Suggestion:20070603 Its good to talk

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20070603 Its good to talk

DeadLobster 18:29, 3 June 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
Communication change. Suggestion scope
All users. Suggestion description
Lower or remove the AP cost for speaking. Encourage more co-ordination by survivors in game, and also more scary zombie noises!

Simple idea really, my apologies if its an old one, I did search!

Basically talking is too pricy for the possible benefits it confers. All anyone seems to say at the moment is either "Can you heal me?" or "Mrh?" which pretty much amount to the same thing.

If you lowered to perhaps 1/5th of an AP or even removed the AP cost for talking then people might actually say things!

In fact, I reckon if you lowered the cost of speaking you would have less meta-gaming as people would now be more inclined to rally troops, ask for directions, just make scary zombie noises whilst attacking IN GAME! Which would I think be an improvement.

Of course, I realise that over a 24 hour period a whole lot of chat could build up and that this suggestion therefore implies probably some sort of change to the interface. But I think it is worth suggesting anyway.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep- I like this and it makes a lot of sense Nalikill 18:52, 3 June 2007 (BST)
2. Keep- Sounds good to me --SirBlastalot 19:44, 3 June 2007 (BST)
3. Keep- I hear the spam suggestions, but surely you could 'ignore user' rather than all talk? Or even just free up the zombies to make some noise. Other MMORPGs manage to have talk functions, this game could really one IMO. --DeadLobster
4. Keep- It would be worth it, and would help in Malls and such. You could turn it off or ignore users, and even have a talk-limit to prevent people from overdoing the chat. -PHi11Y
5. Keep- Doesn't really cause any problems, especially with the new filtering system. Would be good if people were able to talk more ingame --Werewolf32 12:20, 4 June 2007 (GMT)
6. SUPAH STRONG KEEP -I was about to vote actuall spam until I realised that this would allow me to ignore speech, actually REDUCING spam, and allowing me to mall-camp without worrying about missing a PK srtike or a break-in because it was right bettween "111lol u suk!" and "bobo954 is watching you..." --AlexanderRM 22:21, 13 June 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill Sorry mate.I don't realy think it deserves a spam, but... Nah.--Seventythree 00:16, 4 June 2007 (BST)
2. Kill - Think of the multiply it by a bajillion rule. The constant nonsensical spam that already takes place in places like malls would grow to be unbearable. Also BzAli makes a good point. A dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:44, 4 June 2007 (BST)
3. Kill - I see where your coming from with this but, being able to talk with no limits could cause massive amounts of spam and would be rough on the server. --Sonofagun18 07:24, 4 June 2007 (BST)
4. Kill - I'd like to see speech handled in a different manner, not just having it free. --^T 16:31, 4 June 2007 (BST)
5. Kill - As above. A skill that reduces AP cost perhaps, although that would require rounding off. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:50, 5 June 2007 (BST)
6. Kill -I'm against free speech.-- Vista  +1  20:17, 5 June 2007 (BST)
7. Kill - Talking is a huge advantage if you use it right, at least humans get to understand eachother with ease and you don't even need a skill. --karek 22:05, 6 June 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - This suggestion would create an insane amount of it... then, Kevan would make an option to ignore talk, and everybody would enable it, and then nobody would hear any talking any more. This suggestion would thus effectively destroy the talk-option, just the opposite of what it tries to do. - BzAli 21:50, 3 June 2007 (BST)
2. Spam - A suggestion that enables spam is spam. --Saluton 22:25, 3 June 2007 (BST)
3. Spam -Have you ever been in a building with more than 100 or 150 survivors inside? Image that without an AP cost for talking--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 22:30, 3 June 2007 (BST)
4. Dupey Spam - It's been said before and lacks detail: Im not sure if your talking about using fractions of AP (in which case it can get rather silly) or making speech free (which creates spam and is also theoretically an "action" - which should cost an action point. --Da Axe Man 23:03, 3 June 2007 (BST)
5. Dupe - This is a copy of a suggetion that many others have made. It always seems to get voted out. On that note, Kevan made it so you only speak to the nearest 50 people. He did that for a reason: to increase server speed when many many individuals are talking at once. So no. --Poodle of doom 02:47, 4 June 2007 (BST)
6. Dupe - Spam - This is an overpowered cersion of this peer reviewed suggestion. --Nikitis 04:21, 4 June 2007 (BST)
7. Spam - Too much spam will make Jack go haywire. --JudeMaverick ^{W! TJ! Talk Zzz... P! Nuts!} 08:52, 4 June 2007 (BST)
8. Spam - as above. --Duke Garland_T^{LCD SSZ} 10:20, 4 June 2007 (BST)
9. This is a dupe. Read dupe/spam vote 6. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:07, 4 June 2007 (BST)
10. Spam - Obviously. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:06, 10 June 2007 (BST)
11. Spam - Would created a lot of spiced ham. --Anotherpongo 17:53, 15 June 2007 (BST)