Suggestions/12th-Oct-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

New Stat: Building condition reports

Timestamp: Swiers 00:54, 12 October 2006 (BST)
Type: stat
Scope: no game impact, just info on the stat page
Description: A report on what percent of buildings are at what condition level. Condition levels would include the various barricade levels, unbarricaded but secured, open, and ransacked.

I think this would be fun to see, and helpful in deciding what the impact of suggestions like the above one would actually be.

Keep Votes

  1. An addition to the stats page? Nice. --Axe Hack 00:55, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. I don't know how hard this would be, but the idea is good. --Officer Johnieo 01:46, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  3. This seems like it would be a cinch to implement. Just a quick check of the UD database should get the right numbers. --SirensT RR 01:55, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Seems fine to me, if highly unlikely to actively be implemented. --Karloth vois RR 02:04, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep Damn, that's definately a useful game stat to know.. excellent! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:39, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep If it wouldn't be problematic for technical reasons I see no reason why not. Probably would work if it just listed the number of ransacked, secure, open, and barricaded buildings though, not sure if you need to know EVER barricad level seperately.
  7. Keep - It will be difficult, but it will be a nice addition--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 05:38, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - And it should be a rule that a Kill/Spam vote that clearly hasn't read the suggestion (CNR) should be struck. Certified=Insane, I'm looking at you. --Funt Solo 08:49, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Nice addition. -- Nob666 10:46, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - Sure, why not? --Sekoku 13:34, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - I like it, I like it a lot. --GhostStalker 16:24, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - yes i can be great and very usefull --Kcold 19:28, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep Great :) --MarieThe Grove 16:17, 14 October 2006 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Not well formulated, and raw numbers are useless. However, %s for "Unenterable", "Barricaded", "Unbarricaded", and "Ransacked" would be a great addition. -Certified=InsaneUG 01:08, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    • Re - That's exactly what is meant by "A report on what percent of buildings are at what condition level." --Swiers 02:18, 12 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here


NecroTech Pharmaceuticals

Timestamp: Certified=Insane 02:04, 12 October 2006 (BST)
Type: New Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: This suggestion is for a new item that can be found in NecroTech buildings, Hospitals, and Drug stores. Why a NT item in Hospitals and Drug Stores, well, NT could have sold the drugs to those places in an effort to slow down the outbreak before it really took over. The Item I suggest is a tablet container, which can hold up to 9 tablets and takes 2 slots in the inventory (just as other objects that have "ammo"). What this item would do is simple: it would remove infection and heal 2 HP. You can only use it on yourself. Why would this be useful? Because infection can be very deadly, and carrying 10 FAKs with you is not conveniant at all. While it wouldn't cure the wound, it would allow you to act normally and maybe seek a real heal. Why self administered? Because you can't make other people swallow things, and it's main purpouse is to heal infection (which is undetectable), therefore useless and illogical.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Vote. -Certified=Insane 02:04, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep Ahh secret NT drugs, right on the money! Yes we already have our FAK's but seriously, be nice to carry some medicine. <starts slapping his vein> "Hook me up man, uh.. I.. uh.. like need it!" (Anyone who thinks 2 inventory spaces isn't worth a more readily available infection cure, is an idiot.. it makes a hell of a lot more sense than curing infection with an FAK.) More drugs are needed! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:43, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Pills! I'd carry one of these all the time. It really sucks to wake up infected, and even though a FAK heals more and takes less space, you can find this ONCE and it works NINE TIMES, rather than absolutely needing to keep finding a hospital every revive.Leeksoup 06:43, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  4. See my reply in the Spam section. -Mark 17:09, 12 October 2006 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Its not needed. If you need enough FAK's to cure your own infections more than 5 times, you've probably got bigger problems than running out of inventory space. Even worse, by providing an alternate item to find with a succesful search, it would make it HARDER to find FAK's in drugstores and hospitals, which are the best place to get them. So this would actually cause more grief for survivors, by making it harder for them to get thier injuries healed, and would nerf the first aid / surgery skills. How dumb is that? If the ONLY place you found them was NT buildings, it might not be so bad, though it would still grief those people who need to search NT buildings for scanners or syringes. --Swiers 02:27, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - I don't think there is a good reason for making infection easier to deal with. Part of the fun is trying to find a way to save yourself when your infected and out of those bulky FAKs. Make it too easy to avoid dying and what is the point of playing? --Rgon 05:46, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Let's not make this game even more survivor-biased, okay? --Pinpoint 08:26, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Pinpoint nailed it. -- Nob666 10:43, 12 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

  1. therefore useless and illogical. - you said it yourself! Just carry a FAK. That's right - one. Less inventory space, more damage healed. I would never use the above. --Karloth vois RR 02:06, 12 October 2006 (BST) PS- who actually carries 10 FAKs in case of infection? Really, just get the one! Simple. Unncessary, useless. Sorry! --Karloth vois RR 02:08, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    • Re: Obviously you don't carry 10 FAKs, it was an exageration, but once you use that one FAK (which is what I currently do), you are screwed, and need to waste a good few APs finding a Hospital or Mall and then searching for another FAK, or, you carry more then 1, in which case it would be the equivalent (space-wise) as the suggestion, but would work for fewer uses. -Certified=Insane 02:19, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    Re: I fail to see how that's in any way different to carrying a FAK? Your item is useless- it only heals 2HP, so you're screwed either way. The purpose of the initial FAK is to stop the infection, so you can then go heal up without worry- this does exactly that, only healing less HP and taking up an additional inventory space! 9 uses, yes, but it's not a common enough use item in my eyes to justify that. Just carry a FAK instead! More variety of uses, XP gain and less inventory space.--Karloth vois RR 14:38, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    Re: - I don't quite think you get the point. What you want to do is simply heal your infection. This would be used if you are in a more dangerous suburb, where your safehouse is broken into every day or so. If there are a few other survivors, they could beat back the zombies, while you survive with...say, 53HP. However, you are infected. You take a pill, and help rebarricade, and do your daily routine. The next day, the same thing happens. Take another pill, keep going. This can handle up to nine break-ins in a more efficient manner than holding the same number of FAKs. Carry two or three for actual health if needed, and you have five inventory spaces, rather than ten. -Mark 17:09, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    Note - Invalid comment struck. "Only the original author and the person being REd can comment." --Funt Solo 17:16, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Nerftastic - Has anybody thought about the Zombies? Infectious bite is already useless enough without some Necrotech medicine making it completely irrevenlent. --Officer Johnieo 03:05, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam We already have FAKs and this is a needless complication. --Jon Pyre 03:25, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam Infection is already weak enough and easy enough to cure with a FAK. Besides the fact that OTHERS get XP for healing you.--Pesatyel 04:58, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Suck it up and carry a FAK. No more inventory-saving device suggestions, please. Rheingold 05:14, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Spam - Highly useless, this will make FAKs harder to find.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 05:40, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Spam - as above --Funt Solo 08:51, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  8. On the fence - I can see this going both ways. Infection for zombies already is pretty useless, and we already have a cure that takes one less space than this does. On the other hand, being able to cure yourself nine-times at the cost of one inventory space seems nice for survivors... But really not neccessary. I want to vote keep/kill but can't do both so~ --Sekoku 13:44, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  9. As above ... and please, think of the zombies! --ExplodingFerret 14:19, 12 October 2006 (BST)

Brick and Throwing Arm Skill (Revision of Thrown Weapons)

Removed by author for revision, as many believe the search rates are too low. --Reaper with no name 16:26, 12 October 2006 (BST)


Brick and Throwing Arm Skill Revision

Timestamp: Reaper with no name 16:40, 12 October 2006 (BST)
Type: New Weapons and skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: For lack of better weapons on hand, some survivors have begun using anything they can find lying around to fight off the zombies. Even bricks.

Brick
Damage: 3
Base Accuracy: 20%
Found: Outside of buildings (25%), Wastelands (25%), Junkyards (1%)

This weapon is designed for newbies who don't start out with a combat skill (ie, anyone who isn't a firefighter, cop, or private) or haven't been lucky enough to find a knife yet (so far, the only places one can really hope to have a good chance of finding one are in malls, all of which are either too heavily barricaded for newbies to get into or infested with zombies). It's not a very efficient weapon (each brick is a one-use weapon, like the flare gun), and isn't useful for higher level characters (It's still not as accurate as a skilled fire axe user). However, it can give characters who would otherwise have no way to defend themselves a fighting chance.

Also, the fact that bricks can only be found in junkyards, wastelands, and outside of buildings means that they won't clog up player's inventory, since chances are they won't find one unless they are specifically looking for it (the possible exception is the junkyard, but inventory clogging is already a fact of life for those searching in one). It also finally gives people something that they can search for outside of buildings (and who else but a newbie would be doing that?).

And to go with this weapon would be a skill under the civilian tree (doesn't affect zombies, since they can't use the weapon anyway) to increase it's accuracy.

Throwing Arm
Increases Brick accuracy by 10%

Keep Votes
For Votes here

    • Author Keep - I guess I never stopped to think about whether or not a 5% search rate was enough for an item like this. Looking back now, it seems kind of silly. --Reaper with no name 16:40, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  1. As I said yesterday, right on. However, change Throwing Arm to a 15% increase. -Mark 17:10, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Even Better Not overpowered, and easy to find (for a 1 shot weapon.) Basically it's like a 1 shot knife for newbies, grab a bunch of bricks and get to work getting up to your 1st 100 XP.. even a scientist could use these for a while. Lots of ruins and wreckage in Malton, makes sense. -MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 18:06, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  3. I love my brick - I agree it's not hugely useful, but if I was making a new (non-fireman) character I would definitely keep a few of these around for picking off some near-dead zombies. Also, you know, it's a brick. I'll keep a few of these around anyway, just for laughs. Almost as good as a headpunch--Gene Splicer 18:43, 12 October 2006 (BST) Though... maybe find them in autoshops and power stations? --Gene Splicer 18:50, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Nuns! Nuns! Reverse! - I'm changing my vote to Keep, Ted. What should I do now, Ted? Ted? What should I do now? --Funt Solo 18:52, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  5. HELL YES - VERY GOOD IDEA the noob we need them too --Kcold 19:03, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Huh, I always wondered why people couldn't find bricks in a situation like this. -- Nob666 20:25, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - There we go. Looks excellent. --Rgon 21:56, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep Now all we need our flaming torches and we'll have a mob! --Officer Johnieo 23:45, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep Youronlyfriend 04:11, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  10. I think the damage should be lower, but this works okay. Besides Kevan doesn't do EXACTLY like a suggestion states anyway if and when he implements something.--Pesatyel 04:19, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep Nice. --BBM 10:50, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  12. Better. --ExplodingFerret 12:05, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - I love this! I would use it for comedy PKing effect :) --Karloth vois RR 14:56, 13 October 2006 (BST)

Kill Votes

Kill - They'd be better off finding any other permanent weapon. Waste of AP - way to frustrate a newb. --Funt Solo 18:19, 12 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

DUPE/SPAM Search rates aren't the problem. It's that there are better weapons in the game. --17:53, 12 October 2006 (BST)
ooh, no signiture. Tsk, tsk. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 18:12, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  1. This is still a retarded, 0.9 damage one-shot weapon. Looks like a lot of people didn't bother to do the math. Rheingold 20:50, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    • Re - As weak as it is, it's still better than a knife for starting characters in terms of damage/AP. And that is exactly what it is for. --Reaper with no name 21:19, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam - Still worthless.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 21:23, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam Stop suggesting this over and over. Just find a real weapon. They're better and permanent. --Jon Pyre 10:37, 13 October 2006 (BST)

Communications Limit

Timestamp: MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 19:14, 12 October 2006 (BST)
Type: Anti spam measure
Scope: Anti spam measure re: radio communication & speech
Description: Don't get me wrong we love radio the game was cool before and radio definately made it more interesting & fun in 1 code laden blow. (Thank you Kevan!) Now it does feel a bit more like a seige/community/aftermath of when the sh*t hit the fan (zombies) and everybody got a piece. But, there are annoying people out there who spend 4-9 AP in a row with mindless radio blather, which annoys the entire listening audience. Even the occasional survivor destroys a radio just to take away this feature from a safehouse full of idiots. What is to be done?

Well I am nothing if not persistent, let's see what my twisted, er, creative mind can come up with.

Communications Limit:

  • This limit only affects survivors not zombies (they have more than enough communications restrictions, and that would be griefing.) If you die and become a zombie all of your communications counts go to 0, and don't start counting off again until you are revived.
  • The premise is quite simple, each survivor is permitted a maximum of 30 message equivilents per 100 AP. This is a hidden countdown which counts up to 30 and then stops.. the countdown resets to 0 every 100 AP you spend with your character.
  • When you hit your limit you get a message "Your throat is quite sore, your speech can barely be heard." When you reach your 100 AP and it resets to 0 you get the message "Your throat feels better!" During this time while you are at your limit you cannot speak, or broadcast radio messages.
  • Speaking to up to 50 people: Counts as 1 message towards your count.
  • Radio Broadcasted message: Counts as 5 messages towards your count. this is due to the fact that radio communication reaches a much larger audience and it is the message feature that could most easily be abused (used to spam.) Note: If you have the Radio operation skill, each radio use only counts as 4 messages towards your limit!
  • Phone Communications: Your phone use does not count towards your communications limit, as your phone messages could be ignored if the recipient wishes, so it is not an issue for spam. Even if your throat was sore, you could still text message someone through the cell phone, all good.
  • Tagging: Doesn't count towards your communications limit, spraypaint all you like.. because others can just cover up your work if they wish.

Overview:

  • So per character over the course of 2 days you could make 6 radio messages, or 5 radio messages and 5 regular spoken messages, or even 30 spoken messages. So even then, your message could reach a lot of people, but now what you have to say does hold a little value because it is counting towards your limit, and you may want to "save a few" for when it counts.
  • These limits are still quite generous, and perhaps down the road after we see if they are too high and don't contribute to survivors being "at risk" we may take them down slightly.. but for now, it is a generous and pretty reasonable limit. If you had radio communications you could make 7 radio messages (28) and 2 spoken messages, even more for radio but that is an additional benefit for the skill (especially to characters who do need to help co-ordinate survivor efforts ex. cops, firefighters, millitary.. etc.)
  • Spammers will still try to spam, and annoying messages may still be posted.. but at least it won't be so easy to do it over the radio unless you've spent the XP to buy the skill. Even then there is still a limit, and that is very reasonable.

My intentions are quite clear, I don't want anyone to get killed or be unable to co-ordinate their survivor efforts.. but if your character is being annoying and spamming you may be "the boy who cried wolf" and pay for it. As well as possibly being PK'd by a fellow survivor, of course!

95% of this suggestion's need is all about preserving the fun, without having to limit everyone to do so! (There are possible server load benefits...) 5% is to make things a bit more fair for zombies, and at least zombies with radios on them won't have to hear so.. much.. crap.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep I love what radio has done for the game, but this is a very simple way to curtail abuse without ruining it for everyone! Plenty of regular speech available for RP purpouses! -MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 19:14, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep- agree with you --Kcold 19:34, 12 October 2006 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Complex, not needed. Rheingold 20:51, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. So this adds two new counters and a new flag: how many times you have spoken on radio, how many AP you have used and a flag that you can't speak on the radio once you hit the 30 radio message limit. I think this would add more burden to the server and in some cases, this would hurt non-spamming players. Radio spam is a bad thing, but people use their AP how they want. -- Nob666 21:02, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    • Re That's just it, how Kevan actually impliments it may be different. He may have a much more efficient means of tracking this at his programming disposal. But the basic idea, has merit. For characters that don't really talk much at all, it certainly wouldn't cost much of anything for server load. Think of all the spam it would prevent. That in and of itself would cover the cost of keeping track, number counts aren't such a big thing.. not much different from keeping track of Life or AP totals. -MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 21:23, 12 October 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Two counters and a flag is pretty much the simplest you can get. I doubt UD players would actually gain any benefit from this and as I said before, people use their AP how they want. -- Nob666 10:57, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - I just don't see the problem here. If the station you're using is being spammed, you can just switch to a different one. Problem solved. --Rgon 22:00, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - No. Just... no, also agree with Funt Solo and Rheingold --Sekoku 00:21, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Throw away your radio and don't sleep in a mall/resource point/group HQ. Sorted. --BBM 15:06, 13 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Nerfing the spammers - I admit people spaming the radio is annoying. So is getting Pked. But Kevan didn't outlaw that. If people want to type "Merry Christmas" into the radio 25 times let them. I just scroll down and ignore it. --Officer Johnieo 23:47, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam for this anti-spam suggestion Don't want spam? DON'T SLEEP IN MALLS! I use a lonely gas station where I am the only permanent resident to broadcast useful information to my allies, and guess what, I don't spam anybody nor do I ever receive spam. Don't nerf my alts bitch. -Certified=Insane 02:23, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam -Survivors have much more means to communicate then zombies, sure, but at 1 AP per communication, that is already steep enough.--Pesatyel 04:26, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - As above--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:31, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  5. kill - A hidden count on how often my character can speak?! Fuck no. --Funt Solo 20:12, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Spam - NO! I genuinely like daft conversations over the radio. No help to the game. --Karloth vois RR 14:58, 13 October 2006 (BST)

View Barricade level

Removed By Author because it was X-Ray Vision--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 21:35, 12 October 2006 (BST)


Hand-Eye Coordination

Timestamp: Leif 18:12, 12 October 2006 (EST) 22:14, 12 October 2006 (Correcting time stamp --Funt Solo 23:22, 12 October 2006 (BST))
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor, Civilian
Description: The idea I had for this was to help those of us with melee attacks as our only viable option. The skill Hand-Eye Coordination would have a prerequisite of Hand-to-Hand Combat. The skill would give a +5% to melee attacks with each successful melee attack (75% cap), and a -5% to melee attacks with any non-hit turn (base percentage cap). In other words, if you have Hand-to-Hand Combat, Axe Proficiency, and Hand-Eye Coordination, you would have a base 40% with an axe, but 45% after one successful attack. A consecutive successful attack would yield 50% on your next attack, but a miss or a non-combat turn after that would bring it back down to 45%. It would never drop below 40%, and it would never rise above 75%. This skill is survivor-only and does not affect zombies.

Keep Votes
For Votes here
Kill Votes

  1. Kill/Change - This might work if the 5% bonus was fixed - but the 75% (however unlikely) is overpowered. I'm not sure survivor melee attacks need a buff. Also incomplete - does this crossover to zombies? --Funt Solo 23:24, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    • Re - How about a 55% or 65% cap? And what do you mean if the 5% bonus was "fixed"? Should it be lower -- say, 2.5%? --Leif 23:31, 12 October 2006 (BST)
      • Re - I meant the 5% bonus should be all they get - nothing above that.--Funt Solo 23:39, 12 October 2006 (BST)
        • Re - If it was blunt-only, what about a 5% increase with a 60% cap? --Leif 23:43, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    Note Invalid comment struck. "Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote" (Discussion goes on the talk page.) --Funt Solo 23:49, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Don't think melee needs a buff. Well, not survivor melee. Zombies need one, though. --Pinpoint 23:31, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill I wouldn't have a problem if this bonus only applied to blunt weapons & punching (stun effect) because most blunt weapons are less effective/underused. And even then set the hit cap at 60% becuase then it wouldn't outclass guns. But a cool idea for sure. Just not with a fireaxe please (oh god!) But you want to give someone a savage beating with a baseball bat, hey, be my guest! To make it more likely to get the ball rolling this skill should probably add 5% to hit with all blunt weapons (& +10% punching hee hee), then adds the chain buff on top of that.. with whatever cap you decide. --MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 23:34, 12 October 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I like the idea of making it blunt-only. Looking back, it doesn't make much sense to apply this to the fireaxe. --Leif 23:43, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - I like that part with the fist, but axe's are fine as is. --Officer Johnieo 23:49, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Leave survivor/zombie melee alone, they're fine as they are.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:33, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Just a flat 5% boost would be fine. Also, with the Generator searching upgrades fireaxe is being rapidly left in the dust, DPAwise. It damn well needs an upgrade --Gene Splicer 10:04, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Sounds like a survivor version of Tangling Grasp - only more overpowering. -- Nob666 20:21, 13 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Actually increases the randomness of melee attacks. Also, buffs axe which doesn't need buff. Rheingold 23:34, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  2. ???? - Axes don't need a buff. Hello- 75% is more than guns! --MarieThe Grove 20:10, 13 October 2006 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements