Talk:Suggestions/archive21

	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 were at vote. Discussions were held about them here.

---

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.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Further Discussion

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

Peer Reviewed Reboot

• I've been planning a re-design of the Peer Reviewed pages, based on this menu system.
• Each of the (purposefully, currently) broken links would lead to a new sub-page (replacing the current ones), all addressed as "Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions/subpagname", rather than the current system (where they don't sub off the PR page - they just stand alone). This may not be the way things are done, but it seems sensible - have I missed something?
• It's a significant change, so I'm seeking feedback before I go ahead.
• It's designed to make the PR suggestions easier to navigate - either when browsing or when adding new suggestions.
• I think the current version is difficult to digest / navigate / use.
• (The top 20 most recent and the implemented sections wouldn't change.)
• (I've discovered some DUPEs and no-longer-relevant-due-to-game-changes in there, so I plan to move those to a new "No Longer Required" sub-page.)
• (There was an established practise of re-naming suggestions to make them easier to browse by title alone - see PR talk page archive for details - so, I also plan to re-name any obfuscatious ones, noting - as per the practise - the rename in the suggestion notes.)
• I'll wait two weeks from this post before going ahead - assuming there are no objections.

--Funt Solo 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well as long as you are acting in good faith then you might as well do it now (thats the attitude I've learnt from other wiki's). Although I haven't been around for that long, I have had a read over a few of the suggestions and some of them would fall into multiple categories. For example some suggestions would couple a new weapon with a new skill as well. This would present a problem with what you are suggesting. What if what happened is that each suggestion gets it's own page and then a link to it in each of the seperate categories that it falls into is placed. - Dark Phantom^Talk 05:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Funt I'd make it a "Project". Put your proposal down and then list it under projects. Invite the Mods to take a look at your concept (maybe with a brief example) and invite the mods to comment. I don't see a problem with it, but I'd like to see it laid out in front of me. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Unproductive Discussion About How PKing Is Unbalanced

It just seems so obvious. --Jon Pyre 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. PKing is fine as it is. Zombies aren't. Cades are too damn strong. They were good back in the day when only 50 people held a Mall and 10 zombies attacked it. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That kinda sounds like an catch-22. Your saying make make zombies "better" right? People are resorting to PKing to enjoy the game because zombies are too weak?--Pesatyel 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm. Boosting barricades would make zeds too powerful, and it would be shut down by the wiki page and by Kevan, so I doubt that would do well. I wonder, though, if prehaps a way to nerf PKing is to make a suggestion that make PKing easier. That way, Bounty Hunters could more easily kill the PKers. PKers would want the change too, as it helps them as well. It might be a compromise that would work well...--ShadowScope 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wanna PK? Play Nexus War. But I digress, I don't think we need to make PKing easier. The main problem, as I see it, is that survivor-primary players are too scared to let zombie suggestions pass (look how up in arms people got over the one day Halloween event). PKing is "safer" than dealing with zombies.--Pesatyel 04:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with PKing is this is a turn based game where most players can't respond until long after an event has happened. Survivors can build barricades in advance to prevent death. Zombies can stand up for 6AP after death. That's the balance there. One side has powerful defense with greater consequence if they die, the other has no defense but minimal consequences if they die. However there's no balance when a survivor attacks a survivor. They have no defense and significant consequences. All my suggestions aren't try to stop PKing, I just want to make PKing equally as effective as playing a zombie. Heck, imagine is zombies could revive fellow zombies for a handful of AP! That's the mirror image of Pking and it's completely unbalancing and totally ridiculous. It's only worse in terms of flavor but just as bad in terms of game design. And Saromu, I'm not going to debate barricade balance with you but if you think zombies are underpowered improve zombies. Don't make them obsolete. I've suggested oodles of suggestions designed to make zombies more powerful. I'd never suggest "Give survivors the power to infect each other because bite sucks". It misses the whole point of the game. --Jon Pyre 04:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as for zombies reviving fellow zombies, it actually does happen, with ZKing being done to heal zeds. But I disgress too. I do understand your reasons, but PKing is also somewhat fun to other people, and it would nerf their sort of fun as well. I suppose you would like some sort of defense, but it does exist with Bounty Hunters. Lots of people PK now, and it would be a shame to have it be nerfed. Similar to lots of people doing barricade-starfing. Zombies complain about it, but Kevan won't implement anything that will harm starfers, because a lot of people use it, and they would be angry if the use of it was nerfed. Bounty Hunting is a defense that PKers tolerate, and prehaps, all one should do is boost Bounty Hunters. A way to do that, possibly, is to allow a Bounty Hunter to see the general location of where a PKer may go...and I would see Bounty Bounty Hunters using that to hunt down Bounty Hunters and gain their sweet revenge. But I think, in the long run, that is not what you want. You want some in-built AP cost to the act of pking, not in the part about fleeing aftewards. I'm not sure if there should be any cost associated with that. It just seemed a bit too arbitrary.--ShadowScope 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Also, a note. Peastyl, Angel Killing (when an Angel kills another Angel) in NW is hated a lot, and is hated just as much as Surivior PKers are hated in UD.--ShadowScope 05:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it is (the Angel kiling part), but the basic tenat of Nexus War is that the game is one big free for all, all players against each other, essentially. Urban Dead isn't the same. it is two group against each other with in fighting thrown in for fun. But the problem is that the "in fighting" is BECOMING the game instead of the two groups fighting each other. As far as PKing relative to the zombie-survivor conflict, we have two choices: Nerf PKing or improve zombies (preferably both, but the latter would be best). However, PKing is so...easy by comparison to dealing with zombies, those players DON'T WANT the status quo to change. We can't know what Kevan thinks (about barricade stafers or anything). Maybe something like that is too far down the list of changes to be made.

As for "what is wanted" the focus of the game should be on the zombie-survivor conflict with some PK thrown in for fun, not a PK conflict with some zombies thrown in on the periphery ("Malton has zombies? Shit, I didn't know THAT!").--Pesatyel 07:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kevan implemented Ransack to stop barricade strafing. --Jon Pyre 06:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in some cases, though, I do still hear some zombies still complain about strafing...Still. Pesatyel said it clearly why PKing can't be nerfed. Most players support it. Changing the game in order to return it to what it orginally is, will just cause those players to leave. If Kevan nerf PKers, he'll make a lot of players mad, and I think that is why Kevan won't do this. I also assumed that many PKers do try to return to the basics of the Z-H War, by being "Zombie Sympathizers", Death Cultists. But I do see your point.

But you cannot make a choice that will make people unpleased, without any sort of bad effect. Ransack did nerf barricade strafing, but it could still exist, and be done anyway, and people soon adjusted to it. But will people be able to adjust to a nerf in PKing? Or would they do a PK Strike? Prehaps, the focus of the game has changed, for better or for worse. And if people are unwilling to approve either buffs to zombies or nerfs to PKers...well, we'll be stuck in this place forever. I also think Kevan won't want to make a change because, by doing so, he would acknowledge that it turned into the Pker's Paradise that both of you fear, and I don't think that would be good for the game as a whole. The only way I could see such a proprsal to nerf PKing to be passed is if it could boost PKing in other areas as well, and I don't think that is the purpose.

Hm, flak jackets have turned into anti-PK shields, right? It's an allowed Autodefense, right? Could it be better to create Advanced Flak Jackets that can assist in being anti-PK shields...which PKers can also wear as well? It would provide an AP cost to shooting...decreasing the AP effiency of killing someone, while, at the same time, defending PKers from Bounty Hunters.--ShadowScope 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)EDIT: What I mean is that, current Flak Jackets decrease the damage done by guns by 20%. If an Advanced Flak Jacket decrease the damage of guns by 40%, that would be an AP pleanty to the PKer...but of course, a PKer can just wield an Axe. I wonder, prehaps we keep Flak Jacket, and then add in some armor that can nerf fire axes' use by PKers. This sort of method both peanlizes the PKer for PKing, but it also help the PKer defend himself from Bounty Hunters (basically, legal PKers who are loved, not hated), so it would be popular with them too. I hope.--ShadowScope 16:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggested a skill a long while ago called Take Cover, reducing the use of firearms against a survivor with the skill by 25%. It got shot down because it nerfed Bounty Hunters. The way I see it we've figured two balanced ways of dealing with death:

1. Death costs 6AP, requires no assistance, and can't be prevented.
2. Death costs 30AP, requires assistance, and can be prevented.

The only problem with death by PK is it has all the downsides of death by zombie but none of the preventative measures. If you could stand up as a survivor after being PKd for 6AP that'd balance it mechanics-wise but it'd make no sense from a gameplay or flavor perspective. Or if you could build a defense beforehand against it that would also balance it. So any solution that makes PKing balanced must do one of these three things:

1. Lower the penalty to the victim/victim's allies
2. Create a preventative defense that can be set up beforehand
3. Make PKing more difficult, riskier, or costlier

I'd appreciate any ideas you brainstorm in any of these three categories. And I'm honestly not against PKing. I swear, the day PKing becomes equivalent with playing a zombie I'll make a PK character myself. I just haven't because it seems too easy. I want to outplay people, not kill their characters and laugh at their helplessness. --Jon Pyre 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually like Reaper's suggestion PKer Flag (with, of course, my additions, heh). I was thinking of "notoriety." Basically when a PKer is witnessed killing someone, they get a notoriety point. After a certain number of points (say 10 or 12), people can start to get bonuses to hit against them (or they can get penalties to hit others; say +/-10%). The points could disappear, 1 at a time over some period of time (say every 24 hours or something). People who kill that PKer wouldn't get points built up (makes it safe for bounty hunters) and if a PKer dies they immediately lose a point. I think it would make it easier for people to deal with PKers and, who knows, the PKers might like the challenge.--Pesatyel 06:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt they would. That idea isn't bad but I can already predict why it would be shot down (provides information that could only be known through talking without anyone saying anything, gossip implies NPC gossipers, and of course "don't nerf my PKing"). --Jon Pyre 09:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Well, it wasn't JUST PKing. the whole "noteriety" thing would apply to all aspects of the game. Healing, zombie kills by survivors, survivor kills by zombies, barricading, finding things (maybe), "accuracy", things like that. I like in Nexus War that newspapers are more useful by listing various leader boards. Something similar could be done here and maybe THAT would be the indicator as to who is doing the PKing (or whatever). Regardless, I think if we can flesh it out and do our best to BALANCE it, even if the PKers bitch and whine and shoot it down, Kevan might still like the basic idea (see Ankle Grab, among others for THAT).--Pesatyel 19:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just had an idea that perhaps a new rule isn't what's needed to fight PKing. I have a zombie character who doesn't do anything but kill people. But from now on after being PK'd I will let him get revived, then revive two people before jumping out a window. The two characters never interact so it doesn't break the rules but if EVERYBODY who played a zombie and a survivor temporarily made their zombie a reviver after being PK'd it'd make PKing much less attractive. If most people followed this karmic balance sure you'd get an easy kill on a survivor by PKing but you'd be also helping the survivor side out by giving them one less murderous zombie for a while and two revived mrh cows. We just need to convince people to put information about this in their profile and spread the word throughout the game. --Jon Pyre 19:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put in my two cents. I can tell by this dialogue that a certain number of you were pked when you were a level one and now have a certain subconious passion to make it impossible to pk via overly complicated, makes the game less fun, completely ignoring the does and don't by pretending they're just guidelines, suggestions. And you've got a right to an opinion. But let me ask you this, All suggestions that are actually used are ones that pass without much conterversy. No one was crying and making longwinded arguements about the Fort change. But that does happen here with all these pk suggestions, so why would he use them. Also, pking is sometimes a postive force. A few days ago, I saw low level survivor at 2 health trapped outside a mall. I shot him. Why? Because he'd be dead soon enough anyways and better another survivor than a zombie --Officer Johnieo 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how applicable it is, but my character wasn't PKed for the first time until I maxed out (and I got my revenge anyway). I have a question though, do you not believe that PKing makes the game less fun? Is it the ONLY fun part left in the game (as alluded to by others)? Why do you PK?--Pesatyel 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that being killed by another survivor is better than being killed by a zombie (either way, they become a zombie). However, I do agree that PKing can be a positive force. It is the only means at players' disposal to thwart GKers, RKers, etc. The argument for why the dos and don'ts are guidelines is that many pre-existing game mechanics and implemented suggestions have went against those very same dos and don'ts. I was thinking of suggesting a modified version of my PKer flag suggestion that affected all killing (so that you would still have to check PKer lists and such, but would be able to get a heads-up of when to check). Unfortunately, with the change to the contacts list that was just made, such a suggestion would be pointless, as you can just add PKers to your contacts list and give them a particular color. Hopefully, that change will help balance PKing, since PKers will no longer be able to just free-run into buildings and remain invisible to anyone who isn't constantly checking the PK lists. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pking is only fun for Pkers. No one watches someone get gunned down and burts out laughing. (Well except other pkers). But if you check all the lists, you see that's theres so many of them. If we make it harder for them to be kill (say by putting a tag on them that says I PK! Please don't retaliate.) then they'll stop playing by the scores and this game get's lot's less fun. How? First, less survivors for zombies to kill, nothing for bounty hunters to do, no-one to curse with spraycans. The list goes on and on. Also I don't pk... much, except for the afforment reason. Which to clarify goes like this : This sucker is dead, either I get 5 ap, or a zombie get's 10. Better me than him. And I don't really think you were pked when young, that was a joke. --Officer Johnieo 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bounty hunters are a reasonable counter to PKers, but the concept requires serious metagaming to be effective. I would prefer some in-game balance to make PKing more of a challenge than "walk into a populated building, kill some people at random, go and hide some distance away (or alternatively work with an unlisted reviver and suicide between killing sprees)."
I think a skill that allows a bounty hunter character to track PKers would be useful. Something like - Rumour Mill Master - If a bounty hunter has a PKer in his contacts list then when he arrives in a populated building that the PKer has passed through he gets an indication of which direction the PKer went when they left. (or some such...). It's not a definite track, and there are ways to counter it, but it means that PKers need to think a bit more about where they move and where they sleep.
It sort of links to notoriety, in that a PKer would become known as such and survivors would notice when they are passing through. The same applies to those claiming to be in PKer groups - the group gets known around town as survivor killers, so anyone wearing the "gang colours" is noticed and watched.
I don't suggest that anything in the above paragraphs is actually implementable, they are just ideas I plucked from the ether =). –Ray Vern phz ^•T 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• It costs more time and more ap for a bounty hunter to kill a pker than it is for a pker to kill a random survivor.

If a player wants to pk random people, he does just that. I could, this second, easily kill three/four people without breaking a sweat. Because all I have to do is head to a populated area and shoot untill I am out of ammo, then camp out in an otherwise empty HB+ building. If someone wants to then kill me in revenge, they have to either a) hunt me down, searching every building within running distance, spending a hell of a lot of ap, b) get lucky and run into me while doing something else and with sufficient ammo and ap left over to kill me, c) post me on a pk list and hope someone else who reads the same PK list runs into me at some point and doesn't think the screenshot was doctored or the killing justified.

So either waste all their AP searching and probably not finding me, or else require themselves and many other people to waste a lot of time building and maintaining PK lists.

Net cost to me: AP searching for ammo, walking to the mall, firing, walking back. Possibly being killed at some point in the future.

Net cost to the bounty hunter: A hell of a lot of out of game time and effort or a hell of a lot of AP spent wandering from building to building looking for people. Most likely both.

• The average gametime and AP wasted getting revived is higher for survivors than for pkers.

Not everyone in the game is in a group. Not everyone in the game knows other people who play. Not everyone in the game knows about revive queues. But you can be sure as hell every pker has a group, friends they can call and knows their nearest revive point. Hell, some of them have revive zergs(and don't bother saying "zerg flag"). If a pker kills one person and then the pker gets killed, then the pker will have lost, at most, 30-35 ap. A "casual" player will be spending several days wandering around looking confused and then standing at a possibly defunct revive point for a few days more. Oh, and let's not even get into former zombies with brain rot(who a number of pkers specifically target).

• Pkers (or the majority of as they exist) do not want balance or fairness.

The long and the short of it is, pking is the easiest playstyle in the game. It requires the least investment and carries almost no penalty, and yet detracts the most from other people's play experience. Pkers who genuinely cared about game balance would WANT pking to either be difficult (but not impossible) or carry some sort of risk. Hell, in that case I would make a pker. But the people who bitch and whine about their precious pking being nerfed don't want a "challenge" or "balance" or "gain being relative to skill and investment" because effort is "boring". Planning or consequences are "boring". They want cheap kills, near invulnerability, and trenchcoats. Lots and lots of trenchcoats. --Gene Splicer 15:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for moderator consideration

Whether you like me and my suggestions, or hate me and my suggestions, or like me and hate my suggestions, or hate me and like my suggestions, or not really care either way, I've requested to be a moderator and could use any community support. I've been around for over a year and feel I've helped out the suggestions page in many ways so I hope that's enough to generate some good will. Plus if elected, small american flags for all. --Jon Pyre 06:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it's appropiate to put this here. Your bid for moderator is independent to the suggestions page, and considering the sheer size of this talk page it should only have things directly relating to the suggestions page on it. - Dark Phantom^Talk 08:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As Dark Phantom. Keep the bid-related stuff to the bid page (or the talk page), please. Cyberbob  Talk  09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nexus War based suggestions

I play both games and and I like some of the...improvements made (by comparsion between the two games) that Nexus War has. But I've noticed that when suggestions are made based off of what was developed in NW they always (okay usually) get shot down with the eEpitaph "this isn't Nexus War," as if that was some sort of bad thing. Is it? The whole point of this suggestion page is to try and improve upon a game we all enjoy playing and if we can borrow ideas from a similar game, why shouldn't we? What about if they go against the "dos and do nots?" For example, AP regeneration is double in NW what it is in UD, meaning people can play twice a day (or, as I see it, have more options of WHEN they can play for that 1 time per day), but when such ideas are suggested for UD, they get rejected. Why? If you could, wouldn't you want to play UD more than once a day (especially if you donated)? Anyway, the reason I ask is that I had a few ideas I wanted to borrow from NW, but if the game is so loathed or the ideas would be killed/spammed because "this isn't Nexus War" I don't think I'd bother.--Pesatyel 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't that it's a different game, it's that people don't want this game to become that game. For instance people don't want faster regeneration of AP so they don't have to log in multiple times a day or be at a greater disadvantage. I'm sure some things would translate well but some of them aren't just new features but major alternations to the fundamental nature of UD. --Jon Pyre 16:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

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

Slight Problem

A rather significant change (see line 28) in the rules the of the suggestions page occured a month or two back. No one seemed to notice it until a petty spat popped up and I started looking into the rules. I noticed they were changed without going through the proper procedures. I'm fairly certain that no one has a problem with these "new" rules, as no one commented on it, much less noticed it, but when a rule change includes the words "considered as vandalism" users start to get twitchy, so I pulled it. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 10:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The parts that say "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote." and "Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote" should be removed as well, as you've indicated that they should not be enforced. --Funt Solo 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, people should not have to explain why they find a suggestion shit or good. -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not?--Pesatyel 04:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Xoid: The real problem is "explain your vote" is so vague it's not funny. As long as you have an explanation, no matter how inane, you manage to fulfill that requirement. --Funt Solo 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If we could reword it so it would actually be worth enforcing, that'd be great. The problem is making it loose enough to allow all "good" reasoning as valid, and "bad" reasoning as invalid — since it's a subjective exercise it will likely lead back to the exact same problem. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 13:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You could reword it so that only Kill votes require reasoning. Keep votes are Keep because they agree with the suggestion - the reasoning is already there. Spam votes are "this is shit" - so no reasoning is required. Kill votes, by their definition, require that something be changed for a Keep. You could make the rule Kill votes must provide the alterations required for a Keep - although that opens up the debate on the whole Keep/Kill/Spam, actually being more a case of Keep/Change/Kill in practise. --Funt Solo 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. This goes back to older discussions about the definitions of the votes. Basically, it sounds like we need to get it "set in stone" so to speak what the votes mean. Plus, I like the idea of changing "kill" to "revise" since most people just use spam to get rid of suggestions and kill to make suggested changes anyway. Basically:

• Keep: The suggestion is good AS IS. No explanations necessary.
• Revise: Voter must provide the alterations required for a keep.
• Spam: Voter must provide a valid reason.

• Valid Reasons: Breaks the game, unbalanced, messes with AP, messes with inventory (self or others), multiply it by a billion, multi-step/pied piper, requires a reset and making the game more fun and not less fun.

Basically, I'm kinda thinking of "sterlizing" what can be put as a valid reason for spam. I don't see much difference between the kill and spam vote, other than how quickly we want to the suggestion to leave the page. Both basically say "this suggestion is not nor will it be good."--Pesatyel 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's limit Spam to only apply to items that violate the Suggestion Dos and Donts, are very out of genre (magic and robots so on) or actually vandalism/satire/humor. The hypothetical Spam vote "Survivors don't need computers" shouldn't be allowd. Instead people should have to cite which of the Dos and Donts is violates: "This applies retroactive penalties to anyone who bought Tangling Grasp" In fact, ahem, I officially open discussion on this for the purpose of putting it to a vote! --Jon Pyre 06:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My idea: rename the categories Keep/Change/Kill (with Dupe votes being placed in the Kill section and counting as Kills in the event that the suggestion is not deemed a Dupe, and Change votes counting as Kills for the purposes of the tally). The new Kill will behave as a Spam, for the purposes of removing the suggestion early from the 2-week process. No suggestion should be removed (unless it is humorous, a Dupe, vandalism or a second daily) until it is in Previous Days, to allow the votes to be kept intact for historical/reference purposes. --Funt Solo 09:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make changing "spam" to "kill"? I mean it seems to me we have 4 types of votes (like, fix, dislike, loath) or did you simply mean changing them to like, fix and hate?--Pesatyel 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, once the suggestion is off the main page it doesn't matter if it stays. We're on a wiki. We have somewhat infinite storage space. The only issue is to be able to clear things off the main page so it doesn't get overlong. --Jon Pyre 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's to do with keeping the votes intact. This discussion page gets too long, so it's not a good place to store spammed suggestions - but they could be stored in the discussion pages for Previous Days, because those are often empty. Votes aren't kept intact in Peer Rejected (with good reason). The new security features cause pages with too many templates to not display said templates - and a lot of the archives have been affected by it - so it is important to keep page content down on any individual page. --Funt Solo 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And what "good reason" is that? One of the primary problems with Peer Rejected is that the suggestions DON'T have the votes attached. I saw a few that looked...interesting (and were not spamminated) but without the votes, I wouldn't now what people thought would be good for making the suggesiton better.--Pesatyel 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Include the votes and the page gets too long. See also: Peer Undecided and Peer Reviewed - the votes are never attached. You can read the votes by looking up Previous Days - just not in the case of a spaminated suggestion - which loses its votes as part of the spamination process. --Funt Solo 08:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's my point though. If we can read the votes in Previous Days, why not just leave the votes for the spamminated suggestions as well? As for the others, Peer Review doesn't need them and, well, is Undecided even still used?--Pesatyel 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You could always make it mandatory to comment out the votes if you want to keep them. That way you can view it when you edit the page and it doesn't clutter things up. - Dark Phantom^Talk 06:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dos and Do Nots

I seriously think PKer-related suggestions should go in the Dos and Do Nots, 'cause really, they are the same as barricade-related suggestions. PKing is part of the game. Though it's not to be encouraged, it shouldn't be penalised. And anyways, they all fail, and tend to be rediculous or broken. I haven't come up with a wording for it, but I'm just saying this to see who agrees that PKer-related suggestions are SSS. -Certified=Insane^☭ 22:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what SSS stands for, but there is already a section dealing with PKer suggestions in frequently suggested. And the only two people to make PK-limiting suggestions recently were Jon Pyre and me - and we've both read frequently suggested and the dos and donts. Such suggestions are always controversial, but I don't think that warrants any kind of moratorium on the subject. Open debate is a good thing. --Funt Solo 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

" Player Killing

Kevan has stated that he does not intend to prohibit PKing in his game. It adds to the inherent "apocalyptic" nature of the game when one has to worry over whether the person in the corner of the building is going to axe you in your sleep, and zombie cannibalism is not unheard of in the film lore of the genre. Suggestions that outright punish PKing, "tag" PKers so that they are obvious and easy to avoid, or specifically counter PK attacks are thus often voted down. However, PKers are not popular within the game environment themselves - Kevan even specifically halved the XP gain from PKing to discourage it. Therefore, skills that are of sole use to PKers or gameplay changes that legitimize PK behaviours are similarly shot down. Effectively, if your suggestion either actively punishes or promotes PK activity you can expect it to meet firm opposition. "

Shouldn't that be in the Dos and Do Nots page? I honestly don't look at the author (though I have noticed John Pyre). The core problem with PKer-related suggestions is that they always assume PKers are griefers, which is not the case. Sure, you always meet retards at the big malls, but most of the PKers are PKer groups or "Anti-PKer" groups, which also leads to the fact that most PKer-related suggestions assume PKers work alone. I've noticed a surge of PKer related-suggestions recently, and I just think it's bullshit (mind you, I don't have a NPOV, The Urban Guerillas have been engaged in a fire-fight for close to 2 months now following a murder by the Imperial War Machine, and we have managed to achieve what none of their opposants have before. They have not given up yet, and I would be pissed off if some new lame "anti-pker" implementation came and hindered our efforts to free Dakerstown and annihilate that bunch of fascists). -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

PROhibit and INhibit are two different things. Right now Urban Dead is two games: PKer's Paradise and Zombie Armageddon. Unfortunately, the latter game seems to get pushed into the background because PKing is easier. I believe that if the shift gets far enough, Kevan WILL take steps to correct the imbalance. I agree that PK suggestions tend to "over do it" but voter sentiment isn't usually about the suggestion working or not. It is most often about curtailing the "fun" when the fun has already been misdirected.

The question we, the players and Urban Dead community, have to ask ourselves is this:

• What kind of game SHOULD Urban Dead be (regardless of what Kevan says since WE, the players, essentially decide)? Zombies fightings survivors with PKing on the side to enhance the game OR survivors fighting survivors with zombies on the side only in as much as it is a necessary period until one can get revived?

I believe that the majority (most most) would like the game to be the former (zombie vs survivor with PKing on the side). It is the reason we all started playing. The problem is, the game has gotten too...predictable, as far as zombies are concerned. So people turn to PKing to "liven things up". And, because it is EASIER, it starts to get prefered. You know, your right, "nerfing" PKing WOULDN'T improve the game. That can only happen by improving all the OTHER aspects of the game (zombies, survivors, Malton). HOWEVER, the problem is this: Survivor players don't seem to WANT to improve the game (because it, most often, involves improving zombies) AND because PKing is easier.

As for the Dos and Don'ts, those are wiki-based...suggestions, not set-in-stone rules. They are good ideas but they should NOT prohibit people from suggesting ideas that enter those areas (such as AP).--Pesatyel 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy into this idea that all pro-zombie ideas are shot down. And I've got evidence to back me up. Of the last 20 suggestions added to Peer Reviewed, 13 of them involve zombie buffs of one form or another, and 5 of those were added in this last week. There are currently well over 100 zombie skill suggestions in Peer Reviewed, and that's only counting the suggestions in the skills sections - tons of the other suggestions also relate directly to improving the lot of the zombie player. To say that people don't want to allow pro-zombie suggestions is simply not accurate. --Funt Solo 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did you read THAT in what I said? I said that ALL aspects of the game need to be improved. And where did you read that we have 5 zombie buffs add to the game in the last week? I count TWO (dumping bodies change and the lit buildings change; the first time zombies message does't count) and of the last 20, only nine were zombie related. Over the last MONTH, we had 41 survivor suggestions (25% (10) were accepted) and 24 zombie suggestions (8% (3) were accepted). And that is just THIS month. I just went through (had nothing better to do...) the Peer Reviewed. There are 199 survivor oriented suggestions, 139 zombie-oriented ones and 52 that weren't specific (or flavor or whatever). So the problem really isn't OUR ideas, it is Kevan not implementing them.--Pesatyel 20:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I'll agree there are some that will vote kill (or spam...) on all suggestions that help the other side (survivors killing zombie buffs and vice versa), as Funt said, good suggestions pass anyways. As far players not wanting to improve the game, well, if "improving" the game makes it less fun for them, is it really an improvement? -Certified=Insane^☭ 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How would IMPROVING the game make it LESS fun?--Pesatyel 20:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that all "improvement" is subjective. What's good to some is, well, less to others. -Certified=Insane^☭ 20:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I'm looking at it from a "black and white" view I think. The game should focus on the zombie-survivor conflict. OF COURSE it is going to be "less fun" for those that only play PKers, but then WHY are you playing Urban Dead JUST to PK? There are much better games, without the "zombie distraction", for it (Nexus War). Besides, don't you think that the PKing makes it LESS fun for those peopl who are playing "legitmately" (ie. survivors vs zombies)? EDIT: I might add that "legitimate" is for people that play Urban Dead, including with the zombies and NOT for people who, if the zombies disappeared entirely, their game wouldn't be affected. There is a difference and it is that latter group that seems to be the problem.--Pesatyel 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with CI. For an example, just look at how Pesatyel and I interpreted exactly the same information. I saw 5 zombie buffs added to PR in the last week, and he only saw 2. I'm sure we both think we're correct. --Funt Solo 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Either it improves a zombie or it does not. Even if you add in the helping new zombies, that still leaves 2. What are they?--Pesatyel 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that somone else has finally latched on to what I've been saying in each and every one of my kill votes on PKer suggestions- don't make the game less fun to play, make it better. To Mr.Pyre himself- I must congratulate you on irritating my final non PKing survivor into killing you in the mall today. Look what you've done! Constant whining about PKing will only encourage it. --Karloth vois ^RR 22:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And just HOW do we make it better?--Pesatyel 01:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care! I like it as it is. Just please, stop trying to make it worse. Durr. --Karloth vois ^RR 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And here we have defined the problem. Thanks for the illustration! EDIT: And bear in mind I'm not talking about PKing in anyway. I'm talking about the game we all play, called Urban Dead.--Pesatyel 06:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pesatyel, I haven't really got time to go through the entire backlog of PR and explain why I think any particular suggestion is helpful to zombies, because for each example it would appear that you would argue till you turned blue that I was wrong. For those added in the last week, though, I think (and you won't convince me otherwise, so if you try it'll be a waste of your time) that the following are pro-zombie: Sprinting, NT Test Subject, Adrenaline Rush/Zombie Surge, Blood Marks, Pounding Hands, Call Of The Dead. There - 6, not 5 (and certainly not the 2 you counted). We may disagree. --Funt Solo 08:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Funt, I think everyone gets a little TOO caught up in an argument to realize they are being boorish.--Pesatyel 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate reality here is that with the way PKing is now (free-run through barricades, kill, and escape), there is no way of making the game more "survivor vs zombie"-oriented than PKer-oriented without weakening either barricades or PKing. PKers are so powerful (to the point that they nerf zombies) because barricades cannot stop them. Now, if we wanted to make the game less about PKing without actually weakening PKing, the only way we could do that is to make zombies as powerful as PKers, which would mean allowing them to bypass barricades (since that's what makes them so powerful). But there's no way that's gonna happen. With the superior organization shown by zombies and the ability to stand up every time they are killed, survivors would have no chance. So, logically, the only way to make the game more "fun" in terms of survivor-vs-zombie is to weaken PKing somehow. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? It sound like, to me, that you are saying we shouldn't bother to do anything to improve the game at all Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a tad, but bear with me. Nearly everyone here seems to be of the idea that we shouldn't do ANYTHING to inhibit PKing (some are even suggesting it is the only "fun" thing left in the game or the "only" reason to play), so combining THAT with what you just said, well, maybe I'm not exaggerating so much....--Pesatyel 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PKers are over powered because they have free running. Soon, we'll have skill trees for PKers and Bounty Hunters. By then all the non-PKing survivors will have left because they find themselves dead every time they log on. Then all the PKers will have their PKer fight, feeling all manly because they're breaking the rules, and the ex-players will all go looking for something else to do. Hey, maybe we'll even get lives.

In all seriousness, what we need is a preventative measure that will allow us a way, maybe like a trap or something with a set percentage, to help us prevent PKing. Either that, or we could make Zombies much more powerful, because they get uber nerfed by PKers. --Loomos 07:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Played for well over a year and in all honesty Pking has never been much of a problem to me. I do it occassionaly but only when my dedicated zed got combat revived and i wanted payback (this does not happen anymore cos i got rotten!) Basically Pkers that do it just to annoy are a minority of players and are almost certainly 13 year old boys with nothing better to do. There are valid reasons for Pking and i do not want to be punished for following them nor do i want this aspect taken out of the game. So what can we do? i for one would support some sort of auto defence skill that only worked against human on human pkers. a percentage chance that every time someone shot at me i could fire back if i have the AP would seem the best bet. Perhaps 10% for a basic skill 25% for an advanced version and a whopping 50% for experts! these skills should not show up on a profile so that the prospective Pker can't just avoid taking the risk. Why dont i suggest it: cos i always break the suggestion template and am fed up being shouted at ;-) Seriously i like the idea and think it would get a lot of support; just not enough to pass but someone else please feel free.--Honestmistake 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting Guidelines change

Policy

Goal

This policy seeks to explicitly define the four types of votes allowed on the Suggestions page. This policy does not intend to restrict voting in any way, only clarify and redefine what each vote symbolizes. This policy does not extend beyond the Suggestions page, and does not include the Suggestions discussion page, as there is no voting form there.

Current Types of Votes

Quoted from the Suggestions page:

• Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit.
• Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit. If you need to discuss a rule fix, use the discussion page.
• Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions.

Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described below in the Removing Suggestions section. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.

Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM. Spam votes will be counted as Kill when votes are tallied.

• Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion.

Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described below. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied.

These criteria for voting seem to be enough on the surface, but the current trend is to vote Spam liberally, which results in unjustly "Spaminating" suggestions from the page.

Proposed Changes

This policy proposes the following changes to the voting format:

• Keep votes remain the same.
• Kill votes are only to be used for suggestions that do not have merit in their current form. These suggestions may or may not be fixable.
• Spam votes are only for the suggestions that are: Ridiculous, humorous, or irrelevant. Spam votes are not to be used for suggestions that are unfixable. In that case, use a kill. Spam votes are not to be used to simply get a suggestion off of the page through spamination.
• Dupe votes remain the same.

What This Policy Hopes To Accomplish

If this policy passes and goes into effect, there will be more suggestions with at least some merit on the suggestions page, and people will be more willing to add their own suggestions, having less fear of spamination.

Voting

Policy is not under voting. Please discuss this policy below.

Discussion

Version 1: 11/22/06

Discuss. --Blue Command Vic ^DvB 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Spam votes are not to be used for suggestions that are unfixable". By definition "Flying ninja Monkeys" is not spam because it's an unfixable suggestion. Maybe reword it so it says "Spam votes are not to be used for suggestions that are in theme of Urban Dead". I think that what you currently have is just as objective as the previous version. - Dark Phantom^Talk 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I know that the current guidelines are objective, what this will do is "spell it out" more. That will help both the newbs and the vets that have bad habits.--Blue Command Vic ^DvB 01:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I dunno about "dupe". I know you're trying to do clever shorthand for "duplicate" but "dupe" in colloquial english means deceit. Maybe "Deja Vu" (as in, "haven't we been here before"?) with a citation.--The Envoy 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dupe is the term used on the wiki right now. I saw no reason to change the terms.--Blue Command Vic ^DvB 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh

What is up with the "Spam votes are not to be used for suggestions that are unfixable" line? If a suggestion is unsalvageable, then I think that is a perfect reason to spam it. Don't you?--Gage 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My meaning of Spam is "Something that doesn't belong here." If the person was being 100% serious about their suggestion, and they put effort into it, there's no reason to boot it off the page after 8-10 votes simply because people voted spam instead of kill.--Blue Command Vic ^DvB 06:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So, your only validation of a suggestion is how "serious" YOU think the author is being? I've seen some really shitty suggestions that the author put quite a bit of work into and sppeared to be quite serious about...but STILL deserved to be spammed. So, a suggestion that a player be allowed to insta-kill a full health zombie, because the author put a lot of "thought" into it and used a lot of words is not spammable because the author put a lot of "thought" into it and used a lot of words. The fact it would totally break the game is irrelevant to your definition of spam?--Pesatyel 06:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am with Pesatyel, serious suggestions sometimes need to be spammed. If everyone was smart it wouldn't be so, but not everyone is. See what I am getting at?--Gage 07:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, maybe I worded myself wrong. The only things I vote spam on are

• A) The incredibly ridiculous suggestions that don't even belong there.
• B) The really stupid things that look half-assed.
• C) A combination of A and B.
• D) Things that would immediately nerf a major skill/feature/item/whatever.

See what I'm getting at? Think about your email inbox. You've got a spam filter, right? And what does it block? Ads, porn, general junk, stuff that has no place in your inbox, right? That's what I'm trying to do here. Restrict spam votes to things that have no place being suggested in the first place.--Blue Command Vic ^DvB 07:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference

All I see here is a change of wording. What does this actually change about the voting guidelines? Cyberbob  Talk  05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It clarifies what Spam and Kill are to be used for. To be quite honest, I got tired of seeing Spam votes with reasonings that sound like the kills just above them. People are using Spam just to try to get rid of things, when they should be voting kill instead.--Blue Command Vic ^DvB 06:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also getting quite tired of people voting spam when it should be a kill, and voting spam for the sake of voting spam.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

People are using Spam just to try to get rid of things,... is the whole POINT of the spam vote. If you feel your suggestion was unfairly voted upon, bring it up to a mod or arbitration. ...when they should be voting kill instead.' DON'T tell people how to vote. Show me an example of a suggestion that the kill and spam votes sound exactly the same. Or, better, show me an example and let us figure out which are kill and which are spam based on the reasoning (ie. remove the votes). If we can't tell the difference, you MAY have something of an argument here.--Pesatyel 06:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Spam votes are only for the suggestions that are: Ridiculous, humorous, or irrelevant. Spam votes are not to be used for suggestions that are unfixable. In that case, use a kill. Spam votes are not to be used to simply get a suggestion off of the page through spamination.

The highlighted part is THE definition of the spam vote. Are you suggesting getting rid of the spam vote? And an unfixable suggestion doesn't deserve to be saved. Why should it? Have you actually READ any of the archived discussions on this subject? What we need is a clear definition of what is a valid reason for spam. And just saying "because I don't want to get spammed" isn't it.--Pesatyel 06:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be up for changing the votes to Keep/Change/Kill, but that's simply changing the name of the current votes from Keep/Kill/Spam. I absolutely hate your idea of introducing more suggestions to the suggestions page, and nerfing my ability to vote spam on the simple grounds that I hate the suggestion and (whatever the change to it) I would never vote Keep. Trust me - there are already enough suggestions being made (in fact, too many). Go take a look in Peer Reviewed / Undecided / Rejected. Do you really think we need a larger capacity of suggestions being made? 1-2 suggestions per day go into Peer Reviewed. That's plenty. If you put this policy forward as it is, guess which vote I'll be using? --Funt Solo 12:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am with Funt on this one, a simple change to 'keep, change, kill' is what is needed. In all the time i have been on the wiki i have voted SPAM maybe twice! OK so most of the absolute sh!te i see doesn't even warrant my vote and is already been spammed into the depths but... there has been a problem in the past with people spamming cos they don'y like the author or they play a zed and the suggestion helps harmans. SPAM could be kept as a mod. only vote with 3 being enough to kill the suggestion, thus retaining the ability to weed out the real problem suggestions. If that were the case it would even be worth having a core of lesser mods, lets call em 'spaminators' voted for by wiki users who could help out in this simple but essential chore! Before anyone says "whats the point?" i would like to suggest that some spammers have multiple usernames just to spam more effectively and i have seen reasonable suggestions lost before they have been up an hour! Whatever the strict 1 suggestion a day rule has cut down the crap considerably so spam votes need to be limited a little --Honestmistake 16:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, basically, it boils down to just getting rid of the spam vote?--Pesatyel 05:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, more like changing the name of the spam vote. Which means it's all just semantics and pretty pointless. --Funt Solo 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be pointless semantics, as it is the SPAM vote is often used as an insult or a tool to censor people you don't like and that should be addressed.--Honestmistake 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Changing the name isn't going to stop me from voting with the tagline Stupid. Pathetic. Asinine. Moronic. It's not going to stop other people from voting WTFCENTAURS. It's not going to stop SSS.
2. Most important of all: I'm sorry, but if a suggestion is complete utter horseshit, simply calling it Chanel No. 5 isn't going to make it so. All the insults will remain, and likely get worse because you are trying to censor people's opinions on the suggestion to save someone's feelings being hurt. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 15:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, it might not be a bad...experiment to get rid of the spam vote for a set period of time, just to see how things work out.--Pesatyel 03:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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.