Suggestions/23rd-Nov-2006

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.

Fort Border

Timestamp:	Gage 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	graphical change
Scope:	forts
Description:	It is hard to tell where forts begin, and where they end now. Here is what they look like now: http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6020/beforepy9.jpg That is over two screenshots... so I had to edit it so that it would all be the same size. I think a border needs to be added around the fort. Like this: http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6480/afternk6.jpg This way, you will be able to see where you can enter and stuff. Note - I know those images look shitty. Please do not vote on my art skills (or lack thereof)

Keep Votes

1. Keep - I haven't made a suggestion in a long time :D--Gage 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep - My ghost says it's freaking obviously needed --Grognor 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep without a doubt. Maybe use the same color as the fort template on the wiki?--Blue Command Vic ^DvB 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Exactly that? No... But yeah, some common border to make it clear, 'cause it really is confusing. -Certified=Insane^☭ 01:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep - More convenient for everyone.--J Muller 01:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Keep - Well there is supposed to be a big wall there anyways. --Officer Johnieo 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep- That's a good idea.--Grigori 02:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Keep - Genius! --Wikidead 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Keep - See above.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 03:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Worthless piece of... What is that? MSPaint? Oh, gawd.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Keep - Seems like a decent idea. --Winnan 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Keep - Seems good to me.--Mr yawn 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Keep - after all who wants to invade a crappy looking fort--Zbmainiac 06:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
14. You know, I always figured the forts would have a fence around them (not that it really has much to do with this suggestion).--Pesatyel 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    The Kevan just changed them. They do now.--Gage 07:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

15. Keep Make it visible from outside the fort too, and it would reduce futile free running attempts into the fort from the surrounding buildings --Panserbjørn 11:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Keep - It would be useful. The Mad Axeman 11:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Keep - Make it so. --Paradox244 ^{W! TJ!} 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Ding Dong - the witch is dead. I don't understand Gage's comment above - is he saying that this was implemented during voting? Or something else? --Funt Solo 16:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Oh, wait - now I get it. Jeez - I've gotta lay off these mushrooms. --Funt Solo 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Keep - For simple logic,this suggestion is teh win. (P.S. - Funt, I've left you a message on your talk page.) --Sgt. John Taggart^{UNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ!} 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Sure, why not? Reduces confusion. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Keep - A simple solution to a simple problem. --GhostStalker 22:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Keep - Idea stealer. --Joe O'Wood 23:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Obvious - Implementing this should be a no-brainer, too. --Xoid 23:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Keep - Minor, but helpful --Sgt. Expendable ^JG 00:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Keep just to further the absurd ratio of keep votes to kill/spam/dupe votes. Let's go for a record. Wfjeff 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Keep - wow, for once you're not killing a suggestion. It MUST be good. --Some guy 10:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Keep - The good maps of Malton I've seen already do this.--Wbleak24 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
28. keep def. needed. Asheets 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Fort Body Clearance

Timestamp:	Funt Solo 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Game Mechanic
Scope:	Fort Dynamics.
Description:	Let's face it, if you're in the fort, you'd try to clear out the dead bodies. From a gameplay perspective, the forts will always be a stand-off, because it doesn't matter how many times you kill a zombie - if they choose to stay inside the perimeter, you can never get rid of them. My Solution: If you're in any fort square, except for the Gatehouse, whether you're in a building or not, and there are dead bodies present, you'll get a new button, giving you the option to "Dump Body Outside Gate - 5AP". Upon pressing the button, you, and the body at the top of the stack, are moved to the Gatehouse automatically, with you inside, and the body outside. (You get 1XP). Notes: If you're inside a building, you can still opt to just dump a body outside in the same square for 1AP and 1XP. It's always possible to move into the Gatehouse from within the fort, so this can never bypass barricades. To get from any square in the fort to inside the Gatehouse costs from 1-2AP. Add the cost of dumping, it's 2-3AP. Double it (for carrying a body), it's 4-6AP. Make a compromise, and it's 5AP, which is where I got 5 from. An earlier suggestion posited dumping over the walls, but at corners there's a choice of target squares, and anyway, if you can't free run over the walls, then how can you dump a body over them? This is open to a sort-of griefing, as your dead body might want to stay in the fort to get a revive. Tough. This is teleportation - but it's very specific, and for a good reason. The battle for the fort should be concentrated at the Gatehouse - this aids in that, and allows the possibility (however slim) of a 100% survivor-controlled fort. Surely the hordes won't allow such a thing?

Keep Votes

1. Ding Dong - my other idea involved large catapults. --Funt Solo 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep - Needed. Badly. --Paradox244 ^{W! TJ!} 15:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep - My next idea involves zambah capataults to shoot themselves in. Yes, I know. The horde never learned spelling. --Blue Command Vic ^DvB 15:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep - Much better then the other one. This will make forts easier to hold, putting on, or near, level with malls.--Mr yawn 15:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep - Uggh! Man what did this zombie eat? Feels like I'm carrying too people at once. Or at least all the major organs..... Ohh wait --Officer Johnieo 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Keep - I'll vote keep on any well-thought-out "remove-dead-bodies-from-fort"-type suggestions. Although I would like to see zombie-flinging catapults . . . ! --Sgt. John Taggart^{UNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ!} 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re - I gave serious thought on how to make a suggestion about zombie-flinging catapults not sound like a humorous ZOMGWTFCENTAURS idea. Maybe one day... --Funt Solo 16:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Yes. Thank you. -Mark 16:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Well, we know it needs fixing, because at the moment a zombie in a fort can't be removed by any means. This is a reasonable way to do it. Whoever mentioned zombie catapults is crazy -- surely you want some kind of mangonel, or even a trebuchet to fire them out of loopholes. ((Daah -- let's vote keep in the kill section)) --ExplodingFerret 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Yes, zombies need to be cleared before an acutal siege can begin. -Certified=Insane^☭ 17:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Keep - It only makes sense.--J Muller 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Keep - Yes please thank you. --Burgan 18:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Keep - What can I say, other than that it makes sense.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Keep - its good, I hate the fort how it is now --Warrior X2 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Keep It does seem a bit difficult to hold forts as is, especially considering zombies can enter the interior of the gatehouse from anywhere in the fort, making it almost impossible to hold if there are any zombies in the fort. --Jon Pyre 20:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Keep - Makes sense that you'd be able to police up the dead bodies. And since the Gatehouse is the only place where anybody can enter the fort from, it makes sense to dump the bodies out of there. --GhostStalker 22:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Keep - In principle. It's well intentioned, but the kill voters have also made some extremely valid points. I vote keep for the idea, but I would strongly suggest that the necessity of it be established first. --Panserbjørn 22:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Keep - I, and probably every survivor around the fort area, was thinking the exact same suggestion (except without the XP gain). There needs to be a way to clear the fort of zombies because zombies have too much of an advantage over survivors when they enter (I was planning on moving my zed character over to the fort for this advantage). However, if this were to be implemented, this would give survivors a huge edge against zombies, so I suggest giving zombies something as compensation. -- Wikidead 00:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Keep , If this keeps up it could end up being a Zombie prison just as well. Because with no one able to dump the zombies people might just leave and just constantly barricade the gatehouse, trapping a horde inside. --Rogue 02:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Keep- Although I think catapults would have been better...--Grigori 03:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    Keep - Although I would prefer a little something differnt. You are standing outside the armoury. There is a crude-looking sign pointing eastwards, with 'Harmans' scribbled on it. You see column after column of the undead corpse shambling out the gatehouse, as far as the eye can see. There is a faint chanting of 'harmans' in the air, along with the sickly sweet stench of rotting corpses. [unsigned vote --Funt Solo 11:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)]

20. Keep - Forts are currently like giant 8 block sized inside areas with one block sized door. If I can clear any other building, then I should also be able to clear this one. --Niilomaan ^GRR!•M! 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Keep - it just doesn't make sense that at present you can't dump a body out of an enclosed perimeter. The extra AP cost to do so is a balanced penalty for dragging the corpse that little bit further to the outer wall. Moyes 10:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Keep - As per everyone else --Gene Splicer 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Keep - its impossible to hold the forts without the ability to dump bodies out side, we need this [unsigned vote --Funt Solo 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)]

23. Keep - Fort is impossible to clean if can't dumb bodies out --Mosqu ^GCM 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
24. keep - been playing for well over a year and have never visited a fort yet (with any of my 3 characters) but this might encourage me to. It seems fair and well thought out and could ony be improved by the addition of aforementioned catapults etc...--Honestmistake 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
25. 'keep ftw! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Keep - I have a character who just visited a fort, and this is very accurate. If the zombie chooses to stay put, then the bodies just keep piling up forever. The new change makes the forts really cool, but once zombies get in it is permanent. That is incredibly unfair to survivors, and we need a counter. --Terminator 484 ^{FedCom DEM} 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC
27. Keep - I vote keep because it has seen battle and it's obvious nothing is going to work. We can kill them until they've got more holes in them than swiss cheese, they don't HAVE to leave so they won't. I might even suggest using the vehicle depot to operate machinery to mass remove bodies. Just my take on it, what's the point of a vehicle depot if we're not using vehicles? --Rocky Minoma 11:02, 4 December 2006 (PST)
28. keep I think enough time and enough suggestions on this have gone by to make the change. Otherwise, somebody will have to suggestion a catapult. Asheets 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. Kill - like it matters, too soon to tell how easy it is for humans to hold the forts, I'm betting that there will be a trickle effect of a few zombies getting in at a time maybe taking weeks for an effective number to flood the fort and sink it, you could allways Combat Revive any non rotters but that will quickly deplete syringe stores, lets see how things go first--Zbmainiac 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re - From a pro-zombie stance, I'd argue this actually does the horde a favour. If the gate's 'caded, it needs to be brought down so that the horde can flood the fort and feast. With this in place, the largest concentration of zeds in a siege would be at the gate - not scattered around gnawing ineffectually on the barracks or infirmary. And a survivor just spent 5AP moving you to where you wanted to be in the first place. Bonus. --Funt Solo 15:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Many problems- First of all, it's too soon for a fort change. How about we let the forts experience at least battle before we try to change them? Second of all, you shouldn't be able to force a zombie to leave a fort because you can't do that for any other place in the game. If you can't force a zombie to leave a Mall or PD, then you shouldn't be able to force them to leave a fort. This is the same sort of logic that inspired my "Semi-Conscious Crawling" suggestion, and we all know how that one turned out. I believe your words were "Semi-Conscious Spam". The general consensus on it was "Don't move my character". That statement couldn't be more applicable right now. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re - You can force a zombie to leave a mall - by killing them and dumping them outside. I know this breaks the "don't move my character" rule - but it's not city-wide - it's incredibly specific. There could be a lot of fun to be had fighting over the forts - that's what I'm aiming for with this - a definite way for both sides to claim victory (however briefly). --Funt Solo 23:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re - But you're still not forcing them to leave the square when you dump them outside the mall. With the way forts are now, you might as well consider the fort squares to be squares within squares (there is the buildings, the fort squares, and then there's outside the forts themselves. The fort squares and outside the forts are both comparable to being outside a building). Therefore, dumping a person outside the fort walls is equivalent to dumping them and moving them one square in any direction. Making it very specific doesn't change that. Also, survivors are only supposed to be able to attain victory by making the zombies want to leave, not by forcibly evicting them. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 23:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Kill -- Lets see how the forts do for a while first. Currently, with only one way in or out, they're already easier to defend than the malls.--Sgt. Expendable 22:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re - Malls can be EHB and still enterable - forts can't. --Funt Solo 23:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re - It was easier to reply on your talk page. Sgt. Expendable ^JG 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Kill - Eh, not so much. Maybe the ability to push a body to any location within a fort, and dump bodies outside at the entrance? --Joe O'Wood 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re - That's exactly what this suggestion does. --Funt Solo 08:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Kill - It's too early to screw with forts. --Cerebrus13 03:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. No - Makes forts into safehouses, instead of deathtraps. Zoift 16:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

   Of course forts could just as well be called Zombie deathtraps once they lock the hordes in. --Rogue 04:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [not the author --Funt Solo 11:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)]

2. No - Forts are just that death traps, personally forts would ideally be stronger than malls, but pro-zombies want it to stay the same and survivers think, this place is a fort!?!?!? We're doomed--Wbleak24 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---