Talk:Frequently Suggested

Stockpiles, etc.

I suggest you add stockpiles to the list, they are VERY frequently suggested- and shot down. --Hhal 16:40, 31 August 2007 (BST)

The List

The biggest problem with this page is that the links are faulty in many cases. They usually point to the decision page, like Peer Reviewed Suggestions, but the suggestion in question is eventually archived, regardless of dispensation. It's going to take time to locate the actual examples and link them properly. Perhaps an alternative (in addition) to that solution would be to better summarize the general idea of the suggestions listed here, like they are in Dead in the Water. --otherlleft ^W! 16:45, 22 August 2006 (BST)

• I've begun going through The List to correct the link and add a general summary line for scanning convenience. --otherlleft ^W! 21:41, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Dead in the Water

X-Ray Vision

Total prohibition on all suggestions of how to use windows is ridiculously over-broad. How about having criticisms that actually apply to more than the most extreme tenth-of-a-percent of the possible ideas in the category? The latest one had a reasonable limitation, both from the pov of flavor-text and from the pov of keeping it from being overpowering. --Dan 22:37, 6 May 2006 (BST)

X-rays for survivors and X-rays for Zombies. So I don't think we should really put this in "Dead in the Water" - Jedaz 14:27, 24 August 2006 (BST)

I don't think this page is intended so much as policy as it is practicality. Maybe it's possible for someone to come up with a good idea in this category, but this page puts you on notice that the wiki users are likely to reject it out-of-hand. --otherlleft ^W! 21:42, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Barricade Negation

Should a footnote be added to include the new Interference ability? --Sexy Rexy Grossman 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not negation. Negation is ignoring the barricades as if they didn't exist at all. Interference just makes it harder to build them. The effect of the barricades is exactly the same once they're built. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What Midianian said, although the section on weakening barricades just needs removal, or clarification that it means getting around barricades without attacking barricades.--Karek^maps?! 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Weaponry

The current weapons are actually very unbalanced, in my opinion. Pistols are far outclassed by the shotgun. And both are fairly unbalanced when you look at zombie attacks, which don't require any sort of ammo. While I might be stating obvious fact, people who decide what belongs in the "Dead in the Water" section don't... or they're zeds.

People aren't asking for nukes or instant-zombie-killing-devices-o'-doom, they are asking for something to bridge the gap between the shotgun and the pistol (sniper rifles or assault rifles) or something that does less damage than a pistol, but has more ammo (sub-machine guns).

Skills would further make these weapons "balanced".

Military weapons, it would seem to me, could only logically be found in forts. Wouldn't this make these weapons more difficult to find and utilize? And would it not also at a greater importance to forts, which would become targets for more zombies? Seems like that would add another aspect to the game.

If the game becomes too "unbalanced" for the zombie players, then they can have some other skill. Oh, and how they need them. With the ability to gain HP while attacking, drag their enemies to the streets so their comrades can finish them off, ransack buildings, and make "Headshot" seem like a minor deal, they really do need more skills.

That's my case. ----Bob Z Moose 19:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Player Killing

Obviously as a part of the game if a well thought through skill can be developed then it shouldn't be shot down just because it's related to PKing. For the stupid PKing suggestions, yes. For the ones which have been thought through, no. This should go for some other sections of this, there's far too many people saying "this is in frequently suggested, therefore it's crap", which doesn't necessarily hold. --Daxx 19:49, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Insta-Kills

I don't see why this should be forbidden as a game mechanic open to suggestions. We already have Syringes that do exactly this. I agree that quick kills should be limited, but I really don't think they're terrible when they do happen. Standing up isn't that big a deal. --Dickie Fux 17:44, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Corpses as Zombie First Aid Kits

Apparently, Kevan has ignored this and made Digestion overpowered... Can't believe it... --User:Srdestructiveche

Current Projects

I'm gonna make a few edits and try and clean this up a little bit. If you don't like what I do you can change it back. - Dark Phantom^Talk 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead links?

Under player killing, the two links in the sentence "Therefore, skills that are of sole use to PKers or gameplay changes that legitimize PK behaviours are similarly shot down" appear to lead to empty pages. I'm not sure where they're supposed to point, but they should be fixed or removed. --Pdeq 09:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a strange problem; those links (1, 2) do have content - you can see it if you hit the view source tab - but the wiki doesn't display it. I've seen this happen to a couple of pages recently - I thought the page being too long triggered it, but the exact same content as on one of those pages displayed perfectly when I cut and pasted it into my sandbox. So I don't know what causes it, or what the solution is. --Toejam 16:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The page is too long. When using the "preview" button in sandbox, the content was displayed but came along with this warning: "WARNING: This page is 54 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." I think we need to (1) figure out a good way to split the page, following whatever protocol this wiki normally uses and (2) Get a sysop to deal with it, because the page is protected. --Pdeq 20:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)