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

21st November, 2005 - VOTING ENDED: 5th-Dec-2005

Clicking on the gun in your inventory that you want to reload

Timestamp: 03:41, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Prolly Game Mechanics or something. Do I look like a programmer to you?
Scope: People with GUNS!
Description: While ambling across the city one day, I spot a zombie. Its my lucky day since im completely loaded down with clips, shells, shotguns, and pistols. After totally kicking its ass, I start with the ardous task of reloading my guns. I click on a pistol clip, and it is wasted on reloading a half empty pistol and leaving the completely empty pistol unreloaded. That got me thinking. That was a complete waste of ammo and I don't want it to happen again. Minor thing, but yeah... I suggest that instead of clicking on a clip to reload, you click on the gun you want to reload.


  • Keep Makes sense to me, though I shall soon make a suggestion that may render this one obsolete. --Zeek 04:24, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep i guess.. but its pretty useless, the gun with the least ammo is always reloaded. -- P0p0 05:24, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Actually when loading, a pistol clip will always go into an empty pistol if there's one. Only if all your pistols have some bullets left in them, then what you're describing will occur. What I'd like to see, but have been too lazy to suggest is a 'Redistribute ammunition' button which will concentrate all left bullets in as few pistols as possible, for 1 AP. Madalex 13:31, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Minor things are the things that actually make me happy and get in the game. --Zaruthustra 16:14, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love my checkboxes. Idea: Checkboxes on weapon, button "Reload selected weapon." --Fixen 20:08, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill See my Reload suggestion. This is a bad knock-off. --Vellin 20:34, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill IMHO, this is diffrent then the reload suggestion, as its smaller and dumbed down a little, so it shouldn't be removed. However, that dosen't make it a good idea, as the author clearly didn't understand that his bullets get loaded into guns that are empty allready. your ammo is not wasted--Spellbinder 01:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: Your forgetting Spellbinder that in my suggestion, i suggest that Kevan fix the code to stop reloading if all guns are full.(Note: A pistol is full if it has any bullets in it, but a shotty is only full if it has 2 shots in it for obvious reasons.) --Vellin 01:48, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill having to pick gun is extra trouble I don't want to be bothered with --Thorbrian 04:58, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Change it so that the reload automatically goes to the gun with the fewest bullets, without player selection. This is one of the few times I think the server should do the players work. --Dickie Fux 18:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Reloads only go into an empty gun. --Nov 10:55, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nothing wrong with this, but the items need to be uniquely ID'd programatically in the HTML Form. --Squashua 19:52, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moving diagonally should cost 1.5 AP

Timestamp: 03:49, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: all players
Description: Since the diagonal of a square is rougly one and a half times one of its side, and it costs 1 AP to move up, down, left, and right. So moving diagonally should cost 1.5 APs. 3 APs for zombies.


  • Kill Fixed your thing btw. And no. This needlessly overcomplicates things. And besides, does reloading a gun take as much effort as walking? No, so shouldn't reloading be like 0.5 AP? No. Besides, your 3 AP suggestion just makes the life of the average shitbrained zombie much harder. --AllStarZ 03:59, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Eh, no. What AllStarZ said, too. Bentley Foss 04:36, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you were going to do this, it would make more sense to have it be sqrt(2) AP per diagonal move anyway. --Lucero Capell 05:22, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill above reasons -- P0p0 05:25, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I sympathise with the (rounded) maths of this, but as far as I know this game currently doesn't work with half AP, and it'd be a drag to include in the code. At least, I reckon such. Not much of an effort, but too much for this add-on. Technically, there's a lot of things "wrong" with diagonal movement beyond just the AP usage, but I happen to like the tactics with it. Not just in this game, either. -pinkgothic 12:10, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is only a mathematical thing- it makes no sense in game terms, though. Especially since it would be a bugger to work out 1/2 action points- what happens if you are left with only half an action point? --Andrew McM 12:51, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Only makes sense from a mathematical perspective - the square areas are probably something of an abstraction anyway. Moving diagonally, with the way the city is laid out and the AP system, isessential for mobility throughout Malton. --Snikers 14:27, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Nuff' said. Madalex 14:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Dont screw with AP. How would you feel if you had half an AP left? thats just wrong. --ThunderJoe 17:18, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM - AP is not relative... you don't take the same time to fire a pistol or talking or walking. PS: +root2 is approx 1.412 that is even more wrong.... ("and then i noticed that i had only .688 points left and i said") --Adrian 18:06, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Aside from the complete impracticality, by the pythagorean theorem, moving diagonally should take sqrt(2) AP's, which is 1.412...who wants to keep track of that? --Fixen 20:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM On the Talk page it was already said: "Don't mess with AP!" --Carfan7 23:50, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill i dunno about you, but when i move i have a full 360 degrees of movement. some mathmatical figure too if you count i can jump in the Y axis too--Spellbinder 01:08, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't think it's worth implement the concept of half AP for this. --Seagull Flock 14:51, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM you cant have half an AP --Deathnut 04:38, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not necessary. --Dickie Fux 18:57, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -can't have a half XP, cant have a half AP--Heamo 13:01, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM -- Fourth Spam... should be deleted. --Nov 10:56, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. Consider the 8 surrounding blocks as circular distance. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

loadout affecting movement

Timestamp: 03:49, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance
Scope: survivors (zombies too, but less)
Description: The more things you carry the slower you go. Since weight makes you heavy. Makes sense. If you have 50 shotguns on your, would you really be going as fast as a guy carrying nothing? Just take what you need.


  • Spam Is there a suggestion here? --LouisB3 04:01, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Admirable idea, but how to put into this game? Wait, is there a rule book on what you shouldn't mess with on suggestions? Oh well. In any case, dont suggest anything that messes with AP or movement too much. --AllStarZ 04:05, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Eh, no. Again. What they said. Bentley Foss 04:37, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- P0p0 09:32, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill K.I.S.S. Madalex 14:29, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Your items get stored in the land of infinite space. The same as toyboxes in resident evil and solid snake's magic gun holsters. Seriously, this is a good example of creating a flavor suggestion with blatant disregard for the actual mechanical consequences. --Zaruthustra 16:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - FInd me a way of dumping the extra rubbish faster; and then it'll be considerable...Good idea though. --Adrian 18:04, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Counterexample: All anime girls carry a huge mallet somewhere behind their backs for male bashing. Don't ask. --Fixen 20:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - They've already said it all. But, for the sake of saying it anyway: stop trying to turn survivors into ridiculously easy prey. Bentley Foss 21:43, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill at first i was going to back Zaruthustra, but really, Fixen has a MUCH better example--Spellbinder 01:09, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too vague. Maybe worth refining. --Seagull Flock 14:52, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM - Well what is your sugestion --Deathnut 04:39, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Would probably be too complicated to bother. Needs specific details. Needs caps in title. --Dickie Fux 19:00, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM -- Vague. --Nov 10:57, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think that instead there should be greater restrictions on the # of items you can carry. 2-3 shotguns, maximum. -Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Bulletin Board

Timestamp: 03:52, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: location / action
Scope: communications and environmental interaction
Description: Certain locations (programmers choice, I think monuments seem a likely place) would have "there is an improvised bulletin board covered with flyers, notes, and pictures" in their description. Such locations would also offer survivors a new action choice; leaving a message, or reading messages. Leaving a message would allow a short text to be added to that locations list of messages, and reading messages would let you see ALL messages left by other survivors. Zombies obviously could not leave messages (they can't use pencil and paper) but it might be OK to let them read them; they can read graffiti now, and it seems lame to rob them if such a big feature is added.


  • Kill Redundant. Dont we already have tagging? --AllStarZ 04:08, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Agreed. Need multiple messages? Use multiple buildings. It's not like a bulletin board is in-genre anyway. --LouisB3 04:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Above users apparently did not read original post, or do not understand that tagging removes all previous tags; this suggestion is designed to allow ongoing, multiple, durable, interactive (question and response) "tags", while negating the server load that would result if those messages were displayed frequently. --Swiers 04:31, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill thats what the wiki is for, and grafitti -- P0p0 05:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: The wiki is a non-roleplay metagame source of info, and not very effective for in game player-to-public communications. Graffiti is not conducive to any sort of dialouge or history. --Swiers 01:34, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Provided you had to find a pencil or a pen to use it, and people or zombies could destroy them, no problem. More sense to have them indoors, though! --Jim Bubba 13:46, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: I figured the writing implement and paper came from the same place food and water does; so ubiquitous, its not a searched item. I'd considered thier destruction, but you can't loot bodies or do a lot of realistic things, so durable messages don't seem to wierd. I also figured being outside, there would be no way to defend them. If they were inside buildings (maybe office towers- lots of paper and pens there) I could see folks defending the building and keeping them around long enough to be useful. --Swiers 01:34, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very useful, particularly if multiple people want to leave messages at the same place. Trying to pass messages with tagging is prone to disruption by griefers - if I graffiti a message for Mr. X's Zombie-Hunting Party at St. Mary's Church in Pitneybank, any dork can come along and spraypaint something over it, thus obliterating the message I left. However, with a bulletin board, I could leave a message for Mr. X and Mr. Y could leave one for Mr. Z. Ford's in his flivver, and bulletin boards = teh win. --John Taggart 13:52, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'd rather see a use for the mobiles along this lines. Madalex 14:31, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: (I know only the original author is supposed to Re, but . . . ) Why not have both? Leave a message for Mr. X and company at St.Swithun's Church, and then call Mr. X on the cell and tell him "Hey, I left a message for your group on the bulletin board at St. Swithun's." Also, bulletin boar5ds could be used for announcements from various groups - for example, The New Maltonian Dynasty is planning to attack the zombie horde besieging Caiger Mall in one week's time. All available combat and medical personnel are requested to rendezvous with us at the intersection of Boland Way and Luttrell Heights Road. --John Taggart 14:44, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

AllStarZ's Response Simply phone the people. Tell them to go to a certain building. spraypaint message in short form like so: planning attack on caiger mall, reinforcements meet at Boland Way

  • Keep - I have no idea about how it could be implemented, but I like the idea. --Seagull Flock 14:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Seems pretty realistic and in-theme, actually. Just needs a max limit on number of messages, with oldest removed first. --Dickie Fux 19:04, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Use the Wiki/Forums for OOC and the SprayCan/Phone for IC. --Nov 10:58, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would prefer to see a graffiti history. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Powered Buildings Search

Timestamp: 0500 GMT, November 21, 2005
Type: Item Utilization, Search Probability
Scope: Survivors
Description: Powered Buildings Search
  • Function: When a search is conducted in a building that is powered by a generator, the probability of finding an item is increased by a small percentage (perhaps 2.5%) to be determined by Kevan at implementation.
    • Does not alter search mechanics beyond probability: This would not affect what sort of items you could find in a given building type, and this would not affect buildings where nothing could be found normally (i.e. the percentage would not increase from 0% to 2.5%).
    • Proposal doesn't require "2.5%": Please note that the proposal DOES NOT definitively resolve that the search bonus would be 2.5%, but rather, holds only that Kevan would determine the percentage bonus (2.5% is used illustratively rather than conclusively). So please do not vote against this on account of not liking the 2.5% number, as this is not part of the proposal. Though feel free to vote against it for any other meritorious reason.
  • Reasons to Implement:
    • Adds Function to Form: At present, in addition to installing generators in hospitals and utilizing the "Surgery" skill, survivors can also install generators in non-hospital buildings, but this latter use has no practical effect beyond adding a little flavor to the game via the message that "the lights are on"--this proposal would complement flavor with functionality.
    • Does not appreciably alter the balance of power: Portable Gens like anything else are finite, discrete resources that people have to find and install (and power via fuel). The nominal AP saved by survivors via having a 2.5% (or other small amount to be determined by Kevan) increased chance of a successful search is counterbalanced by the AP and effort that must be expended to find, install and fuel a generator in a building. The overall benefit to survivors is nominal at best, and the concomitant potential detriment to zombies will be correspondingly trivial. Further, the generators are able to be destroyed and thus its effect will always be reversible.
    • "Realism"/Role Play: It makes sense that a person searching a building that is well lit will be, on balance, more successful in finding items than a person who is searching a building that is dark.


  • Keep I find it silly that authors vote on their own proposals, but as this seems to be something that is generally done, I won't buck the trend. --SCOS OJ 0500 GMT, November 21, 2005
  • Keep logical, and helpful.. but not game-breaking -- P0p0 05:29, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Good addition to the current limited functionality of the portagens. --akum6n 0530 GMT, November 21, 2005
  • Keep - Makes sense, and adds to the richness of the game. - KingRaptor 06:14, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice stuff all-around. -CWD 08:16, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Well worked out, simple and sane. -pinkgothic 12:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Smart, well described. --Jim Bubba 13:47, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, great idea. --LibrarianBrent 13:58, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Kevan is probably in a state of creative glee right now, coming up with all the things he can implement that his generators have opened up for him. If this wasn't suggested here, it'd probably have come about sooner or later anyway. --Snikers 14:39, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Only minor nitpick that one might have is that hospital would gain two benefits from having a generator. Madalex 14:46, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - True, though it would then become that much more of a target for zombies since they can see from the street whether or not a hospital (or any other building) is powered. There is already a substantial risk for survivors to install a generator as it is tantamount to a giant sign outside the building proclaiming "ATTENTION ZOMBIES! HUMANS INSIDE HERE!"
  • Keep - Well thought out, well-argued, and it makes sense. Brava. X1M43 16:45, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You had me on your first paragraph. Well done. --ThunderJoe 17:21, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Do I really need to write a reason? I like it. And enough has been said. Monstah 17:51, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Here comes the light. --Adrian 18:02, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Above. Kabosh! --Steve 18:29, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A well thought out idea that makes sense in both roleplaying and game mechanic, whilst also not overbalancing the survivor side. Well done, a great idea all round. You seriously don't see many of them about. --Andrew McM 18:32, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - How many more until it passes?--MaulMachine 13:58, 21 Nov 2005 (EST)
  • Keep - For reasons stated above. --Mendel 20:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep! - illumination = +search % idea that works! I'm so happy. --Fixen 20:16, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keepity keep keep keep! - I say this ought to automagically pass! --John Taggart 20:52, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Well written, and simply brillant. Great idea! Jonesy 21:16, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well planned and well written. I sincerely hope this is implemented. - Xamnam 21:33, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It doesn't need my vote, but it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to vote for it. --Shadowstar 23:52, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Creative and useful. :P --Carfan7 23:53, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's good. --Otona 00:08, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's good. --Spellbinder 01:32, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's good. --Biscuit 02:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's good. --Ringseed2 3:01, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Brilliant and Sensibly designed --Thorbrian 5:01, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. --Seagull Flock 14:54, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The bonus would have to be small, like you suggested. --Dickie Fux 19:09, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Excellent suggestion. I like it. AllStarZ 02:29, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Going with the flow, but make the increase even smaller, say 0.5 to 1%. --Nov 11:01, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it but unlike what the others are saying, I say make it a larger chance of succes, I mean Genrators are somewhat hard to come across and the hardness of finding is hard as well(all zombies know this and laugh ot survivors) Crovax oddlot 9:33, 27 Nov 2005
  • Keep - What more can I say?
  • Keep - I thought I already voted on this. Riktar 09:01, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes powering a non-hospital have a reason. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Set buildings on fire & fire extinguisher

Deleted with 3 spam votes. Rehash of a previous (and arguably better) suggestion. --Zaruthustra 16:08, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Extra Initial XP for Consumers

Timestamp: 06:45, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: XP modification, class modification
Scope: Consumers (obviously)
Description: Currently, Consumers are widely acknowledged to be the weakest starting class, since they start with a completely useless item and a skill which doesn't significantly improve their ability to earn XP. I propose that Consumers be given 50 XP when they start off, to help alleviate their terrible XP gain rate.

Flavor reasoning: People in real life have all kinds of hobbies and activites. Some take up martial arts, some do woodworking, some study first aid, others go to the gym, and a few go shooting. The extra starting XP represents the civilian's limited experience in the field of their choice - not enough to make a significant difference, but they'll be able to learn a given skill faster than someone who has no experience in said skill.


  • Keep - Author voting for own suggestion. - KingRaptor 06:45, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- J Random 09:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't think consumers have necessary a terrible XP gain rate. They have shopping to start with which means they can search for FAK without getting newspapers. Also, other people besides Consumers have also hobbies. Madalex 14:50, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it. Makes a nice 'balanced' starting calss. Would old Customers get a one-time 50XP bonus? - Skarmory 15:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Random XP handouts are not the way to balance things. Plus once the power goes on, which seems imminent, it won't be useless at all. --Zaruthustra 16:05, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Say it with me: survivor classes should not be homogeneous. This is just one of the drawbacks of being a particular class. Bentley Foss 19:50, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Scouts are even worse off, though they start off safer than the other classes. --Shadowstar 19:56, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you're going to give consumers extra XP to start, why not everyone else? Consumers (and scouts) are just inherently poor starting classes. Don't take them if you can't handle it.--Mendel 20:15, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Some classes are harder to level than others. That's the way it's intended to be. What kind of thing would a 50 XP handout represent in-game, other than a crutch for the weak? --Otona 00:10, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with all of the other arguments above, especially Maladex's. Shopping is a great starting skill! --Biscuit 02:58, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Starting as a Consumer is a challenge for UD lovers. Let's keep it like this. --Seagull Flock 14:55, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think it's that much of a problem. --Dickie Fux 19:16, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Why are consumers singled out? Why not give extra XP to zombies too? --Nov 11:04, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No comment. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Cling

Timestamp: 06:39, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: zombie skill
Scope: zombies
Description: As a subset to the ankle grab skill, zombies can spend 10AP and cling onto a survivor to slow down their prey.

The zombie may then only use the bite attack. Any other action would result in the zombie falling off of the survivor. When a survivor has a zombie attached to them, they are hindered, and as such all actions require an extra AP point. For example, an effected survivor must spend an extra AP point to drag themselves to the next building. They must spend an extra AP point to try to free their hands enough to club the zombie with a bat, stab the zombie with a knife, shoot the zombie with a guns, etc.

If the survivor is able to drag themselves 5 spaces, the zombie falls off of them. If the survivor is able to damage the zombie 5 or more hitpoints, the zombie falls off of them. Multiple zombies may not cling on the same survior.

In other words, zombies can slow down the stragglers fleeing a zombie mob, but the stragglers would not be buried under a mountain of undead.


  • Keep - a standby in the (admittedly few) zombie movies I've seen. I say vote yes! Vote yes! Vote yes for the zombie cling! (with apologies to Sherman Edwards and William Daniels). --John Taggart 14:15, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill So basically, others hitting the clinging zombie can unload massive amounts of damage on it and it will cling to the victim, but if the victim manages 5 damage it falls off? Madalex 14:55, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • I would tend to think not, myself - after all, there's a risk that they might hit the person the zombie's clinging to. --John Taggart 15:18, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Some suggestions like woundwalking almost overcome my violent instinct to kill AP lowering suggestions.... This comes nowhere close. --Zaruthustra 16:33, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I got to agree with Zarthustra. --ThunderJoe 17:24, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nah. I like the idea of a zombie clinging to a victim, but not that way. --Monstah 17:53, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM - Psst ever tried kicking them off? Too crazy for words. sorry --Adrian 18:14, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - A zombie that close to a veteran survivor makes for an easy headshot. --VoidDragon 19:05, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - *shoots and hits zombie repeatedly because it's right around my legs* --Fixen 20:18, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Honestly I prefer the already suggested Paralytic Bite. This is an unnecessary extension, IMO. --Seagull Flock 14:58, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The basic idea of zombies grappling survivors is good, but this is too complicated. It should be some type of one-time effect. --Dickie Fux 19:21, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM -- This is too funny to be a serious suggestion. --Nov 11:05, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like grapple, but I don't care for the mechanics here. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Firing range - Fort enhancement

Timestamp: 09:53, November 21 2005, (GMT)
Type: XP
Scope: Forts, firearms
Description: A number of suggestions have been made to make forts more attractive, perhaps this one might work.

The idea is the addition of a 'firing range' to the fort. Anyone with a firearm can 'attack' the range with the normal penalties to hit and gain reduced XP (say half) after a succesful hit. Lower level characters will be drawn to forts for the 'safe' xp and higher levels characters will have more incentive to hold a fort.

Unfortunately this is getting shot down for the wrong reasons so I've obviously not fleshed it out enough.

  • Change - Additional interaction with fort, akin to Hospitals for medics and Malls for items.
  • Justification
    • Forts are prestige only areas, a training facility would draw more players to them.
    • Forts would not be easier to hold and would make even beter targets for Zed's (Zed's need targets).
    • The XP gain would be marginal, but low level characters could work on their guns skills in a relatively safe environment.After the initial gain of XP there is little incentive to shoot bullets at a target with all the Zed's outside.
  • RP Potential- Forts (both of them)now become more barrack-like; a proving ground for those unskilled in firearms. A well organised (militant) group could use forts to rally and train the survivors in the area.


  • Kill - Who would want to waste ammo for half XP? Especially when they'll need that ammo to try to keep the zombie hordes out - it's already essentially impossible for survivors to hold a fort, can you imagine how many zombies would show up if there was encouragement for vulnerable, low-level characters to be inside? Interesting idea, but it would probably backfire. Everyl 14:07, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - The idea is to make forts more of an incentive, but not unbalance the game in the process. I don't think making forts harder to take will help the game, instead am looking for a way to make them more interesting for players, hence the XP farm idea which is only really usefull to low-levs as they get the XP without the risk, but have to invest the time (ammo searching).--7voltjolt 14:38, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The game is about surviving, not about having a risk-free life. Madalex 15:01, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If I want to practise my shooting, I use the zombies outside. - KingRaptor 15:19, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Or the people inside. >:) --Zaruthustra 16:02, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Now I know to leave when Zaruthustra enters the building. --ThunderJoe 17:26, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like the idea of "safe" XP gain. Bentley Foss 19:48, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Think about it: If a zombie's not logged on, it's just like your everyday "safe" target range. For double the XP of the range. --Fixen 20:20, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author's vote I feel compelled to vote as no-one seems to have given a kill without some thought.
    • This is not safe xp (this why I used 'safe'): the fort will be a target
    • This is not about getting better at shooting without having to shoot zeds: rather giving people the illusion they have some to shoot at instead of zed's (or people) don't forget, only in forts
    • This idea is comparable to a medic (or FAK stacked player) sitting in a hospital and healing all day long, only more time consuming, but it gives the fort more of a reason to exist, not sidestepping zed's, not free xp, just a way of getting forts back in the game.
      • </rant> --7voltjolt 22:14, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Plenty of zombies to kill around forts anyways, so this sounds pretty useless --McArrowni 01:23, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Plenty of zombies to kill *everywhere* anyway, so this is pretty useless. --Biscuit 03:00, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not terrible theoretically, but too powerful. Maybe only works if you don't have any firearms skills, so that once you bought one, you could no longer earn XP there. --Dickie Fux 19:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Going with the flow. --Nov 11:05, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- While beefing up forts is a good idea, this isn't going to help. Survivors already have enough ways to get XP and, as someone else pointed out, why would you want to waste ammo? --Pesatyel 20:43, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - 50% chance of gaining 1 XP per successful shot would not unbalance things. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Carry Comrade

Timestamp: 12:31 PM, November 21, 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill, Subskill
Scope: Military, Firemen, Characters with Body Building skill
Description: This would be different then previously mentioned Drag Survivor skill. It would allow you to carry another living character who is asleep (logged off). The restrictions would be as follows:

1) Only Military and Firemen or characters with the Bodybuilding skill can carry others.

2) It costs 3 AP to move while carrying, and takes up 2 (maybe more) item slots. Extra items must be dumped. Perhaps Military and Firemen WITH Body Building skill can carry someone for 2 AP per move.

3) All other actions besides movement are prohibited.

4) Zombies/corpses cannot be carried.

5) Characters who are being carried are automaticly "set down" if their player logs in. Conversely, characters who run out of AP while carrying automaticly "set down" the other character.

6) ONLY people who have added the skill-holder to their contact list can be carried. This prevents griefer abuse, or alternately, carries a penalty for stupidly placing trust in the wrong person.

7) Characters cannot carry/be carried by characters logged in from the same IP address (perhaps. This would prevent multi-abuse or "muling")

Reasoning: Firemen are trained rescue personnel, prepared to carry the unconscious out of burning buildings. The military are trained to rescue/carry the wounded (usually two rescuers per wounded, though) and not to leave a fellow soldier behind. In terms of gameplay, its unreasonable to assume that If I was fully capable of rescuing an incapacitated friend from imminent danger (such as a zombie breach) that I would leave him or her to die because he was exhausted or merely "sleeping". In terms of mechanics, the amount of AP or item slots are open to change.


  • Keep - Although I believe this sort of thing's been suggested before, this is by far the best-thought-out version I've seen. --John Taggart 14:10, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And what's to stop "helpful" spies and cultists from carrying me out of my safehouse and leaving me to the zombies? Everyl 14:17, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If our safehouse got overrun, I'd want my buddies to haul me out instead of leaving me to die. - KingRaptor 14:22, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unforseen consequence - two characters that agree to help each other out gain the equivalent of 100 AP. Ms. A will carry Mr. B for 50 AP, and then Mr. B will carry Ms. A for 50 AP. Now, this is only if they're intent on moving, so this is an exaggerated example, but you still get 'free' AP in any circumstance. --Snikers 14:45, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - (I'm the Author, but I endorse the other "Re") "It costs 3 AP to move while carrying" and "All other actions besides movement are prohibited". Even if two characters help each other, the first spends a days actions just carrying, while the other has no control of where she's going. The first might move 16 blocks before he "times out", 24 if he's a built fireman. And he's useless for anything else. Besides, whats wrong with players cooperating? Thats not cheating, thats teamwork.--Iconoplast 15:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Too complex. E.g. I don't think the game keeps track as what class you started, and as this is a skill, why shouldn't others not be able to learn it. Also, logging in doesn't mean necessarily having AP to act. etc etc Madalex 15:06, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I use my contact list to notice people who've PKed me when they are in zombie form (Yeah, okay, I hold grudges). I don't want to lose that ability because they get a skill they can use to grief if I keep them on my list. --Shadowstar 20:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complex and vulnerable to abuse. --Fixen 20:21, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I do agree that this proposal is imperfect but I really like the idea.
  • Kill I keep my enemies on my contact list as well as my friends. For that and other reasons (such as characters only really being asleep for a half hour, difficulty of implementation), ixnay! Slicer 00:41, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill What slicer said. Also, I find the choice of firemen and military arbitrary, especially when they are already favored classes --McArrowni 01:25, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill your system would require a re-write of the entire contacts list. hell, me personaly i have more enemys on my contact list then i do FRIENDS! it keeps me from reviveing them.--Spellbinder 01:41, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam This is a duplicate suggestion. --ALIENwolve 01:43, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would vote Spam but this is moderately different from the others. However, it's waaaay too open to abuse and you'd have to write a lot of special cases for it to work. See the Discussions page and what I wrote about "No Pied Piper Skills" for my reasoning. Bentley Foss 03:52, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM - duplicate sugestion --Deathnut 04:42, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I vote keep for the skill, but Kevan will probably vote kill for the coding issues. --Dickie Fux 19:29, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Way too complicated. --Nov 11:06, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It would need another way to avoid griefing. As people have said, some people use contact lists to keep track of PKers. Of course, maybe if there was another list added specifically for griefers? But that's only assuming... nevertheless, it sounds okay. Also some other personal ideas: Maybe make it cost extra AP to climb up and down buildings, or through barricades, and still only 1AP across street blocks. And of course free running would not be usable. Should probably be class-indendent, but given as a fireman skill. Maybe make it so it only works on people in your Group? Would limit its effectiveness on survivors passing by. Riktar 02:40, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Create a more generic "carry body" skill/ability. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 14:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Change
Scope: Wounded Surivors
Description: Just a random idea to make chasing Survivors more viable and 'hunting trips' out of safehouses more dangerous. Simply, any Survivor at or under 25HP (bodybuilding or not) must spend 2AP to move, just as if he was a zombie without Lurching Gait. - Skarmory


  • Kill - Sensible, sane, but seriously broken. --Snikers 14:52, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Even if I were to follow your logic, is there a particular brilliant reason why this would apply only to Survivors? Madalex 15:08, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A good idea that would seriously mess with survivors. Maybe add something to counteract this? Give scientists the ability to cauterize wounds or something. --Zaruthustra 15:54, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Has a future.. but the percentage is too large (50% and you'r walking almost dead?) good idea though .. i think just revise it a tad--Adrian 17:57, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. Might apply for zombies with lurching gait too, for balance purposes. Monstah 18:01, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Everybody say it with me now: messing with APs is bad. Bentley Foss 19:19, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Gotta love how this would stack with Infections--Spellbinder 01:43, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree with Monstah. Make this a wounded/rotted consequence as it is far to easy for a survivor with little HP to get healed up to full by fellow survivors - at least make the fleeing of injured a challenge. Adds options for attacking (ie. attacking to kill for XP or attacking to disrupt the enemy). Jean Gregoire 02:01, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - even though I'm a bit concerned for the game balance. I say keep, but only if this is valid for zombies with Lurching Gait too as Monstah suggested. --Seagull Flock 15:05, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The main reason is that when someone gets rivived they start out with 25 HP AND an infection. With this added on it would be nearly imposiable for a survivor to find a safe house and not die. - Jedaz 23:52, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - brings game to an unbalance --Deathnut 04:44, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Makes sense themeatically, but too harsh on nearly dead players. I don't think it needs to apply to zombies, though; they're already dead, how much more injured can they get? --Dickie Fux 19:33, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Stack this with Infection and survivors might die before they reach a safehouse. --Nov 11:10, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm all for this. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The Mindless Hordes

Timestamp: 14:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Unplayed Zombies
Description: This has been done to death, but here's my stab at 'what to do with bodies that litter our streets'. Introducing, the mindless hordes!

1) How to become a Hordeling: Every half hour (AP gain time) the server checks timers on dead bodies. If one has died 72 hours or more ago, it now gets up as a Hordeling.

2) What is a Hordeling: A Hordeling is, for all intents and purposes, a lvl 1 Zombie. It will only report as being one of the "Mindless Hordes" if tagged, does not gain (nor lose if headshot) XP, and does not benefit from equipement other then flak jackets and skills except Vigour Mortis and Scent Fear.

3) How a Hordeling acts: Unlike players, Hordelings do not stockpile as much AP, but use it as they gain them, every half-hour. They are controlled by a relatively simple AI. Go from top to bottom ('wait' means remain passive until AP gain or a survivor is detected):

Upon gaining 1AP:

-If Survivor in same square, attack.

-If Horde Leader (see below) in neighboring square, move to that square.

-If Survivor in neighboring square, wait.

-If no non-Horde Zombie in same square but non-Horde Zombie in neighboring square, wait.

-If building barricaded, claw, if no, wait.

Between 1 and 2 AP:

-If Survivor enters square, attack.

-If Horde Leader enters neighboring square, move to that square.

Upon gaining 2AP:

-If Survivor in neighboring square, wait.

-If Horde Leader in neighboring square, move to that square.

-If non-Horde Zombie in neighboring square, move to that square.

Between 2 and 3 AP:

-If Survivor enters square, attack.

-If Horde Leader in neighboring square, move to that square.

-If non-Horde Zombie enters neighboring square, move to that square.

Upon gaining 3 AP:

-If Survivor in neighboring square, move to that square and attack, if not, move towards nearest Flare fired within the last 2 hours and/or nearest Horde Leader, whichever is closer, of in random direction if neither within neighboring suburbs.

That's it for the AI. A Hordeling will attack randomly with claw or teeth, and will select a random survivor as a target. If it has Scent Fear, it will attack low HP targets before high HP ones.

4) How to unbecome a Hordeling? - If you log in on a Hordeling character, that character immediatelly falls dead, and you may stand up as normal.- Anything I omitted? -- Skarmory


  • Kill - The reason that this has been done to death (no pun intended) and never been implemented is that the first victim of these zombies will be the hapless server. --Snikers 15:02, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - zerg kingdom here we come, no thanks! also, what snikers said --7voltjolt 15:07, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill R.I.P. Madalex 15:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I Think it could be a nice addition, it would fix the lack of zombies, and make the streets a little unsafe, seriously how scary is it at the moment to see a feild of zombies at every square and know that if theyre lucky only one or two of them had actually logged on in the last few days... I know it would put a hurt to the servers but it would up the risks dramatically which is honestly a good thing... I understand no person wants to see there people in danger but come on its a playground compared to most movies... and this would also solve a bit of the problem with barricades in home across the city, with the extra zombies attacking them they wouldnt have this problem... Ringseed2 15:11, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies != zerglings. Close I know, but this is just broken on lots of levels. --Zaruthustra 15:56, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm already working on an upgraded, simplified version.
  • Kill - I try not to kill things solely because of their strain on the server, but this time I must. To be honest, I really like this idea a little. But this puts a lot more strain on the server than most suggestions I've seen. X1M43 16:57, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So, let me get this straight: if I don't log on for three days, my character immediately gets up and starts running around. It automatically blows all my stockpiled AP and potentially drives me around town, so the next time I log in, I have no AP and could be halfway across the city. Then I must pretty much wait for 25 hours to regenerate my AP and play again? No, no, no. Say it with me now: making characters automatically do things while the player is offline is bad. (continued a few minutes later, after re-reading the suggestion) Er, wait, this suggestion makes no sense whatsoever. You say that the Hordeling spends AP as soon as it's gained, but in your list of actions, you have conditions dependent upon having 2 or more AP available. And unless you really want to add yet another field to the character files (amount of AP before character became Hordeling) then yes, your Hordeling would spend all their available AP. I'm sorry, but this one stinks. Bentley Foss 19:24, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Re while I agree that the idea isn't the best, I said that the Hordeling doesn't use up AP. The moment you log on, you are dead with 50 AP, and may stand up as normal.
  • Kill Zed stands for ZOMBIE, not ZERGER! Too much cheating possibility. --Shadowstar 20:06, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A fun idea, but what's to stop someone from creating hundreds and hundreds of hordelings? It's not against the rules to create a bunch of characters, just to play a bunch yourself. --Mendel 20:23, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill NO! (Takes suggestion, tapes it against the wall, takes out a rifle, and puts it out of its misery). Now, as I have said countless times before, no NPCs. This is essentially a NPC, and NPCs are not supposed to exist in this. Besides, the human/zombie ratio isn't that bad. I think its more like 3:2 at the moment. Anyways, humans are scattered. Zombies tend to concentrate in large gobs. Largest gob ive ever seen yet is composed of about 52 zombies. AllStarZ 01:05, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I like this. as soon as this gets into the peer rejected page, the FUN you can have when deleating ideas like this. oh, what a friend you are to the beating stick--Spellbinder 01:46, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill See kill comments from "Mob Leader" suggestion of a few days ago. --Frobozz 22:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I could create fifty zombie accounts every day, and they'd all be roaming on AI a few days later. And, let players play the game, not the server. --Dickie Fux 19:40, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the concept. It's unfortunate that this will be killed. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Horde Leader

Timestamp: 14:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill, addendum to above
Scope: Hordelings (see above)
Description: A level 10+ Zombie skill, Horde Leader makes a Zombie a beacon for Hordelings. They favor him over other Zombies, and gain Lurching Gait if within one square of a Leader. - Skarmory


  • Kill Even adds more complexity to the previous suggestion. Madalex 15:10, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not to mention this is a chained suggestion. We should make chaining suggestions an insta-delete condition. (I know I'm pulling a Cato on this, and I'm going to keep it up. Delenda est chained suggestions!) --Zaruthustra 16:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wow...Zaruthustra knows Roman history and Latin! :) - KingRaptor 16:36, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.. but only once ;) PS: you get up.. and you find that your character has walked on its own?--Adrian 17:56, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)!
  • Kill - What do you think this is, WarCraft III? --ThunderJoe 18:11, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If only it was, ThunderJoe, if only it was, *sigh* --Andrew McM 19:02, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Say it with me now: making characters automatically do things while their players are offline is bad. Bentley Foss 19:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - *says it with Bentley*: "Making characters automatically do things while their players are offline is bad." --John Taggart 20:29, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - *says it with Bentley and John Taggart*: "Making characters automatically do things while their players are offline is bad." Not much else to say other than that. --Volke 23:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - *says it with Bentley and John Taggart and Volke*: "Making characters automatically do things while their players are offline is bad."--Spellbinder 01:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Already shown my disapprovement of the thing above. So you can guess what my answer is. BTW, Skarmony, stop putting your name at the bottom of your suggestions. It is bound to discredit future work and attract nasty comments in your mytalk section. AllStarZ 02:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill See kill comments from "Mob Leader" suggestion of a few days ago. --Frobozz 22:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Let players play the game, not the server. --Dickie Fux 19:42, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- *says it with everyone above*: "Making characters automatically do things while their players are offline is bad." --Nov 11:11, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't like this idea, though. Next time lump them all together. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Mobile Phone Text Messaging

Timestamp: 16:04, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item Utilization
Scope: Mobile Phones
Description: Ability to 'send a text' to someone in your contact list, they must have a mobile phone to be able to do this. If the intended recipient has no phone then an error could be returned such as 'Unknown number'. Or to save that hassle the contact list could have a small icon next to their names that depicts a mobile phone.

The text could be limited to 255 characters, or less.


  • Kill - I'm pretty sure this is what the phone is going to do already, since you can't answer the phone in real time. --Zaruthustra 16:07, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For exactly the same reason. -- Skarmory 16:24, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I will have to go with keep on this one. It gives a use for the phone, and I think that that should add a little flavor to the game. Edit: Oh forgot to sign it. --ThunderJoe 19:34, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It is kind of a dumb suggestion, since the very inclusion of mobile phones in the game means Kevan probably planned on implementing something like this eventually; nevertheless, since I think it would be a good idea, I'm voting keep. X1M43 18:18, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just to show Kevan there's interest in an addition like this to the game, perhaps he shuffles it a little bit up on his todo list. Madalex 22:07, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - for the same reason as Madalex. --Seagull Flock 15:09, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Please pay attention. This is a great idea. But, with the mobile phone masts up, it is no longer a suggestion. It is in fact a game reality. If you are reading this , Kevan, I am not dissing your new game feature. --Andrew McM 18:21, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - feature in effect now --Deathnut 04:48, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM -- Already in effect. --Nov 11:16, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -I note the contact list aspect is NOT in effect yet and is a good idea.

--Matthew-Stewart 00:49, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - The contact list aspect is not in affect; I will not consider the above kneejerk SPAM votes when calculating this for Suggestion Review. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 17:33, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement (Realism)
Scope: Survivors
Description: Your surrounded by zombies, and scared stiff; there are a lot of them, and you aim and fire... and because your hands are shaking like miss

Stress, should remove the chances of hit by a percentage (1%?) multiplied by the amount of zombies in that block MINUS your skill level (you wont be THAT scared if you've killed many)Moreover, for each zombie that you kill, it will increase the chance of hit (for that square) by 5% (still remove the amount due to stress), as you learn that they aren't so fearful once you see them die. Ok this will make Sieges harder; but there should be a limit to at least 25% chance of hit. Then of course come the skills that inhibt it.


  • KEEP - Considering my (other) extermist suggestions get shot down quickly.. ever vote counts --Adrian 17:59, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: -- Suggestor's vote doesn't count. --Nov 11:17, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Needs much K.I.S.S. Besides, any laddering skill is murder for the server. - Skarmory 18:07, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not for the extremism, but too many flags on the poor erver. --Monstah 18:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wow, you really don't like the survivors do you? --ThunderJoe 18:14, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: - ALl of my chars are survivors, i just like REALISM.. thats what you get from playing MMORPGS which have RP in them.
  • Kill - Accuracy is low enough as it is; this is unnecessary; and yeah, it'd be a hassle for the servers. X1M43 18:19, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombie hordes are quite unstoppable enough as it is, thank you. Bentley Foss 19:35, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As Monstah said. --Shadowstar 20:08, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Presenting the new zombie tactic: Stay in 150-strong groups and swarm. This causes all survivors to die of heart attack upon sight. --Fixen 20:49, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ever considered why your other suggestions get shot down quickly? I don't know which suggestions you're refering to, but think about K.I.S.S. Madalex 22:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I understand the idea behind the suggestion, but this would affect the game balance as the number of zombie hordes increases from day to day. --Seagull Flock 15:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not a bad idea in theory, but too complicated. --Dickie Fux 19:45, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Going with the complicated angle. --Nov 11:17, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like this concept, as I did with the hinder escape one (Based on # of zombies), but the mechanics need reworking. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Fall and Rise

Removed due to spam votes. 01:39, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Rail Travel

Timestamp: 19:40, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Method of transportation.
Scope: Survivors
Description: Pretty simple. When a train station has a working generator, survivors may travel from that station to another station somewhere in Malton.

When a player is in a station with power, they will see a drop-down menu of available locatiosn to travel to (maybe you can only travel to another station with power?) Listings within the drop-down would read as such: "Glorybank Station in Huckleville" so that one will be able to tell where exactly they would end up. This would allow people to move to an area currently under attack quickly to provide support, or to flee an area under attack.

How do the trains run? Well, a couple steam engines have been hijacked by some well organized survivors (this is just an IC explaination) who are running it in an effort to help others like themselves. When a player selects a location and clicks the 'buy ticket' button next to it, they will see a message reading: "You speak with a faceless voice heavily barricaded within a ticket booth. A ticket stamped 'PAID' slides out from between the wooden planks nailed over the shattered window. Those running the train will see this and take you where you wish to go." At this point, the player is transferred to their chosen location for an AP cost. (somewhere from 1 to 5?)

Questions: Should players be transported to their chosen location right when they buy a ticket, or should trains run at set times of day, meaning you will need to 'hold the fort' until your train leaves? Should Zombies be able to hop these trains at Railyards?

Abuse: Given the fact that the train station would need electricity for the train to stop there (IC explaination: they stop at stations with lights because that means it's probably safe, the train blows past stations without because it probably means there is no one there.) I don't think abuse is very likely.

Please note that at no time are you actually ON a train. This is a flavorful way of transporting you from one set of coords to the other for an AP cost below what it would take you to walk all they way there. Please note this requires no new NPCs, the train does not require you personally to find or use fuel, and the train does not run on electricity.

Sidenote to those who wish to mod - Don't delete Valid Responces again. Thank you.

Extra sidenotes: all of the discussions are on the main Suggestions discussion page... I didn't move them when I moved this page.(I'll leave that up to the author, if he wants to.) Bentley Foss 04:00, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)


  • Kill - It's not that I don't like the idea, it's that I don't like the idea right now. Personally I don't think that trains will be running inside a quarantined city during a zombie apocalypse due to a lot of factors: debris on the rails, lack of fuel, etc., etc. Also, I don't think that a portable generator is quite up to the task of running a train station. Perhaps this'll be good to re-suggest once the main power stations come back on. Until then, I cannot vote keep. With apologies, Bentley Foss 19:45, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: See Discussion page for moved Responce. -- Amazing 19:50, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - Nah. It sounded interesting, but I don't see it fitting the theme. I have nothing against the generator thing, just... nah. Monstah 20:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It seems like a good idea, but you would need to have the city power back on before you could run a train station. Do you know how many generators it would take to run a train? Bently Floss pretty much beat the questions out on this one. --ThunderJoe 20:00, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Generators aren't used to run trains in the suggestion. -- Amazing 23:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the idea. Also - to those who say "omg do j00 know how many generatorz it'd taek to run a trane" - let's not forget the two-person handcars (basically a simple platform with railway wheels and a simple, manually-operated lever-and-cam drive system). And to deal with the debris problem, you could have a %chance of the train/handcar derailing, thus dumping you in a suburb somewhere between the one you left and the one you're headed for, maning you'd have to walk the rest of the way. --John Taggart 20:09, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See Bentley's comments. Also, a town like Malton would probably have rail lines going out of the city. If the trains are running, why would people still be stuck in town? X1M43 20:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No...never, ever, ever. This means that people can go from the almost zombieless outskirts of the city into zombie-congested places like Ridleybank, pop a few things, then hop on a train and come right back. It kills the meaning of a safehouse. This suggestion also means that there are tracks in the city too, and then some idiot will think up a suggestion about running over zombos and crap...just NO. --Fixen 20:28, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: I agree that it might be a good idea for trains to only run at certain times of day. There are tracks in the city, since there are train stations and railyards. -- Amazing 23:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nice idea, but not K.I.S.S. Madalex 22:14, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Basically it's teleportation from one block to another, dressed up in a realistic, reasonable form that works IC. Point A to Point B. Simple. :) -- Amazing 23:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Good idea, but who can pilot a train, get a generator or generators powerful enough to power a train, and also intra-city coal-fueled trains are very rare nowadays. Point is, all ideas about running trains wont work until they introduce NPCs into this game(not bloody likely) and/or a functionning power plant (eventually likely). The train can also run on diesel, but where are you going to get all that fuel? You need several dozen jerry cans to do that. AllStarZ 23:41, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: See Discussion page for moved Responce. -- Amazing 23:58, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill It's already said in the message in the railway station that all trains have left town, so how could more trains come? --Carfan7 23:59, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: See Discussion page for moved Responce. -- Amazing 00:09, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • '"'Kill'"' It would be good "IF" the trains were powered by the powerstation, "IF" were only to-from, and "IF" required an engeiner like person to run them... would only work when the power was on and even then poeple would need to hone the ideas --Mr NoName 00:22, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Just .... wow. Can you be more specific on the Discussion page? -- Amazing 00:32, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Neat idea. Obviously, should only run between railway stations, and probably not all of them. Needs some type of schedule system so people aren't always guaranteed a ride right when they need it. --Dickie Fux 19:54, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I like the idea but what about railroads? --Nov 11:18, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nov - Subways do not need to show rail tracks on walkabout screens. This is better than cars. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

IP Limit Tracker

Timestamp: 1715 GMT, November 21, 2005
Type: Clientside User Information
Scope: All Players
Description: IP Limit Tracker
  • Function:
    • Omnipresent Tracker: Presently the IP Limit tracker already activates when you have 10 moves or less remaining. This proposal would have the IP Limit tracker always be present and inform you how many moves you had left that day even if you had more than 10 left.
    • Hideable Tracker: This proposal also contemplates a "Hide" function that the player could toggle so that the IP Tracker would only appear at 10 or less as it presently does.
    • No increase in IP Limit: Please note that I am not in any way proposing an increase in the IP Limit cap or any alteration of any game mechanic. I merely suggest that, while we keep the IP Limit exactly as it is now, we provide information to players as to their status vis-a-vis the limit.
  • Reasons for Implementation:
    • Better planning, avoids causing strandedness: For players with several characters, or those that incessantly check their status throughout the day without taking their AP's, the IP Limit is a very real limit. As a result, sometimes when you do decide to move your character a distance greater than 10APs away, you find that in the middle of your journey that while you have more than enough APs to get to your destination, you will not be able to get there because of the IP Limit. Consequently, the player is inadvertently stranded not because of poor planning (they had ample APs) but because of an IP Limit whose scope was made to them altogether too late.
      • Example: If a player has 20AP and wants to run 15AP away, he should know that he only has 11 IP hits left.
    • People do not track their IP Logins: Unlike your AP amount, which is displayed to you at all times, no one tracks how many times they've logged into the page per day (except perhaps the most neurotic of us), nor should they be expected to. It is sometimes confusing for players to understand that it's not just taking an AP that counts against your total, but simple logging in to check in on your character or other such actions as well. I don't believe anything constructive is accomplished by encouraging players to have a pad of paper and pencil by their computer to tally off manually how many times that day they loaded map.cgi.
    • Does not encourage excessive buildup of multiple characters: This proposal will not encourage "spamming characters" as it does not actually lift or increase the IP cap, and can also apply with equal force to players who may only have 1 or 2 characters, but like me, check on them throughout--Carfan7 03:20, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT) the day with almost obsessive frequency to see if they're safe (hey it's a good game, I like logging on). As the IP cap will stand at 160 even after this proposal, there is no danger of increased bandwith or server flooding.
    • Does nothing to adversely affect flavor or realism of the game: The IP Limit is an entirely artificial construct that is dictated purely by the practical need to limit site access and has no bearing upon or grounding in the theme, flavor or storyline of the game--a point driven home by the fact that for those generous players that have donated their $5 to Kevan (a very worthy cause mind you), this IP limit simply does not exist for them. Accordingly, while having the cap at 160 (as it is now) is very important and should be kept as is, there is no RP/realism reason that a player should only know that he's running out of turns 10 turns prior.


  • Keep - Again, silly and skewing to have the author vote for his own proposal, but I respect precedent and as a relative newcomer to this board will not buck the trend. SCOS OJ 1715 GMT, November 21, 2005
  • Keep - Yes! Good idea. I was a bit unsure untill you said you could hide the ip tracker- very useful. I have often gotten narked off when I find that I can't get to safety, as I am only informed when I have 10 ip moves left. Andrew McM 22.59 GMT, November 21, 2005
  • Keep - I bow to you, master of KISS suggestions. --RSquared 23:13, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds like a good idea, and probably simple to implement. --Shadowstar 23:59, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Simple. Useful. Keep. X1M43 00:01, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep edit: wow, its never been suggested before. or am i blind?--Spellbinder 01:56, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Great idea! --Carfan7 03:20, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Practical. - KingRaptor 04:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nuff' Said. Madalex 11:25, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good suggestion. --Seagull Flock 15:15, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm behind a corp proxy where other people play. Damn if I know how many IP some strangers used today, or which proxy IP will get sent to urbandead. I NEED THIS. SchmuckyTheCat 02:36, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea. --Dickie Fux 19:57, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Nov 11:19, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No comment. --Squashua 20:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Removed due to four spam votes and duplicate suggestion.

Personal tools