From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

Make Barricade Destruction/Construction AP Equal

Timestamp: ShadowScope 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: BarricadesCades
Description: Barricades need some nerfing, but there are controversy on how to nerf them. Then I read Reaper with no name talking about balance basically be 1 zed vs. 1 surivior. And then I recall the fact of 1 Surivior builds a barriacde with 50 AP, and 1 zed takes it down for 68 AP. Surivors feel happy that they are defeating the poor Zeds by having them waste AP knocking the barricades and I feel that need to be addressed.

So, here is what I suggest. Increase the AP cost for building Barricades, by increasing the chances that one cannot build a barricade when it is high enough.

Constructions Strength

  • 1 Loosely barricaded (100% barricade chance) [1 AP/Barricade]
  • 2–4 Lightly barricaded (100% barricade chance) [1 AP/Barricade]
  • 5–7 Quite Strongly barricaded (75% Barricade Chance) [1 AP/Barricade] (For the most part, 75% barricade chance is merely a token gesture, it really won't cause any hardship for the player, I believe...)
  • 8–10 Very Strongly barricaded (75% Barricade Chance) [1 AP/Barricade]
  • 11-13 Heavily barricaded* (50% Barricae Chance) [2 AP/Barricade]
  • 14–16 Very Heavily barricaded* (25% Barricade Chance) [4 AP/Barricade]
  • 17+21? Extremely Heavily barricaded* (10% Barricade Chance) [10 AP/Barricades]

Up to VSB, it takes 10 AP to barricade, therbey sealing the building and preventing zombie attacks. However, it cost more AP to barricade up. To complete buidling up to HB, it cost 6 build up to VH, it cost 12 AP. And, finally, at EHB (up to level 4), it cost 40 AP.

This means a total of 68 AP is spent...with hapens to be the amount of AP a Zed has to spend to tear down the barricade. Of course, for a surivior, it is AP-effienct to barricade up to VSB. But when you barricade beyond VSB, it cost more AP, making suriviors lose lots of AP in building these barricades. And since malls usually are at EHB (for good reason), this makes Zeds feel as if they are being useful, as the AP they spend knocking down an EHB barricade means a surivior must waste 10 AP rebuilding that Barricade.

Of course, this is all based on averages (if the RNG gods love you, you can spend less AP. If the RNG god hates you...then you spend more AP).

NOTE OF CLARIFCATION: It seems that for QSB and VSB, it's 1.33 per level, meaning that it cost 70 AP not 68 AP to barricade. Just 2 AP's not a lot. Please vote on the merit of the suggestion, I hope.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Could work for balancing things out. It costs 10 AP to revive a guy, yeah, but how much AP does a zombie use on killing it? that part is fairly balanced IMHO. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 03:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep But it's not going to make it in, edit & revise. You are 80% of the way there. Barricading past VS should cost more AP (often kills lower level survivors outside, and it's harder to make that good of a barricade, from indoors.) But I'd say be more reasonable with the AP increases: Up to VS 1 AP; Heavy & VH 2 AP; EHB 3 AP. Yes, make it cost more to overbarricade, I and many others would agree.. but don't overdo it. That average 2 & 3 AP cost would definately slow down overbarricading significantly. As well as the AP differential between construction & destruction. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 09:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I could have sworn I voted on this one already. Oh, well. In a fair fight, zombies can't hope to win. They win by superior metagaming. They shouldn't have to metagame to beat stupid unorganized survivors. They should be able to fight and win at least some of the time just on the sum of their individual might, just like what survivors do. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Don't fudge numbers! it's 1.33 per level for QSB and VSB, bringing the total to 70. --Gene Splicer 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • My...bad. I'll add it in as a clarification.--ShadowScope 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill Barricades are cheaper to build than destroy because survivors die and zombies don't. If you want to make barricade creation and destruction equivalent then also lower the revive cost to 6AP. There's your equality. --Jon Pyre 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - 10 AP to build an EHB barricade with 10% chance of success? That wouldn't equalize anything at all. That would give zombies a huge advantage. --Wikidead 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, it still cost 1 AP to build an EHB Barricade. You just have a 10% chance of success, so it ends up that you spend 10 AP to build one.--ShadowScope 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Isn't there already an increased failure rate at higher barricade levels anyway? Besides, the AP-advantage of keeping the barricades up, is used up when killing zeds or having to arrange revives. --Jay Clarke 12:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. As Jon. do know you're not suppose to edit the suggestion during voting, right? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - It is always easier to defend that to attack. Add to the fact that barricades are the primary defense of survivors. Don't mess with the Barricades. --Tirak McAlister 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - 10 AP of barricading to make a zombie spend just 4 AP wouldn't be worth it, and I don't think survivors should be given that option. --Toejam 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - your math would be perfect if all this game involved was two evenly matched combat opponents on either side of some barricades. It's not that simple, though, is it? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill- Your suggestion does have merit, but I will have to decline. We should really leave Barricades alone, its usless to find a compremise between the zombie Ideas and the Survivor ones. -Nibiletz 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill, and change -Try removing failure for anything under vs+2 and shifting that into heavy barricades, makeing it even harder to over-cade. --AlexanderRM 5:40 PM, 11 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Loot the bodies!

Timestamp: Gene Splicer 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Mchanic/Skill
Scope: Survivors, minor zombie bonusses
Description: That in any outdoor area containing corpses, survivors may scavange equipment from their fallen allies.

Important Note: This does not actually remove anything from the inventories of the bodies. Just like malls, hospitals and pds never run out of equipment, neither does any well-stocked corpse pile.

New Mechanic

When in an outdoor area with at least one corpse, you have an option "Search the bodies". You have a 10 + (4*number of corpses)% chance of finding something, capped at 50% total. The "somethings" can include pretty much any item commonly carried by survivors, ranging from pistols to crowbars, similar to an Shoppingless Mall search.

New Skill

Graverobber: You can choose what to search for when scavenging from the dead.

With Graverobber, you gain the options to search for Medical Supplies, Weapons or Gear in addition to Search the Bodies.

Medical Supplies yields First Aid Kits and the occasional syringe. 5+(2*NOC), capped at 25%, average 1 in 8 of succesful searches producing a syringe (so a max of 3% chance of a syringe).

Weapons yields Axes, Blunt Weapons, Knives, Firearms, Flares or Ammo. 5+(3*NOC)%, capped at 35%.

Gear includes pretty much anything from the Useful Items list from this here Wiki. 10+(3*NOC), capped at 40%.


What's in it for Survivors?

Demallify/NTify the game. Also, the closest we will ever come to a trading mechanic.

What's in it for the Zombies?

"I'm searching ten bodies! Wait, what, nine bodies?" *feeding groan* "OH CRAP ON A HANDSTICK BASTARDFACE"

Why only outdoors?

Indoors the lack of ventilation makes the bodies smell too bad to search. Also, indoor searching would allow powered building bonuses and zerg "mall piles" inside any safehouse. Finally, it would not result in survivors standing around outside looking confused as the root through wallets for credit cards, wriggling their tempting buttocks brains around in the open for all the Zombies to see.

Why no exact per-item search rates?

Are you serious? Do you know how long that would take? And how HUGE the tables would be? And the amount of "Kill - Make pistols 1% higher -- MrPickyBastard" votes that would cause? And above all, how much He Who Will Not Be Named would not care and would just put in what he thinks is good himself? If you really want them, I'll move this to discussion and ask people to post their opinions on what the rates should be, but I think they are best left as one of those mysterious factors that seem to change based on the Ratio board. I only put the Syringe ones in so it would be obviously OH LOOK WAY LOWER THAN EVEN AN UNPOWERED AT GUYS to anyone who would autospam based on that.

Jesus, that last one was a bit confrontational, don't you think?

Less hippy crap, more voting

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Well, I for one am tired of not being able to "loot the bodies." I'd probably make a few changes, and if this goes to discussion I'll be an active discusser. Discuss... --Uncle Bill 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep I took the time to read it, not bad.. finds a use for large piles of dead bodies. That would be fun! Graverobber skill is very much in genre. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 11:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep/Change add a chance of infection, to make it slightly dangerous, prevent it from working when there is a one or more standing zombies, and lower the cap. Since it doesn't work inside, it doesn't take anything from the inventory of other players, and it doesn't make anything easier in siege situations (because of barricading that can prevent getting back in), I see no reason to not have it. Besides, it provides a nice bonus for killing a lot of zombies. --Saluton 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - I like it, and it makes sense (or is that redundant?).--Reaper with no name TJ! 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep/change - good idea, but maybe only survivors can loot a body of only certain items such as ammo or phones and such

Kill Votes

  1. Kill If zombies kill everyone in a building and ransack it that could actually make it easier for other survivors to get items. --Jon Pyre 03:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - only works on OUTSIDE piles. Not inside piles. A ransacked building remains justa ransacked building --Gene Splicer 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - I am tempted to spam this. --Wikidead 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Only if you've got a crucifix in your inventory to ward off the bad karma of robbing the dead -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 09:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Hell no. This is a huge survivor buff since they can search for Flak Jackets among the corpses, and since most of the corpses are already zombies that have been Headshot, they lose their only protection against those bullets meaning they have to search for another one by getting revived, but if they have Brain Rot, their chances of being revived are slim, thus meaning many zombies would have to go on without a Flak. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - It doesn't actually take stuff from the bodies, as is mentioned in the second sentence of the submission. Did you even read it? --Saluton 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Overpowered. Okay, so this doesn't take stuff from the bodies. I create a bunch of zerge corpses with no items and have "insta-any-item" locations? WHEREVER I want? And how do your search rates relate when you don't have the "search" skills? What would the BASE search% be? And I gotta agree with ShadowScope's comments about there being no useless items. And your "Q&A" to counter against votes, shouldn't that actually try to counter against votes?--Pesatyel 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - mainly because survivors don't need an equipment buff, but also because people don't tend to get buried with lots of useful items like FAKs. It's a bit late for medical attention, right? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. this suggestion rewards zergers and nerfs zombies. --Ev933n / Talk PPGC 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. kill a huge incentive to PKing --Cman yall 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Wouldn't this turn zombie hordes (with lots of dead bodies) into Moblie Malls? This would be stupid...Before, Zombies can stop suriviors by ransacking buildings, thereby forcing them to deal with low supplies. Now, Suriviors can run outside and loot from Zeds? Bah!--ShadowScope 03:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - See Q&A number 2. Any horde worth its salt would eat said human mighty speedily. The idea being that yes, the survicor gets a good search rate in high-corpse areas, but those are also the areas where he is most likely to be devoured quite rapidly while doing so --Gene Splicer 03:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re-Big whoop. If you do get hit by an Active zed, you'll just run away and live another day with all the looted stuff. Not to mention that this Malls on Wheels has a total of ZERO useless items, which is totally unfair. Basically, people should search in buildings, not in corpses, because if you can search in corpses, then zombies cannot starve surivors into surrender.--ShadowScope 03:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Lower the search rate per body by 50.--MrPickyBastard 03:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Malls on wheels aren't better than current malls. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Not liking this at all. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spam - Hmmm. I sense zerg potential. Some guy could make his own item collection place by killing 40 alts and piling them up... Mattiator 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lurking Shuffle: Ransack Detection Skill

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: I suggest adding a Necronet map like skill to let zombies know what buildings around them are ransacked and how many zombies occupy them. This would be useful for finding a ransacked building to sleep in and to esssentially keep score for the area.

Zombies have learned that hiding in a ransacked building may provide some safety from zombie hunters. They have started to listen for the sound of zombies aimlessly shuffling around conquered buildings. A zombie with the Memories of Life subskill Lurking Shuffle longs to join other zombies in their occupation. They would have a have a new button "Detect Ransack". Pressing it would bring up a 10x10 display like the Necronet map. Instead of showing numbers though each building square would indicate the number of zombies by changing the saturation of the building's color.

A ransacked building without zombies would be the same color as an unransacked building with or without zombies, almost grey. So a hospital would be a reddish gray. If a building is ransacked and occupied by zombies as the number of zombies increases the color would become more saturated to indicate the presence of many shuffling feet. It should reach full color around twenty or so but having to estimate by color you'd never get a specific figure.

This could be useful in reinforcing ransacked buildings with only one or two zombies, or to find a large successful horde that just broke in a building. It should be a nice utility skill for zombies to have in their arsenal.

Keep Votes

  1. Author This should a handy. Plus as a zed I'm curious how many buildings are ransacked and occupied in the area. I'd like to know if my contribution to the horde is having an effect. --Jon Pyre 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Screw it I actually quite like this. --Karloth Vois RR 11:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I don't like these kind of improvements. Zombies are supposed to be mobile, not hold any ground. Any further change after Ransack that is aimed at keeping instead of getting is a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re A zombie can be mobile and hold ground. They can move around and attack, and then use this to find a place to rest when they don't have enough AP to make hearing groans worthwhile. --Jon Pyre 05:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Revise - Take it down to a 5 by 5 map.--MrPickyBastard 06:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. This seems really out of character. It just jives me.--Gage 06:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - ZOMBIE #1: *Sniff* *Sniff* I can smell ransack! ZOMBIE #2: "That's just stupid." --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 06:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re This is actually based on hearing, not scent which is why this is placed in the Memories of Life skill tree rather than the scent tree. --Jon Pyre 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Okay then - ZOMBIE #1:I can hear a zombie making a mess ten blocks away! ZOMBIE #2: "That's just stupid." --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill You're very close, change the logic behind it that ransacked buildings with 5 or more zombies in them are noisier and zombies with MOL, and this skill can "tell" by all that glass crunching and whatnot that that building is ransacked, then yeah, I'd buy that. Even then, you'd only "hear" 3x3 square.. saves having to enter already ransacked buildings.. good enough! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 09:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. As Silly. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill Mr.Ausvitz is on the right track. I'd go so far as to just have it tell you if the building in your current location (and only that building) is ransacked and how many zombies are inside it. A zombie could tell that from smell, I think, but knowing about an area of buildings is TMI, IMO. --S.Wiers X:00 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill X-ray vision, anyone? Yes, the same argument could be used on Necronet, but it only shows scanned zombies, and requires a powered NT building, so it's easy for zombies to prevent (easier than a skill that works anywhere, at least!). Drop the grid down to 5 by 5 (speaking of which, any grid with a single square at the center has to have an odd number of squares to a side, or show more in one direction than the other), which is barely more than the normal grid, make it cost 10AP, and prevent it from working outside powered buildings (or increase the cost outside them).--Saluton 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. kill make it only affect the 3x3 map you see and just have it so it changes the building name to ransacked in the same way NTs used to change if you could recognise them! Also tempted to say it must be a building with more than 1 zombie in it. --Honestmistake 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - yes, I think psychic zombies with X-Ray vision would be an alarmingly wonderful addition to my Elastic Zombies suggestion. Also - rampaging zombie-controlled killbots and nuclear hand grenades and self-lacing jogging shoes. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. KILL Zombies do NOT have x-ray vision Mattiator 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. kill -reasons stated above. - BzAli 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill -x-ray vision, and large zombies which are in four squares at once would be... odd to attack and for them to attack. Though interesting. --AlexanderRM 6:31 PM, 11 Febuary 2007 (EST)
  14. Change - The x-ray vision thing is nonsense (otherwise NecroNet is x-ray vision, since it's exactly the same concept). However, I think the range is a bit too great. Maybe 5x5 or something. And maybe change the justification (if zombies can hear aimless shuffling 6 blocks away, they should be able to hear whether or not there are survivors in the building they are standing outside of). --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Light Load/Unbouded Shuffle

Timestamp: MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 09:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: A New Survivor & A New Zombie Skill
Scope: For those carrying fewer items, your max. AP is 55!
Description: I tried this kind of suggestion once almost a year ago, but this time, it's a bit different in light of more current skills, changes and game features.

There is one skill for survivors, and one for zombies, both do the same kind of thing.. but in different ways.

Light Load

  • Survivor skill, appears on Civilian skills tree as a sub-skill of Bodybuilding, adds no benefits to your zombie character.

When your survivor has 15 (or less) items in their inventory, your maximum AP is 55, rather than 50.

Unbounded Shuffle

  • Zombie skill, appears on skills tree as a sub-skill of Lurching Gait, adds no benefits to your human character.

When your zombie has 10 (or less) items in their inventory, your maximum AP is 55, rather than 50.

Game Mechanics, Both Skills:

  • If, at any point and time, your inventory goes above the listed amount for that skill.. if you were over your normal AP limit of 50 AP, those extra AP are immediately lost and you drop down to 50 AP (prevents abuse/cheating.)
  • If you have purchased both skills, there is no additional benefit. But your maximum AP is 55 as a human, or a zombie.. if you have the less equipment required for that form.


These skills are a benefit to those who are less encumbered with an assortment of weapons, gear, medical supplies, and the like.

Not all players would want or need these benefits at the price it would cost them (for example, those who rely primarily on firearms and ammo.) But for those who would play a lighter fast moving survivor (ex. scout, a hand to hand specialist with a fireaxe or knife, the quick combat medics.. in & out with the FAK's), as well as a "pure" zombie (doesn't stay alive long, only searches for the occasional newspaper), then this is right up their alley.

Newbie players, may definately find these skills worthwhile ("I don't even have 15 items!") until they have accumulated a larger inventory stash.

Even after you've purchased this skill, it is always a potential benefit when you are low on equipment (you just fired off all your ammo, burned off all your FAK's, at least the next time you log on you have more AP to act.. search for more items...)

The zombie skill definately makes the corpse starting class, more attractive to play for starters. (No searching, no problem.)

The zombie version of this skill, is 5 items "harder" because zombies don't usually need items, or benefit from them (except a flak jacket!) But also to reflect an encumbered zombie's lesser capacity for improved speed (possibly dragging things behind it, and so on.) Whereas unencumbered zombies, can be a much more mobile! (A naked zombie chasing after you is just that much more frightening, for a variety of reasons...)

Keep Votes

  1. Author You get what you pay for, this skill isn't for everyone. Then again, not everyone buys zombie scent skills, or some less deadly survivor skills. It's an option, one that many could enjoy! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 09:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Should certainly be a skill (and a sub skill as above), to prevent zerging. Not all that abusable (even for zombies) because it doesn't improve AP recharge any; a player who logs in ever 24 hours has no need for this skill, and would do just as without it. That includes most high level characters of any sort (zombie or survivor) I think. --S.Wiers X:00 15:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
You vant kill, okay, ve give you kill... SHOOT HIM!

  1. Kill - Make it not require a skill. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill The zombie penalty isn't a penalty because zombies don't use items. If survivors should have to vastly weaken themselves by carrying 3/10ths the items zombies should pay a price as well.--Jon Pyre 09:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re It is a 2nd tier skill, of Lurching Gait, which isn't really too important unless you're going for ankle grab. I made sure a level 2 zombie couldn't buy it to prevent Zerging. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 09:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re It isn't a problem with zerging it's the fact that zombies don't have to give up anything to use it. A zombie doesn't need any items. For 5AP most will gladly chuck everything they're carryng. --Jon Pyre 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Change To powerful for zeds, and too weak for humans. Make it not require a skill, and less than 5 items for zeds. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 10:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Change Maybe for the Zombies the trade off should be the Flak Jacket itself, which would of course encumber them, and as you said is about the only item a zombie would be carrying. That would be something that would make people sit there and say, "Hm... do I REALLY want the AP?" because they could be potentially spending that AP standing back up. Or not. As for the humans, maybe a 'no guns, more AP' thing would be better to reflect their obvious trade-off. My character tends to carry about ten or fifteen pistols, just as an example. Someone who just uses the ax? They probably only have one ax. Lt Charlie 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Change it. It's practically bad for survivors since most of the higher levels ones carry more then 15 items. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill/Change - Zombies only need to carry a single item, the flak jacket. A 10 item limit to be able to store 5 extra AP? How many dedicated zombies carry anything but the flak jacket? Also, most high level survivors carry a LOT - I, personally, find my entire inventory filled very regularly. Also, ten or fewer items? 10 or fewer inventory slots taken up, perhaps. --Saluton 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Zerg spies would love this, and I don't see it seriously benefitting anyone else. --c138 RR - PKer 18:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - 50AP is fine, and it's fair for all. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. kill - definitely a good idea, but make it automatic. Mattiator 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. kill - Would be far more usefull to zombies with their flak jacket and nothing else, than to survivors who're depending on their stuff to stay alive for long. - BzAli 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill, and change - The fix for the zombie problem is there in the title: unencumbered movement. with 0 items we would actually have zombie loyalists who DIDN'T have the extra 5AP. --AlexanderRM 6:38 PM, 11 Febuary 2007 (EST)
  12. Change - I also think it shouldn't require a skill (in fact, it doesn't make any sense for this to require a skill at all). And either not let it work for zombies or make the limitations more severe due to their lack of items. Perhaps it should only work for zeds who have no items at all. This would result in an interesting gameplay choice for zeds: Do I wear the flak jacket (the only item zeds tend to care about) and have more protection? Or would I rather have the extra AP? --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Now you vant shpam? Vell, since ve vill be killink you, okay, lasht meal ov SHPAM!

Critical Hits and Zergs

Withdrawn by Author at vote count of 4 keep, 9 kill, 2 spam, and moved to author's talk space. Primary concerns of kill voters regarding XP issues and probing the 'zerg limits' to be worked on before being reintroduced eventually. Dst3313 05:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Rush

Author pulled for revision / resubmission. Substantial changes to be made. --S.Wiers X:00 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Chainmail Vest

Mod spaminated with 5 spams and 7 kills. Voters thought it was a nerf to zombies and out of genre.--Gage 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another Barricade Suggestion

Timestamp: -- 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Minor Barricade Nerf
Scope: Hurman Barricaders
Description: As we all know Zombies, tend to suck in this game. Also as we all (should) know, one of the main reasons humans don't suck is becuase they have barricades. Now I'm not gonna get all statisticy here, becuase that would require effor however I do propose a way to semi fix this balance problem. It's been argued several times before, that humans shouldn't be able to barricade up buildings the moment the barricades fall (read mall tours/any other sieges). So how do you fix this?

I believe an easy way to solve this problem would be to do this; if the barricades fall completely and one or more zombies get inside of a building, the barricades should not be able to be closed behind them so long as at least one of the zombies inside the unbarricaded building has made a movement within the past minute. A movement would be defined as spending an Ap doing anything. So if a zombie had made a movment within the past minute, the "barricade this building" button would simply not appear, forcing the survivor to do something truly insane, kill the zombie.

If you want this to be realistic, well think about it, if you we're in building and a zombie stormed in would you be killing the zombie or throwing desks infront of the doors? .

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep Ya know I kinda like my own suggestion. Wierd eh? -- 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)\
  2. Keep Adds an interesting dimension to zombie tactics; should they spend AP slowly, keeping the barricades down longer, or should they spend them fast and avoid getting killed and dumped before they accomplish anything? Its an interesting variation on the Barricade (nerf) of Suggestions/31st-Jan-2007 --S.Wiers X:00 21:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. WTFZOMBIES (keep) This is actually a good barricade suggestion. Definitely realistic, and balances barricades a little more. Kudos! Mattiator 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. I like it.--Gage 22:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Not bad. Certainly doesn't tip the balance too much in favor of the zombies, but it can help extend the amount of 'open' time for enough to let things get a little more interesting. --Gateking 22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. KEEP!!! - Very good, simple but effective. --DinkyDao 23:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - It has just the right amount of nerfness. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep' -As always, the Cap'n has the right words to describe with. -Nibiletz 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Not bad. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Nice. ZombieCrack 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - I like it, its short, sweet, and to the point. It doesn't tip the scales toward the zombies to much, and when you think about it if a zombie broke down a barricade and came in what sensible person would immeadaitly barricade the door with a zombie trying to kill them? NONE! Very well thought out, although i might push it to 1 1/2 min - 2 min, but its your skill suggestion so I won't mess with it.--NecroHealer 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Nerfy enough to make things HAPPEN during a break in. We mustn't forget the "Oh, S***!!!" Factor. Bubacxo 10:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - How many people do you know of that would be able to move furniture to seal up a breach when there's an active, hungry zombie standing in the middle of the room? I'll tell you how many: none, because the zombie would eat the person before they got the furniture anywhere near the breach. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill UD isn't supposed to be a realtime game. It tends to work that way, but programming timing into it might add conflicts and things. Or something. I actually like the suggestion and had a similar one, but someone who knows about how the internet works said it was infeasible and I believed him.  :( --Ron Burgundy 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    I have no idea how the internets work, this is probably just one of a few others I'll spit out, in the hope eventually one will hit peer reviewed and kevan will change the 'cades -- 00:29, 11 Februrary 2007
    A fine pursuit! I'll keep an eye out for your others.  :D --Ron Burgundy 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - magic elastic zombies. Who says survivors are overpowered? Oh yes, zombies do. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 01:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - as Ron B> above. SO far nothing in the game runs on a timer and nothing ever should.--SporeSore 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - How many people consider going out, killing zombies, and then going back to search for more weapons normal? In a zombie apocalypse, survivors will be used to zombies, to the point that they might actually start getting boring (A common reason for PKing is that the game is boring). Realistic is not fun. Besides, timers? AP is not a measurement of time. --Saluton 03:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill In a certain movie called "Dawn of the Dead" when the survivors want to retake a mall they first barricade the entrances to prevent more zombies from entering before killing the ones inside. You know, the same way you'd patch a hole in a boat before bailing out water. And the way doctors will apply pressure to a wound to prevent more blood from leaving before ordering a transfusion. And the way you close the window before turning on the heater or an air conditioner. Or a million other examples of people using logic and brains instead of approaching a problem in entirely the wrong order. --Jon Pyre 06:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. kill - Jon said it allready. - BzAli 19:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Pretty sure this is a dupe. Quit griefing, breaking buildings isn't that hard. CatEar Alucard 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dupe - Dupe of --Tirak McAlister 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ransack! I ransack this suggestion to prevent zombies from voting keep on it until they kill me! --AlexanderRM 6:44 PM, 11 Febuary 2007 (EST)
  4. Dupe - Same as Tirak, and it's hardly a "minor" nerf. Dst3313 14:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Classes

Removed and moved to the author's talk page. This suggestion was so incomplete it wasn't funny. It doesn't even belong in Peer Rejected as is.--Gage 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Timestamp: DinkyDao 23:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Weapon
Scope: Harmanz
Description: A re-done version of the .22 Rifle that i suggested before. Why a .22 and not something bigger like a 30-06?

Well we suppose Malton is in Britain, and the most common long-arms there are double-barrelled shotguns and little .22 rifles.

Weapon: Rimfire Rifle A Small, lightweight .22LR rifle used for hunting. It is a ten-shot bolt-action, tube-fed and reloads with individual cartridges, wich are taken from a Rimfire Cartridge box wich contains max 10 bullets (findable 1-10). Each bullet deals 6hp damage against an unarmored target, but only 3hp to an armored target since the bullet does not have the weight or velocity needed to completely penetrate it. It can be found in Mall Sporting Stores (5%), Junkyards (3%) and Mansions (1%). The ammunition can be found at the same places (8%, 4%, 2%) (whitout bargain hunting). Base Accuracy is 15% (because of it's light weight, kick and natural grip). With BFT, it climbs to 40%. With Shotgun Training to 65% and finally with Advanced ST to 75%. Its clip size, widespread ammo and high accuracy is balanced by it's low damage (especially to players with flak jackets) and painfully long reloading AP cost. What this is really is the noob-friendly firearm.

Resumed: Damage 6/3, Capacity 10, round-by-round loading (shotgun), Accuracy 15%/40%/65%/75%

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Author Keep. --DinkyDao 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - It's balanced and intelligent. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 23:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep- Much better this time around. If this is redone, maybe rename shotgun training to long arm or shoulder arm training.--Grigori 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep I'm sure there have already been better n00b weapons suggested, but im too lazy to look for them. Mattiator 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, I'll have a Keep pizza I've been gunning for a new gun (hahahahaha... okay, go ahead and hit me) for months now. YES. Leeksoup 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - it will do nicely but I don't like the reloading cost--Zombie Spray 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Change - I want a new gun, and this one is almost there, but noooot quite. Change it to half-clip reload for an AP and 4 damage w/flak, and we'll talk. CatEar Alucard 02:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Only because it is balanced. I liked a few previous suggestions better. Like 4 or 5 shots, still manual reload. And 4 damage with flak. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - i am voting keep because it is well thought out in most places but a few i have a few tweaks that would make it more likley to be voted in and make it fair:
    1. Tweak #1: It should be clip fed, but the clip size is to big, 4 shots seems more reasonable since it does 6 damage,this would make it more balenced like the Pistol.(the pistol does 5 and only has 6 per clip)
    2. Tweak #2: The base accuracy is much too high it should start out at 5% like the pistol and shotgun do.
    3. Tweak #3: It would need its own skills, it coudldn't go up with shotgun, because well, its not a shotgun.
    4. Tweak #4: the accuracy increase is also much to big, it should be more like this:
    BFT= +25% bringing it to 30%, Its Training Skill= +25 bringing it to 55%, Its Advanced Training Skill= +10% bringing it to 65%. (so basically it follows the exact same pattern as the other firearms.)
    If you add those changes then im sure it would be look on as much more fair to and would be more likly to be added to the game.--NecroHealer 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Worth at least letting Kevan see, though I agree that it would need a different skill set... (even assuming shotgun is firing slugs, not buckshot, it would aim/fire differently, therefore a different skill.) Bubacxo 10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. keep Weapons are only cool if they're different from what we have: this is: Low dmg, high AP-cost, but also a better to-hit. - BzAli 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Finally, a decent

Kill Votes

  1. Kill Can't say I like the suggestion. It just seems like one more thing that would clutter up my inventory. Shotguns and pistols work just fine for me. I'm all for survivor skills and such, but they really don't need more weapons. IMO. -- 23:43, 10 February 2007
  2. More or less useless. Less damage than the pistol, but with a ridiculous reloading cost? Give me a break.--Gage 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - same reasons as last time you suggested it. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 01:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - No new guns. --Wikidead 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - I'd like to see a good rifle as much as any other person, but it's not going to happen. It makes searching for ammunition harder as well as make things harder for the Zeds. 75% accuracy and more powerful than a pistol is balanced? Don't like the idea. --Tirak McAlister 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - a pistol seems better, 1 AP to reload, 4 damage through armor. This weapon seems to combine the worst aspects of both pistols (weak damage) and shotguns (high AP cost) ZombieCrack 04:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Change - I like most of this (a rifle suggestion where the rifle is weaker than what is already in the game yet actually makes sense to me: The world is ending!), but the power against unarmored targets doesn't quite work. A .22LR bullet wouldn't do as much damage against an unarmored person as a 9mm or .45 caliber pistol round (the two most common pistol rounds in the world). Decrease the damage against unarmored opponents to 4 and I'll vote keep. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Strong Kill -No over-five-damage weapons that aren't a multiple of 5. --AlexanderRM 6:47 PM, 11 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Actions Do not Reset Attack (Bugish fix)

Timestamp: Ron Burgundy 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Fix
Scope: Combat Survivors, Ron Burgundy, Wes Mantooth
Description: This may be a dupe, but I'm horrible at looking for them. Sorry in advance, if it is.

When you attack a zombie, the page reloads and whatever means of attack you last used is automatically selected in the attack dropdown menu. That is, you can hit a zombie with your axe twice in a row without selecting "fire axe" again.

Things are different when you multitask. For instance, if you attack a zombie with an axe and then drag a body outside, the page will come up with "punch" in the attack menu instead of "fire axe."

This always slips me up, it's kinda a pain, and, though I have absolutely no knowledge of coding, doesn't seem like it should be hard to fix. In fact, it seems like something Kevan missed while writing things.

Keep Votes

  1. Author For The pots and pans burn the fireman's hands! --Ron Burgundy 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep when i first saw the title i though SPAM, but this is actually a good suggestion for the maniac battles of urban dead, if it could be easily implemented. Mattiator 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep -Totally, I slip us all the time because of that, and also; why the hell not? -Nibiletz 00:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep Zombies multitask too. It stinks having to re-locate your target on a list of over 100 survivors and contacts just because you decided to let out a "Feeding Groan". Though I suggest the name be changed to something like "actions do not reset target and attack mode" - it sounds more classy. --S.Wiers X:00 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re: Done and done! --Ron Burgundy 01:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep- if it's not a Dupe, it should be. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 01:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Yep, why not? --Wikidead 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Keep - It also stinks when you stop to reload. This is an all around classy suggestion. --Uncle Bill 02:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - All aboard the keep train! CatEar Alucard 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Ya huh --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - I always hated that...--Labine50 MH|ME|'07 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - It's not a dupe of the suggestion Jedaz points out. This is about keeping options selected on your drop menues even after performing a different action, when the other is having an only option, and only of weapon, predefined and then selected ALWAYS. And yes, I like this suggestion. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep as above --Cman yall 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - What they said^ --NecroHealer 06:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. keep - Appears to be a dupe according to voters below, but a good dupe. - BzAli 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Not a Dupe - The linked-to suggestion lets you pick a "default" weapon that will always come first. There is no selection here: It's just whatever weapon you used last. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Dupe - You're right, it is a dupe. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dupe - 'Tis but a dupe. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools