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

Use For Crucifixes

This Suggestion was Spaminated with 1 Keep, 8 Spam, 2 Kill, and 3 Dupe, a total of 14 Votes --DJSMITHCDF 13:10, 22 June 2006 (BST)

Barricade Info

This was deemed a dupe of this... my suggestion BTW :P

7 Dupe, 7 Total Votes --DJSMITHCDF 22:44, 22 June 2006 (BST)

Additional Anti Zerg Measure

Timestamp: 10:10, 22 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Protection
Scope: Zergers, people interested in fair play.
Description: Zerging is pandemic in the game, especially in seiges, and honest players are suffering because there are individuals out there who play to win at all costs, untilising holes in the current anti zerg code to create and run barricade zergs, or multiple characters to attack multiple buildings in a small area.

What i propose is simple: That any person attacking a person who has a zerg flag set upon them gets 100% to hit and instakills the zerger. Notifications of such kills would be clearly marked as a peacekeeping action, such as:

Gorbonzo killed Zerger1, a Zerger. (However many minutes ago)

The only problem that can be seen with this is the issue of false positives, but honestly, zerging is such a huge problem, especially in seiges, that i can honestly say "fuck em". There are 9,999 other blocks in the game to go play in. They can go and play in them instead.


  1. Keep - Author. The one thing working in favour of zergers, both human and zombie, is the fact that they can soak up a huge amount of AP, discouraging people from taking action against them in the case of human zergers, and acting as a meatshield in the case of zombie zergs. This works to kill that factor stone dead. --Grim s-Mod U! 10:10, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Hell yes. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 10:19, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - "And every man gets what no man deserves..." --Niilomaan 10:30, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Zerging is a problem, but this is too radical. Oh, and this too. --Nob666 10:46, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - How on earth is this radical? Rheingold said it best: They are NOT entitled to fair play. --Grim s-Mod U! 11:03, 22 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - The current zerging system does it's job pretty good, but it's not always 100% right. My opinion is, those who would've gotten the zerg flag by mistake would be punished too much by this system, no matter how small a fraction of total UD players that would be. --Nob666 13:00, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Might make Caiger III playable! I'm for that. To those who argue that instakills are a no-no, Kevan already messes with the AP and XP of zerger players. They are NOT entitled to fair play. But you didn't say whether killing a zerger awards kill XP. Should it? I don't think so.... --Rheingold 10:47, 22 June 2006 (BST).
    • Re - I didnt mention that deliberately. On the one hand its a possible source of abuse (A person could get a mate to create a string of accounts, and walk in and kill them all for a few quick exp), but on the other hand, lack of exp may stop as many people from shooting these people dead. The massively decreased AP cost to get rid of them more than makes up for this, so im thinking it shouldnt too. However, my suggestion is concerned with getting rid of zergers, not exp rewards. Either exp choice has its down sides, and as such i decided to cut my losses by not including it. --Grim s-Mod U! 11:12, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - So long as you don't get XP from it. --Otware 11:14, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Expect to see alot more people being punched. - Jedaz 11:28, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - With this caveat though: If XP is going to be awarded then it should be limited to the 10XP "kill bonus" plus what damage the weapon would've dealt. E.g. My zombie bites a zerger; 14XP, 10 for the kill, 4 for the chomp. My survivor shotguns a zerger; 20XP, 10 for the kill, 10 for the shell. Etc. –Xoid 11:41, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - I likey, will prove who zerges ;) --DJSMITHCDF 13:06, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill I don't like the idea of insta-kills, in case of a false positive. It's better just to reduce attack %/search %/barricade % for the zergers until they realize its better to move away a bit. --Jon Pyre 13:11, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - A False positive doesnt cause any lasting damage to a person. All it does is tell them: Move elsewhere. Now, your stance may be acceptable were zerging accidental, but its not. people deliberately set out to utilise multiple accounts in a manner that benefits those accounts, such as having multiple characters barricade. These people will not suffer from the anti zerg measures as they exist. The only reasonable way to expel these zergers is by killing them. Killing them in a seige situation is counterproductive, as you have wasted an entire defenders AP wiping the guy out and reloading. As such many people just dont do it. They ignore the cheating and go on with their lives, then act all suprised when they "win". Jon Pyre, its time for you to realise that sticking your head in the sand and dishing out poorly executed punishments which only reduce a zergers efficiency, rather than nullifying their primary advantages is not the best and only solution. It has been a long time since the measures you spoke of were instituted (Except barricade) and guess what, zerging is not only still around, but rampant! A sane person would ask himself "Maybe this isnt working?" Finally, even negating the barricade percentage on zergs, humans and zombies can still flood a target area with alts to soak up enemy AP. Now a human takes a lot less to put a zombie down, bbut a zombie takes about an entire days AP to kill a human. It is a serious problem. --Grim s-Mod U! 13:23, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re However there are people that use services like AOL and share the same IP address with several other people. --Jon Pyre 16:34, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - DIE ZERGERS! But I think you shouldn't get any XP from a zerger kill at all. At most just weapon XP, not kill XP. If not they could be farmed insanely. --Ashnazg 1214, 22 June 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Shweet. Sonny Corleone WTF 13:42, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Why hasn't this been implemented before?!!? Jonny12 W! 14:19, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Is it never the case that a player brings two chars too close together without realizing it? If we're going to employ this degree of overkill, why not just nuke zerging characters automatically? --Ember MBR 15:04, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - As always, kill zergers. --Abi79 AB 16:08, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - I think people are missing the point. If you "accidentally" got 2 characters too close together, it wouldn't be as obvious as, say, seeing "1337Ninja1" and "1337Ninja2" in the same building. Therefore you wouldn't have people trying to hunt you down for zerging. It would do much to help police the obvious zergers. --Mookiemookie 16:16, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - With a false positive we kan all get annoyed for a second and then get over it - its not like the flzag will stay on us. With systematic zergers this should cripple their activities. Mortificant 16:59, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - waaaay too harsh ----GageRRF 17:19, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep -- Fuck zergers. furtim 17:22, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - False positives doesn't matter. If you didn't want to zerg but ge the flag and insta-killed, then you know next time you stand up its better to use these 40 AP to walk 4 suburbs away. If you're building the game in base of AOL users, they have workarounds already, thats were Kevan's responsibility ends. He's not the ISP owner, stop blaming him. --Matthew Fahrenheit 17:27, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill -Since we don't know just what criteria Kevan uses to determine zerge status, this seems a bit harsh. I mentioned, I believe, on the discussion page to just make zergers unable to do anything but move. Since proximity is the one condition we know about, I think it would be inherently LESS fun for the zerger to walk into an area and not be able to do anything.--Pesatyel 18:29, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep - Zergers suck. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 18:46, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - Believe it or not, people sometime have alts meeting with each other by accident. Also, sometime one alt needs to get from point A to B, with anohter alt in the way. I'm sorry but I'm not gonna do a huge detour to avoid being flagged, however that is done. Instant hit and instant kill? And that gives how much xp? Sure, zergers are annoying, but I still hate this. It's unforgiving towards the new, the naive, and the stupid. -Certified=InsaneUG 19:01, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill - The issue is a lost cause, a waste of time, and petty. --einexile 19:13, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill - As Ember and Pestyel said. Also, this would let people determine through experimentation the zerg distances which Kevan keeps secret. Now, if you proposed a modest bonus to hit zergers, that would get a keep from me. Finally, players don't have to police the zergers, Kevan has ways to deal with them. Give suggestions that improve HIS ability to do it. --Raystanwick 19:30, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Keep - Dying in this game is no more than a smack on the wrist. To the people who are so worried somebody might accidentally get the zerg flag (As has actually happened to me once - and I can tell you, you have to be pretty dumb to have it happen. You don't get the flag just from walking through the same suburb as an alt.) and dying as a result: grow up. If you want a 100% chance of living forever, then the game for you is Scrabble, not UD. So long as this doesn't grant XP for the killer, and incorporates a little message to the person who got killed explaining what happened and why (so newbies know better for the future) it's got a solid Keep from me. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 19:53, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  27. Kill - As per most kill voters responses - so the people who use AOL (or share a server in their work offices) get the shaft on this, and are announced as Zergers (which could get them on a list to be hunted from then on) when they are not. I have to agree with John Ember and say if we were to do something like this, why not just make it insta-death when you get the flag? --Blahblahblah 20:56, 22 June 2006 (BST) EDIT: - This also disproportionately affects Human zergers in respect to Zombie zergers. As a human zerger (which can often be distinguished by similarities in name) can be spotted in a building, where as a zombie zerger retains its anonymity and can not be specifically targeted by a "policing" character. --Blahblahblah 23:11, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  28. Kill - Because of the way barricades work, zombie zergs would be worse than human zergs. --Toejam 00:36, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  29. Keep -Bout time the zergers got what they deserved--Grigori 00:58, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  30. Keep - Zerging and bot abuse is one of the biggest killers of fun and fair play in this game. I'd prefer auto-nuke, but I do like the public announcement factor of this. Petrosjko 07:59, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  31. Kill - So basicly, instead of giving the human player an advantage, it's transferred to the zombies? Rallying a bunch if his own zeds to tear down barricades and such? In my humble oppinion, it would be much better just banning the characters that have a zerg flag. Although i admit that it would be very satisfactory to deal a killing blow on the first try, it opens up new problems instead. I'm sure the recently killed zerger would love nothing more than to tear down the barricades in order to return the favour to whoever it was who killed him. It's not that difficult if he has Scent Blood. Also, i'm against all punishments but bans, beacuse it's just so damn unecessary. Keep - I understand now. I can find no other reason why the suggestion shouldn't be kept. --Frostbreath 09:06, 23 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Zombie zergs cannot damage a barricade. Their hit percentage fall to 0%. As such everything you said makes no sense at all. --Grim s-Mod U! 16:37, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  32. Kill just as this suggestion would do to false positives. Somewhat ontopic Q: Even if zombie zergs can't damage a barricade, can survivors? -- Mettaur 02:37, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  33. Keep - "You fire at a zerger and miss. You fire at a zerger and miss. You fire at a zerger and miss." Nuts to that! If zergers get a penalty, give me a bonus to deal with them. I have a human group under attack by the GODhack zergers right now, and let me tell you, the current anti-zerging measures don't work. --GuavaMoment 05:14, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  34. Kill - I agree that zerging is a problem, but this is just to much. --Rozozag 22:49, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  35. Kill - Too much harm to false-positives. -Kiltric 21:21, 29 June 2006 (EST)
  36. Kill - I want to keep this, but I'm too nervous about damage to false-positives as well. Always the problem. -Rgon 18:14, 4 July 2006 (BST)
  37. Kill - I like the idea, but there is too much scope for mistakes. Sorry, but there should be some other way of dealing with zerging -HighlandZHunter 11:00, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Book Improvement

Timestamp: 11:56, 22 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Item improvement
Scope: Books
Description: At the moment there are 2 types of books - 'poetry books' and 'books'. Reading a 'book' gives you a 10% chance of gaining 1 XP. Poetry books do not ever give you XP, but they are nice for flavour.

I propose that there be a number of different sort of 'books' that do give you XP:-

A survival guide - Each time you read it it gives you a useful tip.
A science book - Each time you read it you see a physics equation, chemical formula or something.
A dictionary - Gives the definition of a random word.
A history book - Gives either snippets of Malton history, or general history.
A novel - Gives a snippet from a novel, like a little bit of dramatic-sounding speech.

The survival guide would contain useful game hints etc. Each new human player would start with one of these. This would give them a way to maybe learn a few tips in a nice in-game way. There would be an equal chance of finding all these books.

So this suggestion has 2 purposes really: to help new players slightly and to make the game more interesting for flavour and role playing purposes. It does not affect the gameplay at all.


  1. Keep - Author Vote. --Otware 11:56, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - I like the idea of each survivor class starting with a different book, with different tips even! So the science textbook explains how to use the extractor and warns about scent trail, etc. Making the other non-useful books more flavorful is good also. The only downside here is it's a buff to newbie survivors. Hard to vote for survivor buffs at the moment, but this is minor enough to be OK. --Rheingold 12:01, 22 June 2006 (BST).
  3. Keep - Sounds good enough. --Nob666 12:52, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep Sounds like good flavor to randomly get different books. And as to the survival guide, I don't consider knowing how to play the game a buff. --Jon Pyre 13:09, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Helps bring in new players --DJSMITHCDF 13:12, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Hate to be the bringer of bad news but books aren't worth it. You get only 10% chance of 1 xp? Weapons have 10% but they give you more xp. Besides that, you need to search for books. So now you're wasting more ap for less xp. It isn't worth it. Sonny Corleone WTF 13:49, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - But this isn't about XP. If you think that books shouldn't give XP, or they should give more XP, then create a suggestion saying so. This suggestion is about helping new players and adding flavour and roleplaying fun! --Otware 14:52, 22 June 2006 (BST)
      Re - I just think it's a waste of space. You won't get xp and honestly whatever hints it gives you isn't important. Who would've guessed that sleeping outside is bad? Or that zombies come from dead survivors? As for roleplaying...plenty of suggestions are shot down despite having a cool roleplaying aspect. I think books are worthless and should be removed. Sonny Corleone WTF 14:58, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Maybe differing percentages within the books though? So you'd be more likely to find a survival guide than, say, a history book? Jonny12 W! 14:18, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - You read the book. The book is a story about urban survivors fighting through a zombie apocalypse. You learn something from the book. You realize this is a fun idea. --Ember MBR 15:06, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Like it. Oh, and @John Ember: roflol. --Abi79 AB 16:09, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill-Agree with Sonny.--ShadowScope 17:18, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - books should be worthless, just like in real life ----GageRRF 17:22, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - And the survival guide could have some cool link to the Wiki. --Matthew Fahrenheit 17:29, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - good idea KyleTravis 17:44, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Brilliant John Z. Delorean 18:14, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - I like it. And Sonny, how about we get rid of everything but the axe, shotgun, pistol, FAK and syringe? UD doesn't NEED anything else, right? Sheesh.--Pesatyel 18:33, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Sounds fine. I especially like the survival guide idea. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 18:47, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - I like it. A bit of harmless development that makes the game a bit more interesting :) --Jalbobble 18:53, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - After this some voters can search for dictionary with a word "retardness" in it. --Niilomaan 19:28, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep Kill - While the flavor would be nice, this would have little or no effect. 1)Virtually no one searches for books. When they do find one accidentally, they simply drop it without reading it, like the newspapers. 2) For my Doctor character, the first few skills I got was from the safe book XP.(yes, I should have started as an NT...) This would drown out the 'good' XP books with more 'bad' poetry books with different names and content. --Raystanwick 19:40, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - But...this doesn't have anything to do with poetry books. Where do they come into this? --Otware 19:47, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I'm an idiot. Sorry, I didn't read it thoroughly. I thought these would not award XP and would drown out the XP yeilding books. I've changed my vote to 'Keep'. --Raystanwick 07:50, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - Hey, you got your flavor in my newbie buff! Hey, you got your newbie buff in my flavor! Good + good = good. See, I learned my maths good. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 19:59, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep - Roleplaying. Flavour. --EnForcer32 20:32, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - This isn't fair to zombies because they can't read. Kidding. Kill vote for soul-crushing dullness. Spice it up. --einexile 21:56, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep As long as they don't lower the chance to get the xp books. Either make them take up the poetry book's rate or just raise the chance to get them (since they don't carry a huge benefit) HamsterNinja 22:10, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Note - Just thought maybe I should point this out. These books would replace the existing books (except for poetry books). There would be a 10% chance to gain XP from reading any of these books, just like current books. --Otware 22:55, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - This makes books actually worth getting, instead of throwing away --Canuhearmenow 00:56, 23 June 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 20 Keep, 4 Kill, 24 Total -Otware 09:50, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  25. Keep - Is still wouldn't read my books, but I won't feel bad about keeping them anymore if this passes. David Malfisto 10:44, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Keep - Because Books should be informative, just like in real life. -- Mettaur 02:39, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 22 Keep, 4 Kill, 26 Total. --Otware 17:51, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  27. Keep - because books should seduce you into reading them, when you'd be better off worrying about the zombie hord, just like in real life! Jenny D'ArcT 20:32, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Triage: An Idea That Would Save Many Players a Great Deal of Time (revised)

Timestamp: 13:27, 22 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill/Improvement
Scope: Survivors, Doctors
Description: Healers spend a great deal of real-world time searching through lengthy lists of names looking for people to heal. The combined total of this must equal hundreds, or maybe even thousands of minutes each day. Here's an idea to take a continuing hassle out of the game.

Triage would be a subskill of Diagnosis that would give you a new Heal button and drop-down menu when in room with injured survivors and no zombies are present. The drop down menu would display a list of only the injured along with their health. It'd look like this:

  • MaltonDude(45)
  • Shotgun Guy(23)
  • Zombiedude334(35)

Clicking heal would cost 1AP, use up 1 first-aid kit in your inventory, and target the selected survivor. If you do not have a FAK you get the message "You have nothing to heal them with." This skill does not make survivors more powerful because it does not save them AP, does not allow them to heal more than they otherwise could, and does not let them easily find who to heal when zombies are attacking. This is not a buff! It is an amenity that would save thousands of players an insanely large amount of time. Note this is not possible via Firefox extensions because of names being hidden in crowded buildings. Urban Dead is a great game but there's no need to take longer to do the same thing.


  1. Keep Author vote. I addressed the concern Grim S had. It doesn't work when zombies are in the room. Now it's only possible use is to let people go on with their lives. This would really be great for all survivors and it doesn't affect game balance at all. --Jon Pyre 13:27, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - No. You can do what I do. Ctrl+ F and search a number between 1-4. It'll go to some who is between 10-49 health. Quick and easy. Sonny Corleone WTF 13:51, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re You're forgetting that many players have numbers in their names, and that searching each number daily, possibly in several locations, and then finding these people on your first-aid kit's drop down menu is a pain in the ass. --Jon Pyre 13:55, 22 June 2006 (BST)
      Re - Then you press enter again and it'll go to the next number. It's all in a matter of 5 seconds. Can you patch up a person in real life in a couple of seconds? No. Can you do it in a game? Yes. Now be happy that you can. Sonny Corleone WTF 14:16, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Sonny, you still have to scroll through a massive menu (in mall sieges, anyway) to find the wounded people. This eliminates the retardedness of healing in large group situations. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 14:01, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - Thank you for correcting the flaw in your original suggestion. --Grim s-Mod U! 14:11, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Seems good to me Jonny12 W! 14:16, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - I see this has improved enough for me to vote keep. --Nob666 14:47, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Doesn't do any harm. It sure would be useful. --Otware 14:55, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - I'll drink to that. --EmberMBR 15:01, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Me too. --Abi79 AB 16:10, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - This can be achieved with firefox extensions by adding ?zoom to the links in a pahe - perhaps each name could befollowed by the letter F for first aid - see z-udtool Mortificant 16:59, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - Contrary to popular belief, "A Firefox extension can do the same thing." IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE REASON! What is it with these inconsiderate jackasses? Not everyone uses Firefox. –Xoid 17:05, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - This should not be a skill by itself, but either something available to all players, or something that comes with an existing skill. – Nubis 17:08, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - But wether it comes as a skill or just accesory to diagnosis should be left to Kevan to decide. I kinda think that isn't worth a full skill. --Matthew Fahrenheit 17:33, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - as Xoid. Amen Brother --GageRRF 18:13, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - New skills are always good, and same as Xoid.--Pesatyel 18:36, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Nice idea, and see Xoid's comment. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 18:50, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - That a Firefox extension can do the same thing is not an acceptable reason to vote Kill. That an extension already does do the same thing makes the suggestion (this one, for example) clueless, rude, and destructive. Let's ban the use of all extensions so inconsiderate people won't have an advantage. Let the extension authors go off and mess up some other game whose players don't value fairness quite so passionately. Also someone please nominate himself to sit in judgement over the validity of our votes - clearly we don't have enough unsolicited opinions to go around. --einexile 19:28, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - No "heal" button is needed(though I don't know how you'd charge the 1AP). For buying this skill, the FAK dropdown would show only the wounded. When there are none, it would show only self and barricades.(as it does now for whatever reason) Maybe the 'triage' button could charge the 1AP and sort the FAKs menu to wounded only or something. --Raystanwick 19:50, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re Not a bad idea. The heal button might not be necessary. Alternatively you could get rid of all the FAK dropdowns and just keep the one next to heal. --Jon Pyre 20:09, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • RRE - Your idea is better; one heal button to replace all the FAKs dropdowns. I have the UDtool and forgot about the multiple menus for the FAKs without it. Again, I am an idiot. --Raystanwick 07:57, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep - Sounds good to me. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 20:02, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep Sounds good. And einexile, way to overreact. He wasn't saying that we don't need extentions, he was saying you shouldn't kill an suggestion because theres already an extention that does it, as there are players that don't have Firefox for whatever reason (don't like it, don't feel like changing, etc.) And Kevan should still see the ideas that are good, regardless of if theres already a third party thing that can do it. If nothing else, it would be a compliment to the author of the extention- Kevan and the community thought your idea was good enough to encorporate ingame. HamsterNinja 21:48, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep SAWEET! I didn't even think the flaw of the other one could be fixed... guess I wasn't thinking outside the box...--McArrowni 23:27, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep -This is a good idea, I believe it will save a lot of time --Grigori 01:01, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - Human XP sink that doesn't tip the balance too much? FTW! David Malfisto 10:47, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - per Malfisto -- Mettaur 02:40, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  25. Keep - I like it. --Ashnazg 0502, 24 June 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - Exactly what I wanted --Rozozag 22:56, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  27. Keep - Excellent. Great solution to a serious pain in the neck. --Rgon 18:20, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Dark Forms in the Window

Timestamp: Canuhearmenow 16:14, 22 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Change
Scope: New Player, especially new zombies
Description: This would change the text outside of a building with people inside, for example: "You are outside buiding so and so, you see Dark forms moving about inside.". This could help not only new survivors looking for a safehouse with people inside, but it could also help starting out zombies so they can find the location of "food" without resorting to ZKing. This can even add an element of suspense, are those survivors in that building, or zombies laying a trap?


  1. Keep - Author Vote. --User: Canuhearmenow 16:14, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Dupe As I said in my vote above that'll restore when somebody else finds the link, completely unfair. Survivors hide from zombies to survive. The only purpose of hiding in a non-resouce building is that it is a lower profile target. Implement this and everyone will clump together in the NTs, Malls, and PDs far more than now since what's the point of trying to hide? P.S. to ember, where does this suggestion ever say anything about a generator? This just is automatic survivor detection. --Jon Pyre 16:36, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Stops barricade strafing. Sonny Corleone WTF 16:38, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Dupe - The link. –Xoid 16:51, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - I prefer this version because it doesn't indicate how many are inside. I think that's too much X-ray vision, whereas this one is just a very reasonable helpful hint for zombies. If survivors don't want to be spotted, they can axe the generator. --Ember MBR 16:54, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - as Ember--Gage 17:11, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep- as Ember.--ShadowScope 17:14, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - its been said KyleTravis 17:45, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Because it doesn't mention generators anywhere. --Matthew Fahrenheit 17:59, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Dupe - And the duped version is better.--Pesatyel 18:44, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Dupe - See here. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 18:52, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Dupe - Assuming the author intended for this to work in powered buildings: generators are way too powerful if their only downside is the AP cost of searching for the generators themselves and fuel. There should be a danger in using them. --Mookiemookie 19:10, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Buildings are tall and have light switches. --einexile 19:33, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Dupe - and Kill. BTW, this would help all zombies, not just the new ones. And this would NOT help survivors, new or not; finding a safehouse means finding a VSB building, not an occupied one.--Raystanwick 19:54, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Dupe and were it not I would kill. Like Mr. Pyre said generator's are never mentioned. Care to explain why you can see shadows when there aren't lights on? If it were something like the survivors made noise and you could hear it, that would atleast make sense, but I'm sure that would be a dupe as well. HamsterNinja 21:52, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Dupe - see above --DJSMITHCDF 22:42, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - No X-ray vision. This was pretty much established a long time ago as far as the old-time voters went, and I'm surprised it flew out of the window. Basically this is a stopgag balancing measure that would screw up humans hiding, which IMO is a fun mechanic of the game. --McArrowni 23:38, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - This would eliminate any strategy in hiding, and is pretty much x-ray vision. If survivors can't look outside, why the hell should survivors/zombies be able to look in-- Kamron 12:05, 12:05, 23 June 2006 (PST)
  19. Dupe - And spam. Xray is bad. David Malfisto 10:48, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Dupe of many previous failed suggestions. -- Mettaur 02:42, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill - I would consider this if it only showed up with a working generator. --Rgon 00:44, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Brain Dead

Spaminated with 7/9 spam votes. Most voters did not like the idea of completely nerfing headshot. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 18:54, 22 June 2006 (BST)

Newbie Quickstart

Timestamp: 19:42, 22 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Newly created characters
Description: Reviewing the Stat-tracking page, I stumbled across a disturbing fact: about 50% of all level 1 players quit before reaching level 2, and about 50% of those players quit before reaching level 3 (at which point it levels off). In other words, about 75% of all new players in the game quit almost immediately - something that undoubtedly contributes to the crashing total number of players of this game, which has recently dropped by more than 5000 players. Why shouldn't be hard to decipher: as of right now, playing a newbie sucks almost unbearably. You can't do anything very well, and you're ignorant enough to be very easy prey. So, I thought I'd come up with a suggestion to try and at least partially remedy this without unbalancing the game.

My suggestion is simple: all characters should be created with 100 XP. This wouldn't affect any existing characters. It would simply permit new players to immediately purchase any available skill (skills under skills they don't have would, of course, be off-limits) of their choice upon starting the game, enabling a bit of customization, and helping them through the steepest part of the learning curve for the game. The skills of Construction, Lab Experience, and Radio Operation, however, would not be purchasable with this XP, in order to dissuade zergers/spammers from abusing this. These skills could still be purchased normally after the new character has earned another 100 XP, however.

As before, if voters don't like this version, I'd appreciate it if they would note what, if anything, I could do to fix/improve this suggestion in their votes. If I get enough input, I'll take this to Talk for a rewrite and then resubmit it.


  1. Keep - Author vote. I wrote it, I like it. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 19:42, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Nice. This would make it suck a little less at the beginning. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 19:50, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Sure why not. --Otware 19:53, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Players taking the NT route to XP need Lab Experience, and the 100 XP would discriminate against those requiring 150XP for some skills, and for those requiring 75 for some. Maybe allowing the player to pick one skill to buy automatically after class allocation, before being entered into the game? --Preasure 19:57, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Um, NTs would not be permanently barred from purchasing Lab Experience. They could still earn it like normal - probably even faster, with the help of the extra skill. They're just barred from purchasing it with this bonus XP to prevent people from being able to instantaneously whip up a revive alt. I don't really see the discrimination in this suggestion - 100 XP is the base cost for a skill, and the "discrimination" you see is simply the result of the class-balancing measures Kevan has already implemented. If I just let people pick a skill with this, it would likely induce many people to buy one of those aforementioned 150 XP skills to save on XP later, and discriminate against those who purchase the cheaper skills because it would take them longer to max out their characters. By just handing people the XP, this suggestion keeps the existing class dynamics more-or-less intact. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 20:13, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Oh, I do apologise, I thought you meant NecroTech Employment. I can see the reasoning behind that part now, I retract that part of my comment. --Preasure 20:48, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - The new players are the one's who need the help, and this would definately do it. Esp for new zombies. I think I voted keep on the original version too. I don't see the difference; you may want to put v.2 or something in the title. Also, Preasure has some good points there. --Raystanwick 20:03, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill It'd help people to zerg, and most of those will probably quit except now they'll be level 2 instead. --Jon Pyre 20:10, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - would allow newbies to take the route that they like, I like this alot. --GageRRF 20:11, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - I like. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 20:14, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - If they can't hack it, too bad. Giving away XP is like playing the game for them. --Mookiemookie 20:15, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep Helps newbies, allows for customization by newbies, I can dig it. HamsterNinja 21:56, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - I suspect the turnover problem has more to do with new players getting killed and giving up than slow XP gain, but I still like it. --Ember MBR 22:22, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - why is lab experience included in the non-buyable skills? --DJSMITHCDF 22:46, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Because it would allow people to instantaneously whip up revive alts for themselves or their friends. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 22:48, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Free Running + Diagnosis is an XP farm waiting to happen. Spraycan Willy MalTel·T 23:16, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - I know it sucked as a newbie. If it brings users back, I support it. --Grigori 01:06, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - You can't buy Free Running and diagnosis with this striaght off the bat. So... I don't see a problem here. David Malfisto 10:50, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - I'd support it with some additional limitations, though. Maybe, you couldn't buy subskills (ie. can't start with Surgery, Lab Experience, or Death Grip), or each class has to purchase a skill from a particular category selected for that class (not necessarily their primary skill tree, though). JUst a couple of ideas. --Rgon 00:42, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Brain Dead (revised)

withdrawn by author --GageRRF 20:46, 22 June 2006 (BST)

Brain Dead 3.0

Timestamp: 20:50, 22 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: harcore zombies
Description: a new skill to be placed under Brain Rot in the Skill tree

Brain Rot (Zombie is harder to DNA-scan, and can only be revivified in a powered NT building using NecroNet access.)

  • Brain Dead (Zombie is impossible to revive)

I have removed the reduced/eliminated headshot affect only because you people don't like it. I really think this skill needs some extra effects, so message me if you have any ideas.


  1. Keep - author vote--GageRRF 20:50, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - WTF? That's exactly what brain rot did before people complained about getting it and being stuck with it. So Kevan adjusted the origional brian rot just so something like this would come along and start the cycle over again.. --Blahblahblah 21:00, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - yes, but this would give you the option of not being combat revived! --GageRRF 21:05, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - Are you {{SUGGESTION_NAME}}? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 21:03, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I could understand the spam the first time, but this is unreasonable... did you read the suggestion? Or are you just being an ass?--GageRRF 21:05, 22 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - What's the point? Brain Rotted zombies never get combat revived anyway (unless they're incredibly stupid and let themselves be), so literally no-one would buy this. It completely closes off all of your options, without giving you any bonuses in return. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 21:08, 22 June 2006 (BST)
        • Re - thats why I wanted the headshot elimination, because it does close alot of options--GageRRF 21:11, 22 June 2006 (BST)
          • Re - Well, quite obviously the headshot change isn't popular. You're either going to have to come up with something different to boost, or just scrap the idea altogether. I'd lock in Option B if I were you. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 21:14, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - If you find yourself getting combat-revived as a rotter, just destroy the generator first thing. --Ember MBR 21:08, 22 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - generators can be replaced easily --GageRRF 21:11, 22 June 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Well, if a survivor has the presence of mind in the middle of a zombie attack to throw down a generator, fill it with fuel, and then stick me with a syringe I'd say he deserves his revive. Edit - Hilariously, my rotter was just combat-revived in a powered NT. Ah well. --Ember MBR 22:17, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Totally unnecessary and useless. Smoke the generator first thing while in a necrotech building, and don't sleep in them. That easy. --Burgan 21:25, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Brain Rot is for those who don't want a revive. Since nobody is able to drag you into a powered NecroTech building, I don't see any point to make a super-duper-I-don't-want-revives-at-all-skill. --Nob666 21:51, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill Pointless. See above for reasons. Not to mention it goes against the core beliefs of zombies: The brain is the only vital organ still functioning. No heart, no lungs, just the brain and the muscles. HamsterNinja 21:58, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Because Brain Rot is already a perfectly adequate form of Brain Rot. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 22:00, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - It works for me. This is pretty hard core answer to the combat revived. Folks who took this are really saying they committed to being a zombie and aren't going to whine when they can't get a human skill that they want for bragging rights. - NicksT 22:06, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Why should you have the option of not being combat revived? --einexile 22:46, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Zombies won't be able to have maxed levels --DJSMITHCDF 22:48, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - stupid idea. if you hate being combat-revived so much, then maybe you should take more care of yourself! Don't change the rules just because you can't hide from people with syringes! -Otware 22:51, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - You may choose to never enter an NT. Spraycan Willy MalTel·T 23:10, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - No one can force you to be revived if you have brain rot, so what's the point? –Bob Hammero TW!P! 00:00, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill Not needed in the slightest. Besides, the NT revive feature was added to help zombies in case a new human crossover skill came around. --Jon Pyre 04:43, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill Just avoid NT buildings. David Malfisto 10:52, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Not needed --Mookiemookie 15:14, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - Pointless --Paradox244 20:48, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Vanity Publishing

Timestamp: 00:33, 23 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Item Improvement, Color
Scope: Survivors
Description: When discovered, 25% of books are described as follows:
  • ...a spiral-bound notebook. Its pages are empty.
  • ...a pretentious blank journal with a flower print.
  • ...a child's diary with a toy lock.

The player may inscribe the cover, add a line of description for the book's contents, and place an amount of his own XP in the book as a gift to the next reader. If the book is dropped in a library, at a school, or in the street, it likely reappears at a random library or school the next day. There is an N% chance it will be lost where N equals the level of the XP donor or the amount of XP, whichever is lower.

The player who next finds the book will see:

  • Searching the area, you find [title of book], a book by [previous owner].

Reading the book causes the new owner to receive the previous owner's XP gift. The book is not used up, but if read again there is no reward, and one of the following is returned:

  • You've read this many times, but it always offers up something new.
  • This was a dull read the first time around; rereading it would be torture.
  • You know this one by heart. Perhaps its time you returned it to the library.

Without changing its contents or appearance, the book's new owner may add an xp gift from his own reserves before dropping it at a library or school or in the street, or he can drop it elsewhere to destroy it.

Reading a personalized book that contains no XP gift results in one of the following:

  • You glance over the book, but there's nothing new here.
  • The pages indicate many reads and much love, but there's little inside that interests you.

This offers higher level survivors something amusing to do with their XP reserves, and allows for a mild flow of experience from older to newer characters while decreasing the total XP invested by survivors citywide. Also adds color and spruces up libraries & schools.


  1. Keep - Author vote. --einexile 00:33, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - This would add much flavor to the game. -- Canuhearmenow 00:54, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Remove the XP (or place a cap on it) part of the idea and you have a solid suggestion. Having an up capped XP generating suggestion just lends itself too well to problems in the long run. --Darkstar949 00:56, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - I like the core concept of this suggestion, but there's a couple of small things that stop me voting keep. If you've worked for your xp, the thought of the transfer failing and the xp being wasted is maybe enough to put you off trying this. The other thing is that with the books only appearing in places most people don't go, you'd have to go searching for the books if you wanted to find them. I'd prefer if they were available in more locations so when they turned up they were a random surprise. --Toejam 01:04, 23 June 2006 (BST) Edit - In response to votes below, zerging is stopped by the books appearing in random schools, and though some people could give huge amounts of xp with ease, those people are a tiny minority of the playing population --Toejam 13:32, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - I like this idea in theory, but I don't like the ability to transfer a huge amount of XP, or have the XP lost instead of transferred. I would suggest a 100xp cap, with a guarantee that the book won't be lost when you drop it. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 01:19, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill-Agree with BobHammero. Change the suggestion, and I'll think of considering a Keep. It would be a way for Suriviors to basically help themselves out, by sharing XP that they do not need. Not sure if it would be good for game balance though. I'll think about it later. I agree with Burgan. This skill is very overpowered, and will massively buff Suriviors.--ShadowScope 02:09, 23 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - My counter to the gain for survivors was a considerable net loss overall via those fail rates. Since the idea of losing XP to fail rates is upsetting to some, while trapping it in a form that can't be spent is important to others, it appears I've stumbled on the perfect bad idea. But what do we do with all that XP sitting around? I doubt I'm the only player who finds it depressing. Making your own goals and rewards is fun when it's by choice; it's less enjoyable as a requirement for playing at all. --einexile 04:26, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - I would have no intention of using this myself, besides the massive buff to survivors this gives. High level characters with xp to burn could just leave it around for newbs; it takes all that stagnant xp and delivers it back into the economy with minimal cost. Really screws the dynamic of the game over. --Burgan 02:24, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Would make books WAAAAYYYY too random. Also, barely any cost to maxed out survivors... who can have thousands of xp.--McArrowni 03:57, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - spamity spam spammage --GageRRF 04:03, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill People should earn their own xp. --Jon Pyre 04:44, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Very intriguing. The uncapped XP is an issue -- my main could drop enough XP in a book for the lucky recipient to buy every survivor skill at once -- so just give us a definite amount. Say 5xp per book "published" in this way. Also, it's inconsistent that dropping the book in some spots adds it to the global collection and in other places destroys it. Perhaps instead of tying the "gifting" to the Drop action, you should tie it to the inventory button itself. Also consider how you might work powered libraries and schools into this. --EmberMBR 04:45, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - BUT.. change N to a multiple of the XP donated(like 5 times or something; keep in mind how much XP books give now...), and you'd have a keep from me. It's a very neat idea, but a little overpowered as is. --Raystanwick 08:15, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - I like my idea better. --Otware 09:41, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - Zerging. David Malfisto 10:53, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam - Zerging --DJSMITHCDF 12:54, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Spam - Zerging --Mookiemookie 15:14, 23 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Could you guys please explain what exactly you mean here? --einexile 21:53, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - I like it. The fact that the chance of it being lost is proportional to the amount of XP donated keeps it from being too high an XP boost at any one time, the fact that the book appears randomly keeps it from being particularly helpful to zergers. I think that 25% of all books is a bit high, though...
  18. Kill - I love the idea, but I agree that it might prove too powerful. Put an XP cap on it, or something like that, and I'd definitely vote to keep. --Rgon 00:31, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Giving Items

Timestamp: 21:05, 22 June 2006 (EST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Items, Gameplay
Description: I Suggest implementing a feature that enables Survivors to give items they hold to another survivor. This would require 1AP (open to debate!). A menu similar to the "attack" menu would be used in this manner ([GIVE] [>PISTOL(1)] to [>NUB]). Once given, the player would receive a message saying "You gave a pistol(1) to nub", and the one receiving would have a similar message "player gave you a pistol(1)". This does not significantly buff survivors, as anyone can search and find items. This would add a whole new dimension to the game and future developments and skills could be based on this.

To prevent cheating, characters sharing the same IP could not give items to each other.


  1. Keep - Author Vote. --Phineas 21:05, 22 June 2006 (EST)
  2. Kill - Sorry but this wouldn't work, maybe tweak the AP cost to make it less likely for abuse. --Canuhearmenow 01:16, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - Don't help zergers. –Bob Hammero TW!P! 01:25, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - I feel this is in no way necessary with this game. You will search for what you need, and we all mostly need the same things. Thanks for thinking about the zerging though.--Burgan 02:21, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - you are sitting in a perfectly good mall, random shit abounds. Do you NEED someone to give something to you?--GageRRF 04:05, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - It's indeed a survivor buff and eliminates a charming, surreal quirk of the game - everyone has to get his own ammo. With this change I could give gens and transmitters to friends before they need them then wander off. I could deliver fuel to buildings I don't frequent while the generator is fueled. Etc. It makes sense and would be nice but I can't get into making UD more like other games. --einexile 04:34, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill Urban Dead doesn't need trade. --Jon Pyre 04:45, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam - Rheingold gave you a Centaur (wtf). Enjoy. --Rheingold 05:52, 23 June 2006 (BST).
  9. Kill - In theory I think there should be a trading feature, but this doesn't seem right somehow. --Otware 10:15, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - Zerg 1 gave you a newspaper. Zerg 1 gave you a newspaper. Zerg 1 gave you a newspaper. Zerg 2 gave you a newspaper. David Malfisto 10:54, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Spam - Does not significantly buff survivors Uhm, yes it does, NO TRADING! --DJSMITHCDF 12:55, 23 June 2006 (BST)
    • Oh, and people have proxies nowadays, so the "players on the same IP" thing is useless --DJSMITHCDF 12:57, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Spam - Zergy zergy! --Mookiemookie 15:13, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - Trading in UD would most probably end up in a complete disaster. --Nob666 15:25, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - I think Kevan said that trade would unbalence things so much he is unlikly to impliment it. --Paradox244 20:50, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Personal tools