Suggestions/11th-Nov-2006

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

Sanctuary

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Churches and Newbies
Description: Churches have no doors. Why? Perhaps these large and obvious obstacles where smashed down in the early days of the plague leaving yawning openings.

The classic church doorframe is generally quite high, sometimes even more than one story tall. It's hard to imagine the furniture pushed against the door actually stacking high enough to block the entire thing without collapsing. This could leave a small gap at the top of these barricades that a survivor could climb through. Zombies aren't quite as agile or intelligent and instead just try to bash their way in.

I suggest making it so churches and cathedrals can be entered no matter what their barricade level is. This would make them a natural haven for newbies in neighborhoods that might otherwise be blocked off to them. It also balances out the fact they have no doors. This way newbie zombies without Memories of Life and newbie survivors without Free Running would both benefit from the peculiarities of church entrances.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Sanctuary! Saaaaaaanctuary! --Jon Pyre 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep I would have voted kill, But you offered a pretty good argument.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Churches are pretty funky structures, which you could climb up into, yeah sure. Since they lack doors you would be allowed to "overbarricade" them. Sounds good, not like they're a deadly important resource building, gives newbie survivors a place to crash.MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - I see the light! And it is entering a building at EHB!--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 02:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep Newb's need a brake. --CrimsonD 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep I offer no reason why, I just like it. --Arnesio 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - I like the idea, so I'm just goign to ignore the voices in my head telling me this isn't a good idea... --MarieThe Grove 11:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep- I like it. Newbies need a good place to go.--Grigori 15:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Zombies don't get psycological fatigue (the brain is mostly mostly rotted) But Survivors do, and with the fall of Caiger/Barhar more and more survivors are looking at calling it quits because the Constant threat. Even in Genere the Zombies come in waves rather than a continous stream (except at the climax) And Survivors need Somewhere in the city that is at least perceived to be "safer". Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Hesitantly, but it's a neat idea. Some people make a good point as to the problems, but I think the problems are less pronounced than argued. --Rgon 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep - why? i like pie! --Kaminobob 09:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)on
  12. Keep/Change I like the idea however why not say that do to the lack of doors they can only reach a level of heavily barricaded? --Tahoe 06:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I like this but it doesn't make sense that it would apply to churches and not cathedrals. (Flavour-wise, you could as easily argue both that warehouses and railway stations have large entrances, and that many modern churches don't have enormous doorways.) Change it to cathedrals - it would make them hotspots beyond mere flavour, and ties in with the recent suggestion that makes mansions more of a key building. I'd Keep that. --Funt Solo 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I do include cathedrals. First sentence of the last paragraph. And I suppose warehouses would have bigger doors but those could be intact, and possible enhanced by a steel grate. And train stations (and most public buildings) usually have normal sized doors so they can be easily be opened by each passenger and swing close to retain hot air in the winter. Religious institutions are somewhat unique in that their doors are ornamental.--Jon Pyre 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Oops - CNR - it's still a Keep for cathedrals only. --Funt Solo 00:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 6 out of the 20 malls have adjoining churches (ie guaranteed safe entry points), and of the rest, they all have a church within 4 squares of them. This would nerf the requirement for most suburbs to maintain any kind of tactical barricade policy - instead just relying on churches as the guaranteed point of entry. Essentially, this is nerfing VS++. There are only 3 'burbs without a church. --Funt Solo 08:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - This would turn out to be bad for newbies; the churches will start to gather the most people, zed, survivor, and PKer alike. --Joe O'Wood 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re You dislike action packed battles? But in all seriousness, a newbie survivor is better off in a church with a lot of other newbie survivors with a lot of newbie zombies banging outside than not having a safehouse. --Jon Pyre 00:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re - Erm, no. A large group of newbies is free lunch for a group of mid-level zombies, not to mention PKers. This would make churches the new malls. --Joe O'Wood 02:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Same as Joe. Plus this would deprive newb zombies of finding a free meal ticket from people left outside.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 08:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill I really wanted to vote keep, but you could apply similar logic to most buildings in Malton. What stops survivors vaulting the fence of a Junkyard? Or stops a freerunner scaling the front of a building and entering through the first-floor windows? --Garrett Fisher 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. How this could be seen as a haven for newbs, rather than a free lunch for zeds, is beyond me. Too helpful for free runners, too. And, survivor groups spend a lot of time working out and implementing their barricading plans, and this just makes the whole process a lot easier. It shouldn't be easy. --ExplodingFerret 18:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill - it would be great for free running, but bad for the newbs.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill - I concur with Karlsbad's argument below, but only so far as that it should not apply to all churches. Change it to cathedrals only, it might work out better, there are far fewer of them. --Peter Moran 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Agreed with the cathedral crowd. It would make for an interesting game mechanic to have them become newbie havens of sorts, and their relative rarity means that people won't be EHB everything because of the sudden availability of free free-running entrances. -- ∀lan Watson T·RPM 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Good idea: Having a place for newbies to get into, compared to the heavy AP search if they wander too far in this EH++ world. Bad idea: Having it apply to everywhere but 3 'burbs (if one of the above posters is correct), and no point of having a barricade plan. Not to mention zombies basically camping the churches instead of malls/everywhere. --Sekoku 01:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Kill - I like removing building homogeneity, but I dislike a building which you can always enter regardless of barricades. --Burgan Burgan 08:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Unfortunately, I think the other against/spam voters have the opposition pretty well defined. The only thing I can think of that might help would be to get zombies a % chance of getting in also...--Pesatyel 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Change it to cathedrals only. I see where you're coming from in terms of logic (and I wish I had thought of this myself) but there are way too many churches, many of which are right next to malls and other resource buildings. Fortunately, many churches don't have the huge doorways, and we can assume that Malton's churches work that way. But cathedrals, on the other hand, make perfect sense with regards to this. --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Kill - Permanent entry points for Free-Runners? Only if Ransacked buildings can't be travelled through via Free-Running. Chronolith 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Kill "newbie zombies would benefit" not at all, since they probably have crud claw skills, they're never going to get it down from ExH. too huge an imbalance toward survivors. Cousin ed ZNN-logo-small.png 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - No. If a survivor is dumb enough to not remember which building he came out of, he deserves to die. --Officer Johnieo 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Completely and utterly idiotic; whoever made this suggestion didn't think beyond their own nose. By making Churches permanent entry points you eliminate any problems with having a VSB entry point; you might as well make every place in Malton EHB if you could always enter a church. So no to global barricade-strafing. --Karlsbad 19:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Memories of Life - Revival

Timestamp: Garrett Fisher 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: New zombie skill/ability
Scope: Players that have maxed out Necrotech skills as a survivor and have at least the "Memories of Life" skill as a zombie.
Description: Succintly, this skill would be added under Memories of Life on the zombie skill tree, on the principle that such an activity would be a commonplace task to a player with maxed-out NecroTech skills. As such, it would only be available to those players who have already completed the NecroTech skill tree. The chance of successful self-revive would not be guaranteed, as it would horrendously unbalance the game and be completely contrary to the lack of finesse that a zombie would have.
  • The skill would allow a zombie to ATTEMPT to revive themselves, provided that they had one or more syringes in their inventory at the time of death.
  • I propose that the cost of this skill would be 20AP, double the current AP cost for a survivor attempting a revive. This is in fitting with basic cost of movement for a zombie prior to buying lurching gait.
  • A success rate of 33% (I'm open to suggestions on that) would provide a worthwhile chance of success, without making it too easy for players to self-revive.
  • An unsuccessful attempt would still cost 20AP and remove the syringe from the inventory.


I can see two major complaints against my idea, and I will address both:

1) Game Balance. I've considered this, hence why the proposed skill doesn't have guaranteed success, in the same way that an attack is not guaranteed, or reading a book isn't certain to give you experience. In terms of being unfair to the zombie population in UD, think about who this skill would actually be used by. It has no effect on those who wish to play as zombies, and it would reduce the number of zombies congregating at revive points or just being Mrh? cows. These people do not otherwise contribute to the game whilst undead.

2) Syringe hoarding. Yes, some players would inevitably do this, but if that's how they want to spend their time as survivors, then let them waste huge amounts of AP searching for or manufacturing syringes. The huge expense of attempting a self-revive would also prevent repeated attempts in any given day. Also, having many syringes hoarded would not guarantee a self revive if luck happened to be against you...

Thanks for your patience in reading :)

Keep Votes

  1. Keep I was going to vote kill originally...but this is pretty balanced all things considering. You have a pretty small chance of success, likely waste the syringe, and it'd consume a lot of AP. People can suicide out windows, why not this? If zombies can use their knowledge from medical school to accurately Diagnose survivors they can stick themselves with a needle. And there are plenty of scenes in movies where people turning into monsters regain enough of their wits to inject themselves with the miracle formula just in time. Maybe make this a zombie hunter skill. --Jon Pyre 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - See above vote.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 00:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep As the author, I place a vote for my idea.- Garrett Fisher 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. NEIN! - But since you went to all this trouble... maybe for 20 AP your zombie gets confused and thinks the revive needle is food and tries to eat it.. that I will buy. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 02:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep - The first vote says it all really. Although this feature also counters the daunting prospect of what would happen if everyone became zombies (as unlikely as it is to happen). People could revive themselves, instead of being stuck as a zombie because there's no survivors to revie them. It wouldn't unbalance the game either. If anything it would re-balance it, as survivors can turn in to zombies almost anytime (suicide), but not the other way round. Not quite sure how it would feel if introduced though. Still, it's Keep from me. --Officer Fox 02:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - I don't want the situation of being a Mrh? Cow for about a week. And all of you that are saying "Booh hooh, put up with it!" Are either career zombies or you live in the revive rich North, unlike my desolate central and southern suburbs.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - I could see how a zombie woud be able to stick itself with a needle... And the high AP cost and low chance of success sound relatively balanced. Losing the syringe if you fail might be a bit too harsh, but I can see why you would do that. Not sure where you'd put this on the skill tree though... --GhostStalker 06:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Under Memories of Life, as it's an ability of the living, used by the undead --Garrett Fisher 11:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - It makes a odd sort of sense. --CrimsonD 07:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep -I'm not sure it is in its final form, but I support the idea. Ignatz 14:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep - If the new tactic of take/ransack/then squat in NT buildings really does become the most effective tactic in the game some effective form of self-revival MUST be implemented. If not, the entire game is over. Even if this isn't the final form something must be implemented. Ignatz 16:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. keep - those memories have to do something... although i would make that % chance even lower, maybe 10%... remember, this is a decaying undead trying to complete a medical precedure by injecting itself in the spine. --Kaminobob 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Keep I like it for those more veteran players who don't want to play as zombies or those who have all of the zombie skills and are shooting for the survivor skill list. --Tahoe 06:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Um... You sound like a harman form of Mr.A... Is this because your precious bot mall fell? NO AUTO REVIVES EVER! - 343 U! 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Uh, I have no idea who you're on about. Besides, this idea is NOT an "auto revive". - Garrett Fisher 01:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Click on my name, and study my page.. and you too will know the blackness of MrA. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Re struck; you're not the author. --Joe O'Wood 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - This just feels wrong to me in the context of the game. I guess I don't have a logical explanation, just an emotional one? --MorthBabid 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Clumsy zombies reviving themsleves? It just seems wrong. -- Nob666 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill - I give this a weak kill. I understand that it may be useful at certain times in game, but I don't think that the vast majority of people are at that point. I don't see it as being horribly unbalanced, but I do see it as something that we don't need yet with the huge survivor presence in the city. When Shacknews kills us all, run it by me again, I'm sure I'd vote keep. Peter Moran 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill - I'm not too crazy about zombies being able to revive themselves, but I can understand the frustration of solo players trying to drag themselves along to find a revive point. Still, the only way for zombies to ever "win" in any sort of confrontation is the burden survivors with the task of getting themselves revived, and this basically ensures that any well-equipped survivor group will barely need to spend any time getting back on its feet. -- ∀lan Watson T·RPM 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Neat idea. Horrible AP cost and not really needed. --Sekoku 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Comment - I like this idea not only for the fact that it's balanced and removes Mrh cows and those, but it also makes Scent Death useful for ferals again (getting tired of finding the largest pack is at the revive point). I don't like it because it doesn't have any really good place in RP logic, even though it's a skill under Memories of Life. Work on that a bit please. --Kalir FTW! Z/S UD Potato Words 16:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kill - This is too unbalancing. --Carl Panzram 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Flavour - This makes sense from a gameplay perspective, but not from a role-playing perspective. I excuse revive points on the basis that I pretend they're just slightly less aggressive zombies that mill around graveyards (looking for death?) - but I can't endorse a zombie using a complex item on itself (then why not guns?), and not as a conscious effort to become human. --Funt Solo 00:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Balance, invincibility, etc., etc. --Joe O'Wood 00:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I've tried to address the argument of balance, and the absence of guaranteed success prevents empowering a survivor with "invincibility". - Garrett Fisher 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. It works logically. Logically. But there is no RP reason for it to be implemented. Sorry, but it just feels wrong.--ShadowScope 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Let's not.--J Muller 07:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam - Exactly how does a zombie managed to revive itself? As Funt said its a complex item. Doesn't make sense.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 08:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re As I described. Surely if a zombie can remember the fundamentals of something as complex as language, they would be able to do something as simple as stab themselves with a needle? --Garrett Fisher 11:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Death rattle is untelligible moaning, all predators have some form of language or communication. Personally i wouldn't find a zombie to understand the use of a revivification needle and stab itself.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 12:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - Right the first part of this suggestion- its in a zombie tree but its a human skill for zombies with maxed out necrotech skills. Bad Move.
    I will admit that until about 3 weeks ago I did not really know why the revive cost had to increas to 10ap other than the whole On Strike business, until I read on someones user page that it was to balance out all the ap that a zombie has to spend in order to kill a survivor- so it makes sense. Self revival does not fit into this or the game. Survivors have to work together to survive and coordinatte with zombies to beat the zombies. We rely on generous people who revive us for a fifth of their ap so we can live again, if we could do it ourselves then it could be every survivor for themself- FAK's, syringes, generators, barricades, zombies. If we walk into a building with a zombie in it we could help the survivors asleep in there and kill the zombie or we could walk on and leave them to die. One day we all rely on someone else in the game to help us out- its the same for revivals. --MarieThe Grove 12:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Marie, I'm not sure you entirely get the point of this idea - It would be a very poor substitute for organised revival. Your last comment is irrelevant as there already are, and always will be selfish players --Garrett Fisher 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re RE - I got that it wasn't very easy to self revive but I just don't think it fits into the idea of the game. There are selfish players out there why over obsessed gruding PKers kill me 2/4 times a week but you get over it. --MarieThe Grove 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. SPAM - Horribly unbalanced. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 17:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Doesn't the Suggestion Dos and Don'ts page warn us against really high AP guzzling actions? I don't remember, but it probably should. You simply can't balance actions like that. I also agree with it being against the general sense of the game. --ExplodingFerret 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Spam - Not in the spirit of the game. --Officer Johnieo 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Spam See Sonny. --Karlsbad 19:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Spam -I don't believe in auto revives. that would cut down a nice chunk of zergers, and finding and reporting zergers is what makes the game fun.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Spam - Balanced or not, I don't like the idea of zombies being able to revive themselves. It's awful flavor as well. --Rgon 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Spam --Burgan Burgan 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Spam Self-Revival is an automatic spam vote. Revival should NOT be easy and certainly not THIS easy. This suggestion has no balance at all 33%? Way too high and the 20 AP still allows 2 attempts per day WITH AP to spare.--Pesatyel 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Attacking Scream

Spaminated with 7/10 Spam votes.--Gage 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Why, How Fascinating!

Revisionated --Lord of the Pies 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Overthrow

Timestamp: Alan Watson T·RPM 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Game flavor enhancement
Scope: Zombies
Description: Only a minor change, but I believe that it would be fun if zombies could use the Ransack skill on monuments, or perhaps other non-building blocks, changing the block description to a pre-set "destroyed" description. Survivors could repair these blocks as they do buildings that have been Ransacked. It adds nothing to game balance but it's a fun way for zombies to "mark their turf", or generally celebrate their war against harmanity.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Sometimes I just want to push one of those things over, Berlin Wall-style. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep! I really like this idea. It would almost be a point of prestige and reflect the state of a suburb in a qualitative manner. Great flavour - tastes like chicken -Garrett Fisher 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Flavor only, if you don't want to waste an AP you don't have to.--J Muller 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Same as above. --Zombified000 23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - I can't see a reason to shoot it down. People waste AP all the time. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to. Besides, it's as good a way as any to get rid of those pesky pro-harman tags on everything. Peter Moran 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. I like it for all the reasons given above. AP wasting is people's own choice, sometimes it feels worth it for the look of the thing. --ExplodingFerret 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Sure it doesn't confer any benefits, but I like it. good way to show them who's on top. --Rgon 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Let people waste an Ap if they want to. Sheesh! --Officer Johnieo 05:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - A bit incomplete, but there doesn't seem to be anything else wrong with it. --Wikidead 07:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Let people waste their precious AP if they want. And its a bit incomplete too.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Sure, why not? - Who says the zombies are destroying the monument itself? We know there's lots of rubble around thanks to the search flavor text, so they could just be making a mess with all that stuff. Further, the survivors would just be clearing away all that stuff when they fix it. And it's just a flavor change, for pete's sake. --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Sure, why not? Chronolith 03:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Both humans and zeds already waste plenty of AP with smack-talk, I can't see a problem with letting zeds use AP on defiling a human symbol. Perhaps ransacking a monument could also prevent tagging until it's fixed? FissionXuiptz 14:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - What happens to graffiti already on the monument? What about tagging it if it's down? How would ordinary people be able to fix a statue or public work of art? --Lord of the Pies 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re Hmm, I actually had not considered graffiti when I thought of this suggestion, so thank you for pointing that out. I think it would be safe to assume that large enough intact sections of the monument would remain for tags to still be legible or altered, so monument tagging would still remain unhindered. And it is a stretch for normal people to repair a monument, but I don't think it's particularly more of one than expecting a normal person to completely repair a mall. -- ∀lan Watson T·RPM 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill Doesn't do anything. --Jon Pyre 03:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill LotP said it best and oh dear god that HeadOn comerical is on again.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 04:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Incomplete - can a survivor repair a monument? Anyway - this seems silly - how does one ransack a monument - and does that stop if from providing graffiti XP? I don't know what this suggestion really is. --Funt Solo 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. I don't see how this adds to the game. Does it give zombies XP? Why bother?--Pesatyel 03:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Erm, yeah, like anyone would waste this AP. --Joe O'Wood 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Wastes a perfectly good AP, sorry.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 23:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re There are plenty of ways for people to waste AP through tagging or radio spam and they do it anyways because they think it's fun. This is just a fun thing to do if people have the AP to spare or inclination to do so. The game doesn't need to be entirely about attacking and healing. -- ∀lan Watson T·RPM 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools
advertisements