View source for Talk:Suggestions/30th-Sept-2006

===Use for Crusifix===
Removed by the creator becaue everyone is being retarded about it. It was an idea, and you guys are just being over abuseive. - ThreeSided [[User:ThreeSided|ThreeSided]] 04:56, 30 September 2006 (BST).:
:Mo...the idea just doesn't go with the game. --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 04:57, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::I agree, it just didn't fit the flavor.--[[User:Grigori|Grigori]] 04:59, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::: Ok you guys can think that but you dont have to be DICKS about it. Everyone was dissing my idea and calling it reatarded.. if you dont like it just say it, dont be a DICK about it. [[User:ThreeSided|ThreeSided]] 05:01, 30 September 2006 (BST).
::::Uh...who said we were calling it retarded? --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 05:03, 30 September 2006 (BST)
:::::I dissed nothing. It's just not appropriate for this game, that's all.--[[User:Grigori|Grigori]] 05:19, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::::::Axe Hack was implying that those who said "Spamtarded" were not insulting the suggest''ion'' so much as the suggest''er''. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:29, 30 September 2006 (BST)

::::You don't want abuse? Read the bloody rules. You are ''supposed'' to check peer reviewed, peer rejected and undecided as to whether this isn't the first time the suggestion was made. The suggestion has been made a million and one times before. We are ''sick and tired'' of seeing it. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:07, 30 September 2006 (BST)

:::::Also it's cruCifix. Mispelling the damn item name is not going to earn you leeway and understanding criticism --[[User:Gene Splicer|Gene Splicer]] 18:25, 30 September 2006 (BST)
----

===Experienced Searching v0.4===
{{suggestionNew|
suggest_time=12:30, 30 September 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Search Odds|
suggest_scope=Maxed out survivors|
suggest_description=Something your maxed out survivor can spend their vast experience points on: By spending a certain number of experience points, you increase your search odds for the next one search.

It's here in discussion to see:
#If it's a viable idea (do you like the basic premise?)
#To throw basic numbers around. 

For example: Patches O' Houlihan expends 100XP in a PD, upping his next ('''and only the next''') search chance of finding something by 5%. He searches, and finds a pistol clip.

The dull numbers bit:
#100XP can be spent per search. It increases that one search odds of being successful by a total of 5%.
#This results in an average of merely '''one in twenty''' searches being affected, for a total cost of 2000XP.
#Even ridiculously maxed out survivors (ie ~5000 spare XP) could only use this for one full day's searching, giving 2.5 less "you search and find nothing" results.
#Cannot be used in malls

100XP burnt for a one time additional 5% (10%?) search chance is very expensive, but I don't want this to come across as overpowered. The numbers are part of the reason this is in discussion, rather than active suggestions.

The XP burn is the major limiting factor- even a maxed out survivor with 5000 spare XP would only get 50 searches at the increased search rate, before having to go out and gain XP again. It makes XP meaningful again! All in all, I know my survivors would love this, and at this scale of XP spending I don't think it's gamebreaking.

Okay, considering votes below and just how underpowered this is, should it be upgraded to 10% additional search rate? That's still 1000XP to change one result, but it feels a lot more powerful for some reason.

Zombie Balance: A balance for maxed out zombies would certainly help, and a 5% to hit barricades (for each single 100XP spend) has been suggested below. Good, bad?|
suggest_for_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
#'''Undecided''' On the other hand - this costs large amounts of XP, so it would be used sparingly.  It could be you're onto a winner here. --[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]] 13:23, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::That's what I like to think! Even a survivor with 4000 XP only gets 40 searches at an additional 10% at those figures- not even a full day in the mall. It could of course be lowered to 5% and limited to one 100XP burn per search, but it really wouldn't last that long for most survivors (my greatest maxed out char is just over 900- only 9 searches at an increased rate). --[[User:Karloth vois|Karloth vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 18:51, 30 September 2006 (BST)
#'''Soo expensive''' That nobody will bother and thus it's a very good idea. --{{User:Gold Blade/sig}} 19:52, 30 September 2006 (BST)
:::Too expensive, in other words? How do you like 100XP a shot? --[[User:Karloth vois|Karloth vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 13:01, 1 October 2006 (BST)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
suggest_against_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
#'''Undecided''' - My learned instinct is that this will get shot down for increasing search chances <i>at all</i>.  People dislike ideas that increase search chances - they say that search chances are high enough as is.  I like the idea of spending all that XP on something.  Trouble is, you've got old timers wandering around with 1000s of XP - and they're already the toughest people around - so letting them gain in-game extras on the basis of that, just makes them more powerful in comparison with everyone else.  Oh, and this only helps humans, and not zombies, so there's an imbalance. --[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]] 13:18, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::I completely agree with your point here, but the additional search odds is a strictly limited effect. It's expensive, and rewards the survivors who've been playing the game as it's meant.
::I knew someone would bring out the old "it only affects humans" argument. I don't care. I made a '''survivor''' suggestion, which is inherently going to be inbalanced against zombies. Then again, so is any new weapon and most skills (for either side). In the last update, was everything implemented suggested by the one person? I suspect not. Issues of balance (z vs h), and specific numbers, are '''of course''' for Kevin to decide- but I didn't think I needed to state that. Please don't vote against this simply because it's a human only suggestion. Yes, it is a human only suggestion. End of! 
::(sorry if that was a harsh reply! Many thanks for the useful criticsm--[[User:Karloth vois|Karloth vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 18:51, 30 September 2006 (BST)
:::Yeah - it's just a sign of the times - it's easier to get a zombie buff through than a survivor buff, simply because there are more humes than zoms.  Everyone's trying to help out the underdog.  I'm really swithering on this one, though - don't know which way I'd vote. --[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]] 20:04, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::::Don't be put off because it's a survivor only suggestion- if implemented, it would surely be introduced with other measures. Binoculars, for example, weren't voted down because they were survivor only. --[[User:Karloth vois|Karloth vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 13:01, 1 October 2006 (BST)

I would limit this to NON-MALL buildings.  Malls don't need boosts.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:52, 1 October 2006 (BST)
:Done! What do you think of it now? --[[User:Karloth vois|Karloth vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 13:01, 1 October 2006 (BST)
::Hmm...So, 100 XP, per search, for a +5% to search in any non-Mall building?  It will be interesting to see how this does at voting.  Seems simple enough.  But, as a suggestion for using maxed out experience, what about zombies?  Sure, I understand that isn't necessary (it CAN be a "survivor only" suggestion), but giving zombies something would probably help.  What about...hmmm, say a +5% to hit barricades for 100 XP per attack?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:34, 2 October 2006 (BST)
:::Thanks! That's a definite help, and I'll be sure to put it in the actual suggestion --[[User:Karloth vois|Karloth vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 16:01, 2 October 2006 (BST)
#Suggestion for implentation: Have two new skills...one for Suriviors and another for Zombies. Suriviors=Experienced Searching. Zombies=Experienced Rage. Both 100 XP. When a Surivior is in a non-mall building, he can click on Experienced Searching and burn 100 XP again to recieve a 5% search bonus. (You must have at least 100 XP in order to use this option). If you are a Zombie and standing out the Barricades, you can click on Experienced Rage and burn 100 XP to attack the Barricades with your Claws at a 5% bonus. These skills stand alone, and are not part of any tree, though I suspect that people will buy them AFTER they max everything out. (Or if you think it can be abused, make sure that people must buy all Human skills or all Zombie skills [except brain rot].--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]] 15:28, 7 October 2006 (BST)
#:I think they need to be skills in some tree or other to stop noobs using them without really understanding what they do (since they probably can't be made clear on the UI without taking up space), but I don't think there's any need to force people to get all the skills first.  If someone is going to make serious use of this, for example, they might skip first aid and surgery because those (sortof) reduce the XP you can get from healing; and some characters NEVER want to be a zombie.  I just thought I'd tag this here so you could see another view on it, since this is the talk page.  As it is the suggestion is very nice, just expensive enough to keep it desperate.  I might even use the zombie version sometimes. :) --[[User:ExplodingFerret|ExplodingFerret]] 21:19, 26 October 2006 (BST)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
suggest_other_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF SPAM OR DUPE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Spam/Dupe Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF SPAM OR DUPE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Rivers & Ferries===
{{suggestionNew|
suggest_time=09:15, 30 September 2006 (BST)|
suggest_type=Stuff|
suggest_scope=Survivors n' Zombies|
suggest_description=

This is inspired by the suggestion submitted today that would create a river in Malton. It adds a ferry system to the river, which allows survivors and zombies to move along it quickly. The basis of this idea was suggested by Officer Johnieo; the original suggestion was written by Funt Solo.

Four Wharfs - which are barricadable - will be created in formerly empty areas along the river. The Wharfs will be created in the following areas, and named after the streets which existed there:

*'''Channing Wharf''' in southeast Lukinswood
*'''Stewart Wharf''' in northwest Mockridge Heights
*'''Kelher Wharf''' in northeast Tollyton
*'''Gyles Wharf''' in west Dentonside

These wharfs were formerly centers of maritime commerce in Malton, and ferry-boats can still be found there. 

There are always two ferries at Stewart and Kelher; one waiting to go to the neighboring wharf in either direction. Channing and Gyles Wharfs have only one ferry as they can only move in one direction.

Survivors may add fuelcans to a waiting ferry. Survivors who are within the Wharf building may board or disembark from either ferry for 1 AP. When a ferry has 20 fuel cans, it starts a 3 hour countdown (shown on the screen interface) before departure. When the ferry departs, its fuel is reset to 0, and all the survivors (AND zombies!) who were on board the ferry are teleported to the Wharf which was the ferry's destination.

''Example: A survivor enters Kelher Wharf and adds 3 fuel cans to the Gyles-bound ferry. That ferry now has 20 fuel cans aboard, so it starts a 3 hour countdown. The survivor boards the ferry for 1 AP. When the 3 hours are up, that survivor and all others who boarded in time are moved to Gyles Wharf in Dentonside.''

|
suggest_for_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*This suggestion is in development. Let me know what's good, what sucks, and what needs to change. [[User:Rheingold|Rheingold]] 09:15, 30 September 2006 (BST)
'''Yay Me!''' - Sounds like a good idea, whoever suggested the basis of that suggestion must be really smart. I know, let's send that person a dollar each! Seriously, This seems cool, and as long as you give me and Funt Solo (but mostly just me :D) credit, I'm fine with it. --[[User:Officer Johnieo|Officer Johnieo]] 09:29, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::Done. Well, not the dollar part ;) [[User:Rheingold|Rheingold]] 19:42, 30 September 2006 (BST)
#I vote for this idea. Could pushing people into the river be a means of killing them? I know a zombie isn't going to drown, but for instance, a zombies flesh could deteriorate, taking HP, unless they spend the AP to walk back to shore. The same applies to people, say you push someone in, and they drown unless they spend the AP to swim ashore (which could lead to swimmings skills that make swimming back ashore less AP comsuming). --[[user:Leo417|Leo417]] 15:25 PST, 20061015
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
suggest_against_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
suggest_other_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF SPAM OR DUPE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*I love how you just hijacked the original author's idea. I am sure he would appreciate it.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 09:55, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::I'm not hijacking his suggestion, I am suggesting an add-on to the river system to give it a purpose / something to do with the river, if it gets implemented. Most of this was inspired by Officer Johnieo's comment (I've now edited the suggestion to make that clear).  [[User:Rheingold|Rheingold]] 10:29, 30 September 2006 (BST) 
*Uhm, excuse me, but my river suggestion is currently under vote, and may be for another two weeks. It hasn't been spammed or killed as incomplete, so for you to describe it as incomplete is unfair, I think.  Also, if I were to decide to revise my suggestion (on the basis of comments made by all voters), then that would be up to me.  For you to step in, take my suggestion, take the suggestions of voters and then call it your suggestion, seems patently unfair.  Please remove this. --[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]] 09:22, 30 September 2006 (BST)
::Moved to proper section. Please see your talk page. [[User:Rheingold|Rheingold]] 10:33, 30 September 2006 (BST)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF SPAM OR DUPE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----