Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Further Discussion

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

Cycling Suggestions

Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.

This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the Overflow-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.

If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

---

Suggestions

Humorous (Humourous) Suggestions

Timestamp:	– Nubis NWO 11:45, 13 October 2008 (BST)
Type:	Page Improvement
Scope:	All Wiki Users
Description:	This page is suffering from the dreaded internet affliction Serious Business. I think it is time that we allowed a special section on this page for a lost art known as "the Humourous Suggestion" - "alternate" spelling to show how wacky it could be) Perhaps a section below the top "new suggestions" that could be just for fun. Submitting a humorous suggestion to actual voting is still forbidden, but that is no reason to ban them all together.' This page needs to be a joy to visit. It should be a "neutral" place (not Pro-Zombie or Pro-Survivor) where we can actually be a community. I see that a lot of the users are quite witty and it would be nice to see that side expressed more. Maybe some of the humorous suggestions can even be fleshed out into articles so that the kids at ALiM aren't the only ones making Malton fun. Perhaps if there was a place on here to goof off it would make conversations on the serious suggestions on more productive.--– Nubis NWO 11:45, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Discussion (Suggestion A/S/L)

Would anyone be interesting in making this place fun? Or should this page remain a potential troll cave?--– Nubis ^NWO 11:45, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Interesting, but I think this belongs in Category Talk:Suggestions, not here. Linkthewindow ^Talk 11:49, 13 October 2008 (BST)

And if anyone actually read that it would be. --– Nubis ^NWO 12:51, 13 October 2008 (BST)

I'm for this, although people can just submit their work to the humour sugg category then spam links across the wiki. For example this prime work of art by one of those kids over at ALiM ;)--xoxo 11:59, 13 October 2008 (BST)

I clicked that twice and it said bad title and didn't work. Then I took apart my mouse to make sure the clicker was working. When that still didn't work I rebooted, ran a diagnostic, and called tech support. I am on hold now waiting for Hajiminiheri to return and help me out. When he comes back I will tell you what I think about that link.--– Nubis ^NWO 12:54, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Link fix3d -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:03 13 October 2008 (BST)

Lol. I can't believe that Dr Crook guy thought I was even remotely serious. I was just a noob who didn't know humourous suggestions existed at this point. The best part was the people telling me how shit it was, thinking that I claimed some sort of pride in a suggestion that took me literally as long to write, as it takes for one to read. What a night. Peer pressure hey.--CyberRead240 13:29, 13 October 2008 (BST)

I loved that suggestion! That's the kind of thing I am talking about. It was fun to read. You shouldn't have put it up for voting, but still it would suck to lose an idea like that because you have no place to put it. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:28, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Given how dead the main suggestion page is these days I wouldn't be against putting humorus (sic) onto that page.... as long as it was marked as such and the votes got tallied into a category of their own.--Honestmistake 12:59, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Wat? So that people can ridicule other suggesters, that they take a dislike to, by using biting (read "insulting") satire, like the goons did on this page? Yeah, that was fun... not -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:03 13 October 2008 (BST)

You prefer the personal attacks in a serious suggestion? In the case of the goons it was just against one particular suggestion. They weren't making mocking suggestions of every user or in fact any other user. And that was a flame war from both sides - you did see the template war on Grim's talk page right? Since there was no section to put it in to mark it as "mocking/humor" it was looked at like a real suggestion and that also fueled the problem. If it had been in a humor section serious posters probably wouldn't have even given it the time of day.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:23, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Do I prefer personal attacks on serious suggestions? No. Do I want another avenue for personal attacks to be tacked on to the current suggestion system? Hell No! Of course it was a two way flame war... but rather one sided, and pathetic, and would have went away much quicker, and been far less ugly, if the goons hadn't been free to place multiple mock "suggestions" on this page (Talk:Suggestions) satirising the suggestions they didn't like. And you want to free the main suggestions system up to allow such stalking, bullying... unfunny humour? Sure, I think our current treatment of humourous suggestions is a bit over the top, but unless you can come up with a way to avoid the bullying, while allowing legitimately (at least in intent) humour, then I wouldn't like to see this introduced. The suggestions system is first and foremost intended to bring serious game improvements to Kevans attention, IMO, fun and participation come second. If people really wanted to read humourous suggestions, then the humourous suggestions section would be more popular than it is -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:50 13 October 2008 (BST)

Okay, good point about the real suggestion page but putting fun stuff on this page would be harmless. The current humourous section is rarely visited because people do not know it exists. I would say a rule to prevent the same person posting pointless, unfunny crap constantly would be needed... (perhaps even a 1 week posting ban for each suggestion voted as unfunny?) but this wiki needs a more light hearted atmosphere.--Honestmistake 14:57, 13 October 2008 (BST)

There isn't a restriction, here on Talk:Suggestions, on humourous suggestions, even pathetic, trolling ones, so I'm assuming Nubis is talking about opening up Category:Suggestions to humourous suggestion (and the problems associated with it). And quite frankly, for Nubis to suggest that there isn't enough fun in the suggestions section, when he openly supported (without actually ruling, check the link) that trolling is laughable. That goony invasion, fully supported by Grim and Nubis, where they insulted anyone they deemed stupid on Talk:Suggestions is one of the main reasons I gave up on this page as a bad joke. Talk:Suggestions was supposed to be a place to point newbies to, so they could make their (frankly) stupid suggestions where they wouldn't "offend" anyone without the patience to explain why, in a non-insulting manner, it was stupid. That was killed off by the "OMG, free speech" insulters -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:03 13 October 2008 (BST)

I was talking about making a section on this page that below it funny suggestions could go. That way when people look at the table of contents they can pick which type of suggestions they go to. The problem with the "trolling" suggestion was that this page has an insane OVERLY IMPORTANT ATTITUDE that it quite frankly doesn't deserve nor live up to. The reason I even made this a suggestion is because I knew if I just made a header for it someone would come along and spout out about how this page is SERIOUS and that humorous suggestions are only going to be trolling suggestions even though the link above is clearly not trolling and is quite funny. (link in J3D's comment)

No, I didn't rule on the goon suggestion because 1. it was funny in context, 2. I try to avoid appearing too biased for the goons so I step out of some situations involving them, and 3. we do have a little thing called free speech here and it would be great if there was actually a place to practice it.

This page SHOULD NOT be a place to point newbies. Newbies are the WORST people to have contribute to a game since they are NEW to it. That's why this page is littered with GUNS, AMMO, SNIPERS, NIGHT VISION/X-RAY and VEHICLES. Maybe if there was a section making fun of those types of suggestions and newbies knew it was mocking them they wouldn't make them in earnest so often.

And let's be honest, the nailgun to break skylights on dark buildings is just as ridiculous as horses or overkilling a dead body. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:10, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Of course this is the page to point newbies to. Face the fact that newbies are going to want to make suggestions before they understand the game dynamics fully. It's human nature. That's what this page is for, to keep them off Category:Current Suggestions, and give us somewhere to point them to where they should be able to get rational reasons why their noobish suggestions arn't workable or desirable. Anyone who can't handle having to constantly explain why crucifixes should be useless, just like in real life, shouldn't bother with this page. Making a special section for humourous suggestions on this page is not desirable, because they are already allowed. Oh, and that goonie suggestion wasn't funny, because the context was that they'd already made about half a dozen mocking nailgun suggestions beforehand. It was just bullying bullshite -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:03 14 October 2008 (BST)

I'm actually a huge fan of how few suggestions are on this page and the voting page right now. I'm a huge fan of people actually thinking about what they're posting. And I'm a huge fan of comedy, but go find it somewhere else. This is a wiki, not a comedy club. the point is not for your entertainment, but to provide a community concerned with improving, documenting, and teaching about the game. The suggestions page is not a place for laughs, and the only reason the humorous suggestion page exists is so people respect the serious page. We don't need to encourage it. - tylerisfat 03:47, 14 October 2008 (BST)

People don't respect this as a serious suggestion page. If they did they would take the time to read the SD/DN or the Frequently Suggested page. It's clear by all of the suggestions that are repeated that they don't. Iscariot is constantly finding dupes that show many posters don't bother to even look. Wan is repeating himself constantly explaining why many of these ideas fail (and have failed in the past) Grim even had a template to address many of these crappy suggestions.

Part of being a community is having fun since this is a wiki about a game. Let's look at the last few improvements Kevan actually added to the game. Did they come from here? Did someone suggest dark buildings on here? Or that ruined buildings were harder to repair? And if someone had suggested the latter do you think the survivor biased wiki would have moved it into peer reviewed? What about all of the suggestions that are in peer review that aren't implemented?

If this wiki is just for information and teaching then all of the user pages, group pages, ALiM, discussion pages, and so on should be removed (as metagaming is not really the game - hence meta). The only informative pages relating directly to the game are ones on items, skills, search rates, and the map. Let's face it. This is a very simple game.

Most of the location pages wouldn't exist in their current form since realistically most of the content on them doesn't apply to the real game. Why outlaw humor on just this part of the wiki? I think some of you are confusing this page with actual active in voting suggestions. This page is not a dry run for voting. Dumb humorous suggestions would be ignored as much as dumb serious suggestions and would naturally cycle off.

However the RARR RARRR THIS IS A SERIOUS PAGE attitude drives away many users. It also fuels the "trolling" because of the attitude that everything on this page is destined to be added to the game. As we can see that isn't the case. Maybe if we lighten up the attitude on this page it can spread to the rest of the wiki.--– Nubis ^NWO 04:18, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Lighten up what attitude? Humourous suggestions are allowed, even if there isn't a section for them. It seems that most people are confused what you are suggesting here. There's a difference between posting funny stuff here, and on Category:Current Suggestions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:03 14 October 2008 (BST)

Humourous suggestions are allowed on this page. Putting them up for voting breaches the suggestions guidelines and results in a VB escalation for the idiot responsible. The reason many of the users of this page are called trolls by the sysop team is because we are tired of having to repeat ourselves again and again and again and again. I could probably write a list of responses today that I could use over the next month, the cycle is that predictable. We could of course update Frequently Suggested, but no fucker reads previous suggestions and they certainly don't read FS. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:14, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Just face it: people don't come here to read humorous suggestions. Putting humorous suggestions here is just going to annoy people, people that might otherwise have reacted differently to them. It's also going to make the size-problems worse. No, I think a better solution would be to increase the visibility of humorous suggestions in some other way. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 08:02, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah maybe if the stardard of humourous suggestions improved 2 Cool would be inclined to spam the link around the wiki...--xoxo 11:15, 14 October 2008 (BST)

The problem isn't community reception, it's the lack of leeway the system has before it fails. Creating a new and separate system won't help, it'll just create new and exciting problems and create a division where people will go to the new system as it would be 'nicer' for their feedback and then put it into the main system. This page will become redundant and the problems won't be fixed. There needs to be a different approach. If I ever get around to writing my massive policy project I have a few ideas for fixing this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:04, 14 October 2008 (BST)

---

Building Inspection

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 06:10, 13 October 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	Sub-skill of Construction. After many years of working on the job site/months of struggling against the hordes, you've developed a sixth sense as to which objects in a room are load-bearing, and which are not. As such, you can now tell how many objects used in the barricades around the city are actually useful to the barricade. Essentially, you now get a count as to what level the barricades are at, by counting the number of objects used in them. For instance, a Very Strong Barricade 2+ has 10 objects in it.

Discussion (Building Inspection)

In other words, this allows survivors to tell if their buildings are at VSB or VSB+2. This would aid in barricading, as it would remove the ~6 AP spent barricading then removing the barricades if the building needs to remain an entry point. However, this drawback is the only drawback to increased barricading, and should not be removed. -- Galaxy125 06:19, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Justification doesn't really make sense. And the purpose served is not really needed. - tylerisfat 08:49, 13 October 2008 (BST)

dupe... and fog of war aka uncertainty is part of the game. also unneeded survivor buff. meh. --WanYao 10:28, 13 October 2008 (BST)

So, basically, you want survivors to be able to tell exactly how strong a barricade level is. No. Barricades are already pretty powerful for survivors. Knowing the exact level would make it too easy. As for "justification", I like that you tried, but I have a counter to it. When you build a barricade, you don't stack stuff in a single stack in front of the door. You PILE it in front of the door. That means there will be stuff hidden from view. A desk by the door has stuff put on top AND up against it AND on the sides so that you can't see it with all the other stuff, for example. In other words, you won't be able to get an accurate count. At least not without moving stuff, which defeats the purpose.--Pesatyel 10:40, 13 October 2008 (BST)

	S.F.S.T.!!
	This suggestion has been duped to death and/or we are tired of seeing it. You should read the SD/DN and the Frequently Suggested List many times. STOP POSTING!

FGSFDS ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:44, 13 October 2008 (BST)

---

Flavor Text Indicating Who Brings Barricades From VSB To HB

Timestamp:	Silisquish 04:57, 13 October 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Overbarricading to keep survivors stranded outside in the streets or more commonly to prevent survivor access to certain buildings in forts (infirmaries, armouries) is a tactic used by some combat revived zombies and death cultists. But there is no way to tell who has done these acts. We can tell when a human working against the survivor cause brings down the last of the barricades or destroys a generator or radio transmitter, but we can't tell who has overbarricaded a building. It seems oddly inconsistent that this is left out. Furthermore, PK'ers and frequent GK/RK'ers can earn themselves a bad reputation for their acts, but overcaders remain anonymous; those that panic after seeing a lone zombie lurching towards their building or simply don't know about their suburb's barricade policy can't be warned directly, and those that repeatedly overbarricade for malicious purposes can do so with little fear of punishment. Getting stuck in the streets after your entry point has been overcaded can be just as bad as someone destroying the generator in your favourite resource building. Therefore I propose that when someone brings the barricade up from very strongly barricaded to heavily barricaded, making the building unenterable from the outside, that a flavour text appear indicating that he has heavily barricaded the building. Something along the lines of, Player has heavily barricaded the building. Zombies would be able to see this message, but if they're already in the building it's because the cades are down and whoever brings them to HB is likely to be the same person that began rebuilding the barricades in the first place. If he isn't, that's probably because the original builder got eaten and the cades got smashed back down to nothing again. This is assuming the barricader will stay in the same building the zombies are attacking; most would use their last ap to escape

Flavor Text Indicating Who Brings Barricades From VSB To HB

Dupe, several times. Uncertainty and the need to keep vigilant are generally considered to be fundamental to Urban Dead's play style. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:10, 13 October 2008 (BST)

One of those said exactly what I said (only they said it better), so it is in fact a dupe --Silisquish 19:25, 13 October 2008 (BST)

dupe-o-rific excuse for more trenchoatery.... meh... --WanYao 10:28, 13 October 2008 (BST)

There is also this already in Peer Review.--Pesatyel 10:45, 13 October 2008 (BST)

That's not the same --Silisquish 19:25, 13 October 2008 (BST)

I didn't say it was, but it is RELATED. I had to reread the suggestion to find out WHAT was being suggested through all the blather.--Pesatyel 02:38, 14 October 2008 (BST)

It doesn't matter to zombies who takes it to what level. The issue for zombies is who is building it up period. (Also, barricade policies are a metagaming issue. You can't hold all players accountable to them.)--– Nubis ^NWO 11:00, 13 October 2008 (BST)

I used the barricade policy as an example; if someone in a building wants it as an entry point, another doesn't since it would show who caded to HB there would be a confrontation there. But that's just a side effect mostly this idea was to bring overcading as a pro-zombie tactic on equal footing as smashing gennies/etc.--Silisquish 19:53, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Barricade policies are pointless as the majority of players don't look at them and even if they did they are usually out dated or a point of contention between different groups. TBH this does make sense from a logical standpoint but its just not going to be popular.... anyway it's also a dupe!--Honestmistake 15:02, 13 October 2008 (BST)

---

Barricade Decay

Timestamp:	KOOKY 12:09, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Barricades.
Description:	Change In Game Mechanic. RP Reason: Barricades in dark buildings that are not constantly repaired by survivors decay over time. This would mean that every 12 hours all barricades in dark buildings would lose one level of barricade, eg go from Very Heavily Barricade to Heavily Barricaded. This is deliberately quite a big gap to create the atomosphere of survivors desperately trying to maintain barricades. Whilst since it only effects dark buildings, (Banks, Cinemas, Clubs and Fort Armouries) and then only if they have no generator it wont be cripperling to survivors.

Discussion (Barricade Decay)

No! Epic Survivor Nerf!--Mianthadore 13:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)]

Look, first of all please don't respond like that again, it is hardly constructive. Secondly, of course it is a change, however I think it is a good change, yes it will make UD harder for survivors, that is the point, but hard does not equal bad. Hard often equals funner. If you think that UD should be easy, and that playing a survivor should be easy then I believe you are wrong. Personally I have the best time playing a survivor when its about 60% red and orange suburbs, and even though of course being a survivor I want 'Every last zed dead', as a player I couldn't think of anything worse. --KOOKY 13:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Interesting idea, but dark buildings are quite uncommon. I don't think it's a survivor nerf as EHB-VSB in 24 hours isn't THAT bad (and thats assuming no-one is recading,) and dark buildings are a massive nerf for zombies anyway. Linkthewindow ^Talk 22:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)

It would be EHB-HB in 24 hours. -- kooks 11 October 2008 (BST)

Why? why would this happen? If it takes the zombies doing something to cause the building to become ransacked and ruined, then why should it require to effort for the cades to start collapsing? no thank you. - tylerisfat 23:53, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I don't quite understand your response. But if you are saying it is not realistic, well that is abit silly, considering this is a game about zombies..and that it is entirely realistic that barricades would collapse if not looked after properly. -- kooks 11 October 2008 (BST)

• yawn* the "zombie's aren't real" counterargument is bullshit. WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the game, zombies ARE real. And Maltron is SET IN THE REAL WORLD, therefore the mechanics of reality ARE REAL. And, no, it is NOT "entirely realistic" that barricades would collapse on their own.--Pesatyel 00:18, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah. What pesatyel says sums it up. And Kooks, what i was saying is... this suggestion doesn't make sense, within the context of the game in place. The things that give the game its structure does not lend itself to the barricades just collapsing. Your suggesting that within a 12 hour period that things skillfully constructed just spontaneously start collapsing, regardless of how much effort that it currently takes zombies to knock those same barricades down. Thus, this suggestion is crap, thats all there is too it. You can argue the specifics of "Its not that much, its a reasonable set of numbers" or whatever, but it still plainly doesn't make sense, nor does it aide or add to any game play. So it will not pass, nor should it pass. Its not even workable. - tylerisfat 08:43, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Allowing barricades to decay fully isn't realistic, as the vending machines, chairs, desks, etc. will still be there and would need to be moved out of the way. However, the game already contains the idea that barricades contain "levels." If barricaded above VSB+2, then survivors can't enter, and all that jazz. This suggestion stands a greater likelihood of passing if barricade decay was restricted to a certain level. Like, from the upper area of Barricade...decays go to the minimum barricade level of their strength at a rate of a level per 12 hours. -- Galaxy125 20:35, 12 October 2008 (BST)

Mmm, good point, I thought about whether there should be a minimum point where it stops decaying, perhaps QSB +2. I'm not really concerned with it passing, I would prefer it to be a good suggestion, rather than "dumbed down" so that it passes. --kooks 12 October 2008 (BST)

Just to clarify, "Dark Decay (Galaxy125's change)" would reduce VSB+2 to VSB (or EHB+2 to EHB, or LiB+2 to LiB) in 24 hours in dark buildings, but no further decay. Loosely barricaded dark buildings would not decay. EHB+4 would go to EHB in 48 hours. In terms of flavor, this would be because the darkness of the buildings prevents the materials from being stacked in a stable manner unless the constructor puts on the "final touches" which bring it up to the next strength level. Like, a nail or two in the right place. The point of this would be simply to help balance the dark building survivor buff. -- Galaxy125 01:44, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Oh, and although no hard data exists on barricading in dark buildings (at least in the wiki), we can extrapolate that (if the building remains dark prior to rebarricading) rebarricading up to EHB+2 from EHB would require at least 10 AP, on average. From VHB to VHB+2 would require at least 5 AP. From HB to HB+2 would require at least 3 AP, on average. Et cetera. So implementing my change would punish survivors who keep dark buildings at EHB more heavily than those who keep them at VSB. -- Galaxy125 01:44, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Not quite an "EPIC SURVIFOR NERV," but nerf-y enough to not have a chance at passing--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:42, 12 October 2008 (BST)

I don't really understand whats wrong with it being nerf-y. It also isn't anywhere as nerf-y as I would like it to be, ideally I would like to see decay effecting all buildings from levels say ehb-vsb. However, since it only effects dark buildings it only effects four building types, and only if they don't have a generator. --kooks 12 October 2008 (BST)

Think about it this way, how often does the stuff on your bookshelf, for example, just "fall over" of its own accord? It doesn't. SOMETHING has to cause it to fall. The point of the Construction skill is that you are knowledgeable in HOW to stack crap so it DOESN'T fall apart. Otherwise any asshole could do it without a skill (hmmm....). If stacked objects are left unnattended for a prolong time...they will stay stacked UNLESS they physically deteriorate (organic matter decomposing, metal material rusting, etc.). And I might add that the Construction skill already compensatates for "weakness" whe building the barricade (above VS).--Pesatyel 00:18, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Put it this way, Malton has been quarantined for two years, its incredible that there are still beds, chairs and other objects left in Malton, after all when a barricade is destroyed persumably so is the furniture, does IKIA airdrop furniture into Malton? Anyway, it doesn't need to be 100% realistic, it just needs to be realistic enough so that you can suspend your disbelief, which was what I was getting at with my earlier comment about zombies. Does it really take six or so shotgun blasts to kill someone? No. Does it take around 17 axe blows to kill someone? No. Does it matter? No. --Kooks 16:53, 13 October 2008 (BST)

not needed... addresses no problem or "hole" ... feh. --WanYao 10:29, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Its clearly marked as an improvement, designed to you know, improve UD.--Kooks 16:53, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Zombies don't really care about dark buildings because of their nerfy-ness and because they aren't resource buildings that need to be held. If you are going to make barricades decay naturally then where is the incentive for zombies to play? I know that attacking barricades sucks, but if they can stand around and let them rot why even bother wasting the AP to attack them? As Wan ^^^. P.S. statements like Look, first of all please don't respond like that again, it is hardly constructive. usually invite more "non constructive" comments because people realize it bothers you. --– Nubis ^NWO 11:09, 13 October 2008 (BST)

It isn't so much designed at zombies as it is designed at survivors, it is mean to make it harder for survivors to keep the barricades up.--Kooks 16:53, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, but it is lowering the cades on pointless buildings. Buildings that no one really cares about.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:16, 14 October 2008 (BST)

And what the hell suburbs are you looking at? Tapton? In the real thick of things, barricades barely do there job as is, in attempting to retake suburbs. Even with highly mobile, highly connected strikes it is nearly impossible to stay alive in one suburb for more then a day or two. Adding this is would just be an annoyance, and thats all. - tylerisfat 03:22, 14 October 2008 (BST)

---

Focused Search

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 10:22, 8 October 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Sub-skill of Bargain Hunting. If a survivor has Focused Search, a new button and expandable menu appear in the interface. The expandable menu lists every item available in the game. Clicking the button searches the building/area for the item specified in the menu. You have a 1.2x chance of finding that item, compared to the regular find rate. However, you cannot find any other item other than the one specified. If you find the item, you get a message: "You succeed in finding [item]" If you don't find the item, you get the message: "You search for [item], but end up empty-handed." If the area you are in does not contain the item, 25% of the time, you get the message: "You search for [item], but end up empty-handed. There must not be any in this location" If this is too over-powered, I could change it so that you have to be already holding one of the item in order to search for one.

Discussion (Focused Search)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

--– Nubis ^NWO 11:24, 13 October 2008 (BST)

It's a dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:48, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Sounds familiar but could you provide a link? Its all too easy to call dupe without due cause. --Honestmistake 18:01, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Remember who you're talking to. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:14, 8 October 2008 (BST)

It was because it was you that I asked for a link :D The skill you link lowers your chance to find said item (god knows why?) while this raises it at the expense of not finding anything else. How is dropping the chance of finding something you don't want the same as raising the chance of finding something you do? Calling "Dupe" on everything is not at all helpful... especially given the quality of some of your recent links.--Honestmistake 20:26, 8 October 2008 (BST)

If it failed whilst lowering the search odds, do you really think it will fly when you increase those odds? Also the same base mechanic change is behind it, individual numbers do not matter in the dupe system, otherwise we'd have to Spam every single rocket launcher. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:42, 8 October 2008 (BST)

I do not think for even a second that this will fly... that is very far from it being a dupe though. A dupe must be almost identical in mechanics and intent for it to be valid and this is neither of those things. Just because ideas share a similar theme does not make them DUPES... if it did every suggestion involving zombies would be a dupe as zombies are frequently involved in suggestions for this "Zombie Apocalypse" game. Numbers do matter when looking for dupes... if 1 suggestion says increase such and such a number by 5 and the other says reduce it by 5 they are clearly not the same. Hell a suggestion which says increase all Axe attacks by 10% is not necessarily the same as one that says increase axe attacks by 10% in certain circumstances. A dupe is not in a name or theme it is in the detail!--Honestmistake 00:29, 9 October 2008 (BST)

That said this is still a strong kill because it just amounts to a 20% boost to the find rate of FAKS in hospitals and Needles in NT's with no real draw back!--Honestmistake 00:31, 9 October 2008 (BST)

God no. Search rates are great right now, they don't need a boost or pollution. Just leave them alone. I think the idea behind the search is you are going through piles of 3 year old rubbish looking for anything, and you might come up with anything. Thinking harder about a particular object or already having one (the worst part of this suggestion) would do nothing to increase that. Please, try to find a balance between realism and game play, not just one or the other. - tylerisfat 21:16, 8 October 2008 (BST)

No. I've been having great search rates and this just isn't necessary. --William Told 01:21, 9 October 2008 (BST)

First of all, you can already decide what you can find where. Secondly, this is overpowered. Imagine if you NEVER had to leave the mall to find a syringe or FAK or fuel or generators or ammo. WITH an improved search chance?--Pesatyel 02:46, 9 October 2008 (BST)

It doesn't change where objects are found. You can do a 'focused search' in a mall as often as you want, you'll never find a syringe. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:49, 9 October 2008 (BST)

That's not how I read it:

• if a survivor has Focused Search, a new button and expandable menu appear in the interface. The expandable menu lists every item available in the game. Clicking the button searches the building/area for the item specified in the menu.--Pesatyel 07:58, 9 October 2008 (BST)

That means you can search anywhere for an item. It doesn't mean you can find it. 1.2x 0% is still 0%. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 10:13, 9 October 2008 (BST)

The find rate is dependent on the BUILDING not the items found within. Unless I'm mistaken HOW it works. If you search in a hospital, you have a chance of finding an item, if you find it then you figure if it is a FAK or newspaper. Regardless, what I'm tring to say is probably moot, but I'll say it anyway. You need to be more clear in the suggestion.--Pesatyel 01:54, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Awww, Blake. You are like the little kid that tries so hard to be cool. I am rooting for you little buddy! I know you can do it. The coolness is deep inside you. Maybe you should try a focused search to get to it? -- #99 ^DCC 06:43, 9 October 2008 (BST)

This is already in the game. Yep. Really, it is. Just go to a different building and you get boosts to searching certain items and have a decreased chance to find other items. Or get Shopping and click the different shops in a mall. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 09:58, 9 October 2008 (BST)

There isn't too much to be added here. If you want better search rates, get shopping. Better search rates still? Then bargain hunting. No boost is needed over that, especially for some things thats a 1:2 chance of finding the item (Mall Drugstores/FAKs.) As said, no boost is needed. Besides, this is a zombie apocalypse. Are you really going to spend a few minutes focusing on one think while ignoring everything else? More likely, you would do a general sweep of the area. Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:28, 9 October 2008 (BST)

There in lies a central problem with the game. Unfortunately THAT wasn't what Blake was trying to fix. But I'll say this much, while this IS a zombie apolypse, the inhabitants have been trapped for, what 3 years now? I think they have adjust beyond "general sweeps".--Pesatyel 01:57, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Also, Kevan constantly adjusts search rates to balance out zombies and survivors. A skill just isn't necessary.--William Told 21:59, 9 October 2008 (BST)

still overpowered rehash of zombielord's suggestion. --WanYao 07:18, 10 October 2008 (BST)

---

Fires

Timestamp:	--Target Practice 03:00, 7 October 2008 (BST)
Type:	Event
Scope:	All buildings
Description:	Generators are usually full of fairly combustible fuel. There are a lot of stupid people around, and a lot of live ammunition. Sooner or later, it's going to happen. Firstly, let me state that I am aware that this has been suggested and met with varying degrees of success before, and I'm looking to improve on those ideas. To save the dupetrolls some effort finding the links, here's the best of the bunch: Suggestions/8th-Nov-2005#Fire.21 Now, the idea is, whenever a generator is destroyed, there is a small (let's say 5% for starters) chance it will ignite and catch fire. The fire causes the following effects: blinding smoke - the thick black smoke from the fire makes it difficult to see, giving -50% to hit and 50% search penalties to all inside the building until the fire is extinguished. fire damage - if a fire burns for 24 hours, the building suffers fire damage and basically becomes a ruin, albeit with slightly different text for flavour purposes: - "you are inside the xxxx building - it has been gutted by fire, and the charred remains of [whatever the building is likely to have contained] cover the floor." or something to that effect. If this happens, any barricades that were up are destroyed, regardless of level (to stop people creating pinatas too easily), as well as any decorations that may have been up. To clarify, once the fire has burned for 24 hours, the building becomes an empty ruin, just with different flavour text. I've resisted the temptation to add any kind of 'burn' damage to anyone inside the building, as I know that will get this idea shot down faster than a Blackhawk over Basra. There will also be some kind of flavour text that is shown when outside the building to indicate a fire: "you are outside the xxxx building - [normal building description] - thick black smoke is pouring from the missing windows, and a strong burning smell fills the air" Survivors who are in the building at the time a fire breaks out have a 'charred' or 'singed' modifier to any clothes they are wearing, eg: "X is wearing a blood-spattered leather jacket, a charred and bloodstained green t-shirt, and a singed pair of jeans" In order to stop fires nerfing survivors and turning GKing into a mall griefer's wet dream, fires can be extinguished with the new item 'fire extinguisher' (surprise surprise!), which can be found in fire stations (8-10%), warehouses (2-3%), auto repair shops (2-3%), and mall hardware stores (5-6%). The fire extinguisher has a 16% encumbrance penalty, and can be used five times before expiry. It can be used as a makeshift weapon, and has the same to hit percentages as a toolbox. (25% with h2h combat, 2 damage.) When used on a fire, there is a 30% chance of extinguishing the blaze - the user sees the text: "You aim the extinguisher at the blaze and pull the trigger - the fire dies away, leaving only glowing embers" -this uses 5AP. If the attempt fails, the message "you aim the extinguisher at the blaze and and pull the trigger, but the fire continues to burn." - this also uses both 5AP and one of the extinguisher's uses. That's pretty much it - I know there's a lot of text there, but I wanted to provide enough detail to prove I'd actually thought this through and show that it could genuinely be an interesting game event. Plus it would actually give a point to GKing other than being a minor inconvenience/annoyance.

Discussion (Fires)

Nice idea, but I have a few problems. Firstly, at a 5% hit rate, this is just a minor inconvenience for survivors. Assuming a generator at a target is attacked once a day (a fairly liberal estimate for most buildings, fairly conservative for TRP's) that means that you would be lucky to start one blaze a fortnight. Maybe up it to around 10%?

Also, 16 weight is quite a bit-and in real life, a fire extinguisher is not likely to take up a huge amount of space (Sure, there are big ones, but you would think that you would loot a small one?) I'm all for the five shots per extinguisher, but having a hit rate of 30% is too little. Ether up the hit rate to around ~50%, or add a skill that brings it up (firefighting?) Like the flavor text though.

Finally, how do these behave in large buildings? If someone starts a fire in a NW corner of a mall, does it spread to the other corners? Linkthewindow 08:11, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Cheers for the feedback, it's appreciated.

Firstly, the fairly low chance of a fire starting is intentional. As someone said in the discussion for one of the previous incarnations of this suggestion, this game is about humans fighting zombies in an abandoned city, not humans fighting fires in an abandoned city - I want fires to be infrequent enough to be an interesting event that will require fairly prompt action from the affected survivors rather than a genuine threat or pain in the ass to them. Plus, I'm guessing if there was one every 20 minutes, it would quickly get irritating.

As for the fire extinguisher, once again, that heavy encumbrance is deliberate. In an urban zombie infestation, a fire extinguisher is not going to be among the first things you'd be looking to carry around with you, and I quite like the idea of survivors having to frantically search for a fire extinguisher to stop their HQ from burning to the ground. However, as with anything in the suggestion, if enough people disagree with it, I'm willing to change it. The success percentage is perhaps a touch on the low side, but I initially went with 50% and rejected it as I felt it was a bit too high. Maybe middle ground at 40% (or perhaps even modify the 'Axe Proficiency' skill to be some kind of 'Firefighter' skill as you suggested, which would encompass both a higher hit rate with the axe AND the higher success rate with the fire extinguisher.)

With regards to your last point, I'm actually quite embarrassed to admit that I hadn't thought of that - I think in practice, this is representing relatively small fires, and as malls are fairly popular targets for GKers, GKing a mall could become a genuine tactic for PKers/death cultists - think about it - if you destroy the generator and it catches fire, the zeds outside can bring down the barricades, pour into the building knowing that the survivors are going to have to spend twice as much AP to evict them, then wait for either someone to fix it or for the building to fall into ruin, before launching their own attacks on the survivors at normal hit percentages. Perhaps if a corner of a mall burns for 24 hours (and hence becomes a ruin), then the fire could spread to the adjacent corners of the building, as if the survivors inside are dumb/selfish enough to let a fire burn for 24 hours without doing anything about it, then they deserve everything they get.

As I said, I really appreciate the constructive feedback. I've altered the suggestion a little (basically clarifying what happens when the building becomes a ruin), and will probably look at taking on board a couple of your ideas when I revise this after a few more suggestions. --Target Practice 08:58, 7 October 2008 (BST)

honestly, i think just the cade part is a strong enough penalty, and having to carry that big of an awkward fire extinguisher is even harsher. adding anything else is just auto-spam crap. - tylerisfat 05:25, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Okay, probably a good point, and that's now two people that have suggested the Extinguisher is a bit heavy - how about 8% encumbrance? As it stands right now, how would you vote? --Target Practice 06:13, 8 October 2008 (BST)

I would vote kill. I pretty much hate any suggestion that suggests a new item, new game effect, and huge penalties that will drastically change seige situations. - tylerisfat 21:19, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Malton has already felt the fury of a Great Fire --xoxo 05:58, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Fire!...-FIRE! _■^■ 08:19, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Subtle. Nice. --– Nubis ^NWO 11:23, 13 October 2008 (BST)

- "Firstly, let me state that I am aware that this has been suggested and met with varying degrees of success before, and I'm looking to improve on those ideas. To save the dupetrolls some effort finding the links, here's the best of the bunch: Suggestions/8th-Nov-2005#Fire.21" - that was the same one I linked to. ;) --Target Practice 15:40, 9 October 2008 (BST)

So anyone who uses the dupe system as intended is a troll according to you? I'm seeing your future....I'm seeing none of your suggestions ever making peer reviewed.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:45, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No, the users who consistently reject everything they don't like as a dupe or spam without even reading the suggestion are trolls. Admittedly this is a suggestion regarding fires, but if you read the two suggestions, they're not even remotely similar in execution. --Target Practice 15:53, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I'm a dupetroll...? _■^■ 04:31, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah! How dare you use the rules set in place to prevent stupid, useless suggestions! We are all unique and special snowflakes, so coddle us now! - tylerisfat 23:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)

WTF? if it's a dupe, it's a dupe. deal with it.--xoxo 05:49, 11 October 2008 (BST)

But the fact is that it's NOT a dupe. I don't particularly like the suggestion, but nothing close to it has been suggested before. --Jen 02:07, 13 October 2008 (BST)

How exactly is it a dupe though? Whilst it is a suggestion regarding fires, if you bother to read the other suggestions regarding fire, you'll find this has next to nothing in common with them apart from probably the word 'fire' and likely the fire extinguisher item. Just because an idea has been shot down (or even peer reviewed) in one incarnation, should that mean that all future ideas in that area, no matter how different to the original, should be automatic dupes? Of course not, but that's what some people seem to be getting at here. I have no problem with any of my suggestions being called 'dupe' if they genuinely are, as there's a hell of a lot of suggestions on here, and no-one (excluding possibly Iscariot) has enough free time on their hands to have read every single one. --Target Practice 13:45, 14 October 2008 (BST)

It's nothing to do with having free time, it's about respecting the system enough to actually read through the archives and then remembering what you've read. If I had any free time to give to this wiki we'd have a load of draconian policies passing. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:52, 14 October 2008 (BST)

---

"Ignore this Voice"

Timestamp:	Swiers 19:52, 5 October 2008 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	radios / radio broadcasts
Description:	Net to every radio broadcast and speech, there would be a button that says "Ignore this Voice". The code for the button would contain an "encrypted" version of the broadcaster's user ID, or other reference that the server could use but which would NOT reveal the broadcasters ID. Clicking the button would ad that user ID to a list stored on the server for your character; if an ID is on this list, you never hear radio broadcasts or speech from that character. As a player, you would never be able to see this list. The list would have a limited length (50 voices or so) and adding new voices "to the top" would bump old ones of the bottom. In your settings, you would have the option to have the list active (ignoring those voices & their broadcasts), inactive (listening to all voices & broadcasts you can normally hear), or to clear the list completely as you change your settings.

Discussion ("Ignore this Voice")

So if i'm ignoring a player its as if they aren't even talking? - tylerisfat 22:30, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Yep. It would have exactly the same effect as the "ignore contact" setting in the contacts list, except the character is not a contact, and you don't even need to know who they are- just that anything said by that voice isn't worth listening to.  Swiers 23:06, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Heck, why not? The only problem with this is what if you meet the player later on, become friends, and never realize that you have them radio-blocked? Perhaps there should be a (player-set) expiry. Spam which is obviously coming from the same person could be set to dodge this. Linkthewindow 23:14, 5 October 2008 (BST)

In order for this idea to work it would need to be kept very simple so i'm against Link's expiry etc. Also, the people you wanna block are douche bag's who spend all their ap spamming the radio (speaking of which is real gamer still at his lulz?) so it's not really an issue anyway. I quite like the idea assuming it's logistically possible. Although you should only be able to ignore them over the radio, if they talk to you in person you shouldn't be aware that it's the same person and should hear their comments as normal (explantion = people sound dif on the radio or whatever).--xoxo 00:39, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah... we need this. --WanYao 20:12, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Wan's right, bring this on somehow. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:54, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Are you going to submit this Swiers? It's been a while. Linkthewindow ^Talk 22:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)

---

Useless Use for the Crucifix

Timestamp:	William Told 08:55, 5 October 2008 (BST)
Type:	Item use, Flavor
Scope:	Survivors, People who are sick of crucifix-related suggestions, Evangelists
Description:	Let's take a look at the crucifix. As in real life, carrying one around on your person in UD does absolutely nothing but leave you with less room to carry other things around. It wouldn't even make a decent bludgeon. But despite the fact that it's entirely reasonable that it not have a use, the crucifix appears on the suggestions page again and again. People try to assign it mystical or divine qualities that act as anti-zombie shields, assuming that everyone will share their assumption that teh evil zmobies fear Jebus; they try to give it some sort of divine smiting powers; they've even tried to make it block bullets! No more! I propose that the crucifix be used as a weapon in a manner similar to the newspaper: Attacking with a crucifix will cost 1 AP and inflict 0 damage at a 100% hit rate. The attacker will receive a message similar to, "You wave your crucifix at (target) for 0 damage. God does not wreak His vengeance upon them." The target will receive a message such as, "(attacker) waved a crucifix at you menacingly." or "(attacker) waved a crucifix at you. How odd." The text may be altered to be more or less flavorful. This suggestion gives the crucifix a use while it retains its definitively useless value, discouraging future crucifix-related suggestions by filling the perceived void in its non-use. It would also be fun for anyone who wants to RP as a crazy preacher or a christian who's suffered from a psychotic breakdown. Furthermore, people who RP as super-serious religious types may simply abstain from waving their crucifixes at people and not be affected by it. I am a christian in RL and am not submitting this as an anti-christian stunt, but rather in the hopes of discouraging people from suggesting supernatural uses for the crucifix.

Discussion (Useless Use for the Crucifix)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days.

--– Nubis ^NWO 11:22, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my suggestion. I welcome all constructive criticism.--William Told 08:55, 5 October 2008 (BST)

This game isn't a platform for religious debate, while individual players can certainly spread their views i think it would be wrong for the game to go in that direction, it's a fucking zombie game, can you leave it at that? --xoxo 09:12, 5 October 2008 (BST)

I like it. But don't include the "God does not smite them" bit. Just the "you wave a crucifix at X." Waving religious items at terrifying forces/perceived threats is something that HAPPENS during apocalypses...I don't see anything wrong with including a nod to it ingame. And I do think it would stop some of the mystical-supernatural suggestions related to the crucifixes. Though I doubt it would stop them for good. ("Crucifix improvement," coming at you...) I dunno. I'd wave them at people, and would be amused to have them waved at me. --Jen 11:45, 5 October 2008 (BST)

I agree. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:10, 5 October 2008 (BST)

The only way I'd support this is if the flavour text read "You wave your crucifix in their direction and nothing happened. What did you expect? That someone with less supporting evidence than the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus was just going to pop down and right all your wrongs? Welcome to the real world you delusional fuck!"

Until it does it gets the following template as it actually provides a use to crucifixes, which should be useless, just like in real life. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:02, 5 October 2008 (BST)

	S.F.S.T.!!
	This suggestion has been duped to death and/or we are tired of seeing it. You should read the SD/DN and the Frequently Suggested List many times. STOP POSTING!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iscariot (talk • contribs) at an unknown time. -- Galaxy125 21:51, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Reading comprehension anyone? Such as the part of my comment before where I mention "the following" template? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:12, 6 October 2008 (BST)

I'm pretty sure this isn't a dupe. Yes, it involves crucifixes, but it's not some sort of mystical BS. And while I like your flavor text, people seem to think mine isn't PC enough, so I don't think it'll fly.--William Told 19:48, 5 October 2008 (BST)

But the thing is, it has been suggested over and over and over and over again, both dealing damage, creating special effects, or doing primarily what you are suggesting. Clearly, this is not that creative, and clearly Kevan isn't implementing anything with it. So why bother? It is a dupe, but with modified numbers. Its the same thing. - tylerisfat 22:29, 5 October 2008 (BST)

True, but when it has been suggested before, it involves some kind of SUPERNATURAL effect creating the damage or other effect. The supernatural requirement being the key. This doesn't do that. It merely gives an affect ALREADY IN THE GAME to an object. Simply replace "newspaper" with "crucifix". It is an effect of a physical object. So HOW is this a dupe?--Pesatyel 06:33, 6 October 2008 (BST)

EXACTLY, it's giving a use to the crucifix. I don't care how pointless that use is, it gives it one. Crucifixes shouldn't have uses, they should be useless, just like in real life. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:12, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Uh...crucifixes have uses in real life. People wear them. People hang them on walls. People wave them at things to ward off evil influences. They're only useless when it comes to actually summoning supernatural help. Which is what the "crucifixes are useless just like in real life" phrase was created to respond to, if I'm not mistaken. You're expanding the definition of "useless" beyond its original (or at the very least sensible and reasonable) meaning, here.

I've run a search, and unless I missed something, this isn't a dupe at all. No one's suggested a "(non)-use" like this, ever. And why are people saying "Kevan isn't implementing anything with it"? Given the newspaper update that Kevan recently implemented, I think it makes perfect sense to present this is a parallel to newspapers, and to think that it would stand a decent chance of actually getting put into effect. People are going knee-jerk on this because it involves the word "crucifix," and I think rather missing the point. What the heck is WRONG with suggesting that an item that exists ingame be given a trivial use that a) fits the nature of the item, and how it IS used in real life, and b) fits inordinately well within the realistic/non-magical-mystical apocalypse genre? Especially considering that another item has just recently been given a useless use? --Jen 17:22, 6 October 2008 (BST)

The point is that any use, even trivial, endorses and promotes a particular religion. If you change crucifixes ingame to 'Religious Icon' it'd be fairer, however I'd still spam it to death. I have enough of religion in the real world where it's oppressed, killed and stifled humanity for thousands of years, I don't want it in the games I play. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:54, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Perhaps the template should be edited to say and/or we are tired of seeing it. I am going to make it say many times instead of adding a number. DCC would approve.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:38, 6 October 2008 (BST)

I think one thing people forget, but Jen alluded to above, is that FAITH can be a powerful ability. No, I'm not talking a faith in some supernatural power giving you some kind of benefit. I'm talking about a faith in something strong enough to allow one to perceiver. For example, it can be argued that a vampire isn't repelled by a holy symbol just because it is a holy symbol, but it is the BELIEF of the weilder that the symbol can ward off evil that causes the vampire to be repelled. God and/or the supernatural have nothing to do with it. It is strength of conviction and even that of comfort. How that might translate to such a simplistic game as Urban Dead, I don't know. Mayhe it doesn't. But I'm just trying to point out that the supernatural is irrelvant.--Pesatyel 06:33, 6 October 2008 (BST)

I'll keep that in mind if I ever make a realistic vampire game. For now, please focus on the merits of this suggestion, which have absolutely nothing to do with faith. It can affect people playing characters with strong Christian faiths or religious zeal, but provides absolutely no faith-based bonus. The idea of faith-based bonuses has been worked and reworked to death (though some say this suggestion has, too). --William Told 16:24, 6 October 2008 (BST)

The Power of Christ Compels you, yeah I could see this being a sort of novelty thing. Has the same effect as a newspaper and if this were put up for voting, I'd vote it a keep for the novelty aspect. No offence to those who are looking into the religious views of it. It's a small piece of wood. Simple as, not a godly weapon, but a novelty item. If anyone has a problem with this then why don't people have a problem with someone murdering someone else in a church, rather than waving a crucifix at someone. It'd open a lot more RP purposes. But my only beef with it is to lose the menacing waving, in favour of a mixture of blessings or generic pointing. Acoustic Pie 17:55, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah, turn it into some kind of gesturing action -- for zombies, too -- then you might have a good idea! Just go easy on the religious talk, somehow -- with a very neutral phrase of some sort -- and it'd be workable. --WanYao 20:15, 6 October 2008 (BST)

I'll vote keep, but you would have to be VERY CAREFUL (bold and caps for extra emphasis ;))about the wording. Although I'm an atheist, the last thing I want is hordes of fundies emailing Kevan about how he is a infidel and God will smite him. Extreme example, but it does happen. I can't think of any alternate wordings myself, though. Linkthewindow 08:04, 7 October 2008 (BST)

I really do think the best solution is to make the text very bland. "You wave your crucifix at (target) for 0 damage" and "(attacker) waved a crucifix at you." (And maybe with the "How odd" attached to it. The "for 0 damage" gets the point across that God did not smite anyone with holy vengeance in any way whatsoever...but does so without beating people over the head with it, or blatantly drawing religion into the picture. Also, if you leave out the "menacingly" part, it's up to the interpretation of the player whether they're waving it to ward off evil, to bless the building, to evangelize, or to do whatever it is one does when they wave crucifixes around. --Jen 08:16, 7 October 2008 (BST)

I see Link's point about not having Kevan flooded with e-mails from fundies, and I hadn't thought of that. Looking at it now, I agree with everyone who's said that it would have to be neutral, and if this gets put to vote it will be without most of the flavor. I might keep the, "How odd," which was my favorite bit of flavor text. If anyone can think of flavor text that is religiously neutral, please post it! --William Told 09:13, 7 October 2008 (BST)

How about:

Someone waves a crucifix at you to gain your attention or: Someone waves a crucifix at you in a desperate fashion. How odd. Linkthewindow 15:10, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Why should there be anything other than "waves a crucifix at you"? Any kind of descriptive text beyond that unnecessarily restricts its use, while the type of waving can simply be expressed by talking. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 15:19, 7 October 2008 (BST)

I wonder if it would also be a good idea to change it from a crucifix to a religious symbol, that way current and future in-game religions could use it (i.e. cult of the crocodile, zombie jesus guys, Amish Liberation Front, I know the last 2 are gone but still...) --Silisquish 01:42, 8 October 2008 (BST)

As long as the text read something as neutral as "you gesture at "a zombie" with your crucifix" then I can't see how any sane person could object. You don't want to use religious iconography... just drop the damn thing and stop whinging. If someone else does, why the hell spoil their fun? --Honestmistake 18:13, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Are there any other ideas for this suggestion? I'll be adding it to the voting page pretty soon.--William Told 22:01, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Please do put it up for voting before it gets deleted from inactivity --Silisquish 02:32, 13 October 2008 (BST)

I like (attacker) waved a crucifix at you better than (attacker) waved a crucifix at you. How odd. because it's more neutral. Keep the former get rid of the latter. What kind of text will there be if you simply click on it? You stare at your crucifix and reflect on the meaning of life. or You stare at your crucifix and reminisce about life before the outbreak., or You stare at your crucifix and wonder if zombies go to Heaven. or You pray. or You grasp at your crucifix and try to think warm thoughts. or perhaps display one of these 5 flavour texts at random --Silisquish 19:48, 13 October 2008 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Door and Barricade Buttons Switch Places

Suggestion is up for voting. Discussion moved to Suggestion talk:20081008 Door and Barricade Buttons Switch Places. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 09:52, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Wear and Tear

Suggestion is up for voting. Discussion moved to Suggestion talk:20081008 Wear and Tear.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:41, 8 October 2008 (BST)