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

Sample Contamination

Spaminated with 14/16 spam votes. Most voters thought that the suggestion was far too powerful, and would promote griefing. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 19:43, 15 June 2006 (BST)

Gastric Contagion: A New Attack Option For Zombies

Timestamp: 07:02, 15 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A new zombie attack should make the undead side more fun to play. This is an idea for a new skill designed to add an additional layer of strategy for zombies, reworked from my earlier idea for a variable accuracy zombie attack. Gastric Contagion would be a subskill of Digestion giving zombies a new "Ichor" attack. As the zombie lunges trying to grab and bite vile fluids drip from its mouth as it salivates. An unfortunate survivor might get some upon themselves.


Ichor attacks would start with a 6% probability to hit and rise 4% with each successful bite attack performed (increasing as additional materials are digested and turned into drool) up to a maximum of 50% (60% with tangling grasp). Each time the Ichor attack is used it drops in accuracy 8%. In this regard they'd give zombies a kind of resource management/ammunition storage based not on how many attacks they can perform but what their odds of hitting are.


The attack causes no damage on it's own but would give survivors a new Diseased status. A Diseased survivor has their maximum health lowered by 10hp (down to 40hp normally, 50hp with bodybuilding). A completely healthy survivor's health will drop 10hp to meet the new maximum but one already injured below that point will not suffer damage. A survivor can only be diseased once and further Ichor attacks will not affect them. A first-aid kit does not cure Disease. It'll only heal them up to their new maximum health. Before you get alarmed this Diseased status is very easy to cure by leaving it on its own. All the survivor has to do is spend 1AP on any action. This restores their max health to normal and automatically restores any hp they lost from their Disease.


This attack is both useful and balanced. The many AP spent biting (and missing) to raise attack percentages balances out the fact this attack can deal shotgun caliber damage if used as the initial blow. In this regard it's a good first move when starting on a new target. It can also be used to weaken a survivor you know you can't kill. It'll reduce the amount other players will be able to heal them, making them a little more vulnerable to the next zombie that breaks in. This utility is balanced by the fact the condition automatically ends the next time the survivor logs in and does anything.

This skill should give zombies new attack strategies, whether to use Ichor to start off a kill or to weaken survivors, whether to give up the additional damage caused by hand attacks in favor of bites to recharge your Ichor attack, and so on and so forth. It should add a lot of fun to playing a zombie without overpowering them.


  1. Keep Author vote. There. I addressed everyone's concerns. It's not a vomit attack and it doesn't lower attack or search percentages, but it still keeps the fun synergy-tastic bite recharge feature. I think this should help make the zombie side a lot more interesting. --Jon Pyre 07:03, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep -Wow you did it without the vomit. this could be good (seems kinda low on the you attack someone to get tangling grasp -3hp then bite them whats that? 7 damage) Does this downgrade when used or when you hit? blah blah blah I Likie anywaysNazreg 07:55, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re The next attack is downgraded. So if your Ichor is currently at 18% your attack will be 18%, and the next one will be 10%. --Jon Pyre 08:05, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Finally, a liquid-based attack that is not totally disgusting (or completely unbelievable). --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 08:33, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Hmm... I don't know, I don't quite like it. If I read it correctly which I think I did, but I'm tired so who knows, I don't belive that this specifys how much dammage this attack does. Tell me if I'm wrong though. - Jedaz 09:32, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re It deals however many damage are necessary when lowering their maxhealth. If you're at 53hp and get Diseased you only lose 3hp, if you were at 57hp you'd lose 7hp. If you're below the new max health you take no damage. Once diseased further ichor attacks do not stack. --Jon Pyre 16:07, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Wow, some kind of digestion attack that isn't so disgusting \o/ --Nob666 11:15, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Jedaz, I interpreted it as a one-time only 10hp attack. Then they cannot be attacked again in this method until they log on next. (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, a nice way of suggesting a traditionally very hazy area. --BBM 11:25, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - barely, very barely. The creative flavor here is so awesome, but the mechanics are not. The status effect is not ideal for softening up targets because you give back HP if they wake up. The other, bigger problem is your hit percentage goes down with every attempt, not every hit. That makes this attack deceptively erratic. If you miss the first, fully powered attack - which'll happen half the time - it's not really worth it (in AP) to try again at the lower odds of 42% etc., because the attack has a considerable hidden cost - APs expended to get hits with the similarly erratic bite attack. Ichor's still powerful, but as boomstick users know, erratic weapons are frustrating, and Ichor would be the most hit-and-miss attack in the game. Even the idea of an attack that becomes less powerful on repeated misses sounds like it was designed to annoy RNG-hating players (i.e. most of 'em). To Fix - Very simple, just don't heal back the damage when the survivor wakes up, and give a flat hit percentage instead of this digestive stuff (keep the Tangle bonus, that's cool), and I will vote Keep Squared. Because drooling zombies are Awesome. And despite the drawbacks, so is this very creative status effect. --Rheingold 12:52, 15 June 2006 (BST).
    • Re About the restoration of damage...think of this kind of like a damage loan. It doesn't really damage the survivor, it just lowers their health temporarily. If a zombie should kill them in that time the loan doesn't have to get paid back. As for the lowering attack %, remember this attack deals 10 damage to a fully healed character. It shouldn't be too easy to do it. One option is for a zombie upon breaking into a building to spend all their AP infecting and diseasing people. That way while they bite they can recharge their disease attack. Or they could focus on killing one target and weakening/infecting/diseasing a single other one. --Jon Pyre 16:17, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - It's all right --EnForcer32 14:11, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - 1 AP to get your 10 hp back seems too easy. Consider that zombies will probably use this as they use infection now -- spreading it around the room willy-nilly. The likelihood of some of those survivors logging in and getting their health back is pretty high. Make it so that it takes multiple AP to restore the health and I'll keep. (Really I liked the percentage effects better. but c'est la vie.) --EmberMBR 15:01, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re Think of this as Infection's counterpart. Infection weakens the player once they log in but doesn't harm them before then. This weakens the player until they log in. In many ways its more useful since other players cannot cure it! The next time a zombie breaks in you with your -10 normal health will be a slightly easier target to take. Most people that get infected but not killed get cured pretty rapidly. This is a status effect that has a chance of lasting for a while. --Jon Pyre 16:12, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  10. KILL -You kinda nerfed your own idea since all you need to do is read a newspaper to cure the disease...--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 15:54, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Me thinks you've nerfed it too much. With the mechanics the way you have them this time - it's too easy to remedy, I'd go for something with your 'need FAK + 20 AP to cure' that you had in the last one.. Or, what might be better (IMHO), would be for it to require surgery to fix = the -10 HP isn't completely devastating for the survivor to deal with while he/she finds a hospital and a surgeon; and it would make surgery more important to have. --Blahblahblah 16:42, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Make it a lot harder to get rid of the Diseased status. It's too weak as is. I mean, how many times do you actually wake up injured? --Pinpoint 18:11, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re What do you mean? I very rarely do, often I'm healed beforehand. This attack isn't designed to cause damage that has to be healed. Zombies can already deal damage. It's instead meant to soften up the target either for yourself or for another zombie by either doing an inital blow or keeping others from fully healing them. --Jon Pyre 19:28, 15 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Sorry, I was tired at this point. I know what I said doesn't make sense. My real point was that I'd rather see this as a lasting effect, rather than something cured by just doing something. Maybe like 20 AP or something. --Pinpoint 05:44, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Sounds fun, and it's not disgusting. Good job. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 20:10, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - I REALLY like it and want to vote keep, but as others pointed out, the healing the 10 HP by performing an action kills it. Ironically, a lot of suggestions die because they are too centered on "live combat" while this is the exact opposite. There just seem to be too many factors involved to say you would NEVER "log on injured" or anything. My character could log on with 1 HP and suddenly "heal" 10? Also, there is a clarity problem with the attack itself. In order to use this attack, does the zombie have to attempt a bite? And would it be two seperate "rolls" to hit (that is, if the bite misses, the ichor might hit)? And wouldn't, by default, the ichor attack AUTOMATICALLY hit with a bite?--Pesatyel 21:12, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - It's the HP. David Malfisto 21:27, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill Underpowered. Please resubmit with changes.--ShadowScope 22:15, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - The flavor (no pun intended) is vastly improved in this version, but the mechanics are worse than ever. In addition to being ridiculously underpowered for an attack that's so hard to use effectively, the idea of a Quantum Disease that goes away if you look at it is simply absurd. To fix: if you're going to leave the attack this hard to use, you need to give a much bigger payoff - requiring Surgery sounds right on target, especially if you make this condition persist through death as Infection does. If you want to leave the condition fairly easy to fix (though under no condition should it be as easy as it is now), make it less prohibitively difficult for zombies to use. Boosting the to-hit bonus from each bite (and possibly raising the maximum hit chance) and making it so only a successful hit lowers your chance sounds about right. Hope this was helpful. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 22:51, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re' Thanks. --Jon Pyre 22:57, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep I have some of the same issues as other Kill Voters, but I think the idea is too good not to work on or get submitted for consideration. Consider it a Counter-Kill. --Karlsbad 22:54, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - Underpowered. I agree with McSnatherson; using Surgery to cure this Disease is an excellent idea. --Bachmaner 01:17, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep Sure its somewhat underpowered, but I don't think what zombies need to get more players is some new uber attack. This is cool, relativley useful for fighting offline foes, and cool without being disgusting. HamsterNinja 03:15, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill It's a very nice idea but the 1 AP cost is too little. Work on that and resubmit it. Maybe have a 5 AP "Cure Disease" action? Or make it so that a FAK cures it. If that seems too easy, maybe make it so that only a FAK used with First Aid cures it.Ashnazg 0758, 17 June 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill Bad mechanics -- Mettaur 19:40, 20 June 2006 (BST)


Spaminated. 1 Author Keep, 1 Kill, 8 Spam (including my own). 10 votes in total. General feeling was "no auto defenses" and "this is utterly absurd". –Xoid STFU! 14:52, 15 June 2006 (BST)

Sound of Shots

Timestamp: 12:33 am, 15 June 2006 Europe Time
Type: Game Realism
Scope: Survivors and Zombies
Description: Shots are a loud thing in real life a shot can be heared in nearby bloqs (much more if there is no traffic), my suggestions is that shots of pistols and shotguns should be reported to all players in that bloq, inside and outside the building and to adyacent bloqs. To do not spam, players should read a small report of what happened (one shot, some shots, great quantities of shots and the direction where the sound came from


  1. Keep Author vote. I think that this would give malton a more realistic state of city at war.--Tito Pulo 12:40, 15 June 2006
  2. Keep - I don't see why not Jonny12 W! 11:53, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - I think it´s a good idea. Both zombies and survivors can go where it´s all going down.diefugger 13:22, 15 June 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Survivors already have something that's like the zombie groan. It's called the flare. Sonny Corleone WTF 12:26, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Any survivor who follows a flare deserves to be eaten, and usually is. Harmanz aren't the only people who can see and follow a flare. I don't see how this would be any different. It's like Scent Death, it tells you what you already know. "Oh, the mall next door is under siege? Really. Tell me more..." --Rheingold 13:09, 15 June 2006 (BST).
  6. Spam - Spam. -- 343 13:18, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Spam - Yeeess.. Bit more spam on our screens when we log in please. --Niilomaan 14:24, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Nice idea, but would cause spamming even with your suggested methods. --Nob666 14:34, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - Stupid. Pathetic. Asinine. Moronic. –Xoid 14:45, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - I like the idea of hearing the gunshots, but because the way the game is played means you get all your news once a day, it would still just become spam. This is sufficiently different from a flare, however, as it could mean 'happy hunting', 'I'm being overwhelmed', 'tasty harmans to eat', or 'scary noisy harmans'. The point is, you hear the shots and decide what to do. --Burgan 14:59, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill Gunshots are everywhere in this game. That information wouldn't really help. --Jon Pyre 16:20, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - It could be useful to know if there are zombies being shot nearby; I wouldn't pay much attention to it, but more cautious players might.--Milo 18:11, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - people would be PKed in retaliation for accidentily firing on another survivor. Multiple spam issues. --Gage 18:59, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - There's enough cluttering my screen when I log in as it is. I see almost no value in this, and as Suggestions Dos and Do Nots says, "Don't Argue for Realism." –Bob Hammero TW!P! 19:50, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Dupe - Of Echo's of Gunfire by Mr A. David Malfisto 21:30, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Dupe See David Malfisto's link. Similar enough. It's a bad idea because we already get enough spam as it is. We really need a better way to see ingame events. --McArrowni 02:57, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Dupe Enough Said HamsterNinja 03:18, 16 June 2006 (BST)

Zombie Classes V.2

Pulled - By Author -- 343 17:06, 15 June 2006 (BST)

Gnaw Flesh

Timestamp: 10:34 AM, 15 June 2006 (MST)
Type: Skill, improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: Add another skill to the Vigour Mortis skill tree. Gnaw Flesh is similar to the skill Rend flesh. The skill Gnaw Flesh (Bite attacks deal an extra 1 damage.)

EDIT- CLARIFICATION- According to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary a Flak Jacket is defined as Main Entry: flak jacket Function: noun

a jacket containing metal plates for protection against flak; broadly : a bulletproof vest -- called also flak vest

Using this as the true meaning behind how the Flak Jacket works in game I do not think a Flak Jacket would protect against bite damage since the elements of a bullet differ greatly from how a bite works. --Drban 4:00PM 28 June 2006 (MST)


  1. Keep Author vote. Makes sense to me that if a zombie can do extra damage with their hands it would apply as well to their teeth.--Drban 10:37 AM, 15 June 2006 (MST)
  2. Keep - This may be Wiki suicide, but I like it. --HerrStefantheGreat 17:51, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - MBR would be higher than claws. Higher than shotgun maybe. I don't like that. But this will only have an effect on those without flak jackets. –Xoid 17:56, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - I was going to vote kill, but then I saw But this will only have an effect on those without flak jackets. and I realized it was true!--Milo 18:02, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Zombies now have dentist! -- 343 18:09, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - I'd like to see the accuracy of bite improved, not the damage. Besides, most survivors wear flak jackets, even the new ones, so this skill wouldn't be all that worthwhile anyway. --Pinpoint 18:14, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - That's a really powerful attack -- esp. once you figure digestion and infection in. Why is everyone assuming flaks would soak this, it's not mentioned in the suggestion? --Ember MBR 18:25, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re: Because Flak absorbs 20% of damage if the weapon inflicts 5 or more damage... That's how it works --wcil 18:37, 15 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - That's how it works for firearms. If it's not in the suggestion I'm not comfortable assuming it. --Ember MBR 19:33, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - I can dig it, sucka. Sonny Corleone WTF 18:50, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Was going to kill since bite needs to do less damage to counteract digestion & infection, but Xoid saved it. --Burgan 19:20, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - My second char mainly uses bite, so it would love this. Also we can't be sure if game actually calculates the damage each time, or if it's just set on those 3 weapons to do only 80%, but it doesn't actually matter. Just put a note there to show that most votes thought that flak would absorb it. --Niilomaan 19:41, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - As per Xoid. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 19:53, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep Makes that flak jacket I have worthwhile. --Jon Pyre 20:10, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep Just because I think having the flak jacket having more use than protection from PKers is a good thing. --Matthew Stewart 20:52, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Simple. And I think it is safe to assume that Flak would effect it, but if it DOES, would Digestion heal 5 or 4?--Pesatyel 21:18, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - Assuming it's effected by Flak and heals HP equal to damage dealt. David Malfisto 21:33, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Tasty! DirskoSM 22:10, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Spam - After a while, almost all survivors would get a flak jacket, which would totally negate the benefits of the skill, and then the skill becomes as useless as knife combat. The only players not to have a flak jacket would be new players, and I'm very wary of skills giving bonus damage against newbies. --Toejam 22:22, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - I agree with Ember, it dosnt say if the Flak jacket affects this which makes me vote kill (not likely it would either, also i think that the damage is to high, now you get a never emptying pistol? - Whitehouse 22:42, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill -Don't you just love self nerfing ideas? This one didn't self nerf, but as long as we have flaks, it'll blow up in your face. Just like pie. Yeah that's right, pie.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 22:52, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - As per Xoid. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 22:54, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep See Jimbo's Vote --Karlsbad 22:56, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill A nerf to survivors without flak jackets. Whee. Zombies need a buff, but giving them the ability to kill newbies faster isn't it. --Rheingold 00:34, 16 June 2006 (BST).
  23. Kill - Nerfes newbie survivors, does nothing against more experienced ones. We need ways to make zombies more interesting, not survivors less interesting. --Matthew Fahrenheit 00:55, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill - DON'T TOUCH MY NEWBS!!! Seriously, only newbies are harmed by this, and too much so IMO. --McArrowni 03:01, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill Bite is really powerful as is- it does not need to be better. Plus you didn't state whether or not its effected by flak jackets, which is very important for suggestions that deal lots of damage. HamsterNinja 03:21, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill Bite is less powerful because of digestion and infection. Keep it that way. Also, do flack jackets effect everything stronger than 5 points, or does it just so happen that the only things stronger than 5 points are guns? --Ron Burgundy 03:49, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  27. Keep - I don't think it should be affected by flak jackets though. --Rozozag 20:46, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  28. Keep - It should be affected by flak jackets. I always wanted something better for non-flak-jacketed survivors. --Ashnazg 0758, 17 June 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - If it were not affected by flak jackets, it would be acceptable. But as has been mentioned, otherwise it hurts newbies, nothing more. --Vuredel 02:48, 19 June 2006 (BST)
  30. Kill - Per Ember. -- Mettaur 19:42, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  31. Keep -Sounds good to me--Paradox244 21:30, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  32. Keep - Why not? --Otware 18:21, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Horde Aggravation

Timestamp: 18:10, 15 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Hordes
Description: I read the concerns of the general public. It seems most people want balance in numbers, so that Urban Dead is a balanced game, without classes, skill breaking, or massive spam or zerg attacks. But they also want zombies to follow the golden Zombie Commandments, so no guns or nothing. So without further ado, I suggest that a series of malls be blown up and the survivors within die zombies are all given rocket launchers are encouraged to be in a hoard, by giving the larger hoards zombie caterpults increasing hit percentiles for baracades for large hoards. Right now, zombies with maxed skills have a 25% chance of distroying a baracade. With this change, a hoarde (which is a group of zombies with the same group name in their profile, at the same location, and as always, two or more groups could be in the profile, but only the largest group present would count) would increase hit odds to hit baracades.
  • Small Horde - 12-99 zombies would grant a 5% bonus
  • Medium Horde - 100-199 zombies would grant a 10% bonus
  • Large Horde - 200-499 zombies would grant a 15 % bonus
  • Mall Seige Horde - 500-999 zombies would grant a 20% bonus
  • Suburb Destuction Horde - 1000+ zombies would grant 25% bonus
(a.k.a. DARIS destroyer horde, Big F*** Horde)
  • Edit 21:32, 15 June 2006 (BST) - fixed thy typo.


  1. Keep - Author vote. -- 343 18:10, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Your "small" horde is a little too large, as are the others. Make the sizes a little more reasonable, so that this might actually get used every once and a while. --Pinpoint 18:16, 15 June 2006 (BST) Don't know what you're talking about Xoid. Maybe try having a little common sense and recognizing the fact that I very rarely make a spelling error. When I do, it's typically because I'm tired. So shut the hell up. Bitch. --Pinpoint 05:39, 16 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I would like to think it would get more hoards in a large style quickly. 343 18:26, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Purely because Pinpoint voted Kill and is too stupid to notice the difference between a horde and a hoard. –Xoid 18:19, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - I think anything above the Small Horde level is going to be very rare; but hey, +5%. --Ember MBR 18:22, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Spam - A coordinated horde smashes through Extremely Heavy barricades in less then a minute. Zombies in groups don't need a buff. – Nubis 18:25, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Hopefully this is the last RE. No hoard is coordinated enough to take down a mall, like say, Ciager or Ackland. This would encourage more play on both sides, instead of just one, like in the second Ciager conflict. 343 18:33, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - I just did a Keanu Reeves woah. Sonny Corleone WTF 18:54, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Make them feared. Make them very feared.--ShadowScope 18:57, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Because the Survivor Apocalypse is just less fun. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 19:57, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill Exactly what Nubis said. Small groups of zombies have difficulty destroying barricades. Not large groups. --Jon Pyre 20:09, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - 199 -> 249 & 200 -> 250 and you got yourself a deal! This would make hordes do more sense. --Niilomaan 20:11, 15 June 2006 (BST) EDIT: It needs same group in profile? No way. That way all zombies would just write "Zombie" in there and get the bonus. I say that you give it to zombies that just stand in the same block.
  11. Keep I suggest you rename the skill to Horde Aggravation, since Horde means swarm whereas Hoard means to store something away.--Drban 1:24 PM, 15 June 2006 (MST)
  12. Spam - I dilsike the stipulation that their profile has an impact on their in-game abilities. Even still, co-ordinated hoardes can beat on barricades just fine. If the problem is that the survivors are co-ordinated as well, then get more zeds or get more co-ordinated. Besides, Only Skills and Items Should Confer Gameplay Benefits or Penalties. --Burgan 20:36, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - On that same page, "Very few of the following guidelines are absolutes" I do not agree with shoting something down automaticly because its written somewhere else. Also, and this is important, Co-ordinated Hordes cannot break baracades with ANY EASE against co-ordinated survivors. 343 21:44, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Kevan already broke that guideline all to pieces with the Ransack/Cleanup features. --Ember MBR 21:49, 15 June 2006 (BST) I support this non-author Re and would have said it if I knew about it. I might as well have said it. Don't strike! 343 22:03, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - As above. David Malfisto 21:34, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Barricades will stay up unless the Hoarde is completely organized, and that hardly ever happens. We need something to even things up. -- Tirion529 21:44, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - Remove the profile part and then I'd give it a keep. -- DirskoSM 22:20, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - You really ought to change the profile bit, though. And shift the size categories for the hordes (correct spelling OMFG) downward. Those nitpicks aside, this is a solid idea. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 23:02, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - Again, you should remove the profile bit and stick with zombies on the same block. If it was me, I'd give the bonuses a bit of an upper, but hey, I'm biased. :) All in all, this is such a solid idea I'm amazed it hasn't been implemented yet. --Bachmaner 00:27, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - because it won't be Spammed, but it should. As per the Suggestion Do's and Dont's, the advantage of being in a large group is being in a large group. The game doesn't need a probability modifier to model that. Quote from that page - "Many suggestions involve being in a particular group, or around a certain number of other people, or things like that. None of these things should ever affect your character's skills. These conditions arise incidentally during the course of the game and should not confer special bonuses or penalties. The effects of being in a particular situation are beneficial or harmful in and of themselves, and should not influence things additionally. Only skills and items should confer gameplay benefits or penalties (movement, healing, attack, search, etc.)." --Rheingold 00:41, 16 June 2006 (BST).
  19. Keep - I'm actually sick of the Survivor Apocalipse. I want surviving to be harsh. I want survivors to be few. I want life to be treasured on this game! Who wants 1/9 survivor/zombie ratios?? Raise your hands with me!! Vote Keep!! BARHAH!!!! --Matthew Fahrenheit 01:03, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - What Rheingold said. The only siege where a mass of zombies didn't succeed was Caiger mall, and I heard reports of survivors outnumbering zombies by a lot in there. (a lot being around 2 or 3 to one)--McArrowni 03:04, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep - I like it! - Nicks 03:31, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep Meh why not. Few hordes will ever get up to more than the 5% bonus, so it won't be overly unbalancing. HamsterNinja 03:40, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill Zombie hordes are damn good at eating barricades, fix the zombies where they're broken. Also, hasn't this sort of thing been suggested a billion times? --Ron Burgundy 03:54, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - BOTD --Rozozag 20:48, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  25. Spam - As Rhiengold said: 1)Being in a mob/horde is it's own benefit. 2)NO to anything based on group membership. Lone, low-level zombies need help, not organized hordes. Also, everyone who is SOOOOO concerned about the ratio should not jump at every zombie buff as a solution. --Raystanwick 08:10, 17 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill - There is almost always no chance for survivors to win a major siege except and Caiger, and now you want to make it even easier for Zombies to break it down? --Kamron 11:36, 17 June 2007 (BST)
  27. Spam - Borderline incoherent explanation, bad mechanics, and outright silly. -- Mettaur 19:44, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  28. Keep - Nice. --Otware 18:22, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Skin Decay

Timestamp: Milo 18:37, 15 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This is a resubmit of "crumbling flesh," probably the first skill to be spaminated. Anyways, that was back in the days when nobody gave reasons with their votes, and the only comments I got were to the effect of "zombies couldn't crumble so much that they would be hard to pick up"(which I sort of agree with, so I've changed that a little,) and "I don't understand." So, let's try this again.

The zombie's skin has begun to dry out, and frequently flakes off when pressure is applied. Humans attempting to move its body find that it often slips out of their hands, making the process take much longer. Thus, if you have this skill, and you die inside a building, it costs 5 AP to dump the bodies.


  1. Author keep Honestly, this seems to me like a reasonable suggestion.--Milo 18:37, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Would be less annoying then ?rise 343 18:40, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Shweet. Sonny Corleone WTF 18:56, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - Nice idea. Won't really benefit the zombie that much, because if there's a dead body in your safehouse, you're going to chuck it out first thing if you have any intelligence, but I still like the idea. BBM 19:21, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Works for me, good call making it a skill. I could see making it a chance-to-fail, but this has the same overall effect. --Ember MBR 19:29, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - 10% of someone's AP just to move a body? Sounds a little extreme to me. Make it 2 or 3 AP and I'll probably vote keep. Edit: also, wouldn't this mean that it would cost 50 AP just to dump 10 bodies? –Bob Hammero TW!P! 20:00, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    1. Re:No, just 5.--Milo 20:20, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill Seems a bit overpowered. Basically it'd add on a flat 5AP additional cost to defending from an indoor zombie. I'd also vote no a suggestion to lower hit percentages, which would also have the effect of making it cost more to dump out a zombie. --Jon Pyre 20:08, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Makes some sense, but 5AP is a lot to spend, especially if the survivor does not know that's what it'll cost before hand. I'd probably keep at 2AP. Also nerfs Headshot if it's at 5AP; there's no time to dump bodies if invading zombies stand for 1AP + headshot and take 5AP to dump. --Burgan 20:45, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill Your idea needs more work, I understand the core concept but how many bodies in a stack need the ability to cause the penalty? If you have 25 normal bodies and just 1 dried skin body does that increase the cost for the whole stack, what about 25 decayed skin bodies? Or revived victims who have the skill cross class? I think a better mechanic is drop all non-decayed skin bodies then having to drop the decayed skins individually. --Matthew Stewart 20:48, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill Same as Matthew Stewart.--Pesatyel 21:27, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - 5 AP from 1? I don't think so. Would it net 5XP? David Malfisto 21:36, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - AP required to dump bodies outside should be based on the number of bodies, not a skill IMO. -- DirskoSM 22:24, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill -I'll vote keep if you give us more XP for doing so.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 22:43, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill Dump balance should be done as gameplay, not with a skill. --Karlsbad 22:56, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill/Change - Though in my opinion this needs a major revamp flavour-wise, the basic mechanics are workable. --Bachmaner 00:30, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - I wuold vote keep, but it's a bit overpowered. Make it cost 3 AP, but DON'T acced to the request for dumping these bodies to grant more experience. As a really popular suggestion in the past days stated: survivors shouldn't be gaining any experience by doing so. --Matthew Fahrenheit
  17. Kill - Fewer APs please. 3 would be perfect. --McArrowni 03:09, 16 June 2006 (BST)
    1. Re - I will resubmit with 3 AP in a couple weeks. As for Matthew Stewart's question, the idea is as follows: if any dead body has this skill, then it costs exactly 5 AP to dump. The skill does not stack in any way, but it does cross over.--Milo 06:13, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill per Matthew -- Mettaur 19:46, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Frenzied Attack

Timestamp: 1:51 PM, 15 June 2006 (MST)
Type: Skill, improvement, etc
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill would go under the Vigour Mortis skill tree. A zombie would have to have all the skills under this tree before this skill (Frenzied Attack) could be purchased. Current skill tree is as follows.

You have Vigour Mortis (Zombie gets +10% to hit with all non-weapon attacks.) · Neck Lurch (Zombie gets an extra +10% to hit with bite attacks.) · You have Death Grip (Zombie gets an extra +15% to hit with hand attacks.) · You have Rend Flesh (Hand attacks deal an extra 1 damage.) · You have Tangling Grasp (If the zombie hits with hands, its further attacks on that victim are at +10% to base attack until it loses its grip.)

· You have Frenzied Attack (If a zombie lands a successful attack the zombie automatically scores another successful attack.)

The Frenzied attack would automatically use 1 AP to account for the attack, but only if the zombie’s first attack was successful. Essentially, it would make attacking zombies more efficient.


  1. Author keep Would be nice to be able to deal damage more efficiently without having to worry if the next attack is going to be a miss.--Drban 1:54 PM, 15 June 2006 (MST)
  2. Spam - No, the whole point of having the RNG is that we don't know whether or not attacks will be successful. Why not give every attack 100% success rate? Besides, with your suggestion, all you have to do is land one successful blow and then every time you attack after that, you will succeed.Bob Hammero TW!P! 21:24, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill -Bob Hammero is right. In addition, what about switching attacks and Tangling Grasp? How do they factor in?--Pesatyel 21:30, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Even if you only get one attack after the first, its still like giving a free hit, even for 1 AP. 343 21:37, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Spam - Sweet Zombie Jesus! 2.25 damage per AP for Claws! No! David Malfisto 21:41, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill This is almost the same as doubling zombie damage. --Jon Pyre 22:26, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - I can't see any way to make this suggestion work. --Nob666 22:27, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Careful, the harmanz might want free hits too...with their shotguns. -- DirskoSM 22:31, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill -*Quickly hides shotgun sugestion* Why would we do that? BTW, you can just click that new-fangled button called "Attack" a second time to attack again.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 22:46, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - No auto-hits. Ever. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 23:06, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - I think a lot of voters have missed the point of this suggestion, as I read it at least. If you hit, with any attack as a zombie, you automatically get one extra hit at 100% accuracy at the cost of 1AP. That means, you hit, you deal X damage, then you deal X damage again, and spend another AP. My faults with this mechanism are that using the other AP automatically could use AP when the zombie is not willing, as well as the MBR for this is insanely broken. I'm not going to delve into the statistics of it, so after some quick computer simulations at 100000 trial AP, claws come out with about 2.25 damage/AP, and bite gets 2.3 in addition to digestion/infection bonuses. --Burgan 23:08, 15 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Instead of giving a zombie an automatic hit using up 1 AP, give the additional "hit" a 5% chance of doing 50% damage of the inital strike. It would give a zombie a chance for extra damage from an attack without consuming APs and it would only work once per initial attack. It would not be cumalative.--Drban 4:18PM, 15 June 2006 (MST)
  12. Kill A little thought may be needed here; consider this, DOUBLING damage from attacks is not balanced for a skill, especially given the precedence of a single HP improvement in damage for 100xp. The additional AP cost only means it slightly lowers an extremely overpowered suggestion to a plain overpowered one. The suggester seriously understates how "efficient" it would make zombies. --Matthew Stewart 23:40, 15 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - (Taking it in the most evil way possible) "If a zombie lands a successful attack the zombie automatically scores another successful attack." That means that once you hit once, you get another successful hit, which means that you've landed a successful hit and thus have another successful hit and so on forever until the target is dead! - Jedaz 03:29, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - I think a lot of you are misinterpreting this suggestion. I think he only meant to say that one successful attack becomes two successful attacks for 2AP, and then you start over, However it is still overpowered. I don't even need to do the math to see that this would increase zombie efficentcy far to much. --Rozozag 20:53, 16 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - Far too overpowered, especially with Bite attacks. Firstly, what this essentially does is to give you a 100% chance to hit with one attack. Bite attacks aren't supposed to hit so often, thus by using Bites, an very high efficiency could be achieved (don't forget infection and healing). Also, this is even more powerful than doubling damage, because doubling damage would be affected by flak jackets, while this won't be. --Ashnazg 0805, 17 June 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Auto-hits. -- Mettaur 19:48, 20 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill -Auto-hits doubleplusungood.--Paradox244 21:32, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Personal tools