	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.

Scent Life

Timestamp:	05:05, 18 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Right now we have two skills that work as x-ray vision, Scent Trail and Scent Death. A zombie can smell a survivor that recently attacked him. Why is it that no survivor is up in arms about this? Probably because they're too ignorant to know it exists. Scent Death allows a zombie to find large zombie hordes without searching them out, x-ray vision indeed. Then survivors have the NecroNet where they can find zombies without searching. Once again x-ray vision. Players can also see the barricade levels from outside and see lights that are on. Why? Why is this allowed but any skill that says you can tell if a survivor was here in the past 3 days is shot down? My suggestion goes like this. It counters the uneven balance in UD griefing. Zombies can no longer clog revive points because of the recent update. However survivors can still combat revive zombies, with the penalty of being PKed as a counter grief, and they can barricade strafe. This suggestion allows zombies with the skill Scent Life be able to smell a building to see if it has survivors in it. "ZOMG x-ray!" Guess what? Zombies could use spy accounts they wanted to. This saves you the trouble of worrying about a free runner capturing you and your buddies. 1 AP - You can sniff a building to see if it has 25+ people in it. This is usually obvious because PDs, Hospitals, NTs, and Malls have these kind of numbers. 2 AP - You can sniff a building for 20 survivors. 3 AP - You can sniff for 15 survivors. 4 AP - You can sniff for 10 survivors. 5 AP - You can sniff for 5 survivors. This is all stacked. So if you sniff once for 1 AP and get nothing you'll need to sniff for 2 AP. That's 3 AP total. In all you'll use 15 AP sniffing a building. Also you can't skip a sniff level. If you want to know if there is 5 people in there you'll need to sniff 5 times in a row for 15 AP. Breaking a sniff chain will result in starting it over. That means if you sniff 3 times and then bash you'll need to start at 1 AP again. The point in sniffing taking up more AP as it goes on is because it's easier to catch the scent of a lot of survivors than a few. I think this is a fair suggestion. It costs a lot of AP to find out if there are survivors in a building. If the building is EH and you sniff all the way to 5 survivors you won't have enough AP to take it down by yourself. This would mean you'll need to be coordinated, or you can wait until tomorrow to attack. This eliminates zombie spies and barricade strafing.

Votes

SPAM For all the talk about it not being x-ray vision... it's x-ray vision. I'm a zombie and I don't want this. And whether it's kept or not, it sure won't be implemented... "Zombie spies could do this" is not a sufficient excuse for implementing something that's completely against the spirit of the game. Rheingold 05:09, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - So when the chance comes to end griefing and spying but does not go into x-ray vision anymore than Scent Death, Scent Trail, NecroNet, and such does you want to shoot it down? Sounds good to me. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 05:14, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re Necronet and Scent Death are not x-ray vision skills. Spotting zombies outside doesn't confer any tangible advantage to human players, thus why Necronet is so rarely used and why Scent Death is rarely used except by ferals trying to find the nearest horde. Neither of these skills does what yours does, i.e. reveal what's behind barricades hence the term x ray. And the comparison between them & your suggestion in an attempt to justify the latter is fallacious. Regardless of whether you want to admit it or not this suggestion violates Suggestion D&D's therefore it should be Spaminated. I would frickin' love to have this skill as a zombie but it would break the game. Rheingold 08:14, 18 August 2006 (BST)

Spam - Mostly because, no matter how much you argue against this, it is 100% X-rays vision. And because chained actions are a NOT in the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots: Everyone has to read them, even you Sonny. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 05:29, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - I read the dos and don'ts and 99% of the suggestions go against those rules anyway. Some even get voted in. However this "x-ray vision" is on par with "x-ray vision" already in the game. Make a suggestion to remove all the "x-ray vision" already in it. Do it. It'll get spaminated. Stop being a hypocrite and allowing one thing and not another. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 05:31, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re - Grow up man, I'm not attacking you personally, just the suggestion. This is X-ray vision in the way we don't like it: too direct. And you're saying the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots are better ignored? That's happening already and pretty much every suggestion sucks. Personally I think that the suggestions wuold be better if they actually were followed. Chained actions are complicated, difficult to code and stupid in nature: if the suggestion had a more straight way to be used it wuold be better, but it still wuold be X-rays. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 05:51, 18 August 2006 (BST)
    - Re - And why are the other things I mentioned in the game even though they are "x-ray vision"? Maybe because "x-ray vision" is allowed in the game and that spamming it for that reason is stupid? Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 05:56, 18 August 2006 (BST)
      - Re - I didn't vote on them =P, and they're more indirect ways (and more crappy, or not 100% certain) than yours: yours is an "I'm standing outside and by my *insert nose/mind/something stupid here* sense everyone inside" skill, and we call them X-rays. And I still gave more than one reason for my vote, you just ignore it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 06:04, 18 August 2006 (BST)
        Re - But it doesn't work for groups of survivors under 5. This will encourage survivors to be the nomads they're supposed to be. Unless you want them to be Trenchcoating Rambos that want to kill zombies dead in the worst military-like fashion. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 06:08, 18 August 2006 (BST)
        Re - The nomads they're supposed to be? I tought that that was everyone's choice: you're just trying to force survivors to be the nomads you want them to be. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 06:35, 18 August 2006 (BST)
        Non author Re. C'mon Rheingold, you know you shouldn't do this anymore. If you continue to disrespect the rules I'll make a vandal report. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 08:27, 18 August 2006 (BST)
        My mistake, I got in an edit conflict and just pasted it in after the last Re. Should have been above - I've moved it now. As they say, don't assume malice where incompetence is a sufficient explanation... lol. By the way you should probably move your argument to the discussions page. Rheingold 13:02, 18 August 2006 (BST)

Kill - This wont eliminate zombie spies, it just offers an AP expensive alternative for those zombie players who don't use them. It'll still be easier for a spy to free run explore an area of 20-30 buildings for survivor groupings and then report back to a group of zeds, than for the group of zeds to spend 15AP (worst case) each sniffing out where the groupings are. Besides, however expensive you make it, it's still X-Raying and that's just wrong. (Out of interest...does Necronet report track where the tagged zeds are, or just show where they were tagged? If it's the former, it should be the latter. If it's the latter then it's not X-Raying as someone has to got out and get the data). –Ray Vern phz ^•T
- Re - The majority of zombies groups do not use spies and would use this instead because they believe free running spies is an unfair advantage that zombies have. See, zombies do not want to grief but harmanz like to make "decoys" to grief. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 16:27, 18 August 2006 (BST)

Spam - No zombie, author included, is gonna waste 45 AP to scout 3 buildings. It does not even being to make sense. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 16:34, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - I forgot. Honest zombies would rather spend 50 AP on one building and then find out it's completely empty. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 16:37, 18 August 2006 (BST)

Kill -I don't see how Scent Trail and Scent Death are "X-Ray." If I am in square A and I scent a horde in square C, I can SEE the horde by moving to square B. Hardly X-Ray. Both Scent Trail and NecroNet access have requirements for them to work (Trail requires contact and the zombie "remembers" the survivor and NTA requires DNA extraction). If this idea (hence why I voted kill and not spam) had similar requirements....--Pesatyel 01:45, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - Scent Death is x-ray because by using a skill you can see things not in your current position. Scen Trail tells you where the person who attacked you is without you searching him down. If it wasn't for this skill you could hunt him down in every building near you. Chances of finding him are slim. But with that skill you can find him right away using magic zombie powers. This skill does a similar thing. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 02:11, 19 August 2006 (BST)
Scent Death DOESN'T COUNT, not as an example for you. Does Scent Trail allow you to see through barricades?--Pesatyel 18:20, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Kill - Yet another suggestion that will hit survivors where they are weakest (unpopulated suburbs) and have little to no effect in the stronger suburbs -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 03:32, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - You didn't read it did you? This does not hurt low populated suburbs. This helps zombies find targets in strafed suburbs and medium populated suburbs. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:39, 19 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re - Of course I read it. And I know (from playing as in a zombie group as well) that if this comes in, it will make it a lot harder for my survivor group to hide in the low population area they are. The local zombies will be able to find which barricaded building we are in without having to knock down the cades on any of our decoy buildings -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 15:40, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Enhanced Scent, Another Scent Life, New Scent Skill (has links), and these in Peer Review Sense Prey, and Scent Life. So we could just argue Dupe and be done with it.--Pesatyel 19:20, 19 August 2006 (BST)

MP5 Submachinegun (updated)

Timestamp:	18:36, 16 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Weapons
Scope:	Survivors, Military
Description:	The MP5 would be found in Armories and Mansions, and you would have a 5% chance of finding one at an Armory, and a 1.25% in a Mansion. A magazine is also only found there, at a 6% chance of finding one in an Armory, a 2% in a Mansion. 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 got rid of the second skill because it made this gun too powerful. 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. I did not want it for the Police department for a simple reason: you can already find all the guns there, so there's about 10-80 survivors in each. And with it being in a Mansion, comes a possible new zombie spawning: The rich mansion people paid NecroTech to make the zombies, and they got powerful weapons, and planned to hold the zombies off and look good, but the zombies got out of control and the rich people fled!

Votes

Comment -- When maxed out, this does equal average damage to a maxed out Fire Axe (1.2) and the chance to do at least 2 damage is 48.8%. Therefor, this lacks the benefits of a Firearm(Large amounts of reliable damage in a short time) while at the same time lacking the benefits of a Fireaxe (No preperation required, cannot run out of ammo). If you were to increase the maximum to-hit per bullet to 30% (which is possibly what your mysteryskill did), the chance to hit for a minimum of 2 becomes 65.7%, and the damage per AP becomes 1.8. This could probably be implemented using the Flare method of halving the to-hit. This would give it an extremely low base to-hit (which makes sense, have you ever seen someone trying to fire a machine gun for the first time?), a Basic Firearms to-hit of 15% per bullet (38.5875% chance to score at least 2HP damage, damage per AP of 0.9) and the max damage/to-hit mentione above. This is still way lower than a pistol, but the higher clip-size makes up for that--Gene Splicer 16:28, 17 August 2006 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

This section is for suggestions which have not yet been submitted, and are still being worked on. Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

Limited Zombie Item Usage

Timestamp:	Nob666 13:10, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill Addition
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	After a long time of carrying unused stuff around, zombies start to remember how to use certain items. Zombies are introduced a new skill called Item Handling, which enables a limited use of a few items. A drop-down menu and a box stating "Use" are added to user interface, the menu containing only the items that can be operated. Using an item costs 1 AP and the following items are affected: GPS = Zombies can now check their GPS coordinates within the game. "Clumsily, you take out your GPS unit. The screen reads: [XX, YY]." Radio = Using the radio brings up the normal tuning screen. "With a strong grip, you turn the knob to frequency 2X.XX" Mobile Phone = When a zombie's mobile phone beeps, it is now possible to check who sent the message and read the message. Sending text messages is still impossible. For balance reasons, first-aid kits and revivification syringes are not usable.

Votes
Placed this here for people to see and give their opinions and ideas about the suggestion. I'm not completely sure about the mobile phone mechanics as I'm more of a zombie player, but if there's any greater problems with the phone part just let me know. --Nob666 13:16, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Not too bad an idea. I'd say either make it PART of MoL (my preference since MoL should be more than just "open door") or a skill under it. It might be easier to just have the buttons appear as if the character were a survivor instead of a drop down menu.--Pesatyel 03:23, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Its got my keep.Youronlyfriend 05:07, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Feeding drag change

Timestamp:	11:20, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill alteration, improvement
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Feeding drag, the only attack that you can't use against your own kind. I purpose that we change it so that feeding drag is usable on Zombies by Zombies. In most cases when a Zombie is down to 12 hp they will usually be killed, so why not allow feeding drag? Pros: Survivors will aim to get more Zombie skills so they can try and help clear buildings in their Zombie state. When Zombies get dragged out they won't face the inevitable headshot that would normaly follow. Cons: Buildings can be cleared ever so slightly quicker, but not as quick as a few shotgun blasts to the head. Notes: No other game mechanics need to be changed. If you are attacking a weak Zombie then feeding drag would target the Zombie you were attacking, just the same as if you changed to a different attack.

Votes
No Votes here for now

Just something I noticed while I was playing. I wanted to run this by people first and see what they thought. - Jedaz 11:20, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Could you just clarify a few things here for me. Are you suggesting that as well as zombies being able to use feeding drag on each other, survivors should be able to use it on zombies? The biggest problems I see are from zombie the fact that it's hard to tell one zombie from another. For this to work, there would also need to be a change that ment low hp zombies could be told apart from the crowd, otherwise how would you know who to try and drag out? The Mad Axeman 12:46, 28 August 2006 (BST)

As The Mad Axeman said, for this skill to work you have to know which zombie is below 12 HP and which is not. But if such a change would be introduced, weakest zombies could be wiped out with ease. --Nob666 13:04, 28 August 2006 (BST)

I'm talking about Zombies being able to move other Zombies, not survivors being able to move Zombies. (I'll put changes in bold) Also you don't need to be able to tell one Zombie apart from another because when you attack it says the HP level and thus once you get the Zombie to the nessacary HP you can then just use feeding drag against them. - Jedaz 02:19, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Okay, so basically the idea is to allow a zombie to drag another zombie out of a building as per normal Feeding Drag? Wouldn't that break zombie anonymity?--Pesatyel 03:26, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Yes, thats basicaly the idea. How do you think it would break Zombie anonymity? It doesn't break it any more then attacking another person does. - Jedaz 05:02, 29 August 2006 (BST)

God. Not another Zombie vs Survivor/Zombie idea. Youronlyfriend 05:10, 29 August 2006 (BST)

How would it hurt to have it? If a Zombies at 12HP or less they are likely to be killed soon anyway so it doesn't matter much if they are dragged out of a building or not. - Jedaz 05:41, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Limit on actions

Timestamp:	15:11, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Cheating countermeasure
Scope:	Zergs/bots
Description:	Simply put, the game would have a limit on how many actions can be done by a certain IP adress in a half second. The game registers the first one, but ignores the rest. This would keep zergers from doing something all at once, and would keep bots from doing much at all. Normal players would not be affected. Who has the connection/ability to do more than one action a second except for bots and zergers?

Votes
Keep - seems a little iffy, I don't know about the technical aspects, but it seems alright for now. --Kiltric 05:44, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Keep - I agree. We need this in game. Liberator 06:07, 28 August 2006 (BST)

This would still hurt players. I can quickly barricade by slaming the button every time the page reloads. Anyway bots have already been slowed down a bit by being forced to load the page each time. We can't do anything much else which wouldn't hurt real players IMO. - Jedaz 02:24, 29 August 2006 (BST)

As I remember, some time ago there was a very detailed technical suggestion on the suggestions page to slow down bots. Kevan read the suggestion and said that he came up with an idea of his own, so I guess he's already doing something about the problem. --Nob666 10:47, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Skill Price Changes

Timestamp:	15:11, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill changes
Scope:	All Players
Description:	Right now, there is a problem with how the game works. All the skills cost the same. Think about it. You start out with low acuracy, so it is hard to gain XP by fighting. When you are a higher level, you gain XP easily. As shown. As you get stronger, the game gets easier. I suggest making it so higher level skills cost more, and the lower level ones cost less. Anyone is open to give ideas of what the prices should be.

Votes
It's a nice sentiment, but we've got the problem of an established community. Technically, this is a beta, but people are still unwilling to give up their level 40 character. What do we do about existing high-level characters, reset and refund their XP? I would be able to live with that, it would give me something to work towards again, but lots of people will disagree strongly with a server reset. --Burgan 16:20, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Besides, this has already been suggested a few times. I don't know if any made it into Peer Review (not likely), but you might want to search through past suggestions for discussion on the subject.--Pesatyel 03:06, 25 August 2006 (BST)

As said, it is a nice idea, a great one, imho, but the difficulty lies in implementing it. You may even want to send a message to Kevan to talk it out, or bring his attention to this page. I know this is a good idea, but it really depends on how many see it that way. Good luck. --Kiltric 05:51, 28 August 2006 (BST)

SKill Loss on Revive/Death

Timestamp:	12:53, 23 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	All Players
Description:	Players in Urban Dead plateau on the skill tree and become frustrated and bored with the experience whilst also stockpiling XP. This makes it easy for them to attain slowly implemented new skills taking all challenge out of the game. Also when a player has obtained all the skills apart from Rot it makes no difference to be Zombie of Human apart from that of tastes. To make it more interesting and to use up the cache of XP that most players have a few minor skill sets could be added, for example +5% accuracy or whatever, that gets whiped when the player dies or is revived. This would mean there are always skills to learn on death/revive, it would use up XP cache, it would give a balanced but slight advantage to staying in character, and it would make encounters more exciting. I dont have the time or energy to take this to the suggestions page but if someone wants to run with it and think up applications and skills then that would be great. Thanks.

Votes
Votes here

I can already tell you this will be spammed off the page within minutes. People do NOT like the idea of losing skills. Besides, what about low levels? And, lastly, if you don't "have the time or energy" why are you wasting OUR time with this drivel? Look through previous suggestions.--Pesatyel 03:09, 25 August 2006 (BST)

As with Pesatyel, this will be shot down. As much as I love ideas that help consume the extra XP people stockpile. However, I don't think that this is the way to go. --Kiltric 06:04, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Smoke Grenades

Timestamp:	22:26, 21 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	item
Scope:	all
Description:	Smoke Grenades are a new item found in Armories, police stations, mall sporting goods stores, and to a small percent in other buildings. When activated, the space it is activated on is shrouded in smoke, making human and zombie impossible to tell apart. It also makes figuring out exactly how many users (human AND zombie) are on the space. for 2-5, it says "several hazy figures" for 6-8, it says "quite a few hazy figures" for 9-12, it says "many hazy figures" and for 12+ it says "a multitude of hazy figures". When in a smoke-filled area, the surrounding blocks cannot be clearly seen, so any humans or zombies in them cannot be identified. When attacking in a smoke-filled space, all attacks take a -10% to hit (percentage flexable) , and specific targets cannot be selected (if there are barricades they can still be selected to attack). If used outside, entering the building on that space restores your vision, and if used inside, exiting does the same. Once activated, the duration of the smoke is 5 minutes. All smoke grenades have a 80% chance of even working. Smoke grenades leave no spam messages but smokey spaces are shown on the map instead of the space's inhabitants, and flares launched in a smokey area have no effect. Submit suggestions as well.

Votes
Votes here

Author Keep -I feel these are not too powerful and could be a good offensive AND defensive device. --Mr Backwards 22:26, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Yippee! Now my Flare Gun has a -5% chance to hit! (But I do like the inability to recognize)--Canuhearmenow 22:29, 21 August 2006 (BST)

hey, with advanced firearm training its 5% to hit :) --Mr Backwards 22:31, 21 August 2006 (BST)

This needs to be worked on more, although you have the right idea. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:34, 21 August 2006 (BST)

First of all, smoke grenades in the mall? Not only does that not make sense (no offense), but malls do NOT need more stuff in them. So, if I'm in a square WITH smoke, I can't see ANY of the 9 squares of the map, but if smoke is in a square to my left THAT is the only square I can't see? What about buildings? Would they be visible? And what about indoor/outdoor? If I'm in a square with smoke, can I see the other people in the square with me (I'd think you would have to be able to). And why do smoke grenades only have an 80% chance of working?--Pesatyel 02:36, 22 August 2006 (BST)

i put them in sporting goods stores, since they'd probably be fond there if anywhere, but i can scrap that if need be. When in smoke, you can see all the spaces, just not people or zombies on them until you exit the smoke. I outlined the inside/outside guidelines, but essentually when used inside the building retains the smoke, and when used outside entering a building shields you from the smoke. When you are a space away from the smoke, you see it in the distance hiding all characters. when in a smokey space, zombie and human are indecipherable, and general numbers are given (as listed above). i said all this, did you even read it? they are 80% to work cuz i imagine they might be kinda tricky to activate, but i can up it to 90 or even 95% if thats prefferable. --Mr Backwards 08:33, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Before anything else, I have to say that a duration of 5 minutes is extrememly short. Most likely, all the people in the effected square will be logged off, and still will be once the effect expires. No-one will even know it happened, except for a message saying "Someone used a smoke grenaid (9 hours and 22 minutes ago)". Furthermore, I can only see limited use for them. You could use one to slow down a zombie sirge, by reducing their chances to hit the barricades... but beyond that I can't see many applications. The Mad Axeman 12:29, 23 August 2006 (BST)

It's kinda okay... but 5 minutes is no good. limited duration things are always tricky, it either needs to be a much longer time, or maybe AP based. --Kiltric 06:16, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Firearm Audibility

Timestamp:	Mr Backwards 06:55, 20 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Improvement (for the sake of realism)
Scope:	All
Description:	In the game, there is no real difference between attacking with firearms and hand weapons other than that hand weapons do less damage and dont use ammo. I dont know if you've ever fired a gun in real life, but the result is deafening. In order to be more realistic, the gunshots should be broadcast like feeding groan, such as "You hear shots fired from 1 block north". Rather than have it broadcast this for each shot, it should do it once and ignore all shots fired until an AP is used for something other than combat (and re-loading). Silencers could be implemented for pistols (found in gun stores 2%, armories 4%, and police stations .5%), and be attatched and removed for 1 AP. since there are really no shotgun silencers i figure they shouldnt be programmed.

Votes

Im going to put my vote in the right area. Im sorry, but this would be mostly useless and cause a TON of spam. (You move, shoot, move, shoot, move, shoot, etc) --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 16:22, 22 August 2006 (BST)
I would spam because it would create un-necessary message spam, a simmilar idea's been done before and spamed. There just no reason to have

this. - Jedaz 06:58, 20 August 2006 (BST)

I knew I saw this before. Just took awhile to find it. Realism should be a part of every suggestion, but it shouldn't really be the ONLY part of the suggestion. The key thing to do would be to ask yourself is it fun? While this would be very realistic, it wouldn't really be fun (though the silencer idea is cool but way open to abuses). As Jedaz said (as well as all the kill/spam voters in the linked suggestion), all it would do is create spam.--Pesatyel 17:53, 20 August 2006 (BST)

Author Keep - oops forgot to add my pro. and for the record, i would find it fun because it would help me find epic battles to join. --Mr Backwards 23:40, 20 August 2006 (BST)

Something else too is that the linked suggestion said zombies CAN'T hear the shots. But given that, it seriously limits the effect.--Pesatyel 02:39, 22 August 2006 (BST)

This game has zombies, the living dead, walking the streets. Realism has nothing to do with it. A suggestion based solely on realism is probably a bad idea, and this would hurt survivors. --Paradox244 ^W! ^TJ! 02:13, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Feral Defence

	Author Removed
	This suggestion was removed by the original author because No one seems opposed to ZKing.

Yet Another Storage

Timestamp:	ShadowScope 16:29, 16 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Suriviors, ~~zergs~~.
Description:	Alright. I got inspired by previous suggestions, and I hope this does not stink or get spammed. My idea is Portable Safes. A Portable Safe would be found only in Banks (10%). When you get a Portable Safe, you'll see it weighs 11 Pounds. This is because it holds 11 bits of information, 10 "bits" for the 10 items it can store inside...and the 1 "bit" that stores the passcode needed to open the safe. You can place a Safe anywhere. But there can only be one Safe per building. When you set up the Portable Safe, you decide the passcode for the Safe. The passcode is a digit, 0-9. Once you set the Passcode, the Safe is automatically "tuned" to that Number, like one would tune a radio. Everyone in the room sees: There is a Portable Safe here. It is open. Now, the person can deposit all the items he wants into that safe, filling it up. When he drops an item into the safe, he gets a 60% chance of that item getting into the safe. (If the person fails, it says: You try to place the item into the safe, but it drops and is lost on the floor) I know 100% sounds reasonable, but it would aid zerging too much. A zerger doesn't need to make a seperate account to trade to his other account. All a Zerger can do is basically drop all the items he want into the said safe, and then have legit players use those items. The Zergers helped out Humanity, and the legit players has unwittingly cheated. After he filled the safe up (The Safe is full. You cannot put any more items in), he must tune it to a different number, so that the Safe closes. To do so, he must click onto the Portable Safe, and then tune it to a different number. Then it says: There is a Portable Safe here. It is closed. Now, the Safe is closed, and nobody can get it. To get the stuff inside of the safe, one must click on the Portable Safe, and tune it to the correct passcode to open the Safe. He can then start SEARCHING inside of the safe for the goodies. Here is where the mandatory anti-zerg protection comes in. You have a base 40% chance to find something inside of the safe (Bumped to 45% with Gennys). [These odds are a bit better than searching in Malls, but not much more] If you trip up the zerg flag, you have a 0% chance to search inside of the Safe. The Zerger will spend all his AP searching in the safe, and then realizes...he cannot get it. The anti-zerg protection extends to the Player dropping items into the Safe. he will get a 0% chance to drop anything inside of the Safe. When you find something in the Safe, that item is taken away from the Safe Inventory and is given to you. If you don't want it, you may have to give it back to the Safe for 1 AP, having a small chance that it might be lost, or just drop it and save the trouble of using 1 AP. The player searching inside of the Safe will not get any message knowing if the Safe is full, or if it is empty or anything. This is to allow for people to waste AP searching in an empty safe, thinking they are almost close, just a little close to grabbing something in that Safe, while blaming the RNG for not being friendly today. It's a risk you take. Of course, one could just try to place an Item inside of the safe, to see if the Safe is indeed full, before they start looting it. But what if the Safe is only half-full? Is that still good? And you also lose a valuable item...unless you throw away a DNA Extractor. Then everyone will hate you for clogging the safe with useless stuff. Now, the passcode system is used to protect the Portable Safe from being looted by theives and Death Cultists. Not by a lot though. Since there are 10 possible passwords, and if it is assumed it is already tuned to another number that isn't the password, it will take about 18 clicks (prehaps 18 AP if that bug of clicking on the radio and then clicking to tune it is not fixed, 9 AP if the bug is fixed) to crack the code and begin looting the Safe. Still, it would discourge DCers, as they realize that those AP would be better spent crowbaring the Safe to begin with. Or you know, crowbar those living heatens. The Passcode system may be very limiting, as it can't be open for anyone and everyone. You may invalidate this Protection by simply posting the Passcode on your group's wiki page or on the fourms. Meta-game, basically. People know the passcode and then can go in and drop and pick up items. Be warned though, as a public Passcode gives free rein to Trenchcoaters who care for themselves and not for the group or humanity as a whole. Plus, public safes tend to have nothing useful, and have ton of people wasting AP grabbing, well, nothing. Private Safes are better, because you can co-ordinate with your fellow Humans on how best to use the equipment. And you are less likely to have junk equipment and to see the safe be empty. Safes can hold anything, as long as the total it holds is 10 "bits". This can cause some overflowing, especially with the Radio. Safes can be destroyed. If they are destroyed, everything inside of them is lost.

Votes
????-I don't know if it is a good idea. I hope so. I'm not that worried about server strain, but if it does play a big role, then I could limit it only to Banks to hold Portable Safes, giving them a use. I also hope that the precentages and the RNG checks you must face will limit zerginess.--ShadowScope 16:29, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Keep - Add Mansions to the list of places you can find it. Like 6% (Those Monopoly Moguls...)--Canuhearmenow 16:51, 16 August 2006 (BST)
I know the random search is an nice attempt to spite the zergers, but that makes the suggestion pretty atrocious in my eyes, and I don't think every building should be able to have a safe. I think the best way to go about storage is to have it only Banks, with optionally smaller ones in mansions, and put a code on that. There would need to be some inactivity-reset timer, or a way to attack it and trash the contents/reset the code. Did you see this?--Burgan 18:10, 16 August 2006 (BST)
1. Yes, I have Burgan. However, that suggestion hasn't been sent to the Suggestion page yet, as well as the Storage one, so I do not know for certain if it would work. It has served as inspiration for this suggestion. Limiting it to only Banks are a good idea...1 Safe per Bank. I could have a smaller, more Private Safes located donly in Mansions, with a code on that. I have to go right now, I'll come up with a rewrite later.--ShadowScope 03:01, 17 August 2006 (BST)

There was also this discussion from back in May and this suggestion, also from May. I like the "Safes" suggestion Burgan mentioned or the "Stash" suggestion I mentioned.--Pesatyel 02:51, 17 August 2006 (BST)

AoE Guidelines

Timestamp:	16:05, 14 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Assistance for "Elegant Implementations"
Scope:	AoE Suggestions
Description:	(Suggestion and comments removed, both can be found here. I am still not entirely sure what the ettiquette/procedure for clearing suggestions and so forth fromthe talk page are, if I have screwed up, tell me so I will know for future reference) I am attempting to put forward a theoretical mechanic for AoE attacks that would hopefully pass into peer review. If this was succesfull, if someone wished to make a suggestion which required an AoE effect but did not want to be bogged down creating what could be only a minor facet of their suggestion, they could instead reference a set of known accepted AoE mechanics. If I or anyone else put forward a standard single-target weapon or attack, all we would have to get right is flavour, damage(if applicable), accuracy(if applicable) and other effects(if applicable). If is is an AoE suggestion, we have to get all of these right, and also come up with a working AoE mechanic for a game that currently does not use them. It is comparable to trying to suggest both the car and the wheel at the same time, or suggesting a pistol if the game did not yet have ammunition mechanics. The point of the (now removed) suggestion was to take the only AoE method that the wiki has determined to be useable Yet Another SMG, extrapolate it to cover situations not covered in the existing suggestion, and then hopefully allow it to be passed into peer review. If anyone later came up with a suggestion for something which required an AoE effect, they could if they wished simply reference an existing, acceptable AoE method, then move on to all the things that made their suggestion unique. It was not my intention to make using these methods compulsory, but to make the option available to those who wished to use it. Given this slightly more understandable explanation of my goals, does anyone think this is a good idea, is this the right place to post it, and does anyone have any suggestions?--Gene Splicer 21:26, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Votes
Me likee. I don't think Area of Effect suggestions are necessarily bad ideas, and a set of acceptable AoE methods to use could stop them getting auto-spammed. As long as there's some limitation on the attack to stop it being hugely overpowered in a large group, it's OK. Ways to not let AoE be too powerful could include limiting the maximum number of targets, as in the SMG suggestion. Or there could be a counter to an AoE skill that also scales up with the number of targeted players, (eg a zombie could release poison gas harming every survivor on the same square, unless at least one of them is a doctor.) Or an attack could do a fixed amount of damage, but it would be divided over a number of people.--Toejam 17:23, 26 August 2006 (BST)

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
if (!suggestions_page)

voting = false;

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
  W  C  E
  SW S SE

  A B  C  D E
  F NW N NE G
  H W  C  E 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)

Re: Incorrect- I am saying it would still take 2 AP to move 2 spaces. The advntage for this in the long run is if you're attempting to again, find a TRP, a Mall, or if you're just trying to move quickly. It works like this. Initally, you're down by 1 AP, since you had to enter the mode. Make that 2 AP, since you have to exit later. Anyways, here's how it works. If you're trying to move fast across a suburb, and a mall seige is between you and that entrance point, you use this, and go DIRECTLY to the entrance point so you don't die. Also, if you're trying to move long distances, loading a page after moving 2 spaces is far quicker than reloading after each move. ---Captain Leah- 14:16, 10 August 2006 (BST)

...go DIRECTLY to the entrance point so you don't die. And there in lies the problem. As Xoid and I pointed out, if you want to go form point A to point B, you take the risk associated. This does more to negate risk than it does to provide a bonus to the person using it. Don't remember where that hospital is? Guess you better look at the map, eh?--Pesatyel 18:51, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Re: The map isn't always online. Some people don't want to look at the map every single minute or so. Also, as I said earlier, it helps for people with odd internets by speeding up the moving process over long distances. My take, anyway. ---Captain Leah- 00:59, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Re: - so this is just to help planning your route and getting back to your safehouse then, correct? --Kiltric 18:14, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Don't forget avoiding combat.--Pesatyel 21:15, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Alright, now that I fully understand this, I'm saying keep. Hands down. --Kiltric 03:13, 13 August 2006 (BST)

I don't like this idea. You want to get from point A to point B, you take the risk associated with it. Besides, the map suggestion far outweighs this in terms of usefulness. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:00, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I'm with Xoid on this one. Take the risk. Look at a map. --Swmono ^{talk - W! - P! - SGP} 03:30, 11 August 2006 (BST)

I'd get behind this if moving while in that mode immediately brought you out of that mode. Essentially, you pay 1ap to take a good look around, but if you moved somewhere else, you need to spend another 1ap to have a good look around where you are /now/. Additionally, this would make more thematic sense if it came as a free-running subskill. --Gene Splicer 03:18, 14 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)

Why not have it affect buildings that would only have "one level" (buildings that would usually have one level in real life)? --Swmono ^{talk - W! - P! - SGP} 03:37, 11 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)
Kill - as above. perhaps just fiddle with the numbers a bit. --Kiltric 18:16, 12 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - How about 25%?--Canuhearmenow 18:23, 12 August 2006 (BST)
Kill - I like the idea. As above, change %'s. And >15 means less than 15%. --Gold Blade 23:55, 14 August 2006 (BST)
No. Think of it like the greedy crocodile, and put some angry eyes above the inequality sign, and maybe a snout, and some bumpy skin. Maybe even some consummate Vs. The greedy crocodile always opens towards the bigger option. X > 15 means X is greater than 15. This only pays off if the original search odds are less than the bonus given, i.e. original search odds < bonus.

Try making the search rate 1.5 times what it was before? Still, I don't think this skill is very useful, and I don't like the frenzied runs of searches. I have a skill that lets me go crazy by searching more successfully on a random chance? --Burgan 21:17, 15 August 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)

I agree with the run off ap things. Load it up, it gains (X) charges and one is expended every time you take an action. The only issue is(as Pesatyel mentioned), people would just fuel up when they were about to start slashing at things, and leave it off the rest of the time. This would make it function just like any other ammo weapon. One way to avoid this is to give your chainsaw a turn on/off cost. If you had the option to turn off your chainsaw, but it cost a few AP (and a little extra fuel) to turn it back on, it would encourage you to keep it running in situations where the ap required to pull the cord would be more valuable than the fuel ammo wasted.--Gene Splicer 17:36, 11 August 2006 (BST)

What sort of turn off cost did you have in mind? I think it should only cost to attack though, not bother with an idling cost. perhaps a turn on cost? Here's a thought though, what about having a probability of it starting, I know i've spent anywhere from 5 seconds to 10 minutes trying to get one started, so there could be the risk involved in it's use. --Kiltric 18:21, 12 August 2006 (BST)

What about a random amount (say 3-10)? Each time you turn it on, the computer randomly deducts some AP to represent that time it takes?--Pesatyel 21:18, 12 August 2006 (BST)

I don't like that, I prefer a percentage rate, a random AP amount will make AP budgeting that much harder. --Kiltric 03:15, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Well, if the damage were much higher, I could see the random AP to use. But yeah, it would make things overly difficult. You DO realize where this discussion is going to end up, right? THIS chainsaw suggestion is going to end up being a dupe of the one in Peer Review.--Pesatyel 09:41, 13 August 2006 (BST)

pretty much, but that really is the only way it works. sometimes I wish that Kevan would explain why he doesn't implement some of these suggestions. --Kiltric 11:29, 13 August 2006 (BST)

I was thinking a flat 1ap. A percentage chance to start would be interesting and realistic, but the chance to hit would have to be increased to make it worthwhile. For ease of convenience you could put the chance to turn on just be equal to your chance to hit with it. Also: 4 ammo slots not needed for fairness. It's pretty balanced as is. Just sick with the usual 2 --Gene Splicer 14:21, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Your chainsaw weapon and search buildings seems completely accurate. I also agree the chainsaw should weigh a lot (4 slots is perfect!) keep you on your toes looking for fuel when you can (but makes fuel more useful in the game as well...) I also agree that a zombie hunter skill permitting it's "full" usefulness is quite reasonable! People can be ash, le shotgun, le chainsaw, let's party no? You get a keep as is from me. But it also gets "dinged" by a flak jacket, which is quite cool. Oh 1 teensy little thing. Chainsaws should deal double damage to barricades, generators and radios there i said it, I'm sorry! Shoot me if you must, but.. I just had to, say it. You'll get a keep from me, well done! --MrAushvitz 05:37, 18 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord was going to vote keep on this as-is as well, then he read the poster's userpage. What are the guidelines when it comes to this sort of impass? -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 06:01, 18 August 2006 (BST)

If no one objects, the Lord God would like to 'swipe' this suggestion and make a change. When you fuel a chainsaw, it loses one use per AP used weather you are attacking or not. This would be like a pistol losing a bullet every time you move, even if you aren't firing. The effect is that you can fuel your chainsaw up and attack, or you can fuel it up, attack, and run away, losing gasoline as it idles. "Your chainsaw idles." would be added to every action message when your saw is fueled but not being used to attack. What does everyone thing? -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 23:49, 18 August 2006 (BST)

I think this needs a biiiit more tweaking, but the premisis is good. To be a completely fair weapon, i think that A) it should make enough sound to alert people (and zeds) to your presence, and B) the fueling gets a little more adjusted. I mean, you can turn chainsaws off in real life. Maybe starting it takes an AP, and turning it off conserves fuel? --Mr Backwards 20:42, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Update: This suggestion was posted for voting, recieved three spam votes based on the fact that "a chainsaw suggestion is in peer approved" and was removed by Jedaz immediately. If you want this suggestion given a revote, the Lord suggests you say so now, or suffer a perminently chainsawless existence. -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 04:08, 20 August 2006 (BST)

That's because it ended up being dupable to the one in Peer Review, as I said it would be, but WORSE because it wastes ammo.--Pesatyel 22:30, 26 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)

Spam - No No No. Are you sure no one checks the server that often? Apparently Golden Blade does, so this would hurt players to. Me no likey go buy some pumpkins. --Swmono ^{talk - W! - P! - SGP} 03:45, 11 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 are too stupid to use grenades.

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)

There is a peer reviewed machine gun suggestion which has the best AoE system for this game I have seen so far --Gene Splicer 17:40, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Could you please post a link? --Kiltric 03:16, 13 August 2006 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Weapons/Equipment_-_New#Yet_Another_SMG Also note the "No headshot" factor. AoE attacks should have this as standard, it only makes sense, and balances out the multiple deaths nicely --Gene Splicer 14:24, 14 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)

Keep - I like it :) Tzietel 23:53, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Spam Overpowered, retarded, and nerfs the point of a zombie horde. F--. --Gold Blade 23:49, 14 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)

I'd have an easier time accepting it if crack shot was something like a "static" You have a 10% chance when you hit that your specialized ranged weapon deals 1 additional point of damage. I know it sounds significantly less, but it would happen all the time (1 in every 10 shots), whenever it kicks in. The skill tree you suggest is perfect, have to max it out to buy, no skin off my teeth. --MrAushvitz 05:44, 18 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)

Well ya can't do much against griefers... And setting a password or something of the like would limit the ressources to a limited few. Besides, empty boxes are better than no boxes (in my opinion), and if people really have a problem with thieves, they can simply leave the boxes empty.

Now that I think of it, storing or taking items would be displayed to everyone in the room, same way as generator smashing is, so that griefers can be Identified.

Did you look at the discussion for Safes? I liked what we had worked out for that better.--Pesatyel 18:58, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I had not, however it is different. For one, Safes is for personal use only, and would create a huge strain on the server as far as I can see because every character could have as many safes as there are banks. If that's not it, then it simply gives characters a bigger inventory when they are in a bank. This is designed so people can make items easely available to other people, without zergers being able to exploit it.

Oh, NOW I see. I didn't realize this was a "trade" suggestion. Problem is, those items are every bit as "zergable" as anything else (except maybe the syringe with the 10 AP cost). Generators and fuel bring improved search rates and adding in the radio brings spam. Not everyone "zergs for ammo." Though I like Gene Splicer's additions, people aren't too keen on trade suggestions.--Pesatyel 06:33, 12 August 2006 (BST)

I like this for a number of reasons, especially that you have only allowed "support" items. This adds a great deal to the "Stocking up to survive" flavour (as opposed to benefitting the "OMG PWN TEH ZMOBIES" type play). It also prevents ammobot type tradeZerging. The only change I would make is to make this a Zombie Hunter skill instead of a Bargain Hunting skill. Bargain Hunting is something any self respecting Zerg abuser of this would buy anyway, whereas it take slightly more effort to get a Zerg to level 11. Couple of ways to avoid abuse: Each day you may only put in and a certain amount of items total. If you try to put in too many, you get messages like "You look around nervously, unwilling to give up further supplies". If these numbers are sufficiently small, it prevents one, erm, "dedicated philanthropist" *rolleyes* from bulking up supplies too much. Thematically, you should be able to remove as many as you like: People are awful selfish bastards. But, again, to prevent abuse, you should only be able to remove a certain amount per day. An additional suggested Zerg countermeasure: Taking something out of a box that was recently accessed by a different character from your IP results in you accidentally dropping it back in the box(butterfingers). Putting something in results in you dropping it on the floor(more butterfingers). These would count towards your daily retrieval and deposit limit as normal--Gene Splicer 17:59, 11 August 2006 (BST)

I made a similar suggestion. Safes. Tell me what you think. --Gold Blade 23:47, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I mentioned that above. Thing is, YOUR suggestion is about "storage" while THIS suggestion is about "trade" which are not really inclusive.--Pesatyel 01:27, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Gifts

Timestamp:	12:20, 11 August
Type:	New skill
Scope:	Survivors, trading items with reduced zerging.
Description:	I'm afraid this is another trading idea, butI think it's a little different to the others. In his frequently asked questions, here [[1]], Kev says that his largest concern about trading items is zerglings bringing items to a main character. My suggestion will allow survivors to share items with reduced risk of zerging. It revolves around a new skill, 'Enlightenment' (If you can think of a better name, let me know.). Enlightenment is a zombie hunter skill, and so only available at 10th level or above. At a cost of 1 AP, a survivor with this skill can give another character a single item from their inventory. If the reciever doesn't have enough room the AP is wasted, nothing happens to the item, and the gifter is informed of this. You can't give away any item that is currently useless within the game (like newspapers, wire cutters, crosses. Whatever.). The gifter gets nothing in return. The reciever gets a message telling them what just happened, so if they want they can drop the item for the normal 0 AP's. Because of the level limit before you get this skill, creating a bunch of first level shoppers and scouts wont do zergs any good. They can pick up items, but not give them away. Even if the main character is high enough level to have this skill, they can't take items from the zerglings. If you want an 'in-game' reason why someone has to be so experience before they will give stuff away, it can be assumed that other people are far too concerned about their own survival to part with anything they've found. Tell me what you think. The Mad Axeman 12:46, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Votes
They could always have multiple chars, do typical zerging behaviour until they reach lvl 10, and then supply one of their characters with constant ammo. Once he's maxed out, they would switch for the next one. A quick, easy, and eventfull way to gain lots of xp for med-lvl chars.

Re - I believe most zerglings are throw away characters. Going from first to tenth level takes times, several weaks at least. That said, if some one is prepared to put a huge amount of effort into developing zerglings I suppose they could do it. The Mad Axeman 23:42, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Suggestions for trading with zerg work-arounds keep popping up, but my standard response is, I don't see why this is necessary. Search for items, and use them with your AP. I scarcely find myself in a spot where I have useful items that I need to drop, and this basically just amounts to an old hand donating their search AP to new people. This doesn't mean I'd kill or spam this suggestion, I'd probably just abstain. Can you give a good reason for why this would help the game or how it would be useful? --Burgan 21:55, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Re - Because certain players might find it fun? I think the joy of playing a character who gain most of their experience from healing or reviving comes from helping other people. Once they reach high enough level it gives them one more way to assist, passing on a spare gps unit or ammo/guns they've picked up while looking for a flak jacket. It would also helps groups communicate because more established members could give mobile phones to new recruits. There have been a few occations in game where I wished I could have given a low level private a few clips so they could get enough experience to go up a level, increasing their survival odds. Same goes for giving first aid kits to doctors/medics. I personelly find keeping my fellow survivors alive very satisfying. If someone doesn't want to use this option, they don't have to, but I think it should be there for those who do. The Mad Axeman 23:42, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Well if you want to stop zerging then why don't you just allow only 5 gifts a day to be traded or just do something with wrapping them in newspaper, other than changing it, it's probably a bad idea and a better name is probably generosity. If you want an idea heres one, a new drop down menu beside a newspaper that allows you to wrap items for 1 ap if you have skill and gifts must be wrapped before you give them and survivors must spend 1 ap to open them. I hope to see a working version if possible. Blackie Chan

Well, in Nexus War, trading/giving is useful in the fact one person can give another an item to be repaired, for example. Add in there are a LOT of items in NW. But in Urban Dead, there just aren't enough items, really to make it useful. Shotgun, pistol, ammo, FAK, Axe, generator, syringe, fuel. That's basically it, especially since the suggestion stipulates "no currently useless items." Your only real "anti-zerge" measure is that one has to be at least level 11 to use this skill. Right now, I have a maxed out character. I start a NEW character and this maxed out one supplies the new guy with everything he needs (having better search chances and such by comparison). My first thought, actually, was that 1 AP was waaaaaaayyy to "cheap" for trading too.--Pesatyel 06:46, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Re - Actually you missed out DNA exractors, gps units, crowbars, flak jackets, flare guns, spray cans, mobile phones, and wine/beer. All of these things are of at least some use. You could use a high level character to supply a new one, but how powerful is a first level whatever with a huge amount of equipment he doesn't know how to use? Zergers are looking for a way to maximise their power. Doing that would minimise the advantage of having multiple characters because the high level spends all his time searching while the low level does the business. If you want an extra anti-zerging measure how about making it impossible to trade between characters using the same IP address? I think that might be useful. As for the AP cost, I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on that. How much do you think might be good? The Mad Axeman 13:07, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Yeah, I suppose I did forget about that other stuff (I DID say basically it), but it is only of negligable use (GPS units? what the hell use do they REALLY have?). And that was the whole point of what I said about high levels. Right now, a LOT of high level character players are BORED (hell, I'm pretty bored with my current character and looking for something for him to do before/or starting a new character). If something like this were implemented, those characters would have something to actually devote themselves to. And that 1st level character never having to search (the maxed out has all the mall skills and can find, basically, ANYTHING) makes a pretty big difference. And it depends on how the character is played, to an extent (maxed character finds FAK at 40% in a mall, outfits low level with easy XP source). And making it impossible to trade with the same IP address is unfair to people who legitimately share a line. As for the AP cost, I'd make it 3 to 5.--Pesatyel 19:00, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Re - Yeah, I guess you did say basically... A lot of those item are only useful in co-operative play, like sending an ally a message saying "The suburb is over run by zombies, fall back to the safe house at 26,73." I can understand why you might want to use multiple charater that way, but it is getting very close to breaking Kev's 'Separate lives' rule, and could be looked at as zerging, even if you don't intend it that way. Does anyone else have opinions on that? Is it playing the game or cheating? Once I know the general consensus, I'll know whether not to include a ban on same IP trading when/if I suggest this properly. As for AP costs. What about 5 AP's for a permanent item like a weapon or flak jacket and 3 Ap's for one that gets uses up? The Mad Axeman 19:34, 12 August 2006 (BST)

I'm pro same IP ban. It may be somewhat unfair to people legitimately sharing a computer, but they can still use the skill, it wouldn't be that big of a deal that there's one person they can't share with. I think it would be really great to be able to give things away. Also, I was wondering, why do you think the AP expendeture has to be higher? Why 3 to 5 AP? Tzietel 00:19, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Because giving a person something means they don't have to waste AP searching for it which is a significant part of the game.--Pesatyel 03:36, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Unless anyone else has anything to say, I'll suggest this in a few days. Incidently, once I've done that, does anyone know what I do with this? Do I delete or just leave it here as somesort of record? The Mad Axeman 12:32, 18 August 2006 (BST)

Just leave it here. It will eventually get moved when the page is archived. Incidentally, you might want to link to this page when you post, that way people can get a little bit of background. And don't forget to actually listen to the disccusion here when you post (no offense intended).--Pesatyel 01:48, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Ok, thanks for that. The way I currently see it panning out is with it costing 3 AP's for expendable items and 5 for permanent. I will be suggesting the same IP ban, because the unsigned voter right at the top convinced me that there might be long term zerglings who might otherwise be able to abuse this skill. Also both Tzietel and myself favour it, while you were the only person against - which I'm aware is a vote of only three people, but it doesn't look like anyone else will be commenting. The Mad Axeman 11:53, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Yeah, unfortunately, most people wait until the suggestion is up for voting before doing anything (instead of contributing to the discussion here). The only other thing I can offer as a suggestion is to go through the Previous Days and look up the older trade suggestions for background info before posting.--Pesatyel 00:50, 20 August 2006 (BST)

Training Books

Timestamp:	8:06 PM, August 11th, 2006
Type:	Skill/Action Boosts
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I thought we could find a better way to use books in the game, so I tried to think of some way of improving their affects, when I thought of the system used in Dead Rising, the new Zombie survival game from Capcom. I suggest that certain books give a boost to various attacks/action when used. Players are limited to holding only 2 books at a time. Book List Medicine for Idiots : Player heals an extra 1HP when using a FAK. 15% chance of finding in Hospitals, Libraries, and Mall Bookstores. Advanced Medical Procedures : Player heals an extra 2HP when using a FAK in a powered hospital. 5% chance of finding in Hospitals. NecroTech Handbook : Reduces the amount of AP needed for making syringes by 2. 5% chance of finding in a NecroTech building. Urban Artist : Player gains an extra +1XP from all tagging. 10% chance of finding in a School, Club, or Junkyard. A Finer Taste : Player gains an extra +1HP from drinking beer or wine. 15% chance of finding in a Bar or Club. Books do not work if player has been atttacked in the last 3 moves. To use, player spends 1AP to click on and open the book, and would then perform the action. Book closes after any action not affected by the book is performed (i.e attacking, moving to a new area). After five uses, you would get the message "This book has no more useful information." without wasting an AP.

Votes
Give me your feelings about this, and maybe some more book ideas that could be made, should this ever actually happen. - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:06, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Zombie books make no sense. Survivor books are over-powered. -Certified=Insane_UG 01:46, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Re : Yeah, they might be a little overpowered.. But how do the zombie books not make any sense? - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:01, 12 August 2006 (BST)

The zombie books don't make sense because, a. you didn't tell us where you could find them, b. a zombie should possess memories of life before even being able to read them and who would write a book for zombies other than zpsies?

My first thought was "Hey D&D!" Gotta agree with Certified=Insane that books for zombies make no sense. The only way THAT would work is to allow zombies (with MoL, of course) to read appropriate survivor books). And, as stated, the survivor books are very overpowered. Maybe only make them, at most +2% or +3% to hit (and heal only 1-3 HP more), for example. In addition, based on your description, these are 'permanent improvements unless the character accidently dropped one of the books. Limiting the use of the book (maybe the person has to click on the book to "activate" the ability with only so many clicks avaiable) would go along way with people.--Pesatyel 07:04, 12 August 2006 (BST)

New Zombie Book: "To serve Man" AHAHAHA etc. Anyway, ditch the zombie books and all the to-hit increasers, and make books only have an effect while there are no zombies about. Because I know I'm not going to kick back and read about hitting zombies when there are zombies /right here to hit/. I would consult a medical textbook while patching up someone with a gut wound, though, assuming I was pretty sure I was not going to be devoured while doing so. As opposed to only allowing two books in total, allow people to have as many books as they like, but only allow one at a time to be active(clicking on a book costs 1ap, closes your old book and opens the clicked one). Also make them have limited charges... you use up the book after a few uses (the knowledge it gave you now translated into the exp you got for whatever you were doing).

Possible balanced books:

Medical textbook: (increases healing done with a fak by 20%, so a max of 3hp in a powered hospital)
NT Handbook: (reduces cost to make a syringe by 2)
D.I.Y Handbook: (Reduces chance to fail at barricading by a small amount, don't know the exact numbers) --Gene Splicer 16:52, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Gene Splicer, very nice idea's for alternative books, also I agree with you. I planned on making a suggestion about a book that reduces Syringe Manufacture by 2, Damn...--Canuhearmenow 16:55, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Re: Yeah, I forgot to add where you would actually get them. Oh well, it doesn't really matter since they really don't make sense. Don't know what I was thinking make the boosts so high. I think the other half of the problem, other than the overpowering, was that I wasn't really giving an "RP way" of using them. I extended the "no using if zombies present" to just not working if they have been attacked before using 3AP, because a sleeping zombie is not a threat, but players can also be attacked by humans. Also reduced percentages of finding. With this "revised" list, it really only works with survivors, so this would be very unpopular for the zombie population. Either way, what do you think now? - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:08, 12 August 2006 (BST)

- Re: - has anyone considered the possibility that the Harmans need a boost? they're steadily recovering from the Big Bash, but I think that the bash prooved that the zombies are stronger. --Kiltric 03:34, 13 August 2006 (BST)

- Re: How would you define "Attacked in the last three moves"? That's the kind of qualifier that starts ringing voters' alarm bells. People like simple explanations, and "No Zombies present" has gone down well in other suggestions. I agree with you in principle on the "Humans attack people too", but you may have to sacrifice realism a little for the sake of suggestion passing. I'd also give it more than two charges, that few renders it pretty useless. Have it run off the same expenditure rate as standard books. Assuming the number of uses increases from two, state that they only close if you perform an action /not affected by the book/. So you open your book once, use up your supply of faks, then do something else. Otherwise you are just spending 1ap to increase your fakking from 5 to 6. Not worth it. 1ap + 5faks = 6 ap for 30 hp, so same hp per ap, but using one less fak total. THAT would be worth it. --Gene Splicer 02:07, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Re - I take it then that the books are only of use to people who don't have the first aid skill? On a different note, I could invision an instruction manuel for DNA extractors that increases there chances to work. The Mad Axeman 12:27, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Re - I meant "Attacked in the last three moves" by you needing to spend 3 AP before you could use the book, making it harder (if not impossible) to use in the middle of a battle. Increased book uses from 2 to 5. No longer close if affected action is performed. I was also thinking that they could require there be power if you are in a building to be able to use, but would always work outside. It's kinda hard to read in the dark, after all. XxXThe TruthXxX 23:34, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I actually see this as unnecessary. They add more junk items to some TRPs, and they aren't even very useful. The concept of someone trained in field surgery or reviving zombies gaining a little edge by carrying a book seems a little silly to me, but maybe if they gave benefit to the unskilled only and were found solely in libraries this could work. --Burgan 18:45, 15 August 2006 (BST)

I don't like the idea of someone gaining a permanent (assuming they don't drop the book) skill-like benefit because they found an item. --Mookiemookie 15:02, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Re : Yeah, I changed that.

I like the idea, but I have to ask something: Would these be temporary (for example, you use one and then that stat goes up on your next move, or until you do the action that the stat affecs), or would it be permanent? --Gold Blade 21:23, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Re : It would only affect your NEXT MOVE. If you do any other action, it would be wasted (you will forget what you read). XxXThe TruthXxX 21:29, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Street Fighting

Timestamp:	14 August 2006 14:38
Type:	Skill
Scope:	All
Description:	This skill is in the body building tree, it increases the damage from fists by 2 . After fighting the zombies so many times you have grown to know where their weak points are and become stronger, smarter and faster. Now you can finally beat some to death without having to shoot them 9 times first.

Votes
My problems with this idea are that zombie claws don't need a buff, and this simply makes the fists exactly the same as a fire-axe that you don't have to search for. It'll be useful for roleplayers, but it buffs the primary zombie attack and gives survivors nothing at all. --Burgan 22:56, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I'm not a moron, and I read your suggestion, knowing that you meant fist when you said fist. Zombies do not have a fist attack they have a claw attack. So you are allowing fist to deal 2 damage, instead of buffing it's hit rare. Actually that works for me, you'd get a keep. Some people can do as much damage with a punch as a baseball bat.. pretty damn scary too. --MrAushvitz 05:49, 18 August 2006 (BST)

Don't say that first line too quickly. That's 3 damage, not 2. Axes do more than fists, even in the right hands. Stupid pun intended. --Grognor 01:57, 19 August 2006 (BST)

RE There are people who can kill in one punch and in real life in the skilled hands it would only take one swipe to kill a person from a sharpened weapon which is why I think that fists deserve a buff(Everything deserves a buff really)

Wow, would the game be fun if every weapon did 60 points of damage!--Pesatyel 03:48, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Explodey stuff!

	Author Removed
	This suggestion was removed by the original author because Unanimous Hate.

--Gold Blade 15:52, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Weather

	Author Removed
	This suggestion was removed by the original author because It's been done..

Barbed Wires

Timestamp:	--Gold Blade 19:39, 19 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	Barricade Improvement
Scope:	survivors inside buildings with level 5 barricades
Description:	Puting up barbed wire around a building will definitely help survivors in the early stages of a siege. Now, wireclippers will have a use again. To make it (yes, you manually make it), you need Wire and Wirecutters. You need and appropriate Wire Reel. To find a Wire Reel- Warehouse - 8% Junkyard - 5% Auto Shops - 4% Building (non-NT) - 2% Once you have both a Wirecutter and a Reel, you simply press the Reel and your charachter makes a Barbed Wire Roll for 3 AP. You laboriously begin to use the Wirecutters to cut about half of the wire into short, sharp pieces, then roll them around a the remaining wire. Once you are outside a building that has at least Quite Strong barricades, you can put the Wire up, for 1 AP. There can be a total of 3 rolls up at a time. When you look at a Barbed building, it says: Blah blah building. It has been QS+ barricaded, and has a little/some/a lot of Barbed Wire. Barbed wire will cause anyone attacking the barricades from the outside to have a possibility of being damaged. With 1 roll, it is a minor 5%. At 2 rolls, it becomes 10%. 3 rolls max it out at 20%. If you hit the roll, you take 2 damage. After the roll does 10 damage, it ceases to exist. If the barricades go below QS, the wire is removed, and will have to be re-strung. Other stuff: it does not affect free running, nor if you are able to walk in (as a survivor). You can safely attack barricades from the inside. The health of the wire and the barricades are seperate. The chance to hit the barricades and the chance to hit the wire are seperate, so you could hit nothing, the wire, the barricade, or both. anyone with Wirecutters can remove a wire roll from the outside. Zombies with Memories of life and wirecutters have 2.5% chance to take it down.

Votes

KEEP!!! - I love the idea this gives. Really Fiddlers Green type stuff. can you add a percentage where the zombie becomes "Tangled" in the wire? Costing a certain amount of AP (Maybe 4) to get free? Anyway, I love this. (P.S.- make it so that you have to be outside the building to put up wire, more fair and realistic.)--Canuhearmenow 19:43, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: Thanks for your overwhelming support! I like the Tangle idea. Should it do something similar to the Tangling grasp? --Gold Blade 20:54, 19 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re: Well, my idea is that it would work like Tangling Grasp, while stuck you wouldn't be able to move and all actions cost 2 AP, by attacking the wire you get a X% chance (Your choice) to be untangled. For amusement maybe a observer would see "blah blah blah building. There are 2 zombies outside, there are 1 zombies tangled in the wire."--Canuhearmenow 21:13, 19 August 2006 (BST)
Keep - I like this idea, i only have one question.... how do you take it down? Ultimately zombies have to destroy it to get inside, how do they do that?--Mr Backwards 21:09, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: After the Barbed Wire does 10 total damage, it disappears. I forgot to add Wirecutters can take it down. Thanks for reminding me. --Gold Blade 21:13, 19 August 2006 (BST)

No, lower the percentage for zombies with MoL to take it down, or remove completely, in a siege with +20 zeds that would be too easy to take down.--Canuhearmenow 21:26, 19 August 2006 (BST)

I forgot to add a period. --Gold Blade 21:41, 19 August 2006 (BST)

I'm torn on this one. This suggestion is walking a tight wire. Ah ha ha ha. Puns aside, I think you should remove the tangling aspect, which just adds excessive grief grief grief to zombies who have enough problems with the barricades as it is. The rest of it might warrant a keep, destroying it after it's done 10 points of damage is a nice touch. Wire-cutters taking it down is nice for realism, but it's only application is grief-based survivors. If you're really hell-bent on keeping the tangling aspect, I'd suggest that getting out of it should tear the works down as well. --Burgan 23:18, 19 August 2006 (BST)

It does tear down a little less than half of it, and survivors can also get tangeled in the wires. Also, itwould be kinda dumb to not be able to cut it with wire cutters ("I have an inventory full of wirecutters and I cant cut through Barbed WIRE? WTF?" would be common.) Also, griefers could just as easily barricade it to EHB and then wire it and survivors would almost have to take damage to get it down and get in. The tangling part would make sense, and this would mostly affect zombie sieges. Plus, if you have wirecutters and MoL, you can try to take it down without any risk. --Gold Blade 23:27, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Though I can't see why anyone would want to barricade to EHB, then waste the AP wiring a place, I know it will happen, so you make a good point about the cutters and griefers. I don't think zombies should be able to take them down using cutters, even with a paltry 2.5%. They can open doors as a necessity, but using tools to strategically cut wire is a bit beyond my tolerance. --Burgan 23:46, 19 August 2006 (BST)

I know, me too. Otherwise, though, it would be too powerful for survivors.--Gold Blade 23:58, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Keep. Youronlyfriend 03:57, 20 August 2006 (BST)

Yes, i think tangle should be deleted for the sake that it complicates it, which will only make people upset. lose it. this is still a good idea, methinks. --Mr Backwards 06:17, 20 August 2006 (BST)
my first reaction was that it was overpowered, but I like how it goes away automatically after <QS. Like has been said before, require someone to be outside to string the wire. Could you clarify: 1 roll of wire sets up exactly 1 barricade? Could a survivor return wire to full strength by using a new piece of wire? Also:This would be a good thing to implement at the same time as the barricade variance suggestion Ybbor^T 02:50, 21 August 2006 (BST)
- I was meaning that they were 2 seperate entities, the Barbed Wire and the Barricades have different HP, chances to hit, everything. The only thing in wich they are related is that the barricades have to be QS to put up any wire. But you could put all 3 rolls up at QS. Although it would be more of a waste of AP. Look how much it costs to find it, manufacture it, and put it up (from the outside is required)! This would be a waste unless you were actually under a siege. Single zombies would actually be affected less. --Gold Blade 13:48, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Zom-B-Gon

Timestamp:	23:50, 20 August 2006 (BST)
Type:	New Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	New from NecroTech! Zom-B-Gon zombie repellant! Tired of those hideous undead scraping out your brains? Sick to Death of those disgusting corpses ruining your beautiful lawn? Exasperated by getting killed by a zombie then joining their ranks? then Zom-B-Gon is for you! Ok, enough commercial. Zom-B-Gon repellant is found in a NT building at an about 0.05% chance, it takes up 2 spaces, and is more humorous than anything. But this is not a humorous suggestion. Clicking on the repellant would use the can. You spray Zom-B-Gon on you. It smells like coffee. Then, the next zombie that attacks you will have a 3% hit decrease. The repellant makes the zombie unhappy and gives him a strange facial exppression, and makes his eye-hand coordination less. However, when you have it on, you are moved to the top of the stack and have (Zom-B-Gon) next to your name.

Votes
Its humorous but serious. Its useful. --Gold Blade 00:32, 21 August 2006 (BST) Cmon, someone comment! --Gold Blade 13:49, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Uhh...Its...Weird?--Canuhearmenow 13:53, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Exactly!--Gold Blade 13:57, 21 August 2006 (BST)

If you suggest this it will be spammed sooner then you think. I warn you.--Canuhearmenow 13:59, 21 August 2006 (BST)

I don't think i'll be suggesting it for a good few years. I'll need to work on both the humor and realisticisim a bit more. --Gold Blade 14:01, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Cmon! i need more comments! --Gold Blade 16:29, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Hold your horses. Shesh, you need to learn some patience. And are you named after the Elder Scrolls Sword Goldbrand?--Canuhearmenow 16:33, 21 August 2006 (BST)

I have patience. I just dont like to use it. What's Elder Scrolls? I just use this name because I think its cool. It was orginally Gold Sword for a while on other places, then I changed it, and ive been using Gold Blade as a name.--Gold Blade 18:14, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Well, Elder Scrolls is the coolest RPG there is. It is literally free-roaming. Don't have to follow quests, multiple cities, stuff like towns, villages, and forest and caves in between. Fully customisable characters, guilds to join, and eventually, rule. Goldenbrand was a gold sword made by the Daedra lord Boethia. It had a kick ass fire attack...--Canuhearmenow 18:54, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Cool. I need to get one of those swords. I also like the free roaming. Can you kill random npcs? --Gold Blade 19:31, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Yes. And buy houses, kill livestock, buy clothing to wear, get famous so people like you, get a horse, and other things I can't think of.--Canuhearmenow 19:33, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Wow. I need to get that game. --Gold Blade 19:46, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Well, theres Elder Scrolls 3:Morrowind and Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. Oblivion has the better graphics and stuff, though it will not look pretty if you don't have a good computer. Its also available for the Xbox 360 (Why do I feel like a salesman?).--Canuhearmenow 19:48, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Oblivion is elder scrolls? I have that. Its cool but it seems to have problems. Why are we talking about Elder scrolls here? --Gold Blade 19:53, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Because he is trying to sell it to you.--Thari ^T/C/TJ! 19:55, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Finally. Not even door-to-door salesmen come to my house anymore. --Gold Blade 20:26, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Ok, back to the suggestion. My idea is, no, it seems to humorous so it will be spammed to death in the suggestions page.--Canuhearmenow 21:57, 21 August 2006 (BST)

How do I fix it? --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:00, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Uhh, don't know.--Canuhearmenow 22:01, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Make it more powered? --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:01, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Increase search rate slightly, don't increase power, actually lower power a little bit, and write some backstory about zombie Phermones and how they have to do with this.--Canuhearmenow 22:03, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Like the zombies hate coffee because it makes you energized on caffene and being energized is a synnonym of lively and lively has to do with living and they don' like the living because the living kill them? Is that what you're talking about? --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:06, 21 August 2006 (BST)

No, like how the zombies give off a sort of phermone that attracts them too one another, and how NecroTech isolated that chemical and reversed its properties. Also, 3% hit penalty sounds nice, 5% is too high for newbie zombies.--Canuhearmenow 22:08, 21 August 2006 (BST)

So zombies smell like the oppisite of coffee? Whatever that is. Are you sure about that? --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:11, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Uhh. Sure... *Frustrated sigh*--Canuhearmenow 22:13, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Ok, then what? With the smelling-like-snow zombies and their strange facial expressions. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:15, 21 August 2006 (BST)

I have no idea what your saying now.--Canuhearmenow 22:17, 21 August 2006 (BST)

How do I improve it further I mean. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 22:18, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Make the search rate .5% and maybe add a penalty for spraying it on you. Like maybe that while there is a 3% hit lowering the zombie can pick up your scent easier, making you at the top of the stack. Personally, I don't think this will work too well. Ask some other people besides me, I'm just one opinion.--Canuhearmenow 22:21, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Excellent idea, top of the stack! And having Survivor(Zom-B-Gon) next to their name would also work well.

Ok, ask Gage, Saromu (Or Sonny Corleone), and Bob Hammero for their opinions, Gage is a PKer, Saromu is a Zombie, and Bob is a survivor/PKer, getting their opinions on this will likely say if this will be accepted or rejected.--Canuhearmenow 22:27, 21 August 2006 (BST)

spam Your dastardly is spamming this just because you spammed my talk page with a comment to vote on this and because it is quite useless. The Devil 01:33, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Radio Jamming

when someone talks too much from one location on a radio, the military doesnt appreceate the noise and jams that location for 30 mintues until the next AP refreshing. I cant take all this spam. -- Tito the Mummy ^{Hunt! Bash!} 18:49, 23 August 2006 (BST)

How much is too much? --Burgan 19:00, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I would say 20 messages from one place in 30 minutes. how does that sound? lets talk about it. -- Tito the Mummy ^{Hunt! Bash!} 00:33, 24 August 2006 (BST)

I can see a major problem with this: greifing. Someone, most likely a PKer or zpy, could potentially waste an entire building's "radio points". (Nice name?) Then, important messages couldn't be sent. For example, a zpy wastes all of it right as a huge zombie horde comes. That would be a big problem. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 19:20, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Further Discussion

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

Main suggestions page cycling

Unh, yeah. I was wondering if anyone was going to consistently cycle the suggestions or is it going to just end up being whoever feels up to it? I don't mind ploping them into peer reviewed ect but I'm not going to constantly cycle the main page anymore (obviously). - Jedaz 12:42, 25 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)

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 20:57, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Oh Tranaham, you brought such laughter into my life that day --Mookiemookie 00:41, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Hey! Not even one of my suggestions is on that list. Wonder why, maybe they aren't so bad.. hmm.. well.. the jury's still out on that. --MrAushvitz 01:01, 18 August 2006 (BST)

I think the reason yours aren't on here is because you have stuff that you could see as a realistic suggestion. These are more or less a drunken moron's set of ideas. --Gold Blade 21:02, 19 August 2006 (BST)

It's like Plan Nine From Outer Space compared to Manos: Hands of Fate. The former is so bad it's good, while the latter is so bad the MST3K version is barely watchable. Guess which category yours fall into. - CthulhuFhtagn 02:21, 26 August 2006 (BST)

This person obviously never played Urban Dead! --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 23:35, 21 August 2006 (BST)

I am going to have to add my own suggestion. Eat grenade --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 16:24, 22 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)

Because some people like to take credit for their good ideas. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:06, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Well Ybbor's argument is that authors don't vote right away. If the idea is good, odds are the author will vote. If a bad suggestion, they might not want to be associated with a shitty suggestion.--Pesatyel 18:55, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I'd be against this. The rules say "Vote on the suggestion, not the suggester", but if you've disliked every suggestion a person has posted so far(or actively dislike them as a person), and you spot their name before making up your mind, that suggestion is not going to get a fair shot. Similarly, if you like the cut of someone's gib, you're going to read their ideas with slightly rose-tinted spectacles. That's just how people work. If someone wants people to read their suggestion based entirely on its actual merits, then keeping their name out of the main body should be an option if they wish. If someone really, really wants to know who wrote an idea, check out the page history, or wait for them to reply to a comment. However, once an idea is reviewed, rejected, or undecided, if the author has named themselves somewhere in the suggestion (Specifically, through author Res or late Author Keeps) it should be included when moved. --Gene Splicer 18:21, 11 August 2006 (BST)

It wouldn't be a requirement. They could leave the field blank if they so preferred. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:48, 11 August 2006 (BST)

What does everyone think of changing the current template to be ~~~~ instead of ~~~~~? --Ybbor^T 15:27, 18 August 2006 (BST)

And that would do...what?--Pesatyel 05:25, 19 August 2006 (BST)

make it a full signature instead of just a timestamp --Ybbor^T 14:22, 19 August 2006 (BST)

I'm confused. Isn't the way to sign ALREADY ~~~~?--Pesatyel 07:22, 20 August 2006 (BST)

I guess it is. Some users (here, here) have been changing it to 5 I guess. Is this technically allowed? --Ybbor^T 21:02, 20 August 2006 (BST)

From what I've seen, yes. The author is NOT required to put his name in the time stamp at the top, hence using the ~~~~~ even though voters ARE required to put their name on their votes using the ~~~~? Personally, I believe that, if the author chooses to make themselves known, they can either do it with the suggestion timestamp OR via the author vote. However, if they want to RE voters, they should HAVE to make themselves known by either method. If they don't want to, that's fine, they just shouldn't be allowed to RE.--Pesatyel 07:55, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion

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

More Spam Nonsense

Exposition

Skip to Meat if lazy.

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of discussions on abuse of the spam vote. I think the main cause of this perceived abuse is that there are so many reasons to vote spam on an idea.

If a suggestion is completely unreadable, it is Spam.
If a suggestion is just stupid, it is Spam.
If a suggestion just does not fit with Urban Dead, it is Spam.
If a suggestion is a very well thought out implementation of a simply unworkable idea, it is Spam.
If a suggestion is an extremely poorly thought out implementation of a potentially good idea, it is Spam

And the list goes on.

Basically, "Spam - Spammity Spammity Spam Spam --DownWithSpam" IS a valid vote... in certain glaringly obvious situations.

However, some equally Spammable suggestions need a little more explanation: "Spam - Viable AP altering suggestions are few and far between. This is not one of them --DownWithSpam"

The official voting guidelines can be paraphrased as:

Keep - This is a good idea.
Kill - This is a bad idea because -
Spam - This is a festering pile of vomit.

However, people often wish to say "This is a good idea, but -". Some people use "Keep" to voice these opinions, whereas the more bitter members tend to use "Kill", and therefore "Spam" for the more unworkable ideas. Unsurprisingly, given the general quality of suggestions on this (or any other) wiki, the "more bitter members" make up 95% of the population, and I am beginning to agree with them.

As a result, the unnofficial voting guidelines look more like this:

Keep - This is a good idea.
Kill - This is a good idea, but -
Spam - This is a bad idea because -
Spam - This is a festering pile of vomit.

So I suggest we split Spam into its two component parts, and officially rename Kill to something more suited to its current use.

Meat

I propose the following changes be made to the vote system.

Votes:

Dupe: As current.
Keep - "This is a good idea". The suggestion should be implemented as is, or very close to as is. Revision suggestions in "Keep" votes are allowed. Identical to current "Keep".
Revise - "This is a good idea, but - ". The suggestion is a good concept, but lacks "elegant implementation" or requires major tweaking. Essentially equal to the current unnofficial use of "Kill", with the same relationship with peer reviewed/rejected/undecided.
Kill - "This is a bad idea because - ". The suggestion is unsalvageable. Identical to current Spam, except that an explanation must be provided. Mods may change Kills without an attached explanation to Spams. "What X said" counts as an explanation, assuming X gave an explanation. Otherwise, an explanation is defined as anything that references the suggestion content. ("Spammy spammy spam spam" is not an explanation. "Messing with AP is bad" is an explanation. "FOR THE LAST TIME NO GRENADES!!!!111!!!" is also an explanation)
Spam - "This is a festering pile of vomit." The suggestion is a waste of monitor space. No reason need be given for voting Spam. Spam is for ideas so incredibly stupid that it is obvious to anyone reading them. The downside of using Spam is that it only counts towards the 2/3 Spam rule, not Mod-Killing or Peer Rejected/Undecided. Essentially, Spam means "No explanation needed". If you feel an explanation is needed, use Kill. If you use Spam and Spamination fails, obviously an explanation WAS needed, and you should have voted Kill. You can of course change your vote to Kill later, under the same restrictions as posting a kill vote above.

Results:

Duped: As current.
Killed/Spaminated: At least 7 votes, 2/3 Spams/Kills/Dupes. May be Mod-Killed with at least 3 *Kills, no non-author Keeps.
Peer Reviewed: 2/3 Keeps, at least 7 votes (not including Spams/Dupes)
Peer Rejected: 2/3 Kills/Revises
Peer Undecided: All others

Discuss --Gene Splicer 01:37, 14 August 2006 (BST) Someday, I will learn to spell, type, AND proofread. Someday --Gene Splicer 01:52, 14 August 2006 (BST)

While replying to Xoid's comment, I realised there are a couple of things I need to readdress(though not the things he brought up ;) :P ). I will be revising this later, after some thought --Gene Splicer 15:04, 15 August 2006 (BST)

I like the idea. Certainly, I think something needs to be done about the voting system, and revising the definitions like this could be enough. The Mad Axeman 12:40, 14 August 2006 (BST)

It works well The voting system is pretty screwed nright now. --Gold Blade 00:33, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Interesting approach. I like some parts of it, but a mod should not be able to speedy kill a suggestion; they speedy spam because they can know when something is utter garbage, but if it's just kills, it should be left open to debate. We shouldn't be able to spam anything but utter garbage and under-developed trash, but everything else deserves the prescribed two weeks consideration. Also, you forgot about peer-undecided.

If you want any help with proofreading for the voting proposal, I'm generally ready to help out with that sort of stuff. --Burgan 00:49, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Peer undecided is listed, it covers "all others". The point of the above is that Kill would be renamed Revise, and Spam renamed Kill, with an additional Spam for things so completely and utterly pointless (the true meaning of Spam) that it requires no explanation. Therefor, Speedy Kills would only take place in situations where under the current rules they would have been Speedy-Spammed anyway. They would in fact be less likely to occur, as Speedy-Spams can occur as it stands right now with absolutely no thought given. Right now, Myself and two friends (or two puppets) vould vote Spam on every current suggestion without reading any of them, and all it would take is a somewhat Spam-happy mod (*coughgrimscough*) to remove each one.--Gene Splicer 15:04, 15 August 2006 (BST)

You do know that this is only going to lead to an abuse of the Kill vote now? Instead of voting Spam when something is truly unworthy, why not use the Kill vote, insult the suggestor and give a moderator the opportunity to remove it early? What do we end up with? A suggestion system that is pretty much the same as what it currently is. The "harsh"er vote needs to be harsher than the "nice" votes. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:46, 15 August 2006 (BST)

See above --Gene Splicer 15:04, 15 August 2006 (BST)

I will still vote fairly irregardless. People's ideas are their baby, don't kill a baby for being ugly. Kill the parents for perpetuating such ugliness. There will always be people who regard the current voting system as too "soft" and want to see ideas removed within, well 30 minutes of being posted for reasons of "saving space". Unfortunately that does not help improve the game, address problems within the game that arise, and/or give even your own suggestions a fair shake. And for all of us, there will come a time when it will be your turn to make a suggestion that you honestly want to make it. Judge not lest ye be judged. There is a reason the voting rules are listed as is, even though many voter keep disregarding them. Grim himself told me once the "spam" requirements to remove a vote were even easier to pull off, which meant even the best suggestions almost never lasted more than a few hours. Doesn't sound like a very democratic process. --MrAushvitz 06:05, 18 August 2006 (BST)

This is how *I* vote:

Keep Good as is (ie. NO suggestion revisions).
Kill Needs work to make it a Keeper (and include suggestion revision). This of course, could be changed to Revise.
Spam No amount of work would make this a Keeper (and cite why, such as breaking the dos and donts, balance, etc.).

Simple as that. Though I wouldn't be opposed to changing Kill to Revise, but we don't need MORE vote types. Basically, either it is good, it needs work or it won't work. Why make it more complicated?

And, on a side, note I don't particularly like the 3 mod spam vote. I discussed this in a previous, well, discussion (and here). It seems to me that, depending on what TIME OF DAY a suggestion is posted, it has to either wait the 7 votes to get dropped or can be done so, essentially "instantly" via the mod method, simply because no one is on to put in a non-spam vote. But this whole line is probably a seperate discussion topic entirely.--Pesatyel 05:23, 19 August 2006 (BST)

That's how I vote too. I would really enjoy seeing that in the wiki as a policy. --Gold Blade 16:33, 21 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)

I don't have a problem with editors having to put that extra bit of effort when removing what they regard as spam filth. They derive pleasure on occasion from doing that often thankless job, it seems reasonable they have a link to the said offending material. It would make them less likely to make overly trollsome comments when doing a spam removal if the removed suggestion were instantly accessible. (Yes some users are lazy, and won't go look to confirm it's smelliness if it takes more than 2 seconds.) Besides, make life easier on the dial up users. --MrAushvitz 05:57, 18 August 2006 (BST)

I agree with the retard. I definately think this suggestion is a good one, because I'm sick and tired of having to click through several links to find out that it's a completely rediculas MrA that got Spaminated and waste my time confirming that it was spam worthy instead of just a bad suggestion. This way, people who care aren't inconvienced as much by looking at crap suggestions by Mr A. - David Malfisto 11:15, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Fewer Suggestions

as it stands today, rule 12 of the suggestion page reads as such:

"Each author should not make more than three suggestions per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Frequent removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

this policy would change it to read as such

"Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be resubmitted a total of two times a day for a total of three times on the suggestion page. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Frequent removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

--Gage 22:54, 21 August 2006 (BST)

My rewording:

"Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be revised a total of two times a day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:57, 22 August 2006 (BST)

I like it much better that way. That (so far) is the way it should go to vote--Gage 23:06, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Sure --CaptainM 23:09, 22 August 2006 (BST)

I reckon that we should have it at two suggestions per day rather than one. - Jedaz 07:02, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Definite Keep. Rheingold 07:28, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Gotta agree with Jedaz. But REVISIONS should count as suggestions. I get tired of readings that suggestions were author removed (whether to avoid being spamminated or just killed or to be revised). Basically, ANYTHING an author posts for voting is counted as one of their suggestions for the day, even if pulled for revision (or whatever). Even the as-we-have-it 3 per day would be fine, just as long as EVERYTHING is counted.--Pesatyel 07:51, 23 August 2006 (BST)

That's hardly fair, the problem is people submitting many bad suggestions not people revising them poorly. Let's say:

2 Suggestions per day
1 revision of each suggestion per day.

It's really not that much clutter. Especially when things get spaminated :evilgrin: Rheingold 08:39, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Bad suggestions usually get spammed off pretty quick. I get tired of reading "author removed" all the time (and it has been happening quite a bit lately). If you have to remove a suggestion for revision, what the hell are you doing putting up OTHER suggestions? I see it as the author not thinking things through or starting on the discussion page. If suggestion A needs work enough to be removed, odds are suggestion B does too.--Pesatyel 02:28, 24 August 2006 (BST)

I really don't care. But as this leads to less suggestions by Mr A, I'd vote in favour of Xoid's revision of Gages idea. David Malfisto 11:21, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I'd go for 2 per day, with revisions counting towards your total. --Mookiemookie 12:40, 23 August 2006 (BST)

You can make four submissions to the suggestion page per day, with at most two unique proposals? i.e. two suggestions with up to two revisions between them or one suggestion revised up to three times. --Burgan 16:09, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I like Xoid's reworded version the best because it only allows one bad suggestion on the page per author at any one time. I don't care if it is revised, but allowing them to make more than one shitty suggestion at once is horrible. --Gage 18:19, 23 August 2006 (BST)

"Each author should not make more than two suggestion per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be revised a total of two times a day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

Well, upon overhearing your questions I would recommend this.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 18:36, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Well, this allows people to put 6 shitty suggestions on the page per day. No.--Gage 19:08, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Uh, Gage? 2 suggestions times 2 revisions each usually makes a total of 4 suggestions. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 19:11, 23 August 2006 (BST)

No, there are two suggestions right? Each are removed and revised once. That is a total of 4 times on that page. Then they are revised again... 6.--Gage 19:24, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I saw it as you could make 2 suggestions, then 2 revisions, wether you revised the same one twice or both once. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 19:27, 23 August 2006 (BST)

A "revision" implies that it is not the original.--Gage 19:36, 23 August 2006 (BST)

I don't believe more than 1 revision should be submittable per day of each unique suggestion. Rheingold 02:05, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Believe it or not I wouldn't have a problem with 1 or 2 suggestions a day... unfortunately the point would be moot because there still exists an abuse of Spam voting.. which means many suggestions (not just mine) don't last more than a few hours before removal anyways. Taking the hard line may sound like a good idea, but there will always be troll voting, be prepared to watch perfectly good ideas burn. --MrAushvitz 01:42, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Proposal Writeups

Please indicate which one(s) you would vote for. When we have a consensus then we can submit it as a policy prop.

Policy A
- Suggestions per day: 1
- Revisions per day: 2

Policy B
- Separate items per day: 3
- Suggestions, revisions and removed suggestions count towards the total

Policy C
- Suggestions per day: 2
- Revisions per day: 1

Policy D
- Suggestions per day: 1
- Revisions per day: 1

Frankly I don't see much difference so I would vote for B, C or D. I don't like A because it allows more than one revision per day. Rheingold 02:05, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - There is no rush. If your not in the game for more than one day there is no need to make more than one suggestion. I feel that reducing the number of submissions will stimulate careful review and wording, reduce spam votes, reduce voter fatigue and increase participation within the system overall. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 02:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D If it is revised on the same day as it was suggested, it needs to be worked on more than another 5 minutes. And it would help vent some steam after users get fed up with 10,000 revisions of the same idea. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 02:30, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - lets put some restrictions on these dumbasses, while still allowing them to fix a last minute thing.--Gage 02:32, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy C - Though I'd much rather 2 & 2. --Burgan 02:46, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - --CaptainM 04:00, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy B - Keep it simple and easy to enforce. --Ybbor^T 04:13, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy B and C - I'm quite happy with either one of these two. Preferably B though. - Jedaz 05:19, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:22, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - People don't need anything more to make a good suggestion. --Nob666 05:27, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D --Mookiemookie 06:54, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Tally 8 votes for D, 3 votes for B, 3 votes for C. Unless there's a turnaround tomorrow I will submit D as the proposal... Rheingold 09:49, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  - Thanks, but I think I can handle it, considering the fact that it is my policy. --Gage 14:31, 24 August 2006 (BST)
    - Go ahead then ;) Rheingold 18:45, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D? What an overwhelming mandate <--are game/wiki policies decided by a whole 15 people out of 30 000, in the space of 48 hours? This rule is exactly what I was wondering after I (admittedly maybe hastily) threw my (first-ever) idea on the mercy of the court: How are ideas to be revised - does one put it up, and then revise it endlessly within the 24hours that it will be on the main suggestions page as people bounce it around, or leave it up untouched for 24 hours, before removing, refining and refiling, and so forth (how many times?). I've taken mine away for further work, and I shan't bring it back for at least a week, and then if people want to spam/kill vote it (because apparently the only way to play is strictly killing; a player shouldn't stop to piss on another player that's on fire, thus no-one would ever use a skill like this) then so be it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sassie (talk • contribs) .
- Re: If they can't be bothered to show up on the wiki, then they have no say in the policies that it runs on. Plain and simple. If you didn't even turn up to vote, how can your voice be heard? Commonsense here, Sassie. You can take however long you like to revise an idea , asking how it can be made better, etc, withdrawing the suggestion that is currently being voted on, and putting the revised one on the suggestions page, proper.
  The problem is, no one seems to have the patientence to wait even a day to post their fourty-third suggestion, let alone "mere" revisions of it. (Which is why these new, stricter limits are being proposed.) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:59, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: Item 4 under Suggestions#Making_a_Suggestion is actually more helpful than it appears in its hidden away form. Perhaps ~~someone~~ I will dress up a paragraph for the dosNdonts page that makes this more clear. You can "workshop" your suggestion here on the talk page (where it can't be spamminated into oblivion) to great effect. Doing this before taking it to the Suggestions page is a great way to get ideas for the type of revisions a suggestion will need to gain acceptance. While poor suggestions will often receive less than neutral feedback, they are usually dealt with in a more patient manner than those that are launched by surprise directly into the suggestion system. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 20:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  Agreed, unfortunately, very few Wiki patrons "help" with the suggestions on the discussion page, prefering to "help" (using the term loosely here) once the suggestion is up for voting.--Pesatyel 03:17, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D In addition to only permitting about 3 really bad suggestions a day, instead of nine or so we get now this new policy will encourage the people to go outside and get some sunshine. --Jon Pyre 15:34, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Re: Sunshine? What's that? ;-) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:10, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re: - AHHH! IT BURNS!--Gage 17:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy C - I can live with 2 suggestions a day if I'm permitted 1 revision. I do however not agree removing your own suggestion (for any reason) to be an abuse of the system... it's your suggestion, if you want to remove it to save space, that's your business... especially if there's a whole swack of troll comments. Just for the record: I'd have a LOT more suggestions on the peer rejected page if I didn't bother to remove the "worst" of them before some editor gets stuck having to copy and paste them there. --MrAushvitz 18:51, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D - Why? Sometimes I think some people post too much suggestions a day, no offense. --Axe Hack 00:11, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Policy D -If you are putting up SEVERAL suggestions a day, there is a good chance said suggestions are not as thought out as well as they could be.--Pesatyel 03:17, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Voting closed: Policy D it is. See below--Gage 03:56, 25 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.

Less Suggestions

as it stands today, rule 12 of the suggestion page reads as such:

"Each author should not make more than three suggestions per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Frequent removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

Although this policy does limit people to 3 different suggestions per day, it isn't very effective in eliminating spam because it allows for infinite revisions of a suggestion to be put forth, flooding the suggestion page. As such, I propose that the rule be changed to the version below:

"Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be revised once per day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system."

This version will hopefully cut down on the amount of Spam that one will have to sift through on the suggestion page and help to make the suggestion process a bit more professional and thought out, a change which is badly needed.--Gage 01:43, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Note - special thanks to Xoid for a rewording and Rheingold for a change in the number of revisions allowed.--Gage 15:04, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Votes

Voting Ends September 8th, 2006

Yes - this is a goodness--Gage 01:40, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Amazing, but not in a bad way. --CaptainM 01:43, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Sweet! Mr.A was getting on my nerves..... Axe Hack 02:09, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Reduces voter fatigue. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 02:16, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes -Simply put think about what you are going to suggest and get some feedback BEFORE suggesting.--Pesatyel 03:18, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes Needed. Rheingold 03:25, 25 August 2006 (BST)
No Regardless of the merit of the idea, I refuse to advocate Gage's on-going vendetta against Mr. A. --Arcos ^T•C•S 05:09, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - So you admit the idea has merit, but because it is reactionary you refuse to support it? If it is a good idea, please support it. It isn't just Mr Aushvitz, he was just the final straw.--Gage 05:13, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re - If I could believe it was just for the sake of the wiki, then I would gladly vote for it. But, watching your voting patterns, Mr. A wasn't the last straw, he was the only straw. --Arcos ^T•C•S 05:25, 25 August 2006 (BST)
    - Re - ever heard of w3c or Canuhearmenow? They were both just as bad for awhile, but they both seemed to have turned it around. The problem with Mr A is that he cannot or will not get the point.--Gage 05:29, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - There are those that are just as annoying as Mr Aushvitz, and some who are more so. Yes, you read that right. It's time that we put a stop to this absurdity. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:25, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Yeah I guess so... - Jedaz 11:35, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Ok. Jonny12 ^{Talk | W! | Hunt!} 14:19, 25 August 2006 (BST)
~~No - Purely and simply because this is plagiarism. Xoid came up with that revision of the original propoal, not Gage. Cyberbob Talk 14:22, 25 August 2006 (BST)~~ Yes - Heh. Nice move, Gage. Cyberbob Talk 15:06, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Hell yes.--Thari ^{S T F U} 15:08, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes for cutting the amount of crappy suggestions. --Nob666 20:46, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes There is no reason you cannot wait a day or two for your second suggestion. --Ybbor^T 21:07, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Yes I agree. --Paradox319 00:00, 26 August 2006 (BST)
No Going from 3 to 1 is a bit much. But the part I like the least is removal of your own suggestion being considered: abuse what if the troll votes are so offensive that you're doing the Wiki a favour by removing your own suggestion? In either case, removing your own suggestion shouldn't be abuse, provided you leave a record that you as the author removed your own suggestion.. it still counts towards your limit. If I'm only permitted 1 suggestion a day I'm going to be very aggressive in defending that 1 suggestion against spam voters, watch me. --MrAushvitz 00:56, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Have you ever 'thought about how people might see it before you post it? If you did, it might not be spammed. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 17:29, 26 August 2006 (BST)

It isn't. It's going to 2 per day. It wouldn't be as abusable as the current sytem is. Submit suggestion. Remove it. Submit again. Remove it again. That's all you can do today. If you submit it AGAIN TODAY, it would be abuse. But if you wait till tomorrow, then it would not be abuse/vandalism. Simple as that. Besides, if your constantly having to remove suggestions for revision...what the hell does THAT say about your suggestions in the first place?--Pesatyel 04:33, 27 August 2006 (BST)

For those who look at the votes, it says that the voting rules are not being obeyed, regardless of the suggestion. This is ass backwards, less suggestions per day won't bring the voting in line. You're going to have some very angry suggesters, not just me. Mark my words... don't be suprised if those who abuse the voting rules get temporarily banned after this gets implimented for trolling. Don't think I won't be saying "I said so" again, and again. --MrAushvitz 04:10, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Keeps the page from getting cluttered as hell from 6 resubmissions of the same damn thing. – Nubis 00:59, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Works for me --Mookiemookie 01:56, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Everyone else is voting this way. - CthulhuFhtagn 02:24, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - It's broken as it is. --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 17:27, 26 August 2006 (BST)
No - 3 suggestions per day to 1 is a bit much. If it needs to be changed, make it 2.Leeksoup 20:12, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Re The Policy change IS 2. Under the current rules, a person can make 3 different suggestions per day, but can remove and resubmit the one or all of those 3 suggestions as many times as they want since they are techically the same suggestion. Basically if I make a suggestion called [Suggestion] and remove it, then resubmit it, then remove and resubmit it 15 times, it is STILL considered only ONE suggestion, [Suggestion] and allows me to STILL make 2 more for the day. Instead, the idea is that if I make [Suggestion], then remove it, then resubmit it, that counts as BOTH suggestions I can make for the day.--Pesatyel 21:47, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Sure, sometimes i come up with two suggestions in one day. Who cares, I can wait for the next day to submit the second. And limit the number of damn revisions! -Certified=Insane_UG 22:29, 26 August 2006 (BST)
No Does it really inconvienence you that much? Its a minute or two a day, just let them have their fun and spam them to crap, like god/science/legolas/ringo starr intended.HamsterNinja 18:47, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- Tally 4 No, 19 Yes. Rheingold 02:30, 28 August 2006 (BST)
No - Whatever problems some folks have it's not worth holding back other folks who just might have a good idea. If 3 a day from one person is too much today, then 5 suggestion a week might be too many later. -- Nicks 02:39, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- Re - do you know what that arguement is called? It is called slippery slope and it is the worst, most illogical arguement ever.--Gage 03:29, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  - Re - I have to disagree Gage, sometimes slippery slope arguments can be valid (I'm not saying his is or isn't, I'm just saying the potential is there). Also, I think ad hominem arguments are the worst, while most five year old arguments (that is, an argument made by a five year old) are the most illogical. --Arcos ^T•C•S 21:32, 28 August 2006 (BST)
    - Slippery slope is hardly ever valid. Slippery slope makes the assumption that we are all slaves to precedent.--Gage 21:49, 28 August 2006 (BST)
      - Ah yes, that is true, but "hardly ever" isn't "never". And it's dangerous to believe that we are exempt from precedent as well, just as dangerous to believe we are slaves too it (And yes, I realize this is the entirely wrong place to debate the likelyhood for the repetitveness of human nature). --Arcos ^T•C•S 00:41, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        I never made the assertion that slippery slope was never right. I said it was one of the worst arguments ever. Reading helps!--Gage 02:42, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        Et tu, Gage? I never said that you made such an assertion, I merely pointed out that even the lowest probability is still probable. What's worse is this entire line of debate is mucking up the voting, so if you wish to continue this, I suggest we move it to a talk page and proceed in a civilized manner. --Arcos ^T•C•S 03:53, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        If I remember correctly, the 3-per-day rule was instated specifically because of Mr. Aushvitz spam suggestions. This suggestion is actually an validation of the slippery-slope argument (in other words, the old restrictions, that were originally deemed sufficient, set a precedent for new harsher ones). That doesn't however mean that this suggestion is invalid. After all how much stricter can it get from here? One-half of a suggestion allowed per day? lol Rheingold 04:27, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        It can't get much stricter without the Wiki Gestapo taking over.--∴Gage 04:35, 29 August 2006 (BST)
        
        I would like to point out to Rheingold that the policy to limit suggestions was created and purposed before Mr A even had his first post. - Jedaz 05:30, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - agree with the YES's gang kcold 03:47, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Yes - Me too. --Abi79 ^AB 17:52, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Talk:Suggestions/archive18

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

Scent Life

MP5 Submachinegun (updated)

Developing Suggestions

Limited Zombie Item Usage

Feeding drag change

Limit on actions

Skill Price Changes

SKill Loss on Revive/Death

Smoke Grenades

Firearm Audibility

Feral Defence

Yet Another Storage

AoE Guidelines

Visibility (V.2)

Mall store names

Hindering Clutter

Frenzied Looting

Chainsaw & Chainsaw skill

No Matter What It Takes!

Hand Grenades

Napalm Air-Raids

Crackshots V.1.5

Storage

Gifts

Training Books

Book List

Street Fighting

Explodey stuff!

Weather

Barbed Wires

Zom-B-Gon

Radio Jamming

Further Discussion

Main suggestions page cycling

Worst Suggestions

Add Author to Suggestion Template

Policy Discussion

More Spam Nonsense

Spamminated Links

Fewer Suggestions

Policy Proposal Writeups

Policy Votes

Less Suggestions

Votes

Navigation menu

Search