User talk:Galaxy125
10k Society
Membership approved. Welcome to the 10K Society. Galaxy125 is now a 
Gold Member. Thank you for your interest for the Society. --CannibalX 15:40, 4 August 2008 (BST)
 |
10k Society |
| This user is a proud member of the 10k Society |
Brain Rot Toggle
| Timestamp: | JaredTalk SPA CK 17:36, 26 July 2008 (BST) |
| Type: | Interface/Gameplay change |
| Scope: | Brain-rotted zombies |
| Description: | I suggest that, due to the number of people buying Brain Rot without realizing what it does, there should be an option on the "Edit Your Profile and Settings" page to toggle Rot on and off. This would help survivors who accidentally buy Rot, but would not hurt zombies who want to have it. |
Discussion (Brain Rot Toggle)
Spam, Dupe, WTFCENTAUR, and whatever it is that you voters say when an idea is old.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 17:38, 26 July 2008 (BST)
If you bought brain rot without realising what it was, you are incredibly fucking retarded, given you are asking for this, i can only conclude that you are incredibly fucking retarded and bought Brain Rot, the effects of which are clearly described and which has its own confirmation screen explaining that again, while somehow managing not to know what it did. I am amazed you had the intelligence to even write this suggestion given the circumstances. In an ideal world you would have been euthanised. --The Grimch U! E! 17:53, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- As a matter of fact, I did not buy Brain Rot and I am not asking for this for myself. --JaredTalk SPA CK 17:59, 26 July 2008 (BST)
Look, I on behalf of all users here will give you a very polite but very firm: No.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 18:04, 26 July 2008
Not only is this dupe-o-rific, it's spam-o-rific, as per Grim. Rot is PERMENANT. Period. Embrace it. Or don't buy it. 'Sides, there is a clearly marked warning screen asking "Are you sure?" ... Now please go back to SA with and wave your e-peen with a report of how cool you are because you spammed our page with a junk suggestion -- and stay there. Or back under whatever rock you oozed out from under if you're not in fact a Goon troll. --WanYao 18:01, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- see ... it's SHIT like that this that tries suggestion page contributors' patience. Go away. Please. --WanYao 18:04, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- Would you rather have me post it a suggestion without putting it here first? If I wanted to spam the page, I would have done that. --JaredTalk SPA CK 18:06, 26 July 2008 (BST)
I've personally suggested this before myself. I figured it would be an advantage for ZOMBIES, who would be able to ignore combat revives when desired, but then could toggle rot off when they want to play as death cultists, or grab a flak jacket / x-mass tree / party hat. However, as is clear above, people don't like that; apparently a skill (or at east, THIS skill) offering benefits without any drawback is frowned (and stomped and then defecated) on. 
Swiers 18:58, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- And then we set it on fire --The Grimch U! E! 18:59, 26 July 2008 (BST)
Pretty much. The skill is designed to give advantages and disadvantages, and removing one or the other (in general consensus), Nerfs or Overpowers the skill in the eyes of many UDwikiers-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (BST)(Edit Conflicts)
For over 2 years about now Brain Rot has provided a pop-up warning about exactly what it is and gives you a chance to opt out. I'd provide links so you'd have a point of reference but it seems the database won't let me search that specific term right now.--Karekmaps?! 19:05, 26 July 2008 (BST)
I can understand that someone might eventually want to turn Brain Rot off. Especially if they're like me and they only play one character. However, a toggle makes it too easy. Everyone would take the skill and then just toggle it to "off," which fails to distinguish the dedicated zombies in the skill-progression ranks. So, how 'bout this: rotters can currently be revived in NT buildings. I'd suggest that when they're revived (in NT buildings), if they have a FAK and a syringe on their person, a second button appears next to "Stand up"..."Recuperate." For 25 AP, a FAK and a syringe, the brain rot would be "cured" (removed from that player's skill list). Alternately, survivors with rot might have to go to a powered hospital to use their MRI to "recuperate" after having stood up. --Galaxy125 19:21, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- This particular discussion is not the place to suggest this, post it as a new suggestion. In addition, This is, no offense, a terrible idea.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 19:23, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- NO!!! Brain Rot is PERMENANT. FINAL. FOREVER. That's the whole point of the skill. And allowing you turn if off, in ANY MANNER, basically allows a zombie to avoid Combat Revives at will, without suffering any consequences. Wake up. --WanYao 19:41, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- Don't think I don't know that. However, the talk page is a place to get productive feedback on suggestions. I was offering the perspective that a simple toggle is problematic as it doesn't have any associated cost. Admittedly, my suggestion to alter Jared's suggestion wasn't terribly well thought-out, but it served the purpose of saying that if Brain Rot could get turned off, it would need to be a very costly action, to prevent people from abusing Brain Rot. --Galaxy125 22:40, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- Come to think of it, one cost which is acceptable is all of a player's skills and XP. If a rotter gets revived and wants to lose brain rot via a 'recuperate' button, he or she must also lose all other skills and xp. Consider it to be (for lack of a better term) a character reset. In terms of gameplay, it prevents people from simply abandoning their characters and starting new ones, or leaving entirely due to lack of options. In terms of in-game, it could be considered total amnesia due to the medical process (?) which removed the brain rot.--Galaxy125 23:04, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- Don't you get it???? Toggling Brain Rot is such a fucking bad idea -- and so totally outside the established UD "mythos" -- that there is NOTHING productive to say about it. NOTHING!!! OAre you starting to get the point yet??? This. Idea. Sucks. At the root. Get it?? --WanYao 00:37, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- However I just read your second paragraph. That's even worse!!! No fucking character resets. Sheeeeeeesh.... You are an idiot. --WanYao 00:40, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- Please cite 'No fucking character resets.' In fact, please cite any of your assertions. I might've missed those memos. Also, consider the fact that if a suggestion like Jared's keeps coming up, it might indicate that there's some problem with the game, and the appropriate action in such instances is to reevaluate fundamental assumptions. --Galaxy125 01:38, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- It hasnt come up in over a year because the measures in place were, until now at least, idiot proof. Unfortunately they built a better idiot. The major problem before came with people spraying tinyurls at revive points claiming they were for revive tools but they actually bought the person brain rot. That was years ago and it doesnt work anymore. Besides, if people are absolute idiots and fuck up their characters, the proper response is to deride them for their stupidity, not coddle them with even more retarded shit. Brain Rot forever. Its an irrevocable life choice, just like headshot. Learn to live with it. --The Grimch U! E! 03:45, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- galaxy125, I'm not going to coddle your stupidity. On any level, or by any means. If you can't see why toggling Brain Rot and character resets are a bad idea, that's your problem, go figure out the hows and wherefores of why you're a moron on your own time. --WanYao 07:10, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- Grimch, if it ain't a problem, get on WanYao's case for calling it "dupe-o-rific" incorrectly and non-constructively. WanYao, if you're not on this page to provide constructive criticism, then why are you on this page? Finally, I'm a dual-natured rotter, because a zombie would let their brain rot. I personally don't care at this point if I get revived or not, I'm having a ton of fun playing as is. But how in the world would it hurt you or unbalance the game to consider my revision of the suggestion? Remember, one of the guiding lights of suggesting is to make the game more fun! --Galaxy125 08:21, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- At this point, this thread should probably be posted as another proposed suggestion on this page. However, my challenge was not made clear in the above edit. Grimch, WanYao, or others, please find one way that my change would negatively impact your gameplay. And I don't mean, "I play a lifecultist with rot and I don't want to constantly see the extra button," but rather something substantial. --Galaxy125 09:14, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- No. YOU fail to provide intelligent or informed commentary. That is non-constructive. Me and Grim always offer reasons for attacking ideas. And users. You're just whinging because we're picking on you -- and with good reason. Because your ideas and comments are totally off-base and ill-informed. Smarten up, or suck it up. Princess. --WanYao 10:48, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- ...Didn't think you could. There's therapy available for kainotophobia. Grim? --Galaxy125 20:07, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- please find one way that my change would negatively impact your gameplay. How about this: I'm fighting a zombie I DNA scanned that said he didn't have BR. I decide to stop wailing on him with my axe and instead hit him with a needle, but suddenly, magically, he turns on BR and I just wasted 10 AP and a needle. Then he turns off his BR and kills me or gets a revive and PKs me because I now have 10 AP less than I did (and might even be in the negative). It would be a way to screw survivors out of AP and needles unfairly. If they have BR on all the time and I scan them I only lose 1 AP. I can guarantee you people would do this (I would). Or if they are in a revive queue and turn off BR until a survivor comes back and starts reviving zombies. They get scanned, turn on the BR, and then eat the person reviving people because they know they are down at least 10 AP more than they were.--– Nubis NWO 02:34, 29 July 2008 (BST)
- You're correct as it pertains to the original suggestion, Nubis, and thank you for your constructive feedback. We're on a slightly different thread here, though. Check through the colons. --Galaxy125 04:02, 29 July 2008 (BST)
- please find one way that my change would negatively impact your gameplay. How about this: I'm fighting a zombie I DNA scanned that said he didn't have BR. I decide to stop wailing on him with my axe and instead hit him with a needle, but suddenly, magically, he turns on BR and I just wasted 10 AP and a needle. Then he turns off his BR and kills me or gets a revive and PKs me because I now have 10 AP less than I did (and might even be in the negative). It would be a way to screw survivors out of AP and needles unfairly. If they have BR on all the time and I scan them I only lose 1 AP. I can guarantee you people would do this (I would). Or if they are in a revive queue and turn off BR until a survivor comes back and starts reviving zombies. They get scanned, turn on the BR, and then eat the person reviving people because they know they are down at least 10 AP more than they were.--– Nubis NWO 02:34, 29 July 2008 (BST)
- ...Didn't think you could. There's therapy available for kainotophobia. Grim? --Galaxy125 20:07, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- No. YOU fail to provide intelligent or informed commentary. That is non-constructive. Me and Grim always offer reasons for attacking ideas. And users. You're just whinging because we're picking on you -- and with good reason. Because your ideas and comments are totally off-base and ill-informed. Smarten up, or suck it up. Princess. --WanYao 10:48, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- At this point, this thread should probably be posted as another proposed suggestion on this page. However, my challenge was not made clear in the above edit. Grimch, WanYao, or others, please find one way that my change would negatively impact your gameplay. And I don't mean, "I play a lifecultist with rot and I don't want to constantly see the extra button," but rather something substantial. --Galaxy125 09:14, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- Grimch, if it ain't a problem, get on WanYao's case for calling it "dupe-o-rific" incorrectly and non-constructively. WanYao, if you're not on this page to provide constructive criticism, then why are you on this page? Finally, I'm a dual-natured rotter, because a zombie would let their brain rot. I personally don't care at this point if I get revived or not, I'm having a ton of fun playing as is. But how in the world would it hurt you or unbalance the game to consider my revision of the suggestion? Remember, one of the guiding lights of suggesting is to make the game more fun! --Galaxy125 08:21, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- galaxy125, I'm not going to coddle your stupidity. On any level, or by any means. If you can't see why toggling Brain Rot and character resets are a bad idea, that's your problem, go figure out the hows and wherefores of why you're a moron on your own time. --WanYao 07:10, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- It hasnt come up in over a year because the measures in place were, until now at least, idiot proof. Unfortunately they built a better idiot. The major problem before came with people spraying tinyurls at revive points claiming they were for revive tools but they actually bought the person brain rot. That was years ago and it doesnt work anymore. Besides, if people are absolute idiots and fuck up their characters, the proper response is to deride them for their stupidity, not coddle them with even more retarded shit. Brain Rot forever. Its an irrevocable life choice, just like headshot. Learn to live with it. --The Grimch U! E! 03:45, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- Please cite 'No fucking character resets.' In fact, please cite any of your assertions. I might've missed those memos. Also, consider the fact that if a suggestion like Jared's keeps coming up, it might indicate that there's some problem with the game, and the appropriate action in such instances is to reevaluate fundamental assumptions. --Galaxy125 01:38, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- However I just read your second paragraph. That's even worse!!! No fucking character resets. Sheeeeeeesh.... You are an idiot. --WanYao 00:40, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- Don't you get it???? Toggling Brain Rot is such a fucking bad idea -- and so totally outside the established UD "mythos" -- that there is NOTHING productive to say about it. NOTHING!!! OAre you starting to get the point yet??? This. Idea. Sucks. At the root. Get it?? --WanYao 00:37, 27 July 2008 (BST)
- Come to think of it, one cost which is acceptable is all of a player's skills and XP. If a rotter gets revived and wants to lose brain rot via a 'recuperate' button, he or she must also lose all other skills and xp. Consider it to be (for lack of a better term) a character reset. In terms of gameplay, it prevents people from simply abandoning their characters and starting new ones, or leaving entirely due to lack of options. In terms of in-game, it could be considered total amnesia due to the medical process (?) which removed the brain rot.--Galaxy125 23:04, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- Don't think I don't know that. However, the talk page is a place to get productive feedback on suggestions. I was offering the perspective that a simple toggle is problematic as it doesn't have any associated cost. Admittedly, my suggestion to alter Jared's suggestion wasn't terribly well thought-out, but it served the purpose of saying that if Brain Rot could get turned off, it would need to be a very costly action, to prevent people from abusing Brain Rot. --Galaxy125 22:40, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- NO!!! Brain Rot is PERMENANT. FINAL. FOREVER. That's the whole point of the skill. And allowing you turn if off, in ANY MANNER, basically allows a zombie to avoid Combat Revives at will, without suffering any consequences. Wake up. --WanYao 19:41, 26 July 2008 (BST)
As WanYao said, there is already an 'are you sure?" asked when you click on the button. Thus you CAN'T "accidentally" buy the skill unless your an idiot who spam clicks on the skills screen. And if you do THAT, suffer the consequences.--Pesatyel 07:05, 27 July 2008 (BST)
Horsemanship
| Timestamp: | Galaxy125 17 July 2008 22:50 (USA:PST) |
| Type: | Item, skill |
| Scope: | Survivors, primarily. |
| Description: | Transform some of the deserted streets into "outdoor stables" (say, at most ~1 per suburb). Within these areas (which cannot be barricaded), survivors have a ~2% chance of finding a "horse." The horse allows its owner to move without using AP, but finding it or using it does not confer any XP bonus. This item has a few characteristics.
If the owner completely uses the horse, it dies of exhaustion and disappears. If the owner attempts to enter a building while on a horse, in doing so (s)he tethers it outside. Here it becomes a targetable "abandoned horse".
Survivors can take the skill "horsemanship." If taken, the chance to find the horse goes up to ~4%, and the number of uses of (a newly-found) horse goes up to ~50. Other number tweaks would be a good way to balance this suggestion. For instance, perhaps there is an attack bonus (or handicap) for riders.
Anyway, I enjoy the flavor of an anti-zombie cavalry. I enjoy the mechanic of a lucky cowpoke being able to (nearly) cross the city in a day. Also, for zombies, the presence of an abandoned horse would indicate the presence of a nearby survivor (aside from being a good meal). I know that stables aren't exactly commonplace in cities in this millenium, but many major cities (as Malton is presumed to be) have at least one for horse-drawn carriage tours. In any case, just a thought, inspired partially by volume 1 of Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead. |
Discussion Horsemanship
Like the bank vaults and train stations, any stables wold have been emptied in the evacuation. That, and free movement (even if paid for with searching) seems a bad idea. Swiers 07:45, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- The movement isn't totally free. This can be viewed as a one-time AP bonus that applies solely to movement actions. --Galaxy125 19:27, 18 July 2008 (BST)
WTF centaurs? --WanYao 10:01, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- This reply is actually on-topic. --Aeon17x 14:04, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- Just trying to live out my necrophiliac zoophiliac dream. --Galaxy125 19:27, 18 July 2008 (BST)
Why not just introduce aliens to the game instead? They have flying saucers that can destroy a building, bringing it down like a professional demolition (Telescoping it) so that everyone inside dies. Because they are buried in rubble they have to dig their way out, which would be like clawing through 100 levels of barricade. Each. Aliens also have a new weapon called a probee, through which they can do evil things to people and cattle. When killed with a Probe, a person akes up with no logs, only a piece of text that reads: "The Alien, Players name here, attacked you with a glowing probe. Your butt really hurts." Death to a probe is like headshot. Flying Saucers can hover over the ground and must be shot down. When killed aliens must be permenantly disposed of by an autopsy and cremation, for which they must be carried to forts as a 70% encumberance object. An alien can reanimate at any time it chooses provided it hasnt been autopsied and cremated, and such a reanimation kills the host and leaves the alien in his place, whereupon he can summon his flying saucer for 1ap and climb in for another. This little thing i just thought of is completely unbalanced, but it is still a better suggestion than adding horses to the game. if there were horses in malton, they would have been killed and eaten by humans and zombies alike in the THREE FUCKING YEARS since the quarantine went down, and dropping horses out of helicopters seems rather messy to me. --The Grimch U! E! 13:06, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- If you hunt around, you might be able to find a MiB RPG somewhere that would fulfill your fantasy. In any case, please post your wonderful suggestion under a separate header, as it isn't a revision of "horsemanship". Also, if dropping crocodiles out of bombers works for the BBC [1], dropping horses out of helicopters might work for us. --Galaxy125 19:27, 18 July 2008 (BST)
Nip norf snarf girf. Wan said it best, STREETS IS WATCHIN'.--Karekmaps?! 13:08, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- Could be worse. 'Horsemanship' might give -1/-1 to all barricades. --Galaxy125 20:23, 18 July 2008 (BST)
If horse do exist in Malton/Mono,they should be zombie horse or dead after three year of lock down with zombies.Unless you say that zombie weren't interested in eating horse until now.--Perne 14:47, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- That's a good point (brought up by Perne, Grim_s and Swiers). Even if some horses had been left behind, they would've starved to death or been eaten by humans or zombies. The only (realistic) way for them to avoid such a fate would've been to have had free run of a large central park, which Malton curiously lacks. --Galaxy125 19:27, 18 July 2008 (BST)
Im still confused why you didn't actually suggest this as a monroeville suggestuin, where theres farms and barns, and well horsey type stuff --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:01, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- I wasn't active on the Wiki at that time. Is it too late to make a suggestion for Monroeville? --Galaxy125 20:23, 18 July 2008 (BST)
A stable in the city of Malton? You're making a humorous suggestion, right? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:07, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- Yes and no. In that order. --Galaxy125 20:23, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- I live in New York, and at most, I've seen only 1 stable in NYC. Unless you head for the suburbs of Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island (Here in New York, we consider the suburb of Manhatten as the city, unlike what many of you might think...) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:09, 18 July 2008 (BST)
I have only one more thing to say...after finally reading the suggestion...See here. And... *Will Smith's "Wild Wild West" can be heard playing in the background.* One more thing...I never knew Malton was a Clint Eastwood movie... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:20, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- Roger that. I read that before posting this, but wasn't sure it would be considered a standard "vehicle," as it would be able to traverse ruined streets and doesn't need fuel. Also, taking into consideration the number of suburbs of Malton, it is entirely believable that there would be at least one stable in the city. And thank you for actually reading the suggestion. --Galaxy125 01:00, 19 July 2008 (BST)
It's been said before, but my characters both thought that the horses we did find were damned tasty ;). Also I'm not sure that horses are quite in genre, but I could be wrong --Disc10 20:58, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- They're not entirely out-of-genre (The Walking Dead, Army of Darkness, Zombie Survival Guide). That said, I can understand how some people have difficulty imagining them in an urban environment. Consider, though, the deer in New York in the recent movie adaptation of I Am Legend. --Galaxy125 01:00, 19 July 2008 (BST)
Bikes, Cars, APC's, and Helicopters were all turned down. Why would something as stupid as horses somehow seem like a smart thing to say? I think I can feel my brain rot just reading this crap. --Officer Dick Trickle 22:13, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- Now, just because horses are stupid doesn't mean they're not useful. You would perhaps prefer I suggest the smarter donkey? --Galaxy125 01:00, 19 July 2008 (BST)
I know that there's a lot of discussion and really everything has been covered, but I felt the urge to just say holy shit, this is the worst suggestion ever. Kudos to the author, in an incredibly strange way. --Papa Moloch 23:06, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- Thank you. I'll expect my badge in the Malton mail. --Galaxy125 01:00, 19 July 2008 (BST)
 |
HORSES! |
| This User suggested horses! HAHAHAHAHA He's an idiot and has no reedeming value. |
Hmm...looks like trollage to me. Anyway, Wan said it best - WFTCentaurs. Also, ZOMGMinotaurs for good measure. I must disagree with Papa Moloch, the worst suggestion ever was that Psychic Repulsor Weapon one, or the one allowing you to take a slash on dead bodies. But this made me laugh. So, ROFLHarpies. --Sir Bob Fortune RR 23:56, 18 July 2008 (BST)
- So, nothing wrong with the mechanic, just not applicable in the Malton setting? --Galaxy125 01:00, 19 July 2008 (BST)
- No, the mechanic is broken as well. It'd be instaspammed under vehicles. --Sir Bob Fortune RR 01:09, 19 July 2008 (BST)
- The linked page states, "Vehicle suggestions reliably get shot down for being out of genre, not useful enough, or not accounting for the amount of debris that would likely be blocking roads and railway tracks." None of these indicate that a vehicle is a broken mechanic, and I think I can argue that it's in-genre, useful, and accounts for road debris. That said, your response has been the most helpful one so far, thank you. --Galaxy125 03:54, 19 July 2008 (BST)
- No, the mechanic is broken as well. It'd be instaspammed under vehicles. --Sir Bob Fortune RR 01:09, 19 July 2008 (BST)
Well, to rationalise the author's suggestion, if you kept it to searching outside a PD or a Fort barracks (or some other block), I wouldn't mind. It won't affect search rates, and it's not entirely implausible. After all, military police and civilian police do use horses to a limited extent for street patrols. A Household Cavalry regiment stationed in the fort would also need to keep some for ceremonial purposes, and it's only natural that their mounts could possibly be one of their last priorities in the evacuation. They could have survived a la I Am Legend, I guess, but that would mean they wouldn't be in the stables, would they? ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 07:54, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- AHAHAHAHA! Oh, you're serious? WTHFH Penguins... --TriPolarClicky! 18:21, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- I'm just trying to give the author a bit of credibility when the natural response is so overwhelming negative. Don't burn me. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 19:42, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- Damn... *Puts torch away* --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:43, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- This idea is spamtacular and duparific Ariedartin, it doesn't need credibility.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- Techercizer, you're the first person to claim that this is a dupe. Could you please cite the previous suggestion? I looked through the archives before I put it up for debate here, and found nothing. --Galaxy125 20:03, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- oddly enough I believe there isn't much precident, on account of the fact that the first few horse suggestions didn't go to suggestions, and after that were bombed with extreme prejudice. Allthough I have no exact dupe for you other than my in own memories, this in spirit violates Frequently Suggested Ideas: Vehicles, for allowing free movement or reduced cost.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 20:07, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- I just spent another few minutes searching, again finding nothing. Perhaps it was discussed on this page before, and nothing came of it? In any case, as I mentioned to Bob_Fortune above, the "reduced movement cost" isn't listed as a reason vehicle suggestions get shot down. Rather, it's because they're out of genre, useless, or naive. Ariedartin was pointing out that the suggestion isn't completely naive, and the suggestion needed the credibility that user offered. As for having a "reduced movement cost," the percentages and horse uses could be tooled such that there would be no net gain offered. --Galaxy125 20:29, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- No, just the basic premise breaks the "do not suggest these" guidelines. It's a vehicle, regardless of lack of fuel use. It is a free lunch, giving for not really any real cost. It doesn't even really make sense, the city is locked down and all that, so its not like they could just show up (which is why i'm surprised people are using I am Legend as an example. Kind of a different situation, with the fact that deer can swim. i think. can't they? i don't know. but my point is not in malton. military blockade and all). And how would they have lived? Even if they were neatly tucked into a stable that they zombies (or hungry people) hadn't managed to get into, what would the horses have lived on? The 3 years worth of spam loaded in their stables?Tylerisfat 06:40, 25 July 2008 (BST)
- First, the vehicle prohibitions are currently written in a fashion which does not talk about "free lunch". Which means they need to be rewritten, if you're so sure about that. Second, with a working radio, horses could be supplied with fresh spam daily. But if you're using their food supply as a source of realism, do you know of any store which comes equipped with 3 years worth of first aid kids when it's searched on an hourly basis? More to the point, medications within the first aid kits would've expired by now! But I'll take that into consideration when rewriting this suggestion for any future use. Like, maybe they've escaped from the zoo. --Galaxy125 11:03, 25 July 2008 (BST)
- I was stating the vehical and free lunch objections as two things. As in, this doesn't work, look at the FAQ, it is BOTH a vehical suggestion and gives a free lunch. Sorry if that was confusing. But yeah, good point about the FAK, other then, while it doesn't happen exactly in this way in game, supplies like that is still getting shipped in, horses...not so much.Tylerisfat 00:58, 26 July 2008 (BST)
- First, the vehicle prohibitions are currently written in a fashion which does not talk about "free lunch". Which means they need to be rewritten, if you're so sure about that. Second, with a working radio, horses could be supplied with fresh spam daily. But if you're using their food supply as a source of realism, do you know of any store which comes equipped with 3 years worth of first aid kids when it's searched on an hourly basis? More to the point, medications within the first aid kits would've expired by now! But I'll take that into consideration when rewriting this suggestion for any future use. Like, maybe they've escaped from the zoo. --Galaxy125 11:03, 25 July 2008 (BST)
- No, just the basic premise breaks the "do not suggest these" guidelines. It's a vehicle, regardless of lack of fuel use. It is a free lunch, giving for not really any real cost. It doesn't even really make sense, the city is locked down and all that, so its not like they could just show up (which is why i'm surprised people are using I am Legend as an example. Kind of a different situation, with the fact that deer can swim. i think. can't they? i don't know. but my point is not in malton. military blockade and all). And how would they have lived? Even if they were neatly tucked into a stable that they zombies (or hungry people) hadn't managed to get into, what would the horses have lived on? The 3 years worth of spam loaded in their stables?Tylerisfat 06:40, 25 July 2008 (BST)
- I just spent another few minutes searching, again finding nothing. Perhaps it was discussed on this page before, and nothing came of it? In any case, as I mentioned to Bob_Fortune above, the "reduced movement cost" isn't listed as a reason vehicle suggestions get shot down. Rather, it's because they're out of genre, useless, or naive. Ariedartin was pointing out that the suggestion isn't completely naive, and the suggestion needed the credibility that user offered. As for having a "reduced movement cost," the percentages and horse uses could be tooled such that there would be no net gain offered. --Galaxy125 20:29, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- oddly enough I believe there isn't much precident, on account of the fact that the first few horse suggestions didn't go to suggestions, and after that were bombed with extreme prejudice. Allthough I have no exact dupe for you other than my in own memories, this in spirit violates Frequently Suggested Ideas: Vehicles, for allowing free movement or reduced cost.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 20:07, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- Techercizer, you're the first person to claim that this is a dupe. Could you please cite the previous suggestion? I looked through the archives before I put it up for debate here, and found nothing. --Galaxy125 20:03, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- This idea is spamtacular and duparific Ariedartin, it doesn't need credibility.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- Damn... *Puts torch away* --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:43, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- I'm just trying to give the author a bit of credibility when the natural response is so overwhelming negative. Don't burn me. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 19:42, 20 July 2008 (BST)
- It's an intelligent and well thought out suggestion, I acknowledge that. I'm simply stating that this suggestion has come up many times in one form or another, and is extremely unlikely to pass voting.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (BST)
Modifying my Suggestion
I'm okay with the fact that you altered my suggestion to fix wiki formatting, but in the future you could just put tags around the asterisk to stop it from becoming a bullet.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 20:51, 31 July 2008 (BST)
- Realized that afterward. Will do so in the future. I value your suggestions. --Galaxy125 20:52, 31 July 2008 (BST)
Suggestions Page Edit
Sure you made This Revision correctly? You might want to re-examine it to make sure, looks misplaced to me... Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 06:07, 2 August 2008 (BST)
feel free to comment on my ideas at any time btw. Shooty08 13:01, 5 August 2008 (BST)
