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

Bloody Claws

3 Keeps, 14 Kills, 3 unopposed Dupes. Deleted as per rules. --The Fifth Horseman 17:27, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

  1. Dupe - There is a peer reviewed zombie skill for a spraypaint equivalent through corpse bile. --ALIENwolve 22:36, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Dupe - Sorry, but this is close enough to a dupe of Defile for my tastes. It's zombie graffiti, with a miniscule difference in implementation. The idea is exactly the same--zombies can write graffiti. Bentley Foss 05:46, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Dupe - cf defile Rhialto 10:12, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The Stormtrooper Effect

Moved to humorous with Nine spams, one kill and a keep from the author. --Stroth 05:09, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Red Shirt

Removed by author because he finally came to his senses. AllStarZ 05:11, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Removed by author because he finally came to his senses. AllStarZ 05:12, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Change "Stand Up" to "Pay Death Penalty" or "Wake Up"

Timestamp: 15:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Zombies and Survivors
PREFACE - This is not a duplicate suggestion. It is a breakdown of a former large, 4-point suggestion into 3 separate suggestions. This suggestion does not require a reset of the game to implement.

CURRENT STATE - When any character, Survivor or Zombie, dies or is revived, they are penalized by a 1, 6, 10, or 15 AP cost to stand up depending on whether they have Ankle Grab or were killed by a Head Shot. This gives them anywhere from 35-49 AP to spend for the rest of the day. When the player clicks "Stand Up", the AP cost is subtracted from their character and they are standing up and vulnerable.
PROPOSED CHANGE - Instead of seeing a "Stand Up" button, the player is presented with a "Pay Penalty" button. This button subtracts the AP cost (1, 6, 10, 15) from the player's AP total. The key here is that the character is not standing up after the button is pressed. The character is still a body and therefore is NOT vulnerable. His next move, whatever it is, is treated as a normal move; he will no longer appear as a body and may move around. This gives the player the option to stay as a body for the time it takes to re-acquire the lost APs he just spent paying the penalty for dying without the threat of getting killed again and penalized again.
WHAT THIS MEANS - Someone can get killed. Then he can sign in and pay the penalty and not worry about getting to a safehouse. Then he can sign in later and play with his full 50 APs. All death becomes then is simply a delay from gameplay. NOTES - The option of raising the AP limit of the dead is not a better solution: APs are a factor used for game usage, not an aspect of any character, and should be treated as such.


  1. Keep - Suggestion Author vote. --Squashua 15:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - It seems obvious that the effects of the headshot change were intentional. The current system allows headshot to actually slow down hordes a bit. Make this change, and you'll just see a full-AP zombie horde start breaking down the doors a couple of hours later than would have otherwise taken. With the big buildings change, zombies have things easy enough in siege regards. Just leave this one alone. (And, yes, I do play zombie characters, and yes, they get headshot plenty, and yes, I'm fine with that.) Bentley Foss 15:57, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill -I liked Headshot revision beter, but wasn't convinced by it. At the moment I find headshot working fine.--Vista 16:22, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - rather defeats the point of newly-revived/awakened characters being at a disadvantage. good intention, bad implimentation --Charax 17:55, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Dupe - yes. this is a dupe. i didnt manage to find the original, but i clearly remember a suggestion just like this one. --hagnat 18:23, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • re - Not a "dupe". I referenced the original, which was a large 4 part suggestion that everyone said "was great except for part 3 where you force everyone to lose XP on death." --Squashua 14:12, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Completely shatters headshot. I love survivors getting our butss handed to us, but it cant be COMPLETELY one-sided --Jak Rhee 18:28, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - If you're that worried about getting to a safehouse, then build up more AP. It takes 10 at most to get out of a suburb, and there are plenty of burbs to choose from. Velkrin 18:42, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - ditto Charax comment. I find the point of stand up cost to be one of disadvantage, and not merely of time penalty.--Blahblahblah 20:28, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Leave my Ap alone. Besides this would allow zombies hordes to be defeated. Then wait for a couple of hours and attack all at onceDrogmir 00:57, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - If you die, there is no safehouse to run to! You become a zombie, where death is trivial. So getting 10 extra AP by not standing up for a while doesn't really change anything. --Intx13 16:55, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - This makes death a portable safe house.--Uncle Willy 18:29, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I like the current system fine. Actually I think I would be fine with your suggestion also, but I have no rampant desire to change it at the moment. --Thelabrat 01:09, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - As far as I can see, this would make death much less effective a penalty. If the person still has 35 AP and can't find a safehouse, they deserve to die again. If they are too impatient to wait for enough AP to both stand up and move, they are taking a risk of their own volition. --DrJKL 00:14, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I find it difficult to believe that so many people think so poorly of this. It doesn't make the AP-hit any larger, or smaller, than it currently is. It merely time-shifts the penalty. Headshot still yoinks an extra 5 ap out of the Zed, so it doesn't break headshot. There's nothing currently stopping a horde from being defeated and standing up again in a few hours, and this would still extract the appropriate stand-up penalty on them. With this, a zed uses his last AP, then gets headshot, logs back in 12 hours later, pays the +5 headshot penalty and continues to remain on the ground, waits another 15.5 hours until back up to 50 AP, logs back in and spends the 1 AP to stand up, now at 49 AP... It still took 27.5 hours for that headshotted zed to be back to full AP... Too bad it's the last day of voting. - Serpico 01:59, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - This is better than the others --Mr NoName 16:22, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT) - As with all his votes below, late. Velkrin 20:10, 21 May 2006 (BST)
    • Final Tally - 2 Keep, 11 Kill, 1 No Link Dupe - 20:10, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Separate Survivor XP from Zombie XP

Timestamp: 15:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Zombies and Survivors
PREFACE - This is not a duplicate suggestion. It is a breakdown of a former large, 4-point suggestion into 3 separate suggestions. This suggestion does not require a reset of the game to implement.

CURRENT STATE - A Survivor can kill a bunch of Zombies, jump out a window, stand up, and spend his experience on his Zombie character. In most games of this sort, XP is meant to represent knowledge and growth gained from use of abilities, and should only be spendable on the abilities that were exercised. Logically, any life experience a Survivor character has should not be passed on to a Zombie and any "death" experience a Zombie character has should not pass on to his life as a Survivor. There is no logical reason a Survivor should be able to kill 30 Zombies, gain the experience, jump out of a window, and then spend his XP gained as a Survivor to become an instant mega-Zombie.
PROPOSED CHANGE - Along with Separate Zombie and Survivor Levels, enforce and maintain separate Survivor and Zombie Experience Pools. XP gained as a Survivor goes into the Survivor XP Pool and XP gained as a Zombie goes into the Zombie XP Pool.
WHAT THIS MEANS - Experience/Penalties as a Zombie can only be spent/assesed on your Zombie character, and Experience/Penalties as a Survivor can only be spent/assessed on your Survivor character. For example: a brand new, Level 1 Survivor who gains 50 XP and then jumps out of a window becomes a Level 1 Zombie with 0 XP and no access to the XP gained as a Survivor. And vice-versa.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE - If this was to be enacted, a decision would need to be made on current character experience. There are only three options that can be followed, and I prefer option 1:
Option 1: Keep XP as total for current Status, leaving opposite Status with 0 XP - this will keep those with Brain Rot happy.
Option 2: Split XP evenly between Survivor and Zombie pools, putting any leftover into current Status - not good for Brain Rotters.
Option 3: Set everyone's current XP to 0 - this would not make anyone happy.


  1. Keep - Suggestion Author vote. --Squashua 15:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Would complicate the game too much. However, the problem is true indeed. Maybe a survivor who dies on purpose (ie takes the jump) should be penalized in terms of XP? --The Fifth Horseman 15:40, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT) Foud it's a dupe - see below.
  3. Keep - only natural, quite defencesible in flavor terms. And very good for gameplay, It would force people to play both sides to max out compleatly. You'd have to work for it. But it does make a boost to the first level of zombies more neccersary. like the revised accurasy of claw. Not at all complicated anybody would understand that XP earned while zombie goes in the zombie XP pool and XP earned as a survivor goes in the survivor XP pool. just as easy as the fact that we have a zombie skill tree and a survivor skill tree. --Vista 15:48, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I don't think this will be good for gameplay. It will lead to more high-level survivors just standing in a revive queue; they'll be useless as a zombie, without even Vigor Mortis to their name, and little chance of gaining it. And on the zombie side of things, they have less to spend their XP on, so will be wandering around with hundreds and possibly thousands of wasted XP in their account.--WibbleBRAINS 15:49, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - All this does is harm the zombie population. Players would have no incentive to switch their characters from survivors to zombies, because they'd just spend weeks upon tedious weeks trying to earn enough experience with their pitifully ineffective non-vigor-mortis attacks. This has been a bad idea every time it's been suggested, and originally arose because level 1 zombies were eating level 20 headshot penalties when headshot drained XP. Let this one die, please. Bentley Foss 15:50, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - For the opposite reason to Foss, as an almost-maxed zombie, I find it MUCH easier to gain XP as a zomb than as my char's alt - I earn the XP as a Zed and then try and get revived to spend it. This suggestion would remove any incentive to buy any crossover skills, and what, exactly, would people do once they've maxxed the zomb/human skills and have hundreds/thousands of spare XP? --Charax 18:01, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Agree with WibbleBRAINS and Bentley Foss. --Brizth 16:20, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Dupe - Just noticed: Peer reviewed --The Fifth Horseman 17:16, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Incorrect. I am both the author of the suggestion you link to (regarding LEVELS) and this suggestion (regarding XP). They are fundamentally different. --Squashua 14:14, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Dupe - ^^^^ --hagnat 18:24, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Dupe - Once more with feeling --Jak Rhee 18:26, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Dupe - All the cool kids were doing it. Kill Whoops, wrong page. Anyway, this would make people far less inclined to play as a zombie, since they would be going from strong and mighty to weak and pitiful, rather than strong to strong or strong to moderate. Velkrin 19:11, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Does anyone here actually READ the suggestions anymore? I mean you, Dupe voters, not the author. --Brizth 18:48, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - This is NOT A DUPE - the reviewed talks about level calculation and this talks about XP (completely different things). The suggestion makes perfect sense, and I suggest to add Option 4: make a one-time prompt at the time of implementation that allows players to pick how much of the current XP goes to which side of their charachter (can't be too hard). --Signal9 19:30, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Brizth & Signal9 are correct - this is not a "dupe" (the author even references the exact suggestion you claim dupe in his own suggestion). I like what you are going for - but I think WibbleBRAINS is right, and this will just discourage survivors from playing as Zombies when they are killed. At least zombies being revived would have multitude of XP gaining options available to survivors, not so the other way around. --Blahblahblah 20:45, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Comment - Not really bothered about this, more concerned with the way my newly-risen ex-survivor is feeling discouraged because he can't open doors to get at the tasty survivor treats inside. At least if I'd had some spare XP when I was killed, I could have done something about that. More a comment on the annoyance of doors than anything, though. -- Bert Krutters 01.57, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep Let's note that the "peer reviewed other version" is a totaly different suggestion, which has become obsolete anyways. The difference is this sepparates xp whilst the other suggestion separated levels. IMO, this would weaken zombies at first, but then Kevan would have to introduce changes to help them. --McArrowni 05:01, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Horribly pain-in-the-neck kind of idea. Remember, don't punish the player. --Daednabru 05:59, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - If a person wants to play as a zombie then playing as a survivor to rack up all the XP to buy all the skills at once is rather antithetical to playing a zombie.--Pesatyel 06:39, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Obviously some other stuff would need to go in before this could. [1] would be helpful, or possibly [2]. Skills to replace certain items/skills that cross over would probably be handy also. After that's all handled, this would be lovely. --Thelabrat 09:54, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - This suggestion just makes it harder to level up. I don't like it. --Rani 16:24, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Comment - Why not keep the pools seperate, but you can spend XP from either pool for skills, only the XP from the opposite pool is worth less (ie. perhaps it takes 2 Survivor XP to equal every one Zombie XP when buying skills as a Zombie, and 2 Zombie XP is equal to one Survivor XP when buying skills as a survivor.) That way, you can jump from one to the other, but your experience is less effective for getting those completely opposite skills, wouldn't that make it more like buying cross class skills then?--Hamelin 17:28, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - This would make it very difficuly for survivors to switch over to the zombie class or the other way around. Already without Vigour Mortis from the start, being a zombie is near impossible. Then go and take away the ability to have EXP cross over, this suggestion takes changing from survivor to zombie or vice vera past challenging, and into frustrating territory.--Uncle Willy 18:28, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. keep - agree...think about it! maybe is harder,yes but most logic and better for the gameplay a game without challenge is very dully ,anyways...--Kcold 05:22, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Yes. Yes! YES! This and seperate servivor zombie levles would stop lots of PKing! --Mr NoName 16:23, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 7 Keep, 8 Kill, 3 Dupe - 20:18, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Base the XP Bonus for Killing on the Target's Level

Timestamp: 15:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Zombies and Survivors
Description: PREFACE - This is not a duplicate suggestion. It is a breakdown of a former large, 4-point suggestion into 3 separate suggestions. This suggestion does not require a reset of the game to implement.

CURRENT STATE - XP is gained through damage caused, and if a target is killed, the attacker gains a flat +10 XP bonus. Other than a target having a different defense, there is no incentive to attack a higher level character vs. a lower level character.
PROPOSED CHANGE - The XP bonus for killing is based on ONE HALF of the target's Level, rounded up. If a Zombie kills a Level 5 Survivor, he gains an additional +3XP. A PK'er does not get any bonus for killing one of his own. If a Survivor kills a Level 5 Survivor, he gains 0 additional XP.
WHAT THIS MEANS - Higher level characters become valuable targets. Attackers will go after those targets who have the highest level in a group, rather than just joe-blow target. PK'ers are also curbed. Overall, the gain is less XP, but since Separate Zombie/Survivor levels are not implemented, this bonus could be up to 15 or 16 XP for killing a maxxed-out character, who should know better than to get killed.
ZOMBIE INDIVIDUALITY ISSUE - This is more of a bonus for Zombies than Survivors, since Zombies are not individually selectable. Zombies would need to be made distinguishable in order for this to be more beneficial to Survivors.


  1. Keep - Suggestion Author vote. --Squashua 15:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I think it should balance out at 1 additional xp per leval. That way you still haev the base ten bonus which is usefull for us zombies. --ramby 15:31, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - whould make the game a bit more chalanging for those with highlevels and give newbies a bit more breathing space. high level targeting already happens in game the extra Xp of downing a more experienced survivor is only natural. and you'd expect the veterans to be in the front lines in a fight. very nice. (and ramby as I read it last sentence is not a proposal it's an explanation. the zombies stay as it is now).--Vista 15:34, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill This would just give too much xp. I don't think people should get a quarter of a level in bonus xp from a single kill. Maybe if there was a flat 10xp bonus with 1 additional xp for every five levels of the victim. --Jon Pyre 15:39, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - The current system works fine. 10 XP is a suitable amount, especially considering that people no longer lose XP from headshot. Don't screw over new zombies who are typically forced to pick on the level 1-2 survivors who fell asleep on the streets. Bentley Foss 15:53, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Agree with Jon Pyre. Also you say "a maxxed-out character, who should know better than to get killed." The only way they'll avoid getting killed is by hiding away, which doesn't make for an enjoyable game. --WibbleBRAINS 15:56, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Good idea, but it would be much better if the XP bonus was calculated based on the difference between levels. Also, the bonus should me increased - say, 50% - if the kill was online when you took him down. This would reward the players for winning a risky - but fair - fight. --The Fifth Horseman 16:01, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Killing somebody of a higher level is nearly as easy as killing somebody of your own level. The only real difference is body building. This seems highly arbitrary. --Zaruthustra 17:27, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Great idea - I'd do it a little differently, with levelx10 XP as the reward, and half that for TKs, but I support the suggestion as-is. Trouble is, there's only so much to spend XP on... --Charax 18:31, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Bleh. Velkrin 18:40, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - What Zaruthustra said. --Brizth 18:50, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Obviously, XP rewards are not based on how easy something is (look at FAKs or DNA scanners), but on how much it helps your side of the game. Clearly, killing higher-level enemies helps your side of the game more. --Signal9 19:36, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill — I agree with Zaruthustra. — Bartle 20:44, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Yeah, the big Z's got it. --Antrobus178 20:47, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - I gotta gree with my fearless leader of the WCDZ --Jak Rhee 21:46, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Good flavor. However, I would like to see your numbers tweaked a bit (Jon Pyre threw out a decent number idea). Bentley Foss makes a valid point about low level zombies. And is your "zombie individuality issue" meant to be a proposed change? I don't like the idea of zombies loosing their anonymity, and there would have to be a reasonable base XP gain for this to be balanced. --Blahblahblah 00:00, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Although it is better/worse depends... it brings the solo zombies down considering that most people that stands out in the streets or in unbarricaded buildings are A. N00bs B. Dumbasses or C. People who didn't count their ap. Therefore it shouldn't be like this -Shadow213 00:16, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. KIll - High level charactes are not notably harder to kill than low levellers. Rhialto 01:02, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - "KIll - High level charactes are not notably harder to kill than low levellers. Rhialto" - Genius! --Bert Krutters 02.13, 14 Jan, 2006
  20. Kill - As Rhialto said. Plus we usualy gun for higher level survivors anyways (especially if they have the ability to headshot or revive). --McArrowni 05:35, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - As Zaruthustra said. Maybe if a player got a slightly higher bonus (12-14 XP instead of just 10) for killing players with Body Building since, as pointed out, that's the only relevant factor (level means nothing).--Pesatyel 06:42, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - If a higher level character was harder to kill, then it should give more exp. But seeing how killing a level 1 is just as easy as killing a level 20, why should the exp be any different? They shouldn't, hence why I voted kill.--Uncle Willy 18:33, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - Agree with Uncle Willy. If that is ever changed then I would emphatically support this idea. --Thelabrat 01:13, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. keep - i change my vote for keep --Kcold 19:36, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - This is entierly resonable. --Mr NoName 20:25, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 7 Keep, 17 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:18, 21 May 2006 (BST)


Timestamp: 15:34, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors
Description: This subskill of Bodybuilding would increase the chance of landing a punch to 50%. This makes it less useful than the axe in all situations except when the target has 1hp left. Then it'd make sense to switch to punches for an additional 10% chance of success. Since death for a zombie is merely getting knocked down and stunned for a while think of this as a weakened zombie being knocked off its feet by a strong blow. Note there is another suggestion that has this same skill and numbers but it is tied to a seperate skill called Martial Arts. This is different in that it is seperating Boxing and having it be voted on alone.


  1. Keep - Valid to me. --The Fifth Horseman 15:53, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Dupe - This is a dupe. This suggestion is quite close enough to Boxing and Martial Arts (given that it's 1/2 of the linked suggestion) for me to vote dupe. Other problems include: I don't think it's worth switching from a 3-damage weapon to gain a miniscule 10% to-hit. Survivors don't need yet another attack skill--they have plenty. Placing this in the Bodybuilding tree makes little sense to me. There you go. Bentley Foss 16:00, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. kill indeed it's half that suggestion, but just half is not not good enough for a dupe for me. but with advanced knife training in peer reviewed (that one is better in all regards). there is just no need for this one. It just doesn't add anything.--Vista 16:16, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. kill I think knife training could fill this niche better, and it already exists. --Zaruthustra 17:24, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Dupe - See above. And i dont like the idea of zombies getting knockd down to the ground with kicks and punches, so punch should be real useless in this game. --hagnat 18:28, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Knife Training DOES do this better.. lets face, at this point punching is only for when you first start out as a class that doesnt come with a weapon.. and frankly you can find SOME sort of weapon your first day, easy! Between knives, crowbars, baseballbats, axes, and guns just about EVERY building has a weapon in it! I'll be willing to reconsider pugilistic skills if the game is ever altered so that you can LOSE your equipment --Jak Rhee 21:51, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Dupe - This is like the 5th time I've seen a version of this skill within the past 3 months Drogmir 23:21, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - This is different enough from Boxing and Martial Arts that it isn't a dupe - if you look at the voting trend on that, it was about 50% in popularity - and a lot of kill voters stated that the part that took it to 80% hit rate was what garnered their kill vote. Given that, I think it is fair for this version to be suggested... However, I vote kill anyways because I don't think punching zombies to kill them fits the genre. --Blahblahblah 01:23, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Just because the zombie:survivor ratio is evening out doesn't mean that we can suddenly boast survivors, again.--The General 18:59, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - yeah boxing lol it a good ways to be biting anyways it completly useless vs zombie maybe vs humain anyways like other knife training is the same in the best ways so try something easle --Kcold 05:14, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Dupe - The link says it all. --Mr NoName 20:27, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 6 Kill, 3 Dupe - 20:18, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Search Flavor Text

Timestamp: 15:49, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Flavor
Scope: Searches
Description: Disclaimer - This suggestion does not alter search odds, it merely makes search messages more descriptive.

"Searching the building, you find nothing/you find (item)" - I'd wager we've all seen this at one time or another, and I'd also wager that it gets boring reading the same basic thing time and time again.

Therefore, I suggest that we add a touch of description to the result text, describing what you're searching in/on/under/behind/etc, with the descriptions being appropriate to the building you're searching.

For example, in a Hospital, you might see:

  • You search the emergency room and find a first-aid kit.
  • You search a supply closet and find a newspaper.
  • You search an operating theatre, but find nothing.

In a police department, you might see:

  • You search the front desk and find a pistol.
  • You search the break room, but find nothing.
  • You search behind a water cooler and find a shotgun shell.

Similar location-appropriate messages could likewise be created for fire stations (equipment locker, radio room, garage), mall stores (on shelves, in gun racks, behind cash registers), schools (cafeteria, desks, supply closets), and just about anywhere else you might find useful items.

Additionally, if the Powered Buildings Search suggestion is implemented, additional flavor text could be created for failed searches in unpowered buildings:

  • You try to search a supply closet (or evidence locker, or stockroom, or other small room), but it's too dark to see anything.

Edit: Feel free to suggest other search-text ideas here.


  1. Keep - I am the author, and am allowed to vote once on my own suggestion. --John Taggart 15:49, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Not sure if this would be of much use. I usually just keep refreshing the search as many times as I see it neccesary and don't bother with the search results at all until I'm done with my searching. --The Fifth Horseman 15:56, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill the WCDZ has beaten you to it and our suggestion is better.--Vista 15:58, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT) (I'm pretty sure I've seen it in other places too,) looking right now.
    • Re: I think the last suggestion of this time was basically "We ought to have more descriptive messages for every action in general." --John Taggart 16:04, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • That what I found as well.--Vista 16:13, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill Eh. There's been plenty of discussion of flavor text. I'd rather see thigns that imporve the game... ior at the very least flavor text for buildings, not searches (already suggested) --Jak Rhee 18:12, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill No. Just, No. And the WCDZ idea is better. --hagnat 18:29, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep A) The WCDZ idea isn't here. B) Just because I might want something else implemented first, doesn't make this a bad idea. Who decides on the order, anyway? C) Just because you don't care about the messages doesn't mean that other people don't. I for one would love to see more descriptive results. It gives the game a better feel. Imagination is okay people. --Pinpoint 20:01, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Seven lines of text ain't gonna do it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:09, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I like it. But I think you should come up with a more extensive list, or some sort of proposal on how to help Kevan come up with more. I think lack of time would be the reason he hasn't already done this (obviously don't know for sure). And isn't the WCDZ suggestion list a joke? Honestly, I appreciate your cause, but at times you guys make about as much sense as the people you formed to combat... --Blahblahblah 21:07, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Two previous votes - For "For example", read "I know there are a lot more flavor text possibilities, but I didn't want to spam the page with every last permutation I could think of, so here's a sample." --John Taggart 17:13, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - On the core idea rather than any given list, and to hell with basically claiming a Dupe of a suggestion that isn't even here. Also, I don't know what World Class Donkey Zappers have to do with this. ;) If this doesn't get implimented, you can find the feature over at Outbreak though. -- Amazing 02:31, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Flavour improvement. Yay! --Andrew McM 15:52, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Harmless, easy, and adds more flavour. Why not? --Intx13 17:03, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Although it is next to useless.(come one be honest, you know it is) One of my favorite parts of the game is how descriptive it is. So by adding a little more "flavor" to the game I think will enhance the overall experience and enjoyment of playing.--Uncle Willy 18:37, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally: - 6 keep 5 kill. -- 17:03, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - More flavour tastes better. Mmmmmmm. --Perticus 20:25, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I like it. Even if you don't read it, at least it makes the screen pretty. --Zaknrfama 23:01, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep Prefer the WCDZ version (if it had a little editing), although since its there and not here, I'll vote for this. Also Amazing, don't take shots at the WCDZ, as we have ceased taking shots at you. Also that was as insulting as getting laid by a hot chick. AllStarZ 04:44, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep agree --Kcold 05:11, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Killing this because there exists a suggestion that isn't on this page yet, is kind of lame. This suggestion improves the game flavor and is not a dupe of a prior formal suggestion. FireballX301 10:36, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Adds a bit of flavor to the page and doesn't require a whole lot of tedious math to make sure that it won't unbalance the game. --TheBigT 22:53, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - The idea isn't bad... BUT it ends there - the content is terrible. The proposed examples of "search flavor text" you have there are boring, tiresome, and not at all interesting - they don't deserve the space they take up on my screen. Please make a note to have your "flavor texts" changed to be better writing in general or I will change my vote to a Kill! --Daednabru 05:30, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Good Flavor --Martonic17 17:30, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - e flavor is good, but every one has a valad argument. --Mr NoName 20:29, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 14 Keep, 5 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:18, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Play Dead

  1. Dupe Yea, check out this for various duplicate links. The big problem with this is it lets high level zombies become headshot immune when they go offline. --Zaruthustra 17:00, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Acknowledged: Haven't noticed that bit when I searched. Removed. My apologies. --The Fifth Horseman 17:13, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

... And STAY dead!

Spaminated with 3 Spams and multiple Kills. One word: Griefing. --Brizth 00:50, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

  • Keep

Assess threat

Timestamp: 16:41, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: Requires Diagnosis skill. HP's of recognized Zombies (ie in your contact list) are displayed next to ther names just like with Diagnosis, and so are the HP of the topmost zed in the "stack"

Alternatively, would not require Diagnosis but have two tiers like in Scent Fear/Scent Blood Zombie skills. (Tier 1: Recognized Zombies below 25 HP are displayed as "falling apart" in the location description, Tier 2 displays HP information.)

--The Fifth Horseman 16:59, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)


  1. Kill Not bad mechanically, but it kind of destroys the "faceless horde" thing a little more than I'd like. --Zaruthustra 17:02, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill The horde is the horde cuz no single zombie is a single. My eyes are bleeding for having typed this --hagnat 18:34, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Valid points, but what if this was linked to DNA tagging/contact lists? if a zombie's on your contact list, they can be picked out - if this skill showed the HP values of THOSE zombies, no problem. As per the discussion on the Talk page, I'm voting Kill unless some changes are made. Nothing personal. --Charax 18:44, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: That is exactly what I mean. THOSE zombies, and _possibly_ the topmost Zed of the "regular" stack.--The Fifth Horseman 20:47, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - They are supposed to be faceless hordes of the undead, unless they speak, in which case the scenario Charax suggests could come into play (but I expect that would be voted down, too). --WibbleBRAINS 19:16, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - no names in a zombie horde. Faceless hordes are more fun to fight. do you really think that seeing Fartface, brainzzz, rottingputtyfinger, MCZOMBIE, Zombie4REAL etc. are laying siege to your safe houses is as awe inspiring as just seeing zombies?--Vista 19:49, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: Yeah, it is bad enough having to read all the lame ass survivor names. I kinda like just fighting with "zombies" --S Kruger
    • RE: It's already that way. You can recognize any Zombie whose profile you've put into your Contacts list. --The Fifth Horseman 20:49, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • but only those in your contact list. It's quite hard to fill up your contact list with zombies. certainly when they're a horde.--Vista 22:22, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Vista makes a very good point. Whitehouse 20:14, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - What Vista said. - --ramby 20:27, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - What they said. --Felix Fitzpatrick 00:23, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Just because eventually, people could collect the names of a massive amount of zombies and sort of make that whole "faceless zombie horde with an unknown amount of strength" thing pretty much a moot point. Zombies are, on average, weaker one-on-one. The faceless horde is one of their ways of combatting this. Bentley Foss 05:32, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Agree with what someone else said about destryoing the faceless horde. Also how does one assess the threat of a zombie. They all look just about equally dead.--Uncle Willy 18:40, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - --Kcold 23:01, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I love this, but it does destroy the facless hoard --Mr NoName 20:31, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:18, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Let's quit it with the Author Votes, eh what?

Spaminated If you want to discuss HOW the SUggestions Page works.. go to the talk page. Do not annoy the rest of us --Jak Rhee 21:38, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

3 Spam votes and ironically 1 author Keep. --Jack-Swithun 21:42, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Throw Knife

Timestamp: 21:32, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Survivor Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: We all know knives are useless when compared to the fire axe. Rather than adding a new knife type (leaving the kitchen knife just as useless) or adjusting the current knife's hit rate/damage, why not add a new skill that allows the knife to be used as consumable ammo? This would be a subskill of knife combat, and would appear under the attack menu as knife (throw). The survivor would then lose the knife but get the chance to do triple damage (6) for that attack with the same hit rate (40%); about as effective as a single pistol shot. This would make kitchen knives uniquely useful in their ability to be used as a slightly dumbed down melee weapon or a consumable thrown weapon.


  1. kill The pistol is the best weapon in the game in terms of AP to XP. We do not need another one, even if it is slightly weaker - --ramby 21:39, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. kill The knife does need improvement but I perfer this way better... and its already peer-reviewed! --Jak Rhee 21:43, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill A thrown knife is not as damaging as putting your whole bady wieght into a stab or slash. --Jack-Swithun 21:46, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep It's not unbalancing since it's like a single gunshot with far lower accuracy. It would make the knife useful; if I had one in my inventory and I didn't need the space I'd actually keep it because even a single throw would be worthwhile. This would mainly aid those searching mall hardware stores for generators by giving them a few knives during their searches they could use for a small amount of damage. Since setting up generators is mostly a selfless act this would be a small reward for those attempting to aid hospitals rather than search for ammo for themselves. Besides, isn't throwing knives cool? And while it's true that a thrown knife doesn't have the sheer power of a stab damage could be higher if your aim was good and threw it at a vital place. --Jon Pyre 21:57, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - as I said before many times before the only gap in the human arsenal that needs filling in my opinion is indeed the Advanced Knife Training already mentioned by Jak Rhee, something the most basic suggestions just gets it right. your version however just doesn't, not a bad suggestion per se, but just doesn't work as well or has a function backing it. (Jon Pyre, a vital place in a zombie? :P )
  6. Kill - Agreed, knife does need improvement. But Jak Rhee said it all (and thanks Jak for putting up the link. It's always frustrating when someone references something like that but doesn't provide a link). --Blahblahblah 22:16, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT) EDIT - another good knife suggestion past peer review is this. between the two, we already have a good representation of viable knife options. Not to say you can't try, just expect it to be very difficult to get one voters prefer. --Blahblahblah 01:01, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - With apologies, I do like the other two knife suggestions better. This one just didn't call to me. Bentley Foss 05:33, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Wouldn't the flak jacket absorb some damage, and make it do 4-5 damage? In which case using pistols is a far better idea. AllStarZ 15:38, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Well i'd just like to examine a part of your statement. "about as effective as a single pistol shot" Well I admit, im no expert. But I do believe a bullet fired from a gun would be a little more harmful than a knife thrown by hand. well that's my input.--Uncle Willy 18:45, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Kitchen kife being thrown? It won't fly. --Mr NoName 20:33, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:18, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Viral Resistance

Spaminated with 3 Spams, few Kills and author Keep. Was considered utterly unbalanced and ridiculous. --Brizth 00:50, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Fair Warning

Fair warning has indeed been given - for this suggestion to be DUPED! (with a grand total of three dupe votes) IP Limit Tracker: the matching, better suggestion. --Daednabru 06:29, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Adrenaline Rush

Timestamp: 23:59, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: All survivors
Description: As many of you may know when humans are faced with critical situations they have the ability to act with almost super-human strengths. (war-heroes, moms with kids stuck under tipped over store displays, fire-fighters, etc.)

This skill would allow survivors who are very low in health (10hp maybe even lower) to get a +15% percent chance to hit with melee weapons only, and a +1 (maybe +2) to damage with melee weapons only The reason this skill is not unbalance is because survivors have to be at a very low level of health for it to work and it is only good with melee.

Any suggestions with this will be welcome with open arms.


  1. Kill - When you are under 10 hp you should be looking for healers and hospitals, not fighting zombie hordes, also if this was enacted survivors could just stay at 10 damage, and then hold onto a bunch of medic packs if in real danger. I think this would unbalance the game. It would give the fire axe a maximum of 55% hit rate. It's too unbalancing. --Poodge 00:07, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - What Poodge said. Ever played Final Fantasy 7 and kept your characters at low health intentionally? --Slicer 00:09, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - You mean Final Fantasy 6 --Jak Rhee 00:15, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Poodge called it. --Blahblahblah 01:11, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Sorry...but no. Other than during seiges, most survivors don't really have a large chance of getting retaliated, and even if you do, they could just use a FAK (like what Poodge said). Dealing 4-5 damage at 55% with a Fire Axe is way too high, and the health part really doesn't make up for it. --Felix Fitzpatrick 01:37, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Useful in FF8, because low health triggered the limit breaks... --Bert Krutters - 02.07, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Overpowered. --Signal9 04:41, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Conversely, when you've been clawed at, shot through, and bitten by zombies, you're also less likely to do wondrous feats of human strength. FireballX301 04:55, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I think the biggest challenge would be to keep yourself at 10 HPs with all those diagnosing medics running around. Otherwise, bad suggestion, invites exploitation. -- S Kruger
  10. Kill - They all beat me to my objections. Alas. Bentley Foss 05:37, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - At 10 of 50/60 HP you're going to be limping and passing out from blood loss, not limitbreaking. If anything, low health should cause PENATLIES, not bonuses.--Arathen 10:23, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - ^ And for the love of God, please do not suggest that next. --TheTeeHeeMonster 17:53, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - ^ Really, don't--Vista 21:42, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - NO COMMENT !--Kcold 05:09, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill Cheese is the staple diet of armies throughout the world. Except the Polynesian army. They have coconuts. As for this suggestion, if you stay and fight when you're low on health, you are an idiot. AllStarZ 15:36, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I'd almost rather have it be a random % increase (and occasional decrease!) once you go below that 10hp...that would keep people from just hanging around the 10hp level for the advantage.--Nicks 19:27, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Too easly abusable, and if you are that hurt just run the f--- away. --Mr NoName 20:35, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 15 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:18, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Length of Survival Ranking

Timestamp: Jan 13, 2006, 04:59 GMT
Type: New statistic
Scope: All survivors
Description: One of the most commonly discussed problems with the game is that survivors often don't feel like merely surviving is a worthy goal. Given the uptick in zombie strength, this attitude is wrong. Rather than change any of the game mechanics or add skills in order to promote survival rather than static (and futile) defense of doomed buildings, Kevan should provide survivors with data on how long each survivor has been alive. He could provide a ranking of the top 100 or 1,000 survivors in a prominent place (perhaps on the stats page) and give everyone their ranking in their profile. Staying alive a long time would then be rewarded with recognition and be a valid, fun goal. Maybe then survivors would start acting like real survivors while having fun and feeling like they've accomplished something.

To clarify, naturally only active survival would count. Going inactive would reset your count just like dying. If the ability to opt-out were permitted, then opting out would also reset your count. This would not take the place of other survivor development, it would just be another, optional goal to play for.


  1. Kill - This is a bad idea. I think that if survivors don't feel like surviving is a worthy goal, then they should stop playing. I don't think that this idea would do much. Also survivors who have gotten bored with surviving, have become zombie hunters and heads of groups. I dissagree with your idea. --Poodge 05:07, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep This is a good idea.--Jack-Swithun 05:09, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep But allow people to opt out of tracking this stat (and thus being on the list) if they don't want to be PK and zombie target #1 (or # whatever). --Sindai 05:21, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Surviving is easy. Just stick around safe, secure areas your whole life. Make sure you don't do risky things, such as sleep in a building that is (or could shortly be) under siege or one with low/no barricades, keep plenty of FAKs on you, and you'll be fine. It seems, to me, that all this would do is make people targets for the less friendly types out there. (Sindai provided a nice solution to that problem, however.) Let me mull this over and who knows, I might change my mind. Bentley Foss 05:40, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Author vote, but mainly so I can comment. Yes, you can survive if you play intelligently, but a lot of people don't play that way. This would provide some motivation for that. I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to opt out, though. Shouldn't survival get harder the longer it lasts? Besides, anyone able to survive a long time is probably going to be at the top of the hit list for any reasonable zombie horde. It would certainly make staying at the top of the rankings an even greater accomplishment. --Anachronist 05:55, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT).
  6. Keep - sure, why not --McArrowni 06:00, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Bah, I'm bored enough to accept this. You should be at a certain level to participate. --ALIENwolve 06:01, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Add in something for zombies too like a ranking system for number of survivors killed and I'll change my vote. --Daednabru 06:13, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - agree with above, maybe tag on longest time without brain rot and getting revived - --ramby 06:18, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Number of kills for both suvivors and zombies would/should be a seperate suggestion. This one is fine as is.--Pesatyel 06:33, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I assume there are no profile links being given away. A whole sewries of league tables might be interesting... most zombie kills, most survivor kills, most deaths, most revives performed... Rhialto 07:50, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Nice idea, but anyone can create an account, move to a low threat area and then go offline after 5 days and would have there count skyrocket. So if this was changed to maybe counting how many active days alive it would be better. But a kill counter would be great and fairly easy to include because there's already a death counter. --Cabbage cookies 09:45, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. spam/Kill I'm not sure if I read this right, but you suggest halting all survivor devolpment in favor for a ranking system? (spam) or just the ranking system? (kill)and merely living just another day is just as much the goal of the game for survivors as standing up after you are shot is for zombies. and I find the fact that you have the gall to decide how half of the game should play it a tad offensive.--Vista 14:11, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - "Damn, I'm number 2." *BLAM!* "I'm number 1!" --Slicer 14:44, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Not an entirely bad idea. I agree that the stats should have an option of whether or not to have a profile link, but it would nicely reflect notoriety amongst small compact groups of people. -- Andrew McM 16:05, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I agree, but I think that idle time (where a player isn't active because they're hiding) shouldn't count. And there has to be some sort of requirment so a player doesn't hide in a very secure place, log in once a day, say something or search, and log out to add a day to their counter. Maybe make it count by how much AP has been used?--Hamelin 18:06, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 8 keeps, 7 kills -- 16:05, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Why don't you instead add somekind of title ranking systme? Drogmir 18:55, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Helps answer the question, "Who actually is surviving as a survivor?" --Perticus 20:31, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - If I understood right, this goes to zero when you die, right? --Monstah 23:14, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - agree --Kcold 05:08, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - none of my characters have ever died or come close to dying, while racking up the exp. This would be an interesting exercise. FireballX301 06:57, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - Just pointless. Surviving is not generally hard. It's occasionally moderately challenging in central suburbs, and obviously it's suicidal to be in Ridleybank prolonged periods of time. Other than that, it's pretty easy. Someone could hole up in some border suburb, hiding inside a group of heavily barricaded non-resource building, and never see a sight of zombie for weeks. --Brizth 13:15, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Kinda fun stat to have --Nicks 19:30, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - I have no idea how hard/easy this would be to code, but I like the idea. One addition: maybe it should be possible to simply lock your character's counter wherever it is. That way your number remains as a record for everyone else to try to pass forevermore, but on the other hand you can never make it go any higher. That's just a tangential notion though. Go for the main idea.--'STER-Talk-Mod 06:05, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - but i recomend having a couple times listed, longest time dead, shortest time dead, longest time alive, shortest time alive, and current time alive or dead as well as including the date of those events--ericblinsley 07:30, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - Survival is their main goal, why not to put the longest-surviving on the top of the list? Awesome idea, brings some challenge to being alive for a long time. And by the way: if you want to PK because of that, OK, you'll be PKed as soon as you reach the top, anyway. More emotion to the good ol' apocalypse (since the zombies aren't really scaring the survivors anymore, except when they break in the safehouses screaming BARHAR!!!) --Omega2 23:00, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Keep - You still have to find them, duh. That fact alone keeps people from abusing it. --Mr NoName 20:36, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 16 Keep, 8 Kill, 1 Spam - 20:18, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Personal tools