Suggestions/29th-Apr-2007

Rules for Previous Suggestions

• These suggestions can only be voted on now, and only up to two weeks from the day they were submitted.
• You can make new suggestions on the Suggestions Page.

Voting

1. You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated.
2. Before voting please read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested Ideas Page to read about concepts that have been generally considered unworkable in the past. You do not need to follow the guidelines on these pages but they are worth consideration before casting a vote.
3. One vote per user. No exceptions. You cannot use multiple wiki accounts to vote on a suggestion.
4. To Vote, use the [edit] button next to the suggestion you wish to vote for. Then enter your vote in the suggest_votes field. Please ensure that your vote is placed before the double brackets of the particular suggestion (ie the "}}")
5. Votes must include a signature in order to be considered valid votes. To sign a vote, use --~~~~. Please remember to sign your votes! Unsigned votes will be deleted after 30 minutes or when found.
6. Each Suggestion will be open to voting for two (2) weeks, measured from the suggestion's Timestamp, unless it is a Dupe or Spam. If, at the end of that time, there are two thirds (2/3) more Keep votes than Kill votes, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page. Otherwise, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Rejected Suggestions page.

Rules for Discussions

Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions. This page and archived suggestion pages are only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss any of the suggestions or votes here, please select a specific vote's page by clicking on its link under Current Day's Suggestions and use the associated Talk page. Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. The Suggestions talk page can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted.

Valid Votes

• Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit.
• Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit. If you need to discuss a rule fix, use the discussion page.
• Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions.

Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described below in the Removing Suggestions section. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.

Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM. Spam votes will be counted as Kill when votes are tallied.

• Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion.

Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described below. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied.

Invalid Votes

• Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide.
• X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote. You are voting on the merit of THIS suggestion, not how it compares to others.
• Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote.

Comments

• Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.
• Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout <s></s> in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

All Caps

Try to avoid YELLING, writing in bold, or using italics, except when emphasizing a point which has escaped other voters.

VOTING EXAMPLES

Keep Votes

1. Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
2. Keep - Best. Suggestion. Evar. --Bob_Zombie 04:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
   
3. Keep - Good sugestion. no signature --FakeSuggester 07:39, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - This is a terrible idea, but you can totally fix it up. --NegativeGal 06:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
   • Re - Please be more specific about how to fix it on the discussion page. --MrSuggester 14:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
     • Re - Sure, I have detailed my proposed fixes here. --NegativeGal 23:38, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
2. Kill - You will eat my poopie and love it! --PooEater 11:12, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
   • Note - Inane vote removed. Defend in discussion. --DaModerator 11:13, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels is an inappropriate Survivor Class. --NoFunAtAll 09:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
2. Dupe - Duplicate Suggestion --AnotherSuggester 05:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)

---

Removing Suggestions

Suggestions can be removed for two reasons:

• Dupe If a suggestion is a duplicate of an earlier one, and has recieved at least 3 Dupe Votes linked to the Duplicated suggestion, then it can be deleted as per the guidelines below.
• Spam If a suggestion is deemed by the community to be either not made seriously, or simply completely awful and not worthy of inclusion on the Suggestion page for a two-week period, it can be Spaminated. The suggestion may be sent to either the Peer-Rejected or Humorous suggestions pages.

Eligibility for Spamination is acheived if there are at least 7 Spam votes and the number of Spam votes are equal to 2/3rds or greater of the total number of votes, with the author vote included in all these tallies. In addition, A Sysop can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps; this includes their own spam vote. Suggestions may not be removed as spam unless voting has been open for 6 hours.

Authors are not allowed to use Re: to defend their work or correct the editor after a suggestion has been removed.

When removing a Suggestion, you take the responsibility to be mature regarding the situation. Each Suggestion is an author's child and they can be come quite passionate in regards to the Suggestion's removal. Please do the following when removing a Suggestion:

• Duplicate - If the removed Suggestion is a duplicate, you must:
  1. Confirm that there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate.
  2. List the number of Dupe Votes received.
  3. Provide a link(s) to the Suggestion that it duplicates.
  4. Optionally note the Linked Suggestion status: Reviewed/Undecided/Rejected.
  5. Sign the removal.
  6. Be Polite and make no additional comments.

• Humorous - If the removed Suggestion is deemed humourous, you must:
  1. State that the Suggestion has been deemed humorous.
  2. Move the Suggestion to the Humorous Suggestions page.
  3. Sign the removal.
  4. Be Polite and make no additional comments.
  5. Bring fourth a vandalism case against the user who posted it citing rule 13 of making a suggestion.

• Spaminated - If the removed Suggestion has become eligible for Spamination, you must:
  1. List the number of Spam Votes received and the total number of votes.
  2. State that the Suggestion was Spaminated.
  3. List or summarize/paraphrase the comments/reasons made on the Spam votes.
  4. Move the suggestion to Peer Rejected Suggestions page.
  5. Sign the removal.
  6. Be Polite and make no additional comments.

---

It is your responsibility to be a mature editor.

DO NOT PLACE A VOTE AFTER DEADLINE

If the two week deadline for voting is passed, your vote WILL BE DELETED AND IGNORED.

---

Last Words

Found to be a dupe of Dying Words with 10 keep, 1 kill and 8 dupe votes -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:41, 30 April 2007 (BST)

---

Retaliate

Timestamp:	-Captain Leah- 17:53, 29 April 2007 (BST)
Type:	Skill (Survivor).
Scope:	All Zombies and Humans.
Description:	It is the second day of a zombie seige upon a hospital. After several hours of frantic barricading and shooting, the survivors within the building are almost all asleep. One or two are lying down tiredly, reading a book or thinking thoughts. They begin to doze off. Then with a loud crash, the barricade at the doors is broken to bits, and zombies come rushing inside. One hacks at one of the sleeping survivors, killing him. But another makes the mistake of attacking one of the more lightly sleeping survivors, who leaps up and attacks him with an axe. Simply put, the skill 'Retaliate' is a 100XP Millitary or Civilian Skill than involves the whole online/offline routine. Lately, people have been using up all of their action points to perform that last search or revive, instead of saving some. In a real situation, people wouldn't work until they were drop-dead tired, they'd save some energy. I'm not talking about 'save one AP for an emergency evacuation,' I'm talking around the lines of 'save five to ten AP.' Why? Retaliation. If you are offline, maybe even online, and a zombie attacks you, if you have AP left, you will automatically attack with the best melee weapon you have on you, even if it's your fists! Zombies will do the same with claws. The retaliatory attack costs one AP, and comes into play either all the time or half the time. What this does is it provides an incentive for survivors to save their AP and carry around a melee weapon, but it isn't only a survivor jack (like if you get attacked by a particularly stupid zombie with 3 HP left). This is a zombie boost as well. See, while survivors do get the edge in fighting back, zombies have that same skill, and something more. Smart survivors will keep 5 or ten AP left in reserve, because the automatic attack may save themself. However, it's that much better for zombies. Five or ten AP can find you quite a lot of stuff, and for zombies to know that their counterparts inside may be sacrificing supplies for this, it may allow them to also take the initiative.

Keep Votes

1. Author Keep -I'd be glad to sacrifice some of my AP if it meant saving my comrades, even if I had to give up some supplies. Because you may as well be dead when you wake up [in a breached building] anyways, using up a few AP whacking back at my foes seems to me a fine way to go out. ---Captain Leah- 17:53, 29 April 2007 (BST)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Low health zeds would love this. They get themselves killed by the survivors "retaliating" when low on health while still active and just stand up again. They get to attack, waste my AP and stand right back up again. Retaliation is only valuable against PKers. Sure health matters to the zeds, but not as much. The skill you propose is way to much of a buff for them if used the way I suggested. - Whitehouse 18:46, 29 April 2007 (BST)
2. Kill kill kill - What if everybody in a mall decided to take a day off of spending AP, and a horde of zombies broke through? Normally the zombies would be completely victorious due to their superior strategy, but in this case it would make it only slightly more difficult for zombies to kill a significant number of harmanz. If zombies die while attacking, it's only 1-6 AP to stand up.--SomethingsAwry 18:48, 29 April 2007 (BST)
3. Kill/Change - On the surface, it seems like a good idea - that is, until you realize it drains the defender's AP. I would vote keep for this if you changed a couple things:

   • Limit the number of auto attacks (either one per attacker or one per defender).
   • Let the defending player set their own options for which weapon they want to retaliate with. Why limit it to melee weapons? --Uncle Bill 22:44, 29 April 2007 (BST)

4. Unclear. Make it so the person has to allocate AP in defense. Say I want to "retaliate" 10 attacks. Well then I have to allocate 10 AP (which is immediately spent"). After hitting 0 AP, those 10 AP come into play as the suggestion said. This wouldn't be an "auto-attack" since the AP was specifically spent (at least *I* don't see it that way).--Pesatyel 05:03, 30 April 2007 (BST)
5. Kill - Attacking someone would be less fun if they automatically attacked back. --Toejam 13:04, 30 April 2007 (BST)
6. Kill - Why would it be limited to melee weapons? It's a lot easier to pull a trigger if you're tired than it is to swing an axe. Besides, this isn't even close to being balanced. During a breach, this would do nothing but waste survivor AP (as this skill does not automatically dump the body, so zeds can just keep standing up). Of course, that would never happen, as zeds would never again have any AP at all since survivors would just do what Swiers mentions, effectively preventing zombies from being able to play at all. The net effect would be to turn zombies into immobile NPCs. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 15:32, 30 April 2007 (BST)
7. Kill - That's the danger point of this game; when you go to sleep, you can still be killed. there should never be an auto-attack in the game, you should have slept at a better location. --Heavy DDR 17:06, 8 May 2007 (CEN)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Auto-attacks are bad, deal with it. --Saluton 18:27, 29 April 2007 (BST)
2. Spam - Zombie boost my ass, this would ruin the game for zombies. Consider the following scenario: Zombie McDeadman stands outside, logged off, waiting for a revive as players are more or less forced to do when dead. Trenchie McIdiot runs out and attacks Zombie. For every attack Trenchie makes, Zombie looses an AP as well as perhaps some HP's. Sure, Trenchie maybe looses some HP's from the "Retaliation" but he can (at any time he chooses) whip out a FAK or just walk away from the fight and go to get healed. Zombie's player then logs on, has almost no APs, can't play his character (whether alive or dead) and now hates you for making this suggestion. And it sucks even worse for a "defending" survivor, who looses AP's and HP's and maybe dies, while the attacking zombie happily uses "digestion" to repair any damage done by the survivor's rather weak "Retaliation" attack. The only people this helps is the attackers, which makes it a rather bad defense; no thank you! --Seb_Wiers VeM 18:53, 29 April 2007 (BST)
3. Spam There may be a way to make auto attacks work, but this is'nt it. Sorry.--Seventythree 18:57, 29 April 2007 (BST)
4. Spam - No auto-attacks please --Duke Garland^LCD 21:38, 29 April 2007 (BST)
5. Spam - Just no --Tauron^{Talk GRR!} 01:09, 30 April 2007 (BST)
6. Spam - Auto-attacks are bad, m'kay? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 01:24, 30 April 2007 (BST)
7. Spam - Why let the computer have all the fun? That's like sitting on your desk while your computer goes to Seaworld.--Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 09:38, 30 April 2007 (BST)
8. Spam - Take this scenario, two players have this skill, one attacks one, so the other retaliates, however the attackers retaliation triggers, and thus this goes on until someone dies or theres no AP left. Also theres no viable way of checking if someones "online" - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 13:14, 30 April 2007 (GMT)}
9. As above spam and kill votes. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:38, 30 April 2007 (BST)
10. Game controlled/supplied bots? Na, I don't think so -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:46, 30 April 2007 (BST)
11. Spam - as above--Vista 11:49, 3 May 2007 (BST)
12. Insanely strong Kill -This is so double-edged that if it costed -1,000,000 XP still only idiots would buy it.--AlexanderRM 02:28, 4 May 2007 (BST)
13. Auto-Attack:Auto-Spam - this is a turn-based game. --Funt Solo 15:51, 4 May 2007 (BST)

---