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

11th December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 25th-Dec-2005

Last run

Timestamp: 00:04, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie hunter skill Skilll
Scope: last ditch run
Description: You have your normal 50 ap but you can spend 10 more ap and go into negitives. You can only move and enter buildings this way, and can't use free runing for these 10 ap. When you log out in negitive ap, or reach -10 ap you become unconcus and can't go into negitive ap again until you use 15 more ap. Each movement in this way does 2 points of damage that can only be cured by surgery.


  • Keep - I tryed to ake this as restricive as posible while still useful, to prevent xp farming and keep zombies in the runnig. --Mr NoName 00:04, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. People should budget AP. -- Ethan Frome 00:08, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - While I like the idea of going in the hole a little bit, I don't like the actual damage stuff. Maybe if it was -2ap at a time to make it a little more prohibitive expensive? Giltwist 00:09, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too weak of a skill with the damage, too powerful of one without it. --Drakkenmaw 00:16, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't mess with AP. Budgeting is part of the game. --Daxx 00:41, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As above. --Shadowstar 01:17, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Take a wild guess why. --VoidDragon 03:12, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What they said. I'm glad that some people (such as VoidDragon) read the rules. Bentley Foss 04:36, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you want me to vote keep please bother to Spell your suggestions right.--The General 10:47, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill No. --Spellbinder 01:16, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Reasons as stated above. --Dogbarian 01:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Basher 21:10, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So you want to give a skill like this to a character class that has caused a lot annoyance to the zombie players, causing them to leave in their droves? I don't think so, there needs to be a balance maintained! As mentioned above, budgeting is part of the game, and even if this wasn't an issue, the point that Drakkenmaw raised would be.

Scent Fear 2.0

Removed by author.

Auto-drop Duplicate Items

  • Spam - You and me and the spam makes three tonight. Bentley Foss 04:37, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

How on earth was this spam? - It was a genuine suggestion.

Adrenaline Shot (not a duplicate)

Removed by author due to several good arguments. A new version (that was suggested) will not be written. --Signal9 15:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Revised Headshot

Timestamp: 03:46, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill Modification
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: Rather than losing xp, a headshotted zombie is unable to stand for 30 minutes. This makes headshot a useful skill for survivors, especially in seiges, and eliminates a major source of grief for zombies.


  • Kill - Well, this WAS originally stated to occur at each half-hourly server tic. Even like this, though, I don't like it. Restricting another person's ability to play like that is almost worse than taking their XP away. --Drakkenmaw 03:50, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I posted it as "for 30 minutes (or until the next half-hourly rollover, if that's easier to code)" but changed it within a couple of minutes because I realized exactly what you did. But how can you possibly say that having all the results of your efforts stripped away every night is better than being unable to play for a half hour once in a while because you happen to be headshotted while you're playing? --Argus Blood 11:26, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re: Because my zombie is maxed out on levels, and losing the playwindow I normally get on weekdays (about thirty minutes during my lunchbreak) is far worse to me than losing any quantity of XP, since I don't have anything to buy with it anyways. I'd be fine with pretty much ANY alternate Headshot arrangement but this one - it unfairly punishes the people who are on a limited playschedule. --Drakkenmaw 18:17, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This would put an end to the Jumping Jack tactic in large seiges, but at least the skill could no longer be considered anywhere near as griefy. The zombie assaults would only get that timing situation if headshotters were coordinating their attacks on a timer, which doesn't happen. Rhialto 04:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Timed things probably won't ever get a keep vote from me. --Shadowstar 04:28, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't force people to behave a certain way. Stopping people from playing for half an hour is just not cool. Bentley Foss 04:38, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This makes headshot actually worth something and would make killing a zombie in a seige situation actually mean something. --Argus Blood 04:44, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is actually a pretty good idea for changing Headshot - after all, it'd be a minor inconvenience all around for the hordes. And, as I'm reading it, it's thirty minutes from the time the zombie dies, not every half hour on the hour and the half-hour, so a zombie killed at 12:27 wouldn't be able to stand up until 12:57. (Can the author clarify, please?) --John Taggart 04:49, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT) (P.S. I'm a survivor, I signed up to fight zombies, and as there's not a lot of prey around - thanks mainly to the Headshotting survivors knocking down zombies and their XP caches, thus making it unappealing to play a zombie - I'd love to see a change like this.)
  • Kill - what if the player's only got half an hour free in the day and he gets headshot in minute 1? Making play frustrating (current headshot) is bad - stopping people from playing at all is much worse. --Frosty 04:51, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Looks good. --Signal9 05:02, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't want to wait around for 30 minutes waiting to play. - Jedaz 05:24, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Now that's a good replacement for headshot. Of course, the potential for greifing is still there, but who would honestly take losing all of their day's XP, most of the times, to potentially not being able to play in their limited time, once in a while? --Hexedian 05:49, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Headshot needs to be eliminated, not revised. -- Centerfire 06:33, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Take away someone's skill without replacing it? I don't think so. --Argus Blood 11:00, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re: Then when I submit for peer review an actual suggestion to remove Headshot from the game, feel free to killvote it. --Centerfire 21:36, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Isn't there something against time-based suggestions? CthulhuFhtagn 09:21, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are already better suggestions about Headshot in this page. --GreatEmerald 11:45, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are better suggestions. Plus, this reduces headshot to effectively nothing. --Daxx 13:14, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You survivors who keep killing all headshot alterations are gonna learn very quickly just how stupid a zombie game is without zombies if you keep it up. phungus420 1451, 11Dec05 (GMT)
  • Kill - I want to play when it fits my schedule, not when the server lets me. --Dickie Fux 16:55, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Stupid idea, some people have tight schedules etc etc Will ruin zombie timed raids etc etc Messing around with times sucks --Qwako 18:14, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Time stamps on skills are bad, and don't be haten on the headshot--Spellbinder 01:18, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I find this amusing. Everyone agress that headshot causes the most grief to low level zombies, who struggle to make XP only to lose it to headshot. If you lost 50 points to a headshot, you've lost sometimes like two days worth of playing at low level. 30 minutes of time out seems hardly upsetting. If you cannot find the time to play in the other 1410 minutes of the day, I guess it just sucks to be you. The average set of actions in a day takes like five to ten minutes to complete total? -- S Kruger
  • Kill What part of "don't grief other players" are you not understanding? Headshot either needs to be removed completely, or changed to have a chance of double damage. --Dogbarian 01:39, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - im for modifying headshot to make it less devistating for zombies in terms of ballance, but not this way. alot of people dont have the luxury to log in whenever they please. --Firemanstan 01:42, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this. --Basher 21:13, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I see where you're coming from, but limiting AP usage is never going to be good! Sorry.
  • Keep - The main problem with headshot is that it punishes low level zombies but not maxed out zombies. This would encourage more zombies to play.--The General 19:39, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- I love this idea losing time is is better than losing XP, this could go somewhere
  • Kill - Make it 15 minutes and we got a deal. --User:Tereseth 1:17, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Black Marker

Timestamp: 05:13, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors and Zombies
Description: The Black Marker would be found in Schools and Malls (Stationary Stores). When someone posesses the Black Marker, they can draw a pattern on the face of any Survivor or Zombie who is asleep. (IE: Out of AP and in 'sleep' mode.) You can also use this on corpses. When a player posesses the Black Marker, they will see a drop-down next to the marker in their inventory, much like a FAK currently has, with a list of sleeping players and "a zombie" and "a corpse" if a zombie or corpse is in the same area as said player. Once a victim is selected and the player clicks the Black Marker item, they will draw a random pattern on the sleeping or dead victim's face. The message would read something like:

"You draw thick kitty whiskers and a black nose onto Bob3231."

The victim will also see a message (with name of the "artist", etc. etc.) concerning this in their "Since your last turn" area when they next log in with AP and are out of sleep mode. Black Markers are one-time use. The victim's description will also be amended so that "They have thick black whiskers and a black nose drawn onto their face." would follow their normal description. (Non-stacking, like Grafitti.) This effect is undone once someone edits their Description, which sort of counts as wiping their face off. Some options for random patterns include: Kitty, Clown, Hitler Moustache and hair-part on forehead, Stars and moons, or Black eye and scar.


  • Spam - I sincerely hope this is meant to be funny. --Drakkenmaw 05:15, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author vote. Yes, but Funny and Real Suggestions are not mutually exclusive. I personally don't know how we currently exist without this item! :O -- Amazing 05:18, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - heh, i like it, I would draw on someone's face. --Frosty 05:19, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Send it to the Humorous suggestions section. No right minded survivor would draw on someones face. And also your description could end up being very very large if people kept drawing on your face. - Jedaz 05:21, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: "Right-Minded" and "Surviving a Zombie invasion" are kinda strange bedfellows. heh. Changed desc so that it is Non-Stacking, like Graffiti. I intended it to not stack, but thanks for pointing out I didn't actually say it. :X -- Amazing 05:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I think it is a great diversion. Could you imaging Black Marker Gangs roaming about? The player description is fluff anyway, not affecting gameplay. Why not liven it up a little?--Zod Rhombus 05:28, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP! - I'm sure that suvivors'd do something like this to help break the tension . . . oh, and someone tell Radio Free Malton, I bet they'd love to actually be able to Sharpie the Zob! --John Taggart 05:41, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, fluff is tasty good. Jirtan 05:46, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Thank you John Taggart. As I read the suggestion, it seemed so familiar and I tried to figure out what movie I'd seen it in... X1M43 06:04, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If I were a PKer, I'd use this to double check that my intended target was unable to defend themselves. Rhialto 06:29, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Just curious.. wouldn't you be able to tell after you put the first bullet in them and they don't do anything? heh. :) -- Amazing 07:09, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - what better way to keep your mind off the horror situation you find yourself in than to create a few laughs. Also add Connect the dots to that list! Jelcin 07:04, 11 Dec 2005
  • Keep - We have graffiti, how can we not have marker?! Riktar 07:15, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The character limit on descriptions might not make this work, however. CthulhuFhtagn 09:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice! I like it! Hitler moustache, lol!
  • Kill - 1: You are not a jigglypuff. 2: this is not pokemon.--Fullemtaled 12:10, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - 3: Jigglypuff isn't the pioneer of drawing on a face. -- Amazing 18:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Humourous - See Radio Free Malton. --Daxx 13:12, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Send to humourous. --Shadowstar 14:09, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I need another outlet for my drawing, do not stifle it!! Athos710 15:19, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds like something I did when I was twelve. --ThunderJoe 15:32, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Love it. If it changes the profile description, it would at least get players to log in and change their description to 'wipe' the marker off. --Costin 16:05, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Um, no... please no. This is a hilarious suggestion but it would just wreck the game flavor. Spraypainting is one thing but... this is just silly. --Phaserlight 16:19, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For stupidity value, BUT my bloke's description is already at the max 256 characters; what happens then?--WibbleBRAINS 16:35, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Hopefully it wouldn't count toward the limit.. Hopefully. :D -- Amazing 18:27, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The game isn't very scary as is, making it this goofy would totally spoil it. --Dickie Fux 16:52, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Life needs a litle levity, I can feel myself going mad from the constant stress already. I'm starting to hallucinate and zombies are all looking like Marilyn Monroe! :X -- Amazing 18:27, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Bwa ha ha. This is awesome. Definite keep! Bentley Foss 19:18, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/Humorous - There are no benefits to this, or at least none that would be offset by Kevan having to code it, when he could be spending it addressing real issues in the game. -- Ethan Frome 19:56, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Suggestions are not forced upon Kevan to program at gunpoint. No one suggestion will ever knock another off any imaginary "to do" list. Please keep to the merit (or lack thereof) of this suggestion. -- Amazing 23:44, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Has it ever occured to anyone else; if you never spend your last AP you never sleep... That is awesome, wish I could do that in real life. Also about this suggestion, I like the idea of being able to mark someone but the implementation on this is no good.--Matthew-Stewart 22:05, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill OMG teh server load! Actually, I'm serious - you're proposing a humorous way to grief that can be removed by... putting unnecessary load on the server. --LouisB3 23:09, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Let's take out the entire game and deny access to the host if server load is so sacred that it trumps everything. :) Also there is no penalty for having a drawn-on face, so people would probably just leave it 9 times out of 10. -- Amazing 23:44, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Um, yeah, this would be funny if I was twelve, or a drunken idiot (which are often indistinguishable from eachother). I don't see it doing any harm, but I also don't see it being worth the time to code. -- S Kruger
    • Re: Way to insult everyone who likes this idea. Really makes your vote ring of intelligence. ;) -- Amazing 02:14, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re: Well hey, give yourself credit, at least you were smart enough to see the subtle insult. It's a start. It is a stupid suggestion to begin with, hence why I voted kill, I do not see how my comment reflects on my intelligence, though your suggestion and response certainly reflect on yours. ==S Kruger
        • Re: You don't understand "Only authors can reply". That speaks for itself, Chief. ;) -- Amazing 06:15, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Stupid and childish. --Dogbarian 01:40, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: That's what some folks say about people who play Zombie games. -- Amazing 02:14, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I found it funny. It would be nice if it added a little flavor text, to go with it. Eg. "You were attacked by a zombie with a happy face drawn on it." --Max Lord 02:43, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It would be funny for all of 10 minutes. - KingRaptor 05:50, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Have the target's notification message mention who did it and link to the profile. Your current "message" is too open-ended. --VoidDragon 14:47, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Oh yeah of course it would say who did it, no doubt. -- Amazing 04:45, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - while this did provoke a chuckle from me while reading, it doesnt add anything substantial to the game. im in agreement with the 'send to humorous' people. --Firemanstan 01:48, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Think of it as "Graffiti for your face"! :D YAY! -- Amazing 04:46, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • keep - i love this idea but the marker should be 1 use and automatically 'wash' off after 100APs. perhaps it could find a real use as a kind of US style 'Death Card' such as used in 'Nam ie "this ZED dead curtesy of X" on the body, could even gain XP for every person that reads it. would this sensible use appease those with the overly mature sense of humour?--Blzbob 21:02, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. --Basher 21:16, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Send to the humerous suggestions page.--The General 19:54, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -this is very good idea it might evolve.--revoso 01:00, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - --User:Tereseth 8:05, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Specialised Classes

Timestamp: 08:05, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill changes
Scope: Survivors
Description: Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.

The idea behind this change is to make each class unique. Every class has one or more skills that are unique to that class, and every class has one of more 'general' skills had cannot be purchased. These changes will not be applied retro-actively - no character will lose an already-purchased skill, although (for example) a scientist who has not yet gotten Advanced Shotgun Training when this is implemented will not be able to buy it later.

Restricted skills:

  • Surgery - Doctors and Medics only
  • Lab Experience - Doctors and NecroTech Lab Assistants only
  • Bargain Hunting - Consumers only
  • Advanced Pistol Training - Not Doctors, Consumers, or NecroTech Lab Assistants
  • Advanced Shotgun Training - Not Doctors, Consumers, or NecroTech Lab Assistants
  • etc...

The above is just a possible sample for illustration, not the guts of the idea. Vote on the idea, not the specific skills to be restricted. This idea could be combined with an expanded list of skills, some of which may be restricted by class. This kind of restricted skills menu could also in principle be applied to specialised types of zombie.

Edit: Looks like this one is unanimous. My intention was to add some replay value to the game, as currently a high level guy can literally do everything, eliminating the need for co-operation, and eliminating replay value. Yes, it weakens the scientist combat skills. It also weakens the soldiers in other ways.


  • Keep - Author vote. Rhialto 08:05, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - means you max out even earlier --Frosty 08:29, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't reduce the number of skills people can buy. If you suggested new skills which could only be bought by their respective classes, I'd support that. X1M43 08:35, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Because this would be unfair on people. There would be a group of 'super' players, the ones who had maxed out before hand. If anything there should be new skills that are restricted not old skills that are restricted. - Jedaz 08:48, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Leave this sort of thing the the 'hopfully' soon to come advanced character types. Ie career scientist or soldier --LS 04:51, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - This is unfair to new players. Why should I have a stronger character just because I joined earlier and maxed out both my survivors before the change? --Argus Blood 11:19, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And why would old players lose their skills? No, this just doesn't work. --Shadowstar 14:12, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Man, as if it wasn't easy enough to max out. "Dear Scientists: Go home and die." --Zaruthustra 16:24, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't get why people are so eager to remove skills from the game for other players, when other skills could just be added to make the difference. --Drakkenmaw 18:37, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What part about "Don't do things that require resetting the game" and "Don't mess with other people's skills" did you miss? Bentley Foss 19:20, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - I missed none of that. I specifically noted there would be no retro-active changes, so nothing needs resetting. And I did not advocate taking away any skill anyone already has. I considered suggesting that as part of this idea, but I was afraid I would get objections such as yours if I did that. Apparently though, such concerns were ill-founded, as I got such a complaint anyway. Rhialto 06:15, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - if someone wants to limit themselves for roleplaying purposes, they can just choose not to buy it. Argus Blood makes a great point, and realistically just because someone is a scientist doesnt mean they cant be tought how to shoot a gun, etc. --Firemanstan 01:56, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Basher 21:18, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 09:29, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Survivors? (I mean, once used on them)
Description: For 5(3?) AP and a successful claw attack, the zombie can cause one of a survivor's actions(RANDOM, and it DOES NOT STACK) to be locked until they use up 10 AP. (Actions include: Movement, Attack, Search, Items (FAK, Syringe, DNA Scan, Fuel Can, etc.) I think it's a pretty good, potentially nasty(Oh snap! I'm infected.. can't use FAK?? Yipe!) (I'm being attacked?! Run! Oh.. wait.. ) and yet not overpowered.. (The zombie that broke in here stunned me before he died? Meh. *searchsearchsearch*)


  • Kill - This is IMHO just stupid. --LS 04:54, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - Mmmmm, this would mean carrying the flag over a set amount of turns, which could cause server lag... --RitchieB 10:12, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - Don't mess with people's ability to use items. --Daxx 13:10, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As above. --Shadowstar 14:13, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This sort of thing is what makes zombies interesting.--The General 14:45, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - server good, this bad Athos710 15:18, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill A ten turn status flag doesn't really do much to the server. I'm more concerned that he created a move that steals a fifth of your daily AP. Wtf? --Zaruthustra 16:21, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I just don't like this one. --ThunderJoe 17:07, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ho no, I can no longer use my spray can for 1/5th of the day! --Hexedian 17:41, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Interesting concept, terrible implementation. Make it one specific "locked" thing instead of a randomizer, and make it so that it's not AP-centric. Oh, and never remove someone's ability to move like that. That's just rude. --Drakkenmaw 18:22, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What part of "Don't mess with other people's skills" did you miss? Bentley Foss 19:21, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Keep Author vote. What part of "Zombies suck, no one plays them" did all of you miss? SUGGEST MODIFICATIONS like Drakkenmaw and make yourselves useful, why dontcha, instead of just shooting down everything that comes by? Just because it locks a skill (boo, hoo) doesn't make it bad. And the reason it is random is so that it DOESN'T always cause a critical error. People will always need to do one of the things that you can do to get rid of the effect: (Search, move, barricade, heal, spray, attack) the effect is something that makes things more complicated for survivors, without a definite guarantee. That's exactly what zombies need to not get walked all over.

  • Kill - Once again I find myself in agreement with Drakkenmaw. --Basher 21:19, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ravenous Disembowelment

Timestamp: 10:11, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Additional Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: My main thinking behind this proposal is that, as playing as both a survivor and a zombie, I've found the zombie skillset lacking any bite (if you pardon the pun!). My suggestion is fuelled by my belief that the zombie populace need to be more intimidating and something to be feared. With this in mind, and my love of the Romero quadoligy, I came up with this concept...

As the zombies adapt to their new found un-life, they become better killing/feeding machines. In the films, if one of these got in close, they had the potential to do some real damage. How many times have you seen someone ripped apart in the films? That was what made the zombies so terrifying! These lumbering corpses couldn't smash glass in malls, but they could make short work of rending muscle!

So, as a skill progression to the REND FLESH skill, for another 100XP, the player could purchase the RAVENOUS DISEMBOWELMENT skill. The skill is nothing that can be player activated. Instead, the zombie enters into combat with an enemy, and once the enemy is down to 10HP, each subsequent claw attack triggers a 15-25% chance of disembowling the opponent, causing instant death for the opponent, the XP kill bonus for the zombie (with the expenditure of fewer AP), and a HP gain equal to the previous remaining HP of the opponent as the zombie feasts on his meat.

Of course, the percentiles could be open to debate, and the skill could also be locked to a certain level and above, as with HEADSHOT. The result of this would be a faster XP accumulation of the zombies, especially if the skill were available to the lower level zombies from the start, hopefully balancing out the headshot issue in terms of gross XP gain, making the idea of the zombie character more appealing, and injecting a bit more balance into the character distribution. There would be no persistant changes to the victim ccharater, as far as they would be concerned it would be treated as a normal kill, and they would still be able to stand after their alloted AP expenditure (1AP for ANKLE GRAB, 10AP otherwise). I open the idea to the floor...


  • Keep - Author vote. --RitchieB 10:54, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - after overwelming evidents to the contrary i change mine to keep --Fullemtaled 22:02, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice idea. Worthy of being taken further. --Daxx 13:09, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds like a good thing to balance out Headshot. --Signal9 15:14, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea, possibly better with a damage boost instead of instant death.Athos710 15:17, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill If humans don't get an instant kill with headshot, why should zombies have an instant kill ability? Another thing: Zombies do not have super strength. They still use a human body, and they only seem very strong becuse they use the human body to its limits. Also, both sides do not need their counterparts on another side. Otherwise this makes both sides boring to play. That is all. AllStarZ 15:26, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - What I was referring to is the way that zombies can rip humans apart in the movies. One moment they're weak as lambs, the next they're pulling some guy apart. It's the lack of continuity in the films, but then thats what makes them so fun! It wasn't intended as a counterpart to the headshot, as it DOES cause instant death. It causes no more grief for the survivor than a normal death, it just comes a little more swiftly. In reality, it's still weaker than a flare with only slightly higher averages of success, and you can't exactly use it as a weapon, it's more of a critical hit, and it's just as powerful as the shotgun with far LESS chance of hitting. It's putting a little more balance into the mix, is all. --RitchieB 19:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, it makes sence, and I do like disembowlment. --ThunderJoe 15:31, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As someone above mentioned, I think it might be better to have a damage increase as opposed to instant kill. It'd probably end up coming out the same, but I'd rather not set a precedent about instant kills. In any case, something needs to be done about the survivor/zombie imbalance, and this just might help. --Lucero Capell 16:04, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the flavor... let's think about the numbers for a sec. You're going to get .25(10) + .25(8) + .25(6) + .25(4) + .25(2) damage per 5 AP, which is an average of 1.5 damage per AP provided the target is under 10 hp. That sounds reasonable. --Phaserlight 16:26, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I just don't think arbitrary insta-gibs are a good way to fix the balance problem. --Zaruthustra 16:27, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Like I said, it doesn't even equal the more powerful weapons in the survivor armoury when you look at the damage/AP/percentile cost. It just boosts a flagging skill tree and gives the zombies a much needed fear factor, IMHO. --RitchieB 19:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Oh well, why not. After 10HP, it's not going to take that many attacks to kill a survivor anyway. With luck you might save few APs. And we really need new zombie skills! --Brizth 16:37, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Wot 'e said. --WibbleBRAINS 16:42, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is far from an "instant kill", IMHO. We aren't talking about bringing a survivor from 50 or 60 HP to dead in one attack, at 10 or less HP, it's not going to take long for the survivor to be killed anyway. This is just a nice way for zombies to save a few AP. --Zarquon 17:26, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm not saying it's bad, but I don't like the idea of instant-kill skills. It's the same as reducing suvivor hp by 10 or making a "neutralize bodybuilding" skill. When there are a lot of ways of doing the same thing it feels messy. --Jon Pyre 17:33, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Not really, because to neutralise bodybuilding, you insinuate that the skill automatically succeeds, which it doesn't. It simply adds a little more excitement to the combat. The whole fun in this game lies in waiting those few seconds for the server to return the page when you find out whether or not you attack succeeded or not. I feel that this would add to the fun factor a little, thereby renewing interest in the zombie archetype. More zombies=more combat for the survivors. --RitchieB 19:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Same reason as Zarquon. Plus as previosly stated, something needs to balance Headshot. --thomsirveaux99 17:51, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If the survivor's at 10 HP or less anyway, an insta-kill doesn't really matter. A set amount for the zombie's HP gain (say 5) would probably be easier to program, and easier on the server than keeping track of the survivors previous HP count, but the effect would be the same. --Dickie Fux 17:57, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think the percentages are too high... I'd recommend 10%. It wouldn't happen every time, just one in 10. No one should be able to really complain about that. I think also you need to think about the endpoint-- Does this happen on a hand attack when the person is at 11, or only when the victim starts below 10HP? I don't think it's a really bad suggestion, as some people have said, but change=kill, so... --Shadowstar 18:03, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Damn, I must have missed the change=kill policy, I thought the details were open to debate! Sorry, but it was late when I posted! As for the endpoint, the skill would only become effective when the player is reduced below ten. IE, if someone was on 12HP, the skill would not become effective even if you hit them for three as their HP was too high when the attack commenced. Instead, onlt the subsequent successful attacks would attract the skill check. --RitchieB 19:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Let Kevan worry about the percentages; all percents change eventually in implementation. I think personally that this would be a great balancer, as letting the zombies kill just that a little bit faster might help tip the balance of giant seiges in their direction while not throwing the win entirely in their direction. --Drakkenmaw 18:25, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I like it. -- Tabs 18:33, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But the percent chance needs to be higher than 25%. As someone's math showed above, that only results in 1.5 damage per AP, which is already what claw attacks do with Vigor Mortis, Rend Flesh, and Death Grip. --Sindai 18:54, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - With a little testing, this could be very beneficial. Adds just the edge of fear that combat with a raging undead should-- MaestroXC 19:10, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Would make it scarier when you reach 10 HP in a fight. --Dashiva 20:35, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep: Hey get your hands off me, hey! No wait- Nooo! Not my precious organs! I need those to liv- rargghhblargle *dead* --Kehraus 21:46, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Like the flavor. And if a survivor is at 10 hp or less then they are probably going to die any way. - Jedaz 23:07, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Jirtan 23:17, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill a little too complacated. perhaps just a little bit of bonus damage on "wounded" survivors?--Spellbinder 01:39, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It's not really that complicated. As a player, once you had bought the skill, you wouldn't have to actually worry about what it does, just be aware that you have a chance of an early takedown. --RitchieB 19:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep The game needs more critical hits. Can be simplified - possession of the skill means there is a 50% chance of doing double damage when target is at 10 hp or less. --Dogbarian 02:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - How would you feel if shotguns had a 25% chance to insta-kill once your target was at 40 hp or less? It would also normally take 4 more attacks to kill the target, and would just save the survivor some AP. --VoidDragon 14:44, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Erm, hold on a minute, a survivor with advanced shotgun gets a 65% chance of knocking 10HP off a target anyway, so in actuality, if the roles were reversed, a zombie would have a higher chance of being killed when they were on 10 HP than the survivor would. That was where my logic laid... --RitchieB 19:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - sounds good to me. when a survivor is down to 10 hp, hes going to go down after 3 or 4 successful attacks anyways. this would add a little bit of pleasure for that once-in-a-while successful disembowelment, but not be overpowering as it is presented. its a reasonable ballance to headshot, plus it is a zombie movie staple. --Firemanstan 02:08, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yaaay! My zombie = fun again. --paincake
  • Keep - Sounds great. --Basher 21:20, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds like fun, saves us ap (Which we have far too few of once we get in anyway) --Grim s 15:41, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, but think it should be changed to 15 HP and lower. Minor quibble though. --Navigator 20:58, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Actually, I think you played it down too much. I'd prefer if it was a 100% chance when they're under ten HP that the next claw is fatal. Think about it: statistically, it would still have less of an effect on the number of AP needed to kill someone than any other attack skill in the game, almost no effect if you threw in even a high percentage, and its not really an insta-kill since it only works on people who are critically wounded (and does no more damage than a shotgun blast but can only be used once per confrontation). So its not overpowered at all. What it does do is make the zombies look and feel more powerful, and make them more fun to play while instilling a bit more fear in survivors, even though once you get past psychology it is less of a difference than any existing combat skill.--Brickman 21:23, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - No, Brick, not a chance. While I can appreciate what you're saying, this saps the excitement of not actually knowing what'll happen until the page loads. Aside to that, it would have the potential as being seen as an anti-bodybuilding skill, which would attract a lot of flaming and 'kill' votes. While I would like to see the Z's get a better balance, it must be done very subtly over time in such a way that you don't have the survivors in same the same position as the zombies, otherwise this suggestion page would suddenly become filled with new weapon suggestions etc. A balance has to be struck in a very apathetic way. Thanks for the vote, though.--RitchieB 20:08, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, but think it should be more powerful because zombies are weak. Maybe 15 HP and lower. --Esillisar 17:05, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Like I said ealrier, the actual details would be up to Kevan anyway, and it could easily be upped to 15% without throwing the balance off, but in the interests of keeping the skill viable, I opted for something that wouldn't be seen as overpowering, but fun and in the spirit of Romero. Thanks for the vote, I should start a charity, The Malton Zombie Organisation! --RitchieB 00:04, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - the idea of eating entrails makes me very hungry. --Penance 00:14, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I love this idea more people will want to be zeds! Unsigned --RSquared 18:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - Sounds like a nice 'gotcha' for zombies, and would certainly perk up the game. --User:Soddball 15:20, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Look! A skill that makes zombies a little more effective in combat. They might be able to eat 1.8 full HP survivors in a 25 hour period. What an insta-gib! --Beauxdeigh
  • Keep - Sounds good. --Comrade Morgan 19:36, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This would help balance the game. --Kanuri 01:42, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds like a plan. --JediMastaYoda 02:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. Again, not as powerful as some survivor attacks, but enough to help even the odds a bit. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 02:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a very fair option and zombies still need a big 'ol boost to even it out again. --Mynamewon'tfitinhere 15:11, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Ripping out and eating the guts of survivors? Now THAT would make zombies a lot more horrifying and fun! Oh, and for the record it's spelled 'disembowelment'. --Keith Moon 13:59, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Heh, cheers for that Keith! Corrected! It was VERY late when I typed that out! --RitchieB 18:16, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - another fun zed skill that doesn't copy headshot. --RSquared 18:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - well that is a new zed skill!--revoso 01:02, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A fair insta-kill, cuz they have to have 10 hp or less.--User:Tereseth 8:12, 24 dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For all these reasons and more. I'd prefer it to be below 15 HP though. Merry Christmas everyone Lancensis 23:25, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Barricade Breaker XPs

Roses are red, zombies are grey, why do you people suggest this idea every freaking day? --Zaruthustra 16:44, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Re: hmmm. So when lots of people independently make suggestions for the same thing, the response is to delete them so Kevan doesn't find out? You people are way too smart for me. --Frosty 17:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Yes, frosty, we do delete them, because they are still open to voting until their two week period ends. This is the primary function of the spam vote. The other is for stupid suggestions. If Kevan wants to see the idea, it's in the peer reviewed or rejected section of the wiki. Posting multiple copies just wastes time. And yes, we are way too smart for you. That's not bragging about much, though. --TheTeeHeeMonster 18:09, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Ouch, that really put me in my place. My point is, what you call spam is in effect a keep vote for an earlier idea. Shouldn't this be recorded somewhere rather than deleted? --Frosty 19:30, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
        • Discussion is underway to add a new, Dupe label to Suggestion voting to prevent confusion between repeat concepts and Spam votes for ridiculous suggestions. Look in Talk:Suggestions for more information. That should help prevent this sort of thing. --Drakkenmaw 19:33, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • - We should keep the link or link so people who liked this one can vote for the original. --Dickie Fux 18:24, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Law Enforcement

Timestamp: 17:58, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors, Civilians
Description: You have been trained as a police officer and do your best to maintain order even in the zombie apocalypse. You remain vigilant of gross crimes. Law Enforcement allows you to witness any attacks and kills a suvivor makes against another suvivor in the same square as you. I don't believe this would result in spam because ideally PKing isn't something that happens too often and hopefully this skill wouldn't be used every day. Plus getting rid of the messages takes a single click. It's important to see all the attacks made to determine whether a person just accidentally attacked someone once, or blasted away at them with a shotgun three times. I understand that many people think you should be able to witness conflict between others automatically, but assuming that never is implemented (which seems likely) this seems like a very useful skill for all suvivors and especially for people who want to play a police officer.


  • Keep - It may result in alot to read when I log back in, but dangit, I want to know who the PKers are that keep killing my buds. --ThunderJoe 18:02, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's not a skill I would spend XP on, but for those who want it, is sounds fine. --Dickie Fux 18:14, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Oh God. I want this skill so badly. It's so hard to keep track of PKers and Spies. This is a great way to prevent everyone from seeing the same "spam messages" if they don't want to. (but what about "Surveilence"?) -- Amazing 18:32, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm vaguely certain I've seen this skill before, but in any case I'd want to know when people are killing other people in my building. --Drakkenmaw 18:35, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Hooray! Policemen acting like policemen! Also, the way I see it: Not enough zombies going around right now, so people resorting to PKing. When people can't get away with PKing, they'll want their zombies back. Mmm mmm! -- Tabs 18:36, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It will indicate the PKer, which is why I vote Keep, but keep in mind that because UD doesn't remember information, it will usually say "(Whoever) killed a zombie." --Signal9 18:41, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - (Almost exact) duplicate of this and similar to this and this. Though I can't find the first one on Peer Rejected nor Peer Reviewed nor Undecided suggestions... Am I blind?--Brizth 19:16, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT) Changed to Keep after reconciling. Not exacly a duplicate of the previous ones. Thanks for Jon Pyre for pointing it out --Brizth 20:08, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I'm pretty sure I suggested the first two, and maybe the third. The only one this suggestion is similar to is the third, and it doesn't allow people to observe attacks just kills. Seeing attacks is pretty important since it would allow people to observe all player on player agression. The first isn't a skill and would likely result in a lot of spam (not to mention giving out a freebie). The combat report skill is very different than this. It only provides summaries of all combat without mentioning names. --Jon Pyre 19:42, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Possibly add any survivor who attacks and destroys a generator as well? Destruction of public property.Jelcin19:52, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - I'm not the author but I'd just like to say that sometimes I break generators in random buildings to turn the lights off - makes zombies slightly less willing to investigate a random building. FireballX301 00:16, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If this were ever to be coded, it would make sense that everyone would be able to see a blatant act like someone shooting someone else, not just policemen. It would make more sense that policemen would take notice of this as well as "illegal" acts like tagging and generator destruction. But those, too, are things that pretty much anyone could see. -- Ethan Frome 20:03, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is not a top priority currently, seeing as the zombies need some love first, but I like it. --Hexedian 20:04, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Maybe if PKing, generator/barricade smashing, and such wasn't completely anonymous zombie players would stop getting revived to grief survivors. Death cultists are more successful than zombies these days.--Matthew-Stewart 00:37, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good point. If this is implemented, the survivor:zed wouldn't be as skewed, as death cultists are rapidly turned into the zeds they serve. --VoidDragon 01:11, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Give it a button labelled something like "Police Reports" which opens a popup/new window or something to cut down on spam. --SCC 01:14, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Instead of this, I'd rather see a general improvement that posts only kill messages. In other words, you'll see a "user1 killed user2" message, perhaps with the final damage shown as well. --Dogbarian 02:04, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - i like it. --Firemanstan 02:23, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice new survivor skill that doesn't actually make them more powerful. But would it be military or civilian?--User:Tereseth 8:16, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 18:05, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors, Civilians
Description: You have been trained as a police detective and can glean information by combining clues and careful observation of suspects. A person with this skill would have the ability to Investigate (costing 1 AP) other suvivors in the same room as themselves using a drop down window to select which one. Investigating a suvivor tells you one piece of information: The last suvivor (if any) they killed. If they killed no one this would also indicate that. Useful to combat PKing by confirming reports first-hand and a good selection flavor wise for people that want to play police officers.


  • Keep - I think it needs a bit of refining, (as in, maybe let people see how many survivors they have killed in number instead? Base the skill on knowing killers from Wanted Posters and Eyewitness reports? I dunno.) but I think PKers have a huge upper-hand in their secrecy that needs to be dispersed just a bit. -- Amazing 18:35, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm pretty sure it would be better if we just stuck with the skill above until this suggestion is refined a little more. This suggestion just seems like an excuse to PK as opposed to the one above. -- FriedFish 18:39, 11 Dec (GMT)
  • Kill - A little too arbitrary for my tastes. I prefer the direct "eyewitness" stuff above, because I think sneaky PKers should be able to get away with it. --Drakkenmaw 18:42, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You should fear PKers... I would make this possible IF you find the body of the PKed first, investigate that (before it rises) THEN get the man. --Adrian 18:57, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complicated for implementation - if whoever they killed is dead at the time of investigation, they will show up as "zombie" unless you add functions to treat that, not to mention that each player will have to have a history of their last kill to keep track of... just too much programming for one skill. --Signal9 19:05, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complicated, far too specialized to be of any use. Bentley Foss 19:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd love to vote keep, but I think this would require a lot of redesign. --Shadowstar 20:03, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - KISS principle --VoidDragon 23:05, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I agree with the previous line. --Dogbarian 02:07, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. --Basher 21:23, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Stay still, just a little prick

Timestamp: 19:01, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Survivors (Scientists)
Description: Everyone is complaining about the lack of zombie players bla bla.. so here is my suggestion to combat it.

When you use a syringe, its not like the zombie is going to stay still, let you inject it ect... So the idea is this, in order to use the syringe, the zombie has to be below 20HP, showing he is too injured to resist. Also this will require a few more changes such as:

A skill to determine how strong a zombie is (instead of 'PUNCH' you hit the zombie for 1 HP, it is now X HP); and cheaper military skills for scientists.

This will also make the scientists require more military to help them, instead of just running out, "stab stab stab cure" and back again.


  • Keep - Now this is a concept I can agree with. However, I have some issues with the zombie-diagnosis ability; namely, it violates the "zombies are faceless" part of the game concept. Does it only tell you the HP of the zombie on the top of the stack? If so, why? It seems rather random to only be able to diagnose that one. And if it tells you the HP of all of them, you'd be able to target the weakest. Basically, I'd prefer to stick with just damaging them to determine their health - if one or two zombies accidentally die prior to revivification, they can just stand up again later. --Drakkenmaw 19:22, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Necrotech syringes are already almost impossible to find and hard to use, we really don't need to turn up the suck on them anymore. Syringes are not the reason nobody is a zombie. If it were they could just jump off a building for a few AP. --Zaruthustra 19:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Fullemtaled 19:24, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Riiight. "Let's make it only possible to revive people under incredibly specialized circumstances." Riiiiight. Zombies under 20 HP die to pretty much anyone that come across them. Just no. Bentley Foss 19:25, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Frosty 19:31, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Dickie Fux 19:57, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wasn't this suggested before, with "and if it doesn't work, the zombie automatically hits you?" I think it has... --Shadowstar 20:09, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - HP threshold is a bit low. Half of the subject's max HP (enough to flag survivors as wounded) seems more reasonable. --VoidDragon 23:07, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'll back up Zaruthustra's coments--Spellbinder 00:14, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - no way it would be way to hard!!!!!!!!!!!!!--revoso 01:11, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Break Barricades from Inside

Timestamp: 20:02, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: At this point, Survivors can continue to perform Construction while Zombies are inside a building in the middle of a raid. Now, it should be considerably more easy to break a safehouse's barricades when you are on the inside, as compared to on the outside. Therefire, a zombie that is inside a building that is being re-barricaded should be able to attack the barricades with a success rate higher than normal - perhaps something like the Crowbar pry-rate of 40%. As it stands, the survivor ability to put a barricade up while zombies have already bashed their way inside and are eating other Survivors - or even the one who's doing the Construction! - is pretty unbelivable. But since this is allowed, the barricade-destroy chance should be heightened so that a Zombie on the 'inside' can more easily open the way for his comrades on the outside of a building.


  • Keep - I can vote for my own suggestion once. This is a balanced way to combat Survivors re-barricading in the middle of a raid, that does NOT totally unbalance situations like a Caigar Mall Seige. --KlavoHunter 20:02, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You make an interesting point, but if this were the case, then people inside should get an added to-hit percentage on the zombie who is concentrating on de-barricading, because those zombies are staying relatively still and not actively dodging attacks. Plus, zombies are not known for their intelligence. If they are in a room full of meat, why would they de-barricade instead of chomping on yummy harmans, especially when the latter are attacking them? EDIT: Also, barricades shouldn't necessarily be easier to take down from inside than out. Generally they're a bunch of heavy objects tossed into a pile, right? Would that really be easier to take down from inside, or would it be just as difficult? -- Ethan Frome 20:07, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombies get inside, get their heads blown off, corpses tossed out, and the structure is rebarricaded. Honestly, I don't know why you people call these things "improvements".AllStarZ 20:08, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The concept is good, but I'm not enjoying the implementation quite so much. I personally agree with the above - it won't change much on the tactical level, written the way it is, and it doesn't seem very fitting with the concept of zombies. --Drakkenmaw 20:12, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not overpowered, but once a zombie has access to food, it doesn't make sense that they'd keep attacking the barricade. --Dickie Fux 20:21, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- - don't argue realism --Frosty 20:32, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Mikm 21:28, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Attacking a barricade and dislodging an item from the inside would be just about as likely to collapse the barricade into a more stable arrangement as it is to weaken the barricade. --VoidDragon 23:14, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Go re-ead the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots again. See that bit about arguing realism? Yeah. Bentley Foss 23:26, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As survivors are worth XP, and barriades don't, and barricades protect survivors, why would a zombie attack like that?--Spellbinder 00:12, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brain Rot makes zombies immune to Headshot

Deleted by author. Got a better idea that I will suggest later. For now, I shall start with the consuming of a salty dairy product that is made by bacteria forming a protective mold. AllStarZ 20:43, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Child Class

Timestamp: 21:46 GMT
Type: Class Addition
Scope: Zombies and New Players
Description: "A diminutive figure rises out of the rubble and scans the horizon. It's stomach gurgles and it shambles off to find its prey."

The Zombie child is a new class to add some flavor to the zed style of play. This character is inspired by that scene in 28 Days later when the main character defends himself from an infected kid.

Combat will still be a mainstay, but I see this more as a support zombie. The Zombie Child (age 10-14 at death?) is weaker but more agile. Also, since it died in its youth, it had many more brain cells than an adult, so it has the potential to be a more intelligent zombie (more skills under memories of life).Descriptions may also reflect that children are present rather than adult zombies. (There are 20 zombies and 10 zombie children in the area) (There are 30 corpses and 5 dead children on the ground)

A zombie child cannot be revived because its body (rather than its brain) doesn't have enough flesh to support a viable living person. Attempting to revive a zombie child will NOT destroy a syringe.

I've increased the AP to reflect the fact that the zombie child is more active than an adult zombie and to counter its physical weakness, although this does not need to be applied by Kevan in the end. Not negotiable, however is the fact that I've reduced HP by 10 to reflect the weakness of a child.

Zombie Child Stats

40 HP

60 AP

Base Attack:

Claw: 20% 3 dmg

Bite: 30% 2 dmg

  • Scent Fear: Survivors with fewer than 25 HP are shown as "wounded" in room descriptions, and asterisked on the map.
    • Scent Blood: The HP values of nearby survivors are displayed next to their name.
    • Scent Trail: Zombie is able to sense the new positions of survivors it's had recent contact with.

  • Digestion: Whenever the zombie deals bite damage, it gains HP equal to the damage dealt.
    • Infectious Bite: Bitten survivors become infected and lose 1HP per action until cured. Speaking does not cause survivors to lose health.

  • Vigour Mortis: Zombie gets +10% to hit with all non-weapon attacks.
    • Neck Lurch: Zombie gets an extra +10% to hit with bite attacks.
    • Death Grip: Zombie gets an extra +10% to hit with hand attacks. [note: no Rend Flesh and revised percentage rates.]

  • Memories of Life: Zombie is able to open doors to buildings.
    • Death Rattle: Zombie is able to communicate through a limited, groaned form of speech.
      • Advanced Death Rattle (subskill of Death Rattle): Zombie gets access to all vowels and "s", "t", "k" and "L". ("There are harmans ensad." Allows for easier communication)
      • Horrifying Screech (subskill of Death Rattle): After remembering how to use its voicebox, the zombie learns how to emit a piercing, high-pitched screech that instills fear in nearby humans. Movement cost for frightened survivors increased to 2 AP. Firearms accuracy reduced by 10%. Expires after 5 AP. Non-Stackable. Heard by all players in a 1 block radius. (Level 8+ only)
    • Agility (subskill of Memories of Life): Zombie is able to enter buildings less than very strongly barricaded. (Level 5+ only). Because the child zombie is smaller and more agile, it should be able to get into buildings via other entryways, but it would still need to reduce barricades to QS. After that, successful entry is only 30%. Successful entry of barricaded building gives 5 EXP.

  • Lurching Gait: Zombie can walk as fast as the living.
    • Ankle Grab: Zombie only spends 5AP standing up. (Increased cost because a bullet wound is more damaging to such a small frame. If Kevan doesn't implement 60 AP for Z-children, then Ankle Grab cost is normal.)

Starts with the Vigour Mortis Skill.

I want the point of this zombie to be providing support (ie, a mage class), especially for seiges. Z-children would weaken barricades to quite strongly, enter, do an infection run or emit a screech and leave while its adult bretheren break down the barricades and attack. (Alternatively, it would infect or screech during a seige as well - hence the increased bite to-hit ratio and lowered damage.) It's attacks are weaker to reflect its support role. The class is difficult to level up, and even when maxed out, it isn't a tank. The max attacks are 1.2 dmg/AP claw and 1 dmg/AP bite.

It also cannot revive and get a flak jacket or any cross class skills such as body building. This keeps with the "realism" because a child could not have obtained employment as a Necrotech scientist or learned how to treat wounds effectively under normal circumstances.

The increased letter access would allow the zombie children to better communicate (to a limited degree) which survivors to target, thereby increasing their support role.

PS: Sorry for the odd formatting, but I don't know how to put indents into the wiki.


  • Keep-Voting for Myself RottemBanana 22:15, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just for having the balls to post that. - --Fullemtaled 22:16, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Sorry, but I can't see myself using this class. You probably should change the name of this class. "Update": Hm... missed that part. Thanks for pointing that out Zarathustra.AllStarZ 22:19, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I could nitpick a few points (especially the 60 AP), but overall it's great. You should not change the name; zombie children freak me out, which is what this game fails to do most of the time. --Dickie Fux 22:21, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill A zombie that bypasses barricades and has AOE attacks? No thanks. --Zaruthustra 22:28, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are alot things I don't like (60 ap? bypass barricades!?), but it seems like it would be ok after some changes to it. --ThunderJoe 22:35, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Interesting thought about zombies with the ability to figure ways into quite strong barricade buildings, would lead to more strict barricade maintenance. --Matthew-Stewart 22:39, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Aside from the merits of this suggestion, we shouldn't have zombie children unless we're going to have living ones too. --Jon Pyre 22:42, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are a lot of things wrong with this suggestion. Namely, area of effect attacks, abilities that mess with other people's skills, abilities that mess with other people's AP, changes to YOUR AP, unique skills that have the same name as existing skills but which are subtly different, the inability for this class to learn the other zombie class skills, and a class that is permanently unrevivable without choosing Brain Rot. No. Did you read the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots and actually ATTEMPT to break them all? Bentley Foss 23:32, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Yup, he nailed about 90% of the main ones, and got honorable mention on quite a few of the rest.--Spellbinder 00:08, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't create skills and expressly forbid their use by other zombies. That's annoying even to us zombies, since I already have three characters and don't want to have to restart my zombie character. Also, AoEs are bad. --Drakkenmaw 00:48, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, apart from the screech which would cause a lot of trouble and breaks about half-a-dozen of the Dos and Do Nots.--The General 20:25, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love the exciting idea of a new class but it should be able to be revived--revoso 02:28, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep .-good idea, we ned more classes. i am agree with those who said it would be nice to add child in the survivor but, i higly doubt a lof of child will survive to a zombie investation a lof of time-Spetznaz21 00:08, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brain Rot makes zombies more resistant to Headshot

Wasen't a suggestion. No really. Also, who were you, and what was your previous suggestion?--Spellbinder 00:06, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Hey Spellbinder, I was not the creator of this, but if you look above the zombie child thing, you can see the original "Brain Rot makes zombies immune to headshot" suggestion that was removed. --ThunderJoe 01:43, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

IP Limit Countdown

Three spam votes, not to mention my contempt for suggestions containing the letter "u" in place of "you" and other bits of lazy spelling. Bentley Foss 23:44, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Fine, i'll clean up my grammar a little bit, no reason to be pissy over it, and it seems I was unclear in my actualy suggestion. What I was propsing was not the same as the link void dragon (or whatever the persons name is)posted but rather an add on to it. I read that exact suggestion, and couldn't help to think of the problems that arise after the issue addressed. Yes, it's all fine and dandy to be informed ahead of time about your remaing IP hits, but afterwards, when your informed that you have run out, it would be nice to see a little message that said,"come back in X hours when your IP limit resets." Now, unless i misunderstood the entire IP limit situation, this would not bog down the server since the timing would be X hours for each individual (as the kill comment claimed it would). With this notification, you can plan your return, wether your told that you should come back in 5 hours or 15. If I missed some obvious fact that makes this whole suggestion kaput, i apoligize for the inconvienence.

You did. The IP limit resets at midnight UK Standard Time. --VoidDragon 00:43, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • To be fair; it took me a VERY long time of playing without help to figure out that by myself. Not that I'm supporting any ideas here, 'm just sayin'.-- Tabs 17:43, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools