST)

that is a valid point and zeds should get xp for ransack, esp. if its true that harmans get em for repair! However barricade building and smashing are so fundamental, easy and common that neither side should be rewarded just for doing it any more than they currently are. Yes zeds do need more ways to gain (and spend) XP but not like this. I do like some of the graffiti,territory markers we saw recently but hey, who knows?--Honestmistake 18:35, 25 July 2006 (BST)

Acute Hearing

Timestamp:	21:18, 20 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	With this skill, your zombie is sometimes able to discern certain familiar sounds, even though its ears are rotting. This skill would appear under Memories of Life in the skill tree, and would be purchasable for 100 XP. Some noises would be designated as loud: Dropping large items (generators, radio transmitters, radios, etc) Adding the Extremely Heavily barricade level, or destroying the Loosely barricade level Firing a shotgun or pistol ten times within a one minute period Destroying a generator or radio transmitter Five "talking" messages from survivors within a one minute period If a loud noise is created in the same square as a zombie with Acute Hearing, the zombie has a 5% chance of hearing the noise. The message received by the zombie would be vague, but would indicate whether or not the noise came from the exact location of the zombie, or from inside or outside of a building if the zombie is in the opposite location (e.g., You hear a loud noise from nearby (and again, and again), or You hear a loud noise from inside the building (and again), or You hear a loud noise from outside the building). This would give zombies some opportunity to tell if there are survivors nearby, and would nerf the usefulness of falsely barricaded buildings somewhat. The skill would not cross over to survivors.

Votes
Votes here

I know x-ray skills are generally horrible, but I think this is balanced pretty well. I'd appreciate hearing any feedback that people have. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:18, 20 July 2006 (BST)

What about survivors hearing lots of zombies outside?--Pesatyel 02:52, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Fair enough. What if the skill crossed over, but instead of hearing "loud noises," you had a 5% chance of hearing a group of zombies when the size of the group increased above 10? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:43, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Agree with what Pesatyel said.Youronlyfriend 09:05, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Well I think most people would still consider this to be "X-Ray" and merely add the "rarety doesn't it make it balanced" argument. After all if the building is at VS or less, a survivor can just pop in and out to get the same knowledge. While I like the idea on a flavor standpoint (lots of people still means significant amounts of noise, even if they are trying to be careful) and zombie just aren't a quiet group (even player controlled ones), I'm not so sure it would work of UD. Not knowing what is on the other side of the barricade requires taking a risk to find out.

But I DO think zombies should have an easier time "hearing" survivors inside then the reverse. Survivors already have the benefit of the "pop in, pop out" method I mentioned. I just think survivors would tend to be a LOT noiser then zombies. What about a "scale of hearing?" The more there are the better the chances? Hmmm....this whole idea has been thought of before, of course. You might want to look at previous suggestions.--Pesatyel 23:07, 24 July 2006 (BST)

I was actually just thinking of an idea along these same "hearing things" lines. A skill more along like "Light Sleeper" actually, that would work for both humans and zombies, that would tell you if the barricade on your block had been attacked recently (A vague "You hear the sound of a [barricade object] smashing" would show up the "since your last turn" log). Since you're only told that the barricade has been attacked, the player isn't given any definite idea of what's going on; a human w/o free running could be trying to get in, a zombie could be attacking, or a zombie spy could be softening the safehouse up from the inside. I don't think it actually falls into Xray with that setup, as a human will most likely be leaving the building at some point to search for supplies anyways, and as for the zombie, if anything, he'll know the zombies on that block are actively in an attack. Also I personally think that if the player can hear generators shorting out and the death throes of people as they're eaten alive, I think they can strain to hear a vending machne be smashed to bits. Although all my experience is as a Human, so any Zed player input would be great. --Ash 05:36, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Infrared Heat Detector

Timestamp:

19:52, 20 July 2006 (BST)

Type:

Item

Scope:

Survivors

Description:

Most people would agree that survivors need a boost of some sort. This suggestion would create a new item that would add some fun tactics and gameplay opportunities for survivors. First I'll describe the statistics and functioning of the item, and then I'll get into its use.

The item would be an Infrared Heat Detector. It would be found in mall Tech Stores (5%/11%) and NecroTech buildings (3%).

Survivors with an Infrared Heat Detector could, for 1 AP, place the item in any outside location (it would not function indoors). Infrared Heat Detectors would run on a set of internal batteries which cannot not be recharged or replaced, but they would not require a generator either. After the batteries run out, the unit is "dead" and is automatically removed from the map. The batteries would last for three days total — two days in "normal power mode," and one day in "low power mode," during which time the device would function less accurately.

In addition, the device would be displayed on the map as an Infrared Heat Detector, and could be destroyed at the same success rate as generators.

Now the fun part:

Any survivor with NecroNet access would have a new button when in powered NecroTech buildings: "Check Infrared Detectors." Pressing the button would cost 1 AP, and would bring up a table with three columns: Location, Power, and Data.

Each row of the table would display information about an Infrared Heat Detector in the current suburb. Location and Power are obvious, but the real fun is the Data section:

Each Infrared Heat Detector would record the number of survivors and zombies that interrupted its beam during the time it was powered. Detectors with normal power would record for their block and the 8 neighboring blocks, while detectors with low power would record for only their block, and would have a 25% chance of recording nothing at all — but there would be no way to tell if the device was malfunctioning, or there was simply no activity. To avoid abuse, the detector would not count the same person twice in one day.

I think at this point a table would be most useful to illustrate what would be displayed:

Location

Power

Data

Some Place One (xx,yy)

Normal

Two Days Ago:	10 Zombies, 4 Survivors
Yesterday:	1 Zombie, 2 Survivors
Today:	40 Zombies, 0 Survivors

Some Place Two (xx,yy)

Low

Two Days Ago:	4 Zombies, 1 Survivor
Yesterday:	1 Zombie, 20 Survivors
Today:	0 Zombies, 0 Survivors

Some Place Three (xx,yy)

Normal

Two Days Ago:	No Data
Yesterday:	5 Zombies, 0 Survivors
Today:	1 Zombie, 1 Survivor

This would create more use for NecroNet access, and add an entirely new fun aspect of gameplay for survivors, especially those who play scientists. It would provide the ability to keep tabs on different parts of the suburb, but its numerous checks and balances would keep it from being overpowered or too x-ray like.

Votes

Kill - Aren't zombies dead? How does it pick up heat from a cold, dead, corpse? Sonny Corleone ^WTF 20:12, 20 July 2006 (BST)
Re - Since the game is based at least slightly on something resembling an attempt at science, I can tell you that they would have to have some body heat for one of two reasons; take your pick:
1. To move around, they would have to have some oxygen supplied to their muscles. This oxygen would have to arrive via blood circulation, which would imply a working heart. Thus, body heat.
2. In the act of moving around, their body would be rubbing together in various ways (internally and externally, leave the dirty jokes at the door), creating friction, which would generate heat.
–Bob Hammero ^Mod•T•P! 20:32, 20 July 2006 (BST)
I know what you're getting at but infrared beams seem a little farfetched. I don't see the real point when you can just go outside and see the zombies. But then again zombies tell where they attack so it's not like 500 zombies showing up overnight. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 00:55, 21 July 2006 (BST)
How about special cameras that can tell the difference between zombies and humans then? Right. But the main benefit, I think, is it would save you the AP of having to run all over the suburb, potentially getting barricaded outside while you're doing it. Theoretically, someone could set up one of these things at each border location, and keep track of all survivors and zombies going in and out of the suburb. –Bob Hammero ^Mod•T•P! 01:20, 21 July 2006 (BST)
Ok. I get it. I'd vote keep if it was 1 detector/thing in a suburb. Because someone could put these at every block. Big Brother and shit. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 01:26, 21 July 2006 (BST)
Oh yeah, now for the zombies to start tea-bagging each other. Youronlyfriend 09:12, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Please tell me what you think of the idea. I'm open to any sort of tweaking that needs to happen, but I think this suggestion could be fun for a lot of people. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:52, 20 July 2006 (BST)

Well, the only thing off the top of my head I can think of is that, it seems to me "low" power would last longer than "normal" power (ie. switch the durations). It doesn't necessarily have to be "infrared" but a laser. Regardless it is that something interupts the beam, not that it specifically detects heat. And, based on how you set it up in the suggestion, (Each Infrared Heat Detector would record the number of survivors and zombies that interrupted its beam during the time it was powered.), it does't make sense that a detector would be able to detect anything outside the square it is set up in, regardless of mode. I'd have to agree with Sonny about limiting how many can operate in any given area.--Pesatyel 02:50, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Yes, the wording is a little odd, but that's because I had originally planned two "modes" that a detector could be in (wide-angle and narrow-beam), but decided to remove that because it was unnecessarily complicated. Good idea about limiting the number of active detectors, too. What if there could only be 10 active detectors at any given time, and setting up more would bump older ones off the list? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:45, 22 July 2006 (BST)

I would like to say that these should be able to be destroyed by Zombies just to make them fairer IMO. - Jedaz 08:56, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I assumed that would be a given. Unsmashable would be an instakill from me --Gene Splicer 20:02, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Crossing Over

Timestamp:	17:31, 14 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Game Mechanic Change
Scope:	Characters who idle-out
Description:	I propose that characters who idle out become Bodies of the opposite type. Zombies who idle out would become reviving corpses and Survivors who idle-out would become dead bodies. This would not effect active characters. Currently, the only way for a zombie to become a survivor is from a Syringe used by someone else, while Survivors can become a zombie in a variety of easily accessable ways. This change would be an alternative for former survivors to live again when finding a revive proves too difficult. The waiting period is long enough so that finding an RP and posting a request would still be quicker. No one should be forced to play a position they don't like.(This is the whole point of the Brainrot Skill, right?) Survivors need some new way to live again which does not require the actions of others. Combat revived zeds don't need anyone to open a Window for them to jump out, after all. FOR THE DISCUSSION PAGE: I've thought of these alternatives if this is unacceptable in the form above: Extend the Idle-Out period to 7 days.(It's five now) Standing in a cemetary is required. Zombies(former survivors) must have a syringe available in their inventory, and it is consumed during the revive.

Votes

Speek - The wonderful flavors of Spam and Keep together; now THAT'S a delicious vote! I am a meat popsicle. Seriously, is this idea any good? Please give me all the feedback you can(including comments on the alts even if you like it as is) so I can refine this. Also, this is the first time I've used the Suggest template, so if it's wrong I kindly ask anyone able to fix it.--Raystanwick 17:31, 14 July 2006 (BST)
Here's my opinion: I probably would not vote to keep a skill like this. Reason being, revification doesn't terribly need any new methods. Reviving is supposed to be kind of a pain. That's kinda part of the whole general atmosphere and balance of the game, as I see it. I don't think it would be good to get a free revive for standing around. Also, this might mildly swing the balance toward survivors, which, if I'm not mistaken, the survivors are already leading. Needing to have a syringe in inventory is a good idea for this, but even with it, I'd still probably vote Kill. Well, that's my though. Take care.--Rgon 17:42, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Rgon - it's not a skill, the zombies outnumber survivors now, and this will not influence the ratio.(see below)--Raystanwick 12:43, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Comment - I understand the motivation for the idea, but I also understand why it probably shouldn't be in the game. At the very least, you need to have a condition other than idling out. Indeed, the whole idea of idling out is that you character doesn't get killed or revived while you're away. Also, axe increasing the time it takes to go idle; IMHO 5 days is too long. Needing to have a syringe on you would most likely lead to survivors simply carrying one around with them at all times, and wouldn't help people who had died before this change was implemented. Standing on a cemetery is a good bet, if somewhat counter-intuitive (people go to cemeteries to die, not to live). The major problem is that this would constitute a small, but fundamental balance shift in favor of the survivors. So while I like the idea of there being some way to take matters of coming back to life into one's own hands, I think this is a bad way to do it. Keep thinking on it. --Desperado 18:33, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Desperado(and others) - Those three conditions at the end of the suggestion are possible alternatives, not requirements.(I've change it boldface for emphasis) I was trying to offer some possible options. Also, I doubt this would create a shift in the ratio; zombies jump out windows(easily) and survivors find revives(with great difficult at times) already.(see more below) Thank you for reinforcing this point: "The difference is that death for zombies ranges from a minor inconvenience to practically no inconvenience at all, while survivor death is almost always a major inconvenience." --Raystanwick 12:43, 15 July 2006 (BST)

First of all Desperado, the idle time of 5 days is part of the game already (it isn't something the OP did) [I know. --Desperado 20:43, 14 July 2006 (BST)]. Anyways, this would significantly change the fundamental nature of the game. If a zombie wants a revive, they have to Mrh?-cow or otherwise actively seek someone who will give them one (and Rotters have to TRULY want one to get one). Now, I just have to find some place to idle out (and most people have mutliple character so it isn't like I'd have to go days without playing at all) making it WAY to easy for Rotters. And, as a survivor, my character managed to stay alive long enough to actually idle out and...suddenly he's just dead? If you "don't like being forced to play a position you don't want to play" then WHY are you playing Urban Dead? The basic premise of the game is that survivors are attempting to...survive...in a city infested with zombies. And if a survivor dies, they become a zombie. Don't want to play a zombie? DON'T DIE. Sure, it may SOUND "easier said then done" but it really isn't THAT difficult either (especially if you hang out in most malls). And that is the very IDEA of the game (for survivors). There are PLENTY of other zombie genre games where that factor has been removed.--Pesatyel 19:30, 14 July 2006 (BST)

I think that was a little harsh Pesatyel. --Desperado 20:47, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Perhaps. Doesn't really make it any less true. WAY to many survivors play zombie safari style (hide out in a safehouse at leisure, stock up at leisure, go out and kill zombies at leisure, rinse and repeat). They don't want playing a survivor to be difficult (which is completely counter to the whole survival horror game, of which Urban Dead is a part) and "don't like playing as zombies" because it IS harder to do. Thus they come up with suggestions that either blatantly make it easier for survivors (such as making them immune to becoming zombies) or would subtly shift the balance (as this one would). To put it simply they want to take the Don't die aspect out of the game because it is...inconvenient.--Pesatyel 21:37, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean the current system is perfect. Lets face it, unless Kevan decides to institute permadeath (which we all know will never happen), all death is ever going to be is inconvenient. The difference is that death for zombies ranges from a minor inconvenience to practically no inconvenience at all, while survivor death is almost always a major inconvenience. Certainly there should be penalties for dying, and those penalties should be greater for survivors than zombies, but making coming back to life a pain in the ass isn't fun. I think a better way is needed, and although Raystanwick's suggestion isn't the best, at least he's trying. If you believe the system is perfect as is, then that's all you needed to say. Otherwise, offer constructive criticism. Bitching about how other people want to play or do play isn't helping anyone. --Desperado 22:24, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Your right, I didn't really need to go there, even if what I said is true. I don't believe THIS suggestion alleviates the problem to which you elude. It just penalizes players for not being able to play. But, I might add, a fundamental aspect of the game is the idea that a single zombie actually represents multiple zombies. This is manifest in the ability of zombies to stand up at full health. I believe that is something that Raystanwick did NOT take into consideration. Besides, I believe it is easier to get a revive within 7 days (my Rotter can definately get one faster than 7 days). The basic idea of the suggestion, it appears, is to substitute the current penalties (having to get someone to revive you) for a survivor dying with different penalties (having to stand around for a few days until you magically revive youself). Being able to bring a zombie back to life is not exactly "in genre" but it is a necessity for this game. But this whole idea just feels like a cheat. What I said may have been harsh, but you yourself said there should be penalties for survivors dying (and aren't those penalties the hastle of having to GET revived?), but the penalties for THIS suggestion really aren't that significant. Requiring a syringe (those are easy to come by) and not being able to play that character for 7 days. Most people have at least three characters, if not more. It seems to me it might make more sense to give zombies some kind of high level skill or ability that simply allows them to use a syringe in their possession.--Pesatyel 10:58, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Agreed Pesatyel. --Desperado 14:49, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Pes - It would be an ALTERNATIVE, not a SUBSTITUTE for the current system. The penalty would not decrease; People wait for revives already. I don't see your point about some survivors wanting the game to be an easy "zombie safari"... Some dedicated zed players want the game to be easy too.(for them) Regardless of which side is easier or more difficult to play in your opinion, the point about not being forced to play as one side or the other is valid; where is the FUN in that? I have a number of characters, some survivors and some zeds. Some play "right" when switched, but some of them like being only one or the other. "Mrh cows" already do what you don't like about this suggestion- try to get revived right away; they're going to stand at an RP however you think they should be playing.(and dedicated zeds jump from windows) Neither of which effects the RATIO now. BTW, what kind of characters do you play? are they all survivors? all zombies? Do they mix it up? If one of your zeds gets combat revived, do you play them as a survivor "properly", or smash some gennies, note safehouses and then jump out a window?

"Thus they come up with suggestions that either blatantly make it easier for survivors (such as making them immune to becoming zombies)" You mean like a Brainrot for Survivors?!? That would be WAY TOO much.(even though Zombies have this already...)

"Don't Die". That's nice, thank you, I never thought of that. Believe it or not, Malls do get overrun, and even the most careful survivor can log in to find, "you are outside... and you are dead" no matter where they are.

"...if a survivor dies, they become a zombie." So the game should be like THIS?

Finally, I greatly respect your opinions, but I was quit insulted by part of your comment; Please don't tell me to go find a different game to play for suggesting a change in a game with a SUGGESTIONS BOX that implements changes regularly. --Raystanwick 12:43, 15 July 2006 (BST)

I actually really like this. Ideally, I'd like all revives to be combat revives, and all players to play as whatever character they are at the moment, but knowing people's preferences, I wouldn't mind letting survivor-style players auto-revive after a little while (seriously, if you're alive and want to die and can't find an easy way to do it, just quit the game). Tying this just to the idle-out time is a very bad idea, since people may idle out and come back and have switched sides, however, I think you're alternatives quite nicely deal with this. I think both should have to stand in the cemataries, just for some flavour, and a revive-syringe is absolutely necessary. I'm sure the a survivor wanting to die would get killed in well under five days anyways, but I think your main argument in defending this should be it's not fun when you're not playing what you want. It's not fun for the stubborn people who only like to play survivors if they can't revive, so why not let them revive, at the cost of making sure there's always a syringe on hand, and stepping out of the game for five days. Again, I'd much rather see that kind of player kick around as a zed for a while, but I don't mind the re-spawn idea given the costs. --Burgan 23:20, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Playing the part would be ideal, but no one is going to change how Mrh cows and window jumpers play. Yes, I think the 5 days is an ample penalty. --Raystanwick 12:43, 15 July 2006 (BST)

I think the existing systems are good enough. This definitely would be a hassle to the players that just want to go on vacation and let their characters idle. I'd have to spam this one, sorry. Although I do like the idea of easing a cross-over for zombies-to-human, I think that revive points are good enough. --Kiltric 05:50, 15 July 2006 (BST)

I'm glad you think the current system is adequate. IMO, the RPs are not always "good enough", esp when a player waits a week or more with a character to play them they way they want.(this applies to Pes' 'easily revived rotter' above, too; getting a revive CAN and IS a pain in the ass at times, regardless of OPINIONS on the difficult. Does this make it easier? NO. It's just an alternate(and time-consuming) way of doing what is already done) How much of a hassle would being switched really be?(see below) Also, is the idea really so radical as to warrant a Spam vote? --Raystanwick 12:43, 15 July 2006 (BST)

"Accidental" Idle-Outs: How often will this REALLY effect someone? If someone times out it's for one of two reasons: they quit or they went away on vacation. How OFTEN do active players let their characters Idle-Out? In the RARE case where a character IS 'accidently' switched, they can do what is already done; jump out a window or find a revive. This simply makes a revive possible for those who have waited FIVE days without help. My Cemetary option addresses this insignificant concern: Don't want to switch while on vaction? don't idle out in a cemetary...BTW, I'm getting an editing conflict so, so some of these replies have been hastily re-added and may be in the wrong place...--Raystanwick 12:43, 15 July 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry, I just feel that a circumstance that would force players to change sides, short of combat or direct revival, should not be implemented. --Kiltric 20:08, 15 July 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry if I offended you, but all this suggestion would do would be to shift the balance to far into the survivors. We don't even NEED to talk about survivors automatically switching to zombies using this suggestion. That isn't even a consideration. Getting revived is not supposed to be easy. This would make it easy. The point of the zombie safari ideology I mentioned was that too many survivor players want the game to be easy on them. They don't want the risk of having to play a zombie or indeed having to even WORRY about zombies (why do you think PKing go to so rampant before all the zombie buffs). A LOT of "survivor" players DON'T play zombies period. When they die, if they can't get a revive by the time they log on the next day, they dump the character and start a new one. Fact is, dying is an inherent part of the game and, yes, even the most well defend mall can fall and people will find their characters dead the next time they log in, but it REALLY isn't that difficult to do. It is about playing smarter (like not running out of AP in an NT building, for example) not easier (like getting a revive without having to do any work to get it). That isn't to say that zombie players don't want to "have it easy" for themselves, but people that actually play zombies understand that it ISN'T easy and almost all zombie-primary players have survivor alts or have played as survivors (which cannot be said for all survivor-primary players). This game will NEVER have a significant zombie majority. Survivors are just too much easier to play and the trade off for that ease of play is the difficulty of getting BACK to it when you die. And, since you asked, I currently have ONE character. He started as a zombie and has acquired all skills (except Headshot) and I have always played him as a feral (I RARELY find a useful Feeding Groan). I play him as whatever side he is on and I have NEVER taken more than 3 days to get a revive, even with Brain Rot. Even after the 10AP increase. Why? Because if I want that revive, I gotta work for it. 30+ lines of Mrh?-cows at a revive site? Maybe those players should stop Mrh?-ing with their 50 AP and try to find a less clogged site. My zombie has currently been alive for 4 days.

To put it simply, reviving should require some work on the part of the player wanting a revive. Standing in a cemetary until you magically revive yourself doesn't cut it. Beyond purely attempts at balance, WHY would this work from an RP/flavor point of view? I do NOT believe this idea will pass. That isn't to say that an alternate method of revival won't (if it can be balanced).--Pesatyel 22:31, 15 July 2006 (BST)

why do you apologize and then give the same rant? As I said above, 1)trenchcoating mrhcows will do what they do regardless of your desire, 2)don't lump all survivors in with them, and 3) even THE MOST careful survivors CAN wind up dead. None of the arguments you present about these points have anything to do with the suggestion, BTW, except in the very broadest terms.

HOW would this "shift the balance" exactly? How would this effect the ratio?

As I said the REAL suggestion is about allowing survivors to get revives easier (even if you add in about survivors turning into zombies as some kind of balance). Currently, survivors have to actually work to get a revive. THAT is the penalty for dying. Your suggestion would negate that penalty with one that is, basically, insignificant. Not being able to play THAT character is really not such a a penalty, though I could be wrong. It would be nice if other people would comment instead of this turning into a retarded shouting match between us. I may be wrong and not being able to play that character for 7 days may very well BE a strong enough penalty. But I'm curious, do you honestly believe a person would not play that character for 7 days, just to get a free revive?

Yes I do. I think they will find an RP, post a request, and wait. All this would do is give them one after waiting if noone else has.--Raystanwick 18:45, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Also, you yourself claim that finding a revive(even for a rotter) is easy, so how does this make it easier? According to you assertions, anyone can go to an RP, post a request, and be revived quickly already... how does waiting LONGER make it easier?

They have to do the work to get revived. My rotter, for example, has to find an NT building with lights on, tear down the barricades, go inside, close the door (as a sign of good faith) and Mrh? Non-rotters have to do what it takes to get revived. If that means standing and Mrh?-ing for 50 AP, then hey, more power to them. If that means shuffling to another RP to improve their chance or attacking an NT to try and force a combat revive, then so be it. Your suggestion doesn't have THEM do any work.

What about when someone does all that work and still does not get a revive? they should just wait indefinately?

Plus, you say a revive should require work from someone wanting one, but that is not how it works now; they have to rely on someone else to do the work.

But your wrong, as I said above, the person wanting the revive HAS to do SOMETHING to obtain one. Random combat revives DO happen, but with the 10 AP hit, they don't happen THAT often.

I think players wanting a revive will still look for one the way they do now.

Fiction IS magic. If you can suspend bisbelief for the dead walking the Earth and mad scientists bringing them back, a rationale for my suggestion should not be difficult. Any imaginative mind can create an explaination for the switch. How's this: in the five days which that character has not been played they have been killed or revived by another?

Nope, your explanation is completely counter to your own argument. How about the zombie stands swaying and, after 5 days, his limbs grow weak and he falls over, causing the syringe in his pocket to empty into him. You say the zombie has to, basically, do for himself to get a revive and shouldn't HAVE to depend on someone else to give him one. Yet you make NO attempt to make that part of you suggestion (and the attempt you DO make....has someone else giving them a revive).

You're right, it is beyond imagination that after not logging on and waiting five days(most likely at an RP) that a player would come back to find their character revived... BTW, having a syringe was only a possible alternative for this, not a requirement. You're last part there is just wierd... the suggestion DOES make a revive possible without the help of others, it's the FLAVOR part that assumes someone has come along and revived.

Frankly, it sounds like you are deeply biased. You claim to know how most others play and what they think; I find that ignorant and laughable. You say playing a survivor is too easy and that ease needs to be offset by staying as a zombie. That isn't a balance, that's just a spiteful punishment. --

Raystanwick 05:28, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Don't put words in my mouth. I said too many survivors not "most" and I said playing a survivor was EASIER not that it was "too easy." I notice how you ignore stuff I said earlier, such as playing smarter.

No, I said EVEN THE MOT CAREFUL(IE SMARTEST) survivor can wind up dead. you seem to think death for a survivor is impossible except through carelessness. I still don't understand how you know how and why people play... and "easier", "too easy", and just plain "easy" all seem about the same.

It appears that I have not given you the constructive criticism you desired and, instead, turned this into a big rant. I think it warrants mentioning that the cost to revive was changed to 10 AP for a reason...revives were ridiculously easy to get (I believe, before the change, survivors were at 72%). Unless you can come up with a VERY good reason how/why this idea works, people will vote spam on the grounds of it being "magic" (just look at the church/crucifix suggestions to see what I mean). I also believe a church might be more appropriate than a cemetary (or perhaps both?). How about a subskill of MoL (requiring NecroTech skills) allowing the zombie to use a syringe in their inventory?--Pesatyel 10:08, 16 July 2006 (BST)

I still don't see how this is "magic". I gave a perfectly good rationale for it. It isn't hard to imagine(at least for me) that someone came along and revived your zed or killed your survivor if you haven't logged on in FIVE DAYS.(ESPECIALLY if you're WANTING a revive, LOOKING FOR ONE(working...) AND THEREFORE at an RP.) --Raystanwick 18:45, 16 July 2006 (BST)

No. You didn't. The way the game is currently set up, SOMEONE would have to give the example zombie a revive. And, since ALL characters in the game are run by players, all this does is instead of Bob giving a zombie he finds a revive, he has to wait 5 days to give that same zombie a revive. In other words someone else is giving the zombie a revive, just like the current way it is done. Were you thinking some NPC "reviver" does it? Or were you thinking that someone else walks up, takes the syringe from the zombie and uses it on them? That actually doesn't sound THAT bad, but I don't think it would work either. Regardless, as I said, it appears you want to have a zombie be able to use a syringe in his inventory on him self....but say it is done by someone else walking by giving him a revive. Thus it isn't the zombie doing it himself, is it. It is "magic" until you can come up with a plausible way for a zombie to give himself a revive without requiring someone else do it (or it "just happens")...as you currently have it.--Pesatyel 02:07, 17 July 2006 (BST)

YES I DID! GEEZ. Do you have ANY imagination? YOU can't think of why this could be? Also, you say "CURRENTLY... as though it should ONLY be that way, but that is exactly what the suggestion alters. First of all, the zombie does not need a syringe. Forget that whole part. It was just a possible alternative for the actual suggestion. I didn't realize it would be confusing. Maybe you should reread the actual suggestion instead of continuing with faulty assumptions. Second, the REVIVER doesn't wait five days, the revivee does. THERE is no ACTUAL reviver. You are confusing the actual mechanic with the flavor explaination you asked for. IN THE SUGGESTION, NO ONE actually does the revive, if a zed times out they become a reviving corpse. The flavor explaination(you wanted justification for the effect) is that someone has come by and revived them. DO NOT CONFUSE THE TWO! Come on... it's like you're intentionally muddling the issue to try to support your argument. --Raystanwick 14:08, 17 July 2006 (BST)

If "NO ONE ACTUALLY DOES THE REVIVE" how is this NOT magic? Your flavor explanation requires someone to revive the zombie, not the zombie reviving himself as you want. I said the reviver has to wait 5 days because, in a normal revive, a reviver can give a combat revive at any time, from the moment the character stands as a zombie to infinity. With your idea, the reviver has to wait 5 days to do the same thing because your suggestion requires someone revive the zombie, not the zombie doing it himself, but that revive can't happen for 5 days after the character stands as a zombie...or am I misreading your suggestion? Which is it? The zombie does it himself (where is the suitable explanation that doesn't involve a combat revive)? or someone comes along and revives the zombie (without using a syringe?).

~~You know, all I want is a REASONABLE explanation that doesn't involve another person.~~ Nevermind, I don't believe you will supply one. Whether or not you want to believe it, I've actually tried to help you see how this is not a good idea and improve it. In a suggestion like this flavor is VERY important. Not just mechanics. Since I'm done and it appears that no one else is going to add any input, go ahead and post this for voting. I think we will BOTH be interested to see how it does--Pesatyel 22:08, 17 July 2006 (BST)

You are still confusing the effects with the flavor. No other player does the revive and the player himself does not do it, the GAME SYSTEM would change the zombie to a reviving corpse on IDLE-OUT.(no reviver, no syringe)THAT effect is justified(explained) with a: "A non-descript scientist has revived you." message in-game when the character is reactivated.(or however it's said) See the difference between what happens mechanically and the flavor for why? It's not hard to imagine a zombie left for over 5 days at an RP getting a revive eventually.(either from another player normally, or from a new mechanic like this) If repeating this over and over doesn't help, I don't know what to tell you.

Besides, this version of this idea is bad for another reason neither of us considered; survivors inside would become dead bodies, allowing zombie infiltration. I have to change the suggestion to effect zombies only in cemetaries or something. I appreciate your help, I just wish it wouldn't go in circles; if I repeat a point and it's still unclear, just assume I'm an idiot and leave it be.--Raystanwick 22:58, 19 July 2006 (BST)

I wasn't confusing anything. All I was saying was that you have to give a flavor reason for WHY the game does what it does. for a suggestion like this, just saying "the game system does it" is NOT sufficient (hence my "magic" comment). Your "non-descript scientist has revived you" reasoning says NPC and I guarantee people will spam or kill the suggestion because of that. Yes it IS hard to imagine a zombie left for over 5 days getting a revive eventually if no one actually does the revive. NPCs don't count.

Basically speaking, if the zombie doesn't revive himself, another survivor doesn't revive the zombie and an NPC can't do it (no NPCs), then how does it work? As for the survivor half you mentioned, I presumed from the suggestion itself it would require the survivor to idle out on a cemetary as well (Standing in a cemetary is required.).--Pesatyel 05:15, 22 July 2006 (BST)

This suggestion is unworkable. Don't punish players cause their connection goes down, or they go on vacation, or are otherwise unable to come online. Also, this pretty much defeats the purpose of A: to 1: Survive as long as possible as a survivor (duh), and 2: Attack survivors as a zombie; and B: the whole disappearing after 5 days. This is just stupid. Furthermore, how the hell does a zombie administer a revive to himself, like they use a syringe that zombies shouldnt be able to use and inject themself? Or an otherworldly force resurects them? And a survivor dies of what, old age and then get revived into a healthy young person? Or they spontaneously combust? I could go on for so long, it would probably take a uninterupted year and break the wiki. --Gold Blade 02:34, 3 August 2006 (BST) Ditch the "Survivors dying" half of this suggestion, that's an autospam from everyone with a survivor character. If you find a good safehouse and stay untouched for five days, you hide and remain untouchable untill you log back in. That is the (secondary) POINT of idling out. (the primary one being to avoid spamming up the screen with people who do not actually exist).

Zombies having the option to become Survivors after idling out is another matter. If a Zombie is revived accidentally, death is just a window away (or standing outside saying "Eat my flesh and rejoice, my Undead Brethren!"). If you just spent five days offline, another 4 or 5 Ap wouldn't kill you. I play roughly equal Zombies and Survivors (crossing over individual characters randomly) and giving this option to me while running Survivor would outweigh the occasional and minor inconvenience while running Zombie. I suggest this alternative requirement, with Flavour

Shortly before the Outbreak, Necrotech was under investigation by DEFRA for the suspected unsafe handling and disposal of hazardous materials. It is probable that the inadequate disposal of failed serums caused the current situation. Despite this, these practices are still being carried out in Malton today, but with even greater disregard for the health of the city. Half-filled syringes, excess chemicals and improperly prepared doses are often tossed onto the streets outside the buildings they were used in,. A weak, imperfect form of the NT Serum permeats the air outside, infecting anyone who draws near. The slightest brain or muscle activity is enough to interrupt its work, but for the truly dead...
Anyone who spends at least (X) days as a corpse outside a Necrotech building stands back up as a human when they log in. Corpses with Brain Rot can try to resist the call of the flesh, or surrender to its meaty call(they will have both buttons after logging in). This means to avail of this revival method, they must leave their character in a state that they know they will not get revived in sooner. So by giving yourself no chance of a normal revive (NTs are notorious headshot zones, and if you cannot by injected as a corpse), you garauntee yourself a revive some odd days laer (whatever the community feels is fair). (If these wordings are ignored, I will post them myself as a suggestion if this page ever leaves discussion. I have been wanting to do so for a couple of days, actually. Hurry up and either post and remove!)--Gene Splicer 14:39, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Barricade Variance

Timestamp:	∞
Type:	Fundamental barricade change
Scope:	More variance among buildings, gives a nice change to building types, and could help zombies
Description:	I was just thinking about how I always end up barricaded inside a low-key building and how a school is just as defensible as a fort. What I think could fix this, as well as provide some distinction and add more value to certain buildings, is if barricades were limited by the building type. Most barricade suggestions seem to get shot down fairly quick, so I'm bringing this to the talk page hoping you'll hear me out. For the sake of discussion, I propose a mid level of max barricades to be VSB, and this will be the frame of reference. I'm not sure exactly how much above and below that would be good, so I'll just shoot out what I'm thinking around. EHB should be reserved for forts, to make them more interesting to hold. The 'heavily barricaded' could be used in PDs, NecroTechs (creepy corporation designed defensible locations), Banks, Mansions (the rich have fences and sturdy walls?). Things to have lower maximum would mostly be things designed to let lots of people in and out, such as stadiums, hotels, libraries, cinemas, railway stations, schools, churches. The main reasoning behind my suggestion here is to make different buildings worth more/less, to spice up the game, and to slightly knock down barricades, since after a few months of play, I'm finding them too powerful. My survivor runs guerilla strikes and already has more zombie skills than the zombie that I started at the same time; something's not right here. --Burgan 05:19, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Votes
Don't vote. Just comment.

I think you might need to be a bit more specific.

(EH) Armory, Bank

(VH) Mansion, Museum, NecroTech Building, Police Department, Zoo

(H) Arms, Factory, Fire Station, Mall, Power Station, Warehouse

(VS) Auto Repair Shop, Building, Hospital, Hotel, Junkyard, Library, School, Tower

(QS) Cathedral, Church, Cinema, Club, Railway Station, Stadium

I'm not sure if that is what you had in mind, but it is a start.--Pesatyel 07:12, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Thanks, I was just trying to get a feel for what people thought would be appropriate levels. I'll submit this in a few days if no else adds any concerns. --Burgan 04:52, 29 June 2006 (BST)

I don't want to be mean, but a suggestion like this wuold get spamminated to hell. Anyways, if you submit only what Pesatyel suggested, your suggestion basically cuts off a lot of barricade levels to hundreds of buildings, with no countermeasures. Either you add more levels to barricades, so the strongest buildings gets to "Extremely uber barricaded" and maybe the lesser level a building can be barricaded could be a lil higher than suggested, or something else that actually balances the suggestion. Maybe your could focus your suggestion on making it harder to reach the higher barricade levels on the low-key buildings instead of nerfing the barricades that much, but always include some countermeasure or the current barricade balance will be changed and blood will mix with spam... --Matthew Fahrenheit 05:07, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Adding more barricade levels will just get this spam-killed as well. Making it harder to reach the higher levels is something I'd consider resubmitting this with if it gets killed the first time around. As far as I'm concerned, however, the barricade balance does need a slight shift, and I think this is slight enough. --Burgan 20:30, 30 June 2006 (BST)

I agree this would likely get spaminated, but I like it anyway. So far as I'm concerned, barricades could use a nerf, and this one makes sense both in terms of flavor and of gameplay. This would actually add a little more strategy and a little more fear to where survivors choose to spend the night. Fun in a game like this one is all about choices, and right now the only real choice for many survivors is which absurdly overbarricaded suburb they'll be invulnerable in tonight. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 08:35, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Well, the levels I proposed were just examples (and if you notice, I put MALLS at H). I think this combined with the idea of search diversity would make for a good combination. I've mentioned it at other places the game needs to get away from the mall/NT-centric game play. Combine the QS level buildings with better search odds/items relative to the high end stuff would help to balance things. Sure, someone would hole up in a bank or the armory then go to the other locations to search, but THAT is the basic idea. Right now, a person can spend LESS THAN A DAY in a powered mall and outfit themselves as they see fit, especially if the mall has an NT building close by. Of course, on a side note, I think adding junk items to mall searches (yes, WITH the mall skills) would be a definite improvement.--Pesatyel 20:15, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Pesatyel's pretty much summed up what I was thinking about the levels in a nice little list. Thanks! I'll credit you when I post the suggestion (unless you don't want your name associated with a possible spam suggestion). Right now I'm just trying to word the suggestion so as to make it clear that the motivation behind this is not to nerf the 'cades, but to add some more variance to the buildings. I'm afraid this community is a little too spam-happy. --Burgan 20:30, 30 June 2006 (BST)

I like it, but I don't like it. On one side, we have newbies which are easily killed if they can't find shelter. on the other ~~crucifix~~ hand, it would be harder to keep pobile phone masts safe.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 10:10, 1 July 2006 (BST)

Thanks for the newbie comment, I'll have to include that when I submit. I like the idea of the game being more newbie friendly.

As for the phone masts, I've still never used a cell phone in game. Would you feel that would make it kill-worthy for you (or anyone else, for that matter)? --Burgan 02:45, 2 July 2006 (BST)

I really like this suggestion. Barricades need to be changed up a little, and with a bit more work, this could be it. I don't really see how Labine50 could argue about newbies getting killed, since the only buildings they could enter anyways (For the most part) are going to be VSB Resource Buildings that are targets for Zombie Attacks. If anything, this allows for newbie survivors to find more places to hide and helps nerf Barricade Strafing by keeping certain buildings under EHB. Just come up with an 'official' list of what buildings barricade levels are, and you've got a Keep from me. -- Tirion529 03:14, 3 July 2006 (BST)

I'm not sure what Labine was thinking either. But what did you think of the example list above? QS might be too low, so how about this?

(EH) Armory, Bank, Police Department, Mansion

(VH) Museum, NecroTech Building, Power Station, Zoo

(H) Arms, Building, Factory, Fire Station, Mall, Hospital, Tower, Warehouse

(VS) Auto Repair Shop, Cathedral, Church, Cinema, Club, Hotel, Junkyard, Library, Railway Station, School, Stadium--Pesatyel 05:51, 3 July 2006 (BST)

Labine said he liked and disliked, for newbs and for phones, which I took to mean that he likes that this makes it easier for newbs to find an entry point, and harder for everyone to defend phone masts.

I think QS is a good max level for some buildings, but keeping the lowest tier at VS does make it less radical and less likely to die. --Burgan 06:15, 3 July 2006 (BST)

A slightly different way to do the same thing as this suggestion could be to make the odds of successfully damaging a barricade different for different types of buildings. It might make the actual experience of hitting barricades more varied between buildings. ("Wow! Smashing this cinema I got 5 barricade collapses in 10 AP!" sort of thing.) Though on the other hand, the reduced maximum way is simpler and clearer. --Toejam 20:52, 5 July 2006 (BST)

I like this idea. I agree with adding this: "Making it harder to reach the higher levels..."

Toejam has a great point above about having it function as more fun for zombies, too... of course more breaches would probably up the fun for all.
Pesatyel's lists are very good, but actually choosing which type goes where would depend on how many of each type there is, and how spread out they are... the maximum cade level of each building type is very debatable. Also, Pes has a good point about the mall/NT Survivorlands. New search rates could be added with this.
some criticism: You're forcing mallrats to move to a different type of building. Everyone will try to rest in the strongest buildings and neglect the weak ones.
zombies(and PKers) will have a new standard for prioritizing targets, and any "max cade list" will condemn the 'best' buildings.(they may make interesting battle grounds; but the malls do that now... kinda.)
This may already be in the game! check thisfor why.
One other thing to consider: if some building types may not go above VSB it creates certain, 100%reliable entryways/newbsafehouses.(which might not be bad... I would like this a lot if it were the right mix of building types.) --Raystanwick 16:07, 6 July 2006 (BST)

I kinda like Toejam's idea too. As the game currently stands, there are only TWO important buildings in the game, malls and NT. PDs, Firestations, Auto Repair and Hospitals are secondary, even if the character in question doesn't have the mall skills. The two things I considered when I made my list was that and the "openness" of buildings, relative too each other (as best I could, of course). And having some buildings not go over VSB was kinda the point (allowing noobs inside). Of course, something like this would best be used in conjunction with other things that "spread the wealth" and make other buildings more attractive.--Pesatyel 22:50, 6 July 2006 (BST)

I agree. Barricades and Search rates are the whole game.(and attacks, too...) IMO, the only meaningful buildings are Malls, NTs, Factories, and Auto Repairs. PDs and Hospitals are useful for newbies without running and the shopping skills; they should be at least as good as the malls for searching.

This would be my 'list' of max cades:

(EH) Armory, Bank, Mansion, Police Department, Power Station
(VH) Cathedral, Museum, NecroTech Building, Tower, Zoo
(H) Arms, Church, Factory, Fire Station, Library, Mall, Hospital, School
(VS) Auto, Building, Cinema, Club, Hotel, Junkyard, Railway Station, Stadium, Warehouse

This has not been addressed yet... Are the barricade construction rates for some buildings different? Is this already in the game?--Raystanwick 07:39, 7 July 2006 (BST)

I knew I missed something, I didn't think I had the time peruse the link, but whatever. I don't believe there is any statisical information on what Bryce was talking about. Besides, it has nothing really to do with the suggestion idea (at least the idea as I've taken over, heh). I honestly don't believe barricade construction rates ARE different from building to building. More than likely, what happened to Bryce had to do with the RNG, rather than actually being easier to barricade. I'm sure people would have noticed by now. As for the searches, I think something that might help would be to include junk items in the malls, same as other resource locations. That is one of the primary reasons malls are so much better than any other building.--Pesatyel 19:00, 7 July 2006 (BST)

Some of the other comments in Talk:Barricades question a possible variance in barricade construction, but none are answered. Adding junk items to the Malls is a very good idea.(has this been suggested?) Changing the maximum cade level for some building types is too. It's great but it's be hard to do. Even if there were only two levels of max cades(VSB and EHB), it could help new survivors and new zombies both find low caded buildings. But what would a good ratio of VSB to EHB buildings be? How could you choose? Is there a list saying how many of each type of building there is?(ie, how many Schools in all of Malton? How many Auto shops? Banks? ect... and this doesn't even take into account where they are to determine the 'spread'.) I think you need that info to propose a balanced and sufficiently exact suggestion, IMHO, Burgan. And if you find a Location List like that, post it on my talk page. --Raystanwick 07:10, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Nice idea. Got keep from me (and it's not because our HQ happens to be in a bank just few blocks from Armoury). Just don't mix anything else with it. Keep it simple. --Niilomaan 19:35, 8 July 2006 (BST)

But because you cannot enter Armouries if they are barricaded over VSB, they will most likely never be barricaded above that level even if they were the only buildings which could be at EHB. --Tauron 14:24, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Right, I was a little iffy on that point too. I think Armouries should retain the capability to go EHB, but there should be at least a couple buildings that can do it as well. --Burgan 16:06, 11 July 2006 (BST)

i don't like it, it messes with barricades too much, plus one of the guidelines for suggestions are to not mess with barricades... you can't fix it either --DJSMITH^CDF 20:55, 10 July 2006 (BST)

That's just it, those are wiki imposed GUIDELINES, not hard fast rules. There are some SERIOUS flaws in the game, such as the mall/NT centric aspect of the game and the essential uselessness of 95% of the buildings.--Pesatyel 07:38, 11 July 2006 (BST)

DJ, it is a guidline as Pesatyel pointed out. I am prepared for the knee-jerk spam attack with that, I just ask you to think about how there are no rate changes, no extra destruction skills, and no uber cades, but it just spices up the game, adds some variety and strategy. That's what the suggestion is about, making it fun and varied, not about nerfing barriccades --Burgan 16:05, 11 July 2006 (BST)

P.S. I'll try and stop procrastinating and post it today.

P.P.S I'll actually write a script to crawl through the maps and count the building types when I go home today, I should have that list tomorrow, pending I don't go crazy trying to bend AppleScript to my will. --Burgan 16:41, 11 July 2006 (BST)

You can do that?!? man, computers really are good for making lists... Could you send me a copy when you get them? That would be some very useful data. Thanks in advance. --Raystanwick 18:44, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Right, here we are, this is my list of total buildings in Malton. My script ignored everything that isn't listed here, so walks, avenues, monuments, graveyards, and zoo squares are ignored. The full breakdown of Malton is on my page, do with it what you will. I might format it nice if I get some more time. Global Total

Armouries: 2

Arms: 251

Autos: 235

Banks: 237

Buildings: 955

Churches: 257

Cinemas: 218

Clubs: 233

Factories:223

Fire Stations: 227

Hospitals: 244

Hotels: 231

Junkyards: 260

Libraries: 217

Museums: 247

Police Departments: 242

Railway Stations: 248

Schools: 229

Towers: 248

Warehouses: 267

Malls: 83

Cathedrals: 20

Mansions: 20

Power Stations: 6

Stadiums: 12

--Burgan 18:07, 12 July 2006 (BST)

VERY interesting. Nice. I would bet about 250 of the 'Buildings' are NTs. Looks like there are about 5000 barricadeable buildings and 5000 open blocks. Now, what would be a good ratio of VSB to EHB buildings be for your suggestion? --Raystanwick 20:02, 12 July 2006 (BST)

Thank you for pointing out the ratios! My present favorite to suggest is Pesatyel's second list, so here it is with numbers:

(EH) Armouries (2), Banks (237), Police Departments (242), Mansions (20) = 501 /5418 = 9.2%
(VH) Museum (247), NT Buildings (250), Power Staion (6), Zoo (6) = 509 /5418 = 9.4%
(H) Arms (251), Building (705), Factory (223), Fire Station (227), Mall (83), Hospital (244), Tower (248), Warehouse (267) = 2248 /5418 = 41.5%
(VS) Auto Repair (235), Cathedral (20), Church (257), Cinema (218), Club (233), Hotel (231), Junkyard (260), Library (217), Railway (248), School (229), Stadium (12) = 2160 /5418 = 39.9%

Now, this does put very small numbers for EH and VH, while putting H and VS at 40% each, so if people think this is too much of a nerf, I'd consider bumping warehouses and/or factories up to the VH level, which would give us a nice 40/30/20/10 VS/H/VH/EH ratio. Very aesthetically pleasing. Any thoughts either way?--Burgan 00:02, 13 July 2006 (BST) P.S. This is assuming a random estimate of 250 NT buildings. --Burgan 15:47, 13 July 2006 (BST)

Rememeber that reducing the cade maximum for even just one common building type is a BIG change; it can be a serious nerf in the eyes of survivors. (remember that song from Rocky3? *sings* the Eye of Survivor... nevermind.) Determining the number of VSB is the touchy part. I personally think 40% is too high. 20/30/30/20 would be more moderate, and has a nice symetry also.

HOWEVER, I think using four categories complicates the premise of the idea. I would only use two categories; VSB and EHB. And I would start with only a few non-resource types at VSB. This will make it easier to vote for and would be a less radical, more acceptable suggestion. Adjustments could be made later to introduce more variety and balance.

Members of groups who have Bases in certain buildings(like the stadiums for example) will nitpick the point or simply spam a suggestion that weakens their Base. I would start by suggesting VSB only for Junkyards, Warehouses, Railways, and maybe Churches.

One final thing, the NTs and 'Buildings' need to be in the same category because they are technically the same type for those without NTEmploy. I made a similar mistake in my list above by spliting Hotels and Motels. I hope this helps; I would like to see something like this get to peer reviewed for Kevan to consider.

--Raystanwick 09:04, 13 July 2006 (BST)

I intentionally suggested NT buildings being different, because it adds a nice flavour of the creepy corporate base being stronger. As near as I can tell, they are a different class from the regular buildings, so I don't think seperating them from them from the regular bildings would be any harder from an implementation perspective. Flavour is what I was trying to get at with this suggestion, not nerfing the 'cades. 20/30/30/20 makes sense from a strength distribution level, I'll see if I can come up with a list that makes sense and fits that. I might make it 20/35/35/10, since I think EHB should be for the best of the best buildings only. If it gets spammed to oblivion, taking a more moderate approach could be attempted.

If people vote responsibly and properly, they will not vote spam because it nerfs their base, because you are supposed to vote on the merit of the suggestion and it's place on the game, not it's personal effect on you alone. --Burgan 15:47, 13 July 2006 (BST)

Well EH isn't just for the "best" buildings. It is also logical (Armory, for example) and balance (trying to weaken the mall/NT centric game play by making the barricades weaker, if only a little). And bear in mind that 81% of the buildings are next to useless. Of the useful ones, only the Auto Repair is limited to VS (Mall and Hospital at H, NT at VH and PD at EH). Question is, would this be an effective way to "spread out" survivors?--Pesatyel 21:53, 14 July 2006 (BST)

This is a pretty well thought out idea. The only problem I can really think of is the theory of using cor buildings for barricades, e.g.:VSB for usually a resource building then EHB for everything one square around it. If people maxed out the barricades on NT buildings, Zeds would quickly catch on and look for buildings of that level in some areas, so NT buildings and normal buildings should maybe be kept in the same bracket, although better barricades for NT buildings is a justifiable thought. This is a good suggestion and you have a keep from me, unless you start rambling on about Bananas in the actualy voted on one. What about consulting some UBP maps maybe having each unique building have it's own level... nah, that'd be too much.-Mnbvcx 05:28, July 15 2006

I think it's time you should put this on the main suggestion page in one form or another. It would bring much more exposure, and many more ideas for improvement. I think no matter how well it's put together here, it'll fail the first time it goes on the page. It should be put on the page, but kept being revised. Ybbor 20:22, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Yeah, I'm just a lazy bastard. I'll get it done over the lunch hour, or after work today. --Burgan 16:24, 24 July 2006 (BST)

I don't like how this suggestion seems to only increase the variance of building usefulness. Sure, some buildings other than malls and NTs become more useful, but most already-useless buildings are just going to become doubly useless. Also: is that building count correct? Given that Pole is the only 3-square and Lumber the only 2-square malls, the mall count couldn't possibly be 83 (a manual count gives 77...?). This sheds doubt upon the other numbers, neat as they may be. --Kenny Matthews ^W! 05:17, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I think it's fine, and should be done. Just, please send it over to the wiki, Burgan!--ShadowScope 16:59, 28 July 2006 (BST)

I'm working on it feverishly right now, for the past hour. Today is a good day to ~~die~~ ~~spam~~ suggest! --Burgan 18:27, 28 July 2006 (BST) It's up! Finally! It'd of been an hour earlier, but there was an all hands meeting for my department at work; we just got 'acquired' by another company. --Burgan 20:50, 28 July 2006 (BST)

I like this idea, but I think the maximum level of barricading for a building should be based on flavour rather than statistics. Buildings that are generally wide open areas with big entrances or lots of possible entrances should be limited more than buildings that are intended to be secure.

This is how I would limit (or Nerf if you like :) barricading:

(EH) Armory, Bank, Police Department, Power Station
(VH) Cathedral, Museum, NecroTech Building, Tower, Fire Station, Mansion
(H) Arms, Church, Factory, Library, Hospital, School, Club, Auto, Building, Club, Junkyard, Hotel
(VS) Mall, Cinema, Railway Station, Stadium, Warehouse, Zoo

I realise that this is not going to be looked on favourably (mainly by those who like hiding out in Malls - where they can get almost everything the need really easily (with the right skills) ) but there are far fewer buildings limited to VS in this scheme, so many more places to safely hide overall.
This would move the focus of the game away from Malls, making them short term stop over points to re-stock supplies. (As a balance I would also remove a zeds ability to ransack Malls - there are just too many shops for zeds to wreck them all) –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Will To Survive/Kill

Timestamp:	22:55 July 20 2006
Type:	Skill
Scope:	All
Description:	Basic Stats- Human Form-Zombie Hunter Skill-Will to survive 300 xp cost When the survivors are nearing death they become more desperate and desperate to a point where they become stronger. As an effect when survivors go under 15 hp they have a +5% chance to hit with guns and +15% to hit with melee weapons and melee weapons also damage +1 normal hp 10% of the time. And when they hit less than 10 hp they have a 15% chance to dodge an attack(By dodge I mean even if the attack was going to hit it would still miss, an equations is shown to give an example). Survivors exit this state when they are killed or when their hp reaches 15+ again. It will also be exited if 5 hours pass without getting hit by something. Dodge equation- Pker shoots shotgun with firearms, shotgun, and advanced shotgun training. He/She passes the first test(The original hit test)To hit it must pass the dodge test. I'm not good at math so if someone wants to calculate this thing or whatever go ahead. Zombie Form-Will to kill 300 xp cost(incase you haven't noticed you have to purchase the zombie form and human form sepratley) When zombies manage to hit more than 5 times in less than 10 actions their adavanced reactions kick in and they then are able to hit with a stronger claw attack(+1 50% of time)and teeth sharpen for +1 teeth damage. They also attack with a +10% accuracy for both attacks. This state is canceled when a zombie does something other than attack or dies/revived. This state is not cancled if a zombie misses, only if they move/rez/die. Clarification-I suck at algebra so I really don't know if the equation thing is right Edit-Made the survivor ability less abuseable and require more risk to keep it active.

Votes
Zombie version: What happens when the zombie misses after this activates? Survivor version: I think this would be quite easily abused. Get to 14 HP and get bonuses, then use a FAK if necessary. MOST combat is not live. Thus a survivor could stay at low HP for as long as they want, basically to get the bonuses, the danger being quite minimal. I'd change the weapons to ONLY blunt weapons. The second part the "dodge" idea is confusing. Bob attacks Joe at 65% to hit and succeeds. Then, the RNG calculates a 15% chance of a miss, otherwise it is a hit (I'm not sure what the 25% hit ratio in your example means). It seems to me, the easiest way to dodge when at less than 10 HP is to leave the square.--Pesatyel 05:30, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Newbie zombies are having a hard enough time as it is, let alone not getting the kill because there last AP disappeared from a dodging survivor. Youronlyfriend 05:20, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Shutters

Timestamp:	0:26 July 21 2006
Type:	Change
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	As seen in some resident evil games and in some real life malls, shutters are powered barricades basicly which have only 1 layer but can't be permanently be destroyed than normal barricades and can only be used in malls which are powered. Edit: In order to prevent abuse by death cultists, there must be zombie bios(zeds)in the tile in which the shutters wish to be lowered before they can be lowered and can only be lowered by a necrotech employee. After powering a generator and confirming zeds along with necrotech employment an option comes up to every survivor to lower/pull shutters. When the shutters are lowered zombies cannot move to another section of the mall they are in unless they manage to pull the shutters up(10%/15% chance)A survivor is more intelligent obviously and can simply ignore the shutters while moving through the mall. Shutters do however increase fuel consumption by 50% and disallow searches until they are pulled up again. Zombies cannot attack generators when the shutters are lowered. Shutters can also only be lowered in the edges of the malls so if you have a 3 by 3 mall you can't lower the shutters in the middle square. Also all melee attacks have +10% chance to hit and all guns have a -50% chance to hit. Basic stuff-Zombies can't move until the shutters are pulled in a mall square or the power runs out or generator destroyed-10% chance of pulling the shutters up(Zombies only)And 15% chance with zombies who have memories of life-Searches are disallowed-Fuel consumption increase by 50%-Can only be used on edges of malls(and only inside obviously) Edit: at least 1 zombie must be present and only a necrotech employee may lower the shutters. Clarifactaion-First of all the barricades are not permanent they are like temporary active and temporary inactive barricades that are only useable in the interior of malls. Edit-Increased penalties Edit-Increased shutter protocols

Votes
I read as far as can only be used in malls and immediately thought spam. Malls do NOT need to be made "better." One of the major problems with the game is the mall/NT-centric aspect. This would make that worse. As for the rest AFTER the can only be used in malls part, this is WAY over powered. The penalties are not significant enough, for starters. What your suggesting is, basically a PERMANENT barricade (5% chance to lift is irrelevant). Thus the rest would warrant a spam vote as well.--Pesatyel 04:58, 22 July 2006 (BST)

zram 20 AP drain on average, and permanent. You have to be kidding me. --McArrowni

Feedback - So the shutters are down and we cant search. Sorry but i dont think anybody will bother. Youronlyfriend 05:24, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Interesting idea, but would definantly be used to grief by Death Cultists. They'd raise and lower them twice so they'd waste all the fuel, or just leave them down so that they'd screw over everyones searching. -- BeefSteak 02:08, 27 July 2006 (BST) Comments on edits -First of all, I reiterate malls do not need to continue to be the center of the universe. Survivors would end up fighting over keeping the shutters up or down in order to search. EVERYONE has NecroTech Employment, especially zombies and Death Cultists, so that requirement is nothing. And requiring a zombie be present makes no sense. If the shutters are powered by the generator, what happens when the generator dies while the shutters are down? Logically, the shutters would stay down (and wouldn't be able to be moved until the generator was refueled).

  A  B
  C  D

If the shutters in A are down, do they block access from B, C and D? Or would a shutter just block C from A or B from A? And what happens if the zombies break into A and destroy the generator (see what I said above)?

Basically, the idea is to protect section A from a zombies in B, C and /or D, even though the zombies could just as easily get into A the same way AND survivors there would be at A SERIOUS disadavantage. I don't believe ANYONE would trade searching in malls for this second barrier system.--Pesatyel 03:16, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Scent Metal

Timestamp:	17:48, 28 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Change
Scope:	Construction Workers
Description:	I am gonna say it needed major improvement. The aim was to help the zombies organize a tiny bit. Here is what I suggest: Scent Metal - Zed skill, 100XP, places an X by the name of people who have baracaded in the last two hours.

Votes

How do we improve it? -- 343 ^U! 17:48, 28 July 2006 (BST)
it really kinda makes no sense. Do they zombies smell barricade residue on your hands? Also can you not look at the list of players and see who has been active recently? -- John Teabags 23:11, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Stench of Death version three

Timestamp:	18:37, 28 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	World Change
Scope:	All Players
Description:	Okay, I think I've got it this time! When a building contains ten or more survivors and 5 or less zombies, those outside the building on the same block will see: "There are bustling noises inside the building." When a building contains ten or more zombies, those outside the building on the same block will see: "A hideous odor is wafting out of the building" When there are more than 10 zombies outside a building, survivors (when 20 or less) inside or outside on that same block will see: "The stench of death hangs in the air." I don't think corpses need an oder. Reviving ones would be getting better (human) and the freshly killed would not smell bad right away. Remaining corpses would be zombie corpses, who will stnad up and join the mob again soon anyway.

Votes

please feel free to correct spelling or gramatical erroers. I apologize to ask this. -- John Teabags 18:37, 28 July 2006 (BST)
I like this, but many people will not. Something about distrustful defence or something like that. 343 ^U! 00:58, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Wow, is this CONFUSING. Your forgetting 2 things I mentioned in my vote. Survivors have NecroNet and, while there ARE limitations, MOST zombies are already tagged (at least they are where ever *I* go in Malton). Secondly, survivors, for 2 AP and a VS barricade can INSTANTLY tell how many zombies are in EVERY square of the 9 around them. All this vague stuff is useless. Want to know how many zombies are there? GO LOOK. Worried about the barricades? THAT is the price one pays. I also should add, Free Running is significant here also.--Pesatyel 05:55, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Chainsaw & Chainsaw skill

Timestamp:	18:37, 28 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Item & Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Let me start by saying I have read all the previous chainsaw suggestions, (and that's a lot! I saw the peer approved one too) but I wanted to see what you think of this version, which is different. There are some subtle differences, there are some big differences, and there are also things that may be in one suggestion but not another that are combined. *Chainsaw Item* Found in junkyards and mall hardware stores. Uses one can of fuel to run for 30 minutes real time. This is already coded for generator fuel times. I know this will add more info to the player file of everyone with a chainsaw, but that didn't seem to stop Radios from being put in, since they added lots of info for everyone. Hits for 8 damage. Chance of hitting is 15% (dont worry, read it all and i will explain high damage and low hit rate) Fuel cans would get a drop-down if you have a chainsaw and there is a generater in the room. You can then chose which item to fuel. Chainsaws would start when fueled, just like generaters start when fueled. Player sees "running" next to chainsaw button if its fueld, "sputtering" if its low on fuel, and no message if it is empty. An empty chainsaw cannot attack. Takes a massive (but needed for fairness) 4 item slots. At this point you are doing 8 damage, with a 15% chance, no ammo is needed, but you need to fuel every 30 minutes. It is currently better than basic axe, but it does not have infinite ammo. It is not as good as guns, but it doesn't use a bullet up with each attack. *Chainsaw Skill* ("Chainsaw Massacare"?) The first new Zombie Hunter skill since Headshot! This is because chainsaws can be mastered, but only a Zombie Hunter would be skilled enough to have learned to effectively use this tool on other people without doing harm to himself or completely missing, or getting the chainsaw stuck! Increases chance to hit by 20% At this point you are doing 8 damage, with a 35% chance to hit. It does not have the best hit rate, but it does have the third best damage (after flare and shotguns) and you only need to fuel it like a generator. I think the fact that it is not infinite use, and ALSO: Not using up ammo-per-attack makes it fit in well with the current weapons. Again I know there are other similar suggestions, but I think this is different enough to warrent a new vote based on the things that are changed.

Votes

please feel free to correct spelling or gramatical erroers. I apologize to ask this. If you think this is super powerful or not powerful enough, please make your thoughts known and I will alter it dependant on what people think!! I was supposing to add a Barricade bonus to this item but it seemed too much. What are your thoughts? -- John Teabags 18:37, 28 July 2006 (BST)
- hello anyone? John Teabags 23:08, 28 July 2006 (BST)
  - I don't like the time for the gas can. It should be a per use thing. All perishables are. -- 343 ^U! 01:03, 29 July 2006 (BST)
    - I kinda pictured an idling chainsaw, using gasoline up as it runs. You know what I mean? granted using the chainsaw wil use more gas, but... well i guess I was kind of going for suspsnesion of disbelief. lol - John Teabags 02:50, 29 July 2006 (BST)~
    - Oooo what about having it last 30 minutes OR a certain number of uses, whichever comes first-- John Teabags 03:56, 29 July 2006 (BST)
I would love to see this but im afraid zombie players will spam it into oblivion.Youronlyfriend 05:19, 29 July 2006 (BST)

I think the Peer Reviewed one is better. The only significant difference is the time limit thing and, given the nature of the game, THAT really isn't a good idea. As far as generators are concerned, anyone can refuel one and thus keep it continuously running. With your chainsaw, you would HAVE to refuel it EVERY time you log on (if you intend to use it). Plus, I can't imagine it would be that safe to have an idyling chainsaw on your person all the time.--Pesatyel 06:22, 29 July 2006 (BST)

- I dont see whats wrong even after reading that. so you have to refuel it, so people carry idling chainsaws. nothing really is that unbelievable in either respect -John Teabags 00:52, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Chainsaws have off switchs AND safety switches that automatically turn it off in an emergency. Besides who would be dumb enough to waste ammo by NOT attacking?--Pesatyel 05:19, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I like the idea, but it could use some definite improvement. For example, how about instead of 30 minutes (you can easily spend all 50 AP in less than 5 min), how about it stops after thirty actions? It seems a waste to let it run while youre asleep and you cant do anything for another 30 min, so you cant use it. Having a time limited weapon does not seem like a good idea. Other than that, it's very good considering how most chainsaws are. Also, I made a lot of spelling, grammar, and punctuation fixes. Now it looks professional! --Gold Blade 21:25, 31 July 2006 (BST)

It's good overall, except, as I see you've heard, for the time limit. I think it would be far better to just base the fuel consumption off of AP, and only AP spent attacking, not messing around with an idle time. Other than that, it looks great. --Kiltric 05:21, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Safes

Timestamp:	23:27, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Misc
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Keeping up as a survivor can be a little difficult, considering that you have a very limited inventory. I was thinking that in all banks, there should be a safe where you can deposit stuff in your inventory. This safe would have around 3-10 spaces of items. This safe would only be acessable to you as a survivor,seeing as zombies cannot use anything in their inventory, nor are they dexterious to be able to acess it. Acessing a safe would cost 3 AP (1 to open, 1 to get inside, 1 to close it). Other player cannot acess it, even if its your alt accounts. When a bank is ransacked, each safe loses all the stuff inside.

Votes

Juggling inventory is part of playing a survivor. What your, basically, suggesting is that survivors should have double inventory room. Perhaps the safe can only hold, say 3 spaces worth of items (as opposed to 50). But the way you currently have it, the AP dynamics of having to search for items would be highly unbalanced. Depending on the item (and circumstances), it would take MORE than 3 AP to search for it.--Pesatyel 09:51, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Fixed that. Double was too much. --Gold Blade 18:08, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Comment I'd vote kill. This game has absolutely no unexplained teleportation of items/corpses whatsoever. I think that's a bit of believeability I want to keep. So no unexplained teleporting inventories, even if it's from one bank to the next --McArrowni 16:53, 30 July 2006 (BST)

You cant stuff corpses into it. I said that.--Gold Blade 18:08, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I didn't even NOTICE that! Guess it sounded too stupid to realize that's what he meant. I could see putting stuff in to different banks, but not teleportation.--Pesatyel 05:24, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Hey, im trying here. Its not unexplained teleportation. Mabye its like those vacuum chutes or something. Which is why it needs power. Come up with how it gets around, and if it does by some chance make it into the game, ill give you half credit--Gold Blade 18:08, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I can't think of any way to explain banks having chutes to transfer items, it's just unrealistic. --Nob666 19:24, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re: They use vacuum chutes to transfer items in real life. --Gold Blade 20:15, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Kill - Several spaces for items, that would also be hard to access? It's both little useless and unrealistic. And in all it's terribleness it's also overpowered, because it only gives something to survivors. No. --Niilomaan 19:32, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re: Why would a zombie need a safe when they cant use object anyway? and how is it overpowered? its not like you can pull a safe out and beat somebody across the head with a 150% chance to hit at 200 damage. --Gold Blade 20:13, 31 July 2006 (BST)

This would get a kill from me, but I am intrigued by the concept of planting caches. Transfer between banks is not something that fits with this game, however. I don't think I'd be seriously opposed to having the ability to store 5-10 items in a bank. Such items should be lost if zombies manage to break in and ransack the building, but it would give new function to banks, by allowing survivors to stock an extra days worth of guns/faks in a bank in the event of siege, which makes banks more interesting. Maybe there should be a cap on the number of people able to store in a bank at a time, on a first come-first serve basis.--Burgan 19:51, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re to many Ok, i nerfed the transfer idea. However, that would cause a whole bunch of people to stay in or within like 5 blocks of a bank. If items were destroyed when zombies aransacked, banks would be attacked by zombies all the time, causing survivors to want to stay even closer to the banks. Although that would make the game interesting. --Gold Blade 20:13, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Exactly my point! So do zombies hit the source of revive syringes, the source of weapons, the source of fuel, or this temporarily better supplied building, with the added bonus of being able to trash lots of stored AP by a breach? I would suggest something like a 10-20 user cap on bank storage, and that it would take one ransack to ruin the bank itself, then zombies can proceed to ransack each of the safes, one at a time using additional ransack actions.

However, one problem I just thought of with a user cap on the banks would be users just dumping stuff in banks all over and blocking out the space for others.--Burgan 20:21, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re: Hmm... I do like the idea of individual safe ransacks. The main reason that i had transferrable storage is so you dont end up with each user having a safe in each bank, putting a LOT of data onto the servers. How about each user get like only one or two spaces to place their stuff? that way, it keeps the server from data overload, people get enough of a cache, and nobody is stuck without one? Should we make a temporary discussion page for this, seeing as this has gotten a lot of mixed ideas?--Gold Blade 21:12, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re: This would go greatly with the suggestion about changing max barrcade levels. After that bank would be better guarded than NT-building. You could take.. say.. 10 syringes and put those in the nearby guarded bank and then use those if zombies get the NT. And they should ONLY be in that bank and would be lost when the place is ransacked. Perfect I say... --Niilomaan 23:23, 31 July 2006 (BST) EDIT: You can only have stuff in one bank at any given time? --Niilomaan 23:25, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re: Yes, i think you should have a limit to the # of banks you can store stuff in. Otherwise, think of it like this. Theres 100 banks in Malton (just as an example). 100 players (exampe again) have a safe in each one. 10,000 safes already! Each player puts in 5 objects in each. 50,000 objects!. Each object takes up 10 bytes of data (example again), that means a total of 500,000 bytes! Now, with only one, you get 5,000 bytes. Im thinking of the server here. So yeah, stuf in only 1 or 2 banks seems appropriate. What do you need a safe in every bank in malton for anyway?--Gold Blade 23:38, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Actually, there are 237 banks. I don't think it would really HURT anything if a character DID have stuff in every bank in Malton. If a Ransack can destroy each cache, that is the risk that person is willing to take. And, as I said earlier, at most 3 items (different from 3 spaces of items) total (we ARE talking those safe deposit boxes, aren't we?). Basically, the more simple you make it the better. Bear in mind that a person has to FIND the extra items to put into the safe as well as the open slots in their inventory to retreive said items.--Pesatyel 02:51, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Even still, im mostly worried about the server load. Lets do this with a more accurate math equation. 237 banks, times 100,000 survivors that have a full safe in each bank, means 23,700,000 safes! Even with 3 items, thats a total of 71,100,000 items! Each item takes up only 5 bytes, its 355,500,000 bytes of data! And the numbers are much greater then my estimates. Most of the safe kinks have been worked out, but I'm still very worried about the server strain. And that would also cause a lot of lag, cause it has to resend it every time any of the cahces change. So i definately think that we need a limit on the # of cahes an account can have at any given time. --Gold Blade 16:50, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Padlock and key items? --Gene Splicer 20:49, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Just be realistic. Most people won't use banks. Those that do will most likely use only 2 or 3. And one of those is likely to get ransacked. I think that 5 items per bank would work. After all we are talking about a world where one man could carry 25 axes, 25 flak jackets and then jump between blocks from one building to another. It's not like you can't fit 5 syringes or a radio in bank. --Niilomaan 21:09, 1 August 2006 (BST)

That made me laugh. but you're right. So, no limit to number of safes. Now, on to the next part. How will it be ransacked? Give some ideas, like it would get ransacked, then the safes would be ransacked, (or the other way around), the building and everything in it would count as one part, the zombies would proceed to wreck individual safes, when its ransacked, theres a 50% chance yours will be ransacked? Any other ideas? --Gold Blade 00:37, 2 August 2006 (BST)

When building gets emptied of all survivors and ransacked for that 0 AP it normally takes, all items in bank are lost in the mess. So basicly you must either protect the bank or take your stuff and run. --Niilomaan 01:17, 2 August 2006 (BST)

This is a pretty interesting idea and would add a lot to the game tactics. One question though, would the "safes" be safety deposit boxes or what? If saftey deposit boxes in a vault/safe, you could have an open/close option for the safe door and an introduction of a safe key type item. The door would be equivalent to say... a QSB building and then a second ransack other than the main room would be needed to destroy stored items. Ransacking the main room would make survivors unable to open the safe/vault and bring down the level of hardness of the door by maybe 1 or two cades. EDIT:Maybe the safe deposit boxes could be carried ass well, and put in any bank (The weight of the box+items would be in your inventory) --Mnbvcx 02:28, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I think we can assume it is a safety deposit box. I don't like the idea of a full-fledged safe (extra barricades). But carrying the SDB (safety deposit box) with you is kinda cool. I'd make it so that it can ONLY be used inside a bank (you can have it with you, you just can't take things out/put things in unless inside a bank). But what would/should the weight of the box be (at least 1+the number of spaces. Maybe the box weighs more?)?--Pesatyel 04:24, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Spam. Inventory management is a part of the game, and a balancing measure. Survivors aren't meant to carry 150 loaded shotguns. Get over it. --Mookiemookie 14:41, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Storing few items in bank taht can be ransacked is hardly that much aid for survivors. And you should not be able to carry some stupid box. Items get their weight from the data that is stored in them. That's why axe or jacket only takes 1 slot, but gun takes 2 and radio 5. If you put items inside a box and carry it around, then it takes amount of those items +1. If I'm voting keep, I'm voting for system where you can have five item slots in each bank, you can put item in when there's room or take item out if you can carry it. When the bank gets ransacked, the safe will be reseted and all items are lost. No doors, no keys, no boxes. Keep it simple. EDIT: Also opening the bank menu can only be done inside non-ransacked bank and it costs one AP to do that. It also costs one AP to place and item inside or take item out. When the bank menu is open, any other action than placing or taking item will close it. --Niilomaan 15:09, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Too complex for Urban Dead. Also doesn't seem to fit in with a dying apocolypic urban wasteland setting. I think a person in that situation would be more interested in things like oh say, staying alive and scrounging whatever supplies they could find, rather than worrying about a fucking safe deposit box --Mookiemookie 16:40, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Hehheh. You are so right. But at this point it's not really about survival. Many suburbs are safe enough to start building a new economy! --Niilomaan 16:53, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Nice idea for Bank uses. Niilomaan, did you publish that suggestion so Jedaz had to cycle the page? Thats evil...--Canuhearmenow 16:56, 2 August 2006 (BST)

NO!! What do you think I am?! If this suggestion passes, I'll suggest that you should be able to deposit one zombie inside the bank. --Niilomaan 16:58, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I think the idea of carring it around is a good idea. Mabye it is a weight of 3 + weight of everything in it. I also think, that it should have 2 "hp". It is a safe after all. I wasnt thinking of adding a key though, I was thinking more of a combo lock. And I also agree with Pesatyel, that it should only be able to be used in a Bank. Banks are otherwise pretty useless except for tagging for xp. By the way, I authored this. --Gold Blade 18:58, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Why do you need a box to carry your stuff around? Please someone explain. --Niilomaan 22:29, 2 August 2006 (BST)

The basic idea is to make banks a useful building by being able to store extra items in a safe deposit box. The threat that a bank could be ransacked and the extra items destroyed (like zombies WOULDN'T target banks more often if they KNEW they could do that) is a counter. But since SDBs are relatively small, what if you could go into bank A, put your stuff into the SDB then, if at a later date you are fearful the bank will get ransacked, REMOVE your SDB and take it to another bank. Personally, I don't really like the idea of carrying the SDB with you (complicates things), but I belive EVERY aspect we can think of should be discussed.--Pesatyel 02:53, 3 August 2006 (BST)

The safety deposit box being an item makes this system a lot more workable. You could find them in a bank, and give them a godawful carry size. This would enable anyone to carry one to saefety (Just need to have 1 space free and go into space debt) but carrying two at once would be infeasable. Possibly make them installable items(like radios) and allow zombies OR players to attack them? (Attack (a safety deposit box) with (fire axe) --Gene Splicer 13:45, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Too complicated. If you are gonna suggest it, then least keep it simple. If you are afraid that you'll lose your items, then you just take them and leave. You don't need some god damn box for it. Also you might just NOT put those there. But the main thing is, that whatever you do with this suggestion, it's most likely to get spamminated, unless you can put something for zombies to balance it. Or you might just add to the end, that it's not to be added in game alone, but with some other suggestion to help zombies. --Niilomaan 17:06, 4 August 2006 (BST)

MP5 Submachinegun

Timestamp:	19:25, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Type:	Weapons
Scope:	Survivors, Military
Description:	First off, do not say its stupid or spam unless you read all of it. I mean that. The reason for no military weaponry in the rules is this: "...there's a reason they're not in the game. All attack abilities need to be closely-balanced, so that a character with a shotgun or a pistol is not heavily-outclassed by alternate weapon-types..." I have observed this. I made sure that it's not a super superior weapon. The MP5 would be found in Armories, and you would have a 5% chance of finding it there. A magazine is also only found there, at a 6% chance of finding one. Each magazine would have ten "shots" (30 bullets, a shot being when you shoot it). Each bullet would have a 10% chance to hit its target, at 2 damage per bullet. Each time you shoot it, for 1 AP, at fires a burst of 3 bullets. When you shoot the gun, the menu says, "You shoot at So and So, (no/one/two/all three) bullet(s) hit it, for a total of (0/2/4/6) damage." Only one target is affected, but you can shoot as many people as you want, just not in the same burst. Each bullet would have its own individual roll to hit. The damage is not affected by Flak Jackets, since each round does only 2 damage, so it is a static 0/2/4/6 damage. It costs 1 AP to reload magazines. Having Basic Firearms training would increase the chance for each individual bullet to hit to 20%. I know that this is NOT overpowered, but is an actually plausible implementation. I did all the math for you: Average damage per magazine w/0 training = 6 Average damage per magazine w/1 training = 12 Compared to a pistol: Average damage per clip w/0 training = 1.5 Average damage per clip w/1 training = 9 Average damage per clip w/2 training = 16.5 Average damage per clip w/1 training = 19.5 Or a shotgun: Average damage per 2 shells w/0 training = 1 Average damage per 2 shells w/1 training = 6 Average damage per 2 shells w/2 training = 11 Average damage per 2 shells w/3 training = 13 Not overpowered, like so many machine guns are. If you can find ANY problems (other than spelling and grammar), I will congratulate you. Oh, and if I need to clarify something, just tell me. I dont want somebody to hate it because I didn't explain enough.

Votes

Spam/Dupe/WTFCentaurs - That will be the first thing you see when you post that suggestion. There are more than enough submachineguns in peer rejected and peer reviewed. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:01, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Now, to counter the claims that I did not read it: you are missing something: "0/2/4/6" -- is that completely equal odds of each occurance? Is it a bell curve? Elaborate. Finally: there is at least one peer reviewed submachinegun. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:29, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re: The 0/2/4/6 damage idnicates how many bullets hit, and with each doing 2 damage. So, when no bullets hit, ot does 0 damage (obviously), one bullet does two damage, two bullets does a total of four damage, and three bullets does a total of 6 damage. Did that clarify it? (no rudeness intended) --Gold Blade 19:56, 31 July 2006 (BST)

It's 06:12am. Cut me some slack in being less than quick to notice your alteration. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 21:15, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I'll wait for Ember's MBR to come into this as it's 04:38 and I'm not doing the math myself. However, it's looking like we might have another peer reviewed submachinegun in the works here. No idea how you managed it, but this one seems either balanced as is or easily fixable. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:40, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re: Thank you. Im going to clarify some stuff. How i managed it? i read through the peer reviewed, (i missed that smg)the undecided, and rejected. Im going to clarify it. I used a calculator to ensure it was balanced, and triple checked it. And it almost took two weeks to come up with a SMG that was powerful if in the right hands, but didn't give an unfair advantage to the wielder.--Gold Blade 19:56, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Problems:

10 round mag in three round bursts? Does this mean a mag holds 30 bullets, or the last shot on every clip is only one bullet?

It's a mag, not a clip!</nitpick>

Chances of no 'clip' coming up in 10 searches = .97^10 = .737 => .263 chance of not not finding a 'clip' (i.e. 25% chance of finding at least one clip in 10 searches). In general I don't understand what you are talking about with your math, I'll assume this is because us math type folks aren't necessarily good with presenting things. Try rewriting the last paragraph, since guessing by the lack of punctuation I think you just hit enter and wanted them on separate lines, which wikis don't do. Try using ':', "*', or '<br>' for new lines. --Burgan 20:15, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re:"10 round mag in three round bursts?" Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I clarified it. Also, you made your math overly complicated. When its a 30% chance to find it, it must be a 70% chance you wont.--Gold Blade 20:24, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re I think you already fixed the spacing (at least, I didn't), what are you giving me permission for, the math? I don't think I made it overcomplicated, I just don't know where the numbers come from.

"The MP5 would anly be found in Armories, and would have a 2% chance of finding. A magazine is also only found there, and a 3% chance." 10 searches at 3% does not equal 30% chance to find. That would imply 33 searches gives you a 99% chance to find, and then 34 searches gives you 102%? 100% is an irrelevant figure, if you ever reach it in theory it's either by taking a limit or you're wasting your time, and 102% is impossible. If I get time, I'll make up a handy table of all possible occurrences for you to illustrate. --Burgan 20:47, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Re:Ok, never mind the permission thing, i fixed it. Ill even do something on my page to explain so we dont clog the voting area, click on my link. Oh, and please, just believe me. I know what im talking about.--Gold Blade 20:51, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Ok, I've been thinking about puting this up on the sugestions page. Vote Yes if you think it should on now, No if you think it need improvement. I dont need a reason. One more thing, im not doing anything with this until i get at least 10 votes.--Gold Blade 21:34, 31 July 2006 (BST)
No I'll try and explain later, I only have time to update between installs/updates at work right now. --Burgan 21:41, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Seems rather UNDERpowered to me. As I understand it, when you attack, the RNG makes 3 seperate attacks at 5% each, then tells you how much damage you did. But 5%? Or even 10%? That's too low. Nobody would waste time using the weapon if they can't hit with it, even if you consider the 2 "free" attacks.--Pesatyel 02:36, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Re:Good point. I never noticed that. I'll edit it so that it has a greater hit %. Now I have to completely redo the math.--Gold Blade 03:15, 1 August 2006 (BST)

That's an improvement. Still seems a tad low, but it is hard to figure out just how much the 2 "free" attacks would factor in. I mean for 1 AP, the RNG rolls 3 seperate 15%/20% chance hits. And what about advanced weapons training (maybe up it to 30%?). Something else I was thinking though was what about if bullet 1 hits, bullets 2 and 3 are +5% to hit. Or if bullet 1 misses and bullet 2 hits, bullet 3 gets the +5%. Basically, I'm thinking that if 1 bullet is in the "right" area, the others would be close as well.--Pesatyel 08:15, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I had a reason that was simple enough. Look at most of the rejected weapons. What do they have in common? they all went off and had their own training part. Mabye one skill, but in Malton, how would you find the time or someone who can teach you how to effectively use one? I might put in one skill, like Heavy Weapons Training, that would increase it. Also, if it goes to 30%, it becomes a bit overpowered at an average of 18 damage per magazine. Thats almost as powerful as a fully upgraded Pistol. Although, that might have merit. I was thinking about the Shotgun though. That has a max damage average of 13 damage with 2 shells. But if we did put in a Heavy Weapons Training, it might open up for more weapons. Think about this and tell me what you think--Gold Blade 16:41, 1 August 2006 (BST)EDITI had another reason to have it like that. I was thiking of newer accounts. Notice, its higher damaging when you first get it, and when you get basic firearms training, but after that, the pistol or a shotgun is a better choice. So the newer accounts could get a strong weapon to use, and when thy can, they use the better pistol or even shotgun.--Gold Blade 17:00, 1 August 2006 (BST)

The MBRs and numbers have always confused me, so I'll take your word (minimally) for it. Thing is, if the weapon is ONLY available inside TWO squares (and at a low find rate to boot), it isn't very useful at all to newbies. If that is the case, I'd include it in PDs too. I agree, the "advanced" training might not be necessary, though it WAS necessary to discuss it. But what about the rest of my idea? The +5% per bullet thing?--Pesatyel 04:33, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I made it more widely avalible, and i did increase the rate to hit, re-read the suggestion and tell me what you think. --Gold Blade 18:23, 2 August 2006 (BST)

What people don't realize: No matter how balanced, we don't need another gun. Why? It means all the places have an extra gun, which, in turn, means search rates for ALL GUNS in general are upped, meaning zombies are more or less screwed. No more guns no mater what they are, or do!!! - 343 ^U! 23:05, 2 August 2006 (BST)

It doesn't hurt to have new weapons in Peer Review. Bear in mind this game IS still "beta." Besides, who says Kevan can't fiddle with the search rates beyond what the suggestion says (why would search rates for ALL guns go up? Wouldn't they go DOWN by including a new gun?)? It also makes PDs (and the Armories) more useful.

Yes I did realize This actually balances out the game a little better. New survivors are currently more or less screwed. They get killed cause of PKers, zombies, and a lot of that stems from their weapons. Why? You have to have training to make any of the real weapons work, and punching sucks (10% chance to punch an unmoving zombie? wtf?). This would help balance it out for new people. New people get a new weapon, veterans keep their pistol. Zombies aren't screwed. In fact, it is easier to be a newb zombie than a newb survivor right now. You want proof? look at the Suburb Map. Most of it's in red. Unless you have free running, you're gonna have a hard time getting up to 100 xp. Try a new Private, get to Level 10 in survivor skills ONLY. Then, tell me what you think.--Gold Blade 00:24, 3 August 2006 (BST)\

I think you have a good suggestion here. The only thing I can think off to change might be make the base to hit 10% (instead of 15%). Give it a shot (heh), and lets see how the people vote.--Pesatyel 03:06, 3 August 2006 (BST)

343, your concerns are understandable but not worth worrying over. This is only found in an armoury, so it will only increase the over-all find rate there, and that is totally acceptable since armouries presently are worse for finding guns than malls. I think this gives something to armouries to distinguish them from malls and PD's, which is good in my books.

As for the newbs, machine guns are harder to use than regular guns. I know how to fire a rifle, but I make no assumption I could use an MP5 better than I could use a pistol if you dropped me off in Malton. Besides, this wouldn't help newbs a whole lot given the all of two places, in the same quadrant, that it would be found.--Burgan 16:06, 3 August 2006 (BST)

The point of using firearms is to either store up AP or to just plain use those APs more effectively, by doing more damage for the same AP including searches. You are not storing up AP until you do more damage with ammo-based attacks than you are with melee-based ones, no matter if you have 2, 6, 10, or even infinite shots (like the humble punch :P), and you aren't using your APs more efficiently than by meleeing if you don't do more damage with the AP you spent shooting, reloading, and searching all together. For veterans, the melee effectiveness is 1.2 damage per AP. This gun has 3 attacks of 20% effectiveness and 2 damage, at best, for (3 * (0.2 * 2)) = 1.2 damage per AP. For which you are bothered with ammo. Thus this gun fails both for veterans. I tend not to consider these weapons has having no balance impact whatsoever out of sheer laziness (too lazy to count the bonuses for newbies). You could replace all the search misses of all buildings with fully loaded MP5s without making maxed out survivors stronger. (Of course the harman newbies would suddenly be much more deadly, but that's another matter). There is still the question of: "Is this significant enough to have in game". Underpowered does not equal balanced. Also, this weapon is specifically tailored at making newbies more effective. So yeah, I'll see if I can make an exception and try to get some math done on newbie's effectiveness gains with this in. Later. After I translate an Elvis song to kiZombie. Note: All AP efficiency are calculated without movement costs factored in. IMO this advantages melee on paper, because IRG they need to move to attack every day, whilst the guy who is searching doesn't necessarily need to move far to search. --McArrowni 00:22, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Uh, yeah... short version: Too weak to even have an impact on maxed characters. This better do something for newbies, and I'll try to do the math later. But may fail :P --McArrowni 00:26, 5 August 2006 (BST)

No Matter What It Takes!

Timestamp:	23:11, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Cheating Countermeasure
Scope:	Bots
Description:	Whenever someone accesses the server one every hour for twelve or more hours, they get a flag, which slows down server access. This slow will be an effective ten second speed reduction to whatever they do. Although this is easiely fooled, no one checks the server that often, unless they are either a bot, or someone who alerts others to the lack of baracades. This will not be stated as a change, except on the wiki, as unoffical news, to ensure bot makers have a harder time fooling it.

Votes
SpamWrong. I have three characters. I check in at least once an hour. Are you accusing me of being a bot? --Gold Blade 00:26, 3 August 2006 (BST)

This is hurrtarded in so many ways I can't even list them all or I would break the wiki. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•T•A•C} 00:27, 3 August 2006 (BST)

commentWhen you say hurrarded, do you mean so retarded?

Spam - Make it once every minute and we're getting somewhere.----The General ^{U! P! F! Mod}09:39, 3 August 2006 (BST) 09:38, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Kill - make it anyone who accesses the server in any way more than once a day, and you have my Keep.</sarcasm>--Gene Splicer 13:39, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Kill - Besides the fact that I check in with one of my three characters this often, your suggestion is poorly worded. Does the ten second delay mean that they have to wait 10 seconds between actions, or each action is simply delayed from the time the server receives it? In the latter case, button spamming, which I assume bots do, would not be affected very much at all, it just means 'cades go up ten seconds later. --Burgan 16:11, 3 August 2006 (BST)

I think that this would catch more people than bots, considering that bots would most likely use up all their action oints in a tenth of a second and would remain inactive until the next day. It was a good try though --Neraka Knight 16:58, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Spam - as with Gold Blade, sorry, I hate shooting down bot-killing ideas, but all of the seem to hurt players more than the bots. --Kiltric 04:12, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Hand Grenades

Timestamp:	23:11, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Hand grenades are a new item. When thrown for 2 AP (one to pull the pin and onwe to throw), it would have a 50% chance to explode at all. Then the top 5 charachters would have a 50% chance to be hit if it explodes at all (or, a 25% chance) If they are hit, it does 5 damage. Grenades can be found in Armories (10%), Forts (8%), and Railway Stations (0.001%) There is no improving skill. Zombies can use grenades as well. One question, how do I ask something on the suggestions page without breaking the Wiki? Even if I copy someone else's, I seem to break it.

Votes
I don't think that a hand grenade would work well in this game, and I think that damaging multiple people is a not a very good idea. --Neraka Knight 16:52, 4 August 2006 (BST)

AoE (area of effect) items are historically spammed to hell with little remorse. I just don't see the need for this and it doesn't really do much previous grenades didn't.
Also, armouries and forts are the same thing, and even though I know it's just for fun, having it in the railway station will get it good and killed good and fast.
Zombies should not be able to use these. You can say it balances it, but it just throws realism and my enjoyment of the game to the wind.
--Burgan 18:16, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Area of effect weapons have no place in Urban Dead. -- Mookiemookie 01:39, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I like the idea but take it away from zombies. AoE weapons are purely for defense and adds new tactics to the game. Youronlyfriend 01:42, 5 August 2006 (BST)

This area of effect suggestion actually works. I didn't bother counting how effective it is to actually search for them, but right now it does less total damage on average than a shotgun shell. Not overpowered, which is usualy why they are spammed (early AoE items were usualy limitless in the number of targets hit). --McArrowni 01:27, 6 August 2006 (BST)

take it away from zombies, reduce it to top 3 characters, maybe rework the damage system, and definitely tell how much it weighs in ones inventory. --Kiltric 04:07, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Military Bombing

Timestamp:	18:25, 4 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Survivors and Zombies alike.
Description:	After having Malton in quarentine for so long (come on, it's been over a year...) the military has begun to take a more pro-active stance. There have been a few escapees & uprisings from the quarentine that have cause problems in the outside world, though the infection is contained for the most part. Because of this, the military has begin preparing for small, controlled air-strikes within the city of Malton. Hoping to eradicate the largest gatherings of the undead in an effort to stem the tide of the infection, planes will be dropping explosives onto the ghouls. Using a combination of legal and illegal methods, the military has gained access to Necronet. They now know where precisely where the cannibalistic undead are. When zombies gather outdoors in groups of more than 50, an air strike will be scrambled as long as they stay together for 10 turns. (five hours in real time) If the air strike proceeds, explosives will be dropped on the target location. Everything living on that black will be killed, including those indoors. The building will immediately be ransacked and unbarricaded. Everything outdoors on the surrounding blocks will take a hit of 5 HP from the outer wave of the explosion. No one indoors on the surronding blocks will be effected, though the ensuing shake-up will cause those buildings to be ransacked by half (assuming it is not there to begin with) and all barricades to fall to "loosely barricaded" But wait! There's more! If you see a group of 50 or more zombies, and don't want that area bombed... firing a flare into the sky on that exact block from outdoors will signal the military. In effect it will tell them "Hey, there are survivors here! Don't blow us up too!!" When a flare is fired, the time period is reset to another 10 turns before an air strike will occur. This will add a new element to the gameplay. We need something new to focus on and 'keep ontop of'. This also makes sense with Air Drops occurring. Why would they simply assist humans without attacking the problem? If they've given up on humans, why drop supplies to help them? Associated messages. When you are NEAR a targetted block You hear a plane screeching overhead, followed by a nearby explosion! When you are ON a targetted block A plane screeches overhead. Suddenly an explosion rocks the earth. You are dead. When you are outside on the surrounding blocks, and are taking damage A plane screeches overhead. Suddenly there is an explosion nearby! You lose 5 hp in the blast. Here are some things I would like to iron out. Should zombies killed by a bomb take a headshot? Otherwise they simply stand back up unaffected. Can this go on forever? Eventually the military would see that the bombings are not destroying the zombies, merely slowing them down. Zombies can use this to their advantage in order to destroy a safehouse. The humans inside have a fair chance of stopping it with flares and dedication. Is this good or bad?

Votes
Tear it up! Tear it up! But tell me how to make it better, too. -- (GOD) 18:29, 4 August 2006 (BST)

I don't think you can... While I think that the military WOULD be bombing the heck out of Malton by this stage, what this would result in is Zombies with Airstrikes. And rocketlaunchers --Gene Splicer 19:10, 4 August 2006 (BST)

I kinda like the feel, but GOOD GOD IS THIS OVERPOWERED! 50 zombies get in each square of, say Caiger, and bing we have 2,000 instant zombies inside. EVERY NT building would, eventually, be made uninhibitable. Hell, zombies wouldn't even need to do anything but bunch up outside every building and the game would be over in a week. In other words, as Gene Splicer eluded, this would help zombies more than it would anything else and is irrevocably unbalanced. Besides, what fun would it be?--Pesatyel 21:18, 4 August 2006 (BST)

While it is an interesting concept, my reaction went from the initial 'nerfs hoards' to 'holy zombie siege-engine, batman!'. There should be nothing to discourage hoards, but then again, this doesn't, since zombies will just hoard and then move on. The flare gun is handy, but still, it doesn't make the game much more fun. I like the idea of running from hoards, I like the hoards getting bombed to high-hell then standing up, but this wouldn't really be very fun in a siege for either party, since no one gets to fight, no one gets to do anything.
I would also suggest, if this were implemented, that it be based on some random kevan-secret formula such that it happens at some point past the 10 hour mark, but unspecific, so you can't get an army of zombies standing up and sacking a mall after the air raid punches a hole inside. --Burgan 21:23, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Okay, so I had this big ass suggestion, but I decided to make it a suggestion. HAPPY BIRTHDAY! --Mnbvcx 01:22, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Don't penalize players for doing what they're supposed to do. Zombie players are supposed to horde. Survivors are supposed to hole up and fend off hordes of zombies. This would be spammed out of existence in minutes. --Mookiemookie 01:36, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Interesting idea. Maybe have it that the day prior to the bombing the military drops leaftlets telling survivors the get out of dodge (Zombies could possibly see this as "sheets of paper are scattered around the street/room/etc".) That way it gives survivors and zombies adequite warning and those who stay should have paid more attention. Note: I'm assuming that Kevin picks the targets. --John Hokwood

Further Question:

How many would be (in even the smallest way) inclined to like this suggestion more if it required Kevan choosing when the strikes would occur? This is assuming the strikes would still target any horde over a certain size. In this instance a warning would be needed after which players have a certain time period to flee or fire a warning flare. -- (GOD) 04:51, 5 August 2006 (BST)

What difference would THAT make? It doesn't counteract the problems associate with the suggestion. Besides, how ELSE would the strike be determined...but by Kevan.--Pesatyel 07:57, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Napalm Air-Raids

Timestamp:	01:41, 5 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Survivors and Zombies
Description:	Similar to the previous suggestion, the military has decided to try and use extreme force to cleanse Malton. If the name gives you enought want to spam me, please hear me out first. Once every now and again (a few hours)in a Zombie plentiful area, a Napalm Air-Raid would occur, with devestating results. There would be a warning to both survivors and zombies of the incoming plane 9 blocks sqaure, or 4 blocks away from every direction. of the target by 15 minutes or so, allowing people to scramble like hell to try to get away from where ever the hell they think might be targeted. This warning would only occur once, providing a bit more incentive to check your "Since your last turn:" messages. The players on the target square would have an 80% chance to die immediately and a 20% chance to be set on fire. After standing up from being killed by the air-raid only, the player would have a 50/50 chance of being on fire. The effect of being on fire would last 5-10 turns and do 1 damage for each turn, much like infection, only timed, in a manner of speaking, by AP consumption. Anyone walking on the sqaure struck by napalm would have a 20% chance of getting caught on fire after the bombing and a 30% chance for every action on the square of being caught on fire, be it a survivor or zombie. The building's barricades would be brought down six steps and if that brought it to a negative level, everyone inside would die and be under pretty much the same circumstances as the outdoors players. The fire from the napalm would last about an hour or two real time. Players would get a warning for being on an adjacent square to the afflicted area about the area 1N, for example, being napalmed, and if there were players on fire, they would hear screams/moans of agony.

Votes
Author Keep. Okay, so this is my first suggestion (in the making), try not to be too harsh, and if the template needs any brushing up, please tell me. --Mnbvcx 01:49, 5 August 2006 (BST) Good Golly Miss Molly - This suggestion sucks. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 02:09, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Why thank you jerknuts, for the detailed thought. Have a nice day. --Mnbvcx 02:12, 5 August 2006 (BST)

It's all good. At least I'm not the one with a shitty suggestion. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 02:24, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Kill - I just.. wow. I really don't think the game needs this. Nervie 02:20, 5 August 2006 (BST)

My first thought was the same as Nervie's...just...wow. You have to consider a few things when making a suggestion. Most importantly, is the suggestion going to make/keep the game FUN? How does INSTA-KILL (80% chance not withstanding) make the game fun? Secondly, FLAVOR. From a "realism" standpoint, wouldn't the military have done this a year ago when the plague first started? Are they monitoring to know when to do this? It doesn't make a lot of sense that suddenly "fire from the sky" randomly rains down. Thirdly, MECHANICS. The whole "warning" thing is confusing. Not to mention that most people would already have been killed by this "attack" before they could do anything to defend against it. If this is specifically meant to target zombies, as with the suggestion above, it would be easy for zombies to use this against survivors more efficiently then for it to be used against zombies. Congregate, tear down the barricades, wait for the napalm (especially easy if there is "warning"). Basically stated, this suggestion doesn't improve the game and doesn't sound like it would be fun at all.--Pesatyel 03:25, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I believe proper form is to reference Thich Quang Duc and make a joke about having a spam-barbecue. Honestly though, I don't think air-raid suggestions have a place in the game. The massive amounts of damage to many players, with no benefit to other players is a bummer. It doesn't make it a whole lot more fun. The fire business makes it too complicated, and it's just a lot of mess and hassle for little to no fun. I'm also not a fan of really tight time-based events like that, anything should give players at least a day to respond. --Burgan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Nope - it would be proper to reference Kim Phuc. --Darth Sensitive 21:07, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Nu-na nu-na nu-na nu-na Spam-man! Seriously this is just the same as above except theres less warning and it does more damage. Come to think of it, how the hell does this kind of stuff help survivors? Next it'll be getting agent orange to dissapate the barricades. Youronlyfriend 11:15, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Spamtaro - Many of my brethren died bringing you this vote. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 11:17, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Spam - This suggestion is retarded. Would you people please drop the "ZOMG JETSS AND FYAR BOMBZ!" shit? It isn't going to work without totally fucking over half the player base. --Mookiemookie 14:15, 5 August 2006 (BST)

OMG BUDDIST MONKS ON FIRE LOLOLOLOL - We don't need outside forces to nuke the shit out of players. They are players, who play the game for fun. Having to log on every 15 minutes or possibly getting your character dead for no good reason is not fun. Heck, having to log on every 20 hours for the same stupid reason woudn't be fun either. --McArrowni 20:29, 5 August 2006 (BST)

SPAM to all hell - zombie nerfing, nerfs players that aren't logged in, and it really hurts any humans caught in the blast a lot more than zombies. zombies lose a day of AP standing back up getting burned and digesting their way back to full HP, but humans die, stand back up, get burned to half health, then have to wander away to where there aren't hundreds of burning carcases and get a revive, a process taking days. This just allows zombies to all congregate around a mall, then boom, a napalm strike takes out everyone around the mall, including the local revive points, and then the zombies have the mall while everyone else is going 25 blocks away to get revived. so that said. will inevitably nerf Caiger --Kiltric 03:59, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Crackshots V.1.5

Timestamp:	21:47 6 August 2006
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A crackshot is a critical shot from either a shotgun or handgun. The effects of a crackshot are double damage. To get a crackshot one most first fully master either a shotgun or handgun and pay 100xp for a new skill on the corresponding weapon tree.(If you want shotgun crackshot you must fully master shotgun and buy shotgun crackshot and vice versa)After purchasing it you must open up the attack options, there will be a new option called shotgun/handgun crackshot. When you attack you have a 35% chance of a hit and a 15% chance of a crackshot. So one of three things will happen. You miss. You get a regular shot. You get a crackshot. The advantage of a crackshot is if you're low on ammo but are willing to risk you still have a chance to score a kill. The bad thing is you might also waste some ammo if you miss. .65 * 5 = 3.25 > .20 * 5 + .15 * 10 = 2.5, and .65 * 10 = 6.5 > .20 * 10 + .15 * 20 = 5. I'm not exactly sure what this says but I think it is something about the balanced hit % when fireing a crackshot. Thanks for the equation. Edit-Changed the hit% and simplified the shooting. Decreased chances of a crackshot. Clarification-35/100 shots will hit. 15 of those shots will be crackshots. Hope that helps.

Votes
I don't think people are going to like this one. I'd say drop the chance of a "crack shot" to, perhaps 10% (maybe 15% max) and/or increase the AP cost to 3 or 4. Your current requirements don't really have the right...penalty.--Pesatyel 05:50, 7 August 2006 (BST)

I don't think anyone is really going to like this one. The 3 ap to attack complicates the current attack system. - Jedaz 12:26, 7 August 2006 (BST)

How so? For something THIS powerful, there HAS to be a significant penalty, otherwise people would use it at every opportunity. Besides, the author didn't seem to like the 3 AP thing either.--Pesatyel 19:09, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Are the 35% and 15% chances exclusive or inclusive, i.e. does that mean you'll hit 50% of the time total, or 35% of the time you hit, and you crackshot on just about half of those hits? --Burgan 18:41, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Right, not overpowered, since .65 * 5 = 3.25 > .20 * 5 + .15 * 10 = 2.5, and .65 * 10 = 6.5 > .20 * 10 + .15 * 20 = 5. I would honestly consider this, but I would probably want to scrap the crackshot for the pistol all together since it basically becomes a crappy shotgun at that point. Fun, non game-breaking, and interesting. It wouldn't get a whole lot of use, but I like it. A thought before suggesting would be include the above math, or even present the MBR if you want to do the extra work, as a pre-emptive spam defense.--Burgan 16:11, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Storage

Timestamp:	02:32, 10 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Added function to warehouses
Scope:	Survivors, Warehouses
Description:	In short, I'm trying to find a way to be able to deposit stuff in warehouses, without it being able to be exploited by zergers. Okay, unlike every other suggestions I've made which went directly to the votes, due to a large ammount of droping/giving item suggestion, and uncountable spam votes because of possible zerger abuse, this is going here first. First of all, to limit the ammount of people using the warehouses, there'd be a skill, say "Warehouse management", which would read as follows: Warehouse management: Being used to searching buildings for useful items and organising them on yourself in order to easely find and acess them, you have learned to use those skills in a warehouse environment, allowing you to use the storage boxes. Okay, so the way this would work is quite simple. All warehouses would now contain 4 storage boxes, which would contain an inventory space of 10 (or maybe 5?) and would only be able to store one kind of item, for practicality. Only people with the above skill could store and retrieve items. In order to prevent low-level zergs to abuse this, the skill could require Bargain Hunting. Also, the boxes could only contain the following items: Fuel cans, portable generators, radio transmiters, first-aid kits, and necrotech syringes. This would also discourage the typical zergers who would zerg for ammo. As far as the zombies are concerned, they may attack a box as they could attack a generator or radio transmiter, and ransacking the building would empty all boxes. Destroying a box empties it and puts it at the bottom of the stack, to be re-used the building needs to be "repaired". Survivors may also attack them, as they follow the same rules as generators (twice the chances with crowbars also apply). Why? To allow higher-leveled chars to make reserves before a zombie incursing and allow medium-leveled characters to use the items in order to give a short burst of ressources to the defending suburb. Also, and mainly (in my opinion), to make it possible for dedicated characters to create a steady supply of strategic ressources (generators, among others) to needy locals. Well, Tell me what you think of it. If you do not like it, please tell me why, and what you would change...

Votes
Kill - I was skeptical of the storage system, but I suppose I could just not use it. Also, it would finally take some of the focus off the malls and NT buildings for a change, and add a new tactic to the game. But I'm still afraid of Zerg abuse, so what about having a system where you can access only the things that you store, then zergers couldn't abuse it, and you wouldn't get robbed because you wanted to carry a little extra ammo for the day. --Kiltric 03:49, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Re Well, if you can only touch your own box, you'd either have acess to a box per warehouse, which if you do a total of malton would greatly increase server stress, or there would still be but 4 boxed per warehouse, making the first four lucky and others won't be able to use it. The reason that inspired me to post this is to better organise the defense of a suburb, and especially placing generators and fueling them, as it's hard to run around, fueling about 50 buildings, barricading them, and especially powering them, it's more practical having a couple of friends ropping supplies every now and then so you can focus on maintenance, especially is malls are a good distance away. Having a stock of syringes is always good in case of a sudden organised zombie assault. I guess it's still possible for zergers to exploit this, but it would only be for two things: FAKs and syringes. Though FAKs are easy to use and give decent XP, cheaters such as zergers usually don't follow that path (and besides, the quickest way for XP with them is healing others, which will make them contribute to others even though they are cheating). As for syringes, you need skills to make them. Syringes might be a problem though...

Perhaps the anti-zerging system would make it so that boxes you search that another account used with your IP would simply appear as empty? That should be fine... Sounds like it would be an important addition to the suggestion entry...

- Re: - it is a very good idea at heart, and I'd vote a very strong keep in a heartbeat if I could assume that everyone would play fairly. Alas, if 4 or 5 zombie spies went through a suburb and took then dropped the contents of such boxes, then the suburb would lose all of their supplies. Perhaps a passcode system, or setting a box so that only people of the same group that put the supplies there could retreive them? --Kiltric 05:31, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.

Previous Days Suggestions

"Do you think it would then be worth making suggestions start off on a 'previous days'-style page? It would mean there'd be no need to move the discussions about a day's suggestions, since they'd already be on the right page, so it'd be (slightly) less work to cycle the pages.--Toejam 12:44, 28 July 2006 (BST)"

No-one appears to have noticed this solid lump of sense. Instead of the section containing todays Suggestions, the Suggestions page could contain the following links-

Todays Suggestions

Yesterdays Suggestions

Previous Days Suggestions

That way, all the daily Suggestions update would require is to change the first two links to the new dates, and paste the Blank Suggestions Page Template into the new page --Gene Splicer 17:44, 1 August 2006 (BST) -edit ffs, learn to spell, me --Gene Splicer 17:49, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I like it, earns my keep.--Canuhearmenow 17:53, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I'd go for it, but it would make watching suggestion page that much harder. I'd need to add new one to my list every day. --Niilomaan 17:53, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Cycling previous suggestions is more than just moving today's to a new page; there's a whole process that has to be carried out. This would make it just that much more complicated. I don't like it. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:24, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Could everyone who comments also note how often they cycle the page? I've never done it myself, so I don't know if this would be helpful of a hindrence to it, and comments from regular maintainers are probably the most helpful (this is not directed at your criticism BobHammero, I know it looks like I'm replying to your comment, but it's just that this only occured to me now. IIRC, you actually update the page quite a lot). edit: forgot to sign --Gene Splicer 21:00, 1 August 2006 (BST)

The page has to be cycled once per day. In the past, Jedaz did this, but since he's taken a leave of absence from the wiki, I've been doing it for him. As far as I know, only a mod is able to carry out the entire process, since part of it involves protecting the next page whose voting period has ended. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:31, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Wasn't completely clear: I meant how many times has said commenter cycled the page. But since you are the one taking over the page for now, I bow to your knowledge --Gene Splicer 18:49, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I have cycled it twice, soon to be three times, and seen it cycled dozens of times more. I hope to not have to take the job on full time as Jedaz did. As a compromise to the original idea, what if we added a link to yesterday's suggestions along with the current "previous day's suggestions" link? That wouldn't add much more work, and would seem to achieve the same goal. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:18, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Actually, my goal was to make cycling a little easier on moderators, and it appears this does the opposite :( The Yesterday's Suggestion thingy was just thrown in as an afterthought, but if people think it's a good idea? --Gene Splicer 21:02, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Worst Suggestions

I have complied a list of the worst suggestions I have ever seen here. People may discuss it and suggest additions here. Any thoughts?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:47, 3 August 2006 (BST)

I don't see the psychic zombies suggestion on there. That definitely merits inclusion. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 11:53, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Could you link me to them?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:04, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Those are the funniest things I've read all day. Well done. --Preasure 12:23, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Thanks, I want back and dug up all the old classics.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:25, 3 August 2006 (BST)

I was personally a fan of throwing bodies back over the cades into Caiger so everyone could stand... --Darth Sensitive

^W! 05:36, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Not as funny, but just as bad game reset! --Gold Blade 23:17, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Spam Bots have Rights Too!

Anyone else irritated by the recent wave of spam-bot attacking on the suggestions page? Look, it's not like I want to save the spam-bots, make it easier for them to do what they do, or to even interrupt things that hinder them, but really, I come to this page daily for interesting new ideas on the game, not for interesting new ideas on killing spammers. So, how about there being another place to put that sort of stuff, and something added to the 'do not's' about spam-bot attacks.
I appreciate the efforts, but I want to read about things that improve gameplay, not this stuff filling up the page. It's a suggestion, yes, but it's a suggestion of a different nature. --Burgan 16:18, 3 August 2006 (BST)

I like the idea. Talk like that should have its own page. --Gold Blade 22:08, 3 August 2006 (BST)

But I like spamming crappy suggestions... Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 05:27, 4 August 2006 (BST)

No, if you do it for one suggestion, then you'll need to it for every category. We have low enough voter turnout as it is, no reason to make the situation worse. Besides, if you are tired of seeing stupid suggestions, then Spam them. This is also why I disagree with your idea to require more stringent reasons for spam votes. Sometimes, something isn't spam because it's unworkable, but spam because it is utterly retarded, or brought up far too often. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:30, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Touché. I had more to say then I accidently closed the window instead of another one. Suffice to say, I see the point about leaving them here. --Burgan 21:25, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Spam vote validity

Aren't policy votes supposed to be duscussed in this section for at least 24 hours beforehand? --Gene Splicer 19:33, 4 August 2006 (BST)

After the previous vote ended, there was some discussion on that vote. I think Gold Blade was mistaken on WHERE to place his topic, so I moved it for him.--Pesatyel 21:31, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Add Author to Suggestion Template

Sometimes Authors don't vote on their suggestion right away, and it would be helpful to just include a ~~~ in the suggestion template. It would also be helpful for quickly checking whether someone is allowed to "re:" or not. Ybbor^T 03:10, 5 August 2006 (BST)

The only issue is that it would break all of the suggestions which would be using the old format of the template. It would be alright if we made a new template but we wouldn't be able to give it an as easy to understand name. - Jedaz 13:33, 6 August 2006 (BST)

Not necessarily. New MediaWiki comes in, just set the default to be Unknown. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:50, 6 August 2006 (BST)

Ah ok then, well that would be good then. Well we just have to play the waiting game until then I guess. - Jedaz 14:27, 6 August 2006 (BST)

Apart from that temporary problem, I see nothing wrong with Ybbor's idea. Do we even need to go through a policy vote on this? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:30, 6 August 2006 (BST)

my original idea was going to be to give new names. Make the "suggestion" template "suggest", "psuggestion" into "peersuggestion", or similar, but if it can be done with new software that's great too. I didn't put this as a policy discussion, because I figured you could consider the template to be part of the wiki: anyone can edit it. You're not changing the way people vote. Ybbor^T 19:00, 6 August 2006 (BST) EDIT:also in the short term, we could change the the suggestion template you cut and paste from so that the timestamp is 4 ~'s instead of 5, making it a full signature and showing the author. Ybbor^T 19:08, 6 August 2006 (BST)

As far as the basic idea, I love it. It annoys me a little to not know who wrote a suggestion. In terms of implementing it in the wiki without breaking all the ones using the old template... I don't really know. --Kiltric 03:41, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I don't see WHY it matters if we know who the author is or not. If they want to vote, that is there own business (and I've actually seen authors vote kill on their own ideas which baffles me). We are supposed to be voting on the suggestION' not the suggestOR. Is who is allowed to RE: votes really THAT much of a problem?--Pesatyel 05:04, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal discussion of policy changes for the suggestions page, as per the Voting Guidelines.

Spam vote value

Currently there is a blatent abuse of the spam vote on the suggestions page. So in order to make people think twice about how they use the spam vote I purpose this. When being tallied the spam vote counts as nothing. What this will do is make people think twice about using the spam vote on a suggestion that may not be spam-worthy as their vote may be basiclay wasted if a suggestion doesn't get spaminated. - Jedaz 10:58, 9 July 2006 (BST)

It has to count for something. What would you think about .5? --Swmono ^{talk - W! - P! - SGP} 12:59, 9 July 2006 (BST)

I think there was this discussion a while ago when the system was being designed. I guess .5's alright but it'ld make messy totals. For example you would have a suggestion that could have 7 keeps out a 10.5 total, it just looks ugly. I don't reckon that the spam vote should count for anything other than to serve a "get this stinker off the page" kind of thing. - Jedaz 13:07, 9 July 2006 (BST)

You Could have it count as a 0.5, and to keep it from being messy, you could have it rounded down.--Gold Blade 00:11, 17 July 2006 (BST)

Excuse me? "Blatant abuse"? Currently??? How many months back are you counting as currently anyways? The spam vote is working better than ever and is being less used than it has ever been. First week of february, anyone? WCDZ anyone? (we had a lot of members who were trigger-happy with spams, and they kept a few "spammination records" which I believe are still on the page). Auto-spam criterias anyone? It takes awhile, but people are learning to use it well. And I'm sorry, but it's description is always a bit murky, and totaly subjective. In any case, what wrongdoings have the spam votes really created? How many suggestions that actualy had a chance got spamminated? I see nothing wrong with the current situation with spam votes. --McArrowni 16:50, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Ok then McArrowni, since obviously you belive that it's working the way it should then you wouldn't have any problems with it counting as nothing when being tallied because all suggestions that need to be spaminated get spaminated. I nearly had a suggestion Spaminated that now is in peer reviewed not to long ago (I can link it if you want), so you can't really say that it's working perfectly. Anyway the spam vote is actualy being used more as a strong kill these days I reckon. - Jedaz 22:43, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Ok, so you named one. Given that I asked "how many" rather than "name one", I sorta expected a few to exist. No system is ever perfect. The best we can do is get the least flawed system. But I don't think this would make things much better.

As for "currently" and the history of this page, Spam has always been used as a strong kill, not just these days. The definition is murky, because frankly, anything that is part of "the most ridiculous suggestions" is also at the extreme of "Suggestions that you believe do not have merit". These are word for word straight out of the vote definitions. So a suggestion that meets the spam criteria also meets the kill criteria, and to the extreme to boot. Although I'm not sure the kill description is still the same as it used to be (I remember it more as "the idea shoudn't be implemented as written". In other words, the spam vote is already pretty much only used as a "get this stinker off this page" vote, the difference is that different people tend to have different ideas of what a "stinker" is. Well, except by idiots, but that's why we have a lot of voters. Anyways, the spam vote definition already includes the kill vote and more, so I think the counting should reflect that.

As for suggestions sometimes coming close to being passed or rejected because voters didn't understand the suggestion, it always happened and will still always happen, and some suggestions WILL end up in the wrong pile either way (I remember a suggestion of mine that never got it's chance, being killed because most people coudn't be bothered to read it right). With your change, suggestions that should be dumped will be more likely to be peer-reviewed despite being crap, as opposed to golden suggestions being dumped as crap more often. It gives less courage to the first person voting spam and explaining why the people before misunderstood the suggestion or the effect of the suggestion on the game.

Lastly, sorry for the knee-jerk reaction, but I was just surprised to see that someone actually thought spam votes were at a high and it was disatrous... Whilst generic voter stupidity is indeed on the rise, it's really pretty uniformly distributed (except that it doesn't cancel itself out, oh well). --McArrowni 23:36, 9 July 2006 (BST)

I'm all for nerfing it. The system is broken, and it needs fixing. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 17:17, 9 July 2006 (BST)

I think I'm more disturbed by the aggressive attitude towards people who make suggestions. I think the average constructive criticism is outweighed greatly by the amount of plain, "Fuck off, your idea is dumb," kind of attitude. I'm in agreement that things need to be changed, but not exactly in the same way. - Bango Skank 19:28, 10 July 2006 (BST)

I've seen the same thing. I've engaged in some of it myself, actually, so I think I know why most people do it (but not all, some people are just assholes): after reading enough suggestions, you start to get tired of seeing the same crappy ideas over and over again, or amazingly bad suggestions that violate every single Dos and Do Nots rule. I'm not saying it's right, but there does come a point at which you say, "you know what, this is just bullshit." That said, I think that's a problem, too. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:47, 10 July 2006 (BST)

I have to agree. Ive only been here a few weeks and have already noticed an almost 2 to 1 Spam vote to Kill vote ratio. I know that there isnt that much spam here. I made a suggestion, and it was workable, but the first person voted Spam, although i was able to change the problem that they linked the entire suggestion wth spam. If that isnt a ood reason to nerf the spam vote, i douct anything is. --Gold Blade 18:35, 17 July 2006 (BST)

I'm a pretty new user, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't spam generally mean "this suggestion cannot be reworked into something implementable" while kill means "this idea needs to be reworked to some degree (serious or slightly) before it could be implemented." The vote seems to be doing this now, and if a suggestion doesn't get spaminated, it just works as a kill, in which case all we're arguing over is the name. As it stands, the only way spam can be abused is if it spaminates something that would otherwise get into peer undecided/reviewed. I don't think you'll see many suggestions that weren't heading toward peer rejected anyway. with the criteria for spamnation if all votes for spam were changed to kill, the suggestion would go into peer rejected 99% of the time. Ybbor 02:57, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Actually your definitions are not "official," which is what I think we are REALLY talking about. I use the following:

Keep: Good as is, no changes needed.
Kill: Could use some changes to make it good/keepable.
Spam: No amount of changes could make this good/keepable.
Dupe: Same as or very similar to [linked] suggestion from Peer Review or currently open to voting.

I believe MOST voters treat the votes similarly. That having been said, I don't think it would really matter if Spam votes did not "count." 98% of the time, if a suggestion gets ANY spam votes, it gets spamminated.--Pesatyel 05:50, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Well maybe we should change the definitions to what Pesatyel said to make it much more clearer. However I still feel that by lowering the overall value of the spam vote would mean that people wouldn't use it as willingly. I guess .5 is probably the best now that I think about it, although I can't name any suggestions off the top of my head I'm sure that there are quite a few that have had knee-jerk reactions to them that might have passed or gone to undecided if they had the chance to be seen and thought about. The rewording of the definitions would stop newbies from abusing the spam vote but it wouldn't stop the more veteran members, and hence is why I suggested that we change the value of the spam vote. It's very obvious of the spam votes abuse when you see a suggestion that has just as many keeps on it as spams, how can a sugestion be good enough to get that many keeps while also being so bad that no matter how it's re-writen that it wouldn't be kept? Maybe we should just put it down to voters stupidity but can't we at least make the stupid people count for less? - Jedaz 06:57, 10 July 2006 (BST)

I also would support changing the definition of the spam/kill votes.Ybbor 15:19, 10 July 2006 (BST)

I support changing the value of Spam votes to zero. It will keep folks from using the vote unless they're really sure the thing is going to be cooperatively spammed -- i.e., it's really spam-worthy. --Ember ^MBR 16:34, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Maybe I've got it wrong, but the spam vote as it is now seems to be like an "insulting kill" rather than just "strong kill". Kill votes are usually followed with constuctive critisism, whereas Spam votes are generally followed by "OMG your suggestion suxorz and so do you!". I think the real problem here that needs to be addressed is the blatant insulting of suggestions and their makers rather than saying something constructive rather than the actual votes themselves. --Rozozag 22:20, 10 July 2006 (BST)

- Exactly. With this system, there'd be less freedom to wield the spam vote like a weapon. If you're tossing it around and the suggestion isn't actually spam-worthy, you've wasted your vote. --Ember ^MBR 01:45, 11 July 2006 (BST)
  - And Ember has hit the nail on the head, I couldn't have said it better. So I'm just wondering what would we prefer more? Spam votes counting as nothing or as 0.5 of a kill? Either way we'll have some opposition to this from a few people, mainly the ones who actually abuse the vote in my opinion. I think the 0.5 of a kill would make it pass easier, however I think it counting as nothing would be the best way at curbing the abuse of the spam vote so I put my support behind it counting as nothing. What do other people think would be good? - Jedaz 14:09, 11 July 2006 (BST)
    - IMO, the Spam vote isn't really a vote. It's a housekeeping device, designed to keep junk off the page. Useful when needed, but not for voting on well-intentioned suggestions. It shouldn't count for anything other than a request for Spamination. --Ember ^MBR 17:30, 11 July 2006 (BST)
    - I'd vote for worth nothing. And I'd say that one of the reasons you can't think of further examples of review- or undecided-worthy suggestions is because they get spamminated before you can see them --Gene Splicer 13:57, 12 July 2006 (BST)
    - I'd vote for it to worth nothing too. If you think about it, the only reason that we came up with the "spam=0.5 of a kill" value is so spammers don't get too pissed off about the change. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 20:40, 12 July 2006 (BST)
      - Some time to think and the newer posts made me realize this does make sense after all. I'd vote for spam = 0 kills. --McArrowni 23:20, 12 July 2006 (BST)
        Ok, exelent. Well then lets get this poicy writen up, I'll see what I can do...

As many people have noticed the Spam vote is being abused, many people use it as a weapon and more of an insulting kill then it's actual intended purpose. What this policy change aims to do is to make it so that people don't abuse it as much, what this will change is to make the spam vote count as nothing when being tallied. This will make people think twice about using the spam vote on non-spamworthy suggestions. For a more indepth discussion on why the spam vote should count as nothing when being tallied see the discussion above. - Jedaz 09:44, 13 July 2006 (BST)

Here's how I'd put it: This is a proposal to exclude the Spam vote from voting tallies -- i.e., the Spam vote will count as zero when adding up Keep and Kill votes. This will limit the Spam vote to its intended purpose -- a request for removal of a meritless suggestion. Changing the Spam vote's value to zero will prevent it from being used as an insult or "strong kill," as using it on a non-spamworthy suggestion would carry the risk of a wasted vote. For more information on the reasoning behind this change, see the discussion above. --Ember ^MBR 03:44, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Thats much better then mine I reckon. I'm all thumbs when it comes to trying to word things, lol. - Jedaz 06:23, 14 July 2006 (BST)
Perhaps mention that this is also how Dupe works, to put it in perspective?--Gene Splicer 13:40, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Good point. Well, somebody want to get the voting going and stick the pink notice box on the Suggestions page? --Ember ^MBR 18:51, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Ok, I'll put it up for voting for you and I'll put the pink box up as well. - Jedaz 05:26, 15 July 2006 (BST)

- The people who abuse using the spam vote usualy are the ones who are creating the dramas, it's basicaly just used as a insult for them. So if they don't get other people supporting them saying that it's spam then their drama can't have an influence on the outcome. If a suggestion was bad enough that it should not go onto the peer reviewed page it would be spaminated or killed no matter what. Anyway people should really think about a suggestion and how they should vote rather then going with a knee jerk reaction, and hence is what the spam vote being lowered to counting as nothing would do. - Jedaz 10:51, 15 July 2006 (BST)
  - Jedaz, this is not the place for discussion. Do it in the actual section set aside for it. Cyberbob Talk 10:53, 15 July 2006 (BST)
  - You do realize that anyone can change their vote at any time, Jedaz? You're just forcing people to watch the page more and change Spam to Kill on any suggestion that makes it to Previous Days? You and others are whining about how Spam is "abused" or how it's used for "drama" but the only thing your suggestion would do is make it so that suggestions with lots of Spam votes can still get Peer Reviewed. That is completely unacceptable. Exactly as Bothan said - if it gets enough spam votes that the value of Spam affects its final destination, it shouldn't go to PR. Rheingold 18:31, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Spam - Hell no. If you can't be bothered running your suggestion through this very page, then you deserve every last bit of drama that people fling at you. Cyberbob Talk 10:56, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Spam is not a valid vote: you must vote either Yes or No. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 00:04, 16 July 2006 (BST)

And you dredged that rule up from where...? Cyberbob Talk 00:06, 16 July 2006 (BST)

From the same place that you found the rule that states my vote was invalid. Even if I wrote poetry on the tail end of my vote it wuold be valid, and your vote is as trolling as mine. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 00:12, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Ha! No it wasn't. Well, maybe against lazy fucks. Cyberbob Talk 00:14, 16 July 2006 (BST)

If you're already recurring to insult your opponent in a discussion, you probably should try to defend valid arguments instead of weak ones. Also, I'm changing my vote right now. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 00:20, 16 July 2006 (BST)

I'm not insulting you. I'm insulting the retards who can't be bothered running their ideas through this very page before putting it up for voting. If every suggestion on the Suggestions page went through this page, there wouldn't be any need for Spam votes that insult. But, of course, they don't. The people who suggest things like that deserve every bit of what they get. Cyberbob Talk 00:26, 16 July 2006 (BST)

"There are three votes, "Yes", "No", and "Spam". If the proposal has 5 "Spam" and has no non-author "Yes" votes, it can be deleted by a Moderator." From the Voting Guidelines.--ShadowScope 02:30, 20 July 2006 (BST)

Yes - Also note that "some" people that votes No are the most unpolite, troll based voters of the Suggestions page. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 19:03, 15 July 2006 (BST) EDIT: My reason: I agree with the policy change. Let me also note that this voting has not any rule stated behind it but a simple "mayority wins", unlike the Suggestions Page that clearly states "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote". --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 00:03, 16 July 2006 (BST)

You need to provide a reason other than one that is considered trolling. You know all about providing reasons, don't you? You struck enough Keep votes (which don't require reasoning, btw). Cyberbob Talk 23:27, 15 July 2006 (BST)

See discussion above. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 00:21, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Actually Matt, there are rules behind it, called the Suggestions/Voting Guidelines, in fact, the one rule you cite "majority wins" is not a rule at all. the rule is a 2/3 majotiy wins. Ybbor 20:14, 16 July 2006 (BST)

I have recently looked at the "Advanced NecroTech Training." There are currently 6 Keeps, 8 Kills, and 2 Spam. If we use the current de facto method of Spam=Kill, then there is a total of 6 Keep and 10 Kills, meaninig this is a Peer-Rejected suggestion (2/3 or more voted Kill). If we use the new method of Spam=0, then there is a total of 6 Keep and 8 Kills. This turns into a Peer-Undecided Suggestion, meaning the wiki as a whole does not know if they should implement this or not. Peer-Undecided means that there are legit arguments for and against the change...while Peer-Rejected means that most people see it as stupid, and not worthy to be considered. Just excluding those 2 Spam Votes has bumped this suggestion from Peer-Rejected to Peer-Undecided. This may be argument that certain suggestions may escape Peer-Rejected, just because someone said Spam instead of Kill. It is unlikely that said suggestions can get into Peer-Review, but this shows that the Spam Vote is going to be forgotten soon. EDIT: In all fairness, the previous method (Spam=Kill) leads up to a 62.5%, rather than 2/3, meaning that techincally, it would have gone into Peer-Undecided anyway. Still...it goes to show that with a couple of votes, it is possible that the fate of a suggestion can hinge on a couple of Spamm votes.--ShadowScope 03:33, 18 July 2006 (BST)

No - Spam = Spam in my opinion, and spam should imediately get deleted because it doesnt taste good with anything else. --DarkStar2374383 ^{Talk | LDY | LOE} 13:57, 20 July 2006 (BST)

Striking Out Non-author Re's is Stupid

Just what the title says. It's dumb. Just today I struck out my own comment after making some smartass remark on a non-author re. While I really wanted to make the smartass comment, I also wanted to prove the point that even if you strike something out, its still there. What would everyone think about the policy being changed to letting people be able to completely delete non author re's on the suggestion page instead of doing the half retarded strikeout? --Mookiemookie 19:21, 26 July 2006 (BST)

I'd go for it. Are we voting yet? Because if so then you can just count this as Keep. --Niilomaan 19:28, 26 July 2006 (BST)

No, we are not voting yet. Mookie, please read the guidelines regarding policy changes and make sure you know what you're doing. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:51, 26 July 2006 (BST)

I did. I thought I'd put it up for discussion first to gauge people's interest and to get some input. The whole "24 hours" thing --Mookiemookie 20:10, 26 July 2006 (BST)

I agree. It is dumb. I am tired of having mine struck out. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS CoL} 20:14, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Actually, I think that non-author Res should be allowed, because they can often be insightful. I propose that instead of being deleted, if a chain of replies on one vote gets to be more than 3 long, all the replies after the third should be moved to the talk page. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:27, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Yeah! Keep for this too! Who ever makes the first suggestion on this gets to keep my keep.. Wow that was kewl. --Niilomaan 20:58, 26 July 2006 (BST)

You know if I wanted to I can actualy just remove all non-author re's. I checked the rules and it doens't state how they are supose to be dealt with. Striking them out was really just an unspoken rule which people have just blindly followed. What I reckon would be good is for people to just be able to leave a note along the lines of "See discussion page for a comment on this vote" to let the person know that their vote has a response to it. Someone can play with the wording, but I think thats probably the best way for non-author re's to be dealt with. - Jedaz 07:35, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I think that's a good idea, Jedaz. Bob, I like your idea of actually allowing them, but it would open up the door for a lot of abuse and a LOT of comments to be moved. Too much extra work for the mods, you know? --Mookiemookie 12:30, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Too much work for the mods? When it comes down to it, other users should be doing their part too. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:33, 27 July 2006 (BST)

True. But will they? --Mookiemookie 13:29, 27 July 2006 (BST)

They will if they want their comments to be heard. - Jedaz 13:30, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Are you kidding? Of course they won't. Cyberbob Talk 13:31, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Once their comments get wiped out multiple times they'll learn. (And maybe a few vandalism cases for constantly adding re's) - Jedaz 13:37, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Yeah! Ban the noobs, but leave my non-author re's alone! --Niilomaan 13:51, 27 July 2006 (BST)

That would have to be part of the policy. If you add the 3rd comment, you MUST move it to the discussion page, or it will be wiped and you'll be warned or something. --Mookiemookie 16:13, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Hey, dont forget, even the best people on here started out as newbs. Why ban someone cause theyre a newb? Thats just wrong. That newb may become a person of high status.--Gold Blade 19:03, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I think you are mistaking "noob" for "newb". There is a difference. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:34, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I'm continuing this conversation at the normal indentation level so that it's easier to read. I think Mookie is on to something here: up to three comments on a vote would be allowed, after which point additional comments must be made on the talk page (perhaps with a note that there are more comments). Adding a fourth or more re earns a vandalism report. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:41, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I think vandalism reports are meant to be only for the most serious things. They're like the wiki striking back in self-defence against genuine threats. Using a vandalism report on something as small as this seems a little draconian.--Toejam 02:49, 28 July 2006 (BST)

I am in complete agreement with you. Vandalisim is where someone deliberately messes it up. Not because there are to many replies. However, we should shorten the re's. How about when there are 4 or more re's, it gets moved to a discussion page and put a link to it. if someone reads it in the discussion page, and re's something on that page on the voting area, then it would be vandalisim. ill make the page if you like.--Gold Blade 19:03, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Another crazy idea: we should be getting a MediaWiki software upgrade soon, which would allow us to use templates inside of other templates, among other things. I'm not sure how you would go about doing the "view more comments" part of things, but this would be an interesting way to hide comments, don't you think? (Edit to see the text.)

Here is a comment

And a reply to the comment

And a reply to that

–Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:45, 27 July 2006 (BST)

That would be perfect. Let's hope that the MediaWiki upgrade comes soon. --Mookiemookie 20:25, 27 July 2006 (BST)

What about NOT allowing non-author REs. Instead, the person who wants to leave the RE has to just provide a link to the talk page where their actual RE can be found.--Pesatyel 21:35, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Once again, I think non-author Res are good, because they can often be insightful or otherwise helpful. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:37, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I very much agree with this. There's been times when I've disagreed with things people have written in their votes and thought a RE: would be the most natural tool to discuss it. --Toejam 02:49, 28 July 2006 (BST)

I think most of us were on the same situation: had a really good non-author re to share and had to keep it for ourselves. The problem is that if we allow them, they WILL end up abused. We are nice guys and all, but that doesn't mean everyone is. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 03:58, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Good point. Re:s are much more pointed than normal vote comments, and I don't want to see them used as verbal weapons. The policy would probably need something in it forbidding editors from using Res to insult or ridicule other voters or their reasons, with something to enforce that. Maybe even that wouldn't be enough to stop Res getting abused though. --Toejam 12:44, 28 July 2006 (BST)

I'll explain what I was trying to get at with my comment before. For example this is how it would look currently for a non author replying...

Kill - I don't think Survivors should be more powerful, maybe Zombies can finaly win! - Kill voter
- Re - This is a non-author re which would normaly be struck out. The game would be broken if Zombies won, Humans FTW. - Non-author

Now, as you can see the non-author re would end up being struck out and just clutter the page especialy if it has a few replies. What my change would do is make it look like this.

Kill - I don't think Survivors should be more powerful, maybe Zombies can finaly win! - Kill voter
- See the discussion page for a comment on this vote - Non-author

So then, under the appropiate headding on this page a comment about the vote will be left where people can discuss it. I think that would be the best way to going about this and everyone who doesn't follow the rules just gets their comment wiped out. - Jedaz 08:19, 28 July 2006 (BST)

The thing is, I think that the extra work required in having people leave notes on a different page, plus trying to keep it all working in tandem, will doom your (otherwise good) idea. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:25, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Well can we presume that people can add 3rd layer headders and actualy know how to generaly edit the wiki? Anyway the extra work is on the people who want to add the notes. The only extra work for other people will be on me which is just moving the talk onto the proper previous day page. - Jedaz 08:29, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Do you think it would then be worth making suggestions start off on a 'previous days'-style page? It would mean there'd be no need to move the discussions about a day's suggestions, since they'd already be on the right page, so it'd be (slightly) less work to cycle the pages.--Toejam 12:44, 28 July 2006 (BST)

What about people just editing their own votes as a response to others? It seems to me if a suggestion is getting a lot of non-author REs, it needs to be moved to the discussion page.--Pesatyel 06:08, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Which is a complete pain in the arse. Even more so than changing the rules, IMO. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:10, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Which is? People editing their own votes or moving a suggestion with lots of REs to discussion? Either way, it seems to me there is something seriously wrong with ANY suggestion that gets a lot of non-author REs. I'd think it would be obvious that the AUTHOR should have to do the work to withdraw it and send it to discussion.--Pesatyel 02:42, 1 August 2006 (BST)

People editing their votes is more annoying. (To me anyway.) Saying "What Pesatyel said", then you going and changing your vote gives my "What Pesatyel said" an entirely new meaning. I can see the need for a lot of non-author REs. I've seen more than one suggestion killed or spammed by people who were clearly CNR about some part or another. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 17:00, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Spam Removal

Recently I've been seeing a lot of abuse of Mod-Removal of spam. Just now, Suggestions#Zombie_Killed was sent to peer rejected after seven minutes. Yes, I spam voted on it. Yes, it was a shit suggestion. But shouldn't the community have more of a say in whether or not a suggestion is complete and utter crap instead of 2 people and a Mod as the process currently stands?

What I would like to see, is that Suggestions that are eligible to be removed through Spam Votes stay on the page until the time comes for the page to be cycled off the main page; at which point the Suggestion will be moved to Peer Rejected. Only a Moderator will be able to move a suggestion to Peer Rejected before the cycle, and that should only be done if it is eligable normally; with 7 Spam Votes and Spam having a 2/3rds majority of the total votes.

If a suggestion is so crappy, it's going to go in Peer Rejected regardless of how long it is on the frontpage. All this does is prevent suggestors from being able to level accusations against Mods for throwing out their suggestions prematurely. – Nubis ^NWO 18:59, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Moderators are moderators because the community (through the mod approval process) states their confidence in them and their good judgement. If a moderator uses that good judgement in deeming a suggestion irredeemable spam and removing something (that will by your own admission be spaminated/rejected) then its their right and privelege to do so. If you have a specific issue with a suggestion that you think shouldn't have been moved, take it up with the mod directly. --Mookiemookie 19:25, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I agree with Mookie on this one. The rule is there to keep suggestions such as "OMG ZOMBYS SHUD EXPLODE AND STUF!!!" from cluttering the page. If you have a gripe with a particular mod's choice to remove suggestions, take it up with them. We've been democratically-elected based upon our demonstration of trust to the community. We should be able to exercise our powers since we are trusted. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:36, 27 July 2006 (BST)

The only suggestions I've removed before their 7 spam votes were ones that were ludicrously absurd, things that are easily as bad as, or worse than, the example that Hammero gave. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:16, 28 July 2006 (BST)

on other wikis ive been to, moderaters are usually like normal everyday users who can do upkeep and stop vandalism. i admit i'm not the best to talk being new but is a moderator above others or not here? if so then i guess they cna do what they want. if they aren't then removing a suggestionin seven minutes seems like wrong!! - John Teabags 05:19, 28 July 2006 (BST)

For the most part, no. We are severely hampered in our ability to react to anything due to the plethora of red tape that this wiki has. That wouldn't matter if people, y'know, did their part and actually helped around here by reverting vandalism, moving suggestions when they meet the criteria, voting, etc, etc. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:28, 28 July 2006 (BST)

what would happen if you guys retracted everything that hamters you and had people vote each part back in if they want it? -- John Teabags 05:50, 28 July 2006 (BST)

	SPELING LOL
	Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:53, 28 July 2006 (BST)

and here i was being perfectly nice to you John Teabags 06:31, 28 July 2006 (BST)

It's meant to be an unsubtle hint that I am unable to read the intent behind your previous message due to the terrible spelling. "hamters"? The closest thing I can think of is "hamsters", but that don't make a lot of sense. You might also have meant "hampers", but how would removing a suggestion that hampers one of my characters be of any benefit to me whatsoever? Kevan's implemented more things from peer rejected than peer reviewed, as best I can tell, so neither possible word makes sense. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:42, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Xooid, it is simpul! I retarct hamters and tehy bite mi hand!!1 It blods adn I had to go teh docktur and get styches. Lol u mods are funay cane you do whatevar u wnat!!11 I tipe wiht mi faec!!!!1 –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:57, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Geeze guys, great way to come of looking like dicks (Well mainly Bob). I would like to say that Nubis had me until the part about moving suggestions to peer rejected when the page gets cycled. I hope I don't have to explain why I'm not a big fan that. But yeah I agree that there is an abuse of this privilege. - Jedaz 08:09, 28 July 2006 (BST)

When confronted with miserable spelling and grammar, which is pathetically flailing to attempt to communicate flawed reasoning and invalid ideas, I see no reason to hold back from being dickish. Especially when it's funny and I'm tired. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:15, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Better than being confronted by a peice of shit like you. trust me i got the raw end of the deal here. - John Teabags 02:41, 30 July 2006 (BST)

PITY PARTY! WOOO! My advice to you would be to grow a thicker skin, or you'll last .00032 seconds on this part of the Wiki. --Mookiemookie 18:34, 30 July 2006 (BST)

How sad. The funniest thgs today are also the cruelest, the way youre showing it. What has humanity come to these days?--Gold Blade 19:12, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Humanity has come to a place where it's expected that you have proper spelling and grammar, or at least try to, lest you be mocked and thought an idiot. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:46, 1 August 2006 (BST)

	Hamters in the Basket Supporter
	This user or group believes that if John Teabags does in fact put the hamters in the basket that this situation can be resolved.

Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 21:36, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Firstly: I agree wholeheartedly that correct spelling and grammar are the tablemanners of the internet. Secondly: Why not link to the suggestion in peer rejected when you add the "spam removed" text? People would still not be able to vote on them, but it means we could (quickly) peek at the suggestion and see if it was as horrible as all that, with a section in this discussion page to list suggestions you felt were unfairly spaminated. If the majority of people gouge out their eyes and beg the wiki to never do that to them again, we can assume spamination is working just fine. If a lot of suggestions get brought up as "not being as bad as all that, they just needed a little work", we can assume there is a problem --Gene Splicer 19:03, 2 August 2006 (BST)

If you really want to know, because moderators are having a hard enough time right now as it is. Yes, you heard me right. There is barely anything we can do without getting attacked for "teh misconbitration!" Presumably all of you elected us because you thought we were trustworthy, so why not assume that we're still trustworthy? Since it's not all that hard to visit Peer Rejected on your own, if you guys are all really concerned, I suggest you take a look over there when a moderator removes a suggestion early, and if you consistently notice a single moderator abusing his/her power, bring it up with that moderator. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:14, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I originally thought this discussion was about Spam running things off pages too quickly. But I just looked up the [[1]] Suggestion that started this post... it received only 3 Spams (4 including the Moderator) and one kill, well below the minimum 7 Spams/Dupes required to be Spaminated. Given this, it appears OP is actually talking about a Mod oversepping his/her bounds, which puts a very different light on this discussion. I don't recall Executive Veto on Suggestions being part of a Moderator's abilities. I also think that a little thought (admittedly, a bit more than I gave it at first) shows that John Teabags was suggesting that the red tape that "hampers" mods be removed, then have a community vote as to which parts have merit, and which parts are just getting in the way. And yes, I have changed my tone completely between these two replies, because I was a muppet who misunderstood what we were talking about >.<--Gene Splicer 21:24, 2 August 2006 (BST)

It's an interesting idea to vote on each part of a suggestion, but I don't think it's feasible, because of the number of suggestions, many of which have several different parts to them. It would get very complicated very quickly. And just so you know, we can remove suggestions with 3 or more spams, as long as spams outnumber keeps. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:57, 2 August 2006 (BST)

No, I mean, he was saying to remove whateve "red tape" was hampering the mods, then revote whatever red tape is actually neccessary back in. I'm glad I didn't post any suggestions today, with the way I'm not making sense who knows what would have come out --Gene Splicer 22:08, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Ah. Huh, I apparently didn't understand that. Well, what "red tape" do you think is necessary? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:12, 2 August 2006 (BST)

It has become blaringly apparent that I need to brush up on what red tape exists before I could make such a suggestion --Gene Splicer 23:10, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I believe the idea is to get rid of the Moderator ability to remove a suggestion with only 3 spam votes (and 2 or less Keeps). I'm inclined to agree. I don't think we need TWO rules involving spamminating a suggestion, especially since this one makes it too easy. Whether or not the idea of using the spam vote is to get rid of a shitty suggestion as quickly as possible, if this rule is going to be used so frequently, what do we need the other one for? Over the last few days, I've logged in to see practically every suggestion for the day either author removed or spammed out. Take this example:

Limit on Communication
Mod Spaminated with 3 Spams and an Author keep. The people have said no. --Grim s-Mod U! 16:44, 3 August 2006 (BST)

WHAT people (Yeah, all THREE of them)? Do I think that suggestion, to continue the example, would have been spammed out with the 7 (or 2/3rds) vote requirement? Probably, but we didn't get to find out, did we?--Pesatyel 21:57, 4 August 2006 (BST)

No, you didn't. That's right. I'm not arguing that the power isn't abused, I'm arguing that it isn't abused by everyone. If you consistently notice that one moderator removes suggestions that you don't think deserved to be removed early, take it up with them. But saying "nope, none of you can do this" isn't the right answer, unless you really enjoy reading suggestions such as "make zombies explode" or "give XP for healing barricades." –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:17, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I'm wasn't saying it WAS being abused by everyone (and I didn't want the comment by Grim taken out of context). I'm just saying we really don't think we need TWO "spam rules". I believe if a suggestion is going to be spamminated, is it REALLY that bad to let it go the full 7? If it, basically, only takes THREE votes to actually remove a suggestion, then why did we, the wiki users, have so much hard boiled discussion about the 7 and 2/3rds spam rule?

There was a comment farther down this page (I believe it was Xoid) that said we have low voter turn out. I'm not saying all these quick spamminations are the cause, but they ARE part of it. Honestmistake isn't the only person who clicked edit to vote, typed of their vote and went to submit it only to find the suggestion they JUST went to vote on having been spammed off the page already.--Pesatyel 22:34, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Ah, my mistake for misunderstanding. Sorry. I understand what you're saying about "if a suggestion is bad enough to be removed under 3, won't it surely be removed under 7?" I think the answer for that is definitely "yes." The reason I imagine that the 3-spam rule is in place, and the reason I would argue for it being kept, is so that moderators have the ability to remove things that are without a doubt going to be spaminated, and keep them from cluttering the page and distracting voters from more worthy suggestions. Now, obviously if that power is being abused, that's a problem — I, myself, never use that authority unless the suggestion is truly ridiculous — but I think there is a good reason for it being in place. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:08, 6 August 2006 (BST)

last week i was about to be the second voter on a suggestion but i got called away from the pc and when i got back, finished my reply and tried to post it the suggestion had already been removed! this is getting ridiculous; no matter how bad a suggestion it needs to be left up for voting for at least a few hour (pref. 6) so voters can vote. As for the amount of abuse being slung about on this suggestion heres my input: Many users here did not vote for the current mods so don't tell me we all trust you. abuse of power and arrogance are key to some mods attitude to this wiki and some have double standards to say the least; for example compare the following: keep not sure of the actual mechanics suggested but multiple message are good. add indoors and maybe tweak implementation but otherwise very good. Oh and a NOTE for certain users: SPAM is not strong kill, SPAM is for ideas that are unfixable, SPAM is not to be used as an insult or because you hate the user. You are the reason there is a policy discusion regarding SPAM votes, please grow up or f*$k off!--Honestmistake 18:25, 24 July 2006 (BST) "Note - Do not troll and insult other users. –Bob Hammero Mod•T•P! 03:16, 25 July 2006 (BST)" ??? how exactly is it trolling to ask people to vote properly and why is what i think less valid than your own "Crappy idea" comment. I was merely expressing a strong desire that people grow up or leave. I mention no names; merely allude to certain users. Infact some of the SPAM votes at least have reasons attatched and i am merely trying to draw attention to the votes that actually could be construed as 'trolling'--Honestmistake 18:47, 25 July 2006 (BST)

Now:

"Xooid, it is simpul! I retarct hamters and tehy bite mi hand!!1 It blods adn I had to go teh docktur and get styches. Lol u mods are funay cane you do whatevar u wnat!!11 I tipe wiht mi faec!!!!1 –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:57, 28 July 2006 (BST)"

So tell me Bob the Mod: how are we supposed to 'trust' a Mod who is a frequent trollers (though far from the worst, and i really am not trying to make this personal) yet overly quick to throw accusations around. --Honestmistake 14:22, 5 August 2006 (BST)

To answer your first question, if you don't understand how telling someone to "grow up or fuck off" is trolling, then I don't think you're ready to be interacting with other people on the Internet yet. It's insulting and rude, and you know it. To answer your second question, your trust in me as a moderator shouldn't be based upon a random quote that you took out of context (funny how if you do that things change meaning, isn't it?), it should be based upon my contributions and moderator work on the wiki. If you actually bother to do that, I think you'll see why I'm a moderator. By the way, you're acting very hyperbolic and troll-like. Ironic since you accuse me of being a troll. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:25, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Bob, neither of those quotes are out of context; one is very rude and from this very page while the other has my vote (admitedly not polite), your reply and my response! I am not suggesting that all your votes are Trollish (and i appologise if it seems that way) what I am trying to say about moderators in general is that they have a position of trust an responsibility and as the most visable aspect of their/your work is responses to suggestions then you should all strive to be fair and not accuse others of having faults that you often display yourselves. As frequent voter with no responsibility other than justifying my comments i can (arguably)get away with some degree of abuse but for a moderator to abuse someone in such blatant ways is not going to inspire trust in his or her judgement and should be considered as far more serious a matter!

I say again that this is not a personal attack on you; in fact some of your responses are both devastatingly cruel, highly amusing and wholly merited. Unfortunately a smaller number go beyond what most would regard as fair and reasonable criticism and become insulting attacks. My comment in my vote is what has been defended in the past by others [possibly including you] as weariness of the same recuring idiots clogging this site.

My point put simply is that as mods you should maintain a higher standard of behaviour in regards comment and getting back to the point allow us the casual (and often just as dedicated) users of the page to have our say too! RANT OVER thanks for your indulgence...--Honestmistake 21:41, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Before I respond, you might note that I keep changing your reply formatting. If you could try to write your replies in the indentation style that I keep putting them in (or something similar), that would be very useful, as otherwise it can be hard to tell what original message you're replying to. Thanks.

I understand what you are saying about moderators having a position of trust and responsibility. However, you seem to be mistaken about what a moderator is and is not supposed to be. We are no more beholden to be polite or unbiased than you are. If you grant yourself any leeway to be rude or mocking, then you have to give us the same rights. Taken straight from the moderation guidelines: "…a Moderator is to be treated as a normal user, with all the rights and responsibilities therein… Moderators are merely especially trusted wiki users, and are beholden to the community just as any other user is. A Moderator's word has no greater weight than any other user. As a wiki, each voice has equal weight, regardless of their abilities."

I try not to be "devastatingly cruel," as you put it, but yes, I do get tired of seeing the same ideas brought up and shot down over and over again, even when most of them are clearly outlined on pages such as Suggestions Dos and Do Nots — a page that so many of the new users obviously do not read, even though they are heavily encouraged to do so. Yes, I am guilty of being rude and insulting to people occasionally here. Very few users of this wiki, if any, can say that they haven't done the same thing at one time or another. And even though we, in your eyes, "should" maintain a higher standard of behavior, remember that we're just people too, and the only extras we get for being moderators are a few rights and a lot of extra responsibilities.

One last thing: the suggestions page is hardly the most visible place that moderators do their work. To use myself as an example, I recommend checking the moderation pages, or my own contributions page, to see more visible examples. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:57, 5 August 2006 (BST)

As a self-admitted grumpy, condescending, sarcastic, foul-mouthed and abrasive member of this community, I fully stand Bob's right to be just as mean as me despite his mod status. --Mookiemookie 19:12, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Fair points very well made, thank you for such a comprehensive answer, however please remember that IF you are as guilty of being rude as I (Very rarely am) then it can seem a little harsh to strike my comments and accuse me of 'trolling'. As to my messing up the page presentation, that is very much my technophobic fault. The user name is not a happy accident and is the reason why i do not make suggestions. I freely admit that i am computer illiterate and if i had actually taken time to think before making my comment about mod visability would have realised that when i first started mods were fixing my f**K-ups twice a day. something i do appreciate and try not to make them do anymore as best i can! As i am not changing settings i can only assume it will happen again tho? feel free to explain why/how i keep doing this on my user page but in any case thanks for fixing and sorry you had too.--Honestmistake 19:46, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Spamminated Links

I'm proposing that suggestions that have been spaminated have a link to it as well as the link to the "spam" page. Ie:

"Flying a Kite has been SPAMMINATED with 20 spams, 3 keeps, and 10 kills. The suggestion can be found HERE. - Moderator 12:00 PM"

Sometimes mods do link to the suggestion, but it's really up in the air and a personal choice, though I'm proposing, I suppose, for it to always be there. It's just conveinent to have a link to the suggestion, bad or not, so that I can get an idea of what people are wanting, and possibly if their bad idea could lead to a better one in the future.

Also, some mods are giving short descriptions (I can't remember who exactly) that read something like, "Users believed that FLYING A KITE was a waste of bandwidth, and really didn't improve gameplay." I think this also helps users (me) understand what the general concensus is for botching the suggestion (and in short, I like this :-D).

Sorry if this isn't really "policy", but I suppose it's the closest thing I could pin it on. - Bango Skank 18:13, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Considering there's only a couple people who actually move suggestions, and it's not terribly difficult if you really want to read a suggestion to go to the top of the page, link to Peer Rejected and scroll down to the Suggestion, I don't think this is really necessary. – Nubis ^NWO 21:39, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Thanks for the comment. I agree, it's not "hard": it just makes it easier. Who has the authority to remove spamminated suggestion; mods only or anyone?

Does anyone else have views on this? - Bango Skank 22:18, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Anyone can remove it. I'm kind of with Nubis on this. Sure, it would be handy to have a link right to the spaminated suggestion, but is it really that hard to go to S/PRJ and scroll down? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:35, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Well, ah. I was under the impression that only mods could. Thanks for the input. - Bango Skank 00:42, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Well, it seems that the concensus on this is in. ;) Would it be acceptable, then, if I added this information on spamminated suggestions I see? Again, I'm trying to tiptoe around this so as not to step on moderators' business but still come within the idea to "be bold" with issues of good faith, because I see it as a way to help users, and, since I would be doing it (or, if anyone else agrees with me, they're more than welcome to chip in) and it's not added work for mods. - Bango Skank 02:47, 8 August 2006 (BST)

I doubt anyone would mind. Just make it clear that it's your comment and not whoever wrote the original spamination comment (as just editing theirs would constitute vandalism). –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 03:44, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Spam vote validity

Removed. --Gold Blade 22:04, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page. All policies, along with their associated votes and discussions, are governed by the Voting Guidelines established for this section.

Spam vote value

This is a proposal to exclude the Spam vote from voting tallies -- i.e., the Spam vote will count as zero when adding up Keep and Kill votes. This will limit the Spam vote to its intended purpose -- a request for removal of a meritless suggestion. Changing the Spam vote's value to zero will prevent it from being used as an insult or "strong kill," as using it on a non-spamworthy suggestion would carry the risk of a wasted vote. For more information on the reasoning behind this change, see the discussion above. - 05:31, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Yes - I think this is a step in the right direction to make the suggestions system work much better. - Jedaz 05:31, 15 July 2006 (BST)
No - As far as I'm concerned, if a suggestion received enough spam votes that changing the value of spam votes to 0 would affect whether that suggestion goes to the PR page or not, then that suggestion simply does not deserve to be PR'd as is. If the author is unwilling to revise then the suggestion does not deserve to get stamped, period. The discussion above focuses on the transient dramaz on the suggestion page but not at all on the only thing that really matters - the final product being created by this page, i.e. peer reviewed suggestions. The only real change this new policy would create is a flood of shitty suggestions making it to PR thanks to an artifical lowering of vote tallies. And to add insult to injury, you want to make me worry about whether my vote will count at all? Sorry for the harsh tone but there is simply no way I could support this. Rheingold 10:28, 15 July 2006 (BST).
- Discussion moved above.
Spam - Hell no. If you can't be bothered running your suggestion through this very page, then you deserve every last bit of drama that people fling at you. Cyberbob Talk 10:56, 15 July 2006 (BST)
- Discussion moved above --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 00:14, 16 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - As discussed above. Spam is more of a housekeeping tool than an actual vote. --McArrowni 13:14, 15 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - As discussed. I would like to note that Dupe, the other housekeeping skill, also counts as nothing unless the suggestion is Duped --Gene Splicer 13:55, 15 July 2006 (BST)
No - If the ultimate goal of the suggestion page is to get something into peer reviewed, a suggestion that does not have the support of the community should not go there. Ybbor 14:27, 15 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - Spam votes need to stop being used as insults and "strong kills." Truly spamworthy suggestions will still get spammed, well-intentioned but flawed suggestions will get killed, and spam vote abusers won't affect the results. It should have been this way from the beginning. Again, note that this is exactly how Dupe works. --Ember ^MBR 15:16, 15 July 2006 (BST)
No - I don't see this as doing anything to prevent the Spam vote from being used as an insult or strong kill or anything else and I don't see a problem with the spam system the way it is now. Here and there you get the one off spam vote in a sea of kills or keeps, but so what? --Mookiemookie 15:45, 15 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - Spam is spam, kill is kill. For a strong kill just say 'I really hate this idea' or something. Spam should only be used for spam votes and this would help that. --Paradox244 16:39, 15 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - As I've mentioned before, the current system is badly broken. I think this is a very reasonable measure that would ensure that people only vote spam when the suggestion is truly worthless, instead of just automatically trying to get wiped from the page any suggestion that doesn't immediately strike them as perfect as is the case now. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 17:58, 15 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - Also note that "some" people that votes No are the most unpolite, troll based voters of the Suggestions page. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 19:03, 15 July 2006 (BST)
- Actually, don't note it. Trolling like this doesn't get noted. Except by the people who strike it. While you're rewriting your vote, Matthew, this is either going to have to be removed or struck out. Cyberbob Talk 00:28, 16 July 2006 (BST)
  - Ok, this is getting tiring. I don't like edit wars, so if you get 1 (one) moderator to enforce your actions (of course, please ask him to read the discussion first), I'll change my vote. Until then, let my vote stands as it's going uncontested by everyone else but you. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 00:39, 16 July 2006 (BST)
    - Hmm...let me see. No. Arrogance doesn't get you anywhere. And no-one else is contesting it because striking out trolling votes is a moderator-only thing. BTW - didn't you say you were rewriting it? Cyberbob Talk 00:47, 16 July 2006 (BST)
      - I can't find the rules that you are refering Cyberbob, so unless you can refer me to them the vote may stay unstruck. - Jedaz 07:41, 16 July 2006 (BST)
        And maybe its because of incessantly having to read petty bullshit like this that we have unpolite troll based voters. --Mookiemookie 13:19, 17 July 2006 (BST)
- Discussion moved above --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 00:23, 16 July 2006 (BST)
yes - too many spamminators out ther bragging about their spam-cannons. grow up and learn to vote properly. in addition a rule to prevent people changing their vote after 24hours might avoid one of the problems mentioned earlier!--Honestmistake 21:09, 15 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - Spam worthy suggestions will still get spammed, others won't be badly affected by knee jerk votes. --Darth Sensitive ^{talk • W!} 23:35, 15 July 2006 (BST)
No - What happens in the instance of 6 spam, 6 keep, 2 kills? Sounds like peer-reviewed to me. Sure you're punishing the users by de-valuing their vote, but the system is not about my vote or your vote, it's about reviewing suggestions and sorting them appropriately, and you punish all of us this way. I would support tougher enforcement on the spam vote specifically about the need to justify votes, or I would probably just support removal of the spam vote all together. The war is dying down, let's rescind the executive measures act.--Burgan 00:06, 16 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - People are not using the spam as it should be used. It's become a method of assaulting people and telling them their suggestion sucks, not of removing material that is inappropriate. Honestly, I'm tempted to agree with Burgan up above, we should just consider removing the spam vote altogether. Dupe is still in effect, and usually the only time Spam is used in a legitimate circumstance is when something is a Dupe (by my observations at least, which could admittedly be skewed.) If you don't like a suggestion, just kill it. Don't waste your time with the Spam vote. --Saithis 00:40, 16 July 2006 (BST)
No-Doing so will actually remove Spam then. Since those who want to Spaminate a Suggestion wants to get rid of it, they'll vote Kill rather than Spam. This means that the housekeeping tool WILL not be used. Rather, the suggestion pages will be long with Kill, Kill, Kill, etc. If nobody uses the housekeeping devicie, then the house will not be kept. Do this for order. EDIT: I do have another question...could those that vote Spam change their vote to Kill if they cannot gain enough of a bandwagon effect to Spam? Doing so will be able to ultizie both the book-keeping method as well as the normal Kill Method. If those that use the Spam Vote does this, then we are back where we are started, with Spam just being a Strong Kill. This solution has solved nothing.--ShadowScope 04:21, 16 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - Too many ideas getting spammed upon when they're just unpopular -- boxy TtaMe ^~~~~~ 05:58, 16 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - This is what's needed. Spam isn't a strong kill, it's a housekeeping tool. Jonny12 ^W! 22:21, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Spam - This policy is lunacy. Spam means that the voter thinks the suggestion has no redeeming value. How the hell does that mean it should suddenly become easier to get into peer reviewed? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:57, 19 July 2006 (BST)
Spam - this is just fucking stupid, and all it does is prevent the opinions of those who find the suggestion irredeemable from being heard. That isnt democracy, thats tyranny! --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 20:16, 19 July 2006 (BST)
Spam - you realize that you can change your vote at any time in the voting period, correct? Meaning that Spam will remain exactly what it is right now, just that suggestion that isn't spammed will be changed to have all the Spam votes made into kills in the period between the 2 weeks. So nothing will change except people will throw the "Oh well my Tally was really good" concept in the faces of those who spammed them. Woo, useless mediocraty to the rescue! --Karlsbad 13:42, 20 July 2006 (BST)
No - Spam = Spam in my opinion, and spam should imediately get deleted because it doesnt taste good with anything else. --DarkStar2374383 ^{Talk | LDY | LOE} 14:10, 20 July 2006 (BST)
Spam - as xoid--Gage 03:14, 23 July 2006 (BST)
No - Just because situation presented by Burgan would be possible. Yes, everyone who voted Spam could change their vote to Kill during the 2 week voting period, but how many would actually do that? --Nob666 12:05, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Yes People seem to be voting against this because they're afraid their spam vote won't count in marginal cases, but that's a really weak argument. First of all, if it's a marginal case, you shouldn't be voting "spam." Second, you can change your vote at any time. If a suggestion would be rejected but becomes undecided because spam votes don't count, everyone who thinks it's spam could come back and change their votes to "kill." That's ultimately what this policy would do; people would have to change their votes or change their way of voting (to using "spam" correctly). There's no reason to worry that your vote won't be counted. Finally, if a suggestion makes it because there are 3 keep votes, 2 kill votes, and 5 spam votes, the problem lies with the use of the spam vote, not with this policy. --Ron Burgundy 13:56, 24 July 2006 (BST)
- Re: Bull. Shit. What you are saying is, "Xoid, it doesn't matter if you actually think it's spam worthy, in order to make a suggestion get put in peer rejected, you have to vote kill." Lay off the scotch, Burgundy. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 17:40, 24 July 2006 (BST)
  - No no, I'm saying that in marginal cases, you shouldn't vote spam because the very fact that it's marginal means there's something redeemable in it. Spam is for something that is completely over the top. By the definitions of "spam" and "marginal," a suggestion with something redeemable in it is not spam. Sorry if I wasn't making myself clear. I wrote that at 10AM, not having slept, and I think I still had a few glasses of port in me. Man, if you ever get a chance, 10 Year Old Tawny Port comes with the Burgundy seal of approval. --Ron Burgundy 22:09, 24 July 2006 (BST)
    - "…because the very fact that it's marginal means there's something redeemable…" — oh excuse me while I *cough*BULLSHIT!*cough*. "…the problem lies with the use of the spam vote, not with this policy…". Excuse me? In your example 5 People thought that suggestion was utterly ridiculous … not even worth pissing on … and you say that the problem lies with the use of the spam vote? Jesus Christ, I can't believe I'm reading this. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:08, 25 July 2006 (BST)
      - I've always thought the spam vote was for things that aren't posted seriously. That's sorta black and white, so a marginal case- a case that some people think should be kept- doesn't fit with it. --Ron Burgundy 19:35, 25 July 2006 (BST)
        And if I happen to see it as black and white, along with 5 other people, yet the author disagrees with us? Yes, truly a marginal case there. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:42, 25 July 2006 (BST)
        Not the author, I didn't mean to imply that. Good point, though. I'm marginally voting yes on this thing. :) --Ron Burgundy 20:33, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Spam This is stupid. Plain and simple stupid. The spam vote is used for retarded suggestions making it worth nothing is dumb the only thing this will do is get stupid suggestions put in the peer reviewed. Deadeye207 18:49, 24 July 2006 (BST)
No - If you can't take a user getting pissed off at your shit-tastic suggestion, get off of the internet. – Nubis ^NWO 18:59, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - We shouldn't treat spam as a type of kill when its purpose is very different. --Toejam 20:10, 24 July 2006 (BST)
No - The spam vote still needs to act as a kill in the event that the suggestion recieves enough keeps that it is not considered spamworthy. What does need to happen is a slight change in the spam rules so that a lower number of keeps is enough to save a suggestion from spamination. --Tethran 21:46, 24 July 2006 (BST)
No -Most of the time, when a suggestion gets any Spam votes, they get what is needed to be removed, so the question of "value" is moot in those cases. The question of Spam Vote Value only applies to those cases when a suggestion does NOT have the request number of Spam votes. If a voters honestly believes the suggestion is irredeemable, why should their vote suddenly not count because others do not agree? THAT is the very nature of voting and the choices the voters make should not be limited by how everyone else voted. The vote should be how the VOTER wants to vote.--Pesatyel 19:54, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- Great point. --Mookiemookie 21:06, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Spam - I gotta go with Xoid and Karlsbad on this one. (Also I could have just voted No, but this will most likely annoy you more.) --Niilomaan 19:58, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- ^^^ Evidence of how spam is used for drama, lol. Anyway it takes a whole lot more than that to annoy me. - Jedaz 08:50, 26 July 2006 (BST)
No - Spam means that it should be removed... so .: Its taken for granted that you don't agree with it; so if it wasn't worth eradication, its at least worth your "No" isn't it? --Adrian 18:01, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - I think that spam voting should be for suggestions that are shoddily thought-out or simply ridiculous in terms of gameplay. If an idea actually merited a spam, frankly it should be pretty obvious so that at least most people would be voting spam. If there's uncertainty about it, then perhaps there is some sort of redeeming angle to the suggestion that the spam voters forgot to consider or refused to recognize, and then Spam should be just that, not a vote for or against, but a vote of "Who the hell thought up this crap? I can tell it's shit just by glancing at it." I do think that once it is obvious that a spam vote will not succeed, that people should be able to change their spam vote to kill, if they actually went and did a follow-up look on what they were spamming. Thus in the follow-up look, they could also read the proposal and votes again to try and figure out why some people thought this proposal deserved a keep.--Experiment 19:31, 26 July 2006 (BST)
No - Spam is well modeled just as it is. It works well in day to day use as the house keeping tool it was intended to be. Removing its value in no way detracts from trolling and will only serve to clutter peer rejected further. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 22:07, 26 July 2006 (BST)
- Tally - 15 Yes, 12 No, 7 Spam, 34 Total --Gage^CFT 03:07, 27 July 2006 (BST)
  - ~~Could easily have abused a loophole in the rules to have this spaminated by now, hell, even days ago,~~ but it looks like this is failing on its own "merits". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 03:19, 27 July 2006 (BST)
    - CNR the rules I wrote for fuck's sake. Damn that's embarassing. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:56, 27 July 2006 (BST)
      - lol, oh well no one would have remembered if you wrote them or not if you didn't bring it up. - Jedaz 07:39, 27 July 2006 (BST)
    - Haha, do it, Xoid! --Ron Burgundy 04:56, 28 July 2006 (BST)
      - I would love it if the policy about spams got spammed--Gage 14:29, 28 July 2006 (BST)
        Read the rules, anyway notice how he stuck out the part about how he could remove it? Thats because it can't be Spaminated. - Jedaz 03:16, 29 July 2006 (BST)
        I noticed, I was just saying it would be funny. --Gage 04:48, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Yes - But only if a new vote option opens up, "Insult" which would mean that the suggestion is an insult of the community. It'd be like a spam vote, but demeaning. -- 343 ^U! 01:25, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Moderator - Policy change failed. 16 Yes's, 12 No's and 7 Spam's. This will be archived next time the suggestions talk page gets archived. - Jedaz 04:57, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Intelligence FTW! Cyberbob Talk 05:00, 29 July 2006 (BST)

thank god sensibility won out--Gage 06:14, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Hey, 16 people thought this was sensible, if the vote was in reverse saying that Spam votes would count as something then it wouldn't have passed either. Infact a few of the people who voted Yes have a high profile, mind you though quite a few of the people who voted Spam have a high profile as well... either way there are people who honestly belive that this is sensible. Just because your perception of sensibility is different to someone elses you thinking that something isn't doesn't make it true for everyone. - Jedaz 10:12, 29 July 2006 (BST)

are you kidding? the minority won just because of a system where majority of votes doesn't constitute a win. im for one very sick of people voting spam at least once on 99% of the suggestions and almost always in violation of the rules, this would have ended the misuse-- John Teabags 00:54, 30 July 2006 (BST)

The "Minority" is actuall 12+7=19. 19 people voted AGAINST the Suggestion, and 16 people voted FOR. Do not discount the Spam Vote as well. It is still a vote.--ShadowScope 01:00, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Sour grapes! FUCK YEAH! --Mookiemookie 02:03, 30 July 2006 (BST)

can anyone disagree or make a statement things immediately being kindergarden childish? - John Teabags 02:37, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Only when said person isn't proven (see shadowscope above) to have no high-level comprehention skills. --Karlsbad 02:40, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry i am not lolelite like yourself. perhaps i need a little help to fully grasp the words i need to use or how they go together, but at least i tried to be positive and not just someone contented to rip others into shreds -- John Teabags 02:45, 30 July 2006 (BST)

When you act like you know better than others and then fail (with flying colors!) to back it up, you only rip yourself, Teabag. --Karlsbad 02:51, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Back it up yourself. I made a statement about how i felt about the idea and the final numbers. You can't pretend that i said I "knew better" about anything! what the hell! i think your just misudnerstanding my complant as any kind of position i have to defend. i don't need to defend my opinion to anyone, least of all some guys who run a wiki. didn't think id ever say "you are misunderstanding" to someone else! lol!!- John Teabags 02:59, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Seems that you are writing paragraphs when all I have to do is point out that you said the minority won just because of a system where majority of votes doesn't constitute a win and then point to when ShadowScope said The "Minority" is actuall 12+7=19. 19 people voted AGAINST the Suggestion, and 16 people voted FOR. Do not discount the Spam Vote as well. This is backing myself up because I am using actual text and reasoning to show that you have failed to understand the concepts of this voting process, much less basic math. Secondly I could point out where you said i am not lolelite like yourself and then point out the lol!! you included in your text, proving that you are actually far more prone to lol-off something rather than actually contribute. Therefore I submit that while I can actually infer through reasoning and logic, you can only continue to spin your wheels with your .05 horsepower motor of a brain. --Karlsbad 03:17, 30 July 2006 (BST)

when u can back up saying i said i knew more than others, let me know becase you sure havent even tried to do it. in fact all u did was talk alot without addressing the issue. save your breath and maybe think about ur life trying to filabuster newbies -- John Teabags 05:38, 30 July 2006 (BST)

You didn't say it, numbskull, you inferred it. Don't you remember what you wrote? I'll highlight your ingnorance in lime, the response in yellow, and where you reaffirm your ignorance in pink. Whether you like it or note, "Yes" votes are the only votes that count towards the policy being implemented. This was not a case of a minority of dissenters ensuring this policy did not pass, it was a case of a majority of dissenters ensuring this policy did not pass. Go away, patois. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:08, 30 July 2006 (BST)

"Back it up yourself"? What are you, 12? Cyberbob Talk 03:10, 30 July 2006 (BST)

and another school kid piles in to chant 'fight fight fight'! -- John Teabags 05:38, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Congratulations. You just admitted by inference that you have worse spelling and grammar than a 16-year-old. Cyberbob Talk 06:23, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Spam What Shadowscope said. --Karlsbad 01:50, 30 July 2006 (BST)

~~voting has ended, vote struck. Ybbor 03:06, 30 July 2006 (BST)~~

He already voted, and this wasn't an actual vote, Karlsbad was being sarcastic. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:08, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Some of the voters made ACTUAL points on why they voted the way the did. The issue was NOT how quickly a suggestion can get voted off. It has nothing to do with a suggestion getting 7, 9 or 12 spam votes or any of the reasons people vote spam (be it to just be an ass and try to get a suggestion removed). It only has to do with those cases where less than the number of spam votes needed for removal are used. If 5 people vote spam and 20 people vote keep or kill, why should those 5 people's votes NOT count if they honestly believe the suggestion was a spammable one (or even if they were just being dicks)? The fact that the suggestion was NOT spammed off the page is evidence enough that the suggestion has some merit, even if those 5 voters don't feel that way. And, as Xoid pointed out, negating the spam votes on a mediocre suggestion has the potential to get it sent to Peer Review instead of Peer Rejected.--Pesatyel 10:05, 30 July 2006 (BST)

And this is why it was a fucking stupid idea to begin with. Because one person thinks its a ZOMG GREAT IDEA KEEPER FER SHURE! and another thinks its horrible, that person who disagrees and thinks its horrible gets fucked on their vote. Goddamn people, stop trying to bully people out of voting how they want. --Mookiemookie 18:40, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Wrong sec, sorry.

Talk:Suggestions/archive16

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

Limited IP Sharing

Thrash (Tear V3.0)

Rotate URLs

Suggestions Page

Second Server

Developing Suggestions

Visibility (V.2)

Mall store names

Hindering Clutter

Frenzied Looting

Looter

Scent Horde

Engineering

Cable Ties

Dismemberment

Destroying Barricades Gives XP

Acute Hearing

Infrared Heat Detector

Crossing Over

Barricade Variance

Will To Survive/Kill

Shutters

Scent Metal

Stench of Death version three

Chainsaw & Chainsaw skill

Safes

MP5 Submachinegun

No Matter What It Takes!

Hand Grenades

Military Bombing

Napalm Air-Raids

Crackshots V.1.5

Storage

Further Discussion

Previous Days Suggestions

Worst Suggestions

Spam Bots have Rights Too!

Spam vote validity

Add Author to Suggestion Template

Policy Discussion

Spam vote value

Striking Out Non-author Re's is Stupid

Spam Removal

Spamminated Links

Spam vote validity

Policy Votes

Spam vote value

Navigation menu

Search