User talk:Jon Pyre/Archive1

A wild idea

I am not sure if you could be interested in something like this, but I would be happy if you could look at it and tell me what you think. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Weather Effects Vote

Sorry, that "suggestion" was not up for voting (its a work in progress) so I had to edit out your vote text. Largely my fault to leave the category label on when creating a page in my name space "sandbox", I'd guess. Your point is valid in that this may not be a popular suggestion, though I am trying to have the effects be mostly balanced on the global scale.
As a note, just waiting a few hours is quite unlikely to help; there is a very small chance that a specific weather effect will go away each hour. (10% chance of weather change each hour, 25% chance a given effect type will be the one to change, and then only a 66% or 75% chance that there actually is a new effect selected. That works out to only a 34% chance of an active effect going away in 24 hours.) If a weather effect is in play, people are pretty much forced to deal with it- not playing because of the in-game weather is a waste of APs bigger than any of the weather effects would be. 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Interested?

--Funt Solo ^QT 20:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

re: the colourise inventory thingy

"I'm not sure I understand your vote change. The color change is optional, and only borders, hardly creating rainbow buttons. And why should optional = bad" ..... Uhm, sounds like you are responding to kareks comnent, not mine. I didn't say anything about these things. IMO the suggestion does not address the problem. Having colour-coded inventory items, but all still jumbled and mixed up, is not going to help! Thus, the suggestion is pointless. The game engine needs to actually SORT the inventory. Saying: "8 x First Aid Kits, pistol (4), pistol (6), 6 x pistol clips" -- just like UDtool does. Dig? ... Oh, any why the hell cant people (I mean you!!! ;P ) read the big bold lettered message on my talk page saying "NEW MESSAGES AT THE TOP??" Seriously... --WanYao 23:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Worry Not

Grimch's probably just blowing off steam after his own suggestion (renaming the crucifixes) was shot down like so much swiss cheese. I hope your latest suggestion gets approval from Kevan. --Private Mark 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Scent-trails

Hi. I think you misunderstood the suggestion. I've explained it better in my reply, so I would appreciate it if you would read it and reconsider your vote. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 05:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Feeding Lunge

So why do you feel its overpowered? I frankly think its a minor change.--Rosslessness 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Serves me right for having 2 windows open at the same time. I am an official idiot. Ignore me from now on.--Rosslessness 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Causes Headshot

Giving zombies the ability to kill themselves is pretty much the whole point of the suggestion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:43, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Triage Suggestion

Just so you know (cause i don't like killing suggestions) there is a way to sort the players out by color, if it really is a problem for you (and lets say it doesn't get passed) you can always download the firefox extension (they have links on it for here) and it actually shows you a color for those who are injured (green for good health, yellow for med, red for close to death)along with sort your inventory, adds graphics and whatnot...--Someguy5031 06:37, 2 October 2007 (BST)

I tell you what, If you take the triage suggestion to discussion, I will be more than happy to discuss this with you and make suggestions for improvements, as will everyone else. --Seventythree^Talk 16:01, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Gladly...

I'l always vote "keep" for your suggestions (only if they are good though :P)--  Savant  Chit-Chat  21:00, 28 September 2007 (BST)

lair and feast

I love both these suggestions but really think they would work best together. The potential for combining them is superb and would be fantastic for scaring harmans and making the game more interesting for zeds... Hopefully my suggestion to swop the attack bonus for an 'unseen' status for laired zeds would be incorporated as the bonus was the only part i didn't like.... i think that bit got most of the kills too. If this does get accepted would you consider submiting an extension to feeding drag to allow laired zeds to drag people of the streets? not hugely usefull but if it proves acceptable who knows what kevan might make of it?--Honestmistake 18:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Competing Grasp

Well I liked the suggestion, but the maths are really hard for survivors just think, 10 organized Zeds: bring down a VSB building with about 40 ap, that leaves 460 ap to use this, needing about 2 AP to succesfulling grasping and 9 zeds to kill a survivor (9x3=27 from grasp and 27hp is a kill) that means 18 of those collective AP for a kill, so those 10 Zombies could kill 25 survivors on average, getting a total of 975 XP (an average of 97 XP per zed). plus imagine this case a zombie group that let a newbie take all the kills, that newbie could get 225 XP in a day. becouse i like the idea i put this here and not in the suggestion page, but you should expect a lot of kill votes from those that only play survivors--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC) PS: your page is getting to long, maybe you should create an archive for old talk--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no xp benefit for the other zombies but having more survivors die benefits every zombie. --Jon Pyre 14:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A zombie's primary goal is to get XP. They can't do anything else, unlike survivors who have plenty of...distractions. Sure zombie hordes "help" each other with Feeding Drag or MoL, but this is just TOO unhelpful towards the others. If you had 20 zombies attack a single survivor, why should that ONE zombie that "made the kill" be the only one to get the bonus? If it weren't for the other zombies, he wouldn't have made the kill!--Pesatyel 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Sign your votes

Actually I think you meant "justify" your votes since I did signed it but thx anyway :). --Deras 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

silly jon again

Your "Colour the items" suggestion is on the same date as the Mutation Bites suggestion. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 04:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Look at the timestamps.--Lachryma^☭ 05:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They were on the same page, so whatever. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because the magical suggestion elves haven't cycled the page yet.--Lachryma^☭ 05:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Funt Solo? An elf? *shudder* --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it goes by midnight GMT. So it actually turns over during the day here in the US.

your question

I answered your question on the promotions page. Hope its what you are looking for. Oh, and I'm unsure as to where I put messages to you on your talk page. Top or bottom?--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, on the promotions page, when does my profile get put in 'community discussion'? It says it gets moved there when it gets three or more keep. So who moves it? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Silly Jon

You forgot to author vote on Mournfoul Moans. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

RE

Sorry, my vote was based on the apparently erroneous belief that you can't attack generators with firearms. Although, most handles for axes aren't metal themselves anyway, so you would probably be safe. Though I wouldn't hit it with a length of metal pipe.--J Muller 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ever stop

Will you or MrAushvitz ever stop submitting stuff to the suggestions page? Are you both hoping on the law of averages or something that at least a few will go through? (and yes, I know some have) --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 07:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

On the reduce revive cost suggestion voting. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 14:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A note on the misuse of population statistics

Jon,

Recently it was mentioned, yet again, that survivors "outnumber" zombies and therefore zombies need special protections, as if they are a California Condor or Blue Whale. While it is true that currently there are 17,127 (60%) survivors and 11,224 zombies (40%), this does not necessarily imply that zombies need special assistance. Those numbers do not represent the preference of the player, but rather the circumstance the game thrusts upon them, their current actual state. If you look more deeply, the numbers show a strong advantage for playing a zombie.

In an evenly balanced, fair play game, one would expect approximately as many survivor players to find themselves forced temporarily to play a zombie as the other way around, that is a zombie player forced to run a survivor. In that ideal game setting, the numbers of characters created as a survivor would roughly equal the number currently a survivor, and the number of characters created as a zombie would roughly equal the number currently a zombie. Looking at the numbers, we see this is not the case.

The total number of characters created to be a Survivor is 23,294 and a the total number of current survivors is 17,127. The total created as a Zombie is 11,225, with currently active zombies numbering 11,224. At the moment, there is a 6,167 difference between the number of Survivors created and the the number of Survivors standing. The number of Zombies, you can see is nearly exactly equal. This implies that while Zombie Players get to play the sort of character they enjoy, this is not the case with Survivor Players.

Bottom line: while more players enjoy playing a survivor, at any given time about a quarter of them are prevented from doing so. Folks who like to play zombies, do so with little interruption. --Nosimplehiway 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would interpret this differently. The game mechanics make it harder for a zombified human to revert to human form. A humanised zombie can revert more quickly, either by defenestration or sacrificing himself to the horde, and suffers no movement penalty. This effect may in fact help balance the population asymmetry. An analysis of populations can not be properly interpreted without knowing the history of character creations.--SporeSore 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reduce The AP Cost To Use a Syringe On A Murder Victim

Hi, you convinced me but I don't know how to strike my old vote. Could you teach me? I tried but ended up striking the whole Spam section. Thanks. --Deras 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea...

You caught me! I'm a selfish asshole! Oh noes!!!!1--Mayor Fitting 05:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah. I can see where you got the idea from, and if was still only pro survivor and didn't play a pker and zombie I would agree with you. I just think it isn't a needed change. Besides, pking inflicts about 10% of all deaths. Zombies do the rest.--Mayor Fitting 05:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC) PS-It doesn't nerf pking unlike that flack jacket one. Now thats a bad idea.

Apology accepted. Don't worry about it, I have no hard feelings towards you. Besides my first comment was pure sarcasm. Which, doesn't read too well on the internet :(. But I can see what you mean though on the AP side of things. But it can make things interesting, like for instance lets say a group was holding a PD under seige, and a group of pkers comes in and kills 10 of the 35 survivors. There down to 25, now the 40 zombies can get in and grab some XP! But really, you could make a scenario that works another way. Its all about the POV you taking into consideration. All I am trying to say is that they can change the game in good or bad ways depending on which side you play.--Mayor Fitting 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pkers add that sense of "Am I going to die here?" and the horrible feeling of waking up in your safe house axe murdered. Besides, pkers are meant to break rules ;)--Mayor Fitting 05:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, that is true. Its just that some people feel that it removes some of the game balance and I personally think that just because you got pked you shouldn't get special treatment.--Mayor Fitting 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Flare Gun Suggestion

The quote from the article you found on wikipedia is quite interesting. Could you send me a link to that page so I can read the whole article? Thanks. --Zombie slay3r 03:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Nursing and First, Cause a Distraction violate the "one suggestion a day" policy, right? --Joe O'Wood 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's why I didn't flat out remove it, I noticed that there was a time difference and wanted to be sure. :D --Joe O'Wood 01:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Also, "Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote,". Again, not going to be rash and remove it, just telling you that there are talk pages. --Joe O'Wood 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the suggestion rules more carefully, ok (only one reply per vote for each person)? Anyway, as for your note, "actually the game's anti-cheat measures are known to work when two characters from the same IP address are in close proximity. When someone has two characters in the same suburb they generally suffer abysmal hit and search rates, possibly missing upwards of 30 times in a row," I find that to be untrue from experience. I have three characters in the same building, with probability rates never hindered. I'm not a zerger, but if I was one, the anti-zerging measures would be no problem for me to overcome even without technical know-how. --Wikidead 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok, so you've settled my qualms about the zerging. However, something about your suggestion still feels wrong. Your idea still has potential, but I think you need to change it a little more to avoid the scenario where PKers tear down barricades with an alt just to kill people. --Wikidead 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I don't have a problem with the zerging anymore. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that the barricades will be constantly going up and down without zombies doing anything. I mean, think of what will happen to the barrricade levels of entry points. --Wikidead 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gang Warfare

Well, I appreciate your feedback, but I don't think it's all that balanced - just my own interpretation though. As far as I can see it, it would lead to a culture of "hardest group wins", which is not what I want to see in UD.

I could see people moving towards larger groups in the game just to try and obtain an advantage like this, and not necessarily because they're a "good" group that plays in the role of their class and aids the cause. I've played other browser games in the past that have suffered from a "supergroup" mentality, and it completely undermines the entire game.

As for your comment about feeding drag, that's fair enough, I see your point - But It only moves a survivor that is likely to die anyway from inside a building, not even to another block --Garrett Fisher 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For a start I don't like the idea that words anybody can enter into their profile awards an ability or bonus - I honestly believe that advantages in-game should only be obtainable through skills or items. As it stands, your point about many groups would currently be valid. How about 6 months down the line? A year? I can guarantee that people would start migrating to the dominant groups in any given suburb. Then they would move to the biggest group in a region (groups that span more than one suburb). Where does it go from there? Citywide groups that trample all beneath them. As you rightly say these groups have different policies, but those policies might not always be in the best interests of their given class (survivor or zombie). If we can agree that it's not necessarily spam, would you be happier me changing my vote to "kill"?

As an aisde, the other game I referred to is "Island Monarchy" (Insel Monarchie in the German version). That starts with something like 10,000 islands, each run by one player. People grow, form groups and eventually expand, taking over other islands. This usually starts with abandoned or inactive islands, but this soon moves on to smaller, weaker opponents. Some groups survive, most die or break up. People will then migrate to other existing groups. Certain groups emerge that show themselves to be dominant, then they all eventually rip themselves to shreds and a supergroup emerges. I've played this game on three different servers, and the same has happened every time. That is the main reason why I stopped playing the game, to be honest. Urban Dead has different mechanics, but I can assure you that the very same thing would eventually happen to this game. Even though territory isn't assigned to a specific player, look at cases were people have already argued over "which group owns suburb x" --Garrett Fisher 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Barhah Mall

I am glad to notice that you are going to try to bring some lunch for us back in Barhah Mall. I know that you are our treasurer and stuff, but if you insist to serve as food for all those hungry zamas in Barhah Mall, who am i to stop you ? See you soon. And long live the consirancy. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pounding Hands

You hear a loud, relentless banging from Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo 10:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Law Enforcement

I understand your arguments. Unfortunately, they are predicated on me actively doing something for you...but without cost. Most people tend to not give a crap about what others are doing in the building (especially when more than 50 are present). They get in, search, reload, ask for healing perhaps or heal themselves, but they don't really interact with others. But that is really nothing to argue. I think people WOULD interact more if it was "cheaper" to do but, again, I digress.

I've made the idea several times for these kinds of suggestions. That being that if you want to get around the "auto" feature, have the "defenders" (as that is always the case) allocate AP to do it. Say, for example, a person is going to "guard" the generator or, in the case of your suggestion, "keep an eye on" the others in the building. They would allocate, say 10 AP, to this. Then, over the course of a set period, when ever some one attacks the generator (first example) or PKs someone (you suggestion), the "defender" would use one of those allocated AP to counter the attack. Be it "taking the hit" or inhibiting Free Running/escaping or whatever it is the suggestion is doing. The point is that the character decides for himself to help others...and pays the AP to do so. Even though the "defender" doesn't actually spend any AP, they are still doing something (negating Free Running). I'm just trouble by the idea of "free" help. I walk into a building with only a handful of hit points and out of AP, with just enough to croak out a need for healing/cure infection. Then at some point during the next 20 hours, some asshole comes in and kills someone and I suddenly jump up to block their path (having taken this skill)...whether I want to or not. "Auto-actions" isn't JUST the spending of AP it is doing something, basically, against the player's will to control (excluding death and dumping bodies). As with my example, there may be times when I don't WANT to use the skill...but I don't get the choice.

As I see it, if a person wants to be protected, they need to do it themselves. What about if a person spends, say 5 AP to protect themselves when they lie down to sleep. They wouldn't be hiding, just finding a spot that isn't easily accessible or covering themselves with debris or something. Basically it would equate to a penalty to hit for a PKer (I'm thinking like 20%).--Pesatyel 05:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I hadn't considered the Ransack thing. Really, I think what would work best would be to just throw in an AP cost for the "watchers."--Pesatyel 05:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally speaking, I think Ransack sticks with the game. PKing is more an abberation. I guess all I can add at this point is, if this suggestion fails, you might consider an AP cost for next time.--Pesatyel 06:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As response to your post in my talk: Not until you log in and see that you've forced this person to cut their play session short rather than kill you.--J Muller 07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't like the idea that you can stop people from leaving a building.--J Muller 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Blood Marks

A bloody handprint and other Blood Marks can now be seen in Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sprinting

A suggestion just made it into Peer Reviewed, but it was running too fast to get the name. --Funt Solo 09:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Fort Suggestion

It looks, we think, that your suggestion for the forts have been accepted and applied. Curiouser and curiouser.... Daniel Hicken 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd been meaning to revamp forts for ages, and the idea that a simple large building would suffice was enough to get me thinking about it again - it was a good excuse to start messing around with between-block barriers, which I've been putting off for ages. Thanks for the suggestions (and I hope your withdrawal of yesterday's doesn't mean that you're off writing some epic third version). --Kevan 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't the sole inspiraton for this change, congratulations.--J Muller 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My zed character is at Creedy right now, I headed there as soon as I saw the news to check out the dynamics. You can now only enter through the square called "gatehouse", but once inside you can move around the rest of the fort. You can't even move into the other squares from the outside.--J Muller 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oooh. I sense a renewed Big Bash coming...directed at Creedy with hundreds of Z's attacking the gatehouses...Talk about seige points. We need a survivor to see if we can free run in and out or not. Daniel Hicken 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds delightfully zedlicious. My zed would take part.--J Muller 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm so conflicted...I have a zombie and a survivor. Should I attack the forts or defend them? Wait! Two forts! I don't have to choose! --Jon Pyre 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

News Team

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you- the real world is seriously impeding my ability to waste my time, I'm sorry to say. Anyhow, about the suggestions with moving the revive zone inside, fallbacks, and other NTs. Making St. Theo's into Margery Ave is something I've really been meaning to do, but it's always difficult to start several revive zones when one is already so famous. Honestly, I guess I was just hoping the problem would go away if we ignore it. It's happened before, but it's definitely better to just put it inside and I guess I'll get moving on that.

Moving on, fallback points and supply lines. I don't really think the former will get us very far. If Blackmore goes down, it'll go down hard and there won't be anyone left to fall back. That's not for a while, though (I know things are looking bad now, but I'm out trying to get more help and that'll hopefully start to show up within the next few days). Besides which, it's the RRF striketeams we've got to watch out for. They're coordinated and get a good 30 zombies in with every push (30 strike team zombies, not 30 ferals). If we have fallback points, the strike teams will simply follow us. As for supply lines... well, they've figured out about Nichols and it's still doing Ok. Tynte is gone, but we can go it alone. I don't really see that we need revives from outside Blackmore since falling back won't work too well and since Blackmore is fairly well powered.

Of course, I'm not infallible or anything, so I could be wrong about a lot. Thing is, I've always found that it's the simple plans that are the best. --Ron Burgundy 14:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Command Structure

Your suggestion has established a forward command post in Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo 14:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Recent Contact List Color Improvement and How This Could Help The GPS Unit

Jon - go take a look at what the length of your suggestion name does to the TOC at the top of the suggestions page (and will go on to do at the top of every page-TOC it appears on). Apart from looking pretty bad anyway, for people on 800*600 it's pretty much going to break their display. Would you mind changing it to something a bit more pithy? --Funt Solo 09:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

reguardless of what anyone else says about this suggestion I was able to see the essential fact that your suggestion prevents griefing and takes a semi-common metagame action "I'm here/ find me here" and gives it an ingame representation, and if anyone you trust kills you, you can revoke their ability to track you, a great Idea when compared to the other tracker

Jon Pyre, as a commited zombie, with every inch of me, I pure, straight hate you as a human. But goddammit, do I respect you! If we meet on the battlefield I shall salute you first eat you next

--Zbmainiac 17:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

GPS pinging and Beckoning Groan

Yea, I don't think Funt gets it, the only problem anyone can ever have is: how long to go about killing any Idiot that Spamms their exact location, Any Spamming is self correcting like hanging a "Please kill Me!" sign aroun their neck, and since it's an exact Science to remove thier name no one's going to complain: Damn I wish This Idiot at Moshrow Parish would stop giving me his exact location, its to far to walk just to kill him and I don't have brains enough to remove him from my contacts removing any ability to spam

Theres a great response to anyone on the kill/spam list--Zbmainiac 10:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to get that the wiki-suggestion is populated by thick people, take Axe Hack reason "overpowered zombies", As far as I can see this is like seeing a badass harley with an optional side car and saying "the side car sucks", It's missing the point entirely! Hell I should hate this because It's not pro-zombie but I'm all for it cause it's the only way to give humans something cool that doesn't entierly screw the zombies, hell it would serve em right for Kevin to Implement it and then it totally screw all zombies by bringing the game down to 30/70 I'd laugh myself alive for a change--Zbmainiac 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trains and Resources

Perhaps it could be done as a one-off thing for Christmas? A little boost for the survivors. Remove the need to search for the trains and impose some kind of time limit on how long a train can be at a given station for, perhaps. --Lord of the Pies 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jon, I was thinking on your suggestion, and it definately has potential I reckon. How about having a few moving supply train across Malton, that stop at Railway stations and dish out supplies (at similar search percentages as Malls). The train only stops at the Railway station if it's not over-run by Zombies (if there's <5 inside the station say). The train, and driver are well protected while stopped at a station, but if there are any zombies at all inside, or break in while a train is parked there, the doors of the carriages close, and searches are no longer possible until the zombie is gone. The outside description of the railway station would tell people that there was a train at the station dispencing supplies. This gives the zombies a chance to get enough zombie bodies inside and force the train to move on (the driver gets spooked as soon as 5 zombies get inside) to the next station.

I don't think this would be overly unbalancing, in fact it could be targeted so that trains are sent to areas where the survivor population is in trouble... I mean the NecroTech guys must need the DNA scan data for something, right?

Anyway, just a thought, almost put it up as a suggestion myself, but thought nah, you may like a chance to develop your idea futher first :) -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought of something like that, with moving trains doling out supplies when they're present. I was concerned though that it'd be considered as npcs by some people though and spammed for that reason. --Jon Pyre 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me moving your comment over here. What's npcs? Not player controlled? It's not that different to the air drops that happened a few times though, just more predictable -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know. I don't think it's an NPC. But some people would. Maybe I'll give it a shot anyway.--Jon Pyre 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Maybe A Pking Suggestion We Can All Agree On?

Abusing the spam votes? That suggestion was meant to nerf PKing...which all us PKers will not like. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:PKing

I can't help but notice that discussion was cycled to archives pretty much immediately after I typed it. I think I annoyed someone --Gene Splicer 11:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Might be an idea to add something like this to the PKing section of frequently suggested:

Kevan has recently clarified his stance on PKing related suggestions: "It's not a very clear quote, but all it says is that I'm not going to "prohibit" PKing, which I'm not - psycho survivors are a vibrant part of any post-apocalypse, and an out-and-out ban on attacking each other would be boring. Tinkering is fine, though, and if you've got any ideas to make PKing a more interesting experience for either participant I'd enjoy hearing them. --Kevan 23:59, 5 December 2,006 (UTC)

Can't do it myself atm as work has that page blocked as "occult site", but could do it later this week --Gene Splicer 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Tracking

I do not think so, maybe inside buildings and even then there is so much movement by people that tracks would be obscured. And outside, well it rains doesn't it, then there is also the factor of not knowing how they went about their journey, did they freerun, simply walk out the door. I would only believe this suggestion to be fair if it was only for one square, and if it wasnt updated after their first move which in effect makes it useless as a PKer/GKer could just move on way on the first move then go opposite. Anyway, one more thing, are you in Whittenside these days, I am sure I saw you there not long ago, something about indoor revive points. Whitehouse 18:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey John, I've taken your tracking ability and modified it so it may be more acceptable. Hope you don't mind, and feel free to comment on it if you've any further thoughts -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nursing (Take Revived Bodies Indoors)

Your wounded suggestion was helped into Peer Reviewed and tended to. --Funt Solo 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You pretty much got pwned

--CaptainM 07:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Schools: Add FAKs

Thanks to you, wounded suggestions in Peer Reviewed can now go to the school nurse for band aids. --Funt Solo 11:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Better Searching

Using a flare gun, you find it easier to find your suggestion in Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo 12:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PK analysis

Hey Jon. Very nice analysis on PK phenomenon from the game balance point of view over on the Suggestions/Talk page. I just picked this gem as my signature on UD forums. With a little modification which I believe keeps the quote spirit. "A lazy zombie is a PKer. --Jon Pyre". Bluetigers 03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you just love how hard some people will fight to keep an "Anti-PKer" suggestion out of the game? It's quite amusing.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 06:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you look at their argumentation, it's bloody obvious they are craving for attention. The main reason they play PK is to have someone pay attention to them. They really want everybody else in the game to waste their times organizing meta-gaming bounty parties and devote ridiculous amounts of time to watching what chilidish_screen_name has done recently. And since people are in general smarter than that, they call it 'apathy'. It's really sad :/ (Sorry for lack of signature) Bluetigers 03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody you haven't met already, sorry. Try suggesting at times when less PKers will be on, it's your only hope.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

reply

Well, are you going to reply to my reply to your reply on my talk page, john? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My, cool, chick zombie pic!

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Moderation/Deletions#.5B.5B:Image:Slaves_Of_The_Mistress_Logo_1.jpg.5D.5D They're trying to delete them.. please vote Keep, well at least for the 2nd slaves of the mistress pic (cleavage zombie), sniff... MrAushvitz 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mods and Sysops

Whoa there, Pyre. Going a little too far with this one, in my opinion. Restricting what Sysops can and can't do isn't exactly the best solution here. Here's something I've been bouncing around inside my head.

We create Moderators.

Sysops remain as normal.

Beauracrats remain as normal.

Moderators are created.

• Moderators are elected by popular vote in much the same way Sysops are. They can also be removed the same way as Sysops are. A user can be a Moderator and a Sysop at the same time.
• Moderators are elected because they are recognized as a balanced voice of reason within the community. They have no special powers. Essentially, Moderators are what Moderators would be elsewhere, but without the administrative powers granted to Sysops. Basically they're the other side of the coin from the Sysops here. They can't really do anything, but they're not supposed to be asshats. Electing a Moderator is the same thing as saying, "Hey. This guy makes sense, and he's not that bad of a guy. People who don't know him should know, if he weighs in on a discussion, that it might be a good idea to listen to what he has to say."
• If a user has a complaint against a Moderator, they should be allowed to list it on the discussion page for the Moderator page.
• Moderators are expected to maintain decorum (I.E. Constrain the foul language, be nice to people.)
• Moderators are expected to intervene in bullying or long-running feuds and attempt to smooth them over.
• Moderators are expected to present logical and reasonable solutions for any problems.
• No one is forced to obey the suggestions of a Moderator.

HOWEVER:

• If a user openly disrespects, insults, or unfairly ridicules a Moderator without good and proper reason, the gloves are off. The Moderator may then respond to the situation in whatever way he sees fit, whether it's leaving it alone, or ripping the person in question a gaping new one with gleeful abandon.

So that's what I've been thinking for a bit. Mucho discussion is definitely in order, and perhaps this requires its own, very special policy discussion page. I just thought it's relevant here as an alternative to your suggestion that won't draw quite as much flak from the sysops.--J Muller 06:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm suggesting that you wouldn't have to be a sysop to be this.--J Muller 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an expression of trust in the person as fair and civil, not their suitability for editing powers. Would I vouch for Xoid to this position? No. Would I vouch for him for Sysop (if he wasn't one already)? Yes. He may be an asshat, but he makes a good sysop as long as you don't expect him to keep to a moderator-style standard of behavior. The point of this is that someone can be a Moderator without actually being a Sysop.--J Muller 07:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of the election is so that without actually knowing them, users can know that they're nice people. It's an acknowledgment from the community that the person in question is a fair and balanced person.--J Muller 07:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

damage dealt

"#keep would have voted kill cos i want lots of changes but couldn't bear being in the same voter catagory as MORGAN with his "Do not dare mess with my invisible PKer" rant!"

It will cause lots of SPAM as you have it but; perhaps the message could just run "the following made attacks since your last turn.....*list names*"

Bear in mind though that Zombie should be an applicable name but not link to a profile. It could instead number them ie: "zombie 1,2,3 & 4 attacked since your last turn"

Kill messages should still confirm targets so PKers don't get of completely scot-free but it won't alert everyone until its too late. This might mean some of them will not auto-spam it... but probably wont!

A complete message might then read something like "since your last turn Survivorbob, Dame Judy, BLZ BOB, MorganthePKscum, Zombies 1, 2, & 3 made attacks since your last turn. 3zombies*, BLZ BOB* and MR A* were killed.

• represents the time code.

while it still produces more SPAM than currently it is usefull info kept to a minimum. A further improvement might be to make getting the report an action in which case the more detail the better cos its not free and you have requested it, effectively this would be retroactively paying attention.--Honestmistake 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel like...

Helping that newbie rather than attacking him? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He knows what he's doing. I told him how to sign his vote and he decided not to. That's pretty much vandalism. --Jon Pyre 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He then fixed his signatures when he realised what he'd done wrong. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 07:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Have you considered the possibility that he can't actually spell? You're all for moderators - why not trying to apply that principle to your own conduct? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 07:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

After deliberately messing up to further his joke. And no, this guy can spell. Who mispells made "mde"? Mayde, maid, mayed, maied, those are mispellings. mde and the like is just joking around. I was polite in the face of being directly insulted, and told him how to sign his vote. I think that's pretty polite conduct. --Jon Pyre 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at the typos people can make. Perhaps he's simply typing extremely fast. Also - that "further mess-up" may have simply been before he read your comment. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 07:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems a lot more like a deliberate joke by means of 133t speak. And to avoid taking the chance that he was mispelling repeatedly I told him how to fix it. --Jon Pyre 07:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Perhaps it is deliberate, but I don't think he's being malicious about it. Most likely he's used to holding conversations over IM, or IRC. EDIT: That "large image" wasn't a joke. I figured you could use some guidance, going by your indentation habits. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, he can talk however he likes. But it's better he learns not to joke with wiki code sooner than later before he messes up a template and shuts down a page. --Jon Pyre 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, but insulting him is not the way to go about it. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I didn't. Like I said, his vote is pretty clearly a deliberate joke. If I thought he actually had trouble writing I would have been a lot more helpful and wouldn't have made that little joke back about it not being English. And if I thought he accidentally messed up his sig I would have provided more guidance. --Jon Pyre 07:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand. The most important thing to remember when dealing with newbies is that you must always give them the benefit of the doubt. If it's at all possible that their errors are just that, errors, then you must assume they are. If he does it after you point it out to him (and there's no possibility that he hasn't read your comment), then you may safely conclude that he's doing it deliberately. In this case, he made the second sig error just after you told him how to sign. I think it's more than fair to assume he didn't read your comment until after he made the other error. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 07:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, maybe. I don't think you really could mispell "--~~~~. I put it right there for him. And just in case it was a mistake I'll send an apology his way and offer to answer any questions he might have about voting. --Jon Pyre 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BARHAH

You maul Jon Pyre for 3 damage, and grab hold of them. They drop to 53 HP.
...
Gripping Jon Pyre by the shoulders, you crush them for 3 damage. They die.

Bale ULC is ours. GRAB MA BANANA, HARMAN! BARHAH! HAR HAR HAR. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: This

Make your suggestions. I don't care about the suggestion system anymore. I don't care about the votes, I don't care about who suggests, and I certainly don't care about the suggestions. It was wrong of my to go after you and your suggestions, no matter how stupid they are (I still think they are moronic though). I woke up today and realized I was absolutely wasting my time with the Suggestions page. Kevan will put what he will put in the game, and I think we both know the votes don't matter at all really. As such, I am hoping we can end this little feud right now. I'm sorry for being an asshat. I don't plan to edit Suggestions or any subpage thereof for a looong time.--Gage 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been overzealous too in my PKing suggestions, and my policy suggestions, and you've pointed out plenty of valid flaws with them. You're a great sysop and I hope you don't avoid the Suggestions page entirely. --Jon Pyre 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to find something else to do on the wiki. Maybe locations pages. Those are nice and void of drama.--Gage 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mournful Moan

That's the risk any zombie takes in attacking the barricades of a building. That's why a feeding groan would be prerrable. Feeding Groan means "dinner is served". Mournful Moan means "a zombie did some work, will you finish the job?" There's no certainty for the zombie, but this certainly improves their odds of breaking into a building in the absence of a recent feeding groan. I don't see how there's a potential for griefing.--Jon Pyre 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly yes, there isn't all that much griefing. Zombie "summons" other zombies into an ambush or draws zombies away from a "better" target to rampage an uninhabited building to waste their AP. Because of the limited payoff for the "summoned" zombies I see limited use of this ability. The summoning zombie has a reason to get inside which might not be shared with the summoned ones.--Pesatyel 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking, more specifically, of zombies using this against zombies specifically. They know the building is empty and/or they have survivor friends inside. Call the zombies to help you bust in (your suggestion said ATTACKS, not necessarily successes) while a single survivor rebuilds the barricades. Zombie come to help and waste AP, then survivors with full AP mop up.

I see limited tangible benefit for the "help" zombies. It isn't a bad suggestion...just something missing.--Pesatyel 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Moderators and Sysops (2)

When you first presented that policy alongside the one that changes Arbitration, I didn't believe in them, as I believed the policy would get flamed down by the current active sysops. But now that your discussion seem to have been active for a good time and a pair of actual sysops made their support for it clear, I recongnize that it's not all lost. So, I want to make some questions and remarks before adding my input there, and I do it here because I want to see your POV on this instead of just stepping over your head.

Maybe you know (or maybe not, as I'm so flamed by the current mods that it's hardly believable) I wrote a good part of the current Guidelines alongside the current Bureaucrats minus Kevan. And after a while, I started to think that they could use some changes, more specifically in the part that pertains the "Warning and Bannings of users" (that was mostly written by me). My main thought with your policy is that it will fail it's purpose if the Guidelines are not changed along with it. The spirit of the changes I want to make would follow this path:

• Clear cut deffinition on what kind of cases grant an automatic permaban almost regardless of contributions:
  • Blanking a page not owned by oneself.
  • Editing a page not owned by oneself in bad faith.
  • Moving a page not owned by oneself in bad faith (if that ability is restored someday to the normal users, thing that I would like A LOT).
  • Clear cut impersonation: making a comment signed with another user's username, or your own user's username when said username was deliberately made in order to resemble the one of another Wiki user (I would add here what doesn't constitute clear impersonation too).
• Instructions on how this permaban is reached: of course, a guy that blanks a page after a hundred good faith contributions has to have some kind of leeway in case that it was a mistake, his browser got fucked up or whatever.
• Clear remark that ANY OTHER TYPE OF VANDALISM would follow the normal proceedings and escalation of warnings and bannings, with the "giving and forgiving" system that was implemented with the latest update on the Guuidelines.

Now, this is all good, but where does your policy enter? Here:

• I intend for Sysops to have the power to rule and make reverts only on the "clear cut vandalism" cases already mentioned, were hardly any drama is generated except maybe for the cassual remark of "Banhammered". They can't even comment on the "not clear cut" vandal cases.
• The new class of "Moderators" will have all the powers of a Sysop and the new limitations you stated, but in turn they will be able to rule on those vandal cases that the Sysops can't. This way the places where most drama can be generated are devoid of those that enjoy on feeding it. This in turn will grant some "arbitrator-like" powers to the Moderator (because it's to be considered an unbiased party), and cases of bad faith edits that were formerly directed by a Sysop to Arbitration for the lack of a clear cut deffinition of vandalism will be ruled by the Moderator. The Moderator will only direct people to Arbitration when there's an ongoing edit war but the edits made are not necessarily bad faith edits.

Then, not concerning M/VB but the M/G in general:

• Sysops and Moderators alike will be able to process the deletion queues and requests, speedy deletion requests, protection queues and requests and moving requests.
• Sysops may protect a community page that goes trough an edit war but a Moderator will be needed to unprotect and/or edit it, allowing or disallowing a change ruling in favor of one of the editors, etc.
• Moderators alone will be able to rule over Misconduct cases, avoiding the multiple rulings that were a constant on old Misconduct cases.
• Moderators alone will be able to attain Bureaucrat status, as the need of an unbiased party in Promotions is obvious.

Other points are needed and can be made (I'm tired of writing and, what the hell, I'm not writing the actual policy here, so why should I continue writing ^_^?) but this is the main idea. What do you think? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I sensed the "danger" of that point as I was writing it, but when I wrote this on your talk I was not thinking about being politically correct but being faithful to the purpose of this change. Having a Bureaucrat that constantly engages himself in discussions with users and have his own set of enemies and friends makes you think about how impartial he is. This is the same for Xoid as it is for BobHammero, that in its time I nearly idolatred (he was something like my mentor, and I got some of his "strong wording obsession") but now looking back I realize he wasn't nearly perfect, i.e. he was a part of the "ban Jedaz" movement directed by Cyberbob, maybe our most impartial Mod.

If you ask me, if a policy like this is to be written I really don't know what the final outcome will be, as I don't know how much support do the current mods have compared to the people that actually want "moderators to be moderate". I know that in the discussion page of such a policy we will get more flames of the mods and people affiliated to them than constructive criticism, but I don't know, and I really want to see if the most pure, idealistic policy that can be done about this issue, with no changes made to save face or to get the support of the "undecided" by weakening it. I hope you understand what I'm talking of. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

May I direct you here? I'm looking for unbiased guy's input before I bring such a monster to Policy Discussion, and you deserve the first call, being who had the idea and all. Yeah, I'm blaming you for this, go figure... Use the discussion page of that same page to say whatever you want, and if you can make any gramatic corrections that you see fit on the text, by all means do it, I'm terrible writing in English. Thanks! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon - that "Ban Jedaz" movement wasn't directed by me. Just sayin'. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:Axle

Slice? Buddy...It's Axe Hack. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 17:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you call me as long as it's not rude. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Your A Skill to Keep Feral Zombies Together/Gruesome finish passed into Peer Reviewed. *Marks off list.* -Mark 21:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple Pedantry

Re From dictionary.com: "couple idiom- a couple of, more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few: It will take a couple of days for the package to get there. Also, a couple." --Jon Pyre 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, it doesn't matter a flying feck what the dictionary says - if it's going to cause confusion (because many, many people use "couple" to mean "two"), then you should be keen to change it, shouldn't you? Graffiti is the plural of graffito, but when the hell do you hear anyone referring to a single piece of urban art as a graffito? Never. Exactly. --Funt Solo 11:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you 'n' Matt seem to be working together...

I thought you might find this interesting: he sure is nice and willing to take part in discussion. Yeah sure, the first paragraph might've been a bit toasty. Understandably, I was a bit pissed when he insulted me, my friends and my integrity. But still it got removed as flaming. Nevermind the fact that his numerous diatribes on the page contain more bile in their first sentence than my single paragraph did. Of course I then remove the offending paragraph in the hopes he will actually read it this time, but he considers that to be more flaming. Read it if you care to, don't if you do not. Just bear in mind that this is the guy trying to make out like we are the fascists.

He also seems quite content to start a discussion in one place and then remove my comments on the basis of their being off-topic. Effectively leaving me unable to reply to his scathing, yet incorrect criticism. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy Deletion

Jon, when you delete (rather than move) all the current votes from a version of your policy (I'm talking about the Dupe one), you also delete half the debate that's going on in amongst the votes. That's a bit annoying. Please move, rather than delete, if it comes to pulling another version of this. --Funt Solo 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v. much. --Funt Solo 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Feeding Drag Newbie Aid Subskill: Feeding Frenzy

I'm not opposing your suggestion on the grounds of realism, but I just wanted to point this out: a survivor with no AP is sleeping and therefore assumed to be on the ground. It makes no sense to knock down someone who is already on the ground. --Wikidead 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bale

Yeah, I was just up there yesterday. Seems like all the zombies have wandered off and the YRC is back doing their thing. I'm told the Mall Tour is making its rounds in Stickling, and that's pretty close, so we might just end up in Bale pretty soon either way! Thanks for the heads up and it's good to see you again! Sorry to have been gone so long!  :( --Ron Burgundy 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Points To Crowds

Points to your new Peer Reviewed suggestion. --Funt Solo 10:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sysops and mods

I know public opinion seemed against it, but I'd still like to see what happens--are you planning on putting the policy into voting any time soon? I can help revise or similar if you like--I'd really like to see how people actually feel. I get the feeling at least a few people who agree just haven't happened to be very vocal about it.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Driving Hunger & Driving Force

Thanks for your comments there. I hadn't planned it before, but it not be a bad idea to re-sunmit Driving Hunger (the attack grouping skill) as its own suggestion, because it does have its own utility and entertainment value, and could potentially lead to other functions if implemented.

I know I'm pushing a bit past the edge of what players accept with the "driving force" idea, but I expect most zombie players would like it very much- you say it uses the character as a tool, I say it allows them to make a voluntary choice to contribute to the success of the horde through potential sacrifice. Potato, potÆtö.

I wish there was some middle ground, because it would be a very entertaining thing for a zombie player to be able to log in an have had something GOOD happen to them, rather than just something BAD. Survivors get to log in and see a lot of good things happening- healing, revives, zombies breaking in and their friends killing them off, etc. They also benefit a lot from being in group- the meat shielding you say zombies should not get, they certainly DO benefit from, when it really should be the other way around.

That aside, what about the balance in the suggestion- the character damage was thrown in to appease one previous voter (I agree its silly) and by and large the skills could easily waste more zombie AP than its worth, and that is the real balance I was shooting for. Out of every 10 zombies that spends an AP to "join attack group", I'm guessing 1 or maybe 2 would ever get "pushed in", best case scenario. It seemed reasonable, even enough that one voter found it to weak.

Any suggestions for a possible revision, or is the concept of moving another character (in a helpful, non-feeding drag way) really unworkable? I don't agree with the "opens the door" notion you posted- the situations you suggested were pretty clearly not reasonable parallels. And hey, if they were well balanced ideas, why not? --S.Wiers ^X:00 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Competing Grasp: Zombie Team Attack Skill

Two other quick questions you may want to address:

• Is there any limit to the effect? In the exteme case, is it possible a lucky survivor might get healed many times while under attack and still die with 58 hit points? (Yes, it seems unlikely to happen, and would be rather a good bit of dark humour if it did...)
• Is there any way to identify or attack the zombies who have done the grasping?

S.Wiers ^X:00 05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Burning a Bridge (Suggestion)

What's the difference between 100 zombies walking into a mall, and 100 PKers free-running into a mall? I'll tell you, The PKers will be a lot more effective, and they already can do that. What are you worried about?--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If Shacknews were to do it, then yes. In an active mall, the longest a zombie-friendly bridge like that would stay up though might be 20-45 minutes, (Possibly letting 4-5 zombies over, which should be dealt with quickly) assuming everybody knows there's 500 zombies next door. If they haven't left in weeks to look for things like that, quite frankly I believe they deserve to lose the mall. (I don't think anybody learned their lesson from Caiger...)--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vista

Hey, nice to see you again! --Jon Pyre 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise!, How is life the suggestions page nowadays?--Vista 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a bit added on the wiki also. (and some of it isn't even drama!) I'm slowly learning my way around again, luckily the basics seem unaltered.--Vista 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarcastic Keep

Your vote on the "Notice Very Strong +2" suggestion was absolutely hilarious. I just wanted to tell you that.--Lachryma^☭ 15:27, 30 March 2007 (BST)

Consumer Class Starts With Random Weapon

Congrats - it's in the game. --Funt Solo 09:01, 25 April 2007 (BST)

Vandalism!

what did you do to become a vandal? I'm shocked!--Vista ⁺¹ 18:30, 2 June 2007 (BST)

He was waned after this. After that, he was brought back to V/B but no warning was handled by said discussion. It was a silly way to warn a good contributor, but whatever... according to the current rules the warning can be struck by now, so no problem. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:46, 2 June 2007 (BST)

That's just some real petty interpretation of the rules. djeez.--Vista ⁺¹ 20:41, 2 June 2007 (BST)

Yap, it was one of the cummulative reasons that made me leave for three months, altough not in this particular case but against MrAushvitz. People wanted to ban people over anything these days. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 20:53, 2 June 2007 (BST)

knock, knock?

Don't say you packed up left without giving a big going away party?-- Vista  +1  21:14, 6 June 2007 (BST)

Yeah mate, I've been doing the rounds with the good oldies of the wiki. I'm sure there are plenty of clothing suggestions you could do! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 06:41, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Dynamic Battles Suggestion

I love it! It's an awesome suggestion! BoboTalkClown 20:32, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Revising suggestions

When revising suggestions, be sure to do the following to the original suggestion:

1. Place Template:Revised on the page, with a variable linking to the revision, or stating that one is in the works.

   {{Revised|link}}

2. Remove the voting rules template and category tag from the bottom of the page (everything below the last spam/dupe vote).
3. If it's still on the Current Days Suggestions list, remove it, or strike it and mark it as withdrawn for revision.

I have already taken care of the old Bash Attack suggestion that you had revised; please remember to do so in the future. Cheers! --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU! U} 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the interview.

so about not being able to answer you in game, some one returned me to my natural state a bit early. i'll gladly respond to your questions here tho.

Jon Pyre said "bullgod! Wow, if you don't mind could I interview you for Chanel Four News Team! This story is just what I need for Mr. Burgandy to give me that promotion to understudy anchor!" (8 hours and 47 minutes ago)

well iv actually given an interview to your station before, but that was another time. id be glad to shoot the breeze with you Jon.

Jon Pyre said "bullgod, what are you doing in human form in a Necrotech? Do you often spend time in human form? When you're a human do you play the human side or still serve the zombie cause?" (8 hours and 45 minutes ago)

well it was another tragic case of combat revive, i suppose i could avoid it by getting rot, but i wouldn't want to miss out. ive spent some time in human form, alto this is the first in many months, and since my rise to fame its getting harder and harder to stay alive once revived. i am a fan of the dual nature policy, but my human nature happens to be a generator smashing occasional murderer so i don't think it makes much of a difference to the other humans.

Jon Pyre said "You run an interesting group, designed to give zombies without a group an umbrella organization that requires little commitment. How do you think your mission is going? What is your long term plan? What's a feral zombie's biggest obstacle?" (8 hours and 43 minutes ago)

i think its going very well, and the game statistics seem to be backing me up to this point. i never really had a long term plan for the group, just to make information and assistance readily available to our members. i think the only real problem of being a feral is the fact that most of the work we do is on our own, we seldom use attack times and prefer to just log in when we feel like it. in some ways this hurts us as a group because we could be much more threatening than we are now, but that would mean losing the aspect that this is just a game, and we should just log in to have fun whenever it's convenient for us.

Jon Pyre said "How heavily do your coordinate or manage your group. You're the founder, but do you still retain power or are you a figurehead? How does your balance the paradox of being feral but following a leader?" (8 hours and 41 minutes ago)

well i wont deny that people do listen to me, ive been playing for a while and usually know what's going on, but from the beginning the Feral Undead has been democratic. we pitch ideas around until we come up with one a majority of us like. you wouldn't believe how many are rejected. to put it simply they don't follow me, because im really just a feral like them. sometimes i can be found with them attacking a building like i am today and other days i may just wander off to god knows where.

Jon Pyre said "Is your group targeting Fort Perryn now or are you here mostly as an invidiual? If the latter what is your purpose?" (8 hours and 40 minutes ago)

yes we are targeting the fort in a generally unorganized fashion. we have claimed ownership of Fort Feral we moved to whittenside so long ago, only the more recent changes make it more difficult to hold on to than it used to be, top that off with it now being full of small time trenchie paramilitary groups and that just makes things harder. luckily we are a patient bunch, we've taken the fort several times before and its only a matter of time before it falls again.

Jon Pyre said "What was your childhood like? What inspired you to found your group? Were you ever a member of any more traditional zombie organization?" (8 hours and 40 minutes ago)

my early days as a youngling were hard, i didn't even see a human until my third week, but i did see the headshots they gave me. this was back before headshots were modified so they no longer rob you of your XP. it was only when i discovered the wiki that i found i was in the wrong area for killing and started to lurch my way down to ridleybank. on the way i learned a strike was forming to protest headshots and decided to Stanstock. to date the only groups i have been a member of were On Strike and the Feral Udead.

Jon Pyre said "What is your one biggest peeve about Urban Dead? What do you like most about it?" (8 hours and 39 minutes ago)

oh i love so many things about this game just as it is now. im always a bit peeved about how hard it is for young zombies to level up, and of course ive never liked how there are more humans playing than there are zombies, it doesn't seem right. if new players just gave zombies a chance instead of rushing off to go be a gun wielding fireman they might see that its a lot more fun than it looks.

Jon Pyre said "What is your favorite food? Prepared cusine or living human? Any exciting developments you would like to announce? Please say anything you like." (8 hours and 37 minutes ago)

babies. tasty tasty babies. its like eating veal, the head even has a soft spot to make getting at the brain easier. and the bones are so small you can just chew them up. nothing waisted.

as far as announcements its been known among my group for a long time that im working out of state right now and infact ive only been playing the game again for 2-3 weeks again after about a six month sabbatical, ive only been home trying to get a loan and sort out some tax stuff but when i get the money im going right back to the job site, likely for at least another month or two.

Jon Pyre said "Finally, George Bush - Great President or the Greatest President?" (8 hours and 37 minutes ago) A flare was fired 4 blocks to the north. (8 hours and 26 minutes ago)

bush is my least favorite kind of human, violent with no brains.

if you have any follow up questions id be happy to answer those too, i really enjoy these little interviews. --Bullgod 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Interview Above

Thanks, captain! You're officially promoted from "Cameraman" to "Reporter in the Field" stop by the News Station and grab your free Scotch glass. You'll need it where you're likely going (Vietnam!).

I've put the interview up on the Channel 4 News Team/Exclusives section of the wiki and added a link to it on our mainpage in the "news" section as well as in the "various interviews" section. If you get any more interviews, you can send them my way or feel free to update the wiki yourself. Stay Classy- and maybe I'll see you in Gulsonside? Glad to hear you eventually got revived and brought back to Perryn and safety. --Ron Burgundy 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Pyre, you are an officer and a gentlemen. May the Gods grant you vigor and hatred of zombie-kind! --Ron Burgundy 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Suggestions

Next time you put a suggestion up there, try to remember to substitute the title into the discussion header. Please? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing a Suggestion

This or this is how you withdraw a suggestion. You only did the last item on the list. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)