Suggestions/24th-Mar-2007

Closed Suggestions

1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.

campfire inside buildings

Timestamp:	SonOfChaos 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Type:	building improvement
Scope:	survivors
Description:	When UD was created, I doubt that Kevin could ever supouse that many various groups within the game could ever achieve such a high level of organization and metagaming that helps Zeds more than it helps Survivors. Zombies were supposed to be angry mob, survivors were supposed to use thier brains for their advantage. However nowadays, there are many organized Pkers and Gkers all around Malton that work together with Zed groups.In the malls and some other buildings, generators are useful only for improving search odds, but they are still very important. It is ridiculously easy to destroy a generator, (it takes about 3 AP) and very hard to set up one (maybe 50 ap), according to Siege PKer Guide, making malls very hard to defend during organized sieges. Anyway my suggestion is very simple: we should enable survivors to just pour some fuel in some sort of steel barrel (it's just like movies so it even adds flavour),set in on fire, and use it as a source of light. Only requirements for this should be a fuel can in the inventory (and perhaps zombie hunter level, but I am against totally new skill for this). Fuel should last only half the time it lasts when poured in generator (that's somewhat realistic because generators are more efficient) and it should improve search odds less than electric light. I am not sure about numbers, to be honest. From the outside campfire should make building look orange or pale yellow. Campfire won't be able to activate other building's functions (like powering mobile phone masts), it would just improve search odds a bit (but not as much as generators) If generator is set up again, fire should continue burning, but it will no longer provide any sort of bonus. Only when Generator is destroyed again, fire would become useful again. And about destroying campfire: well, in reality you can't really destroy fire, only extinguish it. Probably the best way would be that when enough Zeds break in (more than 10) fire would die automatically, thus making it immune to Gkers. I know this is not 100% specific, but nothing is set in stone, so if you just agree that there should be alternate source of light using only fuel cans, please vote keep. or just make bunch of witty/smartass comments...

Keep Votes

1. Keep - User:Joshtronfan 03 / 23 / 07 9:56 PM
2. Keep - well, as an author, I am entitled to one vote, so here it is. --SonOfChaos 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - I like it! --Marie^{The Grove on Tour} 11:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep I like the idea, as well as the reasoning. Perhaps make it when the building is ransacked. - BzAli 21:16, 25 March 2007 (BST)
   

Kill Votes
kill well you would proubly die smoke man

1. Kill - I don't like this much. Just seems like a survivor buff when GKers and PKers and zed break-ins are highly active. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - The guide you're quoting was written when generators only took one successful hit to destroy, things have changed. This is just a buff for no good reason. Though, if it were changed so that survivors in the building took 1 hp damage per action while the fire burned in the building (choking on smoke), that might be interesting in a mixed blessing sense. Boost searching half-assedly and suffer, or do it right at cost of being harder and more AP-draining. --Mold 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill It isn't needed at all. --Kamden 03:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - As Funt, a steel barrel with a fire in it is not sufficient to light an entire room or building as would a generator. -- 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - I would love to use a search buff like this for personal reasons, but I have to vote kill for flavor reasons. Yes, flavor reasons... You see, oil drum fires are normally started outside, not inside. Having one inside would cause a lot of smoke and would be a fire hazard. Imagine a would be GKer kicking the barrel over and burning the building down. Since there wouldn't be much benefit to improving search odds outdoors, my vote is no. --Uncle Bill 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - You're far more likely to smoke out the building or burn it down, as others have said. -- well it must die you will prouply die of the smokeSpecialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 03:59, 26 March 2007 (BST)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - you've earned a spam for talking out of your bahoochie. In my experience, it takes a lot more than 3AP to destroy a generator, and it takes a lot less than 50AP to find one and set it up, on average (especially if you're in a mall, which is the situation you cite). Now to the worst part - this idea that a building is simply a hollow box, and that one source of light will suffice to search the entire building. Where's your imagination gone? A generator provides lighting for an entire building - which probably includes several floors and various rooms per floor. A fire in a single room is hardly going to be as effective, is it? I'm not arguing for total realism, but realism within the confines of the game world, yes please. --Funt Solo 08:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
2. A campfire inside a building? That's new. You'll probably burn the building down. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Hey dudes, check out this new campfire I just built, What the?? My hand is on fire!! Ahh!! It Burns! it Burns!! --Officer Johnieo 16:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Incomplete. So, basically, the suggestions is for an alternate source of light inside buildings? Uh, whats wrong with generators? I've found as many as THREE in ONE search. Your also forgetting it isn't just YOU searching. Odds are there are lots of other people are also looking for generators and fuel. Not to mention they are only particularly relevant for malls, NTs and hospitals.--Pesatyel 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Broken- The logic behind this, that is. Unless you put in that the survivor dies due to oxygen asphyxiation or through burning the building down around him. Although this might give a new use to firefighters, who might automatically slap the offender upside the head for trying to do something so stupid.--Grigori 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Only you can prevent Malton fires! --Vancouver Smith 18:23, 25 March 2007 (BST)

---

Noob Door Bashing

The suggestion received 4 dupe votes and was found to be a duplicate of this peer reviewed one. -- 20:21, 25 March 2007 (BST)

---

Looting

Timestamp:	Jon Pyre 12:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivor, Consumer, Subskill of Shopping
Description:	Here's what looting would do. When you kill a zombie in a ransacked building it is assumed that was the zombie impeding your way on the specific floor, room, or corridor by the pile of rubble you wanted to search for items. After landing the killing blow on a zombie your search percentages in that ransacked building return to normal until you leave that building (it's assumed that once you leave the zombies have time to wander around and set themselves up in inconvenient places again). EXAMPLES: You are badly infected and enter a hospital with ten zombies in it. You unload your shotgun and manage to kill one before you die, then search and find a FAK, with just enough AP remaining to escape to safety. You are a lone scientist in a suburb that is 90% ransacked. Every NT in the building is overrun by five or more zombies. You raid the nearest NT, using up your pistol ammo to kill a zombie and then searching discover a single syringe with your remaining AP before you have to escape to the warehouse you've been sleeping in by yourself. PURPOSE: Survivors have little incentive to strike it out on their own. As soon as a suburb is taken the lone "feral" survivors that are left will flee because without items they can't persist. This creates dead suburbs with no survivors, where zombies have nothing to do but either leave to follow the survivors or twiddle their rotted thumbs and wait for fresh incursions. Allowing lone survivors to exist semi-independantly of the attacks squads needed to clear ransacked buildings will: A) Help survivors by allowing them to find items in ransacked area with whatever AP remains after killing one, conserving enough to escape as well. B) Increasing the number of survivors in sacked suburbs. This boost should increase the number of independant survivors toughing it out in non-resource buildings. A little bit of prey in an otherwise overrun neighborhood should make things interesting for the zombies that choose to keep the territory while they wait for a serious survivor assault in the form of a coordinated group, and help low level zombies gain xp in any area. Note: This would also provide a way to slightly negate the power of zerging when it comes to ransack.

Keep Votes

1. Author Makes it somewhat more viable for lone survivors to eke a dangerous living (probably not a long one) in heavily occupied suburbs. This helps improve the game for both sides by slightly buffing lone survivors and by keeping a bit of hunting available for zombies. It's a bit like laws that require throwing the small fish back in the water to preserve the fishing stocks. --Jon Pyre 12:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep- I kind of like this- it has excellent flavr / play value, IMO. Killing EVERY zombie in a building is really hard, and killing just one should be of some tactical value to the killer. And no, this doesn't totally negate ransack; the building remains ransacked, the doors can't be closed, barricades can't be built, and other survivors can not search the place. At best, the guy who killed the zombie gets maybe 35 AP to spend searching. And that's if he doesn;t get attacked while searching... --S.Wiers^ctdp_NTmap^x:oo 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep -It's a direct anti-endgame idea. The zombies will never win! Never! --AlexanderRM 00:42, 27 March 2007 (BST)nice idea
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill - The Point in Ransacking a building is to stop survivors from Barricading and Searching...With this suggestion your totally changing the way Ransack works...(Why should you be able to search a building if you kill a zombie. If the building is trashed even if you kill a zombie or not you shouldn't be able to search...)--Brainz 12:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re Yes the tables are overturned and the shelves scattered on the floor but all the items are there. The problem is that you can't sift through while there are zombies around. If there are no zombies it makes sense as part of your search to straighten up before continuing but it isn't like fixing the building causes items to manifest that weren't there the whole time. This does affect ransack but it doesn't totally change it. It'd still prevent all barricading. And the only way to escape the search penalty is to spend either a lot of AP or a lot of ammunition or both getting past a zombie. As a survivor and zombie player I'd like this for my survivor, because then life could be about more than escaping to the nearest clustered mall, and as a zombie I like this because it means more vulnerable prey scurrying around by itself in areas I control.--Jon Pyre 14:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
2. I have to agree with Brainz. This really defeats the purpose of having Ransack. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
3. As Axe Hack. --Kamden 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Well my problem with it is that you might get lucky and kill a allready wounded zombie, and then get a free ride to ammoville, I see your point, but I think there has to be a limit for how long the search rates stay high (say like 5 searches, and then the zombies have moved themselfves back infront of the keg you were looting.) --Officer Johnieo 16:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re Unless you use up your entire supply of shotgun ammo you aren't going to have that much AP left to search after killing a zombie. And you'd have to leave eventually, there would be other zombies there so you could stick around indefinitely and keep coasting off that one kill. And while you could luck out once in a while, that still means a survivor somewhere had to spend some AP whittling that zombie down. So this encourages lone play as well as teamwork. --Jon Pyre 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - Brainz makes a good point. -- 18:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - Nerfs ransack. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - The zed may not be there anymore, but the place is still trashed... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:35, 25 March 2007 (BST)
8. Kill - All said above. - BzAli 21:19, 25 March 2007 (BST)
9. Kill - I understand the reasoning, but don't agree w/ the implementation. I think "Looting" would be better represented by simply having it increase search rates across the board, but that'd likely get voted down even faster... Not by me, though. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 04:02, 26 March 2007 (BST)
10. Kill - As below: Ransack also affects buildings with NO zombies in them, so obviously ransack search rates do not have to do with the zombies but with the actual ransacked nature of the building. The zombies being there prevent you from repairing the ransack, which in turn hinders your search. This would make more sense if it allowed you to repair the ransack after killing a zombie, but that would truly be broken (and spam-worthy). --Matt Scott ⁹ 13:41, 26 March 2007 (BST)
11. Kill As above. I'd rather be able to search ransacked buildings at a low rate anyway. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:11, 26 March 2007 (BST)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Boost trenchcoaters...and you defeat the point of ransacking. The suburb IS supposed to be destroyed via ransacking, and it's up to you to reclaim it.--ShadowScope 15:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
2. spam - but ransack works even when there are no zombies present. Doesn't this nerf that? --Funt Solo 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re It doesn't really affect ransack when there are no zombies present. I mean, a building that has no zombies present can hardly be said to be ransacked, even if it is. It's just 1AP away from being totally fixed by any survivor. If someone did kill the last zombie present sure they would get this bonus but it'd make more sense to just repair the building, then they could barricade it too. --Jon Pyre 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

   • re - so this is just simply nerfing ransack. Your logic is flawed - not finding stuff isn't due to the zombies, it's due to the ransack. The zombies stop you repairing the damage. You're saying that survivors should be able to "sort of" repair the damage, before they actually do. Whatever way you look at it, it's a plain old nerf. --Funt Solo 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

3. spam sorry but i don't think you sshould be able to do anything inside most buildings while there are zeds inside! OK in a mall with 100+ survivors it might be reasonable for one to be reinforcing the doors to stop the mob getting in while his mates fill the other with a whole lot of lead but in a smaller building with just 1 or 2 survivors ignoring a zed to search is just plain ridiculous... --Honestmistake 15:26, 25 March 2007 (BST)

---

XP Level Up

Original Time - •▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)|

Removed by author. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:08, 25 March 2007 (BST)

---