From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to 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

Major Event: Systemic Infection Increase

Timestamp: 00:19, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Major Malton Event
Scope: New "rules" regarding infection, and infection stacking
Description: Systemic Infection Increase
This is a suggestion that would be a major "event" in Malton. A "mutation" of the virus that causes infection (as the scientists understand it). But who is to say what the real cause is. All that matters is the manner of infection takes a change, for the worse!
There would be a lot of finger pointing and blaming as to the cause, many NT scientists would believe or be accused that the current revification methods have created a more virulent "strain" of the virus. Many may claim that the appearance of "100th generation", or higher zombies that have risen over 100 times have given rise to a new order of infection. The cause is unknown, to be honest, but the results are horrifying.

Game Mechanics

Infection is now capable of "Stacking" that is to say you aren't just infected, or not infected.. there are varying degrees of HOW infected you have become. This is due to the new, nasty "fast acting" virus which can make even the most hardcore zombie hunter a Z in no time if he gets bitten enough times, in all the wrong places (ouch!)
On the left side with HP and AP is a new stat "IP", that is Infection Points. Simple enough, all survivors have 0 when not infected, when you first become infected it becomes 1 (take 1 damage a turn until a FAK cures infection.) Your infection points can go as high a 4 IP, that is to say 4 points of infection damage a turn! ("Whoa, that's too high, that's crazy!") Not really, chances are you may be dead before your infection rating can get that high, BUT if your survivor is mixing it up with zombies and things don't go so well, it can definately happen, especially if you're out of FAK's!
Obviously you could run to the local (powered) hospital and beg players to disinfect you, and they may very well do so.. but this element of the game would mean players would always want to hold on to 1 or 2 FAK's for their personal use (sorry buddy, gotta save my butt first!) The #1 reason this should be introduced into the game is it creates the infection as a more real, more SCARY thing to be hit by.. not just 1 point a turn until you use an FAK.. something you have to get your hands on an FAK pretty quick or you'll be switching sides very soon "Ohhh noo.. infected.. dammit.. run.. get away from me... gahhhhhh! Rrrrrr." (And so forth).

Increased Rates Of Infection

Going from rank 1 infection to rank 2 infection requires a LOT more virus being directly added to your bloodstream (ex. a very bad combat with a very skilled zombie). The same zombie can actually get you up to rank 2 if they do pretty well in combat (maybe 3 if they're real, real lucky and they find you as soon as they get up.) But realisticlly this is a way of making "spreading the love" more fun for zombies, now they get to make life harder for survivors, costing the survivors more AP to stay alive, creating balance. Additionally more survivors will become zombies for a time, until they learn new tactics to get around the 2nd infection outbreak.
Going from Rank 0 to Rank 1 Infection, requires 1 successful Infection.
Going from Rank 1 to Rank 2 Infection, requires 2 more successful infections.
Going from Rank 2 to Rank 3 Infection, requires 4 more successful infections.
Going from Rank 3 to Rank 4 Infection, requires 8 more successful infections.
  • Note: It only takes 1 FAK to remove 1 rank of infection, which is quite easy, but you have to have them on hand! This means survivors even ones without surgery and such medical skills are going to have to dedicate some time to the seriousness of infection, and keep a close eye on "how many HP do I have and how quickly can I get rid of this many levels of infection?" it makes the game much more serious for the living, you might have the HP to survive several zombies beating on you.. but you'd better have more than a couple FAK's after it's all over. Additionally, a player may choose to use an FAK in combat not because their HP's are low, but because they don't want to lose 2 HP a turn for the next so many combat rounds.. it makes up close combats much more scary, and challenging.
  • Note: This does not Nerf newbies, but it does make walking up to a group of zombies more, shall we say, serious? When one takes into account that it takes a "maxed out" zombie to really capitalize on this it means more players will want to play their zombies, more often, and survivors need zombies to level per se.


  1. Keep - Author vote. Kind of hard to ignore, let's be honest, getting infected currently isn't a big deal, or even a threat, this makes infection a threat, something to be avoided or an important part of survival from here on. Of course, if this is accepted, the "medical community" will come up with new skills, equipment (and NT injections?) to deal with the increased infection, but for now, I say "Infection 2" is on the rise. And the zombies will bring great misery to Malton in the months to come. MrAushvitz 00:45, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I like the idea of stacked infections. But I actually think you've made this too easy on the survivors. Do you really mean it takes 15 infectious bites to put a survivor at infection level 4? (1 infection, 2 more infections, 4 more infections...) I'd think it would only take one bite each time to bump the victim to the next level, though putting the max at 4hp is good. While I have been done in by infection, I agree that it's more of a nuisance than a real danger, and it would be fun for zombies to torment their victims with these more serious conditions. Make it easier to inflict the higher levels and you'll have a keep from me. --John Ember 03:49, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - True, true. But I don't quite want someone to die before they can take a single action (1 AP to use a FAK for example) unless their HP is so low they die of infection unless someone used an FAK on them "guys, guys?" So that's why i figured 4 should be the limit as we agree. How about 1,2,3,4 for infection rate. Going from 0 to 1 takes 1 total, 0 to 2 takes 3 total, 0 to 3 takes 6 total, 0 to 4 takes 10 total, chances are you died from bites, but maybe you were FAK'ing in a duel against oh, half a dozen of 'em.MrAushvitz 00:45, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill great idea but I dont like the idea that in the time I log out with my human char in caiger if three zombies get in they can infect me so I lose three Hp per AP.--Deathnut RAF 03:52, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - True, but let's be entirely honest, the most likely place in the game to get infected is anywhere near the Caiger mall. But your vote does give me a moment's pause, because I just realized something.. shopping and bargain hunting would be much much more important for the survivor effort if this were implemented, think about it. You'd be sending the local hottie/mall rat to "Get your sexy a$$ over to the drug store and get us some FAK's! We got infected here!" In essense making the consumer a much more important character for survival in certain areas. Interesting. But I won't apologize per se, it won't nessesarily kill you (that is HP based when you're offline anyways right), but the second you log in the 1st thing you might do is an FAK, and maybe the 2nd, and the 3rd.. But it makes the insane combat you just survived have a more lasting effect even if you regain all your HP back.MrAushvitz 00:45, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I really really like this, but I have to kill because of the few issues. mentioned above. Please rework this, It's needed.--Bermudez 04:44, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Not a bad idea, just needs some work. When I read it, I thought it was 1 bite for level 1, 3 bites for level 2, 5 bites for level 3, and 9 bites for level 4. I'd suggest 1, 3, 5, 7. And what about having Surgery heal 2 levels?--Pesatyel 05:10, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Ohhh.. surgery getting rid of even more infection, that literally makes sense. (Because you have to be in a powered hospital to do it of course.) It would work considering there would be a second major outbreak, and the medical staff would be swamped as a result.MrAushvitz 02:45, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - No. Please rework this, and please dont make any more suggestions. Ever. --Grim s 06:07, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Rework it as stated previously. --ism 06:20, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - please die.--Mpaturet 08:00, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Dammit, I was going to post something like this. The only problem is that once you get revived, you're still infected. This would leave you with 6 AP to get to safety. Chances are, you may be stuck in a perpetual cycle of death. --TheTeeHeeMonster 13:07, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I actualy like the idea, but this is just the wrong way, both in that it will be hard to get double infected sometimes, and too easy in other cases. Plus i dont think that simply getting biten more would make you " more infected" it doenst work that way. any strong infection should be the cause of 1 bite . make it a very very rare thing to happen. --Kirk Howell 13:53, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill Infectious bite is quite fine the way it is. If you're going to bite them that much just kill them outright. Don't expect to attack half as much and then have the player kill themselves in 5 AP. --Jon Pyre 15:26, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Despite what people think infection is very balanced. It is only workable as a small imconviniance.--Vista 18:43, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Good idea until it took more then one FAK to heal all infection...
  14. Keep - Great Idea. I like the logical realism of your idea User:Adfjdjdk Adfjdjdk 1:56 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 2 Keep, 12 Kill, 0 Spam 18:52, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Stabs You

Timestamp: 04:03, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item Change
Scope: Kitchen Knives
Description: Killing someone with a knife will only provide a message that the killed party was killed, and not who killed them to all others who witness this event.
This will create more healthy paranoia and fear. While it is true that someone could still shoot someone's life away and then finish with the knife for secrecy, and this is in fact unrealistic, it is important to remember that many things are both unrealistic, and totally sweet such as Batman, the Toxic Avenger, and Admiral Ackbar.

Example In The Building Fire Department are the characters X,Y, and Steven. X kills Steven with a Kitchen knife and Y receives the message, Steven was killed. No mention of who did it. Because there were only three of them in the building Y deduces that X did that, however Y always resented Steven and helps X cover up his crime.


  1. Kill - A) Because it WILL be abused. PKers will just unload their pistols into somebody then finish them with a knife. B) Somebody is going to notice somebody else stabbing a person to death with a kitchen knife (screaming and the like). C) While PKing is allowed, it isn't meant to be encouraged.--mikm W! 04:29, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Ooh, stealthy. I don't think it's that unrealistic, either -- a skilled knife wielder can surely hide his act better than a noisy gunslinger. --John Ember 04:37, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Author Vote I think that it is quite possible to walk by someone and stab them and walk away, or sneak up on someone and make 'em a pez dispenser without everbody noticing. Not all PKers want to hide their acts, many are proud of getting kills and won't hide killing, others will, diversity good,PKing is, as far as I can tell, the only way to play, zombie or human, its all player killing, and as such, anything that will add some new drama and excitement to the game is a lovely lovely thing. Oh yes, and as it is my creation/baby/ouevre, I will stand behind it and provide threats such as the one to follow, MikM, for attempting to kill my suggestion I have sent a man to your house, this man has swallowed many bee's and has a stomache virus. You do the math. MWAhaHAhaHA. as well as strange praise such as the following. John, I have traveled through time to make you my father and therefore this suggestions grandfather out of respect for you judgement. -Banana Bear4 04:40, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Your man is dead. He stepped on one of my Claymores a mile outside my double's bunker. I'm FedEx-ing his head back to you. You can expect it to have it by Tuesday. I'll change my vote if the stealth-kill requires advanced knife training and has some abuse-prevention. --mikm W! 04:50, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - But What of the BEES? too small for steel pellets to strike down, they carry on, goaded on by zeal and poprocks, they will flush all your toilets at once. None can stand against the hive. also, interesting ideas.
  4. Kill - I just wan't to encourage pking more --McArrowni 05:02, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Nay! not encourage, just.. facilitate, also, I am currently working on a way to Ignite the atmosphere around you to make your name change from McArrowni to McArrohmygodI'veBeenIgnit, as stated before, PKing is the main focus of the game, human or zombie, all Players, and revives are easier to get than acid in Hunter S. Thompson's desert shack -Banana Bear4 05:10, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep Does no harm. Gives the knife a use. Lets pkers be sneakier. --Grim s 06:04, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - For abuse reasons. Don't notice the fatal knife stab but don't notice the shotgun and pistol shots beforehand? Maybe if it's reworked to require all knife attacks. --ism 06:22, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - As it is now, anyone could pop someone for 55 damage and noone would hear it, and if the person they plugged killed retaliated for 60 damage they would look like the bad fella. Is it a loophole, or is it part of the game. In addition, please note that there is a man who will install a urinal in your house, seemingly for convenience, when you notice a few days later that someone has filled it with bee's, perhaps you will remember this vote -Banana Bear4 06:28, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Motherfucking BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES Undeadinator 07:48, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Sorry Bobbo, not gonna happen. Like as was said abouv you could shoot a guy 10+ times then finish them off with a stab and no one would know. I feel this would only help.... PKers and ZOMG Zombie spies. Until we get more ways of actualy preventing and combating PKing( Ie.: a Jail or the ability to tie them up :P ) We shouldn't give Pkers more skills.--Kirk Howell 13:45, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - It's common knowledge that only Navy SEALs have the skill and prowess to kill people silently. Until there is a Navy SEAL class which can benefit from this skill, I see no reason for the average citizen of Malton to be able to do this, as they are too encumbered by their Trenchcoat, 12 Shotguns, Katanas, ridiculous amounts of ammo, prodigious facial scarring and mysterious pasts. Not to mention the gleams in their eyes are a dead giveaway. -Nubis 14:29, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill Howabout we give double xp for PKing with a knife while we're at it? --Jon Pyre 15:29, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep IM not a Pker but i wish there was more pking!p.s lol @ Navy seals, theyd drop the knife, cut thier toe off and then claim that they were overpowerd by 100s of zombies armed with rocket launchers!--xbehave 17:22, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill -while some people don't see it, PK'ing is bad for the game. It detracts from the zombie/survivor conflict. this should be a zombie survivor game not a survivor/survivor war with zombies thrown into the mix. While at the moment more zombies are needed I am not going to sideline them in favor of PK' er wars. And as there is no defence at all against Pk'ing I don't see why it should be undetectable as well. Now the standard disclaimer: Pk'ing is not illegal or against the rules. It will not be made impossible, but neither will it be encouraged.--Vista 18:37, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep Hmm Stealth= uber cool and good. they need to add a ninja class! User:Adfjdjdk Adfjdjdk 1:56 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Helps PKers way to much. --TheBigT 21:50, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 5 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam 18:51, 7 April 2006 (BST)


Timestamp: 00:19, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: New Zombie Skill Tree
Description: Putrification
New zombie skill tree (just like "Vigour mortis and "Brain Rot" are seperate trees. Allows for future skills based on this tree if used. (doesn't fit so well under current trees, and should be available sooner for zombie players who wish to purchase it at low levels.)

Game Mechanics

Your zombie is more than just a carrier of the virus, your body is literally swimming with it! (That and your blood is so putrified as to be actually considered a contact poison.)

Every time you hit with a claw attack against a survivor there is a 4% chance that you cause infection (3% if that survivor is wearing a Flak Jacket!)

While this may not seem an overly significant bonus, it makes a big difference considering the accuracy of claws as opposed to bite as an attack form. Additionally one need not rely too often on tangling grasp to augment the bite and merely focus on the "hack and slash" tactics, if that is their preference.

Neither does it make the bite attack useless per se.

There is an additional advantage for the "really, really dead" zombies who suffer from brain rot, a benefit for being extra rotten without and within.

  • In addition to the infection bonus listed above zombies with the "Brain Rot" skill have their infection % chances increased by 2% each 6% infection with claw, 5% infection with claw vs. survivor wearing a flak jacket.


  1. Keep - Author vote. Been meaning to see a skill that gave infection to claws, just not an overdone one, seems fair and not too broken, underpowered if anything but still useful. The main thing is to have a 'fast" attack that still can give infection in a duel. As well as being less frustrating to zombies who have less AP by the time they find a survivor. --MrAushvitz 01:49, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I think there's no way to give claws infection, claws V. bite is fairly balanced as it is, if you give claws a good chance to infect, there's no reason to bite ever, and if you only have a four percent chance to do it its just a waste of the RNG. There's a reason that the bites infect and the claws do not. -Banana Bear4 04:26, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Bites are more effective because the human mouth (especially the dead) has a whole shwack of nasty bugs in it period (ask any cop who got bit by some perp and had to get several needles at the hospital, next time they weren't so 'hands on' with the unpredicatables). But anyways, zombies eat the dead right, their claws ain't clean, oh hell no! Think of all that blood and gristle they go through, yeesh. Maybe for argument's sake I could downplay it requiring digestion to get the full benefits (one adds to another and another) until eventually you get the 6%/5% but it's not the end of the world, I kept this one small. Bite still does more damage and always infects when it hits, this just lets "claw fu" zombies get some infections in as well. -MrAushvitz 04:26, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - There is a seperate bite attack because of its ability to infect. --mikm W! 04:38, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - No. --Grim s 06:02, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Do the math. That's a 2.6% chance of infection per AP, an average of 1.3 infections per day (50AP) with claws. No reason to bite anymore. --ism 06:29, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - MrAuchvitz fail at UD. Period.--Mpaturet 07:58, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - What ism said. Zombies need more viable options, not less. -Nubis 13:52, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill If we make it heal 4hp with each hand attack also we can really make bites totally worthless! --Jon Pyre 15:30, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I'll take this suggestion seriously when I see a zombie that actually is literally swimming with the virus. Destin Farloda 15:35, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I like the idea, but infection is what makes bites special. Don't listen to everyone else here that says you're a total idiot, though. Keep on trying. --Snikers 16:56, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - But do listen to the reasons why they think you're a 'total idiot' (not my words) Both your form of suggesting and the actual set up of your suggestions could improve a lot. You are obviously very enthusiastic about the game and we need people who are just that, this page is ment to improve the game after all. But because it is meant to improve the game not everything will work. And you need to know more what will. I know it sounds harsh but right now your suggestions won't work. I also propose you clarify statements on why it won't make bite irrelevent or why something is balanced. Even if it is just to make things clearer to yourself because at the moment I get the feeling that it is just a statement you make to secure more votes instead of something you have put some thought in. (meaning that your stament usually doesn't hold true)--Vista 18:25, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep I like it because I always thought that claws were just a little bit underpowered. User:Adfjdjdk Adfjdjdk 1:56 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 2 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 Spam 18:51, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Feast On The Living

Timestamp: 00:45, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: Appears under "Infectious Bite" on "Digestion" Skill Tree
Description: Feast On the Living
This is a game mechanic which represents the "horrible death" that can occur when a survivor goes down screaming when several zombies eat them alive! Believe it or not, this is an important game element as it can let nearby zombies (and survivors) know that things aren't going so well today. It is intended to add to the horror of the survivor experience, and is a deeply rewarding moment for the true zombie player!

Game Mechanics

Every time your zombie kills a survivor there is a chance that the survivor will "Scream during feeding" when they die. This is due to the fact survivors feel pain, and zombies don't (as much.) It is a very 'human' element of the game, and contributes to the 'real' stress of being food for the living dead.

This chance is a base 10%, it does not require any AP per se, it just "happens" (you aren't the one doing the screaming, the survivor does it for you, if they live long enough.)

If your zombie is higher level than the target they are eating, this chance goes up by 5% (but your zombie doesn't know the level of the survivor or that you're above their level, they just scream more. You get no information about the survivor from this skill.)

For each zombie at the SAME location as you, when you eat the survivor 5% is added to this total IF they also have this skill. This is a "swarm feeding" tactic of zombies, and saves them AP from feeding groans for combat actions. It's also more fun. Realisticlly this won't happen too often, unless you walk into a group of active zombies ("I vant to hear your shkream! Fraulein!")

If your victim is at least 10 levels higher level than you, this chance goes down 5% (They tough it out, take it like a man, and die more quietly, cursing you with every breath.)

For each Zombie Hunter skill a player possesses this chance goes down an additional 5%, as these skills are based on knowledge of zombie "tactics" (if any), and zombie hunters tend to be tough SOB's.

The maximum chance is 25% under even the best of conditions, the minimum chance is 5% (only 1 Zombie hunter skill currently resulting in 5% min if you also are 10+ levels higher.)

If you don't get a scream out of them, chances are the survivor died before you started eating them so they don't get a message about being eaten. (Dying was bad enough, today)

  • What happens when you "Scream during feeding?"
Well, it is exactly the same as a feeding groan per se. Same range (although a lot more intense and detailed in pitch and frequency.) But it creates a much different game text.

To the eater: "You feast upon _____, and they scream while they die!"

To the eaten: "Your death was horrible, and you screamed while being eaten.. ALIVE!"

To all survivors and zombies within the 6 location radius: "You hear a survivor scream horribly while they being eaten alive nearby."

If this message repeats it simply adds ".. and again, .. and again," etc. as it is doubtless many will be eaten after the first.

This is a simple skill really, it is a "freebie" feeding groan but only when you kill a survivor, and even then it is based on many conditions such as comparative skill levels and nearby flesh connesurs to assist.

The main benefit to be reaped is that this skill can save your prescious AP for combat, and if you are successful it can get a "free" scream from your victim.

High level survivors have a resistance (of sorts) to this skill, so it maintains a balance.


  1. Keep - Author vote. I'm on a roll, seems my ideas and my ability to add "flavour" to the soup are one today. But nonetheless, this is not intended to "grief" survivors, this is intended to give zombie players the much needed satisfaction that comes with dining "To serve man." Additionally we may see more and more zombie players grouping together just to enjoy this one skill when they can "hey Jim, Joe, Dave and Alexia.. let's dine at the local hospital let's say around 12:00 am your time?" --MrAushvitz 01:49, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - If you made this any more complicated my computer would have emitted black smoke, ignit, and exploded. If you made this more simple and comprehensible I just might do the unthinkable, and vote keep for one of your suggestions, though I am loathe to do so... -Banana Bear4 05:22, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I freely confess and admit to my loathesome qualities, and I will consider a simpler version of this skill with the same spirit. It is needed is it not? In some way, I shall have my zombie feast skill! -MrAushvitz 02:22, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I will first hereby announce that I have grown tired to put the <no wiki>* in your #* </no wiki> so that your Res mess up the vote count. Then I'll complain about the mechanic being dependant on level, which is a very bad thing in this game, since levels depend on skills from both sides. Oh yeah, and I'll shamelessly plug that we are voting on a change to the rules on the talk page, which would prevent an author from submitting more than 3 suggestions per day. --McArrowni 05:35, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Leave my replies alone. Oh and someone deleted my reply to your text, that person should also leave my replies alone. Actually I agree with you! There should be a limit to individual's suggestions, i don't recall ever making more than 3 suggestions a day.. but today I only made 3 so it's all good. Actually if you make a vote for it, depending on how it's worded I'll probably vote keep. It encourages people to keep their ideas relevant to the zombie genre. -MrAushvitz 08:22, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - For no reason other than the fact Mr Aushvitz made this suggestion. --Grim s 06:00, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Grim does raise a good point. But the suggestion is overly complicated to warrant any use. Just give up the feast idea already, no one cares to hear about it. --Arcos 06:59, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Useless and grim is right. Stop Fucking Posting.--Mpaturet 07:57, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Needlessly complicated. How about they simply have X% chance to cause a scream when the zombie kills some bloke? -Nubis 14:22, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Let's not make Feeding Groan worthless. It's nice for skills to be worth purchasing. --Jon Pyre 15:41, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - You're on a fricken roll, alright... or is it that you're a fricken troll...? Whatever. Adding flavor to the soup? I'm hoping--but sadly, I know inside that this cannot be true, as the almighty forces of Logic, Reason, and Intellect do not bless you with their gifts very often... or ever, for that matter--that you might mean by your soup comment "adding bigger, thicker chunks to the piles of ailing vomit that I force frequenters of this board to create daily by looking at my suggestions." One can only hope that's what you meant, because everyone knows there's no other way to comprehend that statement logically. So... uhh... either cut the arroagnt bullshit, or... help us to retain some of our sanity and our lunches, ey? Destin Farloda 15:52, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -There is just something seriously wrong with your styling of your suggestions, this is a near dupe of a Jon Pyre suggestion. but unlike his, yours is just bad, And looks like it was written in a way to actually invite people to vote kill. If you want to see a way a suggestion should be written Copy the way Squashua used to format his Suggestions He was/is without a doubt the person who set the standard on how you should format a suggestion. Just don't try to be funny.--Vista 18:08, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep -Cool because I like that it saves ap so people dont have to do feeding groans and stuff. User:Adfjdjdk Adfjdjdk 1:56 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 2 Keep, 9 Kill, 0 Spam 18:50, 7 April 2006 (BST)

You know, I can't think of a good title.  :(

This suggestion has been Spaminated with Nine Spam/Dupe votes and Four Keep votes. --Grim s 11:16, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Nerf Grim, He Scares Me

This suggestion has been Spaminated, with 8 votes, 100% spam. I am leaving Zaruthustra's comment for you to see Undeadinator, and deleting the suggestion. It doesnt go to Peer Rejected because it isnt a suggestion, and not to humourous because it isnt funny. --Grim s 11:33, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Keep your inane jokes and petty flamewars off the voting area. Any further suggestions like this will be construed as vandalism. --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:50, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Oh gosh, so solly. In the future, I'll limit my vandalism to pointing out that this page has become the secret elephant burial grounds of retarded ideas. --Undeadinator 20:46, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

yes it fast becoming obsolete, thanks to people like you, If you don't like this page, leave and don't come back. It's just that simple We won't miss you, And thank you for admiting yourself that you are a vandal.--Vista 21:22, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
It is time for a change, we can all feel it. Decent ideas are being lost to people who delete the entire suggestion before it gets a full half day's vote even. Not that taking away true spam crap is a bad idea either, I think the main point is abuse is going on on both sides, even if you don't like an idea, don't remove it unless it is complete unusable crap not worth reading (spam, like lasers and dolphins and zombie hunting jesus), on the other side spam votes are being abused, by people who have not read (to the letter) the intended use of the spam vote. As it was laid down it should be followed, or at least considered. Balance, must maintain balance. Man I write a lot, logging off..--MrAushvitz 21:22, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

Edit website

This suggestion was so good it travelled back in time onto the peer reviewed page as Edit Profile, so it got removed as a dupe today

I wonder what this will do to causality...--Vista 17:28, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Change keep,Kill, and Spam votes

This page is for (serious) suggestions for Urban Dead game. Yours was neither. Take it to humorous or discussion. I would suggest humorous. --Brizth W! 17:10, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Actually I suggest posting it on Vandal banning, personal attacks upon wiki members don't belong on the suggestion page and for making one neither do you. Stop with the personal attacks against wiki members you childish lot. You aren't witty, you aren't funny. you are just annoying.--Vista 17:20, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Let the Light In

Timestamp: 20:54, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: General Building Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: Zombies hate smashing into heavily barricaded buildings. Survivors hate wasting days on searching. Can we make the game more enjoyable for both sides? I think we can.

Survivors are finding that the more time they spend holed up in the most secure safehouses, the more lethargic they become. On the other hand, survivors who stay in buildings with more sunlight and fresh air getting in gradually grow more alert and observant.

I propose a search rate bonus for survivors who spend time in buildings barricaded to Very Strong or less. For every hour a survivor spends in such a building, his game-wide search success rates will increase by 5% of the original amount. If finding a flak jacket was a 1% chance before, it'll be a 1.05% chance after taking in the fresher air of a less-than-heavily barricaded building. Each hour spent in these conditions adds another 5%, up to a maximum of 50% improvement over base search rates. Thus, 10 hours in a VSB (or less barricaded) building will get you rates roughly like these:

  • 15.5% to find a shotgun shell in the Mall gun store with Bargain Hunting (normally about 11%)
  • 10.5% to find a pistol clip in a Police Station (normally about 7%)
  • 9% to find a syringe in a Necrotech Building (normally about 6%)

Note that you don't have to expend any AP in a VSB buildling to get these search bonuses. You can rest in a VSB building overnight and come away with the 5%/hour bonus. Also note, again, that these bonuses are calculated proportionate to the original base rate. 50% extra on a 10% base search rate is 15%, not 60%.

Now, conversely, spending time in a building barricaded over VSB will gradually diminish these search bonuses, at the same intervals. After 10 hours in such a building, the survivor will be back to the "standard" search rates which all currently enjoy. There is thus no penalty to sleeping in a more heavily barricaded building, but a lot of incentive to sleep in targets more attractive to zombies.

Over a day of searching, a maxed-out 50% search bonus should save a survivor close to 20 AP. 20 AP is also, you'll notice, about how much AP a zombie has to expend to bring Extremely Heavy barricades down to the Very Strong level.

I believe this change would only help both sides. The only concern I can see is that this might increase the "pace" of the game by making survivors and zombies both more efficient. However, it's important to point out that not all survivors will take advantage of this feature all the time. Many will continue to sleep in Heavily, Very Heavily and Extremely Heavily barricaded buildings. However, for those willing to take the risk, this feature could provide a substantial bonus -- while cutting down on the tedium for both sides.

Edit for clarification: - The fact that resource buildings are already kept at VSB is not relevant to this suggestion. it doesn't matter how heavily barricaded the building you search in is. What matters is the barricade level of the building you rest in. I designed the suggestion that way precisely because it's not the resource buildings that get heavily barricaded. The goal is to encourage survivors to rest up in more vulnerable spots, regardless of where they go to do their ammo gathering.


  1. Keep - Author vote. I've been playing both survivor and zombie characters since last September. I believe this is my best suggestion for reducing the game's down time and putting the emphasis back on player-vs-player interaction. --John Ember 20:54, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Resource buildings aren't barricaded beyond VSB+2 anyways. Free syringe increase! - CthulhuFhtagn 21:06, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Yes, I know. Please see the clarification note. --John Ember 00:39, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill -Most resource buildings are barricaded to VS as it is, most people sleep in resource buildings. Zombies know that survivors sleep in resource buildings barricaded to VS. net benefit of your suggestion: A overpowering search for survivors (basis and balance of the most powerfull survivor skills) nothing at all for 95% of the zombies (who go after VS buildings filled with survivors exclusively already) I'm sorry to say that this would actually further the survivor/zombie devide--Vista 21:11, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It would be very hard to overpower search for survivors. Zombies don't care how well-armed a human is; they only care what it takes to get to him. The intent is to give survivors incentive to keep their resting safehouses at VSB, as well as the resource buildings. --John Ember 00:43, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • if zombies don't care about search rates then they are really braindead. Search rates determine how many times you can revive, how much damage you can heal, how many zombies you can effectively attack. How well you can hold out in a siege. Sieges aren't won or lost by hitting the barricade button, otherwise zombies whould never win. And except for caiger ones, zombies have won every other sieges I have heard of. Usually zombies win when after multiple break-ins suddenly survivors cant repell the horde anymore... Why is that? because they cant spend enough AP's on searching to maintain their structure of support. Searching determens if a threnchcoater can headshot 5 zombies in one go per week... or per day... Without a doubt are search odds the most important statistic for balancing the sides, far more then to hit percentages or even the barricade AP building/destruction cost. just because you don't see it doesn't mean it bloody well all-important. And the net benefit for zombies whould still be zero, as nobody dummy barricades to VS all zombies have to do is find VS barricades (+75% of all resource buildings?) I can understand what you are trying to do here, and I agree to it's purpose, unfortuneatly, this won't reach that purpose. And you know what: I wish that it whould. Because I'm just as bummed out as any about the zombie/survivor imbalance.--Vista W! 02:20, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I understand the problems your thinking about here, and its noble to try to fix 'em, but these other cats are right, resource buildings are the only thing below ehb some places. The mall idea has promise. If Malls were at VSB that would be neat. -Banana Bear4 00:19, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - For above reasons. But the title made me think of something else: Modify search success by the building's barricade level, more barricades means harder to search. A fueled generator lights up the building, so it could cancel out penalties. -Dashiva 00:32, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Good. I hate it when people just camp out in buildings. User:Adfjdjdk Adfjdjdk 1:56 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill Because survivors could sleep in a heavily barricaded building next door to a low barricade resource building. Plus there's already a reason not to overbarricade: it's harder to get back in. --Jon Pyre 01:53, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - This is exactly what the suggestion makes less likely, Jon. Sleeping in a heavily barricaded building gets you nothing. I really tried to make this clear in the suggestion itself. --John Ember 19:09, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I like it because I've suggested so many skills that boost search chances for certain circumstances, this one is much more fair. I'm sure you'll resubmit it with some modification, perhaps instead of a freebie for all survivors make it a skill to get the bonuses, makes sense! -MrAushvitza 1:56 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 3 Keep, 5 Kill, 0 Spam 18:49, 7 April 2006 (BST)

New Zombie Skills

Resubmitting when I work out the details an' specifics. --Cerebrus13 23:13, 18 March 2006 (GMT)