Talk:Developing Suggestions

Correcting the Zombie/human player imbalance.

Timestamp: Mayhem2010 14:42, 5 June 2010 (BST)

Type: CODING

Scope: Encourage more activity amongst the undead, making them a more omnipresent threat.

Description: Would it be possible to have any actions carried out by zombies only count half towards the IP turns limit? This would mean that running multiple zombies from a single IP would be much easier than running multiple survivors, and thus would, in theory, increase the number of zombies prowling about. You wouldn't want players teaming up with their own ALTS, of course, but there are already scripts in place that handicap people trying to do that.

Discussion (Correcting the Zombie/human player imbalance.)

More free IP hits means less donation money/more bandwidth for Kevan to pay for, means less enthusiasm for him running the game. Plus I don't think this would make that much of a difference, except maybe helping real-time ?rises. 18:58, 5 June 2010 (BST)

Yeah; I could get behind this if it didn't buff ?rise-ing--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 00:27, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Eh, good idea, technicly flawed in that the IP limit is there so as to prevent the server going psycho, pity though, it's an elegant solution to promoting zombies--Tabbitha Duo 20:59, 27 September 2010 (BST)

Zombies and Survivors alike think the game is imba. But everybody want a buff for their side, come on how can you say Z's are disadvantaged? That's a real debate... Since it's not decided, nobody gets the free cookie--DiSm ~ T 20:59, 28 September 2010 (BST)

---

I've removed my original suggestion

...from the page and put it on my page. I plan to resubmit it later when I've worked on it, so maybe no one should re upload it.

Also, I have kind of a 'retarded' question, but I'll ask it anyway... Are all the new additions located in the news sections of the game, like, "Survivors are now able to take artifacts from museums to decorate their safehouses" etc. Are some of those the result of the suggestions page? Have people suggested those ideas and they've been implemented in the game?--Degree7 10:04, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Some of them are Implemented Suggestions. Even if implimented, Kevan often makes little modifications, and has picked rejected as well as reviewed suggestions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:48 11 August 2009 (BST)

I think saying he's picked rejected is exaggerating... he's only done it once, I think, and it was on something simple that probably should've gotten to PR anyway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 15:35, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Slight Change to the intro

Any chance we could modify the intro to the page to include mention of item trading/giving along with new guns as being frequently suggested? --Papa Johnny 01:02, 20 July 2009 (BST)

It's not nearly as common so there's not much point, tbh. I'll add <big> tags over frequently suggested to hopefully make it more noticeable. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:04, 20 July 2009 (BST)

How is it that Five people run this section?

Why is it that every suggestion may have like one random person but like five of the same people ridiculing every suggestion? Does anything ever get passed here? I request a new more democratic way to do these developing suggestions. More people should be allowed to pass through if these five just ignored.--Dontaco2000 10:50, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Umm... what?

Firstly, developing suggestions is just that, developing suggestions. These suggestions are never put to a vote, and are never archived (they are deleted off the page after a week of no discussion.) If you mean the actual suggestions system, that's different, but why are you posting on the developing suggestions talk page?

And yes, in the real suggestions system, things do get passed.

I suspect what you are really complaining about is the lack of civility shown by some members here - that's fine, ether IPAT and be civil yourself (no one likes hypocrites) Although the main suggestions system does have a "civility" policy (which is really just saying that obvious trolling should be removed off the page,) while the wiki as a whole (which includes this page,) has no civility policy. If you want one, suggest it, but be aware, that it's failed a few times before (this is for many reasons, which I'm not going to go into here.)

Also - you seem to be under the impression that Developing Suggestions is controlled by a user, or group of users. No one controls this page. With the exception of obvious vandalism, which is dealt with by regular users and sysops, no one has the right to censor comments, or "control" this page. There is no developing suggestions cabal.

Secondly, free speech is central to, democracy, and that means you can't censor the opinions of those you don't like - even when they are annoying and may not seem to be constructive. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:16, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Lol. You are so wrong it's funny.--xoxo 11:45, 15 June 2009 (BST)

An example of why there are only 5 people who bother to critique Developing Suggestions. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:49, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Consider yourself lucky that you have 5 people who care who post there. Seriously. And, if you think people are harsh... they're not, generally. 95% of suggestions are garbage. Not usually the fault of the suggester, per se, but because the suggester is a newbie who doesn't know the game as well as those "five people". But those "five people" have pretty much seen all the junk ideas -- about 20000000 times,each -- so their patience for junk is a little low. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. --WanYao 12:05, 15 June 2009 (BST)

And if you ignored "The Five"... you'd be ignoring the best advice available... You think we're bad? You never saw Grim in action... --WanYao 12:06, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Who are the five? I used to be, you used to be, but i don't think we are anymore...--xoxo 13:08, 15 June 2009 (BST)

I am guessing that he thinks I am one of them cos I try to post on pretty much everything that passes through here. Strange if he does though cos I usually reasonably try to be constructive about everything but the most painfully shit suggestions. Of course I was mean to him and that obviously made him sad(der) --Honestmistake 13:43, 15 June 2009 (BST)

developing suggestions is a shit page much like the suggestions system in general (close suggestions) --Cyberbob 14:33, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Who are the 5? I think i've worked out 3. But who are the others. Please tell. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:14, 15 June 2009 (BST)

And the 5 are... Zombie Lord, Honestmistake, Pestayel, Wan Yao... and a tie between Rosslessness and Rolfero. Claim your prize! Seriously though, you are proposing the opposite of a democracy, or some other weird thing. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 16:37, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Can I get WanYao's place? I like to think I've made quite a few frequent contributions, and he looks like he's trying to escape the endless recurring drama-filled stupid that is the Developing Suggestions page. I'm not bashing the page, but it is a bit of a drama-farm. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 15:40, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Hmmm, 18 of your last 50 edits have been to developing suggestions. that's a pretty good ratio. Yes and it seems Wan Yao and Rolfero are less involved these days. Perhaps you deserve a special prize. Will a cookie do or would you like something fancy?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:33, 13 August 2009 (BST)

hey i want to get on this list too --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:33, 14 August 2009 (BST)

If we're talking food-based prizes here, then I'd go for pizza every day. Maybe all of us "ruling users" should get together and form a secret cabal whose only purpose is to allow its members to deny its existence? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:28, 14 August 2009 (BST)

Pfft. We all know that such a group doesn't exist........ --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:46, 14 August 2009 (BST)

Indeed, and when I get back to my home computer, I'm going to make it not exist even more. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:06, 14 August 2009 (BST)

Can I be listed as an honorary former non-member from back before the cabal didn't not exist yet? --Midianian 00:03, 15 August 2009 (BST)

No, because it doesn't exist. *writes down Midianian's username* Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:52, 15 August 2009 (BST)

I'd definately not include mid. In this thing that doesn't exist. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:21, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Already I've said too much and this is my first post on the wiki, ever. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:26, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Forgot about this conversation. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:47, 26 October 2010 (BST)

Music! Music! Music!

So where did it go? It was a good suggestion and was on it's way to being peer reviewed...does anyone know what happened to it?--S1leNt RIP 04:44, 8 May 2009 (BST)

It got there. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:49, 8 May 2009 (BST)

Cool, thanks. I never noticed it.--S1leNt RIP 20:22, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Justification of votes

Okay i wasn't sure whether or not this counted as policy discussion so i brought it here, basically i think it's time to remove the need for justification on suggestion votes. Take Sonny's vote here, now while not a technical justification it is clear from that exactly what Sonny's opinion of the suggestion is. If "Spam - bad idea " is legitimate justification why isn't this? I didn't destrike Sonny's vote because Mid is right, technically he didn't justify his vote.

Anyway the whole need for justification is stupid. People can bullshit justifications if they don't like you or whatever, that can't be worked around. So yeah, opinions? Do i go through policy discussion or just leave it here and see what people think? --xoxo 06:42, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Wiktionary defines Justification as "A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.". Sonny clearly states "this shit" in his response, this is his belief of the suggestion and therefore justifies his Spam vote. I'm therefore unstriking Sonny's vote. There needs to be some sort of clear discussion about this, as anything after the actual vote in question can be considered to be a justification. Deciding if something is a good or acceptable justification is an act of moderation and therefore disallowed on this wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:03, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah. I agree. However i don't really see how we need such a policy. I mean a vote of "Keep" should be just as valid as "keep good idea!". Dupe votes obviously have to reference the previous suggestion but other than that the whole thing is stupid.--xoxo 10:05, 23 October 2008 (BST)

I like the idea of keeping the justification portion as it gives instant community feedback to a suggestion. I am opposed to anything that demands an acceptable or good justification due to moderation concerns. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Since we're going with hair-thin distinctions here, I'd say the # justification ~~~~ means that "justification goes here", not that "anything that's located here is a justification". --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:29, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Correct, however Sonny did justify his vote. He voted Spam as he thought the suggestion was shit. By the guidelines he is not required to justify why he thinks it is shit, he must only justify his vote, which he did. Your removal of his vote was incorrect. While "The weasels told me to!" may not be a helpful justification, it is still a justification as required by the guidelines. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:40, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Well, if you really want to get technical about it, just because Sonny thinks it's "fucking shit", doesn't mean that he voted Spam because of that ;). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 11:03, 23 October 2008 (BST)

The reason I called him on it and said it wasn't justification was because he didn't explain why it was spam. If he thought it was shit, he should have voted kill, not spam. Spam is for duplicates, frequently suggested etc, not for ideas people don't like. If he wanted to call it shit, he could, but should use kill, not spam. Yonnua Koponen 16:39, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Hang on, wait a minute! This wasn't even the response I was talking about!

"Spam - Cause it had Crucifixes in the title--/~Rakuen~\" is what I was talking about. And I said it because the word 'crucifix' doesn't make it spam. Yonnua Koponen 16:41, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Justifications are important, as suggestions aren't like policies or deletions. They don't get implemented just because they get over two thirds Keep votes. I'm pretty sure Kevan reads the votes, and they provide helpful information when properly justified. If it was up to me, I'd require better justifications than just "bad idea", but as it's not up to me, I just strike those that are unjustified. Excessive aggressiveness isn't helpful in any way, and takes extra effort over "bad idea". And if you want to make a policy about suggestions, you go here (actually, this discussion should be there, not here) and then here, not A/PD. Also, removal of mandatory justifications was attempted about a year ago, and failed. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:26, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Page Move

So the old T:S page got moved? Yay! Linkthewindow ^Talk 21:30, 20 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah so now its the same mess as before but with a better name D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:52, 21 October 2008 (BST)

Sounds like kevan rudd's policies.... *ba doom chi* --xoxo 05:54, 21 October 2008 (BST)

So true... Linkthewindow ^Talk 06:10, 21 October 2008 (BST)

My god, you're Malton's own Bob Hope! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:17, 21 October 2008 (BST)

Discussions moved from Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions

Decrease time for deleting abandoned suggestions

As of the right now I would gladly delete what is very likely at least 80% abandoned suggestions. However, due to the week mark I cannot and hence, I request that we change the time for deletion to 4 days to save space, preserve neatness, and get rid of the insane annoyance I have with dead suggestions. No one even bothers to check more than the top five most of the time anyways.

--Diablor 22:54, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Discussion (Decrease time for deleting abandoned suggestions)

Maybe it's just me, but I consider all suggestions. I prefer leaving the 5 day thing as it is, as anyone who hasn't been around for even a couple day will need that time to catch up if they need to. Besides, 5 days goes fast enough.--Kolechovski 21:19, 2 September 2008 (BST)

---

Reworking Suggestions Heading

Currently, the top section of the suggestions page is very cluttered. I'm assuming that is because small additions and changes of 'How to' over time has just sort of messed it up. I'd like to get it cleaned up, as we have huge level two headings marking small statements. I think we could get the archives, overflow, and further discussion put into the same category, as well as other small adjustments. This would make it easier for new users to understand the page better. I'd have no problem with working out a format, and putting it here for review. - tylerisfat 12:50, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Alright, I'm starting work on it here. This is the first version. If you make changes, please make note of them on this discussion page. Thank you.

SuggestionsTemplate

- tylerisfat 16:07, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Discussion (Reworking Suggestions Heading

Fair enough. Create yourself a sandbox page, and make an example of what you want, and well work through it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:19, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Well, putting the whole page under a single level-one header is a bit pointless. Also, the information on how suggestions are cycled should not be under "Further Discussion". How about something like this? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:58, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I'm still working out a few kinks of my understanding of headers and what not. I've revised it, based on some of your own and some of Ross' suggestions, take a look. - tylerisfat 18:14, 8 August 2008 (BST)

---

Rewording How To Section

I made this suggestion on the wrong page, so have moved it here.

I'd suggest the removal of the word 'friendly' from the following text in the 'Suggestions: How To' page:

"If this is your first time making a suggestion, consider taking it to the Talk:Suggestions page before starting in on the voting process as described below. The friendly people there can help you avoid formating errors and will let you know if the suggestion stands a decent chance of passing a vote, has glaring problems, or (good or bad) has been made and voted on already in the past."

Obviously, all online communities develop their fair share of aggressive gatekeepers who want to piss their angry musk over newcomers to dissuade them from further contribution, but as this is meant to be a friendly introduction to chipping in - often made by more enthusiastic newcomers to the game - the name-calling, self-righteous rage and blanket assumption that people have an agenda to simply serve their own characters are pretty shitty. Assuming you want new contributors, of course.

Discussion (Suggestion Tolerance)

Replace with "friendly" --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:27, 27 July 2008 (BST)

HAHAHA! This is one of the best suggestions that has ever been made. Tylerisfat 22:44, 27 July 2008 (BST)

This is not a Urban Dead suggestion and as such does not go here, and constitutes as spam.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (BST)

"Assuming you want new contributors, of course." - We want new contributors, we just don't want you. Go away. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:19, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Indeed. I endeavor to remain neutral in terms of suggestions, but I have no problem with attacking blatant morons who stick their two inch high soap box in the wrong place because they think it's clever. Shape up, Leave, or get banned when you eventually cross the line.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (BST)

The suggestion is genuine, as is the justification for why it was made. It wasn't made in order to make me feel clever, but in the hope of altering the text so that new people wouldn't be suckered into thinking that their first attempts at contributing would be met with warmth or helpfulness. 'Friendly' real does seem inappropriate. And which 'line', Techercizer? Apart from misplacement, what have I done wrong?Ned-kogar 00:35, 28 July 2008 (BST)

That's not the place for it, Talk:Suggestions is for game suggestions development, not proposed reworkings of the system, that goes here(on this page). Other than that nothing, but if you ask me it doesn't seem like you care, just that you wanted to poke the bear or complain to someone, which is a great way to cause drama and get trolled all across the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 02:29, 28 July 2008 (BST)

With respect, you're mistakenly second-guessing my motivations. I really like this game, I like the ethos of Kevan's projects, and I was surprised to see the level of hostility by some individuals, particularly given that the Suggestions Development page is meant to be a place to try stuff out and get used to how things are done. I genuinely think it makes the community you have unattractive to newcomers. Removal of 'friendly' would at least make for less of a bruising surprise. Ned-kogar 11:09, 28 July 2008 (BST)

Problem is that we have been in operation for a really really long time. As a result almost every conceivable change has been discussed to death. There have been over a hundred postings of gun suggestions (probably 200+) on this wiki, in both the main system and on the development page. Every single trenchtastic upgrade (Military weapons! cars! etc!) has been shot down so thoroughly that they have the same effect on the suggestions community as an infection. Suggestions has become a swarm hive, with at least three different swarms nesting there, and a number of others periodically sweeping through. Predictably, we wouldnt have this problem if people thought their suggestions through, read the do's and do nots as well as frequently suggested, and searched the damned archives (It takes 10 minutes people!). --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:43, 28 July 2008 (BST)

Ok. Fair enough - it seems you have to know the game (and the accepted way(s) of playing it) pretty well before making a suggestion, even in the preliminary suggestion area. Always hard to join a long-established community. Nice terminology, btw.Ned-kogar 11:57, 29 July 2008 (BST)

---

Wiki Suggestion Suggestion

The mockery suggestions are getting out of hand. Suggestions made clearly to mock other users (Gardenator's 2 suggestions making fun of me, and Zaphod Beeblebrox's 1 suggestion making fun of DrPain) should belong in a different section, like one for Humorous Talk:Suggestions.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a suggestion is being made for trolling purposes instead of as a genuine attempt to talk something out before bringing it to a vote. If these most recent mocking suggestions are serious and not humorous, put them to a vote now.

There is a definite difference between a suggestion which some people might think is dumb, and a suggestion which is made clearly to mock and ridicule, or as a pure joke. The latter has no hope of ever going to a vote because the author did not intend for it to ever go to a vote when they made the 'suggestion' but rather for griefing and flamebaiting purposes.

It's bad enough this is happening with sigs (people making long sigs as insults instead of the intended purpose of a signature). Now we have have entire suggestions dedicated to slamming other users (in Gardenator's case, slamming me). As it stands, all the mock suggestions serve to do are to overload the talk:Suggestions page faster. I'd like to see this change happen as a minimal attempt to have some sort of civility, unless the wiki is meant to be another 4chan. --Tselita 18:41, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Historically, its a place where all suggestions can be developed. Humourous or otherwise. I mean when the people who remove these suggestions put themselves up for vandalism, you can see the problem. A few of the older (longer) users of the wiki develop suggestions on their own pages/ ask for direct feedback from other users they value the opinion or knowledge of. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:27, 3 June 2008 (BST)

In these cases though the only purpose is to directly insult another user. By doing it on the talk page for developing suggestions they just make it that bit more likely that people will go straight to the main page and a valuable method of refining the good bits from shit suggestions is lost. I don't think putting them up should be treated as vandalism (even though it could easily be argued that it is) but really; funny though "toolboxes" was its just not what the page is for!--Honestmistake 19:39, 3 June 2008 (BST)

So? Suggestions? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:43, 3 June 2008 (BST)

It is a humorous suggestion and we have a page for those.... its tucked away in a dark corner and barely worth visiting but it is there. The problem is that the nailgun and toolbox suggestions were deliberate (and funny) parody of something on the page they were posted on and would not have worked elsewhere... maybe a rule that such postings can only stay for 24 hours before you must move them to humorous? By then the point has been made and a simple link from the parodied suggestion to the new location would make it easy to find for those who might care but would not SPAM the page and detract from its real purpose.--Honestmistake 19:50, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Fair enough. I guess a policy or decision may have to be made. You don't want people getting treated diffrently. [[1]]--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:56, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Parody is allowed humor, just because someone gets butt-hurt doesn't mean we have to indulge it, the suggestions were funny, they were funny because they were parodies of crap that was actually suggested. Whether they were meant to be insulting isn't as big of a problem as that Tselita would have been insulted anyway.--Karek^maps?! 03:46, 4 June 2008 (BST)

---

The page is screwed up now. The box on the left that's supposed to be an outside is smashed very narrow and very long, and that's screwing the positioning of everything else. It looks horrible. I use IE though, not sure if it matters. It wasn't this way a month or 2 ago (was normal then).--Kolechovski 20:28, 29 May 2008 (BST)

The table of contents is in a table with the Archives, Further Discussion and How To sections in the cell next to it. I'm guessing this is so that the table of contents doesn't squish the suggestions themselves. And it looks the same in IE and Firefox. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:46, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Changes?

Is it just me, or is UD getting... played out? We need some new elements to the game :( --Haliman - Talk 02:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It could do with something entirely new, and not zombie or survivor focused, just something that can be enjoyed by both sides. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree. However, I think the game's only half of it - I came for the zombies, stayed for the community. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Too long!

The page is getting too long and it's tearing itself apart! The line on the left is broken (it starts halfway down the page) and some kind of mysterious "Media:Example.ogg" has appeared at the bottom of the page and the rest of the stuff at the bottom has been devoured! Whatever do we do!? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:22, 30 March 2009 (BST)

It's happening again. Also, the "Suggestions up for Voting" at the bottom was eaten a long time ago and hasn't been restored. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

It still exists (unless someone else restored it), it's just empty because people are doing it this way now, which I think is better anyway. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:33, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Does anyone know how long is too long before current developing suggestions should be moved to the Overflow? Right now there are 12 suggestions in discussion and they are very long with a lot of templates and some pictures. What's the cut-off point? I was thinking 10 discussions and move the least active of discussions after that into the overflow. Any thoughts on this?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:32, 19 August 2009 (BST)

It's too long when it breaks. The discussions can vary in length enormously so it's pointless to assign an arbitrary number. --Midianian 12:01, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Frankly overflow has been used once in the last year. Gnerally when we have about 20 suggestions being developed. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:25, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Why do people hate new flavor?

I've been looking over past logs, and a lot of entries seem to be shot down simply because it was 'too complicated'. Case in point is about a clothing bloodied status getting killed not because it makes the game unfun but because it's 'too complicated'. Bullshit! It's entirely flavor text that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. How could they possibly whine about how complicated it is?--Parakirby 07:23, 27 April 2009 (BST)

It would help if you linked the actual suggestion you are talking about, however if you are talking about the clothes get bloody 1 layer at a time its worth pointing out that it made very little sense and added nothing but a slight complication on the current situation anyway. As for flavour in general its always going to be a matter of taste and if it adds nothing to the actual game it almost certainly will not get added anyway. That said purely flavour suggestions usually do better than those with actual effects so I can't say I agree that they are always shot down. --Honestmistake 13:38, 27 April 2009 (BST)

You do understand the amazingly flawed logic behind the suggestion at hand, don't you? In real life, how often do you bleed on the outside layer of your clothes and not the inside layer? Most users voted against it because it made no sense, not because it was too complicated. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:02, 27 April 2009 (BST)

See, I voted for that suggestion and it seemed to me that what you were getting was other people's blood. Never thought of it the other way around. -CaptainVideo 00:06, 28 April 2009 (BST)

It's also about the fact that Kevan has precious little time (as do we all) and people would rather see him implement other things instead of using his time to code something that amounts to pretty much nothing. Additionally, how many people are going to notice "oh my clothes appear to have gotten bloody on the outside/inside first," really? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:10, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Haha, sorry, I posted this after 36 hours without sleep and staying awake on 2 litres of coke.--Parakirby 14:28, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Reworking the Intro Again

Just here to get some opinions on another, not too major, rework of the current header. You can see the proposed example at SuggestionsTemplate and you can discuss it on Talk:SuggestionsTemplate. --  RoosterDragon  02:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Removal

I think we should shorten the kill-time on these suggestions in order to reduce clutter; three days sounds good. Do I need to take this to A/PD, or is that just a local policy? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:00, 19 August 2009 (BST)

No. Changing it from 7 days to 3 days is counter-productive. It's fine the way it is. Or, I guess 5 days wouldn't hurt. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:52, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Leave it as it is. Yes its annoying when some newb comments "this is good" minutes before the 7 days deadline, but its not page breakingly long. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:42, 20 August 2009 (BST)

The short time limit for suggestions on this page is there because it used to end up with so many templated sigs on the page, that it regularly broke. The only reason we should shorten the time that suggestions are left here is because the page is being broken again -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:51 20 August 2009 (BST)

Here's another removal aspect: we put a notice on DS asking people with no plans to submit their suggestions to delete them; that gets the clearly broken ones out of the way (when the can be convinced), cuts down on the suggestions on the page, and doesn't cause anyone's idea to be taken down prematurely. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:39, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Amen. I second it. --Matthewbluewars ^{/New City\} 14:28, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I also agree. It would help sift out the problematic suggestions as they have been dismissed. Some people already do it, but it would be good to get everyone doing it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:55, 6 September 2009 (BST)

So, do I need to take this to A/PD or just make the change myself? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:27, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Which one? If you're shortening the time on deleting them, yeah, it probably warrants a vote; if you're just adding a "please clean up after yourself" message, then no, you can just go ahead and do that. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:21, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Lelouch, I don't like your "this suggestion sucks" template. It is confusing, because it looks as though the suggester is being threatened with a vandalism warning if they do not remove it. Instead, just draw their attention to the guideline about removing the suggestion if they do not plan to take it to voting. Some (including myself) will not have noticed it, because they have read the guidelines before and were not aware that they had changed.
And I agree about shortening the kill time. Even 3 days is too long. I'd reduce it to 48 hours or maybe even 24. You don't need everyone to see it. If a flaw is so obvious that it makes a suggestion unsuitable for voting, someone else will notice it and comment on it. --Explodey 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious as to how you got "threatened with vandalism" out of "This suggestion sucks. It should be removed by the author as soon as possible." He was basically saying "this is a bad idea, you should remove it and not take it to voting," not at all "YOU ARE A VANDAL TAKE THIS CRAP DOWN." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:13, 17 November 2009 (BST)

I also don't like the template, looks a bit too wiki serious, rather than most templates posted here. We should probably ban all templates on the page anyway. And big multi coloured writing. 7 days is a fair time. We want people to get as much feedback as possible. After all, we're supposed to be developing suggestions. Something a lot of newbs don't grasp.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just now realized that colorful text is blinking (it wasn't in my main browser for some reason). Isn't that against policy anyway? But yeah, 7 days is good, and templates just clutter things up unnecessarily. The objective here should be to encourage positive change, rather than discourage further participation, despite how annoying some suggesters may be. —Aichon— 20:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Blinking text is fair game, just not in signatures. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:33, 17 November 2009 (BST)

Bob, partly because of the word "warning" in the caption, and as Rosslessness said it's too official-looking. --Explodey 20:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined towards a standardised response, that just gets copy-pasted onto every shit suggestion, rather than a template. Maybe even do it as a text template, rather than a little box. 21:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

<your name> thinks this suggestion cannot be salvaged under any condition for the following reasons: <reasons>. —Aichon— 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

LIke grims, "no more guns" template? which explained why new guns would just hurt survivors? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Here --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, along that line in terms of format, but maybe a bit more impartial sounding. I was just thinking, as Misanthropy suggested, that we could make some generic boilerplate like that, that way someone could see at a glance how many people think the idea was dead on arrival vs. how many people think it can be developed and used. Making a {{WelcomeSuggestionNewbie}} template might not be a bad idea either, since we could address a load of common issues, such as multi-part suggestions, the Frequently Suggested and Dos and Do Nots pages, how to search for dupes, etc. —Aichon— 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus H. Me! Why am I having to deal with idiots? The reason why the limit is seven days is... are you ready? Not everyone checks the wiki every day! Why is their opinion less valid because they aren't refreshing recent changes every five fucking minutes? It isn't. Stop trying to turn this page into the Facespace of pages, especially because it'll cause me more work duping stupid shit.

You all want to contribute? Force through a vandalism criteria that punishes spamming this page up with rubbish that you have no intention taking to the main page. That'll stop morons like ZL and Winman filling the page with troll bait for shits and giggles. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If (enough of) you guys think my template looks too official, I'll stop using it as it is; the officialness was meant to be a parody. That being said, I'm sick, and if you guys hate it so much, why not just make me a better one? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I also don't get how you get "Vandal Ban" from my template; it's a clock and some crude language to get the point across. The only people who would recognize the image seem to me like people who would easily be able to tell the difference, and it's not like I don't sign after it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If no one's going to respond to my questions about these misgivings, then I'll just keep using the template. I'm not trying to "weasel out of this" or anything, but I still don't see the big deal, and while we're discussing this, fail after fail is appearing on DS. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad suggestions will keep appearing on DS. Some of them will be mine. That's what DS is for. But suppose you keep using that template and convince a few to remove their suggestions early. Then the more rational suggesters will be convinced that their suggestions suck and take them down, and the more stubborn suggesters will not listen and will leave their suggestions up for the maximum 7 days (is it really 7 days? It says 2 in the #Cycling Suggestions section. Is this a recent change?) So the page will be dominated not just by bad suggestions, but by bad suggestions from people who don't listen to advice. No improvement in quality, but a lot of increase in drama. It doesn't matter that much what the time limit is, but IMHO the same time limit should apply to all suggestions. Let the bad ones idle out. --Explodey 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fallacy of Logic: Templates only get used for the shittiest suggestions that are obviously broken and whose suggesters refuse to listen to reason or even stop insisting their idea is perfect. Template spamming every suggestion would be stupid trolling. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But you used it on one of my suggestions recently even though I was convinced it was a bad idea and I would not have submitted it for voting. Just because the suggester disagrees with specific criticisms and does not take it down immediately does not necessarily mean they are not listening. --Explodey 02:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like an admin template because the template it copies isn't an admin template. Keep using it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ark

{{{name}}}

Timestamp: {{{time}}}

Type: {{{type}}}

Scope: {{{scope}}}

Description: {{{description}}}

---

Gasp

No suggestions in development? That's unpossible!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Quickly, make one!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Um um um...I have no ideas at the moment!!! Quick, someone come up with a dupetastic suggestion!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rifles! Shooting through walls! Mechanical Bears!!!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think UD would be much better with D&D's Turn Undead. It would be used by applying crucifixes. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any work donw towards sorting old-accepted-but-never-implemented suggestions according to how badly we'd like to see them? I know there are some frequently suggested themes that are not hard to implement, have been voted "yes", but have never been implemented. But the fact that they are suggested again once in a while says something, eh? ~m ^T! 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh

I'd purpose this game be made... eh, FUN again. Or at least you people could be... I dunno, FUN. Meh. Guess not, right? ~m ^T! 04:42, 11 May 2011 (BST)

Drop Box

I have a good idea. I know most of u have heard this 1000 times before. About 6 or 7 buildings in all of Malton will have a drop box. Anyone can drop items in, but each user can only take 3 things out every 24 hours. so if you have an over load of fuel cans, just drop some in to the box and get something more usefull to your user. the drop box will be included in the description of the inside of the building. only living users can access the box. im sure you can think up some more ideas to go along with it. thanks for your time. -icbi1

the problem with this idea is that, unfortunately, certain users would take it upon themselves to create multiple accounts to farm items for their main account.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:48, 28 July 2011 (BST)

then mabye narrow it down to only 1 access per 24 hours? i dont know how much that might help..--User:Icbi1/Icbi1 11:52, 28 July 2011 (BST)

Item trading of any kind has always been considered a massive no-no, and I don't really see it being implemented by Kevan.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:58, 28 July 2011 (BST)

You know how to get a solid gaming experience without worrying about items? Play zombie. 21:56, 28 July 2011 (BST)

Zerg farming is actually really easy to code for and usually makes it easier to spot them. Also Zerging can be used to refute literally every suggestion. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:58, 29 July 2011 (BST)

Zerging is a massive problem in urban dead already, and item farming is perhaps the stupidest idea ever, because it practically tells zerging players to zerg. Now Karek, you're obviously on your period or something, so I'll let go the fact that you seem to be making backhanded comments everywhere. However, if it persists for more than three days, we'll know that you aren't on your period and I'll have to face the fact that maybe you're just an idiot.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:48, 29 July 2011 (BST)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. It's certainly not a point codified in years worth of suggestiond guidelines or anything. It also amuses me that you're claiming this can't work when it's done in dozens of other similar games, like the former Nexus War, wihout anything like what you're implying. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:38, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Ya'll are touchy :P He does have a point though. As soon as the word zerg is attached to even the best suggestions everyone jumps on the train and the suggestion goes belly-up. It's almost like were afraid of that small portion of the game that actively zergs :P        12:00, 29 July 2011 (BST)

Everything that benefits anyone benefits zergers. However, anything that benefits multiple characters working in unison benefits zergers more than it does anyone else. 02:47, 30 July 2011 (BST)

The game is about multiple characters working in unison was he point. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:38, 30 July 2011 (BST)

I just thought of a way to make it just a little bit easier to accept.. i think. When you put an item into the dropbox, a random item that another user has put in, is given to you, but keep the idea of only 2 or 3 accesses per 24 hours. this might not cause item farming. i dont know if this hurt my case or helped it, hope it helped. thanks for your time. btw i agree with mazu about the zerging issue. -icbi1

Scorched Earth

Timestamp: • LtZurSee slapped your nose with a newspaper for a heal from CORAM (0 seconds ago) 13:53, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Type: Skill Suggestion

Scope: Survivors/Zombies in Siege Situations

Description: So, right now, sieges are far too difficult for survivors. While, yes, barricades are easier to maintain than destroy, the sheer weight of numbers is easily weighing in the zack's favour. So I suggest an addition. A bit of flavour, a bit of a bonus for the top level survivors, that also hurts them as much as helps them.

Often, there ends up being large piles of bodies, both survivor and zombie forces, revivifying and waiting to rejoin the zombie side. "Living" and dead, as it were. But what does every smart survivor do in siege such as this? How does any survivor stop disease, and make sure their enemies don't return? They burn the bodies.

Adding to the Zombie Hunter tree, AFTER headshot, survivors will gain the skill "Scorched Earth". When survivors have both a source of fuel (fuel can), and a source of ignition (flare gun), they will be able to spend 2AP (1 per 'action') to first douse their block's body pile with the petrol, and then ignite it with a flare gun. Doing so consumes both items.

The effect this would have would result in the following:

All zombie corpses in the pile (not revivifying) will be required to spend a further 5AP to stand up, in order to 'repair the damage done', much like repairing after a headshot.

All revivifying corpses in the pile will have their revivification wiped (as it would be like killing them once more), and also be required to spend the AP penalty.

The AP penalty STACKS with the headshot penalty, equally balancing the loss of revives.

An award of 5 or 10 XP for the team play element (equivalent to a pistol or shotgun blast).

This would encourage the following:

New tactics on the part of zombies, and survivors alike.

Zombies would need to focus attacks on important Resource Points to make their attacks more useful.

Junior zombies would not be penalized for soloing, as survivors would not want to waste a fuel can, and a flare gun on making a lone body stay down.

Survivors would not stack outside Resource Point walls, and instead would focus on dedicated revivification points.

Player Killers will have a new tactic they can use, when targeting specific groups.

Newbie Survivors, untrained in combat, will gain a new way of assisting, and leveling that doesn't require a system rework.

Zombies will be wise to, but not forced to, attack garages before sieges - giving survivors new points to defend, and more time to prepare for the oncoming horde.

Sorry for the long post. I hope it's not too wall of text-y. I look forward to hearing development ideas.