Developing Suggestions

NOTICE

The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process. However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions.

Shortcut:
DS

Developing Suggestions

This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.

It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.

Further Discussion

• Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
• Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.

Resources

• The Frequently Suggested List
• Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

How To Make a Discussion

Adding a New Discussion

To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.

Adding a New Suggestion

• To add a new suggestion proposal, copy the code in the box below.
• Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.

• Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.
• The process is illustrated in this image.

{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}

• Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
• Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change.
• Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
• Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past month may be cycled without notice.

Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Static Search Rates

Timestamp: -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 03:21, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Stats balance

Scope: everyone

Description: Simple idea, we get Kevan to stop fucking around with search rates regarding survivor/zombie ratios. any thoughts on the intricacies?

Discussion (Static Search Rates)

No. I'm sorry, but higher search rates seem necessary in order to survive against teh dead. What's the alternative? Survivor population down to 1% and game over? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:43, 24 May 2011 (BST)

The words metagaming and intergroup coordination mean anything to you? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:48, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Considering metagaming didn't stop the survivor percentage falling below 20% I can imagine the percentage even going lower without the search rate boost, and good luck with group coordination when your the only one left alive at one point. To be fair, I do enjoy the real zombie apocalypse the dead bring, but we shouldn't go overboard; The game simply isn't designed to let one side completely dominate the other. Anything below 20% is just unhealthy. Malton will then just turn into a Borehamwood or Monroeville; a completely ruined city with a couple of survivors playing hide and seek with bored out zombies. Not fun for any side. The search rate boosts are to keep the population rates in check. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:42, 24 May 2011 (BST)

You can't claim something that hasn't been tried has failed. I also think you're missing the fact that that's exactly how the game has always worked, design or not, just it's usually the other side. Don't worry though, this is the response I expected, you guys really are predictable as a player subset. It's DIRT:NAP all over again. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:36, 24 May 2011 (BST)

To be honest, DIRT:NAP tactics don't work very well (and are not as fun) without buffed search rates. You could probably get a sulf-sustained revive cycle going, but that's just playing as zombies who eat syringes instead of brains- an amusing concept, but not much of a game. There needs to be an incentive (and ability) for some of the folks you revive to actually reclaim ground, or it gets dull rather fast.
For this suggestion to be "fair", you would also have to eliminate Brain Rot, or have headshot cause perma-death. That way both sides get an overwhelming advantage as they gain dominance. Welcome to "Urban PK".  Swiers 18:29, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I'd seen it used very effectively actually. I was more referring to the reaction to the tactic before groups like CR started using it effectively.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:29, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Incorrect. DIRT:NAP and Hibernation Tactics can be very successful if implemented correctly. It actually can cause a lot of frustrations to zombies.--Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:36, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Wait, static search rates = perma-death for zombies to ensure balance and be fair? I think that's an exaggerated position...--

| T | BALLS! | 21:16 24 May 2011(UTC)

I would say a mild boost in search rates as the ratio drops. Something like say in UD's current state the rate is boosted by 10x make it like 4-5x better instead. Those are just example numbers to show the concept. In that way survivors get a little boost and it reflects the idea with less survivors picking through the rubble theres more to find.       14:19, 24 May 2011 (BST)

As a long-time survivor player I can say that the mega-boosted search rates take some of the fun out of the game for me. The little group of survivors I'm with have been doing an ok job at staying alive and we have been having fun with that. But it just felt cheap and empty to walk into a ruined NT and grab up like 15 needles in 20 AP. This takes the feeling of accomplishment out of the game for me, and it just feels like the game is rigged in my favor.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:21, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Because it is. 19:31, 24 May 2011 (BST)

That's why UD is a circle jerk and not an actual game. What sense of accomplishment can one ever have even during "normal" times when you know there is never any real danger and you're just treading water; with God looking down, raising and lowering the water lever to make sure that you never sink. Seems to be a theme with a lot of online games. The mechanics of the game are an irrelevant treadmill, and the metagame delusions of grandeur become its only reason for existence. No one can truly effect anyone else, nothing you do matters, no one has to TRY because I guess the truth is bad for business.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:57 24 May 2011(UTC)

btw that's what I love about the outspoken atheist science worshiping types that play this game. They're basically playing a game that simulates a babysitter God that makes sure there are never any bad consequences for anyone. What the fuck is THAT all about? I know it's just a "game" (haha), but one of you needs to explain what the appeal of this shit is to you guys.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:16 24 May 2011(UTC)

Haha, I know Kevan is jokingly referred to as God at time but ZL, it almost sounds like you're starting to believe it.
Anyway, there might be a better way of ensuring that the game doesn't collapse on itself but for the life of me I can't seem to think of one. Yep, the temporary search odds mechanics makes me feel like a cheap whore. Yeah, I'd like to see something done about it. No I don't really want to see UD end by way of total human annihilation (when the ends comes, everyone should die by fire IMHO). If a good suggestion for keeping the game from imploding comes along, I'll be all for it. Until then, I'm (temporarily) a cheap whore. ~ _{20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}

As far as UD is concerned, for all intents and purposes Kevan is God. Just look at all this manna from heaven. A game needs to have balance designed into it at a basic level. Changing the rules to ensure "balance" is not part of a real game. It's a sham pure and simple. You need stable rules on which players can firmly stand, or you're just jerking people off.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:11 24 May 2011(UTC)

Anyway, I still think Survivors need stable, but fairly good search rates (no, not the 75% success rate inside a ruined NT kind of good they are getting now) combined with much less carrying capacity. Plus, as I have suggested before, they need to drop things when they die to make death mean something to them.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:19 24 May 2011(UTC)

I seriously doubt it will happen. Kevan makes money off of the game continuing, and not having automatically adjusting ratios for search rates would allow for a potential end to the game. If enough people want a hardcore style of playing, Kevan will just create another city for "hard mode", probably with a tie-in to another zombie movie or series (frankly, I am surprised he didn't try to pimp the game out to Walking Dead). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:36, 24 May 2011 (BST)

---

Semi-auto shotguns

Timestamp: Treviabot92 01:49, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Weapon

Scope: Survivors

Description: The idea here is purely extended capacity. It's a shotgun that cycles each shell through some mechanism, be it gas, recoil, spring, whatever you imagine. It'll behave just like the current shotgun except that it can load six shells instead of two. Now, obviously, because of the mechanics involved to allow for this action to work, I'd say that the new shotgun should be half again as heavy as the current shotgun, and in order to have six shells, two AP needs to be spent to load the first shell, as you need to open the bolt to do that (unless y'all think the bolt should lock open when the gun's empty). I'm thinking same accuracy, same damage, and about twice as hard to find; it uses the same ammunition and skills, after all, and it has a higher capacity, why shouldn't it be harder to find? What do y'all think?

Discussion (Semi-auto shotguns)

DUPE SPAM have you even read the guidelines for suggestions?--User:Sexualharrison01:55, 24 May 2011 (utc)

It's not a dupe. Treviabot92 02:06, 24 May 2011 (BST)

fine than it's spam. what does SPAM stand for? Stupid. Pathetic. Assinine. Moronic. (props to Xoid)--User:Sexualharrison05:51, 24 May 2011 (utc)

Oh? Might I direct you toward Combat Suggestions? A suggestion concerning the fact survivors can carry too many shotguns? Combat shotgun (which was already peer-reviewed)? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:25, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Ok, clearly you're thinking of a different semi-auto shotgun. That type is military in nature; this isn't. Again, semi-auto shotguns in real life are weapons often used in sport and self defense, and it's usually only the military-centered ones that can hold eight shells; civilian shotguns typically have a capacity of six. In any case, this still isn't a dupe, and considering that both forts are now overrun, this isn't overpowered either, since it can be found in police precincts and malls. Treviabot92 21:49, 24 May 2011 (BST)

...Combat shotgun was suggested specifically to allow for the use of holding more shells and reducing the amount of shotguns that a survivor carried, which in November of 2005 was an insane amount compared to now. It has not been implemented. I don't know why yours would be, as Kevan has known for over five years about the request from survivor players to reduce the total number of shotguns and increase the number of shells they can carry. It still hasn't been implemented in any shape or form. Your suggestion is almost exactly the same as Combat shotgun. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:02, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Unneeded..       02:07, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Hey, it'd save space. I got way too much crap in my bag at the moment. Treviabot92 02:10, 24 May 2011 (BST)

There's a simple add on to solve your "space" issue. Assuming you are referring to the cluttered mess of the inventory system.       02:14, 24 May 2011 (BST)

You would think that a bot who has been on the wiki this long would know not to bother with such a spammy suggestion. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:08, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Shotguns are balanced by the fact that they hold only two shells and so you have to carry a ton of them if you want to actually kill anyone. In order for this to be balance you'd have to make it 3x the encumberance of a normal shotgun.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:20, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I've already made it twice as hard to find and half again as heavy, three times the encumbrance would mean that people could find it just as often as a normal shotgun. And besides that, no shotgun is going to be any heavier than another unless it's a punt gun or a tank cannon firing a canister shot. Treviabot92 20:16, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Better yet, have a shotgun that loads 32 shells, but has 96% encumbrance.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:37, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Nah, where am I supposed to keep my 10 pistols and two portable generators, then?! .--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:53, 24 May 2011 (BST)

as you Parkour up a six story building no problem.--User:Sexualharrison12:42, 24 May 2011 (bst)

What's next, you guys suggest a gatling-style shotgun? Come on, be realistic here, and stop with the sarcasm. I mean, really, anybody with half a brain would grab a semi-automatic shotgun because of its capacity. Treviabot92 20:14, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Even Survivors are never going to get behind something like this. Because most of them know that the "balance" of this "game" is already shifted far in their favor. Why take chances screwing with the status quo when you're already ahead? And don't talk to me about The Dead. It's an anomaly, aggravated by the fact that Survivors are lazy and complacent for the most part. They aren't even fighting, their fattening up their dirtnappers and waiting for the Dead to get bored and go away. The aftermath is going to be even more ridiculous. I don't even wanna think about all the syringes we're going to be buried in.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:01 24 May 2011(UTC)

Dude, you're completely dismissing the fact that 76% of the Malton population (unfortunately including myself) has gone zed, and more than half probably like it. Meanwhile, I'm waiting in a cemetery next to St. Emelia's Church for a syringe in the back of the head, which I'm starting to think is unlikely to come at all. Stupid arguments like what you're putting up right now is what makes said survivors lazy and complacent, so let's aggravate the situation. How's about we don't, ok? Treviabot92 21:40, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, sucks when the shoe is on the other foot huh? Despite that fact that God is allowing you to shit needles and faks now.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:43 24 May 2011(UTC)

I wish. Treviabot92 21:45, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Oi! Both of you. A version of this suggestion was already approved. Kevan just never implemented it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:47, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IDIOT. Treviabot92 22:00, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Then why aren't you putting it up for voting, so I can dupe it? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:07, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Trev, now you're just being obtuse. Akule, that thing is almost 6 years old. Sort of doubt that it still applies to my argument since the game has changed so much since then.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:51 24 May 2011(UTC)

Yeah, I'm being obtuse, that's why Kevin hasn't implemented that bullshit. Military weapons belong to the military, thus the military would take military weapons to their military quarantine blockades to do their military business. Meanwhile, civilian weapons, unless the military needed more weapons themselves, would be left alone for the civilians to put to their own use. Thus, these shotguns would still be around, albeit rather rare by comparison to other available firearms. Treviabot92 22:00, 24 May 2011 (BST)

My argument about it is that Kevan has had over five years to do so, but hasn't. Don't you remember how many shotguns you could carry in 2005? The number of shotguns you can carry now is far lower than it was then, but we still don't have it implemented. That should explain something. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:03, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Yes I understand. I just don't mind arguing with Trev. The fact is that UD is completely counter-intuitive. You don't need guns. You don't need any of those guns skills.It doesn't really matter does it? Not when the most powerful weapon you can carry is already the syringe. Which is where I was planning on directing the course of my argument with Trev but, eh, as you can see above he's just being a jackass now so, screw it.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:08 24 May 2011(UTC)

---

Suicidal Pull

Timestamp: LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 02:50, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: Zombies and Humans already have the option to jump out of a Building_Types#Tall_Buildings which is fatal to humans. Feeding_Drag is an attack used by zombies on players with 12 hit points or less, which drags the victim out of the building (provided their are no barricades or closed doors). I propose adding an additional attack option that is learned through a new skill called Suicidal Pull that is dependent the zombie having already purchased Feeding_Drag, and is available to zombies for 100 XP. Suicidal Pull: Zombie is able to pull dying survivors (those with 12HP or less) out through the windows of tall buildings, provided there are no barricades and the doors are still open. This will kill the survivor. Suicidal pulls cost 16AP. The attack option is available to zombies when faced with the specific situation (identical to feeding drag): Zombie and human victim in same building with no barricades or closed doors. Victim is at 12 hit points or less. With the additional requirement: Building is a Building_Types#Tall_Buildings. The primary reason for this would be for flavor; however, without modifying the action point requirements this would make high level zombies as broken as 4 zerg survivors loaded with syringes following around their trenchcoater. Before a zombie can purchase feeding drag, it must first purchase Vigour_Mortis which would make the base attack 2 damage with a 35% hit rate or biting for 4 damage with a 20% hit rate (the slightly better choice). A zombie with vigour mortis and feeding drag would need an average of 15 action points to kill a victim with 12 hit points. Formula is 12/.8 = 15, which was derived from the following table - Vigour_Mortis#Comparison_of_Attack_Skill_Combinations. An additional action point would be added for the dragging ability. So the server call would be exactly the same as used when feeding drag is available, with an additional attack option: Suicidal Pull (16ap) Something similar in action point use would be Bellow or Scout_safehouse. This (like all multi-AP actions) can result in "going into negative APs". Just in case that wasn't obvious. The modification would call on variables in the game already set so no additional variables would need to be assigned to any buildings. It would call on the variables for Suicide and Feeding_Drag. The modification would cost 16 action points for the zombie and pull the victim with 12 hit points or less out of the window in a tall building. If the victim is human, the game would treat the pull out of the window as a fatal fall. Humans would see the following text: A zombie pulled you through the window. You fall heavily onto the pavement, a few storeys below. You are dead. While zombies would only see You pull target through the window. You fall heavily onto the pavement, a few storeys below. target is dead. (Only if target is human.) People could argue that the average feral zombie with only vigour mortis will not know that bite is better than claw so the formula for claw with vigour mortis is 12/.7 = 17.1. Therefore, the action point cost for this ability could also be 18 action points instead of 16. Experience points gained could also be eliminated since the zombie did not actually kill the human or it could be reduced to the gain to experience points from successful non-lethal attacks. This idea is not to break the game, it is to give players something to do while undead. The action point cost alone would make some zombies not use it (same with bellow). It would add a little more fun to the average zombies day. There is a reason normal players like to be human instead of zombies. This might sway more of them to try zombies instead. Here is an image because all professional zombie/human idea suggestions have them:

Discussion (Suicidal Pull)

Haha I like it, creative and can allow zombies to get that last kill when nearly AP'd. Although one question I couldn't see a clear answer for would using suicidal pull kill the zombie player as well? In that case dropping the AP requirement to 15 has the same effect because it'd cost either 1/10 AP to stand up. Anyways drop the AP cost down to 15 or raise up to 20 so its a number that satisfies my OCD (yes I dislike certain numbers and I am crazy deal with it).       03:35, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Reminds me of Defenestration, but I like that version better. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:34, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Goddamn S.Wiers has some ace ideas. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 06:33, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Would hurt newbs. Street treats provided by feeding drag are the greatest leveling help that there is to zombie newbs. Don't encourage zombie players to neglect their babahs. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 15:05, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Zombies could still use feeding drag instead of suicidal pull. Higher level zombies would only use suicidal pull if they did not care about wasting their action points. Zombie with the four claw enhancing attack skills deals 1.714 per action point spent. Formula for that is 12/1.714 = 7. In that situation, it would take 7 action points to kill a 12 hit point human with claw. Currently, the average higher level zombie uses feeding drag to pull out all survivors to ransack the building, groan/bellow (lol), bite to infect everyone in the building, or claw to try to kill as many low hp players as possible. This skill adds a different way to level up a low level zombie and a new way to play as a higher level zombie. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:05, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Given the 16AP cost, the suggested skill / action is almost totally useless for earning XP. Your assertion seems to be that that babah zambahs would buy Feading Drag plus a new "suicidal pull" skill before the death grip / rend flesh combo, which is... silly. They would not have the tools to earn XP in as many situations, and would earn it slower (if at all, its unclear if using this attack counts as dealing damage to or killing the target) than they would using already available skills. The only use I can see is for zombies who want to finish off a survivor but only have a couple AP left, and even that would obviously only be useful in limited circumstances.
That said, I understand the suggestion is meant for "fun", but... yeah. Useless stuff is rarely fun unless it also allows creativity, which this does not. Its the zombie equivalent of the gas soaked clothing / flare combo; cool in theory, but probably a waste of coding effort.  Swiers 05:38, 23 May 2011 (BST)

I also thought about basing the skill under Death Grip and calling it Suicidal Grip. The damage per ap is 1.0 with death grip and vigour mortis. That would lower the action point cost to 12 ap. Better, eh? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 10:02, 23 May 2011 (BST)

There's also Neck Lurch, which has a 1.2 damage per ap ratio. It could be called Suicidal Bite and the ap use would be 12/1.2 = 10. That would be the most optimal level three zombie skill. The point of this is to broaden zombie abilities since they are severely lacking. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 10:11, 23 May 2011 (BST)

I quite like this idea, however -- as asked above -- would this kill the zombie, or at least have the zombie take damage to their HP? --Robert Egleton 23:29, 22 May 2011 (BST)

It probably should NOT kill or damage the zombie; jumping from a high building does not. Zombie suicide is intentionally impossible, to prevent headshot avoidance via dirt naps.  Swiers 05:38, 23 May 2011 (BST)

i likes dis, i always thought that high level zombies should have some sort of head shot. well worth the AP.--User:Sexualharrison23:36, 22 May 2011 (utc)

It could be coded to require a level 10 zombie the same way as Headshot. This way you could justify having the ap cost lowered to maximum damage per ap which is 1.714 damage per ap. That would make the ap cost 12/1.714 = 7.0. Could easily justify 8 action points as the attack cost. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 10:20, 23 May 2011 (BST)

No. This is an insta-kill, which, by definition, is spam. If this gets implemented, then so should machine guns and sniper rifles (note the sarcasm). Treviabot92 01:32, 24 May 2011 (BST)

You posts are spam.       02:09, 24 May 2011 (BST)

And you're an idiot, what's your point? Treviabot92 02:10, 24 May 2011 (BST)

It's not an instant kill. It would require very specific circumstances in order to work. Humans already have an "insta kill" that costs 10ap to use and is effective against most zombies anywhere at anytime. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 08:54, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, best to avoid stupid shit like that and semi-auto shotguns. I mean, what kind of fucking retard thinks up shit like that? --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:49, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Well, a suggestion for a combat shotgun was approved by the community in November of 2005, but never implemented. It passed with the ability to be able to hold eight shells instead of the six suggested above. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™}

---

Survivor Health

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 04:14 19 May 2011(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Survivor HP

Description: Here's one the Survivors will love. All Survivor HP should max out at 25. What?! Yeah. See this even HP thing was ok before Barricades but really should have been changed when they came into play. See Barricades basically ARE an HP boost for Survivors and once they are gone, it should be easier to kill some people. More 10 point bonuses for the baby zombies and such. Zombies should be "tougher", being able to absorb damage that would kill a living being. It makes more sense anyway. 5 pistols shots or 3 shotgun blasts to kill a person just makes more sense than 10/5. Plus, this makes a PKer/Bounty Hunters life less pointless. Right now being a PKer/Bounty Hunter is just REAL dedication to being an asshole, since its one of the most inefficient ways to spend your AP. Body Building works the same...for now. Stuff not included in this suggestion, but could be used later if it was implemented. Body Building: could be made less idiotic as well, trading extra HP for being able to carry 125% encumbrance or something. You know, something BB would actually do. Headshot: might be able to be altered as well, giving a Survivor like a 10% or 20% chance with each attack to just totally wipe out a zombies health to 0. (and minus the 15/6 AP to stand crap) Flak Jackets: Could have 25 HP all their own, and once out of "HP", they are discarded as useless. This way Survivors could still get that 50 HP thing for a time, as far as PKer/BHer attacks are concerned.

Discussion (Survivor Health)

I like this, actually. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:17, 19 May 2011 (BST)

1. In principle, I actualy kinda like this because survivors really shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with zombies and mass breakins will normally result in death whatever your HP is. However, I really don't think that survivors need a nerf right now.
2. BB increasing carrying capacity does makes more sense than the current implementation.
3. Multiply by a billion: Headshot insta-killing zombies would be horribly broken because it has the potential for one survivor to wipe out a breakin single-handedly.
4. Flak jackets degrading has been suggested before: It's not actually fun for the players, is a pain to code and adds quite a bit of server load.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:22, 19 May 2011 (BST)

I agree on the change to body building. About headshot, I thought of this a while back what if headshot, instead of giving you a possible insta kill ,just gave you a percentage boost to accuracy against zombies while keeping the 6/15 ap to stand up. Although if we nerfed survivor HP down to 25 an instant kill(10-20% chance) thing might not be a bad idea. Flak jackets degrading just takes away the fun and they don't really provide much of a boost. Sadly this will never go through in an actual vote. I'd suggest you do the body building change by itself assuming its not already been suggested as it is the only part that really has a shot at being peer reviewed.. Unless you can get a bunch of goons on your side :P       13:15, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Not directly a dupe, but still relevant. And this was actually a comparatable tame version that just reduced HP by 20 across the board for both zombies and survivors. Still, peer-rejected by zombie- and PKer-hating trenchies. Go figure. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 17:23, 19 May 2011 (BST)

If only we had more wiki active zombies instead of trenchie survivors.       18:03, 19 May 2011 (BST)

I like it. I'm not sold on the headshot thing, but the rest seems fine. From a zombie point of view, it is irritating that survivors are somehow all specimens of physical and mental health, with a tactical mind, heroic organizational skills, finely honed military skills and are seemingly geniuses with PHDs in biochemistry.. during a zombie apocalypse. - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:19, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Well I suppose you can justify it by learned from experience. And jumping from rooftop to rooftop carrying a few gennies gives you some good cardio as well.       03:25, 20 May 2011 (BST)

5 shots couldn't stop him. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:35, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Who the hell is he?--

| T | BALLS! | 21:36 24 May 2011(UTC)

No. Treviabot92 01:34, 24 May 2011 (BST)

---

Max Axe

Timestamp: Ronarprfct 17:19, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Survivors above a certain level

Description: I suggest the adding of a new skill to the military skills-I like the name Max Axe, but whatever-with Axe proficiency and hand-to-hand as prerequisites-perhaps also some minimum level prerequisite. This skill would boost the accuracy of the axe by 10% so that it would be 50%. I don't think this is unreasonable at all. It would then make a human with an axe equal in damage per AP to a zombie without the effect of tangling grasp but with Vigour Mortis, Death Grip, and Rend flesh. I think it is only fair that the damage we can deal with our axe be equal to the damage they can deal with their claws. They would still be able to do more damage with tangling grasp, but I've personally never seen tangling grasp work all that well for me when playing as a zombie. If you look at the XP leaderboard, most of the leaders are characters who play as zombies because of the greater damage of their hand attacks. I don't think this would unbalance the game-one axe wielder still couldn't kill as many zombies in a session as a gun toter. It would just make things fair for those who like or are forced to use melee. Also, it isn't unrealistic to think that an axe could do at least as much damage to a zombie as the zombie's claws could do to a human. If anyone feels this would make the knife useless, you could add a new knife skill that would take it to 60%, thus making the knife do as much damage per AP as the axe now does.

Discussion (Max Axe)

the axe has lower damage per AP than a maxed zombie for the simple reason of balance.... remember that the zombie has to get to you before he can start clawing and biting and you have barricades to prevent this. for every AP most zombies spend attacking a survivor they will probably spend at least 10 (lots more for ferals) on trying to get to them. --Honestmistake 17:37, 17 May 2011 (BST)

This would also make the knife nearly worthless. It has its niche compared to the axe by having the higher to-hit % and by costing less encumbrance. By making axes as likely to hit, the knife would be reduced to a poor man's axe that only has encumbrance as redeeming feature. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 17:45, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I address the knife in my suggestion-apparently you didn't read it. As for balance, if the game is so balanced, why is most of Malton red or orange? Sure, survivors have barricades, but zombies have ruin, salt-the-land, 1 AP to be back up and at full health with ankle grab, no need to find a place to sleep ever, easy recourse should they become revived while we have to wait forever to get revived by needle with rotters clogging up the revive points, etc. It isn't going to break the game or even allow humans to win(The Dead number 1700+ against the largest human group of a couple hundred). It would just make things fair melee damage wise and give people a somewhat acceptable option besides guns. Humans are already royally screwed in this game and will probably remain screwed, I'd just like the screwing to be a little more fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronarprfct (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 May 2011.

~ _{18:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}

Humans can't...win. In fact, there's no winning at all in this game. There isn't 'fair' or 'balanced', either; most of Malton is red because there are a *lot* of active zombies, not because one side is inherently more powerful than the other. sannok^{(talk)(kilts)} 23:21, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I would argue that the knife is never worthless, even if other weapons eclipse it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:29, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Offensive weaponry should be the LAST of your concerns right now.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:16 17 May 2011(UTC)

+1. Get outta your trenchcoat and become a massive prick instead. If just 10% of the survivors would go all-out crapping, The Dead would have no chance given the current search rates. Sadly, most survivors will instead look how to power up their favourite mall and collect shotguns. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 21:59, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Ya know, I am already dirtnapping one of my characters and will be with some of my other 43 level characters. I even looked at The Big Prick and have given some consideration to joining. That said, this suggestion is important to me and I'd like actual discussion about it rather than advertisements for other things. I know I can't be the only one that supports this redress of an unfairness in the game. I don't think a 50% hit rate for the axe would be such a huge deal and it would make us melee even-except for tangling grasp, which I don't care about anyway as I never had much success with it.

Learn to sign your posts for one.. And secondly survivors do not need and buffs in this game its at the perfect balance for a "zombie apocalypse". Lastly the axe need not be buffed for the simple reason it is an easy to find weapon that will last forever. Where as guns earn their high hit rates because you have to constantly find ammo for them and typically that takes a fixed up PD or mall with a genny to do well(consider the AP exhausted to do all that). Now if axes had a chance to break that might warrant a higher hit percentage but that's doubtful.       23:52, 17 May 2011 (BST)

“	Those who live by the sword axe get shot by those who don't.	”
—Proverb

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:25, 18 May 2011 (BST)

I am all for survivors thinking they can kill their way out of a war where the other side's one, singular benefit is that they can stand up after being killed. Makes my job a heck of a lot easier. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 18:09, 18 May 2011 (BST)

I would personally be in favour of banning all outdoor combat until the survivor:zombie ratio has been improved. Either that or feeding all trenchcoaters to the zombies in the hope that it will give them indigestion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:34, 18 May 2011 (BST)

The axe is carefully balanced because:

• it requires no ammo
• it requires very few skill points to make effective
• it can kill people behind barricades

Making it more powerful would only boost PKers (which I'd personally love) and insult zombies, who require many more skills to have a similar attack that only works without barricades about. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:57, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Give zombies free running! That solves all the issues! :D        13:21, 18 May 2011 (BST)

If my suggestion were implemented, the axe would require exactly the same number of skills purchased as the zombie does to do 1.5 damage per AP, three: Hand-to-hand combat, axe proficiency, and Max Axe vs Vigour Mortis, Death Grip, and Rend Flesh. The axe would then be just as balanced as a zombie's claws. Guns can also kill people behind barricades-there is no difference except that way less AP would be required with guns than with an axe under my suggestion. Zombie claws also require no ammo and apparently don't degrade with all that debarricading either. Zombies have more than that one singular benefit-and it is by itself a powerful one. They get to stand up for 1 AP as the class they like playing. Humans have to expend tons more AP to get back to human. You can't honestly think PKers would want to expend all that extra AP when they could just shoot someone and get away!Ronarprfct 21:48, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Your missing the point. Zombies are suppose to be natural killing machines. A person wielding an axe should not be able to equal the killing prowess of a zombie it's illogical. Zombies in Urban Dead are considerably weaker than they should be but that is another topic all together..       22:36, 18 May 2011 (BST)

What zombie movies have you been watching? Zombies aren't natural killing machines-they are actually inferior to humans as killers, being rotting corpses and slow and the like-the only advantages they have are defensive or passive ones like immunity to most damage and no need to eat or sleep to keep going. Killing prowess? It is only their overwhelming numbers and single-mindedness together that enables them to defeat humans-besides their lack of dependence on things humans need. You talk about them like they're lions on the prowl when they are just shuffling corpses with a taste for human flesh. I bet you money any man with an axe can do way more damage than a single zombie without one.Ronarprfct 00:34, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You my friend fail. Now go get eaten by a shuffling corpse while carrying 20 shotguns, 5 gennies and your invincible axe not to mention all forms of military weaponry. Enjoy.       02:35, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Ron, you're just being retarded now. One of the bases of the game: zombies are effective without AP investment, survivors require an AP investment but are much more efficient overall. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:21, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Where, exactly, does Kevan say that is one of the bases of the game? You're full of it.Ronarprfct 19:16, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You think half the player base should be mooks who get regularly bitch-slapped by random trenchies with axes? Zombies in this game are run by players too. Don't take away one of the few advantages the game grants them (which is the better and more AP-efficient melee attack). Survivors easily make up for that by being able to potentially dish out much more damage in a brief time window by using guns. You can come back with your idea as soon as my zombie can search for missiles for his rocket launcher. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 19:59, 19 May 2011 (BST)

I was under the impression that this page was for developing suggestions through constructive criticism so they could then be voted on-not voting on them. Maybe you death cultists could do that.Ronarprfct 21:00, 19 May 2011 (BST)

We tend to get a tad hostile to people who continually miss the point. I'm not sure if your aware of this but until the recent return of The Dead zombies were greatly out numbered by survivors the ratio hung around 60:40 survivors:zombies. This one hints at less people wanting to play as a zombie or two survivors being stronger. In either case this meant zombies needed improvements to solve either problem. Honestly they still need those improvements, survivors do not.       21:34, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You know what, he is right, an axe really should do more damage than a claw or bite... but then a firearms should do more damage too. But (and these are big buts) zombies should be almost unstoppable without headshot,infections should always prove fatal, survivors should need to search for food and shouldn't be able to freerun with more than a minimal load, oh, and revives shouldn't exist. Why doesn't the game work like this? Because it would not be much fun to play! --Honestmistake 22:24, 19 May 2011 (BST)

OY! Coming to a safehouse near you! -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:26, 20 May 2011 (BST)

AXE TORNADO! --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:11, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Perhaps the game would be less fun to play if ALL of those things were implemented. I don't think my suggestion being implemented would make it less fun to play.Ronarprfct 23:39, 22 May 2011 (BST)

So there are no suggestions for improvement of the suggestion before I submit it for peer review?Ronarprfct 00:14, 24 May 2011 (BST)

No. Spam. Treviabot92 01:35, 24 May 2011 (BST)

How's your psychological projection working out for you? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:26, 24 May 2011 (BST)

---

New City (To be named)

Timestamp: Peter Mason 18:11, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Type: New City

Scope: Urban Dead players

Description: I think that many people are getting bored with Urban Dead as it is. Monroeville is dead and Borehamwood is on its way. Kevan should make a new city. This could either be a city where you can't be revived like Moroeville, or a new map almost exactly like Malton. There would be the same building types and there would be revives. It would be like Urban Dead had started all over again. And the old cities would still be there! Malton is pretty much dead because 90% of it is zombie ridden and pretty much unchangeable. Is anybody else with me on this? It's been a while since a new city was added. Please vote yes if YOU want a new city! Maybe Kevan will see and make a new city.

Discussion (New City (To be named))

Malton isn't dead..It's just turning into a real zombie apocalypse.. On the note of a new city I'd be supportive of a temporary either real-time city or one that has considerably more AP per day than current UD. It could be reset brand new every 2 weeks or however long and wouldn't even have to be as large as Malton, in fact smaller would be better. Maybe only a limited number of people could sign up then it would lock out like he did for the other 2 cites.       04:16, 16 May 2011 (BST)

HELP ZOMBIES ARE IN MY ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE GAME! WHAT SHALL I DO? QUIT AND MAKE A NEW GAME --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:16, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Nice. Treviabot92 01:36, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Well I think my suggestion is better than what the guy above this guy above me is saying. We get to keep Malton and make a new city. The person two comments above me agrees with my thought of making a temporary no revive city. Monroeville is over, so it's time for a new one! Constructive comments only please!--Peter Mason 12:46, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Just to note I meant keep Malton and have an extra city or two to play in as its not going to die we always bounce back..       13:29, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Zombie apocalypse. If you don't like it you need to find something else to do. --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:34, 16 May 2011 (BST)

You know, I might not want a new Malton either. I'm just spit balling here! I'm thinking that now that because Monroeville is over people migh want another challenge city. It's not quitting because I really want survivor to bounce back in Malton. The old cities would still be there. Were you this worried when Monroeville came out. You didn't worry that Malton would be over. Why should you now. I'm trying to ind a compromise and suggest an idea that everyone coul like. Don't just trash ideas if you don't like the way they have been put online. Try to help! Make it better. Isn't that what the discussion section is all about?--Peter Mason 22:59, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Unfortunately I stumbled across UD after the quarantines so I never had a chance to visit Monroeville or Borehamwood. I certainly wouldn't mind having the chance to play a new city with a few differing rules in place. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 14:14, 17 May 2011 (BST)

New cities are full of win, the first scramble between sides is great fun. Previous new cities didn't get the balance quite right but were fun none the less. --Honestmistake 17:41, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks for the support! Let's hope Kevan makes it so! It is really up to him so we have to show that we would like a new city.--Peter Mason 21:48, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Can someone put this up for vote? I'm not good at that stuff.--Peter Mason 03:58, 21 May 2011 (BST)

NO, NOW SHUT UP. Treviabot92 02:13, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Balance Idea I've got.

No name for it yet, but it might help balance the number of survivors-zombies.

Timestamp: Danny Williams 16:40, 14 May 2011 (EST)

Type:Balance

Scope: Every character on UD.

Description: As of writing the  % of standing surviors is 14% against The Dead's 'deal with it' attempt to break the game. I was thinking off possible ways to deal with these supergroups that are just trying to ruin the game for other people in a fair and balanced way. This is what I've come up with. Every character will get a +1 max HP for every 1% their race is down (this would only include standing characters). However if one race has a higher% they receive no bonus or handicap. EG zombies out number survivors 55%-45% so a new level one Zombie would have a max health of 55 HP instead of 50. Over the next few days the balance is changed with standing zombies equalling 60% of total standing chars, so all zombies would lose their max HP bonus, and survivors would get a plus 10 bonus. As of writing surviors would get a massive 36 extra max HP, but as the game begins to balance again that advantage would fade untill an even 50/50 split is restored. I have no idea about you would explain this change in story terms, but this litrally came to my head about 10 mins ago and I really wanted some feedback before making it more specific.

Discussion

Terrible idea. Have you not searched any buildings? If you haven't then try it and you'll see balancing measures in place. Besides this is a zombie game and survivors shouldn't be winning it.       20:09, 14 May 2011 (BST)

How would this ever be beneficial for zombies? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:13, 14 May 2011 (BST)

To Mazu, I've heard nothing before of increased search rates (I'll asumme that's what your getting at, I'd appreciate any material you can give me to read on this. 1. If it's a zombie game why can we play as survivors? Surely if the game was made solely for zombies there'd be no point playing as a survivor? 2. Where have I said survivors should be winning this game? Personally I believe that nether side should have a clear advantage against the other, a sort of yingyang to suit every player. To Karek, it's not beneficial to ether side, although as far as I know, throughout most of UDs history survivors have had the larger % of active players, so you could argue that this boosts zombies more then survivors. Danny Williams 21:50 14 may 2011 (EST)

Syringes ignore HP, claws don't. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:23, 15 May 2011 (BST)

“	Yes, this is just a simple built-in balancing mechanic, triggered by the overall state of the game - at the other end of the scale, search rates drop when survivors greatly outnumber the undead. If you want a thematic reason for it, the pickings are richer for an individual survivor when there are fewer of them around to do the looting, and when the suburbs are getting too comfortably repopulated by the living, it's harder for them to find something that's been overlooked by everyone else.	”
—Kevan, via email

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:52, 14 May 2011 (BST)

HELP THERE ARE ZOMBIES IN MY ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE GAME FOR ONCE QUICK TO THE WIKI TO SUGGEST SOME BULLSHIT FIX TO RETURN IT TO SURVIVORS AND REVIVIFYING SURVIVORS HURR --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:18, 16 May 2011 (BST)

HURR DURR DERP DERP DERP!!!!! (means stfu and no, because you're spamming, and that Karloth is really hilarious (seriously, dude, you are)) Treviabot92 01:38, 24 May 2011 (BST)

You should have put more than ten minutes' thought into this. Then maybe you'd realize how stupid it is and not have posted at all. --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:36, 16 May 2011 (BST)

---

More Talking

Timestamp:  Swiers 16:56, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Type: improvement

Scope: everybody

Description: instead of a flat 1 AP cost to say something, talking would only consume an AP a certain percentage of the time (say, 25%), randomly determined each time you talked. This would encourage role play use of talking, while still discouraging people from talking much in tense tactical situations, since they can't be sure it won't consume AP they need for other things.

Discussion (More Talking)

Makes sense because in relaxed situations, you realistically are more free to talk.  Swiers 16:57, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I like reducing the cost of speaking, while still attaching a cost to it to prevent flooding. What about gestureing or broadcasting? And what about spraypainting or defiling graffiti? -- Spiderzed█ 18:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)

The other modes all reach more people or persist longer than speech and, IMO, would defy the point of this suggestion. It should definitely cover both zambah- an harman-gab, though. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:36, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Abzaragrah - zambah zbaagh !z zbaagh!  Swiers 04:25, 6 May 2011 (BST)

So, speaking (both zombie and survivor) and gestureing would be what is affected by that? Me like. Particularly since I see the issues with cheaper graffiti/defiling/broadcasting Rev mentions. -- Spiderzed█ 13:11, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I hadn't considered gesturing, but yeah, why not- its basically a form of speech. IMO survivors should be able to gesture too- probably the only reason they can't is it would be largely redundant with (non-zambargh) speech.  Swiers 19:47, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I all for more talking. You could do something such if there's a zombie present inside the building or in the square with you that forces it to take 1 ap per speech but I'd hate to over complicate the simplicity..       03:00, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, by keeping it to a simple random number you avoid introducing a new database call (which would be needed to detect the presence of a zombie in the location with the speaker). I'm guessing grabbing a random number is faster and easier to code, although I suppose speech processing already requires checking if the speaker is alive, prone, or walking dead.  Swiers 19:47, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I reckon it could be done without an extra database call: it'll already have to check to see if there are any zombies when it loads the page so it can just check the variable whenever someone talks.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:39, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Don't discriminate zombies. There are few enough survivors to talk to zombies as it is. Even if it just trenchie trash talk like "SUCK MAH SHOTGUN FUCKING ZED", it is more fun to hear than 20 "RandomTrenchie117 shot you with a pistol for 4 damage... and again... and again..." messages. -- Spiderzed█ 23:06, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not: I thought the point up for debate was the practicality of making it only cost AP to talk when zombies are around and was saying that it wouldn't cause any additional server load. Am I misunderstanding?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:17, 6 May 2011 (BST)

“	December 21, 2005: With nearly a thousand in attendance, Whetcombe is so crowded that it is hard to do anything. Stanstock organizers ask participants to spread out to soundstages and refreshment stands in adjoining streets. To reduce server load, Kevan limits conversation broadcasts to the fifty nearest.	”
—Stanstock

I'm wondering if the fact that speech was already limited for server load purposes gives this suggestion really any chance of a future. Speaking is good but seems unlikely.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:03, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Of course, that was end of 2005 in the heyday of UD. With today's player numbers and the overproportionally growing server load for speech actions (the more people there are in the same place, the more people load the speaker speech), things might be different. -- Spiderzed█ 20:35, 6 May 2011 (BST)

You'd think thered be a way to streamline speech and make it have nearly no server load.. Make it so to have free speech you gata be with less than 20 people under the guise of having to "yell" over everyone if there's too many people around :P       02:35, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Not entirely. The way it works is that: Every time someone loads a page the game will query the database to retrieve any speech that's happened at your location since last time you logged in, obviously with larger queries causing more server load. This happens every time someone takes an action so the load is effectively multiplied by the number of people active. So, if there are 1000s of people active in a location and they're all using their AP to talk then the server is having to make thousands of large database queries to retrieve text and likely also having to make thousands of queries to store new speech in the database (possibly 1000s of queries per line of speech).

The only way to solve it is to limit the number of queries that can be made by (as Kevan did) by methods such as limit the amount of characters who the message is sent to (thus limiting queries). So, yeah, limiting 0AP speech based on the number of people present would be a reasonable solution.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:26, 7 May 2011 (BST)

You know though, all that aside I'd still vote for this. There are certainly ways Kevan can limit it but, ultimately that's up to him. Speech shouldn't be a trade off with useful actions like attacking, it should definitely be easier. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:10, 15 May 2011 (BST)

So would I, actually. Votes are supposed to be based on the merits of the suggestion and not on potential server load (because only Kevan is really in a position to make a judgement on that), and I like the suggestion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:59, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Then lets get her put up for vote with some of the modifications proposed :P       13:27, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Who decides to put it up for a vote because they really should.--Peter Mason 00:03, 16 May 2011 (BST)

If I remember correctly the creator of the suggestion just throws it onto the real page. I doubt if there's any formal procedure..       04:09, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Technically anybody can put the idea up for voting; people just usually get really pissy about it if you do that with "their idea" (probably because people put up similar ideas, and thier thiers gets duped). But I'm not caring in this case, so however / whenever it gets up for voting is OK by may. I may put it up, I may not...  Swiers 00:27, 21 May 2011 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

The following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below.

No suggestions from here are currently up for voting.