View source for Talk:Suggestions/archive7

{{Archive|Suggestions}}
=Suggestion discussion=
== Active Suggestions==

===Syringe Manufacture===

Quoted from suggestions page:
:Right now the necroNet skill allows you to manufacture a syringe for 20 AP- I AM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THIS!  The problem is that this action also counts as 20 IP hits on the Urban Dead server.  

Now, my question - is this true?  I thought that 1 IP hit (actual) = 1 IP hit (counted), period.  Although I haven't rigorously tested it, it seemed to hold up under my own usage.  Any testing or direct statement concerning this? --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 19:15, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

===Contacts Present===

You know, if you want to know who is a friend in the room you are in, you can always download this very useful Firefox extension. I colors names of people on you list so that you can recognize them instantly when you enter a room. It's very handy, I like it a lot. --[[User:Sylanya|Sylanya]] 14:12, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*I don't use firefox most of the time. It's a good browser, I just can't use it always. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 14:41, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*A couple of issues with that extension - (1) How does it handle a situaton where there are so many people in a room it does not list them, but instead gives a link to list all names?  (2) I don't think we should use the existence or not of any 3rd party tools in the consideration of any suggestion.  Not only is the tool subject to an unknown level of support, but there may very well be delays of incompatibility when updates to UD or FireFox occur. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 19:06, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===Holy Symbol===

Well...uh...if not by magic, how can one heal and gain more XP by praying? I understand that one might become more "powerful" (I can't find the right word) by praying (and thus believing that God will help him), but the effects, I think, are temporary and there is no way to heal yourself (only to "heal" your soul maybe - depending on everyone's religion). --[[User:Abi79|Abi79]] 16:49, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:XP is hardly simply experience in a certain field, otherwise you would have to gain XP for Knife Combat solely through using Knives, and possibly Books. You would only be able to level up in the Necrotech skill set if you used Necrotech items to gain XP. I mean, at the moment, if I go and paste Zombies' brains on the sidewalk with a Baseball Bat for several days I could end up learning how to perform first aid, or how to properly use a firearm. - [[USer:Lord of the Pies]]
::Too be fair, though, if you bust open enough zombies, you're going to see a lot of entrails, and an astute observer can learn an awful lot about how the human body works... --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 19:07, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:I shall now proceed to kill 10 more babies to make a nice even number. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 02:26, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===Emotes===

author withdraw- its a dupe -- 05:05, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)~
* Too bad... from what I saw, the "Dupe" links pointed to an entry amongst the "Undecided Suggestions".  It was my understanding that only Rejected and Approved suggestions were valid citations for a Dupe vote.  Anyone have thoughts/confirmation of this?  I personally thought that, as written, this suggestion had plenty of merit.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 05:30, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
** It was attracting quite a lot of keep votes (including mine).--[[User:The General|The General]] 18:33, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

* The only categories that the "Dupe" vote should follow are the Peer Reviewed and any suggestion still open for voting.  And what, exactly, WAS the suggestion a dupe of? --[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 10:38, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**There is a [[Undecided_Suggestions#.2Fme_action|/me suggestion]], named after the IRC emote command.  If this were either approved or rejected, it WOULD be a valid dupe, but as is it's sitting in "undecided Suggestions".  I may take the time later today to re-write and resubmit the suggestion, specifically linking to that Undecided, explaining why it's not a dupe. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 19:13, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**:Addendum: I have gone ahead and [[Suggestions#Emote|resubmitted this one]], so be sure and vote on it. I like to think I've done it justice in my rewrite. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 19:57, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Changing.Your.Name ===

So I can actually remember what to put in the next version of this suggestion, I'm recording it here. Feel free to read and comment as you might on my original suggestion, it'll help me catch more problems before I submit this version.

''' Title: ''' Custom Name/Display Name/??? (to be decided later)

''' Intro: ''' Let's face it: some of us don't have the most RP-friendly names. After all, how realistic is a name like 'john666' or 'freddyvsjason' or, dumbest yet, 'Dinoguy1000'? Therefore, I propose a system whereby one might choose a secondary, or display, name, to be structured like a real name. I do understand that this very topic is discussed in the FAQ, and so intend this more as a "how-it-could-be-done" than a "this-is-so-kewl-Kevan-has-to-stop-everything-else-to-do-it-lolz!!!11!!1".

''' In-Game Repercussions: ''' I forsee that implementing this would introduce a new form of gameplay, akin to clans but at the same time being unique: Families. I have yet to irk out many details, but basically, it would be... uhh... like I said, still have to think of/remember the details.

''' What about PKers? ''' I understand your concern - such a thing would be PKer heaven, and just plain hell for anyone else. Thusly, name changes would not be allowed after the initial choice (which is not mandatory), and existing names - be they login names or display names - could not be re-chosen. In addition, the exact way they are displayed, and where could be user-customised - for instance, one could choose to have both names displayed on all pages involved, or just the display name on one or more, or vice versa. The exception would be profile pages, which would always display both names.

*'''NOOOOO''' - Forget it. You want a realistic name? Pick one from the begining. If your stupid enough to pick SirLicksAlot from the outset then you DESERVE to have to suffer with it after you realize how much of a moron you are. Punishment for your sins. I'm in favor of systems that force idiots to suffer. Hopefully, it drives them away and I dont have to deal with the,m --[[User:Jak Rhee|Jak Rhee]] 00:21, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

=== Drag(Revised)===

-'''Killl''' While this does avoid many of the problems with the previous drag suggestions (which led to the 'Moving Bodies Bad' quasi-rule), by doing so it also nerfs the point of even having this skill. If you're dragging a body into an unbarricaded building, that AP could be better spent actually barricading the building up to VS or the like; Besides, unless you can tell if the person who is going to stand up is a zombie or revivified friend, why would you want to move them at all? Thats a bigger question that was never answered by the original Drag or your version here. --[[User:MorthBabid|MorthBabid]] 11:37, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:*I think he meant that you can drag a '''standing''' player into/out of a building.--[[User:The General|The General]] 12:01, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
This suggestion might be good only if it would be modified to drag survivors with '''no''' APs left into a building, assuming they are outside one. --[[User:Abi79|Abi79]] 17:25, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)

First it's useless most of the time.  Most buildings are barricaded, and either you'd have to remove the barricades first the rebuild them, or you have to be lucky to find someone outside of an unbarricaded building, then probably have to barricade it.  For zombies, they risk being locked out as the survivors re-barricade behind them as they drag the body out.  Finally, I dislike crossover skills.   --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 18:13, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)

If I can drag standing zombies around, well then I could drag a brainrotter into a powered necrotech building and revive him, not fair. [[User:Whitehouse|Whitehouse]] 08:14, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===Riot Shield===
As you said, reducing the to hit chance by 5% each attack is relative.  As in relative odds.  As in the real effect is relative on the current to hit.  
*Missing 5 of my otherwise confirmed hits out of 50 means I lost 5/50 of my hits, thus 10% fewer hits.  Thus with 10% fewer hits I deal 10% less damage
*A newbie's bite, on the other end of the spectrum has 10% to hit, -5% that's removing 5/10 of his hit chances, thus a full half of hit chances.  He will effectively deal half the damage he would have otherwise dealt with it.  
*Of course, they have decent claws now, and no reason not to use them, but it's still 5/25 (1 out of 5) hits for newbie claws that would miss due to the shield.  Thus they would lose 25% of their damage efficiency.  How does this NOT hurt them more than the high-lvls?
*This is NOT the same as always negating a flat 5% of hits which wouldn't have been relative to existing hit % (if you are curious, I mean you have your standard chance to hit, then another check is made where 95% of the outcome ends up with you doing damage.  For newbie biters, that's 10% chance to hit, multiplied by 95% of unblocked hits, for 9,5% to hit, instead of 5% with your suggestion).  And which might be decent as a suggestion with the chance for the shield to be gone, though I doubt the others would vote keep on even that.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 15:19, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT) Edited later on --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 16:03, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

That makes sense, if the -5% penalty for attacking someone with a shield is applied '''after''' the initial "do I hit?" check.  I assumed it would simply be applied before any dice are rolled.  In other words, I thought someone with 50% to hit would simply attack with 45% to hit, and you're suggesting they would hit with 50%, and then '''if they hit''' a further 95% would be applied to see if they do damage.  I don't know which of those two the author actually intended, but I do understand what you mean.  --[[User:Intx13|Intx13]] 17:14, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

To clarify, the author did NOT apply an even 5% reduction of hits.  He placed a reduction of -5 to your existing to hit percentage.  
*The author suggestion would thus reduce a 50% chance to hit to 45% 
*and a 10% to hit chance to 5%! (cutting newbie bite chances in half.  Not that we care about their bites, since their claws are better, but it just shows the two extremes)
**Yes, that's what I was saying... --[[User:Intx13|Intx13]] 19:56, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
The other thing: <b>the apply it AFTER the roll was suggested BY ME as an improvement (say, in a future suggestion)</b> for the, IMO unfair, flat -5 to your total chance that the author talked about. 
Anyways, this suggestion is currently getting killed anyways, and even if resubmitted with my modification, it would be unlikely to get through (especially if the author is stupid enough to just edit this one, which I doubt he is, but it's better that he be warned.  I hate mid-vote edits.  ).  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 19:09, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:*Ah, ok.  I was confused about who was suggesting what, I guess.  Thanks for the clarification.  In any case it's dead now anyway.  --[[User:Intx13|Intx13]] 19:56, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*If anyone does try to rewrite and resubmit this one, might I make a suggestion?  (1) A person should really only be able to carry one at a time.  I would imagine it would take more than one slot as well... maybe as many as 4, though 2 will probably be OK.  (2) It can be lost... it can provide good defense for a while, but after {x} successful melee attacks hit the wielder, the shield should be lost - pulled away by a zombies hands, or whatever.  Firearms attacks won't effect your grip on the item.  Anyways, even with all this, I'm not sure I would vote for this or not...   (Oops, forgot to sign...) --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 19:59, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Critical health ===
We were discussing the following: --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 04:02, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

'''Kill''' Zombies need a skill to be able to see that.  This improves the speed of gaining xp through FAKs, and probably helps newbies be useful in protecting a safehouse, even with no useful skills at all.  As said before, zombies get no such treatment.  IMO, at the very least, zombies should get the same, or the amount of hp to be "wounded" should be lowered.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 03:16, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT) Reply to the "Re" will be in talk page.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 04:01, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*'''Re''' I see where you are going at, but still you '''DO''' agree that newbie doctor/medic needs faster xp gain right?  We should try to think about the medics first, '''then''' we could agree on a newb zombie xp faster gain.  (Beside, kevan is trying to help improve it see the claw revision?  It is now .5 damage per Ap spent)  Which is probly just as good as the n00b survivor trying to find med kits in the hospital, try to heal someone for 10 health instead of 5, AND trying to find who needs healed.  Without knowing who needs healed, you would spend many turns trying to heal people who are already healed.  Ps: It's lowered by 5 hp because of the survivors inability to smell the blood as good as the zombie with the skill scent blood, making them able to detect that the person is severly wounded easier. Also the zombies with Scent Blood is still more useful because of their hunting instincts, they're able to detect ON THE MAP which survivor is at low health, which that alone makes zombie's scent blood the superior skill to this suggestion.  <s>'''Crap, I messed up the templete!  Can someone fix it quick please?  I have no clue what I did the mess it up!'''</s> Never mind I fixed it forgot the little thing.  --[[User:Shadow213|Shadow213]] 03:30, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

**One thing at a time. 
**1. '''Please use the freaking talk page instead of posting 20 freaking lines of RE: on the suggestion page'''.  Keep it to 6 lines MAX on the suggestion page please.  
**2. Yes, I agree that some human classes need to be able to level up faster.  However, remember that zombies are half of the factions of the game.  They must be balanced against all survivors, and mostly the strongest, since those are played more than the others.  The game needs to be fair to zombies because they can't be replaced.  Now, this adds a bonus to near-skilless humans.  Toss it in the pile with the others: Lurching gait for free, ability to open doors for free, etc.  Thus IMO this should also be given to zombies
**3. Both classes have a skill allowing people to see the hps of survivors.  Thus both classes have a skill to do more than this.  Why then are zombies the only ones who won't have that ability.  
**4. #3 makes it a new way to do old things.  Which isn't as bad as most people say it is, but still generally should make you pause and consider it twice.  
**5. There is no realistic reasons that a creature out after a meal, woudn't jump on a bloody piece of meat, rather than a clean, closed package containing food (an unharmed harman).  I find your entire 30-line reply to whomever that was to be nonsensical, and based on your own theories, which neither make a consensus nor are proven (neither are mine, but I do believe every voter is entitled to his oppinion).  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 15:07, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Dart Rifle ===
'''Okay, here we go again. My points for this suggestion:'''
# This weapon must revive (or don't revive at all, depending on in what way it annoys zombies) in a way that's different from a syringe. Otherwise people would simply resort to syringing people here and there, and they're 100% accuracy, insta-death items.
# There must be an effect annoying to zombies. All kinds of zombies. Newbies and maxed-out Rotters alike. Period. '''Annoying zombies is the central point of the weapon'''. Of course zombies won't like them. But would they like Headshot if it was suggested today? I guess not. Since my original "infection" idea doesn't seem to work, then I'm open for suggestions.
# Why annoying? That is the only way survivors have to make zombies go away and try to attack something else. As they can't die, zombies only move away when they get bored or annoyed and decide that it's not fun to attack a given place. Caiger Mall proved that in large-scale, back in the times of the griefing Headshot. Now Headshot is still a bit annoying, but not even close to the old version. I really hated the old Headshot, no matter how efficient it was, it was still griefing. Now I'm trying to create something else to annoy zombies, ''without'' griefing them.
# There must be some level of stealth required. The character isn't hiding. Anyone standing online by the time of an attack would see the "a sniper" who shot them standing in the same block as themselves. The number is variable, but I personally find hard to spot people hiding in the debris of a city ruined by months of zombie outbreak. Since you're annoying zombies, it's good for you to not be identified. And it also adds to the annoyance.
# The ammo must be loaded every time it fires. This is a simple compressed-air/spring weapon, like that one from Jurassic Park II, but smaller, shorter, lighter, and firing the NecroTech ordnance. If the ammo is to be found in packs, then make it so that it works like a Spraypaint Can instead of a normal clip. Every time you click on it, it spends a "shot" and reloads one of your rifles.
# Survivors suffer little damage. Why? PKers would love to use a weapon that doesn't show their names up. Especially now that everybody in the room knows when a person kills another. The weapon fires a dart that carries a toxin that is only effective against zombies. So no deal for PKers. Either that or remove the stealth ability when firing against survivors. Again, this weapon is meant to annoy zombies, not survivors.
# Again, Rotters must be affected. Why? Because they might fought all the way until they became max-level characters, but maxed-out survivors fought for much more XP to be maxed-out, too. Having all skills doesn't grant you any special privilege. You're just another guy, but with better combat powers. 

Of course zombies won't like the idea. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 13:02, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
-----
#'''Kill''' - Simply because this suggestion is insanely overpowered. Infinite stacking and incurability of the infection pretty much would mean that all a human has to do is hit a zombie once with a dart, and they�re dead, regardless of skills.  An infected human can always find an FAK and heal � that�s why infection is balanced, because it�s not an automatic death sentence. Remove the stacking ability and provide for some sane method for zombies to heal the effect without dropping dead, and I wouldn�t have a problem with it. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 23:43, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#*'''Re:''' - Okay... two things: Brain Rot and Ankle Grab. If those are unavailiable, more two things: sleeping on streets and jumping out of windows. And, as a last sidenote: death is not instantaneous. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 23:56, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#**'''Re:''' Brain Rot and Ankle Grab don't negate the fact that your suggestion is auto-death for any zombie who gets hit with a dart. Its not instant, sure; but there's little to nothing the zombie can do once hit, except die. Like I said, you need add a (reasonable) cure status effect skill for zombies and kill the stacking. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 02:08, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#***'''Re:''' Why do you argue about zombies dying, if they simply can't die? This weapon is meant to both revive willing people and cause annoyance and moral impact in zombies, without causing them any real prejudice. Why would you need a possibly hard to find cure (like biting X survivors), if you can simply die and get up again? The actual NecroTech syringes can insta-kill a zombie, and there's nothing they could do, except to get Brain Rot. The Dart Rifle idea makes the Brain Rotters spend a measly additional 1AP getting up again. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 02:25, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#****'''Re:''' Thats exactly the point you are missing. Syringes have a counter-skill; Brain Rot. Survivors have a counter item and skills (FAKs and the associated skills) for dealing with infection. They're both 'annoyance' weapons (in some fashion); however, they have simple and easy counters. Your suggestions only counter is death, which is a terrible counter given the ease of dealing with other similar effects. And, as Grim noted, you will double the current revivification rate in-game, which makes this even more unbalanced. You'd kill the game inside of a week. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 13:43, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#*****'''Re:''' Let's see if I can solve this one without having to resort to the talk page again. If a zombie don't want to be revived, they could breach a safehouse (or find an already-breached one, if they're lucky) and attack until they had only 1 or 2HP. Then log off. Return two hours later and your zombie will be dead and getting up as a zombie again. And on the point of annoyances, this weapon wouldn't cause damage to Rotters (I think they wouldn't even be annoyed, as long as they don't engage in combat with active players while "infacted"), and other zombies would simply have to get up and wait a bit to be eaten before walking around as zombies again. About the revification rate, please look at my reply to Grim's point. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 14:05, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#******'''Re:''' You're assuming that there are nearby safehouses that the zombie can break into before dying, and you pretty much leave the zombie wide-open for a headshot in that case. Death isn't meaningless to zombies(no matter how much you marginalize it), and its a bad way of balancing a suggestion. Look, all the suggestion needs is the stacking killed (unless you do it for infection too) and some sort of counter that isn't death; a simple skill under Brain Rot that purges the dart revives for maybe 5HP and 1AP is all you need. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 14:37, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#*******'''Re:''' that's interesting. Anyway, finding a safehouse was just one of the options. The others are simply dying, getting up, and letting themselves be killed. More XP for the fellow zombies. 10AP spent, at most. What did you mean with "the stacking killed (unless you do it for infection too)"? And wouldn't that skill you suggested have the exact effect of Ankle Grab in a Brain-Rotter reduced to 0HP? It even requires Brain-Rot! And spending HP isn't a good idea, I think, since you can just drop dead and get up fully healed again. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 14:55, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#********'''Re:''' Look, I'll make a oversimplified example of what (could) occur. Pretend me and 4 other maxxed-out zombie types go and try to break down a random building at EH, which has 6-7 humans and one with the dart-gun. We all spend 10AP to break down the cades and another 1AP to enter - at which point, we all get darted by the anonymous NecroTech. So, at 39AP left, we're all infected. What can the zombies do? Absolutely nothing. We could run and break down another building and hope we can jump from it (another ~10AP for cades,plus at least 3 to get there, suicide, and back), and have the possibility of reinfection once we enter back in. We could use up the remainder of our AP attacking the humans, but if any are awake and healing we're all going to be left at 21 HP with maybe a few humans killed; after which, we all get headshot, dumped, and the building rebarricaded; meaning tomorrow, we get to do things all over again. Things get even worse if there are two or three darts per zed(this is what I meant by the stacking; that 3 darts means 3HP/AP as stated in the initial suggestion).  Thats the reason for the purge skill; a simple 5HP can be cured up mostly by a single successful bite, and the 1AP isn't any more severe than waiting to die. Simply make the skill usable only when infected, and don't let it be used if it drops the HP to 0 (or below). Its all very simplistic. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 15:23, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#*********'''Re:''' okay, I think I got it. So you think that the stacking should be taken off? Sounds fair enough (as it's only a small effect of the weapon). And on a "cure" to the revification, how about killing at least one survivor (regardless of damage inflicted or initial health, with Digestion being especially effective on keeping the zombie alive) and getting a "you on their flesh to give your body enough power to overcome the poison in your veins" as automatic message? Because the way I see it, just taking a few bites or buying a skill sounds too easy and destroys the annoyance factor. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 15:30, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#**********'''Re:''' Yeah, the stacking does need to go. The reason why I suggested the penalty so light (5HP and 1AP) is because to cure an infection(the zombie annoyance ability), a human needs to pretty much only spend 4AP (3 to find, one to cure) or so in a mall to cure an infection, and gets the added benefit of 10HP from the FAK. A zombie skill that instead reduces health by 5HP, which would take approximately 4 AP to 'heal' back, plus an extra 1AP, seemed to be pretty balanced out with the human equivalent. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 15:48, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#***********'''Re:''' Well, we'd be playing with RNG, then. Not everybody is lucky enough to reach a Mall (much less to find a way to enter one before the infection kills them), and sometimes finding FAKs in Churches and Hospitals is a pain in the ass. I'll take away the stacking in the next version of the skill (since I'm pretty sure Grim's arguments will make most other users vote kill). I'm trying to find another way to cure the infection, though. Having a skill just to nerf a single survivor item doesn't sound right. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 15:53, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
<br><br>
#'''Kill''' - Humans do not NEED an infection analogue. The only differences between this and infection is the fact that infection can be treated, and the fact that infection doesnt cause revivification (Which you already have a mechanism for). This would boost the revive rate through the game at a great pace, tilting the game strongtly against the zombies, back to pre-strike levels, if not back to the state we were in in September (Which was far, far worse). --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 03:01, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#*'''Re:''' it's not like I didn't expect such a paranoid comment from you, Grim. I'll do me a favour and spare myself from arguing with you. Either way the results are the same. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 03:06, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#**'''Re:''' - Either rebut or Fuck off, dont resort to attacking the person. This stuff is in ADDITION to the syringes you can find and make, which would, for all essential purposes DOUBLE THE CURRENT REVIVE RATE, which would have the bottom fall out of the number of zombies. This suggestion is GAME BREAKING. The fact that each hit on a Zombie is a kill (And likely a revive) just makes it even worse. It is insanely overpowered. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 06:21, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#***'''Re:''' - I you consider that a personal attack, okay. On the suggestion: the weapon and the ammo would need to be searched, with an average search rate of a syringe (weapon being harder to find and ammo a bit more plenty, one cancelling the other). That search rate would be surely below 5%, since both the weapon and the ammo would need to share the search "space" with the other items already found in NT buildings (syringes, books, GPS devices, DNA extractors...). The fact that you would need two items to score a single revive means you'll need to search two times more to find it. It's still more effective to simply manufacture or search for a Syringe, if you just want to revive someone. It wouldn't double the revive rate and I especified that this suggestion is not for the current times, only after zombies receive enough boosts to have a more steady zombie player base. You know very well that most zombies around are simply Mhr?-cows waiting for revives and doing nothing else except being XP-farm for survivors. At most, it would help NTs with Brain-Rot-clogged revive points (as the weapon "infects" everybody, but Rotters aren't revived). Each hit on a zombie is not a kill. A hit on a zombie marks it with a revification flag, and they only start losing HP ''after'' they become active and start spending AP again. No extra XP for the character who hit them, and death doesn't mean absolutely nothing to a Brain-Rotted zombie (oh, wait. It means 1AP. My bad!), or to any other, for that matter. Even revification doesn't mean much, as they can get some useful items/~skills from the survivor side, then kill themselves/let themselves be killed/PK survivors until they're PKed back. You could flag a stack of 10 zombies (after using at least a whole week to stock up on weapons and darts), but that wouldn't give you much more than 70XP, a chance for the zombies with Scent Trail follow you (with some bad luck they would even know who you are), and that's all. In the next day, as the players log in their characters, the stack would shrink gradually until everything that's left are the Brain-Rotters. And the Rotters would gain some extra XP with the revived zombies who chose to sleep in the streets. I repeat that this weapon is not a combat buff, neither an effective revificator. It works as both, but it is designed to be an annoyance to zombies. Seeing how you argued, and knowing your fame, I think it's right on the spot. Oh, and I can understand your points without the need for ALL CAPS, thank you. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 13:51, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*<s>Grim S - it couldn't double the revive rate - because people still have to search for the weapon and it's ammo, same as searching for syringes or manufacturing them for 20 ap.  It's not like people are going to find this weapon and it's ammo and be given a second free syringe to revive with in addition to it - which is what would have to happen for it to double the revive rate.  People are either going to work with this weapon - or use the standard syringe for revives.. this isn't magically going to create little fairy scientists that can pop out doubled amount of syringes for their days ap.  The fact that he has it set at slightly higher search % than standard syringes is balanced by the fact that you can miss with this weapon.</s>  Aside from that, for all intensive purposes - this is no different than reviving currently, aside from a delayed effect instead of instantaneous effect (that, and it effects brain rot zombies - which honestly, I'd personally rather have my rotters fall to an infection and ankle grab their way back up for 1 ap after I give them a chance to rest, than to have them fall to a headshot and loose 6 ap). --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 22:44, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
** It would double the revive rate; the search odds are something like 5% per AP for the items in an NT building. That means for every 20AP searching, you're probably going to get one of each item. Adding an additional item at 5% (which is what the suggestion stated) means that for 20AP of searching, on average, you'd get a syringe and a dart. Both could be used for revivification, and thus the revive rate would be doubled. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 22:59, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:*'''EDIT''' - oops, you're right, my bad - I was doing the math wrong in my head.  I struck out my comment in that regard.  It could be simply remedied by making the syringes from this dart gun by manufacture only.  It would actually make more sense in terms of the weapon (and the back story behind it) for it's ammo to have to be manufactured. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 23:48, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***That was a wording mistake. I said that those things would share space in the search odds with the other items, thus lowering all items' search rates. It would be surely less than 5%. You woulnd't get a syringe and a dart per 20 AP. You would either got a syringe OR a dart in 15-20 AP. For that, I'd advocate syringes (the sure-fire way) to be only availiable via NecroNet. But that's not in the scope. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 23:29, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**** Thats not too bad. It pretty much means survivor revive rates are going to stay at around what they are at current, but 'combat revive' rates would drop. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 03:55, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)

<br><br>
*Here's what I suggest. Make it so that the dart gun effects do not stack, and so they max out at 40% hit percentage and 3 damage. That'll make it equal to the axe in terms of sheer damage. Give it a ten percent chance of starting a revivification process, otherwise it just does damage. Then give the zombies the ability to stop the revivification process by biting any survivor, the logic being that the zombie's own regenerative process after feeding disrupts the dart's effects.  Make this work for zombies without Digestion also. Maybe a button so that for 10 AP the zombie can instantly turn human and not have to waste AP playing a zombie when they're going to be alive soon. And give zombies with brain rot a 5% chance of the syringe's effects wearing out on their own with each AP spent. And finally I suggest requiring dart gun ammo to be manufactured by people with Necronet access, perhaps 20AP for a clip of 10 darts. That way this skill will provide scientists with a combat ability equivalent to the axe after they max out the science skill tree, but worse in terms of AP spent making ammo. However it'd also have a chance of reviving the target. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 18:23, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**Ah, new ideas are alwawys good. Let's see... for the next version (it will be a major overhaul):
*# Improve the weapon's ammo capacity (10 darts sounds excessive, though. Maybe 4 or 5 darts, in a revolver-like configuration?)
*# Allow for the ammo to be searched with a very low rate, and also allow it to be built with NecroNet.
*# There will be no stacked effects.
*# Make the revification "infection" be 2HP per AP. Open for discussion.
*# The low accuracy doesn't sound fair to me, especially because syringes got 100% accuracy. For all those APs spent searching, you will surely want to actually hit something (wasting possible revives doesn't sound very smart for the NTs). Either that or the search rate/manufacture should be greatly lowered, even with the weapon still being hard to find.
*# Only one bite seems too easy. I was thinking along the lines of requiring the zombie to finish-off  regardless the damage caused. As an alternative, the "infection" wouldn't have a cure, but a small chance of healing by itself each AP after the zombie bites someone. 5% sounds good as a beginning to me. Each extra bite taken on a survivor would add 5% to that chance, so if an "infected" zombie manages to bite a survivor at least once after being infected, they would have a chance in 20AP to heal up again. Five bites would mean a chance in 4AP. And throw in a "surrender" button for an amount of AP equals to a quarter of your current HP, for those who don't want to waste AP. Sounds better?
*# Brain-Rot zombies would have a base healing-for-itself chance of 5%, instead of 0%.
*# Keep the anoynimous attack. Tweak the detection percentage.
**Any other ideas? --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 19:15, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*** Seems somewhat better; the only problem is still the survivability issue. Most humans are going to be barricaded behind a VS(or worse) structure, which is going to take a good deal of AP just to enter. At 2HP/AP, even with bodybuilding, a zombie will be dead long before he gets the barricades down, let alone kill anyone. 1HP/AP does fix that, somewhat, but still leaves it too much to chance. I do somewhat like the 5% chance per bite, but it still suffers from imbalance due to barricades. One possible solution I was pondering was something similar to many of the bile/acid type suggestions; the zombie retains some consumed flesh from digestion, and for every 10HP of bite damage dealt, can remove the revivification "infection" and gain a short-duration (10AP's worth, or maybe a timespan of 6 hours) of immunity to the darts and (possibly) standard syringes. I figured this would be a counter on the screen; store up to a max of 20HPs of bite damage, allowing for 2 removals and 20AP's worth of immunity. Costs 1AP to use, and probably a subset of digestion. Given that bite is 1.2HP/AP dealt, on average, a zombie would have to spend about 7-8 out of every 10AP biting someone to retain the immunity permanently; in other words, pretty much no one could maintain it constantly. The buffer of having 2 'purges' worth means that a zombie can shrug off the occasional dart hit, but repeated hits over a day or two could result in the zombie being unable to cure itself. The immunity is just an idea, though; even a minor heal would be sufficient. --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 22:59, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**** OK, then. Let's see... how about a 5% heal-for-itself chance. That way, a 50HP zombie hit by a dart would (theoretically) heal the "infection" by itself and not get revived, even though they would be left at lower HP. The ones who wanted to become survivors again would simply give up and die (by pressing the "surrender" button). The whole thing would still annoy zombies, or so I think, so I guess it can be done without ruining the original idea. I'm trying to not be too complicated and add counters and stuff. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 23:29, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***** Its not too bad; the problem with the 5% heal-by-itself is simply the unrelenting mercy of the RNG. While on average the attack will do something like 20 HP, 7-8% of those hit will not be able to stop the infection in time (.95^50?) The other real problem is that something like 1/3 of the zombies will be left at 20HP or less, rife for headshots. I realize you're not big on the counters, though; but counters seem pretty much how the game works at current. Most zombies probably aren't going to like the idea of just standing there and hoping they don't die from the infection; humans would be pretty pissed, I'd think, if infection worked the same way (and zed healing ability is far worse).  --[[User:Ampoliros|Ampoliros]] 03:55, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
vote type, or at the very least nerfed.  You need to quit viewing it as a "Who can get their Spam vote in first" game.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 18:44, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****And the stupidity of that argument and your continual abuse of ths SPAM voting function show the lack of maturity on your part. Please show a little respect for yourself and your fellow Wiki users.--[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 21:27, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Door Lookery ===

Like it only as is, Would like it IF you could look IN and OUT, Would like it as it is but it would be better if you saw Humans too, Hate it no matter what, or something else? Thoughts? Solves the whole "I WANNA LOOK OUT THE WINDOW!!!" thing while remaining logical and realistic. (Not arguing realism, I'm saying it HAS realism on its side in addition to anything else) Main use is when the doors open and you can tell if you're going to need to run away or if you can stand and fight off the Zedlings. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 07:06, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)


===Desktop Clients===
Do what with the what now?--[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 03:09, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
* I believe he just wants to make a local client that can be used to play UD.  It would not effect play via the web interface at all, but for those that choose to use it, it might provide a few more conveniences (say, the niceties of several of the FireFox extensions), maybe even run a little bit faster.  And one time, such a practice was not uncommon, but is less the norm in the modern age of always-on broadband internet access and mature, robust web tools and dynamic web page programming.  This is one of those suggestions that, If you don't understand, you can safely ignore, ad it won't harm your gameplay one bit.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 14:11, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**Let me get this straight... There would be a program that could be downloaded to play UD using less bandwith?  It would replace the HTML code of the interface (that is how the info is presented) but the info would still come from the server? (and thus coudn't be tampered with?  such as by hacking the local client?)... Basically it would fill textboxes with the info from the server? (and other similar things?).  For the purpose of... giving a better appearance?  reducing bandwith usage?  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 16:45, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*** It would likely interface with the server via the standard HTTP protocol.  A telnet conection could be later added if it is deemed worthwhile, but I doubt it would.  Point is, the client program would provide a different, optional user interface.  In a strict vanilla sense, it can provide an interface that looks exactly the same as the web client.  It would however allow for a lot of optional modifications/expansions to it.  Maybe someone really hates green, and wants it all in pink, for example.  I think we can all agree the superficial modifications won't really change things much.  Other things that can be made possible with a client (and this is only a few):
***# ''Scripting'' - You know that infamous "Search X Times" suggestion that keeps popping up every other week?  The client can be scripted to do that.  It will cause an IP hit every time, and will occur at no more than a set minimum interval (next search triggered by completion of the last), but can be made to not require any further interaction.  
***# ''Saving IP Hits'' - Certain tasks can be made to use fewer IP hits.  Take, for example, buying a new skill.  You click on the "Buy New Skills" button (1 hit), then clcik on the skill you want (1 hit), then click on "Return to the City" (1 hit).  With a client, as long as the client has an updated skill list, these 3 IP hits can be reduced to 1 (registering with the server that a skill is being purchased).  
***# ''Added Graphics'' - You can define additional graphics on your end.  Maybe the pistols you have are listed next to an image of a six-shooter or other pistol.  You can make the buttons bigger, you can make it all inside a nice fancy border, whatever.  Basically, pretty it up.  None of this would increase server load.
***# ''Client-Side Processing'' - Imagine you have a bar meter showing simultaneously how many shotgun shells you have loaded, and to what percentage your shotguns are loaded to.  How about your HP displayed as a health bar?  You could have a running counter showing your damage output per attack for your last 20 attacks.  There's a huge number of additional tools that can be added to take the data from the server and apply additional analysis on the client side, and it's in my opinion that this is where some of the more important strengths of the client/server system shine.
***# ''Possibly Reduce Bandwidth Usage'' - If the server can provide a stripped-down version of the page for the client to access, with no special formatting or layout info, then the client can reduce the per-IP hit bandwidth usage.  Sure, the possible reduction is minimal, but say you get 50 people using the client, each of which who usually hit the server 160 times a day, 7 days a week, and you're talking about 56,000 hits a week.  The more that use it, the more benefit in this respect.
*** Also, you might find the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_client Wikipedia article about MUD clients interesting], as it is a similar situation.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 19:32, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**** I thought that the IP limit was 160 hits to the ''map.cgi'' script.  So you can easily lower your hits to the server by using firefox tabs or shift-clicking in IE(to open a new window). this means you don't use an extra IP hit when returing from the contact list, profile or buy skills page, because you never actually left.  I could be wrong, but this is what i have assumed (and possibly read here on the wiki) I can't remember.  --[[User:Benpage26|Benpage26]] 22:41, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***** Just looked.. and yes, the [[Hit Limit|hit limit]] just refers to hits to map.cgi. Still, not counting tricks such as tabbing, etc, and only considering so-called "normal use", the IP hits saved would be siginificant.  Also, the effects under my last point above would still be valid, even if one used every trick in the book to overcome the hit limit.  Thanks for pointing it out though... --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 18:08, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Thank you, this answers my questions perfectly.  :) --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 02:31, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
: Glad to help! --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 18:05, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===Kill All Members of the [[WCDZ]]===
* Well, at least you deserved the honour of spaminating this especific suggestion. Congrats, Grim! --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 12:57, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**Good to know that we have a fan club.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 13:59, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***I've reported Slavik for Vandalism (closest thign I can think of) and sked for him to be banned. Threats on me and ESPECIALLY my family is WHOLLY unacceptable. --[[User:Jak Rhee|Jak Rhee]] 15:47, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****Gee, what'd we do to him, anyway? You think his dog got cancer so he blamed us? --[[User:TheTeeHeeMonster|TheTeeHeeMonster]] 16:56, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*****It was my fault, actually. The other day, I broke into his house and stole all his DVDs, made his UD character jump out of a window, and ate his hamster. I guess leaving a signed confession wasn't such a smart idea. - [[User:KingRaptor|KingRaptor]] 17:08, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
******It's ok, you're still a good person. Just out of curiousity: What do hamsters taste like? Chicken or Gary Coleman? --[[User:TheTeeHeeMonster|TheTeeHeeMonster]] 17:14, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*******Five bucks for it tasting Gary Coleman! --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 17:19, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
********Well, it certainly doesn't taste like chicken, so... ''(Note to self: Try the 11 herbs and spices thing with hamster sometime)'' - [[User:KingRaptor|KingRaptor]] 17:25, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*********
*****That suggestion could have been so much better used if it was "Killing all griefers". *sigh* That guy got a vendetta. Looks like that after humiliating himself by trolling the [[WCDZ]], he thinks that harming us will do anything to help his situation. At most, it will only turn us into Martyrs and show the world the evil in the zombies' path! --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 17:06, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***** All this suggestion would do is make me into an all powerful zombie. I would also like to suggest that Grim S be given membership in the WCDZ. He'd be kind of like Batman in the Justice League. Occasionally he'd come to the rescue but mostly he'd do his own thing and maybe show up once in a while on a rooftop. Actually...can his official title be "Batman"? --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 17:19, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****** Well he can't be superman, thats zarathustra. I always figered Bentley was Batman. the  how about we make grim Aquaman of the avengers?--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <font size=1>[[WCDZ|there is no evil plot in motion]]</font> 17:36, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT) 
Thats loser talk Slav, do you think I became the feared and hated overlord I am today by asking other people to do my serial murder for me? Heck no. If you're going to let a little thing like an ocean and several national borders stop you from achieving your goals you'll always be small time. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 19:38, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*The best thing about having a joke conspiracy group is the people who don't get that it is a joke (even when it is pointed out in said group that it is a joke).  That's what keeps it funny!  God Bless the [[WCDZ]] - I can't wait until we reveal that we are in league with vampires, wolfmen, and mummies - all for the complete and utter destruction of zombies!  (...oops!  sorry if i've said too much fellas...) (oh yeah - and Grim S should be Plastic Man.  It's so obvious.  Most of the time what he says is completely ridiculous - but sometimes he astounds everyone and saves the day.) --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 20:00, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**Do we know of any superheroes with the ability to smash generators? What about The Thing. Not in the Justice League, but he does smash stuff. --[[User:TheTeeHeeMonster|TheTeeHeeMonster]] 20:27, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***How about the Hulk? Not really a super "hero", but he smashes stuff very well, is hard to change his mind, and still saves the day every once and so. I'd say Grim s owns at least a wee bit more finesse than the big green guy, but the comparison is still valid... --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 20:33, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
I must say.. it looks like the Mods have skipped over the Slavik report. Ster responded to one above it, but not it. If this is so then, Im very unhappy with the Mod Team right now. At the very least tell us why you dont think Slavik should be banned. Don't jsut ignore it. Assuming there's no action in 24 hours on this Vandalism report, I'm goign to try for Arbitration. --[[User:Jak Rhee|Jak Rhee]] 22:19, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*Well, once the dust has settled a bit, I realized what he did wasn't so bad.  You really think this "threat" could ever have anything behind it?  The guy is a troll, or an idiot, and is doing a poor-taste joke on a satire group with "Join my army or die" as a motto...  Despite the poor taste and lack of finesse, there is no reason that the humor can't cut both ways, especially considering how rude some of us are, sometimes for no good reason.  (mea culpa, I might have been a bit far with my (evilly plotting to ban-hammer) thing.  Heck, this might be why the mods didn't act upon it).  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 22:50, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**Even if he's telling the truth, if he thinks an evil hired gun is going to quit a group due to just a few death threats, he's got another thing coming! Especially since I just got this month's payment! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 23:41, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***Rude yourself - McArrowni. ;-P  I spread nothing but love and fuzzy kittens on the Wiki :).  You have a point though - it's not like he could ever actually follow through on any threats he made/makes.  I think he picked a horrible place to put his "threat" or "joke" (whatever it was) - he could easily make his own WCDWCDZ (World Conspiracy for the Destruction of the World Conspiracy for the Destruction of Zombies - <i>paten pending</i>) group and mock us right back in like form.  It's not so much what he said - It's where he said it IMHO --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 23:47, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****I still think there is a large diffence between a bit of satire and calling for the death of us and our families, we got a slap on the fingers when we went overboard on [[user:Amazing|amazing]], (one of our members got a ban out of that) the same should happen when people go overboard against persons from the [[WCDZ|WCDZ]]. I don't care what kind of punishment he gets one way or the other, but it should be clear that death treaths against persons are a no-no where ever they are made on this wiki.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <font size=1> [[WCDZ|one suger or two?]]</font> 23:55, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Well, when none of us are online next month, we're probably dead, or stoned. Either way, It doesn't matter if he utters death threats, because it is such a petty thing to do and destroys all remaining credibility he has. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 00:29, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Aw shit. I couldnt be here at the time slavik placed the suggestion. Missed all the fun :\ --[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]] 00:36, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

He's being banned, thank goodness! --[[User:Jak Rhee|Jak Rhee]] 04:43, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

To say the truth, the WCDZ has a lot of disruptive members, not to say they all are disruptive, or even as disruptive as some loaner editers, but they are not a kind and poite group that should be giving ideas for an internet game, free or otherwise. --[[User:Mr NoName|Mr NoName]] 23:58, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:We're disruptive? You don't know what you're talking about. And who judges whether we should get to give ideas for a game? You? -- [[User:KingRaptor|KingRaptor]] 06:36, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:So because you don't like us, you agree we should all die? Believe it or not, but some things are strictly taboo, even on the internet, and one of them is giving death threats to people! Sure, we vote down ideas we hate, but since when do we not only give death threats, but also call upon others to do the dirty work? If you believe he is undeserving of being punished for giving what was obviously something that was nothing less than flaming, and that he was probably serious about, too, then something must definetly be wrong with you! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 05:42, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:Calm down.  The point of the suggestion wasn't to give death threats, it was to make us react.  It worked.  Unfortunately, I had to say it, and now Slavik will do a rerun of this too (he seems to be almost quoting some of us when he's "trying to argue".  <s>Almost like</s> he can't think for himself).  As for us being disruptive... I do see a few members that could be considered disruptive (insults, adding comments that are sometimes quite rude in a no-comment zone, voting spam as a strong kill, etc.).  However, those are minor compared to the antics of many other posters here (which doesn't mean we shoudn't be careful with those things, IMHO, but then, I'm not sure I really fit in with this group)--[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 14:00, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
To me the [[WCDZ]] in its entirety is a joke.  When I first started seeing people spouting WCDZ when voting, I did think it was a group that all voted alike and thought them somewhat bastards.  Then I read the group page, and the history behind it - and started paying attention to how the various members voted on things, and realized they don't all vote the same - and sometimes you have to be a bastard to squash someone who refuses to give any kind of serious thought to their suggestions.  It's kind of like how Buddhist monks smack each other with sticks while meditating to reach enlightenment - sometimes you have to get a sharp jolt to snap you out of your daze and make you realize something.  While many of us have the same general tendencies with voting, It would be the same with or without the group.  The group is just to poke fun at people who think there is some grand conspiracy against them, and also a somewhat organized effort to keep the suggestion page the best it can be.  Many of us who play this game don't have a bunch of free time to waste reading joke suggestions or idiotic suggestions, but love playing the game and want to see it develop in the best way possible - and in that regard, there has to be someone who will play 'bad cop' and keep the people who don't take this suggestion page seriously "in line" (I use that term loosely, but you get my point, yes?). --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 17:46, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Inhuman Hearing ===
* for one AP you can stand outside and wait for a feedin groan. plus survivors have to chose if they should protect a building form the zombies. If this crap stays we might as well implament one of those redio ideas out there.--[[User:Deathnut|RAF Lt.G Deathnut]] 06:23, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT) 
**'''Re''' Actually when I'm a survivor I make a point of barricading every building I come across. I don't really have to choose. I don't think it's unfair for a survivor to have to kill a few zombies to take over a building in a heavily zombified suburb. Speaking of "kill", that's the appropriate response for suggestions you don't like. This isn't spam by any means. It's serious, has merits that you can argue for or against, and is original. Any further discussion should take place on the discussion page. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:26, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***I vote spam On what I dont like and want gone. I vote kill on what I dont like but I want to see if others like it. Keep if for what I like.--[[User:Deathnut|RAF Lt.G Deathnut]] 06:46, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**** That is the EXACT situation when you should vote Kill, not Spam.  Your abuse waters down the meaning of the Spam vote.  If you don't like a suggestion, then just vote Kill and explain yourself.  Save the Spam votes for the Uber-leet god-like-power suggestions. The guidelines are clear enough, and I can't understand why people continue to abuse the system. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:15, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*** voting like that is an abuse of the spam vote.  spam is not a hard kill.  spam votes are not hard kills. one more time for those that cant read .. SPAM VOTES ARE NOT HARD KILLS.  and you are supposed to give a reason why you voted that way explaining hwy it was spam..--[[User:ericblinsley]] 07:00, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****Then what IS a spam vote?  I somewhat agree with Deathnut.  A spam vote is for a suggestion that should go away (has no merit or just plain stupid).  Kill is for a suggestion that some merit but in the SUGGESTED CONFIGURATION would not work.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 09:39, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*****A spam vote is use only on suggestions that have no marit, the suggestion he voted spam on has marit, it is a valid suggestion - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 13:20, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***** From the Guidelines, a Spam vote should be reserved "for the most ridiculous suggestions".  That implies that it is COMPLETELY lacking in common sense or reasonableness.  It is not unreasonable that a zombie inside a building might hear something occur from outside the building, or that the zed's player might find that info useful, nor is it unreasonable to believe that this skill would not imbalance the game.  It's basic common sense.  Unless you are certain that it meets all of these criteria, then it is not a candidate for Spamination.  Use a normal Kill vote instead.--[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:28, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::Common sense?  What "has merit" is relatively subjective.  As I said, most of the time they are obvious, but not always.  And, for your information, I rarely vote spam (in fact, I've only ever done it twice).  Sure, people abuse the spam vote, but it ISN'T THE SPAM VOTING THAT IS THE PROBLEM.  It is the deletion of the suggestions after being spamminated.  The problem with the skill is that, why shouldn't it apply to survivors too?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:15, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**I dont care I voted Spam and there is nothin you can do about it.--[[User:Deathnut|RAF Lt.G Deathnut]] 17:46, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*** And you are still wrong for doing so, and there is nothing you can do about that.  However, if abuse of the Spam vote continues, then people will start looking at long-term solutions.  Personally, I appreciate the presence of this tool for Spamination, and would hate to see it removed as a valid vote type, or at the very least nerfed.  You need to quit viewing it as a "Who can get their Spam vote in first" game.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 18:44, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****And the stupidity of that argument and your continual abuse of ths SPAM voting function show the lack of maturity on your part. Please show a little respect for yourself and your fellow Wiki users.--[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 21:27, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)


=== Forklift Version 2.0.1.X ===

*Why?--[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 02:07, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**Why not? -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 07:15, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
***Because barricading works well, and adding forklifts would just muddle what is currently a clean mechanic and waste a lot of time on something that won't enrich the game. "Why not" isn't a valid argument. The burden of persuasion rests on you for making this idea, not me for voting on it. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 19:20, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
****"Why" is not only invalid but purposefully hollow and smarmy. Also a burden of persuasion does not exist here. I have no reason to go voter-to-voter in extended discussion - especially when someone hasn't put anything forward except "Why?" - You know what they say, stupid questions get stupid answers. Do you walk into a store, point at a product, and ask the salesperson: "What?" -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 03:14, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
You're missing the point. Suggestions exist to improve the game, and this doesn't appear to. Why does this make the game better? --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 05:30, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:For reasons stated previously. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] <font size=-3>([[Sacred_Ground_Policy|Sacred Ground Policy]] - [[McZeds|McZed's&trade;]])</font> 00:26, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Also, I am getting sick and tired of this sass-back from voters. I don't insult people when '''I vote Kill''' and I'd seriously take all the piss-ants who make voting personal to task.. if I wasn't taking up a lot of time being.. you know.. productive in life. '''IF''' we have to measure people by their Wiki dealings (a sad prospect indeed, yet something people are getting a bit too engaged in) simply look at my Approved and Undecided suggestion list. I'm sure someone has a higher tally, though. No reason for me to check. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 07:15, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Someone decided that I am not allowed to point out this is granting barricade skills to the unskilled. Construction costs xp for a reason. Someone decided that I am not allowed to point out that this boosts the already-potent construction skill that a survivor actually spent to learn. As if the 4-or-5-to-one barricade advantage (depending on who you talk to) needs to be increased. Someone also decided I'm not allowed to point out that these uber-barricades are immediately next to 9 malls, and within 3 steps (in factory, step 1, step 2, step 3 places you inside) of a mall. It doesn't matter that factories/warehouses account for nearly 500 of the blocks in Malton. Malls only account for 77 blocks, and the pairing of the uber-barricading factory/warehouse with 19 malls/73 blocks is tantamount to removing survivors from any appreciable danger, because there will nearly always be a factory/warehouse relatively nearby, and once inside a mere 100xp allows any survivor to double that 4-or-5-to-one advantage to become 8-or-10-to-one... You can call it sass-back, but I'm telling you exactly why I voted Kill, as required. Perhaps you can see past the idea that I responded, and look to the issue I am bringing up. Debate my argument, not me. -- [[User:Serpico|Serpico]] 18:18, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:Did it occur to you at any time that when I spoke of sassy, insulting voters that I ''might'' not be talking about non-sassy, non-insulting voters? -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 03:15, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I still stand by my statement. This draws zombies' attention towards factories and warehouses, those two being unconspicuous places which zombies rarely attack and therefore are better safehouses than other more high-profile places such as police departments and hospitals. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 00:49, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
: I don't see what real difference THAT makes.  Zombies SHOULD just ignore non-PD buildings or hospitals?  My zombie has already gotten a few kills (well, attacked several survivors) inside churches.  Now I have the tendency to go inside, when possible, and I almost always find survivors.  Guess I should stop since they aren't PDs...--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 22:18, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===Zombie corpse moving===
*Shouldn't there be a rule that asks voters to state reasons? I only saw "Moving bodies is bad" and something about a rule... [[User:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]]
**There's no point in restating "moving bodies is bad" three times. --[[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 02:37, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*** But "moving bodies" isn't bad! Anyways, can I suggest a better version tomorrow? Do i need to wait a week or something? --[[User:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]] [[User:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]] 02:51, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**** Sure, you can suggest another one right now if you want.  But it will get killed.  As will ANY corpse-movement suggestion --[[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 03:02, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
***** What's so bad about moving corpses? -[[User:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]] 03:08, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
****** It completely and utterly nerfs hordes, which are the only things in the game that give zombies a chance. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 03:12, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
******* I wouldn't say "nerf", Because Humans need some way of winning sieges somehow, Zombies can keep on getting up while humans can only run since we have no way to fight hordes. I say if moving corpses needs a lot of AP and doesn't give out XP, it's fair game since it won' effectively "break up" a horde, but let the survivors get some time to barricade up and stuff. [[User:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]]
******** So, humans should be able to beat zombies at what zombies are intended to do? You are also forgetting Caiger Mall, where humans built up a critical mass, and were able to have barricaders online at any time. The skill you proposed completely destroys Zombies ability to horde and to maintain hordes. This would be a completely game breaking change, and as such it got spammed into oblivion inside 12 minutes. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 07:19, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
********* Not beating entirely, I'm just saying that if Humans and Zombies are equals, Humans should be able to win sieges. Barrcades don't do much compared to Zombie hording. And I can't say I was there during Caiger Mall, I'm here since only a few weeks. The Suggestion I did would have cost a nice amount of AP do dispose of 1 corpse, said corpse would respawn nearby but not right next to the building in question. In other words, it wouldn't utterly nerf hordes, just break 'em up a little to let humans regroup or something. I don't know if Caiger Mall had more zombies or more Humans, but I agree it might be overpowered now, since there are so many humans compared to zombies. Anyway, Anyone think that if I made a ballanced way to break up hordes a little, people would vote for them? [[User:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]]

What is to stop a player from moving a body to a predesignated location to XP farm them?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 08:20, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
* I had the idea to dispose of bodies in the sewer, causing a semi-random respawn. THAT is what stops players from XP farming and, we can still trap newbie zombies in buildings by closing the doors. [[User:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]]

Would it work like that? [[user:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]]

I assume you play survivor.  How would you like it if you died, someone grabbed your corpse and you floated away an unknown distance and you woke up randomly in Riddleybank or worse on the other side of the map and had to make a 50 AP trek to find a revive point (plus standing up, plus crawling out of the sewers) ... only to be headshot as you were resting (you are a zombie at this point) and dumped again, and again, and again?  This is why moving bodies is bad.  -- [[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 19:26, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
* First of all, you couldn't float very VERY far and second: EVERYONE GETS HEADSHOT ALREADY. That skill could be used for griefing, that's bad, but it'd be used mostly to break up hordes after a siege.
:*The best way to break up a seige is with patience and careful barricading.  Eventually the zombies get bored and go find suburbs with easier to eat brains. -- [[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 00:23, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===Dispose of bodies in Sewers===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=14:20, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Skill|
suggest_scope=both survivors and Zombies|
suggest_description= It has come to attention that there is no actual way to really stop sieges coming from zombies. Now, since Malton is a modern city, 

i'm guessing there has to be some kind of sewer system. Since there's a sewer system, I'd say it'd be fair game to throw inert bodies in the sewers. 

Disposing of bodies in the sewers would require a certain number of action points from the survivor (dragging the body, opening the manhole and dumbing 

the body) and from the zombie (standing up, climbing the ladder, opening the manhole). It could cost X AP to dispose of the body where X is 2(grabbing 

the body, opening the manhole) + 2 x the number of squares to the nearest street. On the zombie side, it would cost the usual, and 2 to climb out, with a 50% chance unless the zombie has memory of life (that's simply an example, it might be 100% for the sake of simplicity and fainess). The Zombie could drift, we could make the xombie drifet a certain number of squares per hour, making it impossible to climb up if you're not under a street. The exact mechanic is up to Kevan but, for the sake of simplicity, it could simply be that for every 4 hours you're in the sewers, you have more chances of waking up in a random street that's farther from the street you were dropped from.The skill would require Body Building, if it requires anything, assuming a manhole is pretty heavy usually.
Also, for this skill to be used, at least 40% of the zombie horde there must be in corpse form. If the 40% isn't enough, it could be changed to 70% to be purely a clean-up skill. Please, if you find it too strong, tell me how to improve it.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Keep --[[User:Ringseed2|Ringseed2]] 00:00, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Keep --[[User:Crane|Crane]] 18:14, 7 Feb 200g (GMT)


:#'''Re: The timestamps and vote times are all screwed up and the pages are all blank...they make the same errors...I see a smurf. [[User:MaulMachine|MaulMachine]] 18:17, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}

===Scent Horde===
''Discussion moved here from Main Page voting.  I have also included the commentary from the vote the discussion spawned from.'' --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 15:36, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
* Groan is sufficient. However, spam votes on this are not. If you want examples of things to 'spam', [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:FireballX301#Some_things_I_did_for_no_reason_-_examples_of_SPAM here]. These are not wholly ridiculous suggestions, they fit in context of the game, and have some thought put into them. Is it that hard to type 'kill'? [[User:FireballX301|FireballX301]] 05:04, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**When I vote Spam it means I Want This Suggestion Gone. so stop lecturing me I wont change. --[[User:Deathnut|RAF Lt.G Deathnut]] 05:07, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***'''Re''' - So what's the 'kill vote' mean? Enlighten us all. [[User:FireballX301|FireballX301]] 05:11, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***'''Re''' - When ''you'' vote Spam, it means the baby Jesus cries. How does admitting that you use Spam in Kill situations make it right? --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 15:36, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***'''Re''' - Do you have any idea how much you sound like a 5 year old who just got scolded? Can you do everyone a favor and please stop posting until you have the appropriate social skills to do so?--[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 17:03, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT) 
***'''Re''' - Man, it says right in the voting guidelines that "spam is not a strong kill vote".  A lot of new comers pick up on what kind of ideas are good, and what kind of ideas are bad based on the comments people leave on them.  If everyone is spamming like there's no tomorrow on every suggestion they just don't care for - the newbies aren't going to be able to learn from other people's mistakes, cause the suggestions wont be around long enough for them to see.  Spam the utterly ridiculous (aka - ninja cyborg midget zombies) and leave the ones that just aren't up to par for people to see what kind of things don't fly here.  Stop making baby jebus cry... --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 22:01, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
----

===Secrete Acid===

#'''Kill''' - This is actually better than most "Acid" suggestions I've seen around, but if the acid is so strong, how comes it doesn't burn/melt/disintegrate the mouth of the zombie as it's spit out? Any acid powerful enough to melt through barricade material would be too powerful to be produced by a living (or dead, in this case) being. Besides, the acid produced is mostly spent digesting the meat instead of stocking up to be splashed on other people. So, I'm sorry, but that's a no go. (I can feel people voting Spam... and even a few Dupes for those who care to search for it) --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 15:15, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
#*'''Re:''' - How is it realistic that dead bodies can rise and walk without needing food? Where does the zombie get the energy to walk? Zombies are unrealistic. And it could be a slow-acting acid of some sort...--[[user:GabeMorris|gabeMorris]] 15:37, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
#**'''Re:''' - Well, except for the whole living dead thing, most good suggestions tend to follow a slightly realistic path. And slow-acting acids don't really exist (as far as I know). It could be a weaker acid, like the dissoluted chloridric acid in our stomachs, but you'd need a greater quantity of that to cause real damage. It wouldn't damage survivors as much as a pistol round, too, since they could simply clean most of it off and possibly wash the burn before getting infected. (Any further discussion goes to the talk page, before we crowd this thing) --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 15:42, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
#***'''Re:''' - I know it's hard to believe, but it's a frickin' zombie! I have the Zombie Survival Guide and it states that zombified flesh rots slower than normal flesh, zombies are almost embalmed naturally, so I don't think it's such a stretch to say a zombie can spit acid that can eat through wood and plastic without dissolving it's almost unrottable flesh. Let's say that zombies have some kind of secretion that kees their mouths from burning when spitting acid. -[[user:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]]
#**** Rotting and getting burnt by acid are completely different things. Rotting is caused by bacteria and enzymes, which are both different from stomach acid. Sure, it's not a big stretch, considering we're talking about zombies with liquified brains, but in the end the suggestion isn't very well balanced. 35% base chance to hit is a bit high, since most people who get Digestion already have Neck Lurch, and it would make the whole attack more accurate than a normal bite. Sure thing, having to bite around 8 times before being able to use it balances it out almost entirely, but I still feel it's a bit unbalanced. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 16:46, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)

For one thing, it turns bite into a potential high damage move, which is bad. Its already pretty close to claw. Second, the ability to charge it up for an uber assault on barricades isn't cool. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 17:06, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)


I should have mentioned that you can't "store" acid. After enough bites, you can spit acid, but only once it's spit that you can continue secreting acid -[[User:GabeMorris|GabeMorris]] 18:12, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)

This may be a stupid question from me, but where can I look up your whole suggestion with the statistics, arguments and motivation?? I'm still a bit new to this page... As for an addition of acid to, let's say bite attacks, it sounds interesting. But it shouldn't be too overpowered as people already said. Perhaps it should be a skill that is passive and randomly added to the bite attack. Because zombies have more raw meat to digest and probably don't chew properly, it would be plausible that they have too much acid in their stomach to compensate for that. It can be compaired to ''mouthwatering'' in living beings. The fact that animals and humans produce more saliva in anticipation of (delicious) food. In addition, zombies would randomly spit acid when using a bite attack, adding just 1 point of extra damage instantanously. The chance of vomiting acid while biting, could still be made relatively small.

I don't know how much I'm duping right now, but that's how I would make the suggestion, I think. Attacking barricades with acid is way uncool tough... [[User:General Viper|General Viper]] 15:34, 19 Feb 2006 (GMT)
----

=== Jury-Rig ===
-Author removed skill for revision; maintained copy of talk notes for personal use.-
----
=== Localized time stamps ===
* ''I have moved discussion here from the main page, alongside vote with comment that began it.'' --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 17:17, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
'''Keep''' - It's a good idea.  Plus, 1) Server Load is not a good reason to vote kill (READ THE GUIDELINES!) and 2) This can be implemented via a cookie or other client side action, resulting in no server hit at all! --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 02:31, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)There is no such thing as a free lunch and it's coming dangerously close to being a Pied Piper skill.--[[User:The General|The General]] 13:34, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think this fails the Multiply by a Million test.  Put a million Zombies on a square and you have each action repeated 10000 times. (And then another zombie logs on and the cycle repeats.)  Unless you allow survivors to do the same (woo, a million free ammo searches), this is far overpowering for hordes. --[[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 17:30, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
: Seconded. Even using real, ingame numbers (like, say, the 400+ zombies that show up at Mall Tour '06 venues), this skill would mean that every time someone logs in and starts hitting the barricades, at least 1 or 2 other zombies will be miming them for free. Even Caiger would be an easy meal with that. It's also worth noting that making a hundred RNG checks every time any zombie makes an action would probably have an adverse effect on server performance. --[[User:Sindai|Sindai]] 04:37, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)

=== Stealth ===
''Moved from suggestions page''

It's practically self imposed exile. Brizth, read it again. "hiding" it is not.

:From the suggestion: 
:::''...you can simply choose when your character becomes '''hidden'''''
:::''For 10AP, you can '''hide''' your character ... ...until you choose to be '''"unhidden"'''''.
:::''Whilst in '''"Stealth"''' ...''
:--[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 03:02, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::I understand where you're coming from, but:
::It happens after five days of not playing the game anyway
::You're "playing blind" when it happens. I.E. When you log back in, or unstealth, you could come out in a worse situation when you "stealthed".
:::Um, since the suggestion said that you would actually gain AP during the time, you could wait for a day and then move away into completely other suburb, with your 40+ APs. Or you could just appear from nowhere and kill some zombies and then disappear. 
:::Even if you didn't gain APs during that time, you could probably gain the information whether there is danger, by metagaming. Or by checking with your alt. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 11:50, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
 
:::::* Okay completely valid point. Boo to me. [[User:Don D Crummitt|Don D Crummitt]] 12:08, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Melee Attack Improvement ===

What part of BALANCE doesn't the person making the suggestion understand?  If you made axes as strong as guns for hit %, NOBODY would use guns (perhaps shotguns) even with the higher damage.  Why waste time searching for ammo?  Not to mention he apparently doesn't understand melee combat in the first place.  A punch does 1 damage, a knife/pipe/crowbar/bat 2 damage and an axe 3.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:28, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

== Developing Suggestions ==
''These suggestions are here for comments/changes before they go to formal voting.''

=== One in many ===
An idea someone on my forum had for a zombie skill: whenever zombie with this skill is hit, there is a chance it would go to the bottom of the queue list. I think it should be a really low chance, something around 1-2%, but have not crunched any numbers yet. The idea is that, as the zombie is getting fired, it blends among the horde.

To balance it, the first thing I should know is what's the average chance that a maxed human and a level one human will kill a zombie in their 50AP (considering they have the ammo for so). anyone got those numbers? --[[User:Monstah|Monstah]] 16:26, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*Check this link out: http://www.herbsofwar.com/test/combatstats.html - it might give you some help on damage potentials. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 16:31, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Thanks. Think I got it, and didn't even need those statistics. If you're not interested in the math, but only the results, read only the bolds:

:Lets put it at '''1% chance to hide upon being hit''', and use the '''pistol for calculations''', since it's mostly the default weapon. Then, you got a 99% (.99) chance that the zombie will ''not'' hide as you hit him. Since this skill would only activate upon hitting, how long it takes to actually hit the zombie is unimportant. Let's see what happens:

:Suppose first a '''zombie with 50HP and no flak'''. That's 10 hits to kill. .99^10 = .904, so there's a '''90% chance you will get to kill him, and 10% chance of the zombie hiding'''.

:Now, for a '''zombie with 60HP and no flak'''. That's 12 hits to kill. .99^12=.886, so you got'''89% chance to kill, 11% chance of zombie hiding'''.

:Now a '''zombie with 50HP and flak jacket'''. That's 13 hits to kill. .99^13=.877, so that's '''88% chance to kill, 12% chance of zombie hiding'''.

:Finally, for a '''zombie with 60HP and flak jacket'''. That's 15 hits to kill. .99^15=.860, so you got '''86% chance to kill, 14% chance of zombie hiding'''.

And, obviously, this only works if there are other zombies around, to hide among. Also note that when a building is breached, usually all zombie are killed. This skill wouldn't stop that from happening, but only stall it. So, whaddya think? --[[User:Monstah|Monstah]] 17:50, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

* I think this is a good idea, but that Shotguns would simply make it useless. Tweak the numbers a bit? In the end, you're weakening the whole group of zombies in a similar way to killing a single zombie, as after a frag fest (lots of survivors shooting at various hiding zombies), the whole stack would be so weak that a single survivor with a bunch of shotguns could wipe them out at once and earn lots of bonus XP from the kills. I'd make it proportionate to the damage taken instead. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 18:09, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
** I understand the concern that a single human might kill all the zombies afterwards, but isn't that sort of a remote possibility? Plus, shotguns alone won't nerf this skill. I made the numbers with the pistol because it's the mostly used weapon, but with shotguns the numbers go between 5% and 8% for zombies. ''I'd make it proportionate to the damage taken instead.'' Sounds interesting, but I don't quite follow you. How would that be? [[User:Monstah|Monstah]] 18:18, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*** Each time the zombie takes damage, there's a chance inversely proportional to their current HP (before accounting damage) that the zombie would hide. Like: 2HP - 10%, 10HP - 5%, and there it goes. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 18:21, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**** Interesting. But if it's inversely proportional, there's a bigger chance that the low HP zombies will stay on the bottom of the stack, thus increasing the chance that a single survivor wipes them all out. Maybe make it proportional? Like, HP(before shot)/10%? Sounds kinda high, tho. I was surprised that with a constant ridiculous 1%, there's a total 10-14% chance of survival. If you make it a variable number, either the number would be too high sometimes, or it would be like 0,3%. But then, working with fractions isn't probably a big deal, since the computer most likely calculates it as .003 anyway. [[User:Monstah|Monstah]] 18:28, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Taser EX ===
Yes this is another taser suggestion. This weapon does 3 damage with minimum 10% and max. 50% to hit Firearms would bring it up to 25% and another 10% for Taser Training. It has batteries which have 10 ammo, but they can be recharged with a powered generator. [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 18:24, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT) (Moved from main page by [[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 19:15, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT))
* 3 damage x 50% hit chance?  It sounds a bit too much like an axe that requires ammo. --[[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 19:56, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)
* I just can't see a zombie being hurt by a tazer...  I know we aren't supposed to argue solely on realism, but really - consistent nonsense, please.  Also, I think most players would just use their axe with a ever-so-slightly less hit %, but no time ammo searching required.  --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 00:48, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)
* Besides, tasers use electric shocks to cause pain and momentarily paralyse people. And zombies aren't affected by the former. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 01:17, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)

There really is NO point to a "tazer" in the game.  The only effect I could see a tazer doing over any other "weapon" is to knock the target down when they are hit, and I highly doubt anyone would go for that.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 08:06, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I can only see tasers as being PKer weapons which knock the target down when they are hit. Both of which are, understandably, very unpopular.--[[User:The General|The General]] 16:25, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Hmmm, it's a slightly-better-than axe that doesn't really need ammo because all you have to do is find a running generator (and those aren't exactly hard to find).  Too overpowered in my opinion, nevermind the realism. --[[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 18:35, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT).

...Tasers are often self-defence weapons for women, just like pepper spray. They're mainly used to temporarily paralyze abusive men, kick them in the grind and run like hell while screaming. Using them on zombies is way uncool, not to mention almost completely ineffective. And why would you need training for it to use?? Have you ever seen soldiers on a shooting range practise with tasers? Or police officers for that matter? Try suggesting a ''volt cannon'' or an experimental ''tesla coil'' based weapon. --[[User:General Viper|General Viper]] 15:53, 19 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Pack Instinct ===
It seems to me that the most powerful aspect of a group of zombies is that they can act as a horde. In game it's quite possible to 
be standing in a group of hundreds of zombies while just standing there. I'm trying to develop an idea to incorporate this aspect into the game. Here's basically what I was thinking:
* Pack instinct is skill which pre-requires Lurching Gait
* A zombie with pack instinct has a 1% (this number is what's likely the most tunable aspect of the suggestion) chance of mimicing the action of another zombie in the same position without spending an AP. So if a zombie in the area uses a claw attack (successful or not) your zombie would also strike with its claws (success/failure is not tied to the first zombie's result in any way). Likewise, if a zombie on your square moves NW, there is a chance you'll follow.
What this does:
* The skill is advantageous because it can result in extra hits without costing extra AP
* The skill is disadvantageous because it can result in your zombie being several spaces away from where you want to be requiring AP to be spent to return
Potential tweaks:
* Pack action %
* Possibly making following a zombie more likely than mimicing an attack
I'm interested in people's thoughts? -[[User:Mike Higgins|Mike Higgins]] 05:54, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)
: Sorry, automatic actions are usually looked down upon, especially automatic, free attack actions. It also fits the "Pied Piper" kind of suggestion, meaning you shouldn't be able to move the others without their permission. Besides, in a large mob (300+ zombies), a single zombie could tear down barricades 4 times quicker, as it would attack and three other zombies would follow the barricade bashing. So, as it is, your suggestion would probably get killed (or spaminated, depending on the guy's mood). --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 12:02, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:: Just to clear this up, it's not a matter of moving others without their permission. By learning the skill, the player is consenting to potentially being moved by other zombies. The only zombies that mimic are those who have learned the skill, as such all 300 zombies in the mob would need to have the skill to increase the barricade destruction rate. -[[User:Mike Higgins|Mike Higgins]] 18:08, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::: Any movement your character does while it's offline (except being dumped outside) follows the Pied Piper rule. Or so I think. If not, disconsider this point. And getting 300 zombies in a mob to get a single skill under Lurching Gait is easy, since everybody wants Ankle Grab and it's part of the same skill tree. I still keep my point on automatic actions being bad. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 18:16, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)
: I think your numbers are pretty good for what you are presenting (1% is probably the only way you will have a chance of getting this through).  But Omega2 is correct, I think this will fall to the Pied Piper clause.  You are correct in stating that the person buying this skill is giving their consent to being moved - but i still think people will kill it on that.  --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 18:20, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)

If the % is that low, why bother?  And if higher, it gets ridiculous.  To follow up with omega2's example, 300 free attacks doesn't sound like it would be a good idea.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 08:12, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)

There is no such thing as a free lunch and it's coming dangerously close to being a Pied Piper skill.--[[User:The General|The General]] 13:34, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think this fails the Multiply by a Million test.  Put a million Zombies on a square and you have each action repeated 10000 times. (And then another zombie logs on and the cycle repeats.)  Unless you allow survivors to do the same (woo, a million free ammo searches), this is far overpowering for hordes. --[[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 17:30, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
: Seconded. Even using real, ingame numbers (like, say, the 400+ zombies that show up at Mall Tour '06 venues), this skill would mean that every time someone logs in and starts hitting the barricades, at least 1 or 2 other zombies will be miming them for free. Even Caiger would be an easy meal with that. It's also worth noting that making a hundred RNG checks every time any zombie makes an action would probably have an adverse effect on server performance. --[[User:Sindai|Sindai]] 04:37, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)


=== 'Elite' Skills ===

Despite my tendency to spawn bad suggestions, I keep thinking of new ones. Like these two. The reason I don**t post them is the fact that they violate the **multiply it by a billion** rule. Repeatedly. Yet, I am quite lost as to how to limit them. Random would completely defeat the purpose. High cost is only a temporary liability. Lose upon death also might fail spectacularly. Perhaps something along the lines of **One per suburb**. Or  **Mutually exclusive with other high-end skills**. Or something of the sort. These **elite** skills would, as of now, be seriously overpowered. But may prove worth consideration later on. Anyways, on with the show.

*'''Zombie Elite Skill: Call the Horde'''
**''Certain zombies have developed an ability to unleash a piercing, drawn-out howl that draws other living dead to their position. Forfeit are the lives of those nearby.''
**Elite zombie skill
**Requires Feeding Groan;
**Does require presence of survivors
**5 AP and 100 XP to activate
**Audible as far as a Groan to Survivors, as far as a Flare to Zombies and Zombie Hunters
**one Call per 24 hrs, per suburb; one Call per 72hrs per zombie; one Call per 6hrs, per Malton
**Effects whole block where Call was used, lasts 6 hours
**Zombies in effected block gain 1XP for every AP spent there.

*'''Survivor Elite Skill: Preach'''
**''Some survivors take the fight to a new, spiritual level, rising the spirits of their fellow humans, urging them to fight on despite injuries.''
**Elite zombie hunter skill
**5 AP and 100 XP to activate
**Requires (realism) / Consumes (gameplay value) a Crucifix upon use.
**Nearest 50 Survivors receive a special skill ** Inspired
**Does not stack, merely refresh
**Inspired disappears after 6 hours, or if spent
**Inspired Survivor ignores first hit, no effect afterwards.

So there you have it. Two ideas my vile mind spawned. Tell me just how much you hate them :) - [[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 17:06, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
* A lot. please do me a favor and thrust me when i say that it has so many holes in gamemechanics terms that cannot be fixed that it is best not suggested?--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 01:17, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**Ewwww. This is awfull. The first has this horrible game mechanic of only-X-times-in-here-and-Y-time-in-there that makes it terrible to implement. And, if i unrderstand your idea, it is most likely a pied piper. If not, it is still a terrible idea. And it was said before that religion must not have super-human habilities in this game. Religion must be as useless as in the real world. --[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]] 10:05, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**Okay, so that's something to avoid. That's why I want some feedback on how to limit it. And no, it's not pied piperism. There is no moving involved - just an incetive to move and join the siege. And it's not really religion as in 'God helps me survive', more like 'the guy's charism gives me the strenght to go on...' - [[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 11:25, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*Crucifixes are not magical.  I kill all religious suggestions --[[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 17:15, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**Again, it's about charisma, not religion. - [[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 13:14, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*Hmm, that zombie elite skill; am I reading it right that a zombie on a siege block is guaranteed to get 50XP a day, just by tapping at the cades and biting each other, whether they are successful or not? Sounds like money for nothing. --[[User:WibbleBRAINS|WibbleBRAINS]] 17:41, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**Well the point of "Call the Horde" is to give other, young, feral zombies a volountary incetive to gather where the call was made, and pound the barricades (and fleshies inside) into submission, without resorting to pied piperism. - [[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 13:14, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*Area of effect boosts are bad. Even if they are limited. I know I read that somewhere. I'd think about voting for it if it gives '''just you''' the boost and cost something like 5 AP. --[[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 18:39, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**Hmm. Now that's an interesting idea. "Inspire" button with a rollout of other peoples, including yourself. I dind't think of that one. [edit] the XP cost would be downright prohibitive though... - [[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 13:14, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*Bad idea. Don't make skills that allow survivors or zombies to get something for nothing. Example, Call the Horde has an effect way beyond its AP and XP cost. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 00:54, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===Barricades need items to be built===
I would like opinions on this before I suggest it because if it gets shot down once then I will have to make huge changes in order to stop it getting Spammed the next time. Anyone can barricade up to quite strongly (not set in stone) as normal. But if they want to barricade any higher they have to search for materials at a 75% chance (also not set in stone). This would help zombie players because there would be less needless barricading so zombies wouldn't waste so much time bashing down dummy barricades. It would also help n00b survivors as there would be less heavy barricades to get stuck outside. This is not unbalanced as you could still barricade without searching but if you ''really'' want to barricade that heavily then you have to work a bit harder at it.

Please note that the numbers are not set in stone and can be changed if nessecary (they just seemed reasonably balanced).--[[User:The General|The General]] 17:23, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

:Did you know that it's not automatic to barricade after very strongly? There is a progressively lower chance depending on the building type that you'll find a place to put the next item in the barricade. Some buildings are almost impossible to barricade heavily. This is really not necessary. --[[User:Daxx|Daxx]] 17:29, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

::Is there a list anywhere that shows which buildings have the highest barricade failure chances?  I don't believe I've seen one, but I'd definitely be interested.  Maybe nobody's had time do to the research? -[[User:CWD|CWD]] 17:36, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

:::If I remember correctly we started doing one on the old forums until they were shut down. I don't think it differentiates between buidings though, so the data's probably off - at the time we thought all buildings were the same (now we know they aren't). Maybe we should put some research into this, but it would take a really long long time; it wouldn't be like search percentages where you can create a new character for it either. --[[User:Daxx|Daxx]] 17:40, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I knew that there was a chance of failing but I didn't know how likely it was. My logic was that as there seems to be an abundance of extremely heavily barricaded buildings then it can't be too hard to barricade beyond very strong. I might do some research into this when one of my characters gets construction.--[[User:The General|The General]] 18:46, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)


This has been proposed and utterly obliterated about three or four times before. Universally, the replies are "new players need to learn how barricades work" (which was actually addressed by Kevan--previously, barricades that you could not pass <b>did not</b> have the "you see no way to enter" tag included in them) and the very, very valid point that forcing players to search for items will make barricading useless and turn survivors into buffets. One zombie can knock down barricades from Extremely Heavily--I know because I've done it myself on several occasions. Barricades work just fine as they are--leave them alone. [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 19:19, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I can't actually find any duplicates, please provide a link. I know new players need to know how barricades work but I don't see how that is relevent to this suggestion (and I know that barricades didn't have that tag originaly (I was playing this game before barricades were included)). Also, it won't make barricading useless because, in this suggestion, you can barricade up to a certain level before you start having to search for items. Plus, there weren't barricades originaly and survivors managed. Barricades do not work fine as they are because, as a zombie, it takes all my AP to knock them down and then while i'm regaining AP the safehouse is either overrun or is barricaded back up again meaning that I don't get any XP. I also disagree that one zombie can knock barricades down from Extremely Heavy (you would have to be very lucky).--[[User:The General|The General]] 15:36, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*''there weren't barricades originaly and survivors managed.'' perhaps because then there were a lot less players overall? so little that there were actual PD's and Hospitals empty? that just finging a survivor was a big task? I doubt that without barricades survivors would last more than a week now--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 11:34, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

:*Point taken, but this still doesn't mean that this is unbalancing as you can still barricade up to a certain level without having to search for items. If you believe that this would nerf barricades too much then please give your reasons.--[[User:The General|The General]] 11:53, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

::*actually I don't think it is nerfing at all, I think it is already implemented largly as stated, I believe it to be a reasonable workable solution, that is unfortuneatly already in the game. And based on were I usually barricade, the succes percentage is already lower, about 50% (although my guess is very unscientific, because I didn't pay attention and you remeber failures more then a success), but I hate heavily barricaded buildings because (as you already said) hurt the low to mid level players without free running (and there are a lot of them). If you can show the difference between your version and the one already in play, I'd love to give you more imput, And I'd be very tempted to vote 'Keep' any decent suggestion is this vain.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 10:48, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

:::*The point was that it still seems to be very easy to barricade beyond very strongly (I'm not sure how easy as my characters never barricade beyond Very Strong), this would make it harder as you would actually have to search to allow you to barricade. Presently you simply have to click barricade as fast as your browser can refresh. It would also allow you to build up a stock of materials and then barricade without having to search (similar to the way people stock up on ammo and guns). I would like your opinion as to whether this should replace the present system or run alongside it. I am inclined to make it run alongside as it would then fulfill the purpose of making it harder to barricade.--[[User:The General|The General]] 12:17, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

::::*it may seem that barricading past very strong is easy but it isn't. cost huge amounts of AP. just as we have people who spend all their turn searching for seringes, there are people who only barricade. I also never barricade past very strong because up till then it is cost effective. (and it hurt the people without free running) beyond that it cost equal to build it then as to bring it down in my experience. (but as I said, I'm not sure on the precise data) I don't know if I like the inventory cost though, but like to hear more on that.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 07:31, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

:::::*The original idea was that you couldn't barricade beyond quite strongly without searching for items at a 75% chance (this would run alongside the present system).  The alternative is that in order to barricade beyond quite strong you have to search for items at the same chance as it is presently to barricade beyond very strong (Kevan will, of course, know the exact chance), this would replace the present system.  The main difference is that you could stock up on materials and beforehand and and then barricade with a 100% chance of succeding.  But it would mean that people would be less willing to waste their precious materials barricading unnessecarily.  However, if they ''really'' wanted to do this they would have to sacrifice their precious guns.  This would also mean that the barricades wouldn't always be bumped straight back up again after you knock them down again because they would eventually run out of materials and have to search for them instead of barricading.--[[User:The General|The General]] 18:18, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::::::* Actually, I like that, I like that a lot. but I do think that the AP cost should change much, (or even get a bit better) because of the extra cost of having the extra stuff in your inventory. a double penalty is a bit much. certainly with the mall tour'06, and ferals with groan show that barricades aren't really that big a defense anyway.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 15:18, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::::::*How about doubling the chance of finding the items? This would effectively mean that instead of spending say 2 AP trying to barricade you would spend 1 AP searching and 1 AP barricading.--[[User:The General|The General]] 13:40, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*A lone zombie can already <i>easily</i> crack into any VSB building on its own, and still have AP left to attack.  A lone zombie can get into an EHB building and still have AP to attack if it starts on the barricades with full AP (I do one of the two every single day).  If you upset the barricading balance with something to make it harder for survivors to keep up barricades - you will wind up with a player strike like the headshot one, as survivors will not be able to defend their safehouses from even feral zombies, much less a horde.  The moan skill allows zombies that crack into a safehouse but don't have enough AP to kill the survivors to alert nearby zombies of the meal they just found.  Dummy barricades are an all important aspect of the game (frustrating for zombies, yes - but vital).  I see no reason to make barricading more difficult in the slightest.  I think Kevan has it right as it is now.  --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 17:33, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:*I am sorry but I beg to differ. I, for one, most certainly cannot break down EH barricades. Anyway, did you actually '''read''' the suggestion? It actually helps survivors as well as zombies because they can stockpile materials while their not under siege, and it doesn't make it '''harder''' to barricade it just adds an inventory cost. If you're going to whine about that then I can easily improve the chances of finding the items, the problem is that you will then complain that it makes barricading needlessly complicated!--[[User:The General|The General]] 20:46, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::*I did read your suggestion.  You made no mention in it of being able to stock pile found debris in your inventory.  I know you wrote it, and probably had it in your head - but read your own words, it's not there - or it's vague at best.  If you mentioned it in a comment to someone below your suggestion idea - yeah, I probably didn't read it.  I don't have infinite time to scour every word on the Wiki.  If it was up for voting now and not on the talk page - I would have read others comments and any "Re's" you did - but this is the suggestion talk and I'm not voting, I'm just giving you my 2 cents on your idea as it is written.  Even now that you clarified it for me, I think it's a little ridiculous for people to be carrying vending machines (etc.) in their inventory - much less you haven't specified how many slots these items would take up..  And I am not whining about any of this, if anyone is whining - it's you.  I'm just saying I think that barricades are already balanced, and that this is not needed IMHO.  --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 22:39, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)

::*Sorry, you're right. I'm just a bit touchy about my first suggestion recieving criticism. Also, as an answer to your question the stockpiling materials was in the later comments. Actually, if you go through the entire suggestion you will find that it is now very different from the original draft and far less vague (I really should rewrite it with the changes). Oh, and you're right I didn't clarify how many item slots it would take up but let's assume it's 1 as any other number would recieve complaints about it being "unfair" (and I can't argue realism back).--[[User:The General|The General]] 21:11, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== One time use skills. ===
I'm not even sure if this is a suggestion.  What if a new skill was implemented that was one-time use?  That gives high level players somewhere to spend their XP and players may need to budget between saving for a new skill or using this one-shot thing.  I have no ideas for skills right now, just wondering about the general concept.  --[[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 18:47, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

It's been suggested before and while they are a good concept they are very hard to balance as they break the multiply by a billion rule (namely survivors with more XP than sense buying them hundreds of times) and they kill the server (it's another flag to keep track of). It would be great if you could come up with any balanced ones.--[[User:The General|The General]] 19:20, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Ok, how about these?  
*100 XP, 1 AP, 25 damage to one zombie (headshot applies if it dies), no XP gain, must be indoors and survivor and Zombie hunter.  It's a way of undoing all the XP gain you've had over the past day and a half, so that you can stay alive when there's a single zombie inside a safehouse and you need the AP to barricade to last the night.  With metagaming, I suppose it's possible to have a lot of ubersurvivors clear out one very infested building/mall but at a huge cost.
*100 XP, 20 AP, one revivfication syringe, requires NecroNet Access.  Jab yourself with the syringe.  If you die before your next action, you are automatically revived.  (Ok, this may be WAY too powerful, but that's why I'm not suggesting it per se.)  A sort of last-ditch effort by a scientist under attack.  It's not as powerful as it may look, only because scientists have a hard time gaining XP as it is and that 20 AP cost means having to wait a long time before coming back.
*100 XP, 1 AP, must be a zombie with brain rot, see the status of all barricades for a 5x5 (obviously changeable) square.  (Although this one may still be overpowered, with metagaming)

I '''really''' like the idea of an XP sink for maxed characters. The way I see it, you could have new skills (which stay once bought, like all others) which enable new actions (like the ones mentioned), and ''the actions'' spend XP. So, it's not like a skill that can be bought over and over by someone with one kazillion (not a word) XP, but rather an action which would spend the XP, and AP. Bonus would not stack, either. --[[User:Monstah|Monstah]] 02:33, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**So this is the kind of thing I was thinking about.  Some kind of XP-using skill. --[[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 19:57, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*One other skill I see in that class is for maxed zombies, which would allow some sort of "Grow Claws" action. By spnding 1AP and 100XP, a zombie with this skill would increase his claw damage by one, until it's killed.--[[User:Monstah|Monstah]] 02:34, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**I would actually try to put one of those "x-ray vision" zombie skills in there.  100xp, 1 ap, try to scent out nearby survivors, even behind barricades (though with a penalty for those behind barricades).  This would be quite useful for high-level zombies, as they probably have feeding groan (scent, break in, groan) --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 15:09, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

=== Throwin' Stuff ===
It seems unlikely that old hands who have time and again killed poorly-thought-out skill suggestions will warm to yet another "Throw" idea, but I'd like to suggest that perhaps the idea is not entirely without merit, for a couple of reasons.  Since the idea would either be moved here or killed if posted on the main page, I thought a little campaigning might be in order.

Implemented as a civilian skill, perhaps, the ability to chuck things (with even a faint hope of accuracy) at oncoming zombies has '''buckets''' of flavor.  It isn't necessary to make it possible to throw all items, nor to make it such that ninja throw-masters can do firearm damage without a gun as so many n00bs have suggested; rather, I submit that otherwise useless items like books or crucifixes might be thrown at a zombie's head in either a panicked act of deperation or in a Shaun-of-the-Dead-esque comic gesture.  Personally, I would gleefully waste a few AP each cycle for the satisfaction of knockin' a zed on the noggin with a spare GPS unit.  In fact, I would go so far as to support the possibility of making "Rocks" a searchable item in outdoor areas for the sole purpose of throwing them.  You may all decry it as useless, but I think it adds absolutely delectable flavor.

Make it a fixed chance to hit for all objects, maybe 10-20%, or perhaps divide it up into two categories: unaerodynamic or awkward objects like books or gas cans might have a 5-10% chance, where better-suited items like knives or bottles might give a better chance.  Damage would vary by item, but only 1 or 2 points; unlike previous suggestions I do not really think it's a good plan to make it possible to do more damage with a flak jacket than a fire axe.

The real beauty of this, though, is that it also provides an avenue by which one might satisfy the hordes demanding AoE or explosive weapons (another topic that would get me killed on the front page).  Picture: desperate, unskilled Joe Baseballer, who knows nothing but how to throw things fast, finds a couple wine bottles and some gasoline in his neighborhood buildings.  Thinking fast, Joe pours out the booze and fills the bottles with gas, capping each with a rag, then lights up the rags and heaves the bottles at the advancing hordes of dead outside his door.  One explodes and merely flash-burns, damaging nothing - as volatile fuels are sometimes wont to do - but another spreads liquid fire over the legs of two approaching monstrosities.

Three important points from this:
1) Each firebomb requires searching for multiple items per shot as well as AP for creation ("Use fuel can on bottle" type of deal)
2) The user must be able to throw the bomb with sufficient accuracy to expect to do any damage (e.g. skill required)
3) The bombs have the potential to do nothing.

I envision firebombs as each potentially damaging the top three targets in a stack to the tune of 0-6 or 0-8 points of damage, or more if a to-hit roll is required.  The AP cost for creation is high enough to justify this kind of damage, if I haven't miscalculated.  It seems like time-delayed burning and the ability to stop-drop-'n-roll, for all their realistic appeal, are just unnecessarily complicated.  Anyway - thoughts?  Is random damage feasible or does it need to be implemented as a % chance to hit?  I really don't think that "No one will use it" is a constructive argument unless you make a really good case, since I really believe that there will be plenty of people who will use anything as long as it's fun. -- [[User:shadesofblack|shadesofblack]] 09:16, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)

:I don't have a problem with throwing items (books, guns, etc.).  I don't see how it would be "bad."  It isn't like a person HAS to make use of the skill.  1 point of damage for a book or GPS unit or other useless item with, say a 15% chance to hit at most would be kinda fun.  But firebombs and such are another matter entirely.  Being able to hit multiple targets with a single weapon is, currently, not a good idea.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:34, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::Problem with the idea of throwing useless objects at low hit rate for low damage is... Just that! It'd be better to just drop them for 0 AP rather than waste 1 AP on an attack that most likely isn't going to work! There's really no point in adding something that nobody will use. --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 23:45, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::Like punching, flare guns, knives, bats, crowbars and pipes?  The skill would be more of a flavor thing, as well as FUN thing.  It gives use to useless items (newspapers, etc.).  You assume no one will use it when people play RP style all the time (which this would qualify as, I'd think).  And what about Knife Combat?  People only take the skill because it is available and they have nothing else to spend the XP on.  Who uses it when a fire axe is easier to find and does more damage for the same hit %?-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 09:53, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)


If its low dmg and low hit rate, you might as well run away. If its high dmg or high hit rate or both, it would be overpowered or unrealistic. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 01:01, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I see Volke and Allstar canning this based on how Volke and Allstar play the game. I don't see them complaining that this isn't thematic. I don't see them saying it allows uber-ninja skillz. I see them saying it's not allowed because they won't use it. So what? Talk about the suggestion, not about how you like to play. There are players who have never picked up a Fireaxe, others who have never picked up anything else, so just because you won't personally give the skill any use doesn't mean others won't... And Shades, you really introduced 3 new things in your writeup. 1)Throwing 2)Explosive Objects 3)Multiple-Target Damage... Stop talking about firebombs. If you want to be able to throw things, then address that alone. Leave new and exciting items and types of damage for later. 1 step at a time. That said, I also think it would be neat to read "ShadesOfBlack throws a GPS unit at you. It misses." or "ShadesOfBlack throws a GPS unit at you. It does 1 point of damage." That would be wild. - [[User:Serpico|Serpico]] 21:58, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:The so-called "useless" items actually have somewhat a purpose, as in zombie movies, people pick up a weapon that's durable and use it. Unless its a gun, they likely won't use something that's so limited use against a horde of enemies. Also, it can't have text that tells you if it missed, as then it won't make sense that axes and guns don't tell you when they miss, so those would have to be added, and thus would lead to screen clogging. Also, I'm not voting based on just how I play the game. As like in zombie movies, people use a better weapon when they get it, and they don't stop using it just becuase they found another weapon, especially if the said weapon is considerably weaker than the one they're already using! Again, don't suggest something nobody will use, as I garuntee everyone would rather go for using a gun or axe for a decent amount of damage rather than waste an AP with an item that not only has a horrible hit chance, but also won't do crap if it DOES manage to hit! I'd rather use a baseball bat to kill zombies than throw stuff and waste an AP (which is an even bigger waste, seeing as how baseball bats don't have the kind of power to take out anything with a day's worth of AP!). Sorry, but as the rules for suggestions state, its not a good idea to suggest things purely in terms of flavor! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 21:41, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

To be honest, I don't recall any zombie media where anyone throws assorted small items at a zombie (although I haven't watched many zombie movies), and I can't imagine anyone doing that in real life (I know there are no zombies in real life anyway, but work with me here). Flavour? Would probably get old after the first few times. There's also the realism issue if items like newspapers and flak jackets are throwable, but that's not important. - [[User:KingRaptor|KingRaptor]] 13:34, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:Shaun of the Dead is the most recent, but there MIGHT be others.  I just LOVE the argument that THEY won't use it so NOBODY will use it.  Yet they ignore what I said about punching, flare guns, knives (and knife combat), pipes, bats and crowbars.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:07, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::Please don't ignore my frikkin' huge paragraph a little bit above Kingraptor's! I explained perfectly why those items in the game work, and why throwing stuff doesn't fit into the genre too well (except punch, but thats just there so that you aren't defenceless when you're starting as a scientist). Also, there aren't other movies that I can think of where throwing random things at the zombies to stop them, and I've seen a good amount! And even in that movie, they only did that until they got a more reliable weapon (the cricket stick) to use! Oh yeah, and the rules state that you shuldn't ask to implement things based purely on flavor, as clearly stated and explained in my above paragraph! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 23:28, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::Um, no, you didn't explain anything in the above paragraph.  Who uses a pipe or a bat, for example, instead of an axe?  Could that be...FLAVOR?  It isn't about "finding a better weapon" when a person can just search to their heart's content (so to speak) until they find the weapon they WANT to use.  There are items in the game that are COMPLETELY useless, yet they are still there.  The whole point of the skill is to have FUN and "flavor" has nothing to do with it.  Again, what about KNIFE COMBAT.  NOBODY uses THAT skill, but it is still available.  '''Don't "guarantee" how other people play'''.  I've seen people use all or most of their AP just talking, even in combat, for the FUN of it.  Those same people would probably enjoy a skill like this, because it would be a fun RP thing to do. and would completely negate the useless items.  People "waste" AP all the time with RP elements, which is what this skill would be.  And, lastly, why should others that WOULD enjoy the skill be deprived of it because YOU don't like it?  It isn't overpowering or unbalanced, doesn't change search rates, and makes use of existing items, especially useless ones.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:44, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I like the idea. I think it's bullshit to say that you won't use throw when you find pistols, axes, or shotguns for example. As shotguns and pistols require ammo and THUS a lot of ''AP waste'' to search for it as well, throwing doesn't sound like such a strange idea. And may I remind some people you need 2 AP to fully reload your shotgun, only to fire twice before it's empty again! In the long run, I think that the shotgun would loose from the pistol in terms of AP usage! So far the argument of using more powerfull weapons when you find them. 

Anyways, you could tweak the odds of the hit% to make it balanced and I really liked the 2 different categories of ''awkward throwing items'' and ''aerodynamic'' ones. You can even add extra damage to objects such as knives. So that a thrown knife inflicts 3 points of damage instead of 2. An axe would do 4 damage instead of 3. A crowbar would still inflict 2 for example. This because it's not a sharp object, but hurts enough to be more powerfull then a punch, since you're throwing a piece of metal at the zombie. In fact you could roughly make 4 categories: ''Non-throwable items'' (such as Flak jackets, Wire cutters, Mobile phones, Syringes and Newspapers), ''Awkward throwing items'' (such as Books, Pistols, Crusifixes and perhaps even a FAK!), ''Awkward but hurtfull throwing items'' (such as Crowbars, Baseball bats, Fuel Cans, Shotguns, Beer and Wine bottles) and the real throw items, the ''Aerodynamic throwing items'' (such as Knives and Axes) with an added bonus of 1 above their normal damage value. The Awkward throwing items could do just 1 point of damage comparable to a punch. The Awkward but hurtfull categorie could do 2 points of damage. The items that can't be thrown are either to weak or to unpractical to throw and thus Non-throwable. I don't see any newspapers or mobile phones do damage to zombies! 

Even with moderate to high hit% it wouldn't be unbalanced, unless the chance would top 60% or something. But it's one usage only and odds of 65% to hit also exists with firearms, which will still remain more powerfull then throw. You can add a ''Throw'' skill to the skilltree (perhaps in military), to add more flavor and prevent high hit% among n00bs. A n00b can still throw, but at a 30% chance, which isn't much for a one time usage weapon. In addition, the ''Throw skill'' can be bought only after buying the ''Hand to hand combat skill'' for example. The odds could then be made around 50 or 60%. I think that's how this idea might work out...

And last, but not least: Don't tell people how to play! I often find useless extra items, so I would be glad to be able to throw a spare pistol which was empty anyways when I found it. -- [[User: General Viper|General Viper]] 17:11, 19 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===F'n RC CARS===
Removed by Author for lack of public interest --[[User:Zexsuik|Zex Suik]] 21:18, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

===Using XP as Credit/Energy/Ect===

This is just to see if people like the CORE idea of this potential game addition, and not to vote on any specific implimentations of this idea itself.

Would it be acceptable if [[survivors]] and [[zombies]] were given skills/game interactions that 'burned' XP for their use? This would take the flavor of [[survivors]] spending specific amounts of XP/AP as 'cash', 'effort', 'raw materials', ect for whatever the specific skill entailed. And for [[zombies]] as 'mitochondrial energy', 'necrotic cell division', 'effort', ect and the like for whatever fit the theme/flavor/fairness of the skill. What these specific skills/abilities/interactions would do would be up to later debate.

This type of useage of XP and Time (AP) occurs in many roleplaying games, both offline and pen-and-paper (D&D and the like). It often takes the form of currency, crafting, or as a balance for commiting certain acts. It is used to keep high-level characters in the game, and always have avenues for rewards/purpose in their 'life' (or unlife in this case). Is there room in the world of Urban Dead for things along this line as well?

Haven't seen this listed in the rejected/accepted listings. Please check for possible Dupe if I've missed anything, and link to it.

<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
#'''NOTE''' - I took the liberty of removing all the votes that said to move this suggestion over here.  I left up the ones that provided feedback on the actual suggestion. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 23:51, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::'''Re''' Thanks. I wasn't sure if it counted or not in the first place. --[[User:MorthBabid|MorthBabid]] 03:03, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Kill''' - Two words to break this suggestion: XP. Farm. --[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]] 21:58, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::'''Re''' Good point. But this could be stopped by putting a Frequency Cap on the skill/ability (once per ever X Malton days, ect), or making the XP/AP costs high enough to prevent this w.o making the ability itself useless. --[[User:MorthBabid|MorthBabid]] 03:03, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Comment''' - <s>I suggest you move this over to the discussion page.  As I understand it, this is just for fully-formed suggestions.  Also,</s> you might want to give a few concrete examples of what you are talking about.  You meaning a survivor can spent 100 XP and get a Rev. Syringe?  A Zed could spend 100 XP to heal up? --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 22:00, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::'''Re''' The revive syringe idea is covered by [[NecroNet]], but the zombie suggestion makes sense...though the ability for zombies to heal one another may be more benificial. But it wouldn't be so simple. A cost of 100xp, a set amount of AP, and perhaps a location requirement inside a [[cemetery]] or the like would be added. [[Survivors]] putting together FAKS inside hospitals for an amount of XP and AP might work as well. Again. Not really what I wanted to debate at the moment. --03:03, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Kill'''- This sort of idea deffinatly could work eventualy maybe years down the line, when this game is unrecognizeable from today. it certaintly makes some sence to have some skils that require expendature of XP. But fitting in the world today this would be awfuly unballanced, this would aid the matured characters, the ones that have purchased every skill on 1 or both sides. Still gaining xp for everyday gameplay but nothing to spend it on until a new skill comes out. skills or game features from this idea would be a huge benifit to those players with literly 1000+++ XP, and no benefit to new players, as they typicaly spend XP the minute they can. --[[User:Kirk Howell|Kirk Howell]] 22:44, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::'''Re''' You're probably right on that. I figured if this passed as a general idea, it could be stuck on the shelf for awhile like many previous suggestions.
----

===Dart Rifle===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=19:07, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Weapon|
suggest_scope=Humans, Scientists|
suggest_description=''This is a rework of the NecroTech Rifle idea presented before, made without the original author's authorization. Grab your popcorn, this one is a biggie. Sorry for anything wrong with the technical descriptions, my English skills aren't good enough to explain them fully.''<br><br>

'''Several months after the outbreak, NecroTech finally devised an experimental "counter" to the zombie plague. Instead of trying to develop more efficient syringes that would make the NecroTech employee vulnerable while trying to revive a subject, NecroTech chose to create a silent, efficient way to innoculate zombies with their newly-developed revification serum: a sniper rifle.'''
<br><br>

Concerned with the weight and the encumbering a traditional firearm would bear to the often less-than-athletic scientists they employed, NecroTech designed a long-barreled compressed-air/spring weapon, with a bolt-action-like system. The user pulls the side lever to open the breech, tense the firing spring and compress some air into the chamber, releases the lever, inserts the ammo into the breech, pulls the side lever again to close the breech and compress more air into the chamber and the rifle is ready to use. The advantages to that system are the lack of heavy recoil present in most "sniper" firearms, silent firing (thus making it hard to reveal the shooter's position and allowing for more aiming time), and overally light weight with considerable ruggedness. The reported weak sides of the Dart Rifle are: lack of effective range for a "sniper"-class weapon (the needles lose power after about a city block) and complicated and time-consuming reloading time. Users are strongly recommended to gather some distance from their targets before firing.

The Dart Rifle ammunnition is a specially designed streamlined hollow dart, filled with the newly-developed serum. Due to the unstability of the experimental serum, the dart must be kept sealed, or the contents will become inactivated in contact with the oxygen in the air. It can't be used to "stab" a zombie, as only the impact of a shot would bury itself deep enough to release the serum. The dart injects the serum in the target, and it works slowly on undead tissue, effectively bringing the zombie alive with a single application. Although effective, the dart's serum load is too small to allow for uncounscious revivication, so the zombie suffers withering pain as the serum turns it alive. By the end of the proccess (which should probably last about one day in undamaged zombies), the zombie falls to the ground and the serum finishes the revivication work (regenerating the brain). Humans hit by a Dart Rifle dart only suffer damage from the dart itself burying on their flesh and feel severe rash in the skin surrounding the area struck by the dart for the next hour, while the body purges the inocuous serum from the bloodstream and releases it with the urine.
<br><br>

'''In Game Considerations'''<br>
:'''1.-''' Although it might be considered a sniper rifle the Dart Rifle can NOT fire into different blocks.<br>
:'''2.-''' The skill required to fire the rifle correctly appears under the NecroTech skill tree, requiring NecroTech Employment. Since the weapon and instructions on how to use are found only as memos in the NecroTech buildings, and the weapon was specially designed for civilian use. Military characters used to high-recoil, multi-shot firearms will most probably experience difficulty in mastering the weapon.<br>
:'''3-.''' Ammo (Rifle Darts) would be found singly (like shotgun shells) and the rifle could hold only one at time. The search probabilities for it should be only a bit higher than syringes, as there's risk of missing a shot.<br>
:'''4.-''' The following related skills should be introduced into the NecroTech skill tree:<br>
::''*Basic Rifle Use'' - requres NecroTech employment, adds 20% to hit (stack-able with Basic Firearms Training).<br>
:::''*Advanced Rifle Use'' - requires Basic Rifle Use, adds another 20% to hit, for a final 65% hit percentage. At this point the user can make use of the stealth nature of the weapon and spend more time aiming, thus allowing for a greater accuracy.<br>
:'''5.-''' Damage would be 4 per hit (giving out 4XP). Survivors would receive only 1 point of damage and not be affected in any way by the serum. A zombie hit by the Dart Rifle would undergo "Conscious Revification", losing 1HP per AP spent (including AP spent in Death Rattle or other forms of communication). When reaching 0HP, the zombie dies and stands up as a survivor. Brain-Rotted zombies would still be affected by the revification serum and become "infected", as it would first act in their bodies, then be inactivated when trying to regenerate their brains, so after being killed by the revification proccess, they would simply stand up as zombies again. If a zombie is killed after being shot with a Dart Rifle, it can stand up as a survivor (or a zombie, in case of Brain-Rotters) immediately. Survivors killed by Dart Rifles would rise up as normal zombies.<br>
:'''6.-''' Targets hit by a Dart Rifle receive a "A sniper hit you for 4 damage" message instead of "[Survivor Name] hit you for 4 damage" and would have no link to the attacker's profile. That would make it harder for revived zombies to seek revenge on the NT who revived them, and would add some "sniper" flavour to the weapon. Each shot would have a 10% chance to display the following message "A sniper hit you for 4 damage. You recognize [Survivor Name] as the shooter.", meaning that the target managed to see where the shooter was hiding. Survivors would have 20% chance to identify someone who shot at them with a Dart Rifle.<br><br>

I think that's all. This suggestion is open for discussion. I'll tweak it according to the feedback received before putting it in the suggestions page. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 22:26, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)|
suggest_votes=
<!-- DISCUSS **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*'''Comment''' - What exactly would it do to brain rotted zombies who can not be revivificated? - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]]- [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Fullemtaled#My_suggestions- Part of my talk page]]]] 22:39, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**- Check the 5th point. Rotters would die and get up as zombies. Not much more than a nuisance to them, as most rotters got Ankle Grab and can get up with 1AP. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 22:45, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***If it were uneffective versus brain rotted zombies, i would vote keep. I think taht it should not effect zombies with brain rot and all, there should be a perk adn that perk is not being effected by revivings. Remove the damage from the syrum and I will voet keep - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]]- [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Fullemtaled#My_suggestions- Part of my talk page]]]] 22:52, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****What's the matter? Rotters wouldn't be revived, and most of them don't care about wether they're dead or alive by the end of the day, only if they were Headshotted or not. The serum would work on their body, "deteriorating" the undead flesh into living tissue (only to die again after the rotted zombie get up) not work on their brain, since it's already beyond repair. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 22:58, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*****But that would mean a Brainrotted revivificating zombie would look like a none BRR zombie. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]]- [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Fullemtaled#My_suggestions- Part of my talk page]]]] 23:07, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*'''Comment''' - oh.  my.  sexy.  god.  I think you have it perfect.  Nice.  This is exactly what I was hoping would come of the Necro Tech Sniper Rifle idea.  Personally I like the way you have it for Rotters as well.  No revive, but tissue degeneration and eventual death - which means nothing aside from that they wont have to worry about loosing AP from a head shot at the end of the day, they can simply use their AP until they drop dead, and ankle grab their way back up for 1 AP the next day.  awesome, I think. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 23:40, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::I have to agree, this is the best thing I have seen yet and moer then likely really would vote keep. I would like it though if you could tell thedeference between revivificating zombies and none revivificating zombies, BBrs would of course be added to it if they are shot and there for make people with headshot think twice abotu shotting them - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]]- [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Fullemtaled#My_suggestions- Part of my talk page]]]] 23:53, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
'''Keep''' -- I like it, although the added bit about the sniper rifle seems to add complexity without actually adding to the fundementals of the weapon.  As an aside, a fully buffed survivor can use this to get more XP out of reviving survivors, which may be a little unfair (dart, then attack until dead).  -- [[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 00:12, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*Not quite. Since hitting with a Dart Rifle would give 4XP anyway, you wouldn't receive XP for reviving the character. In the end you could kill it (and speed up the revification) or just leave it there until it died. On the other point you brought up, I've gotta admit that the sniper rifle part is more for flavour, so the weapon is not only "yet another gun", and the zombies would know that they were hit especifically by a Dart Rifle and are going to die and revive. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 00:55, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:*And as you have it set, it'd be more effective to manufacture syringes for 20 AP for revives, rather than spend the time searching for the gun.. and searching for the ammo.. and loading the gun.. and it taking 2 slots in your inventory.. and possibly missing the shot - the sniper part is kind of essential for why anyone would bother with it (actually I'd like to point out that as the costs to use it are so high, and it <i>is a sniper rifle</i>, I wouldn't mind seeing a 70% or 75% accuracy limit).  Also, putting it in the NT tree and only finding ammo in NT buildings is just plain cool.  I really like it. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 01:42, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*'''Comment''' - Maybe there should be some way of stopping the revivification process, like taking (X) amount of bites out of survivors if you have digestion, or a % to cure it after you bite with digestion. --[[User:TheTeeHeeMonster|TheTeeHeeMonster]] 02:22, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**Well, if you take out the granted revification the rifle gets a bit underpowered. Or so I think. One of the points of getting revived is that you can't avoid it, even if you don't want to. Most zombies shot and revived in the middle of the street wouldn't even bother finding a tower to hurl themselves off, as they do better simply standing in front of a mob for one or two hours and getting killed again. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 02:55, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***Yeah, but I'm worried about the "zOMG teh combat reviveses!" crowd that will go in and PK whoever used this weapon on them. --[[User:TheTeeHeeMonster|TheTeeHeeMonster]] 03:13, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****That gives a point to the "anonymous shooter" part. Also, if someone shoots a zombie in the middle of the street with it, I'm pretty sure it's not going to know where the shooter is now, if he/she runs enough after shooting. It's more like an annoyance factor than a real advantage. Since the only thing able to send zombies the other way is boredom and annoyances, I think it's valid. Better than the old XP-raping Headshot, at least. And it still works as a reviver. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 03:27, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - This is easily better than the original and if you don't post it on the suggestions page then i'll do it myself!--[[User:The General|The General]] 09:50, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*'''Comment''' - Sounds like my idea from yesterday.I'm glad you posted it though, cause i'm  to lazy too do it myself.--[[User:Uncle Willy|Uncle Willy]] 20:16, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
<!-- DISCUSS **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Infectious blood (reworked and resubmitted) ===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=07:05, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Zombie Skill|
suggest_scope=Zombies|
suggest_description=
*'''Prerequisites: '''Infectious Bite and Brainrot  (infectious bite could be dropped since whoever has brain rot will likely already have infectious bite)

*'''Story element: '''
Whether the zombies initially became infected due to disease, radiation, viruses or an act of God(s) or Demon(s), it is unknown. It is known that now the older, the most decomposed, the most diseased of the zombies have become so putrid that their very blood is filled with death and filth.  Leaving those unfortunate souls who get too enraptured in the carnage of death tainted. 
*'''Theme: '''
I cant count the numerous grade B zombie flicks where zombies have managed to infect individuals just by getting a drop of blood into their victims system. ?The infections is usually introduced through openings in the victims body such as their eyes, mouth or open wounds. I.e. 28 days later.
*'''What it does: '''It expands on infectious bite.  A zombie with infectious blood has a chance of infecting the player that kills the zombie in the same way that infectious bite infects them. It goes with the theme in zombie movies where someone kills a lot of zombies and has a small drop of blood get in a opening and infects them. I'd suggest a low chance of this happening, maybe 15% - 20% chance. (this percentage is only a suggestion, please make recommendations in kill votes about improving  this)
*'''Possible flavor text: '''
For those infected
 "In the heat of the carnage a drop of the zombies blood made it into an open wound. You are now infected."
For the zombie
 "The last thing your rotting eyes see before all goes dark, Is your blood spraying from your rancid corpse." 
Of course it might be cool to translate this into zombie speak.

*'''other stuff'''
What this is intended to do is to add a small element of danger, fear, and best of all paranoia. It will have little effect on players but instead cause players to be a little more cautious and prepared. FAX packs are readily available to any player that searches for them. Most Survivors will have a pack on themselves anyway either to cure themselves or others.  And since brain rot is a prerequisite you should never have to worry about one out five zombies infecting you. 
*'''The percentage is not low/ high enough: '''
	Since brain rot is currently a prerequisite I feel it is low enough.  You are not likely going to run into the chance of one out of every five zombies you kill infecting you unless you come across a hoard of brain rotted zombies. Given that one out of 10 zombies has brain rot, then you have a chance of getting infected by about 1 out of 50 zombies.
Please make recommendations on how to improve infectious blood. I would love to hear any ideas that can improve this skill.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*Sorry no, never. Thiso Violates Dont Punish the Players. We're SUPPOSED to kill zombies.. there shouldnt a punishment for successfully killing one. Nada and now way. --[[User:Jak Rhee|Jak Rhee]] 06:12, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**RE: so you think this punishes players more than infectious bite does?
Infectious bite is a guaranted infection.  Infectious blood gives a percentage chance of infection.  Infectious blood can also only be bought by zeds with brain rot, so every zombie will not be infected. --[[User:ericblinsley]] 7:09 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*What Jak Rhee said.  Also, newbies confronted with this griefing skill will not find it funny: without knowing about the malton map, trying to find an hospital which is neither overbarricaded nor filled with zombie may be hard at times.  And the new player will deem this unfair and likely leave.--[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 14:05, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**RE:  so your telling me that a new player is killing 50 zombies?  well lets say he kills 20 before he runs across a brain rotted infected zombie that gets the 15 or 20 % needed to infect him, he kills it and he has gotten infected. So up to then he has killed 20 zeds or so, say he got full xp for those kills  50xp eachplus the 10xp for the kill. Thats 60 x 20= 1200 xp roughly so they are now a level 12 character and have 12 skills, it doesnt look to me that it will be greifing new players or old ones,  besides i think that zombies with infectious bite are much more likely to annoy the newbies.--[[User:ericblinsley]] 7:09 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***I won't even argue how you horribly mangled the mathematics and logic on that reply (except for one point below).  Mostly because even if you hadn't, you'd still have a point.  I guess it's true that it's unlikely to happen to a newbie, and yeah, I guess the effect is cool.  The one thing I think you are not taking into account is that with this skill out, more zombies would have an incentive to take brain rot, and that part of the zombie population are just dead survivors that are waiting for revives, and thus trying to stay out of the way.  IMHO this would probably end up with a higher percentage of dying Zs being brain-rotted than you expected.  I would probably not vote on it at all if you suggested it.  Or maybe either way, but more likely to kill than keep.  Also, the final thing you missed from Jak's post: It is assumed bad stuff happens to you when you get attacked.  It is assumed bad stuff happens to the OTHER side when YOU attack, because it's assumed you are supposed to attack the other side.  This breaks this assumption, which makes it ground to be thread on carefully.  Especially considering that this can force a survivor to have to travel to the nearest mall/hospital, and some people don't use the malton map.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 18:06, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
**Thanks for the reply, I do appreciate the comment that it may encourage more people to take the skill, I didnt think about that. As for the math,  I gave earlier that proably 1 out 10 zombies have Brain rot,  Given that the chance is about 20 % that if you kill a brainrotted zombie that it will infect you, then your likely going to infected by one bout of 50 zombies(10x5 5 being the nuumber of times you can divide 20 into 100) " yes i know its not likely going to be the 50th one, im just speaking statisticly"  I even gave it a benifit of the  doubt and gave that 1-4 zombies (25% of zombies) had brainrot. That being given 4 x 5 =20. So im not sure what was wrong with my math. I do admit I drink alot and my mind is missing a couple billion braincells each day though.   --[[User:ericblinsley]] 8:17 19 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***Sorry if my last reply was rude.  I probably misunderstood you on a few points.  Your math is ok (probably not perfect, but neither is mine most of the time either), I get your point, and I apologize for any rudeness.  So the last problem I have with this is the occasional effect on defending a fort, which isn't much, and all suggestions have their downsides, even the best ones.  I'd probably just not vote on it.  I still don't expect it to pass peer reviewing: people are touchy on what Jak Rhee said.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 14:35, 21 February 2006 (GMT)


<!-- DISCUSS **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Beer and Wine effects===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=02:00, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Wierd improvement|
suggest_scope=Survivors|
suggest_description=After you drink 2 beers, you start to get as we call it... a little tipsy.  My proposal is that we should have the drunk effect.  If you drink 2 or more beer or wine before the next ip-count reset, you will surcumb the effects of being drunk.  There is a 25% chance of puking while your drunk if you drink more than 2, although nothing will stack if you drink more.  Each Ap you spend on ANY action will earn you a 10% chance of sobering up.  Accuracy on guns will decrease by 15% because your vision is a little blurry and shooting from a range is difficult to achieve drunk or not.  Accuracy on melee weapons will decrease by 5%, but will increase the damage of melee weapons by 2 because of how some people get abnormally stronger while drunk.  No effects will be made entering/leaving a building, but when you try moving any given direction, you will have a 30% chance of moving in the direction you desire, giving the text "You stumble on the next block", 9% chance of moving in any other direction, giving the text "You stumble into a random direction", and a 7% chance of just hitting an object (Here are the random objects you will hit, wall (if on same black as a building), fire hydrant, street post, stop sign... you know what I'm talking about.  If you try to walk when you're standing at the corner of malton (where the quarantine wall is at (like if it turned to be a 2x2 instead of a 3x3)), that for every square you can not move, add that percentage that you will hit an object (so if 5 spaces are missing, 9x5+7=52% of hitting a wall at the very corner of a map. When you try to talk to somebody, your words will slur a bit and sometimes be garbled up.  Example would be Heeey gawd larkin (hey good lookin, sry I stink at trying to make up a language >_> just an example).|
suggest_votes=
<!-- DISCUSS **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
#'''Kill'''- It will never pass, useless as no one will drink more than 2 if this is impemented and it hurts the server. There are also some questions to be answered: What happens when you puke? When moving, what will happen the other 51% of the time when you're not either going in the direction you want, moving in a random direction, or walking into a wall?--[[User:The General|The General]] 17:54, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT) 
#*'''Re''' - The puking is just for flavor, nothing really happens.  Also there is 30% chance of moving the path you want, 8% chance of moving in '''any other direction''' (7x7=49%), and a 4% chance of hitting into an object = 83 percent... wait a second lol messed up.  k if we make it 9% chance of going into a random direction and add the 4% chance of hitting into an object into 7%, then that'll work there.  Also I'll lower it to 2 if needed.  Also, it wouldn't hurt the server because drinking would cost an ap, which would be the same if a zombie groaned, or if you talked to 50 people, so I don't see what problem it would cause to server that'll be more dangerous than the other ones.
#:*'''Re''' - The bit about the server is because it has to keep track of how much alcohol each character has drunk and when it ticks over every half an hour it will also have to reset how much alcohol each character has drunk.--[[User:The General|The General]] 09:48, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#::*'''Re''' - Would it be better if I changed it to when the Ip timer refreshes?  It'll then be just like a combination of flags on the characters of who's drunk combined with the helicopter drop. Also added what would happen if the drunk person decided to walk at the a corner of the city of malton and decreased the chance to sobering up to 10%.  If an action occurs 10 times, then the person should sober up one of those 10 times, so it's not too bad unless you feel that it shouldn't be reduced.  --[[User:Shadow213|Shadow213]] 03:48, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#:::*'''Re''' - Yes that would probably be a better idea. But i'm still not sure what sort of reception this will recieve. One more thing, what happens when they walk into a wall?--[[User:The General|The General]] 13:38, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#::::*'''Re''' - When they walk into the wall, they just stumble a bit and not move at all.
#This makes beer and wine totaly useless, except in some very rare circumstances.  Some people who might drink it for roleplay purposes might choose not to if they are also facing in-game challenges...  Not fun  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 18:19, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#: I tried to give it a purpose to it, as that it would increase the damage that the people hit the zombies with melee weapons.  Also, it's fun also to talk stupidly!
<!-- DISCUSS **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===New MoL Skill===
I'm thinking about a new skill under Memories of life that would let zombies break down barricades a little easier.  In-game reasoning would of course be that the zombies are starting to remember better how the barricades are put together, as well as how to take them apart.  I'm thinking a 10% increase to barricade destruction with this skill.  Comments?  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 17:15, 18 February 2006 (GMT)

It's too powerful. If 1000 zombies each got a 10% boost that's equivalent to an additional 100 zombies. This would add up pretty quick. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 14:40, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

Still, I think zombies should have some way of increasing the rate.  At 25% max, it's way too easy to miss a whole bunch and just sit there waisting AP.  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 07:53, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

I don't think this is too powerful. I think its great. In response to Jon Pyre, the difference between a horde of 1100 zeds and 1000 zeds is negligible. It would help ferals and small hordes, and they are exactly who needs helping --[[User:Banana Bear4|Banana Bear4]] 08:58, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

The problem is, barricading is the only defence humans have against zombies, ever since ankle grab was introduced.  IMO, this would work, if ankle grab was reduced...  Currently, zombies are able to invade any safehouse eventually, except Caiger Mall.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 13:41, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

===Flare Signalling for Aerial Supply Dropping===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=17:15, 19 February 2006 (GMT)|
suggest_type= Flare Improvement|
suggest_scope= Survivors (and Zombies too actually)|
suggest_description= Okay, here's my first real suggestion, so don't go hard on me and kill it immediately.

What I had in mind is to create an additional merit for the flare. I read a suggestion on it today, but it consisted of making the flare even less usefull, adding restrictions based on realism. Then I saw comments about people who were interested in quite the opposite: making the flare somewhat usefull! And that's exactly what I want to suggest!

Here's what I had in mind: An addition to the somewhat useless ''Flare gun'' by adding an extra and usefull effect to it, when fired in ''open areas''. Open areas would nclude ''Wastelands'', streets such as ''Alleys, Boulevards, Walks'' etc. and perhaps also ''Parks''and ''Cemetaries'' for example. If you fire the flare gun in the air at these locations, there's a chance that a military helicopter might pick up the signal and drops a supply crate to help you. The chance that this will happen, could be the same as finding an item in other  places. For example: finding a pistol clip in a police station. This way it's a bit balanced, since the flare gun is one time usage and the crate won't drop very often anyways. The extra effect isn't underpowered either, because people sometimes fire flare guns anyways (for whatever reason), only now there's a small chance something good will come from it! And that only at the locations I mentioned before.

It's also balanced for another reason: when you fire it, survivors know there's a chance a crate will drop at that location and zombies will know there are survivors who will look for that crate! In addition, zombies will be able to destroy the crate and therefor all items in it, so a race to be there first of both survivors (for the supplies) and zombies (to eat the lured survivers) will be the result. Because the survivor with the flare gun is already at the location, the crate will require some AP to be opened, depending on what you use at it. This way, other survivors can have a chance to benefit from it as well. When you have a crowbar, the AP spend will be drastically decreased, since this is THE most suitable item to open crates with. A fire axe would prove very effective as well of course. 

The contents of the crate can also be discussed of course, but I want to know if people like the general idea. I think this suggestion adds flavor and is realistic as well. For example: Only survivors can use flares, so people from outside the quarantined area will know a human fired it. That way it's logical that supplies are dropped, because the helicopter pilot now knows it won't fall into the wrong hands. It can still fall into the wrong hands however, but the point still stands. Secondly, it seems unfair that other people can grab the contents of the crate before you have a chance to open it. But that's also realistic, since survivors in a quarantined zone tend to be selfish in order to survive. We see this in the real world when people are literally pressing each other to death when escaping a fire. 

I know something like this existed before, but you didn't have to use the flare gun for it (if I remember correctly). Just let me know what you think about all of this :)--[[User:General Viper|General Viper]]|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*Just a heads up - I didn't have time to read into your suggestion in great detail, but I just wanted to pass on that this kind of thing has been suggested many times - and 1 time specifically with flares.  You might want to take a second to look through Previous Days Suggestions for anything with "Air Drop" in the title.  I'd throw you some links.. but, as mentioned, I'm short on time at the moment. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 00:49, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Barricade Destruction Difficulty Change===
{{suggestion|
suggest_time=22:54, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
suggest_type= Game Mechanics Change|
suggest_scope= Zombies (and Humans that like destroying barricades)|
suggest_description=  Ok, here's my thought, and I hope it isn't considered unbalancing and shot out of the sky just because I mentioned "barricades".

It seems to me that the construction factor in barricading is that below VS+2, it's automatic, with increasing difficulty as barricades grow more dense and well constructed.  While this makes sense, the ability to deconstruct barricades at an arbitrary flat percentage doesn't jibe with the construction mechanic.

I'll throw in  that I'm not sure if it's ALREADY easier to knock a barricade down a level when it's below VS, or if it's possible that this is already incorporated into the mechanics and I just don't know about it.... but on to the idea... 

My proposal is that for barricades at or below QS, an attacker gets +10% to the chance of destroying a barricade level.  Offsetting this (balancing) would be a -10% at levels higher than VS+2.

What this would represent is the ability of an attacker to find weak points and spots in a barricade when it's not at peak.  And the corresponding increase in difficulty on the high end makes the higher level of barricade more difficult to scale or destroy.

This would encourage Zombies to attack and focus on "weak" points and give them an edge once the barricades start to crumble... right when the survivors have an auto-success rate to re-barricade.  Conversely (is that the right word?) the survivors have an edge when the 'cades are up high.[[User:Timid Dan|Timid Dan]] 22:56, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

<!-- DISCUSS **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->

<!-- DISCUSS **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

== RULES FOR CHANGING THE RULES ==

I am planning to put this rule up to a vote. Tell me what you think of it:

<b>To open a vote for a rule change you must first open a discussion on the rule in the discussion page. You must post the exact text of the rule and allow at least 24 hours of discussion before opening voting. The text of the rule can be modified before you put it to a vote in light of comments you get, new ideas, and for clarity. Any voting starting by a person who has not first posted the rule change for discussion can be deleted by anyone.

Voting is held on the discussion page. You may only open voting for one rule change a week. Calling off voting you have opened does not let you start a new one. If you post more than one vote change a week the excess can be deleted by anyone. 

There are three votes, "Yes" "No" and "Spam". If rule change has 3 Spam and no non-author Yes it can be deleted but only by a Moderator. Votes need 2/3rds acceptance and at least 20 votes to pass. Moderators are granted a special "Veto" vote they can choose to place instead of "No." A moderator Veto vote is counted in tallies as a "No" but also makes the rule change require 3/4ths acceptance to pass instead of 2/3rds. Voting is kept on the discussion page for two weeks and is then closed. Rules that pass are added by a moderator and must be added even if the moderator voted against the rule change.</b> 

Let the dicussion commence. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 07:49, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)

:I say that if there are 3 mod veto's should insta kill the rule idea, and that it should require a 3/4th vote to pass anyway with 20+ votes. Modorators should know more about the wiki then reguler users of the wiki and there for they should have spiecial veto powers. I do agree with the discussion though, there should be some discussion before voting. --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 07:55, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:I have no problems with this, especially with the Veto thing.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 20:42, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:Sounds good, I think 2/3 is enough, the veto thing is a good idea, and we should make a "Rule Suggestions" section on this page. --[[User:Signal9|Signal9]] 21:45, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)

<big>VOTING HAS NOW BEEN OPENED</big> --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:02, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)

== Since When Are Zombie Spies Good? ==

Jon, can you dump this, as gennys and kills are broadcast now?

I put Maintenance and Guard up on the suggestions page and it seems they're being killed by people who support zombie spy generator destruction, probably called in specifically to vote kill anything that could destroy that tactic. Can we all agree that taking advantage of anonymous generator attacking is unfair? --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 05:03, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:I agree. (I didn't vote on either because I like the ideas enough not to kill them, but the implementations have details that I don't like). None of the votes against guard are actually saying that zombie spies are good - well, there are some that say that it's unnecessary, but most basically say that 1AP isn't enough and/or have issues with other details. --[[User:Signal9|Signal9]] 06:58, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::I agree too,  zombie spies are not good. But, I think that they are a needed evil. With tactics like false barricading and a 4:1 barricade lost, it is a must to strick at what can be considered making life easier then need be for survivors. like surgery, it is good for survivors, but it is not needed, so taking down a gen in a hosp is good, and the same with necrotech, no lab power, no necronet map. you see, with an unability to track us, you can not kill us as readily. which helps keep zombie numbers up. The drop in numbers is because of the ability to make necrotech syringes. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 07:05, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::Agreed as well. Now, on Ramby's comment: if a zombie group/mob/horde/unded apocalypse on foot is strong enough, and good enough, a simple guard won't really make a difference. If they're attacking a non-NT building, then they can all have Brain Rot and forget about combat revives or whatnot, and simply crush the barricades, generator and probably the whole safehouse in single sweep, with absolutely no need for zombie spies. Sure, in a mall fight it would be different, but Malls don't benefit from generators, so why bother? Most players seem to put up generators in generator-useless buildings just because of the flavour of having "The lights are on", or because they don't know the difference. Since most safehouses seem to have generators, and that they only work when people supply them fuel cans, there's an easy way to find safehouses: look for powered buildings, there's at least one character fueling the generator (or someone is patrolling the area fueling stuff, but I really don't believe that would be easy to do). If they used zombie spies to find safehouses, then it's useless now. But using spies to spot the best targets inside (Necrotech, Barricaders, Headshotters) would be considered cheating, as the zombies should ''not'' know about that. And talking about spies... if the zombies are generally too stupid to open a door, how can they understand that the meatbag that is pointing to a building a few blocks away is not a willing snack but in fact a spy telling you where more survivors are? And who would the spies refer to? Zombie overlords, anyone? --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 11:44, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::::Metagaming = bad. But, to have hordes it is needed, that is the only way to beat even slightly coordinated survivor groups. Zombies need the horde mentality, but the only way that is possible is to use a offgame forum. Look at the recent victory over those in spicer hills, a good group of zeds roll in, preach panic and destruction and leave the ferals can finish off the assult. It is that way, in zombie movies, but to get that effect in game you need coordination. There is '''NO''' in game way for zombies to do that. What youa re talking about is a way to nerf zombie hordes, with that in place, it makes metagaming useless and nerfs all zombie efferts in short order. Zombie groups are starting to incounter more combat revives, near powered necrotech buildings, because they can revive any zed that gets in. It is rather hard to hit the generators, at least every time I ahve tryed to attack them. So,, gaurding would be good, but I do beilve that there should be a way for zombies to coordinate in game effectivly first. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 12:55, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::::What is the problem with Metagaming? The zombies already do a very good job metagaming like that (and I honestly support zombie metagaming). And, as I always say, if you're combat revived in a horde, just stand up and your friends will kill you, get the XP, and you'll be back to the undead side in a matter of a few hours. Heck, you can even go to a PD, get a flak jacket, or spend some XP to buy Bodybuilding, then get Brainrot after your friends kill you. The hordes don't need spies, simply because of their sheer numbers, they can break into many barricaded buildings at once, then groan to point the location of survivors. A good horde will always try to break in in large numbers, so the generator won't stand a chance. Same thing about the barricades. The don't need spies to do the dirty work. And about combat revives near NT buildings, that's just because you know the syringes can be manufactured now. If you didn't know that, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't notice any difference on the combat revive pattern anywhere. That thing didn't make the syringes easier to find, just made the flow more steady. Before, people found 8 syringes in 15 AP (happened with me) or 1 syringe in 120 AP (happened with me, too). Now, 20 AP is the most you need to find one syringe. Two per day. Less variance, good enough to me. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 13:21, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::::: Yes but the problem comes in once you penitrate the building, a human in there might have tiped the people in the building off to an attack and be there to combat revive the brain rotters the second they break in. I do see metagaming as cheating, but if we did not cheat, we would get pummled into the earth. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 13:32, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::::::: Tough luck, I guess? You'll only get revived instantly if there's someone active in the said NT building. If not, just crash the generator, kill a few dudes and step out. They'll dump the bodies outside without reviving them and rebarricade. Rinse and repeat, their numbers will only get smaller everytime you take down one or two NTs. And on metagaming, it looks like the zombies will have to metagame their hordes (and again, they do that pretty well), until Kevan finds a way to give them their much-needed horde mentality. For now, Feeding Groan was a nice idea. Trying to go one step ahead Feeding Groan without creating an overpowered skill is pretty hard, though. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 14:08, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
: We kill suggestions based on the existence of zombie spies for the same reason why we would kill suggestions based on the existence of Santa. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 20:32, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:: I don't care if they're zombie spies or not. You can't deny that there are people that maliciously destroy generators and kill players. I don't give a damn what their motivations are. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 20:55, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
: Zom Zpies are not good. But, just because I agree with you on that issue doesn't mean that Maintenance and Guard don't have a couple holes. Such as they dont' target Zom Zpies, they target random-survivor that bashes a genny. For instance, I've a friend who's survivor character has *never* died, Been around forever, last I knew that char had more than 2000 xp. Also doesn't pk. Should that char bash a genny your suggestion would unjustly paint him as a zom zpy, when that could not possibly be further from the truth. Realizing this, how could I do anything *other* than vote to kill those suggestions? - [[User:Serpico|Serpico]] 19:07, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:: Your friend could announce: "Hey, this generator is attracting too much attention and it isn't doing anything here. I'm going to break it." --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 02:51, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::: Yes, he could. But your suggestion still allows Maintenance Bob to walk in after that was said, have the system automatically attach him to the generator, see the final smashing blow to the genny, and receive that notification "Since your last turn" as he moves to the next building. It's that auto-attachment of Bob to whatever random generator he is near that, in my eyes, breaks the workability of your suggestion. Really, should a maintenance character care at all about a generator in some random building that he's only passing through? You've tapped the common sense notion that people notice someone shooting/fireaxe-ing their generator to pieces, so how can you justify picking-and-choosing which common sense notions apply?
:::: If he sees the generator destroyed, he will noitce.  He doesn't have to act.--[[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 17:56, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::::Right, Maintenance Bob, moving from building A to B to C, will take special notice of the generator in building B during the whole 5 seconds that he's there, and take special notice of who just shot the thing. Find a way to fix that oddness, and make maintenance cost something from Maintenance Bob, and I'll recosider my position. As it stands now, it gives survivors an ongoing ninja-observance for free, and I seem to recall some sort of general ban on ninja-type things, and the phrase "There is no free lunch" - [[User:Serpico|Serpico]] 19:10, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::::::I'm all for things that allow discovery of active zombie spies (most organized hordes, I think, discourage them as well).  However, I feel that in all of the suggestions thus far, the mechanics have been a little contrived.  Maybe combine them?  If Bob puts down/fuels the generator, he's guarding it until he leaves the building.  Then if he leaves, no one is guarding it, even if he comes back.  It doesn't cripple him from defending his safehouse from zombies (since he doesn't need to stay above some AP limit and can perform surgery/make syringes/barricade) but it allows him to keep an eye on things as he does them.  In terms of game mechanics, set a flag when placing/fueling a generator on the player.  That player sees all generator actions (there can be more than one player flagged) and the flag is removed upon movement.--[[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 17:21, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::::::But what about barricades? Maybe, it should be a button that alows you to watch the gen or cades(only one) for 5 ap if you are above 25 ap. i would vote for anything that won't compleatly nerf zombie spies. Make it harder to spy. God yes. Make it immpossible to spy. No. Spieing is a vallid tactic, don't nerf it. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 17:32, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::::: C Tiger, I actually had the same idea. I was thinking of resubmitting Maintenance with that kind of ability. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 15:49, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::::::Jon, with two small tweaks I would get behind C Tiger's idea. 1) Bob puts a Genny, and is flagged as the Guard. Good. He gets to see when *that* genny is bashed. Then, the flag comes off of him, he's no longer guarding, because his genny is no longer there. Same thing if someone else refuels the genny, the Guarding passes to them. Think of it like, Bob sets up a genny, and is keeping an eye on it. Then, Larry comes along and fills the genny's tank, and Bob says "Ok, you take this shift, I'm gonna get some shuteye" and then Larry is the Guard. Because again, if you are going to introduce the double-edged sword of realisim for Guarding, there's the side that cuts you as well. 2)Again, because of that double-edged sword, I ask you this. What do people who are guarding/watching/staking out something always need? Food. Their energy still runs out, they don't get to sit there for days and days without requiring sleep and sustenance. So, while Bob is Guarding the genny he set up and fueled, he spends AP's, not gaining them. Not much, 1 AP per 30 minutes. So a fully-rested (50AP) Bob could sit and guard that genny for 25 hours solid before he would fall asleep from lack of AP's. The server could re-calculate Bob's AP count when someone successfully attacks the genny, and the result of that calculation would determin whether he gets to see that event or not. This way the server only references one record (instead of some random number of Guards) that's attached to the generator, and doesn't have to keep track of any state changes across sessions/actions. Your Zomg Zmobie ZpieZ are not likely to go searching for fuel, so they can refill the genny, and then bash it, that's entering the realm of quite outlandish. - [[User:Serpico|Serpico]] 16:39, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:::::: Here's the thing though, there already exists a Free Lunch in the game as is where it regards Generator-smashing and PKing in buildings in front of others. The Griefer pays no cost for the advantage of a cloak of anonymity that is often un-piercable in a building with even moderate activity, let alone say, an in-use Powered NT Building. Those who say changes/new Skills that would pierce that anonymity when they smash Generators/PK people in front of others would kill that style of play are impersonating Chicken Little. It wouldn't kill that style of play, it would introduce CONSEQUENCES for it. If a Skill requires more AP to use to protect a Generator than it does to smash one, considering the AP already invested in finding the Generator/Fuel and moving to the location, then setting it up it's not going to have alot of effect on the situation. If anything, the advantage AP-wise should go to the "defender" given what a large reward in invested-AP being destroyed is given to the Generator-smasher upon destroying it. Also take into account that this is a partisan issue. Many of those who have become so keen on Generator smashing are citing dropping Zombie %s or otherwise have a vested interest that goes beyond the balance of a proposed Skill into the broader-reaching implications for the game. Look at the very weak Griefer-oriented reasoning being given with the Kill/Spam votes for Skills like this. They aren't based on balance, they're (in my opinion) being based on the Griefers enjoying their invulnerability to reprisal for their actions. Am I wrong? --[[User:Whitemantle|Whitemantle]]
::::::: I think that the anonymity issue is a smoke screen for the fact people dislike their hard work constently getting removed. I think that if you get a way to see people who destroy generators then zombies should get a skill which cuts down on the ap taken away from headshot. After all, those who destroy generators are only taking away ap from you, just as you headshotters do us zombies, I think it is a fair trade. If zombies can have their ap taken away, why not humans? - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 13:40, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::::::: Because of a simple factor: zombies and survivors are supposed to be enemies. Survivors should damage zombies when they kill them (that's why zombies take 10AP to get back up, or 15AP when headshotted), and zombies already take a lot of AP from survivors when they kill them (all the time in a revive queue, Mrh?-ing, and the time spent by the NT to create syringes and needle someone with them). Besides, only 5 extra AP from headshot is nothing when compared to a whole day of AP spent searching for a Generator and a Fuel Can. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 13:54, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::::::::: The derence is taht you can have multipul people share the AP cost to find and place one, just form a little metagaming group. That is what zombies have had to do to survive, why not humans do the same? - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 14:02, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::::::::: Because survivors already do that without metagaming, and most times a generator is placed and fueled, it is by a single survivor, with no shared AP costs (I don't even know how could someone share the AP cost to search for a Generator and a Fuel can, though). Besides, survivors already do what you said, when rebarricading and disposing of invading zombies. Survivors don't need metagaming as badly as zombies, but they also don't have effective ways to call for reinforcements, as zombies do, since flares are essentially useless. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 14:11, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::::::::::: Well, whenever someone suggests something which might help everyone declares it spam. It is simple to share the cost, just take turns trying to find the generator, also, you can find out who by just waiting a bit and organizing with people to determan who is killing the gen, if you organize just right you will notice who is on everytime. You do not really need to find out the person, just declare the person who is most likely to have done it and wait to see how long it takes to see the generator destroction stopping, most GKers will move if they think the people are onto him, just hit everyone not with you one time with a fireax and declare it a warning as to what you will do the next time someone destroys the gen and it should stop, If it does not then not even gaurding would really stop the person. --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 14:23, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::::::::::: "Everyone" in this case seem to englobe a lot of people who find griefing amusing. Oh, well, maybe the wiki is dominated by griefers (that's a possibility), but we can do absolutely nothing to help on that aspect. Back on your points, attacking people as warning isn't keen on the personal relations department. At most, you'll get PKed very quickly. Also, in a crowded place, like Caiger Mall right now, you can't simply point out who's online, because there are always at least four people online at a given time. If you declare that someone is possibly a GKer, the person you pointed will get PKed by the rest of the safehouse so quickly he or she wouldn't have a chance to prove they're innocent, if they are. And if you're going to do that, it's easier to just go around and find another generator, thus invalidating the whole idea. People got lives to take care of, they can't do Sherlock Holmes' work just to find out who's the griefer that's blasting their generators, and wasting IP hits and server power meanwhile. It's much more practical (and easier on the server) to pay 100XP to be able to know who is bashing your generator, then deal with them the way you want. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 15:09, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::::::::::::: But, Caiger mall does not need a generator, so why waste your ap on it? If someone else wants to waste ap on a generator let them, it is their business, but a mall does not need a generator. Besides, what is the point of wasting ap on a gerator in a none NT/Hospital anyway? If it is in one of those two alond with the radio towers I can see the problem, but in none buildigsn like that it really doesn't matter, and it sure as heck does not warrent a new skill just to cope with it. Waste your ap how you will.- --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 15:17, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::::::::::::: Let me change the scope a bit, then. How about the NT building just to the east of Caiger? You got more people there right now than in the NW corner of the mall, last time I checked. And I honestly believe that generators will become useful in other buildings ''as well'' as in NT buildings and Hospitals. It's a good idea, and Kevan seems to approve giving more uses to the Generator. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 15:29, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::::::::::::::: You mean the one that has 26 combies in front of it and is also the suburbs Mobile phone tower? The gen keeps getting broke by zombies you break into that building alot. It happens because I ended up deader then a doornail by a zombie in that buliding, I was a firefigter trying to get to ciager to help out, and when I went to the designated revive zone, i got headshotted and dumped from the church. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 15:53, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::::::::::::::: Weird... the time I spent there was pretty much safe. I knew someone was breaking the generator because it went offline while the barricades were still at EH. Well, I guess that part is more about luck. *shrugs* --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 16:03, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::::::::::::::::: Yea, currently I am standing outside the church waiting to be revived. ---[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 16:07, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::::::::::::::::: End of discussion, I guess. If you want your character revived, message me in my talk page and I'll try to get it done tomorrow. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 16:11, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)

== Backlog On the Suggestions Page ==

We have a few days of suggestions that need to be moved into Previous. I started putting things in the right place but if anyone else could help too that would be nice. Also I have the feeling there are a whole lot of suggestions that need to be added to the Peer Reviewed and Peer Rejected Page. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 01:07, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I've moved the last two days of suggestions into Previous and i'll cycle the suggestions tomorow and Sunday but i'm sorry to say that I won't be able to do it for the rest of the week.[[User:The General|The General]] 20:30, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Support Zaru for Moderator and he'll do it regularly. :-) --[[User:Jak Rhee|Jak Rhee]] 04:46, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
: A-cha. :( *tugs at collar* --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 07:13, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

It's happening again. There are several days worth of suggestions on the page and no one seems to be making any attempt to cycle them. I've just moved about 3 days worth of suggestions off the main page. Is it possible to set up some sort of roter where by each person has a set day of the week on which they do it (voluantry, of course)? If this is set up then i'm happy to do Saturdays or Sundays (or both).--[[User:The General|The General]] 18:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*I'm wiling to contribute to that. I can spare the time to cycle one day once a week.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 23:10, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:*Which day would be most convenient for you?--[[User:The General|The General]] 17:09, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

== NOT HAVE PEER REJECTED ==

Here's a thought: Let's get rid of the Peer Rejected page. What's its purpose? We already keep the past days suggestions. If someone wants to see things that have been killed there's voting archives for people to look up. And if something bad keeps recurring we put it in Dead in the Water anyway. All it does is make extra work for the people upkeeping the pages. This way we'll just have to move good suggestions, of which there are far fewer than bad, to the Peer Reviewed, leaving the bad where they are. And instead of moving spam to the rejected page I don't know the wiki code for this but there's a way to hide text while keeping it on the same page. We could just modify spam so that it stays on the same page and can be found on the edit page but doesn't take up any space. That'll accomplish the same purpose and make it easier for people to read the spam suggestion because they'll just need to look at the spam's edit page. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 14:23, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Signed. The only problem with this is the spaminated/duped suggestions, which should be updated on the frequently proposed/dead in the water sections anyways. The wiki history keeps them too. Any objections? I dunno about this whole invisible page fiasco though, that seems tricky.  --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 19:23, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, no need to keep spams--in the unlikely event anyone needs them, they're in the history.  Otherwise seems good to me.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 19:52, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You can keep text on the page but make it so it doesn't display. I'm sure sure how. Check out the previous days page and click on edit, there's a whole list of future suggestion dates that aren't visible except on the edit page. If we could do that with spam suggestions we could leave them in place but make nothing but the title appear when you read the page normally. Also I don't even think we need to put this to a vote. All we have to do is stop updating the Rejected page. If anyone objects they can update it themselves. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 23:43, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Why not simply change the rejected page to the spammed page? solves both problems at once.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 01:10, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think just leaving the text but adding something to invisify (new word) it would be easier. We wouldn't need to move anything at all but just paste. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 01:28, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yeh, what Jon Pyre is talking about is commenting it out (in HTML) whatever you're "invisifying". I like Vista's solution because it keeps the spam from previous days so that we can vote dupe and rid of it faster (you can't vote dupe on something that doesn't show up on the screen) --[[User:Signal9|Signal9]] 03:27, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That wouldn't be a problem because the original version of the dupe would be in the previous days suggestion. You'd just comment out anything that is clearly spam "Shapeshifting Wolf Zombies" that you wouldn't need to ever link to. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 19:27, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What I'm talking about is one person suggesting "Shapeshifting Wolf Zombies" and the next day someone else suggesting "Formchanging Canine Undead" - If you make "Shapeshifting Wolf Zombies" invisible, you can't vote dupe on "Formchanging Canine Undead" and get rid of it uber-fast. If you keep a visible copy of the former, you can. --[[User:Signal9|Signal9]] 01:06, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You don't need to link spams, just dupes. Something like werewolf zombies is ridiculous enough you could just vote "This is silly". If it was something like SMG then you'd want the dupes and they'd be in the archives. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 04:33, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)



==Should I kill off Spam-B-Gone?==
Yes. For all those too idiotic too know it, I started that thing. I had to because I couldn't take it anymore. People were using a page to post idiotic crap htat they knew was idiotic (like the pict suggestion), but they had no where else to dump it. Now I am thinking, should I disband the spam-b-gone suggestions, because I made my point. Besides, there are pretty much no more suggestions to pounce on. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 00:51, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT) '''EDIT:''' Well, one last spray before I discontinue this whole thing. Guess which suggestion will be next? [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 03:52, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

#Yeah, it's time to get rid of it, but you should leave a not-so-friendly reminder at the top of the page. Warning against stupid suggestions. --[[User:Arcos|Arcos]] 01:39, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*Want to use it against the machete suggestion in the middle of the page?--[[User:C tiger|C tiger]] 18:30, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

==Plot==
This isn't really a suggestion by our definition, so I'm not putting it on the page, but it is a thought about how the game should be, so I guess it belongs here--am I the only one who kind of wishes UD had some sort of ''plot?''  I mean, we've got survivors and scientists and normal people all trying to stay alive in a city full of undead, and...that's it.  There are no definite, accomplishable goals for either side--neither can ever completely eradicate the other, or anything of that sort (not that I'm saying that would be a good idea).  Maybe it's just my modern, Americanized, can't-make-their-own-fun-must-be-spoon-fed-their-entertainment brain talking, but I kind of wish there was some ''direction'' to the game imposed from without, rather than just made up by the players.  Something to do that could actually eventually be accomplished, and then a new goal provided.  Thoughts?--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 17:46, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
* I think that there should be some almost, side like plotlines for both zombies and harmanz yes, maybe something like that "capture the flag like" idea, Also, I would like to thank you for letting me see the word "Sppon-fed" outside of my normal forum. *pats your back- - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]] 17:49, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
** A structured time line like some other browser based games would be nice. Ex: One month spent in 'outbreak' where barricades can't be erected since not too many people know of the zombie attack (zombie favor), 'survival', which would basically be UD now (neutral favor), and 'cleansing', an outcome that depends on the dominant faction (either the military moves in/drops arms to clear the zombies, or the zombies get new skills that let them overrun all the survivors). At the very end survivors of the losing faction are put on some valor list, and the game reset.

This would do well to keep UD interesting. [[User:FireballX301|FireballX301]] 22:17, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
* As a matter of fact I'll go suggest this right now. [[User:FireballX301|FireballX301]] 22:18, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The thing is Urban Dead isn't so much a game as it is a simulation. It's essentially Kevan's AI zombie simulator but made more accurate by substituting people for AI. I don't think it's about winning or losing but seeing what kind of equilibrium the system acheives between number of living and number of dead. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 22:48, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

*Well, if you think it's a simulation, then it's not going well. His simulators always (or almost always) end with the zombies winning, as with most zombie movies and stories I've read. All the "balancing" Kevan promotes looks more like the development of an idea before putting it to work (as I said before: UD is still an open Beta). --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 00:34, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**I think it should get a more dinamic timeline. Somthing more than the daily "I smacked a zombie" for the Non afiliated player. --[[User:Mr NoName|Mr NoName]] 00:18, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*Roleplaying is there to fix this problem. I like that there is no plot becuase that way we can play the way WE want! We can decide what we think is the cause for the outbreak, or who is "good" or "evil." I don't like the idea of being forced to follow along a fixed plot like most non-multiplayer RPGs do, or at least not for a game as open as this! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 23:59, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:Of course there would be no ''forcing'' involved.  I'm not saying I want to get rid of any of the player-created goodness we have now.  Just add too it.  But the problem with what you're saying is, it won't be ''true.''  We can decide what we think caused the zombie plague, but if it's only thought because players decided it, ''it won't be true''--even in the imaginary world of the game--and nothing can follow from it, it can't cause anything.  Whereas if we have ingame reasons to believe something, then within the confines of the game it ''is'' true, and therefore it can have implications.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 20:43, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)

==Trigger-Happy Spaminations==

The Zombie Hide Skill got spaminated with 7 Spams and one Kill? Last time I checked it was:

# SPAM --Jack Swithun (Sermons � Church of the Resurrection) 19:40, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
# Spam -- I read the whole thing. Despite what you said, it still sucks. No hiding, even if it does weaken the enemy. MaulMachine 19:49, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
# Keep - Sounds like a good idea --Lord Evans 19:55, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
# Spam - No uberninja Pirate skills thank you. --ramby 20:00, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
# Spam "Hey, zombies broke in! Now let me spend 20 AP searching up newspapers and wirecutters to make sure there aren't a bunch hiding in here!" --Jon Pyre 20:07, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

And I was ]] 08:26, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I still say suggestions should be allowed to stay for at least an hour before being deleted for Spam or Dupe. You know, more than 3 people should know what the suggestion is about, and the authors could use some constructive criticism. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 15:29, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*Yeah, the point of the new spam system was to replace the old one. It was to end insta-spamming and also allow deletion of spam with one keep vote. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 23:12, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
**So when do we vote on that replacing the old one? --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 02:28, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
***I wasn't aware of any of this.  So far as I know the point was to make it easier to get rid of spam, not harder--give us more ways to get rid of it.  But looking back at the old vote, I see that in fact what you did say it would replace the old system, and the vote went through, so...changing now.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 03:14, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****I strongly disagree. Some atrocious shit is being posted by users such as [[User:Tranhanam0027|Tranhanam0027]]. The two rules coexist very well, and anything that gets spaminated inside 3 minutes is obviously not going to be missed. This New rule, when used alone, only makes it harder to remove crap from the suggestions page, while the two rules together would do a very effective job, cleaning out the crap fast, and if some twit votes keep, allowing a workaround to still pummel it into spamination. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 15:37, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*****This was the reason why I voted against the new rules, because I didn't want to have to wait for 7 Spam votes before spaminating. If this can't be changed without a vote then I suggest that we invoke a vote for the old system being run alongside the new one.--[[User:The General|The General]] 15:50, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
****** I feel that people abuse the spam vote sometimes. I often vote kill on suggestions I don't like but think should stay on the page, only to see them spam voted out of existence because 10 people voted kill and 3 voted spam. If there was some system of disqualifying poorly cast Spam votes and turning them to kills instead I'd be for it. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 18:49, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*******Frankly, I agree with Grim and the General.  I think three spams without any keep is probably a pretty definite determination of craptitude.  But the vote went the way it did, so I don't have a choice.  Some submit the combination rule for voting, and I'll vote yes, but I dunno how it'll turn out.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 00:50, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
******** Not necessarily. There are Spam votes on the page that use reasoning like "STFU zombies don't need to be treated better", just against a suggestion for a zombie skill. It's being used to prevent other people from fairly voting on suggestions the spam voter doesn't like. Also when I vote kill I think the suggestion should stay, just not be implemented. If I want a suggestion to stay on the page but I'm voting kill I'd have no recourse to save it from spamination. Maybe if in kill votes people could ask the suggestion not be spam deleted and if there was a time limit. But honestly, I think a time limit would keep spam on the page longer than the current rules were. 7 spam votes isn't all that much. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:44, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*********I actually like the new system, In my opinion it removes some of the drama surrounding spam. now the bleeding harts will see that spammed suggestions aren't unfairly spammed by a select group of bitter voters, and protects the suggestions that might be borderline from the people with higher standards, so other people who might be slower to react can voice their opinion on it as well.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:10, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

== Voting on Old Suggestions ==
My idea is still being voted on, but due to some problems I never got to see a single vote on it. Any way I could find out the current tally, any suggestions made, or an old tally at least? --[[User:Scorpios|Scorpios]] 02:44, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
*[[Previous Days Suggestions]] --[[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 04:48, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
**That's simply the name of the Suggestions. But I found out how. --[[User:Scorpios|Scorpios]] 23:49, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)

== Let People Add Their Own Suggestions To Peer Reviewed ==

I've noticed a lot of Peer Reviewed Suggestion in the closed voting section that have not been added to Peer Reviewed yet. I'm not surprised, it's a lot of work to look through all those days' suggestions and pick out the winners. Here's an idea, how about authors have to add their own suggestions? So if you suggest something and in two weeks it has 2/3rds keep votes then you add it to Peer Reviewed yourself. That way the work gets divided and doesn't increase for the updater the more suggestions there are. If someone really cares about their suggestion they'll move it to Peer Reviewed themselves. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 05:18, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)

:There is no way this will be abused...wait, where is the sarcasm formatting on this thing? Anyway, while I suspect for the most part the community will be good little boys and girls, there are still those who would add their idea out of spite.  Then you have to check the history *blech* to find out if they really did pass.  You could make them speed the sorting up by having them tally up the votes for their suggestion once the voting ends.  If they lie they can get temp banned from the suggestion page or something. [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 10:36, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
:: Of course someone would have to read through the Peer Reviewed Page once in a while to make sure nothing has been added there that shouldn't be, but if people want they can already post things there and get them deleted. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 15:47, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
::: What? that wasn't allowed before? oops, I moved my own suggestion when I was moving a whole weeks worth of suggestions in the beginning of januari. -don't worry, it passed comfortably- --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:29, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::::There's nothing against it. I just wasn't clear what the protocol was. Now that I know I'm going to start adding all my old passing suggestions to Peer Reviewed (selfishly). --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 22:08, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)

== TEMPLATE MESS-UP ==

Hey, where did the "How to Suggest Things" section and template go? Now there's just that Assault Rifle thing at number 1 on the suggestions page. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 03:32, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)

:Some fool moved the how-to-suggest-thing-section and the suggestion-template-stuff to another page named [[4.20]]. I reverted things back a few minutes ago and now things must be allright. Have a nice day citizen. --[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]] 02:40, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

== Spam ==
I realy think that with the abuse of spam votes, as bad as it is we should require the remover to provide a link to the spaminated idea in the peer rejected section.  --[[user:ericblinsley|ericblinsley]] 03:54. feb 02 2006 (gmt)

Then it would be called a Dupe. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 00:30, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

:I belive he meant that the one who actually removed spaminated suggestion should place the suggestion in peer rejected, and provide link to that. Which sounds good. The first part is supposed to be in effect already, but not nearly all spaminators do even that. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 08:21, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*re  yep thats what i meant.

Your horrible spelling and grammar, as well as your posting of "REMEMBER PROVIDE LINKS TO THE SPAMINATED IDEAS" on every spamminated suggestion today have both convinced me that listening to you may not be the wisest course of action. --[[User:TheTeeHeeMonster|TheTeeHeeMonster]] 20:18, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*re:  Well for the posting of "REMEMBER.."  I apologize. 
However,I am sick and tired of people just spamming ideas either for the sake of being the first to remove an idea they dont like or out of fear of a idea being implemented that would hurt them.    Now I do believe in the spam vote. It should and must be used when posts are SPAM. Instead most spam votes are being treated as hard kill votes, and  that is not benificial for the game or for the spam voter.  Some believe that by spamming something it will make the issue go away. Instead it stops discussion of the idea.  Stopping the discussion of an idea will cause similiar ideas to pop up again and again .
If idea does have merrit "but needs work" and the spam votes are being placed to just hide the idea then good reason for kills wont be brought forth and the ideas maybe implemented anyway.  So if you realy want to help the game then it is in your best interest "if you spam vote as often as you do" To give valid reason for the spam and to to leave links to spaminated suggestions just as you would any other suggestion.
[[ericblinsley]] 12:00, 5 feb 2006 (GMT)
*We dont leave links to the suggestions. If people are curious they can go to peer rejected, pull up the "find on this page" finction, and enter the name of the spaminated suggestion they want to see. The recent spate of spaminations has been due to an increase in the general retard level around the wiki of late (Specifically, Tranhanam, who has posted 10 awful suggestions that were spaminated, 8 of them by myself). Also, your little notes that you left on everey spaminated suggestion have given me the urge to slug you one in the face. Spam is not being used as Hard kill by anyone i know of except Deathnut. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 16:09, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*Eric I'm sick and tired of the crowd who trolls every spam vote like it'll break the suggestions' hart. I've never, ever, in all my time here saw a suggestion get spammed because people wanted to 'hide the idea' or 'feared its implementation', I never ever saw a suggestion get spammed that had the tinest of chances to go to peer reviewed. I did however see a lot of people of think that as long as it is written reasonable coherent the idea itself must have merit or be fixable and truck out the old and tired 'Spam is not a hard kill' as a justification for their lack of understanding. No indeed spam isn't a hard kill it is for spam. and just as it isn't to be used as a hard kill, keep isn't to be used to force people to look at a suggestion from hell just because you feel sorry for the suggestor. I've seen that just as much as I've seen chanceless suggestion heading to peer rejected get spammed forced to go two weeks earlier unfairly. You think spam should only be for people suggesting that zombies should have to add 'wears a funny colered hat' to their description or suffer a 20% penalty on attacks. although I don't doubt that if I make it about four paragraphs' with lots of expensive words at least some of the people who agree with you would start japping about how it isn't spam because of the work put into it. I and with me most people think spam should be for the ideas that are not merely broken, but unfixable. and thrust me there is more of that going around then spam. just because some people have a better grasp of what a suggestion will do then others doesn't mean we should lower the threshold on voting to the lowest common denominator.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:38, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Spam votes should be for things that are either 1) Ridiculous 2) 100% Unworkable.
For instance something unfixable would be a "Remove Head" suggestion to allow people to permanently remove zombies from the game with a shotgun, or an "Uncurable Infectious Bite". Some people are voting against concepts though, not game mechanics. I don't think a zombie skill that lets them smell recent survivor deaths is a good idea so I'd vote kill. But I wouldn't vote spam because "Zombies don't need more smell related skills."--[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 00:22, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

== Mark Spammed Suggestions ==

Just a thing to make it easier to see what suggestions were already suggested when looking into the Suggestion Page index. There are times (usually when I log in for the first time in a day) that I check the page and see a lot of new suggestions, but almost every one of them is spammed already. I suggest whoever tagged a suggestion as spam add a "'''Spam'''" tag to the suggestion's name, so something like '''"Insta-Gib Shock Rifles!"''' would appear in the index and in the page as '''''"Spam - Insta-Gib Shock Rifles!"''''' after it was duly spaminated. What do you people think? --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]] 14:01, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:Yep, would help. And obviously these would move into previous days suggestions, which would help finding dupes. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 14:05, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

== Don't forget about the vote ==

If you want to have rules for the suggestions don't forget to check out section 4.12 on this page for the Rule Change Vote. It provides a guideline for making and changing the rules we use, a sort of Constitution. If you believe in wikmocracy vote soon! Only a week and a half until voting closes! --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:41, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:Has 20+ votes now. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 14:03, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

==Idiot Logic==
Dear. Fucking. God. People always seem to repeat the same damn suggestions over again. Fire out of windows. Add assault rifles (which people don't actually know how strong they are). Eat food. Blah blah blah. I mean, do these suggestors even have half a brain? If it seems obvious to you that this is missing = Wouldn't it seem obvious to others that this was missing and that this was already suggested, and put down or accepted? [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 15:35, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)Feb 2006 (GMT)

*After much thought on the subject I am against most if not all rule changes. This whole system should have been kept simple and elegant, but now it's becoming more and more of a convoluted, twisted mess that focuses a sleu of rules and regulations against suggestors - who are the actual purpose for this entire system. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 18:43, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:*That's fine for you - you are one of the few people who actually reposts your suggestion when changes are made to it.  I think there should be a rule on this, because many people don't repost after changing significant details.  Changing their suggestion mid vote, negates previous votes.  Someone who thought the idea was fine at first, may not think so highly of the revised version - and we can't all be expected to track every suggestion we vote on for the two weeks it is up for voting to make sure nothing gets changed on it.  As it is, there is no rule saying people can't just edit their merry way through the voting.  Hell, nothing is stated that says you cant get a peer reviewed suggestion through, and change it entirely on the last day (granted that's extreme, and I really don't think people do that - but it's the same in principle for a person to change their suggestion's mechanics mid vote). --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 19:14, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
*Well, suggestions changing in mid-vote is complicated for voters, as well.  Small things are ok, but sometimes even something that look small can mean the difference between keep and kill for multiple people.  Maybe we should have a page for suggestions in development, except it would probably eventually overflow with people tinkering with suggestions that will never work. --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 18:53, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)


Given the quality of most suggestions, I say we just kill them all. Including the suggestion-makers. <i>Especially</i> the suggestion-makers. Or just put up something in big bold text that says "When you post  a suggestion, your suggestion is considered complete. Don't alter the suggestion in any way, shape, or form, except maybe to correct typos. If somebody does not completely agree with the suggestion, they either can keep their disagreements to themself and vote 'Keep' or they can decide their disagreement is major enough to require a change, and vote 'Kill'." [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 19:17, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I agree that edits to a suggestion after being posted should not be allowed.  Notes on clarity issues are fine, but nothing that changes the actual suggestion.  I say that any suggestion that is changed be put back in its original form (by a mod if necessary).  I can't really say that it should be sent to killed, as it might still be (or become) a good suggestion.  In that case, the suggestor should be informed of what happened, and told to repost his/her revised suggestion as a ''new'' suggestion.  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 21:06, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Agreed, I think that anything that gets spammed should go to its own page, and if someone arrives with more then three get their voting/suggesting privilages revoked for an ever incerssing amount of time until they are perma-baned from the page. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|ramby]]- [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Fullemtaled#My_suggestions- Part of my talk page]] 01:50, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I'll give this until the end of the week to gather any more input on it.  On Monday, I will put up a finalized version for voting. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 02:00, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*I think a rule that allows minor clarification but not actual changes of the suggestion is good. If someone changes the suggestion significantly the suggestion gets deleted, and they can resubmit it in its new form only for a fresh round of voting. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 18:16, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

voting beginning today [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Voting_for_Rule.2FGuideline_Regarding_Suggestion_Alterations here] --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 18:40, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

== Suggestions Ban ==

There are people whos suggestions are just so fucking awful that they dont deserve to be considered. Among them are people such as [[User:Eddo36|Eddo36]] (Who used the suggestions page to try and send a message to SLA, it should be noted that this user has already been given a suggestions ban), [[User:Slavik|Slavik]] (Who posted a death threat) and [[User:Tranhanam0027|Tranhanam0027]] (Whos suggestions are so terrible that they are crimes against existance).

I propose a system whereby we can award suggestion bans. I have written up some basic guidelines as to the submission and processing of such an action.

Any user may submit another user for a suggestions ban, and must refer to at least three horrid suggestions made by the user, and inform the user so nominated on their talk page. 

After this has been done, the user up for suggestions ban should provide himself a defence to the charges, giving his point of view, and other, non shitty suggestions he made in the past. After this, the people vote.

Voting Guidelines i propose:
#Voting lasts for exactly one week.
#Votes are either '''Keep''' or '''Kick'''
#The minimum number of votes for a valid poll after the week is fifteen. If it falls below this number, nothing is done.
#If 75% of the voters vote '''Kick''' the User is under a siggestions ban, and cannot post new suggestions on the page (He or she can still vote on existing suggestions however). 

Any user who has been suggestion banned cannot make a suggestion. If they do, the suggestion must be deleted.

Any thoughts? Comments? Adjustments? --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 11:29, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

How about a signature for starters. :)  Aside from that, hmm... fifteen sounds like a reasonable number... the user up for banning needs to be notified with a link to the page... someone needs to be available to help the person find suggestions for his/her defence... and I don't think graduated punishment is a bad idea, meaning first "kick" they get banned for a few days, second maybe a week or so, third a month, and fourth permanently.  Moderators should of course have some sort of veto power.  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 09:02, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:Knew i forgot to do something! --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 11:29, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Iunno, the ban hammer is already down on 2 of them, and I dont know about the third. The system seems to be working fine. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 15:24, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:I cited those three as recent examples. We do get a bit of turnover in here, with new folk coming in, and old folk getting tired occasionally. It seems to me that its better to have a agreed upon retard countermeasure in place beforehand rather than getting caught in the shower reaching for the dropped soap. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 16:17, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
I pretty much second this initative.  Some people don't learn fast enough and are almost hyperactive in their posting of crappy suggestions.  This would give them the time they need to cool down without looking like idiots (well, if they don't go nuts from the suggestion banhammer).  For example, Tranhanam doesn't deserve to be banned from the wiki, but there was a point where he definetly should have been banned from the suggestion page (or at least just posting new suggestions).  I'm also in favor of gradual increase of the ban-time.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 16:42, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I dunno either. some of the suggesters who turn in muck most of the time sometimes come across gold. for the excesses regular banning works fine. for those who aren't excesses, I don't feel they deserve such a ban. more mocking, or more help, but certainly no ban.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:45, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Nobody's going to care enough about voting to ban someone. Bad suggestions get spaminated. You don't have to sacrifice your firstborn each time a bad suggestion comes up. Get over it, or close your eyes when you see them - or better yet, let a moderator take care of it. [[User:FireballX301|FireballX301]] 06:02, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

==Justifying Keep Votes==
Do Keep votes really need to be justified with text?  In my opinion, someone just voting '''Keep''' with no text, and someone voting '''Keep''' with something like "I like this" are just the same.  Obviously, if someone votes '''Keep''', they like it, so why should they need to type it out?  I would say that only Kill, Spam, and Dupe votes need to have reasons beyond "I don't like it".  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 08:55, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

:I believe the reason is those stupid, nearly spammed suggestions, where someone would vote keep just to prevent removal. And considering that occasionally there are more spam/bad suggestions than real ones per day, justification for '''Keep'''s makes as much sense as for '''Kill'''s and '''spam'''s.

:Of course, with the new 2/3 spam votes system, it really doesn't matter if one or several persons vote Keep on cyborg, zombie rocket launcher or similar suggestion. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 10:37, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
There is little point to making someone justify their vote. As mentioned above, what's to stop someone from saying, "I like this," or "this suggestion is good because it helps" or something equally inane? Will someone be going through and judging as to whether each vote is "justified enough"? What happens if there is a dispute over whether a justification is sufficient? The requirement to have votes signed is enough. [[User:Ethan Frome|Ethan Frome]] 16:03, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I was always against this "must justify a vote" rule, and I wonder when in the blazes did it get implemented.  My reasons may be long to explain, or be misunderstood.  I either have the right to vote or I don't.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 16:44, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

:The best way to justify your vote is to explain why you are voting the way you are. Its as easy to do with keeps as it is with kills. There is nothing apart from sloth to account for people not explaining their decision. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 18:46, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

:If you wonder when and who decided on justification, it was LibrarianBrent. See [[User_talk:LibrarianBrent#Votes_and_.22Justification.22|here]] for more info. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 20:32, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

In my opinion, the only votes that should '''require''' justification beyond a simple "I like it" or "I don't like it" is '''spam''' and '''dupe'''.  If we are going to strike out votes for people being slothful, what about people saying "what he ^ said" rather than coming up with their own justification.  It's dangerous territory saying someone has to provide satisfactory explination for their votes regarding a simple "I think it's good" or "I think it's bad".  Satisfactory to who?  How much is satisfactory?  I don't like it, and I really don't think we have too big of a problem with people just signing their names with their votes (In the last 2 days, you only struck 3 votes with that, and 2 of the votes were from the same person - who never justifies his/her vote and isn't a troll, he votes selectively).  Spam and Dupe are different storys.  They are more extreme votes and therefor should require justification. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 19:13, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I believe it is no longer neccersary <i>"...it's now at the top of the Suggestions page under the header "Invalid Votes". This is a temporary fix until the new spam restrictions are applied, but probably should be continued. My main issue was that people were voting Keep on obviously trolling/ridiculous suggestions, and there was no way to remove their votes. Therefore, justification for any vote must now be made... '''librarianbrent'''</i> the new spam rules are in effect, the measure is removed from the invalid votes list, seems to me that it no longer applies. But a mod ruling on this would be nice--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:53, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Vote *removal* should only be carried out by moderators. The purpose of the rule is to prevent 'malicious' votes. A single keep versus a few kills does nothing. A single keep against multiple spams is idiocy, but also irrelevant since the suggestion would be spammed anyway. So therefore, why bother forcing everyone to specifically outline why they're voting the way they are? Deal with it. If the real Wikipedia doesn't require justification in AFD, neither should the UD wiki. [[User:FireballX301|FireballX301]] 06:05, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

: I think explanations for spam and kill votes are needed so you know what is wrong with the idea, if you like the idea you vote keep and i dont see why you need to say why you like it. Of course it helps defend ideas if they do leave reasons why.
[user:ericblinsley] 06:11, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*As Vista said, there's no reason for the justification of keep votes anymore now that the new 2/3 spam removal rule is in. Librarian Brent only created it so he could get rid of trolling keeps to keep spam in place. Now moderators can delete any vote with 3 spams and more spams than keeps. I think justification should only be necessary for kills, spams, and dupes. If you vote keep you're just agreeing with what the suggestion says. The suggestion is your justification. If you dissent then you should point out the suggestion's flaws. If you vote Spam say why it's ridiculous. If you vote Dupe post the link. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 18:25, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

==Size 15 Font==
I believe that we should increase the font size of the suggestions guidelines to font size 15. "Yes" if you agree, "No" if you don't, and "Your Mom" if for any other reason. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 22:43, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

#'''Your Mom''' - I really don't think making the font bigger is going to make people read it, if those people aren't reading it now.  I think it's a matter of laziness, not of difficulty reading print.  That being said, I can't think of a good reason why not - normally I would just abstain from voting, but since you gave me the option...  --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 00:38, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Your Mom''' - Although the new guidelines technically don't become solid for another few days, you probably should discuss the topic before posting voting on it. That said, I doubt it'll do anything much just to increase font size. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 18:27, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Your Mom''' - Why? they won't read it now, they won't read it with a 15 size font. I think it'd be useless, so I don't care much either way.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:02, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Your Mom''' - I don't actually have anything to say, I just think it's hilarious that everyone so far has used the joke vote.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:51, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yo Momma''' - is so fat, she eats Wheat Thicks!  Sorry about that, I couldn't resist.  What everyone said above, it won't make a difference because they still won't read it. --[[User:CPQD|CPQD]] 22:01, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Your zombie Momma''' - Honestly though, the problem is there is too much to read for so little, and what is basically an invitation to suggest on the front page "Suggest new features", which fails to even hint at the complexity of doing a decent suggestion nowadays.  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 01:20, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Your uber ninja zombie Momma''' - Even if you put it in size 100 font, taking up half of the page, the chances are they '''still''' wouldn't read it.--[[User:The General|The General]] 18:18, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Your pirate Momma, aaarrr!''' - There is no such thing as a fool proof system, cuz fools then to get smarter only find a way to destroy the system. --[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]] 22:20, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
-----------------------

==Peer Review Nazis==

I don't care if my idea got spamminated (geeks). What bothers me is that it got spamminated by the same four or five spaminators (geeks) who kill everyone elses ideas. Spamming someones idea so that it is removed from the suggested pages is tantamount to vandalism. 

Why not simply move them to an date ordered page where the suggestion can be read, along with the comments that were made. New players join the discussions who may agree with the idea and rebirth it.

These four of five geeks (you know who are) are self appointed judge, jury and executioners, and it must stop. From what I have read, they simply want to keep the game as it is, and probably wouldn't consider an idea unless it was dispensed by Lord Kevan himself. These four or five (geeks) should not be allowed to overule the suggestion pages themselves. Eat it geeks.

*Your ideas (Stealth and Multiple Player Damage/Grenade) got spaminated because <b>THEY SUCKED</b>.  You didn't do your research before you posted (as it says you should at the top of the suggestions page).  If you had, you would have known that area damage weapons and NPC/bot suggestions are seriously frowned upon.  We want to change the game for the better and we have changed the game for the better.  We also have the experience and fore-thought to know that your ideas would have made the game worse.  Now take your sour grapes elsewhere, and choke on them, Bitch! --[[User:CPQD|CPQD]] 23:34, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*Those "geeks" are the first people to vote. If your idea came from your ass then guess where it's going back? --[[User:ALIENwolve|ALIENwolve]] 23:51, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

of those pages.

:In short, we seem to be pre-emptively protecting pages because we ''might'' have issues with them, which seems against the nature of wiki to me. We should only be protecting pages because we ''do'' have clear, malicious vandalism issues with them. -- [[User:Odd Starter|Odd Starter]] <sup> [[User talk:Odd Starter|talk]] | [[Moderation|Mod]] | [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 08:00, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

:The thing about archives is you don't want them to be changeable. And I can't think of any way to organize them better. obviously the Reviewed and Rejected section should be editable but I think we should put in a bot to make sure Previous Days Suggestions become uneditable once closed. It'd just be saving the way they appeared on the suggestions page. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 18:07, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

==Voting for Rule/Guideline Regarding Suggestion Alterations==

I move that the following be added to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions#Making_a_Suggestion Making a Suggestion]. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 18:38, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

'''10.  Once you have posted your suggestion, it is considered complete.  Altering the suggestion mechanics after voting has begun nullifies existing votes, and is considered an abuse of the suggestions page.  Doing so will result in your suggestion to be moved to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions discussion] page, where you can work out the details and resubmit later if you desire.  It is preferred that you remove your own suggestion and resubmit a new version with changes, if changes are needed.''' 

'''11.  ''"Notes"'' added for ''clarification'' purposes, and correcting spelling/typos are permitted.  When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it with the clarification included for the voters who have already placed their votes.''' 

Vote <b>Yes</b>, <b>No</b>, or <b>Spam</b> below this line:

----
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 18:48, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 18:58, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 19:14, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:CPQD|CPQD]] 20:42, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 21:00, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Arcos|Arcos]] 21:43, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 21:56, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Hell Yes''' --[[User:Jak Rhee|Jak Rhee]] 00:52, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:24, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Don D Crummitt|Don D Crummitt]] 16:14, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]]-<font size=-3>[[User talk:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|Talk]]-[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 19:52, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' - [[User:Velkrin|Velkrin]] 02:54, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Kripcat|Kripcat]] 07:25, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 16:45, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes''' --[[User:Lord Evans|Lord Evans]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!</sup>]] 09:01, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
#'''Yes, Yes, A Thousand Times Yes''' --[[User:John Taggart|John Taggart]] 13:26, 21 February 2006 (GMT)
#'''YES! YES! YES! Sorry I'm having an orgasm. Yes.''' [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 00:20, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
----

==Some Rather Radical Reworking of Suggestions and Talk Suggestions==

I was just thinking about all the things that I think need to be done and I thought I'd get them down on paper to see how people respond to them. Pending community approval I'll start working on them. Please discuss under each point. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*'''Recodify Rules to Reflect Recently Changes'''
:With all the new rules that keep passing, who knows what the actual policy is? We should know where we stand. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::Definately. Current intro-rules-whatever portion of suggestions page is just a mess. And while we are at it, design the whole thing into a bit shorter form (page length wise). It's no wonder people don't read the rules, with text being what it is. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 21:27, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::AMEN to that!--[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 21:36, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::::Can we move the removing suggestions section to the talk page, and place it next to the cycling suggestions instructions?  Only a few experienced wiki users ever seem to remove the dupes and spam.  Most casual users probably don't read it, so all it does is add to the long list of rules and guidelines.  If anyone had a problem/question we could leave just a link in its place on the suggestions page for them to refer to. --[[User:CPQD|CPQD]] 00:18, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)


*'''Submit Suggestions Rules and Guidelines to Kevan for Approval'''
:I know he doesn't like to meddle in the wiki, but we've been basically making up all sorts of rules and regulations and game design assumptions in his stead when it comes to what people should propose. It would be nice to do a quick check to make sure he actually agrees with them. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::Considering many of the game changes that took place since the system was implemented would have been killed or even spaminated if they had been suggested, I support this.  (though I still think we need to be more critical of suggestion on these pages than Kevan has to be towards new ideas: It's pointless to have a page of the best suggestions if it's so big the really best ones are never read).  --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] 21:43, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::As a note, Kevan generally prefers not to interfere in wiki activity, and is more likely to tell everyone to agree on something themselves (which you've done). I've asked several times for feedback on wiki-related matters, and Kevan has politely called back "It's a wiki - do as you wish, and see if people agree with you". -- [[User:Odd Starter|Odd Starter]] <sup> [[User talk:Odd Starter|talk]] | [[Moderation|Mod]] | [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 22:22, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*'''Automate a Bot to Cycle Daily Suggestions Into Previous Days'''
::Would be really nice, sometimes current days suggestions cover around three days. And it doesn't require anything but a bit of copy-pasting and word replacement (compared to something like automated move to Peer Reviewed.) --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 21:27, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::Yes please. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:29, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT) 
::ONE thing though...the bot would have to be designed to make sure that every suggestion has at least 24 hours on the main page. If the bot moves everything from the last day at midnight and a suggestion got put up at 11pm it isn't fair for it to just have an hour. Maybe put the bot on a two day cycle instead of moving everything put up that day right at midnight? --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 17:19, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::Well, bot could just check the timestamp. Sure, it would require a bit more work on the bot, but since we are using a template the info required should be easily found. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 22:55, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*'''Automate a Bot to Archive Talk:Suggestions at Intervals'''
:If we did this we'd need a seperate section for voting that the bot wouldn't touch. We want voting to stay on the suggestions page for two weeks. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:29, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*'''Remove Undecided Page'''
:Its an ego stroke. It serves no real purpose, and it isn't used. It was just to show people that their idea wasn't hated. Since there shouldn't be malice in killing suggestions this is irrelevant. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::Maybe start removing those suggestions and re-posting them into voting? While at the same time not placing any new ones into that page --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 21:27, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::How about instead of moving it to the limbo that Undecided the suggestor gets to resubmit the suggestion in a month (and every two months until it is accepted or killed for good). Undecided is messy. Let's let voting reopen after a while and settle whether it is kept or killed. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:28, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT) 
::I've unfortunately seen the Undecided page used to spaminate a suggestion several times.  It would be nice to bring some of those ideas out to be reconsidered, and perhaps properly aproved or rejected.  Still, I know I have at least one sitting in Undecided Limbo that I just don't feel compelled to resubmit right now.  I don't think it should be flat out deleted, but I don't know if we should keep adding to it.  Perhaps a mod or other interested party can occasionally sift through the Undecideds and bring forth a potential gem or two every now and then to the main page.  It doesn't have to be resubmitted by the original author, now does it? --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:05, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*'''Remove Links to Humorous Suggestions Page'''
:All it has done is encourage people to post unacceptable "funny" suggestions. We dont need to delete it, but it doesn't need to be linked here either. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::There hasn't been that many purely humorous suggestions posted on main suggestion page, has there? At least not recently. Maybe removing it from voting/removing rules? --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 21:27, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::I don't recall there really being an abusive of the "Humorous Suggestions" policy as it stands.  We can certainly live with the occasional bit of levity.  I don't think we need to be concerned about this right now. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:14, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:Seriously? We've had zombie snakes on planes and "Big red button" today alone. I'm just gonna say case in point on this one. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 18:48, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT) 
::It's the exception, not the rule.  But it IS an exeption that kills kittens (if only by indirect methods of pissing off members of a certain, unnamed group).  Humorous suggestion page is a luxury, not a needed page, and as probably the first person who ever voted '''humorous''' on a suggestion, I realize how big of a mistake it can be.  Crap like big red button doesn't deserve to be kept, anywhere, ever.  With any other page's policy it would have counted as vandalism and been done away with forever, no spam votes, no nothing. --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]][[Project Welcome|<sup>W!</sup>]] 13:39, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:Holler if you want someone to use Spam-B-Gone on it. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 22:39, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*'''Remove Peer Rejected Page'''
:The peer rejected page was originally so people could see what they shouldn't submit. Seeing as how it is now the length of a novella, it fails to serve its purpose. We should delete this or turn it into the spam page, and just leave rejected ideas to the previous days section. We should focus instead on the dos and donts/dead in the water/frequently suggestion pages. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
::Sure, but there should be some page to place spaminated suggestions. Searching history is not that nice. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 21:27, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:::actually it's rather comprehensive if you leave out the first couple of days/weeks. after that only the spam was added. Just lose the actual peer rejected from the spam, lose the days that have no content and it is the most workable page of them all.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 22:02, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*'''Pare Down and Recompile the Frequently Suggested, Dead in the Water, and Dos and Donts Pages'''
Since the peer rejected and reviewed pages are now too long to be read through before suggesting, these should be the definitive source to guide new suggestion authors. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:A humble suggestion - create a "Table of Contents" type page for each, and divide the actual suggestions into, say, 4 or so pages.  The ToC pages would include the Title of the suggestion, vote count, and a one sentence summary and/or a keyword list, and link to the appropriate archival page.  This way, a quick search of the ToC page would increase the odds of finding what you're after.  Setting it up in this format would be a chore, but once there, it wouldn't be that difficult to maintain.   --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 21:44, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

*'''Redefine the Spam Vote'''
Too much contention, too vague--[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:08, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:*Spam vote is for ridiculous suggestions or suggestions that blatantly ignore the Suggestions Dos and Donts. Suggesting an idea for a grenade that deals 5 damage to 2 zombies while probably a dumb idea is not Spam because it isn't suggesting dealing 5 damage to every zombie in the area. Suggesting a skill to let zombies automatically order other zombies to attack would be Spam. If someone consistantly votes Spam and ignores the voting guidelines that Spam is not a strong kill I think it's fair for a moderator after warning them to revoke their right to use the Spam vote for a week or two. P.S. It sounds like you have a lot of rule changes in mind. The current rule change rules I wrote up only allow people to open voting on one rule change vote each week because I didn't want changing the rules to be a common thing. But I think we should revise the rules to say that a moderator can open voting for as many rule changes as they like.  --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 06:34, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
:* Definitely need to nail down exactly what a Spam vote should and should not be used for.  On the bright side, it seems to me that the Spam abuse has really dropped in the past week or so, so that's good.  I do feel that there should be a guideline whereby Spam-vote abuse can be corrected, if not warned against or worse.  While we're at it, though, it seems the Dupe vote could use some clarification as well.  Instead of it referring to "Previous Days Suggestions" as possible Dupe examples, wouldn't it make more sense if the Undecided suggestions where left out of the equation?   Effectively, a suggestion should only be voted as Dupe if there is no noticeable difference between it and a previous suggestion that was either Approved or Rejected.  This would also tie in with your proposal about the Undecided Suggestions pages.  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:21, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

==Suggestions Talk==
It has come to my attention that this is one hell of a huge ass page. So I have a proposition to, instead of putting talk pages into the archives every month, we should consider putting them into the archives every 15 days. Vote "Aye Mate" if you agree, "Nay Like a Horse" if you don't agree, or "It's Strap a Bomb to your Chest Day" if for any other reason. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 22:38, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

#'''Aye Mate''' (oh, I so wanted to use "It's Strap a Bomb to your Chest Day", but it's a good idea - so I'll stick with the pirate crap :)) --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 01:06, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''Aye Mate''' - (I hope neither of you live in America, bacause if you do, you've probably been taken from your house, blindfolded and gagged, and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay so Dick Cheney can lodge birdshot in your heads!) --[[User:CPQD|CPQD]] 01:13, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#*Nope. Safe in Canada (for now). [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 02:25, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#:*HELP!  I'm in Guantanamo Bay, and the VP just sprayed me with buckshot!  I need hel... *muffled noises as a bag is placed over his head and he is forced onto a human pyramid of naked bodies* --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 18:09, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
#'''Aye Mate''' - This page is overweight. --[[User:McArrowni|McArrowni]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 03:14, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''It's Strap a Pauly Shore Movie to your Chest Day''' - I say archive every month -or- when the page size goes over a set limit.  'Cause, traffic is squirelly like that.  New month, new archive, whether it needs it or not.  If the page never reaches that size, then one archive a month.  Else, you have 1 or more archives of "full" size, and one of the remainder.  List them as "January 1" and Januray 2", or maybe even "January 1 of 2" and "January 2 of 2". --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 07:32, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
#'''It's Strap a Bomb to your Chest Day''' - Because I feel like it!--[[User:The General|The General]] 08:59, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)

----

==Killing Things for One Side==
I was tempted briefly by Grim s's claim to fame of how his "Rocket Launcher" suggestion did so much "good" - to post a suggestion calling for both sides to be completely equal - zombies to talk like humans and fight with all weapons, and humans to have an infectious bite with digestion... but that crap is petty, and I'd rather start a discussion than resort to childish measures to get what I want.
:Am I the only one who finds it completely ridiculous for people to be killing suggestions solely on the fact that it is for one side and not the other?  The two most recent cases of this was on the "emoting" suggestion, and the "name weapon" suggestion.  It was explained in the former, exactly why it would not work (Jon Pyre stated it the perfectly) - and yet it still got kills for that reason.  And the later, because zombies don't have the intelligence for that - nor would they have the desire for naming weapons.  I know, I know, don't argue realism - but ''consistent nonsense'' please.  In no zombie lore do they have the capacity to do that.
I suspect this all goes back to some people believing that this page is run by survivors who wish to make the game completely boring for zombies.  That reasoning is utter crap - nobody is out to screw over one side or the other, and if they are - they are idiots (the game doesn't work without both sides - and everyone knows that).  I think it's getting ridiculous.  Zombies = Zombies.  Humans = Humans.  Humans =/= Zombies.  Zombies =/= Humans.  Am I wrong and am I missing something - or is this getting obnoxious for others too? --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 18:57, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
::Its a completely illogical argument, as it assumes all these ideas are going straight into the game right now. Please think of brain cells before voting on balance. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 21:44, 17 February 2006 (GMT)
:I think that voting Kill or Keep for actual game balance reasons should be taken out. Sure, saying that a new skill would be totally unbalanced as the game is right now is something, but simply killing it because you think that it would damage zombies when they're at 30% population is something completely different. Population numbers float a lot, so any reasoning on that aspect would be inherently flawed. Also none of the suggestions here are granted to go to the game at any time, so you would never know when the Zombies' numbers would be strong enough to stand a weapons upgrade for the humans, of when the Survivors are organized enough to stand zombies that break barricades more easily than the others. Killing a suggestion because it would be "unbalanced right now" is effectively preventing a good suggestion from coming up later when it's needed, making it a Dupe instead. Some long-term thinking would do well for us wikiers in the Suggestions page. --[[User:Omega2|Omega2]]<sub>[[User_talk:Omega2|Talk]]</sub> 12:52, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
*But I think it'd be ok to kill a suggestion if it would unbalance the game outright. Saying "Survivors don't need new skills, there are more survivors than zombies" is wrong because it's the same as saying "Survivors shouldn't get new things". But voting kill against a suggestion that is too powerful is ok, even if it could be balanced at some point. For instance a skill to increase axe accuracy by 5%. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 02:01, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

:It should be noted that i made the rocket launcher suggestion both as a joke and to make a point. Considering how quickly people stopped making crate drop suggestions afterwards, im going to assume that it had the desired effect. It is not the only suggestion i have made, and i have had a couple get through to peer reviewed. If anything, my claim to fame is the fact that i am one of the founding members of The [[The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]]. The fact that the entire WCDZ was <s>formed</s>, sorry, revealed because of that suggestion doesnt quite manage to top that. I merely list it as an accomplishment on my User page because i find the responses funny, seeing how worked up people could get over such a small thing. Fact of the matter is that only a handful read the talk page, and as such extreme measures must occasionally be taken. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 02:43, 20 February 2006 (GMT) 
::O.K O.K. - I'll give you that, sometimes extreme measures are needed.  It does seem like you and some others are just killing things based on sides.  When I say "based on sides", I don't mean if the suggestion is unbalancing, or a bad suggestion mechanically.  There are no "sides" when killing those kinds of suggestions - there is only the good of the game.  But killing things that aren't bad because 'it's not needed now' seems trite.  Who knows what the future holds for the game, and killing things because of reasons that don't have to do with maintaining game balance (or game flavor) is slightly obnoxious.  And it could cripple an idea (by making it a dupe for future suggestions) that could be wonderful in the games future.  If I'm missing some greater point, please clue me in. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 21:29, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
:::*''An afterthought to my conceding of extreme measures'' - I still think it sets a dangerous precedent.  If you suggested something not to improve game features, but to make a point - anybody can use the suggestion page not to suggest valid game features, but to make a point.  And I think that is an abuse of the suggestion page.  I believe points of that nature should be made in suggestion talk.  If you had brought it up in suggestion talk (I don't know, because I wasn't frequenting the talk page then) - then I concede entirely, as that would have moved it into the realm of "extreme measures".  But if you went straight to the suggestion to make your point - that seems an abuse of the suggestion page, and mostly to boast about it after the fact so people new to the suggestion page that do check out your user page see "hey, it worked for him - I should do that too". --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 16:31, 22 February 2006 (GMT)  
::Killing the "emote" suggestion because it wouldn't increase fun for zombies seemed a bit spiteful. How would it have hurt zombies for survivors to be able to go "Jon Pyre hastily loads a gun" rather than "Jon Pyre says *hastily loads a gun*"? Zombies and survivors are different and not every suggestion can address the wants of both. Just because zombies would like emotes too doesn't mean you should kill a suggestion that only gives survivors survivors emotes. It'd be like killing Feeding Groan because "it doesn't give survivors the ability to moan too". --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 22:33, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

----
==Enforcement of Invalid Votes==
I think we need to come up with a set system to actually enforce the "invalid votes" section of the guidelines.  I don't think I've ever seen any votes invalidated, but I know I've seen votes that should have been.  My idea is to let both the author of the suggestion and moderators invalidate votes, based on the guidelines.  The process would be to strikethrough the vote, followed by: "Invalid vote, [insert rule broken here].  [Sig]."  So for:

1. Kill - too hard to code --MaltonDude

it should look like this:

1. <s>Kill - too hard to code --MaltonDude</s>  Invalid vote, coding not a valid voting reason. [--Author (or Mod) name here]

Obviously, Mods would have the power to revalidate a vote if they think it is valid.  --[[User:Pinpoint|Pinpoint]] 21:12, 19 February 2006 (GMT)

*I like only letting the author or the moderator strike out votes. It gives authors a bit of responsibility for their suggestion. They left it, they can keep it tidy. Obviously there would need to be rules so authors don't delete any kill vote they like though. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 01:57, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

:*Can anybody say conflict of interest? If there is a seriously contentious vote that is being killed by one troll vote you can always contact a mod. Trying to create a fool proof system is a fools game, and we'll just end up making this place impossible to maintain. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 06:26, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

== Marking Peer Reviewed Suggestions on Previous Days ==

What if in the closed voting section on the <i>Main</i> Previous Days suggestion page we put <b>(PASSED)</b> next to the name of every suggestion that passed. We would <u>not</u> change the suggestion titles themselves, we wouldn't edit the individual date pages at all. It'd look like this:

<b>Feb 1st 2006</b>
*Katana
*Zombies Acid Spitting Skill <b>(PASSED)</b>
*Police Tanks & Helicopters
*Mangling Maw
*Portable Kegs of Beer <b>(PASSED)</b>


Many Peer Reviewed suggestions haven't been moved to Peer Reviewed yet. This would be pretty easy to add and would make it easy to quickly check out anything Peer Reviewed in the archives. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 15:15, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

*I don't mind that idea.  Something is going to have to be done soon - I think the last day added was December 8th, or something ridiculous like that.  If nobody has the time to keep up on the Peer Reviewed page, this seems like a reasonable alternative to me. --[[User:Blahblahblah|Blahblahblah]] 16:14, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

*I think authors should move their own stuff, and previous days will just become peer rejected. Easier all around. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font> 01:07, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

*We could do both. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 22:53, 23 February 2006 (GMT)