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

23rd November, 2005 - VOTING ENDED: 7th-Dec-2005


Timestamp: 23:58, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Barricades
Description: *Function:
    • Time-based Barricade Degradation:Barricades become weathered and weaker over time, and as survivors poke holes in them as they enter and exit. To simulate this constant weakening of barricades, I propose that a timestamp(seconds since epoch) be added to every barricade in the game. For every twenty-four hours that a barricade is not touched (reinforced or smashed), the barricade loses one point of strength, to a minimum of 1 (loosely barricaded).
    • Reinforcing Barricades: When a barricade is reinforced, the server GETs the timestamp and subtracts it from the current timestamp, then divides by (60*60*24=86400) and subtracts that number from the apparent (stored in the db) barricade strength. This number, or 1, whichever is greater, becomes the new barricade strength, plus 1 for the reinforcement action, and the server PUTs that number and a current timestamp into the db. If the barricade has been weakened by weather, the server echoes a message indicating that the barricade has weakened due to weathering, but some of the damage has been fixed. If it has not, then the server echoes the normal barricade message.
    • Destroying Barricades: When a barricade is attacked, the server calculates whether the barricade has taken damage. If it has, GET the apparent strength, and if it has one point, it collapses. Otherwise, the server GETs the timestamp as above, calculates the current strength and subtracts a point for the barricade attack, THEN takes the greater of that number and 1 and PUTs it into the database, along with a current timestamp. A message in this case is echoed that the barricade, though appearing strong, crumbles easily before the user's blows. Note that a barricade can only be brought down to loosely barricaded by the combination of an attack and weathering, but that a successful attack on even a weathered, 1-point barricade will destroy it.
    • What You See...: When a player walks into a square with a barricade, the server ONLY GETs the apparent strength, not the timestamp. Therefore, a heavy barricade that has been sitting for 10 days STILL LOOKS LIKE A HEAVY BARRICADE. This reduces DB hits and causes uncertainty about the strength of a barricade. Only when a hit or reinforce action is taken against a barricade is the actual strength of the barricade taken into account. Survivors cannot traverse a barricade that looks heavily but is not. This suggestion has no effect on Free Running.
    • Engineering: New skill, Civilian class, prerequisite: Construction. The user, when reinforcing a barricade, always treats that barricade as if the apparent strength is the actual strength.
  • Reasons for Implementation:
    • Too Much Barricading: Malton is littered with old barricades, many of them at high strength. Zombie players don't attack random buildings that are heavily barricaded, so many of these buildings remain that way for long periods of time. This system provides zombies with the incentive to 'test' barricades that look strong, but may have a tasty snack hiding behind them.
    • KISS Implementation: Adding timestamps to the database adds a few KB to the database, and this system does not create a large number of additional DB hits (unlike all-at-once degradation plans). The 'apparent' / 'actual' barricade strength dichotomy is designed to reduce database hits while players are walking around. In addition, the calculations for the timestamp degradation can be handled in a handful of arithmetic operations, which means that this major upgrade can be coded in a weekend.
    • Play Balance: This upgrade changes the play balance significantly, giving zombies more places to go and newbie players a better chance to find cover (fewer Heavily barricaded buildings). In addition, Free Running becomes less 'essential', while construction becomes more so. Humans are forced to spend more time building barricades, repairing their shelters and making decoy safehouses. At the same time, the addition of a new survivor skill that shores up weak barricades means that survivors can maintain a few decoy safehouses in the vicinity of their real ones without wasting all their AP. Tactics will change and fewer buildings will be built up to heavily 9due to attracting more attention), which favors newbies of both sides. Also, keeping the minimum barricade degradation at loosely provides a LITTLE protection for those without construction who hide behind apparently strong barricades.
    • Atmosphere: This suggestion tips balance towards the zombies without giving them an unfair advantage over survivors. No longer is finding a safehouse in an unfamiliar neighborhood guaranteed, which adds to the fear factor of surviving the zombie takeover. It also makes 'realism' sense that a barricade wear down from survivors climbing over to enter and exit, weather doing damage to the improvised fortifications, &tc. The minimum barricade protection reflects that even when a barricade collapses, it still represents an obstacle to those trying to enter.


  • Keep - Author, this is signficantly different (mechanically and gameplay-wise) from the previous "Degrade Barricades" suggestion. --RSquared 01:00, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm voting kill on this one. Why? Zombie hordes simply have the AP and stamina advantage during a siege--they don't run out of ammo or switch sides when they die. When they do "die", they stand right back up with full HP. The only way to stop a siege is to frustrate the attackers. Headshot and Barricades are the primary routes of doing this. You want to make it "realistic", I understand that. But c'mon. Zombies. Seriously. We're worried about realism? I guarantee you that I could stack tables, chairs, and refrigerators into a barricade that wouldn't fall apart in a couple of days. And, as for weathering....these barricades are inside buildings. I also fail to see how this would make it easier for newbies. They'd either A) be left out on the streets because the apparent strength prevents them from entering (you're not clear on this point) or they'd B) never learn the strength system, because sometimes they'd pass through Extremely Heavily barricades and sometimes they wouldn't. I don't believe your DB hit calculations are entirely correct either, as I the game (most likely) retrieves state from the DB whenever you move into a square. Given everything that's written, I'd say that this change does not favor newbies on both sides--it favors zombies, period. Alas, I ramble. Kill is my vote. Bentley Foss 01:34, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill What Bentley Foss said. --Carfan7 01:45, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it, even if it was explained in great detail. A much more-likely-to-be-accepted form of Degrading Barricades. Other voters, keep in mind: this will affect almost exclusively abandoned barricades. My only beef is the illusion of a greater barricade level than exists; the Engineering skill is a cool way to offset this, although it would make more sense and balance in the Science tree (but then we'd have to deal with a Science skills with Civilian prereqs...*sigh*) --LouisB3 01:41, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Ironically enough, my fireman just walked 20 AP across an area with high zed activity where no building was less than VH. Made it to a VS on my last AP. --RSquared 02:19, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Bently, don't take this as anything but a well meaning nudge, but you are one VERBOSE son of a lamb--Spellbinder 02:42, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I have no idea what verbose means, but Bently is still really persuasive. --ThunderJoe 03:03, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I was going to give one of my usual long expinations, but Bently beat me to exactly what I was going to say. So I'll just make it easier one everyone and just vote kill. --Volke 04:02, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Poor server --Deathnut 04:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Yergh, I'm a software dev by day with a degree in computer science. I'm telling ya, this is TWO extra db hits on a barricade attack action, and TWO extra db hits on a barricade reinforce action. The Timestamp class in SQL is 3 bytes, meaning that the database grows by all of 30KB. I swear, I'm gonna beat the next person who tells me that this'll wreck the server. o_O --RSquared 04:38, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I've heard barricade suggestions, but this one is a gem.(Is anybody else actually reading the suggestion, or just looking at Bentley's review?)--E-man 07:47, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT0
  • Keep Tweak it, make it a week or 2, a day is too short, weathering doesn't happen all in one day, it takes several days to have an effect --Lyoko is Cool 07:08, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like the idea, as it will reduce the number of unattended fortifications in the game which are a real problem for new players on both sides --Rolland CW 07:26 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Like Bentley Foss said. Also, it seems like a needlessly complex way of solving the 'problem'.. which i don't think IS a problem. For the past week my survivor character has been running from one extremely fortified location to the next and they keep getting overrun. The last thing we need is a partial barricade nerfing. Elliothatman 08:10, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • The "Problem" is that new players can't go anywhere. My main desire for a barricade nerf is that they make zombies, especially new ones, more fun to play - WITHOUT overpowering a horde. Oh well, this suggestion is dead...a shame that few enough people seemed to understand how this works and what it affects (abandoned barricades, rather than actively enforced ones). --RSquared 16:32, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like abandoned barricades strewn out through the city. John Cooper 10:04, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- P0p0 10:57, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like barricades as they are now. --Seagull Flock 13:09, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think this makes things way more fair for Survivors who don't have Free Running and Zombies who are in "Human-o-centric" areas of the city. I had my human cross the city and get dead because there was no place to hide out and no chance of breaking through a barrier in any great amount of time (level 1 medic). Then, as a zombie, I didn't want to waste my hard-earned AP trying to smash down a barricade which may not have paid off even if I had IP left, and I just stood around in a horde until something happened. Moving wasn't a real solution because of the movement penalty and me not knowing where to go. --Khaizard 14:00, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are some good aspects to this, and the basic concept is sound, but I don't like that the engineering skill wouldn't allow the person to recognize that the barricade had weakened. There should be some way of ascertaining that. --Dickie Fux 14:49, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Faaar to complicated, sorry. Also reasons stated above Skarmory 15:26, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies can tell if a building is occupied if there is a generator running (even if not all occupied buildings have them, quite a few do by now.), now that there's a good reason to have them in buildings aside from hospitals. Or if they really want to, they can go find a place like a Police Station or Hospital that are certain to be housing lots of yummy human brains. And it would take months for barricades to wear down. Wood and metal don't dissapear overnight. Then again the dead don't walk. --TheTeeHeeMonster 18:33, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill hm.. good idea, very good idea. but, the fact that it "looks" heavy and is light turns me off.. if that changed, i might vote keep. -- P0p0 18:53, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I like the idea, but IMO to balance this, there would need to be permanent death for zombies (not going to happen). So, kill. --Sammy Jenkis 20:22, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You need to barricade inside of buildings. They wouldn't weather unless there were holes in the roofs... --PatrickDark 20:43, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Barricades shouldn't last forever. --Kirk 21:49, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Big-time keep. Whether you're a zombie or a survivor, it's insanely lame to go to building after building and discover that they're ALL barricaded. A barricade should degrade if for no other reason than to keep the game fun. As for any seige issues, 1) survivors SHOULD have to run every now and then and 2) if every barricade held one survivor and one zombie camped it out, yes there would be an AP advantage, but with DOZENS (if not hundreds) of unoccupied barricades, it's way in the favor of experienced survivors (against zombies AND newbie survivors). --Clickytickytai 02:30, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Elegant implementation, but this is a solution to a bigger problem that stems from the ability to barricade-up a building and then just leave it by clicking any nearby square. Fix this problem and Weathering will not be necessary. --Squashua 05:33, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- As I said somewhere, isn't it possible that a barricades degradation would make it more effective? --Nov 00:46, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I'm torn between feeling like Squashua and Lyoko Is Cool on the subject, but I'm leaning just close enough to Lyoko to vote this way. At least it's a better suggestion than anyone else has given, although I'd say several days instead of just one. -- Tabs 19:41, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Nerf Headshot (Version 0)

Timestamp: 01:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance change
Scope: Everyone
Description: Headshot: some of us love it, some of us hate it. I'd personally be interested in Suggesting some ways to reduce it, but I'd rather not waste your time and mine if the majority of voters will vote Kill no matter what. Therefore, a preliminary vote: Keep if you support the reduction ("nerfing") of Headshot in any way, and Kill if you prefer it as is. Possibilities may include but are not limited to: raised XP cost, raised level requirement, skill requirements, reduced XP damage, replacement of certainty with some element of randomness.


  • Keep Author. --LouisB3 01:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - When voting ends, if this passes, record the vote count, please! I would suggest that the Zombie hit with a Headshot takes additional APs to stand up equal to the overflow of HP caused to him. --Squashua 05:36, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Kill votes for keeping it as is. I hate getting headshot. That doesn't mean it should be changed, though. --Spellbinder 02:01, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I personally like it as is. Please don't try to change my beloved headshot.--Carfan7 02:04, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I understand what you're trying to do but this page gets crowded enough as it is. We don't need a vote that gives us the same result as the first line of your suggestion. --Jon Pyre 02:08, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: I was hoping to reduce the overall number of suggestions by judging whether or not to bother creating a bunch of individual nerf suggestions. If this one gets spammed, the page'll be more crowded than if it got voted down fairly. --LouisB3 02:31, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I understand what you are doing here, but Headshot has been nerfed enough. Leave it as is. Please. --ThunderJoe 03:04, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you don't want to get headshot, get a revive. :-p Bentley Foss 03:09, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Headshot's fine by me, speaking as one who has been headshotted before. --Lucero Capell 03:43, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Headshot needs to be changed to something more beneficial to the user and less malicious to the zombies. XP is considered sacred in most RPGs. --Snikers 04:02, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm a dedicated survivor and I still don't like the idea of headshot. I'll probably never buy it. X1M43 04:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I feel the same as Snikers. It's a worthless skill unless you like to feel you are messing someone else up. Thorbrian 05:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think it should be nerfed. Suggest a good change and I will vote for it. For example, change it from an XP cull to a 5-10% chance of an instant kill - which is what headshot is supposed to be, sourcing from zombie movies. The benefit of it would be that you could get the same XP for the kill, but with less ammo use. With ankle grab, it won't affect zeds as much as the XP culling does. I agree the XP culling isn't good but nerfing isn't the answer. Elliothatman 08:06, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Instakills have been voted down time and again. Did you catch the bit about "may include but are not limited to" with the possibilities? --LouisB3 16:49, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies can't die. After getting ankle grab, this is the only inconvenience a survivor can cause them, apart from revification, which is pretty hard to accomplish (what with the scarcity of syringes and the existence of brain rot and all). John Cooper 09:53, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm not crazy about the pre-voting concept, but losing all my XP day after day is lame. --Dickie Fux 14:43, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The only nerf to headshot I'll accept is it not recognizing human levels. --RSquared 15:06, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: If you'll accept any nerf at all, then for the love of God why are you voting Kill on a suggestion to nerf it in any way?! --LouisB3 16:41, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Word to RSquared --Zaruthustra 15:12, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If something drives me away from Urban Dead, it'll be the frustration of losing several days of play due to a headshot. - Skarmory 15:28, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Head shots are horrible for noobies and anyone else, the loss of xp should be on the shooter, not the shooted. May be reconsider the head shot as a first shot kill and no xp loss... --michael86
  • Re: If you're opposed to Headshot, I'm pretty sure you should be voting Keep. --LouisB3 16:41, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - An awfully vauge post, but I'll "vote of confidence" since it needs some limitation. I made my suggestion as to how to "nerf" it below, which I think works well because Headshot is pretty cool if only a relatively few survivors have it- but stinks when 1/3 of the population has it!
  • Kill, stop whining. Headshot is hardly even dangerous to skilled players. :P --LibrarianBrent 18:50, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- P0p0 18:58, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill stop whining x 2 --Eddo36 21:11, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm open to the idea. --Kirk 21:51, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Let's slow Zombies down without keeping causing them to lose xp --Clickytickytai 23:50, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, I'm tired of losing hard-earned xp. Jirtan 00:40, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Headshot's already been nerfed once. I don't think it needs it again. I don't like the way headshot works, but asking simply to "nerf" it is like asking to "nerf" ankle grab. It's a dumb suggestion. Say HOW you think it should be reimplemented, not just "it should be nerfed." --Shadowstar 03:14, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Headshot has made it very difficult for my characters to level up...especially when they get whacked as humans and the headshotted immediately after standing up. --Kulatu 05:37, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - a random-ish XP drop would be more intesting (8-12 XP per level?) --Heamo 13:11, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Because it is perfectly fine as is.--Matthew-Stewart 23:09, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Vague. --Nov 00:49, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like how it is now --Hot Shot
  • Keep - Currently, headshot seems to be designed for griefing. I don't see what it adds to the game currently, except annoyance. It must be changed in some way. It should at least be somewhat beneficial to the person using it, and not purely an annoyance to the target. --Max Lord 17:43, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I do not see any point in Headshot. You do not gain any extra XP from using it as far as I've figured out and you cause other people to lose theirs. All it is, is something that bothers and irritates zombie players. If you're going it alone, you're perfectly easy to hunt down. If you're in a horde, you're just likely to get Headshot because people want to destroy mass congregations of zombies. And for crissakes you don't TOUCH people's XP in games; it's just Not Done. The way I see it, Survivors should do one of three things: a) Lose the skill and gain 100 XP to use somewhere else, b) Keep it but have it only add a possible extra one or two points of HP damage or something instead of knocking out XP, or c) Let the zombies have something that takes away survivor XP at the same rates. -- Tabs 19:33, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --ALIENwolve 19:37, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment - The idea behind headshot is reasonable, and I don't think it's griefing, definitely the game would be unbalanced in the opposite direction if it was removed entirely. But given the number of Zombie Hunters around, I'm finding that my human alts feel safe and my zombies are running scared. In a zombie invasion, it's just not right for the zombies to be more scared. It's even worse that high level zombies with all their skills don't have to worry about it at all. Vasi 04:34, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Energy Drink

Due to some early misunderstandings, im going to resubmit this tmrw. Good night.- AllStarZ 06:00, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Alarm Systems

Timestamp: 06:22, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: New feature?
Scope: Survivors and zombies indirectly.
Description: In the real world, almost any given building in a city would have an alarm system already installed. When a generator is running in a building and the doors are wide open, the alarm would go off. A short edit would be made to the room description reading: "The doors are wide open, and the alarm is blaring." If the doors are suddenly PULLED OPENED while the alarm is on, it will also put a 'since your last turn' message in ONCE stating: "The alarm system begins blaring." in bold text. - The purpose of this addition would be to alert Survivors to a breach in security in a more noticable way.

For the player, this requires nothing but a running generator.


  • Keep - Nice Idea --Lyoko is Cool 07:07, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this one. In certain buildings (malls, mansions, ect) it could even allert nearby police stations (provided they have power) --Zeek 07:49, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT) -edit: Addressing Elliothatman's comment; presumably, one could would be able to hear the alarm for any door in a large building (ex. malls) from other parts of the building, so you would know if one of the three areas you can't see has been breeched. --Zeek 09:14, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It sounds cool, but it isn't going to add anything to the game, because when you're in a building you can already tell the barricade level and door status. It isn't like in RL where you could be in a different part of the building and not realise the door was opened. So all this amounts to is screen clutter. Elliothatman 07:57, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- I disagree: other users could have reclosed the doors and rebarricaded. This way, you'd know you had been invaded. Still, I don't think it is *very* useful. Now, if the alarm going off would send the users present (or at least those who opt for it) an alert e-mail... John Cooper 09:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I actually like the idea. You would know if there was a zombie breach even after they had been pushed back and building rebarricaded. Brizth 10:05, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it how people are starting to find good ways to put the generators to good use. --ThunderJoe 14:58, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Particularly if the alarms are only in banks, museums, malls, and mansions. --Frobozz 15:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just tweak it so there's an on/off switch, and limit it to certain buildings, like Frobozz said, with the addition of Forts. --Dickie Fux 16:20, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep saz fool, saz -- P0p0 18:59, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Simple, not unbalancing. You say it's not too useful? So? Newpapers exist since day one. --Monstah 19:24, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep especially if it is limited to banks, museums, malls, and mansions (maybe some other resource buildings and a random selection of regular buildings). I also like the sending an email if the user provided it at creation. -- Sammy Jenkis 20:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: It's really funny.. I thought about adding the e-mail notification, but figured it would be shot down unanimously! Shows what I know.. :X Heh heh. -- Amazing 21:18, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill For all the reasons of Elliothatman. It would be cool but isn't really adding anything. -- MortalMadMan 17:48, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Elliothatman's reasons are valid, yes, however... I'd like to know how many times zombies broke in. I'd love to know that, no, no zombie broke in, just some human killed me who's been PKed in return. Or, on the other side, yes, a zombie got in, he killed me. It might be a little cluttered, but not too much, it's interesting information and it's flavourful. --Shadowstar 03:17, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this because it reflects what I see as the reality of the situation. With power restored to the city, you would, most likely, be hearing nothing but burgular alarms. What would be even better would be if I got sent an email when the alarm went off in the building I was hiding in, giving me an opportunity to 'wake up' and respond to an immediate threat. --Vair 21:06, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nice idea, but doesn't add much. I know there are already flavour items, but this doesn't mean we need more of them. --Rhebus 09:46, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I'm just not sure what worth this would have. but, meh, no harm done to anybody, and its not like i'd be that hard to implement it--Spellbinder 18:39, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Implement only for certain buildings like multi-story buildings and banks, or create an installable alarm system item. --Squashua 05:37, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I prefer the interface change where the messages are just there instead of this fancy thing that needs a portable generator to work. --Nov 00:53, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice idea --Hot Shot 29 Nov 2005
  • Keep -- Not a bad idea. --Pesatyel 21:27, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think it's a great idea! Perhaps, people in nearby blocks could hear the alarm too? If you're standing next to the building with the alarm, perhaps the description could include "You hear an alarm echoing from nearby." I think it should be limited to the banks, museums, malls, and mansions, and perhaps odd random buildings here and there. Saxsux 19:33, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- It would be nice to know how many times a place I consider "safe" is broken into a day. I wouldn't want to stay in a place that SEEMED well protected by appearing to be at VS or H when I was logged in, but was repeatedly run into during the day without my knowledge. Keep it only on the bigname buildings though, yeh. Y'know--banks, malls, and such. (Although... it would be kinda funny if the zombie who finally broke down a Junkyard barricade had a one-time 25% chance of being bit for a couple damage by the Junkyard Guard Dog. Ahahaha. I may have to suggest this just for fun.) -- Tabs 19:46, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 12:20, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance change.
Scope: Survivors and zombies indirectly.
Description: With the current large difference in zombie to survivor numbers, this suggestion is of NPC characters to be automatically generated when zombie or survivor numbers in a certain suburb or over the entire map reach a certain percentage.

i.e. if in Dulston there are 95% survivors and 5% zombies then a random number of zombies would be spawned in Dulston. These zombies would have 100% chance of being hit and 100% chance of being killed and only have 1 HP and would have a small attack, possibly bite with 2 attacks, and 5% of hitting. They would give .5XP for every one killed, so kill 2 of the NPC�s and get 1XP. When killed the zombie is removed from play, and no new NPC's are generated until all NPC's have been removed from a suburb and a certain amount of time has elapsed. These zombies would be spread randomly over a suburb, could not move and would be removed when the playable zombie number in each suburb reached a certain percent.

This would hopefully address the suburbs that are effectively zombie free.

The same could be done in the case of survivors; a randomly generated number of survivors would be created, following the same kind of lines.

To think of these in game, they could be zombies that where stuck in sewers, or in locked rooms.


  • Keep - Creators vote-- Night Haunter 12:20, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - NPC's are totally against the spirit of this game, so please stop suggesting anything about them. --Fixen 12:53, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'm tempted to vote Spam. --LouisB3 14:44, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I -AM- Voting spam, because that's what this is. Nobody wants NPCs, and if this doesn't get spammed to death it will be overwhelmingly killed. --Pyrinoc 14:46, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - While I (begrudgingly) can't vote spam on this, I can add to the nice list of kills. --Zaruthustra 14:55, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - user removed responce --ThunderJoe 15:00, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re- This suggestion was suggested because this game is supposed to be a survival horror type game, where zombies are the main force, at the moment there are 2 humans for every zombie, this causes an unfair advantage for survivors, if a new player is spawned as a zombie in an area that is high on survivors, they are less likely to survive their first day on the game, so they might not actually come back to play. Also some suburbs have a high number of zombies so a new player spawning there would also be less likely to survive, and because they would need rejuvenating to become human with few survivors in that sector they may also get killed and not play the game. The situation at Caiger Mall is how i see zombie's. I fully except that NPC's might not be the way to go about this situation, but we do need someway to address the situation or its going to turn into a game with 100,000 humans and 1000 zombies not much of a survival horror game. Also the NPC's GO HOME, say that NPC suggestions must be though about, the characters would be low level easy to kill, and would only act as a buffer to slow down the opposing force. Night Haunter 15:43, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Sorry, I am just a little angered about something that just happened in my personal life. I understand you want balance in the game, but this just is not the way to go. I change my vote from spam to kill. --ThunderJoe 16:02, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Sorry, but NPCs are just a bad idea. --Frobozz 15:58, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Non Player Characters (especially ones that pop like bubbles from any attack) are as innapropriate as Motorcycle Lesbian Nun Characters. --Swiers 16:21, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Urban Dead is not about NPCs. NPCs go home, I say! Bentley Foss 16:22, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You designed this nicely, but the result of this would be a very homogenous feel from suburb to suburb. I like that some suburbs are overwhelmed by zombies, others well patrolled by survivors. --Dickie Fux 16:26, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - NPCs go home! (Also, Swier,s it's Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels characters you're thinking of :P --John Taggart 16:37, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - While an interesting idea, the problem is that these additional targets would clutter up the map without doing anything to enhance play. However, this might be a worthwile idea for a zombie skill of some sort. Something called "Fearsome presence" or "Strength in numbers" or somesuch where a zombie generates one or more 'decoys' (zombies can tel the difference but survivors can't) that make hordes seem larger than they are and draw fire. The idea being that the humans tend to over-estimate the size of the horde attacking them.--Rolland CW 18:10, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Here's how you get more zombies in the game: convince your friends to start playing. --TheTeeHeeMonster 18:42, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- P0p0 19:00, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is a PvP game, and having fluctuations of population in the suburbs is a nice thing to have. --PatrickDark 20:48, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill NPCs "make Hulk angry, Hulk SMASH..." but seriously NPC really do suck.--Matthew-Stewart 21:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam ...GRAAAARRGGGGH!!! EXACTLY HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY THIS? DO I HAVE TO FREAKING SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU? This game is not suppost to have NPC's AllStarZ 02:06, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This entire game was designed around having no NPCS--Spellbinder 18:42, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No comment. --Squashua 05:37, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- What was said above. --Nov 00:56, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Well, duh. Saxsux 19:35, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - This idea is retarded. This game is PvP. --Grim s 14:54, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- While we do need a boost on the zombie number side, NPC is like a huge no-no or something. Plus, it's dull. 100% hits when you've nothing else to do? Psh. -- Tabs 19:53, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Hunter Death = Loss of Headshot Skill

Timestamp: 16:16, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: skill modification / balance change
Scope: zombie hunters with headshot
Description: Zombie Hunters (survivor characters with headshot) would loose the headshot skill if they get killed. This could be for many reasons- a newly acquired fear of zombies, lingering nerve damage from death / zombie status, sympathy for the dead (however temporary), script writers not liking that character (if you go by zombie movie logic), whatever. The net effect is, once revived, they would have to spend 100xp to re-purchase the skill if they wanted to do the headshot thing again. Currently, 1/3 of the survivors in the city have headshot, and that's just WAY to many for an elite skill, and it obviously is grief for zombie players. This helps level the playing field; if headshot can take xp from zombies, then why not let zombies take headshot (and thus 100xp) from the characters who have the headshot skill?


  • Kill - No one should lose their skills under any circumstances. Ever. Just, no. Bentley Foss 16:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As funny as I think this would be, it's too unfair. --Dickie Fux 16:28, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sorry I couldn't hear. Could you please turn down your stupidity. No one should ever loose a skill. Ever. --ThunderJoe 16:30, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - I guess I went a little out of line right there. Sorry. --ThunderJoe 22:20, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is the equivilent of say a zombie should lose brain rot when it is killed because all it does is grief scientists. ----Arcos 16:34, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Skill loss is bad. If you don't like Headshot, vote Keep on Nerf Headshot (Version 0), above. --LouisB3 16:46, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Creator vote / Response; If your opposittion is that "nobody should ever, never, not no-how loose skills" - please explain how loosing XP differs in any real way from loosing a skill! Especially for high level charactrs (which zombie hunters by definition are) it really does NOT differ much, if any. I think also in this case, skill loss is GOOD - with so many calls for "nerf headshot" it seems logical to limit how often it gets used. --Swiers 16:49, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/Spam, STOP WHINING. --LibrarianBrent 18:48, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill "Wah, i'm a zombie an i got shot in the brains, and as opposed to what the genre says i'm not permanently dead.. i just loose some xp" -- P0p0 19:02, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you don't like headshot, get it changed. Don't take players' skills away. Why take XP instead of skills? XP changes constantly, while skills are static. And if you can get killed and lose skills, why not just take away hand-to-hand and firearms training too, while you're at it? -_- --PatrickDark 20:52, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Maybe the headshot-removing-fairy is responsible for the unprecedented loss of an arbitrary skill?* Or maybe this is a bad suggestion. (*Disclaimer: Sarcasm in italics)--Matthew-Stewart 22:02, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Its so interesting how zombie-focused people want to kill headshot as badly as possible, yet whine and moan when ankle grab is brought up to be changed... Look, headshot doesn't affect skills for a reason. You say that XP is more valuable than skills. I disagree. Once you buy a skill, your XP loses the set amount, and therefore, you now have a skill that cannot be lost under any circumstances. Its like banking money, once you put it in, it's untouchable by others. Yes, its not fair that mid-level zombies have trouble levelling up, however, its also not fair that zombies can undo all 50-60 damage a survivor does to them at the cost of 1 AP, either. Then there's the fact that Brain Rot can really grief the sucky fighters that are the scientists... The game isn't as unbalenced as zombie enthusiasts think it is. In fact, it's probably pretty balenced as it is right now. Besides, there will probably soon be an alternative zombie hunter skill that you can't get if you already have headshot, so those with headshot will miss out on being able to get it, so you can watch them cry when that happens. Honestly, the only real change I'd like to see for headshot is to have it affect AP instead of XP. Other than that, I say its fine. --Volke 22:12, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So, would you vote keep for zombies can be revived even with brain rot by high level nectechs, and then they lose their brain rot? Uh... no? --Shadowstar 03:19, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No comment. --Squashua 05:38, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm one the the most pro-zombie players out there, but this is a bad idea. --Stroth 08:53, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- Bad idea. --Nov 01:12, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- "Wah, i'm a survivor an i got my innards chewed out, and as opposed to what the genre says i'm not permanently undead.. i just have to get poked with a needle and i'm magically all better!" --Graaaaaaagh 09:50, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I have no objections. xp would still be gained quickly for survivors. This would make this skill the elite skill it was supposed to be. --McArrowni 20:54, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Dismemberment (revised)

Timestamp: 16:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: melee attacks
Description: This is a resubmit of a previous suggestion. After seeing some reasons for the previous votes, I thought some clarification was in order.

Dismemberment is a subskill of Axe Proficiency. Each melee attack with an axe has a small (5% or less--this is open to debate, but 5% seems right to me) chance of dismembering your opponent. You and the recipient see a message such as "Your mighty swing hacks off an ______ (arm/leg/hand/foot/lung/etc., randomly chosen)."

When killed, the recipient of a Dismemberment stands up with a temporary 5 HP reduction from their max HP, as if they'd received an attack for 5 damage. The player can still be healed to their max through the use of a First Aid Kit or Bite, just like any other damage.

Dismemberment never stacks with itself. The most post-death/revive damage the player ever suffers from Dismemberment is 5 HP, even if they received a dozen dismemberments during a battle. Therefore, a Body-Building character who is dismembered will stand up with 55 HP, and a normal 50 HP character who is dismembered will stand up with 45 HP.

Addressing criticisms:

Realism - It's a game about zombies...realism? At any rate, we can safely assume that the zombification process and revivification process restores any lost appendages (but not the damage) you might suffer. (Hey, it's even a good RP use for Surgery! Heh...)
Griefers/etc. - This is in no way a permanent effect. It is equivalent to receiving a 5 damage attack when the user stands up from death/revivification. If it's a survivor PKing another survivor--this doesn't come into play until you're already dead, then you're a zombie either way, so what does it matter?
The possibility of hacking off 5 arms from a zombie in one play session - It's humorous. Come on--you can't tell me there's no humor inherent in this game already. (Can we say "I'm carrying around 15 shotguns and several pistols right now"?)
Dismemberment only works if one is attacking with an axe, and it has a very small chance of working even then. Realistically, one person could hope to dismember one player per day, max, although yes, technically, the possibility does exist to dismember 50 players per day. (Then again, that's also ridiculously unlikely.)


  • Keep - This seems balanced to me. Nice. --Dickie Fux 17:24, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nice idea, but could the dismemberment be healed with FAK? I don't see how standing up would have more chances of making you grow a hacked off arm than a first aid kit, and I think dismembering would be likely to cause more than just some lost HP upon standing up... --Hexedian 18:50, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: As I said, this suggestion has humor inherently built into it. Doesn't it strike you as a little amusing that a FAK will heal you right up after losing an arm? Heh. Bentley Foss 20:03, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, even thought the flavour is off. Just try not to think of it as dismemberment, but as really bad damage that stays after being risen. --Monstah 19:30, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, I did not like the first one, but I do like this one, but I do believe that a person heald with surgery should not have to worry about the dismembered appendage (lung?) and should be able to stand up with max ap. --ThunderJoe 21:36, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep only if its a zombie hunter skill, w/ a minimum level -- P0p0 23:02, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Bad name and bad theme. I dont want to be revived lacking 2 arms, a leg, and a member. AllStarZ 02:12, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Who will ever know? You and the person who killed you are the only ones who ever see the messages. It has absolutely no effect on any abilities whatsoever. The only effect is the 5 HP damage you suffer when you stand up. Bentley Foss 06:20, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As Bentley Foss said, but those are reasons for me to kill it. Madalex 10:12, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - it's a good idea, but I'm feelin' like it overpowers the axe a little. Headshot + dismemberment? Maybe if the ZH skills were mutually exclusive (character can get headshot or get dismemberment)...after all, it makes more sense that headshot works with guns, and this with the axe? I'm inclined to like it better that way. --RSquared 19:38, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this sort of implementation. --Squashua 05:39, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Healing and Revivification after dismemberment would regrow limbs? --Nov 01:13, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- What Nov said. --Hot Shot
  • Kill -- While it sounds cool from an RP/realism perspective, it doesn't make sense in the context of the game. How would a zombie without legs "stand?" --Pesatyel 21:33, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- What Monstah said. -- Tabs 19:52, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Death (VERSION 3)

Timestamp: 17:58, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance
Scope: Zombies
Description: Here comes Death Version 3... since the other 2 got shot down.

So, the idea is this; you'r in a quarentined city right? WHen a zombie is killed 3 times (using counter); he is paralysed for 2 minutes [come on 2 minutes]; during this time he is assumed totally dead, and dumped in a graveyard (i do not assume them as being places where you bury people, i assume them as being military dumping of bodies); perhaps a military vehicle (all RPED) picks you up and dumps you. So the zombie killed 3 times will rise again in a cemetry.

Bottom line: Stay away from cemetries, and a way to break sieges for a while..


  • Kill - Bad punctuation, bad idea, and a server killer to boot. This has all the hallmark of a successful Peer Rejected Suggestion. --Hexedian 18:43, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I really don't like this one. I don't think it fits with the game, and I also don't like any game mechanics that automatically do anything to anyone. If bodies get moved, other players should be the ones moving them. Bentley Foss 20:05, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There should be a way to break sieges, but this isn't it. I would do something along the lines of a "Burn Bodies" thing (I know that's been voted down, but if someone tweaked it enough...) --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:14, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I'm not sure I agree with the specifics (ex. every 3rd death) but the idea that something can be done to a zombie to relocate them is a good idea as it will make zombie / survivor battles more dynamic. The one thing that needs to be addressed before something like this can be implemented the zombies will also need an offsetting advantage (say some sorft of benifit from being in / near a graveyard) to keep play balanced. -- Rolland CW 20:32 (GMT)
  • Kill - When a zombie uses 50 AP, that's when the zombie is really dead. --Dickie Fux 20:49, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I am going with Hex and Bently on this one. Just a bad suggestion. And this would just make it harder for zombies to go in and siege the buildings. (My only character is a survivor so don't ride my ass about being a zombie sympathiser). --ThunderJoe 21:38, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - In the middle of a siege, who's going to truck all the bodies to the nearest graveyard? X1M43 21:54, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We eagerly await death version 4. --Zaruthustra 23:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill *Takes out hunting rifle and aims at the doorway, waiting for death (version 4) to come out*. AllStarZ 01:52, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What's your thoughts on why your previous versions got shot down, and this one probably also is? Madalex 10:09, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill buddy... hey... you know, we don't want our characters to be moved. and honestly, we don't need any death ideas to be thrown around--Spellbinder 18:49, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No comment. --Squashua 05:39, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Nov 01:17, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- nothxkbai -- Tabs 19:55, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Walk and Talk at the Same Time

Timestamp: 18:32, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Speech (surivivors & zombies)
Description: Speaking doesn't cost AP as long as your last action was something other than speaking.


  • Keep - ...Wow. Simple, but impressive nonetheless. ----Arcos 18:44, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - My idea and I'm rather fond of it. --Antrobus178 18:51, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This would encourage alot more people to talk before they have maxed out all their skills. --snerfu 19:12, 23 Nov 2005
  • Keep Very elegant solution to the talking AP problem. Might be tough on the server, but we all know my opinions on that.--'STER 19:19, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Simple and brilliant.. as long as there's a note to new players so they don't talk once, think it's free, and spend down all their AP without noticing. :) Edit: Wait, what about searching or dropping items? Hmm. -- Amazing 19:26, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - No strong opinion on this. I would say Yes on searching but No on dropping; AP must be spent to get a free speech. --Antrobus178 21:07, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - See? Not all suggestions with "speaking" and "0AP" have to be stupid. --Monstah 19:32, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - For this to work, your last actions would have to be stored on the server. Everyone's last action would need to be stored--something that is certainly not trivial. They must be stored on the server, because anything else would be open to exploit. I vote kill because I don't like "conditional" skills (see the talk page for Bad Suggestion Guidelines under Keep It Simple Part 2) and because I thought I heard something about chat boxes in the queue anyway, right? Bentley Foss 20:07, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It would only track whether your last action was speaking or not. If the "spoke on last action" switch is on, you're charged an AP, if not, it's free. Pretty simple condition IMHO. --Antrobus178 20:19, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't see any down side to this. Not urgent, but it would work. --Dickie Fux 20:53, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Theres something I don't like about this, I just can't put my finger on it. --ThunderJoe 21:40, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • keep - Speaking is good. X1M43 21:58, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The last thing I want to see are several screens of "A zombie said "Graaah!"" during a major siege. (Attack barricades, speak, attack barricades, speak, keep up until you have no more AP to attack the barricades. I really don't need 50 messages from each zombie involved, and you know that there are people who will do that.) — G026r 22:31, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- P0p0 23:04, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Spamtastic! Aside from the spam and server issues, making talking cost AP stops humans from getting too organized. This maintains the atmosphere. --Zaruthustra 23:54, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Search. Talk. Search. Talk. Search. Talk. um... wow, I can say a lot of stuff with this idea! --Shadowstar 03:21, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As Bentley Foss & G026r & Shadowstar said. Madalex 10:08, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'm actualy right next to Joe on this. there is just something that i can't put my finger on, but i'm recoiling from it, so i'm going to trust my gut and vote kill.--Spellbinder 18:51, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - lets you talk fifty times in one turn. Spamable like all get-out. --RSquared 19:45, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I had an idea like this a while back; thanks for wording it. --Squashua 05:40, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Nov 01:18, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think its a good way for humans to organize for small zed hunts --Hot Shot
  • Keep - I think it's a great idea. Saxsux 19:38, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Would just lead to spammage. Speaking costs ap for a reason. --Grim s 14:53, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I can't imagine what would a "Since your last turn" summary look like in a crowded place like a mall. --Seagull Flock 23:03, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's annoying spending AP to speak but for god's sake think of the MALL SIEGES. I love my zombies but if I came back to fifty Page-Down-Keys worth of Zombie Banana Phone I might have to turn around and kill my fellow horde members. -- Tabs 19:57, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brain Rot(Revised)

Timestamp: 18:46, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change & Skill
Scope: Zombies with Brain Rot
Description: Zombies with Brain Rot are less likely to suffer substantial damage from a head shot. Maybe 5 experience point per level instead of 10. There would not need to be a new skill added and I think it would make Brain Rot a much more desireable skill. Also it fits roleplaying wize since Headshot is about zombies with more experience, and thus more brain power, suffering more.


  • Kill - Because you said "maybe 1 XP". 1 is definetely too little. But the concept makes sense. After reading what Arcos said, I agree with him. Note that I do think this is a good suggestion, but as the rules said, "Change" is not a valid vote. So, a skill after brain rot is a lot better. --Monstah 19:33, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Bump that 1 to around 5 and it's golden. As written it's golden as well for the same reason Monstah mentioned. I've been trying to think of a way to make Brain Rot desireable forever.. :X -- Amazing 19:40, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author here. Halving the experience loss is very reasonable, much more so than my suggestion on 1 point loss. --Snerfu 19:50, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As is no. But if you were to make it a skill subset to brain rot, then I'd change my vote. Effects like that are unbalanced when place together. --Arcos 19:54, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I fixed it to 5 for you since you agreed with the suggested change. Also, good idea. --Pyrinoc 19:55, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - That makes one 100XP skill very, very powerful. Suggest as a subskill, if anything. (I'd probably still vote kill then. My zombie's gotten headshot several times, and I don't think it's as awful as many people feel. That's why.) Bentley Foss 20:10, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Still far too strong. Maybe if it were a Level 10 only subskill of Brain Rot. -- TF 20:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Subskill of Brain Rot or level 10 +, not both. --Dickie Fux 20:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As is, it's overpowered, and XP isn't that big a deal for a zombie anymore at level 10. Putting it as a subskill of Brain Rot would actually make Brain Rot useful, while not ruining headshot, though it might make it so that only very low level zombies suffer the full effects of a headshot... Something to work on. --PatrickDark 21:01, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What do you people not understand about "Don't Nerf Headshot?" Geeze. There really should not be a skill on one side that would counter the other. --ThunderJoe 21:42, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm tired of zombies complaining about headshot. I have a level 10 zombie. Guess what guys, headshot is the only thing that can actually hurt us. After you have ankle grab all you have to do it keep standing up. And that XP is staggered for a reason. --Zaruthustra 23:52, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Zaruthustra! --Shadowstar 03:23, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zaruthustra usually knows what he's talking about; my zombies can't make it past level 1 though, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until my Survivor levels don't count towards my Zombie level. --Squashua 05:42, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Nov 01:19, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Yeah, well. I realize I'm voting on something likely to be killed anyway, but it never hurts... this is probably the only reason I would really ever pick up Brain Rot. -- Tabs 20:00, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Removed due to duplicated, then buffed up and made more powerfull, suggestion. Check here for the same idea on simpler lines. Also, uncontested spam vote, but thats secondary to the duplicated suggestion.

Advanced Construction

Timestamp: 20:34, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Civilian Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Advanced Construction is a Civilian Skill (100XP). Players with the skill can barricade twice as quickly (2 barricade points per turn). Period.


  • Kill - Author vote (changed to kill after seeing initial results; I don't care anyway). I saw a lot of suggestions for barricade improvement, and this is just a little attempt of mine. I don't really mind if this fails. If so, then I'll just smile at finding another way that it won't work. --Fixen 20:34, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's easy enough already to barricade. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:42, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is a bad idea as it is already MUCH easier to put up barracade rather than take them down--Matthew-Stewart 20:48, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are far too many barricades already. Besides, zombies are badly outnumbered and at a big disadvange (look at the amount of new survior skills). BTW, I play a survivor, but I like having a healthy zombie population. Andrew McM 20:58, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - Gotcha. This is just a test. I don't intend it to work well. --Fixen 21:00, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, this is too powerful. Bentley Foss 21:22, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, just no. --ThunderJoe 21:46, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A single survivor can already (on average) barricade faster than a single player (human or zombie) can destroy the barricade. This just isn't needed. — g026r 23:05, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Uh... shouldn't author replying kill instantly kill the suggestion or something? --Shadowstar 03:24, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill He has full athority to take down his own suggestion if he wishes. No, its not some kind of an auto kill.--Spellbinder 19:06, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would rather see you re-suggest this with a higher % of succeeding at barricading. --Squashua 05:43, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Urm... why? --Nov 01:21, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- Super retarded suggestion. Lets let a single active survivor ap out 10 active zombies. With this zombies would NEVER win without a 15-20:1 numerical advantage. *rolls eyes* --Grim s 14:56, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- You must have this huge thing against people actually spending any time inside buildings. -- Tabs 20:01, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Street Barricades

Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: For 5 AP, a surivor can barricade one side of a street one level (Ex- Barricade North, Barricade South, Barricade East or Barricade West.) If the barricade is to the West, all sides but the west can enter (Including North- and South-West). This could be used to establash a perimeter around a (zombie-free) few block radius. It's balanced because it's no stronger than a regular barricade, but spans across several areas, and then in turn taking more energy to put into place (since to barricade an entire street you'd need a lot of big objects: Cars, Buses, Etc..). Also, survivors would have to keep all the barricades up, while zombies can gain access from one broken one. It'd take energy and work to keep the barricade up and zombies out, but wouldn't exactly give them a free ticket in. All normal barricade rules would apply (Strength level, Entry) and as an advantage survivors can set up safe houses bigger than a single building.


  • Kill - Right now, barricades prevent entry from inside to outside of the same building. This suggestion would prevent passage from one building/block to the next. You could theoretically barricade all around one bloc--Zaruthustra 23:46, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)k with a single body inside, who could never get out after waking up if the players around that block kept the barricades up. --Dickie Fux 21:10, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Good point, but that would take a group of griefers to pull off, and if that many did try it it'd probably be for some group war, meaning that the guy getting picked on would have his buddies come and kick some ass. And theoretically you can do this with a building barricaded to extremely high anyway. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:16, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This quadruples the potential amount of barricades (unless you intended this only for open squares?) and would be a huge hassle for survivors, zombies and the server. Bentley Foss 21:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like this idea, but one line stuck out. "Able to make safehouses larger than a single building." Ever heard of Malls, Stadiums, Mansions, Power Stations? Those are 2-4 squares large, and can do well as the center of a fortress. --ThunderJoe 21:49, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 1. Streets are much bigger than doors, and consequently harder to barricade. 2. What are you going to find to barricade the street? Cars? X1M43 22:02, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • RE: - Learn to read. I said it'd take more AP, and I did suggest cars.
  • Kill - This would just make life harder for everybody, zombies especially. --Zaruthustra 23:46, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Noob survivors too. Let alone being stuck unable to get to a safehouse, but unable to walk away from a zombie concentration! I think this just a plain bad idea.--Shadowstar 03:26, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You can come in on an angle. I just don't see this as able to be easily implemented. --Squashua 05:43, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Not required. --Nov 01:22, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Unnecessary and do let's not make it harder on zombies and noobs to get places. The only thing I can see this doing is what Dickie said it would. -- Tabs 20:04, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

General Store

Timestamp: 21:29, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: store
Scope: Survivors
Description: What we need is a general store. Someplace where we can trade in all those flare guns and flack vests and DNA-e's to get a little ammo or more Action Points. If you have three wirecutters and four poetry books, perhaps you might want to sell them for the ax that you were looking for or an NTS. Perhaps to save time, it could be added to the mall features rather then coding someplace new.

The General store option replaces the drop item bar with a sell item bar. While differing greatly in method from the Black Market suggestion it's "sell/buy" similarites differ in that the GS isn't during a item shortage, and is set in one place rather then random locations. The Black Market suggestion is similar to a three-card monty game, while the General store notion is a way to get needed equipment, such as first-aid kits, pistol clips, and more ap so that you can keep playing. Perhaps as a way to encourage travel the General Store could be placed in Malls, or the Zoo or the Mansion or someplace that isn't being used to it's full advantage.

-easier suggestion entry find searchword Battia-

Votes here

  • Kill - The mall is already like a general store, and money is bad. That idea's been shot down before. No currency of any kind: cash, food, interchangable xp, etc. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:30, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What do you think this is, Runescape? World of Warcraft? Everquest? NO! --ThunderJoe 21:51, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So what's our intrepid shopkeeper going to do with eight hundred newspapers? Besides, it'd take an NPC to run the shop, and I'm not down with that. X1M43 22:05, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Item trading is problematic at best. NPCs are bad ideas for this kind of game. I like things the way they are. Bentley Foss 23:23, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This has been tried so many times. If I wasn't lazy I'd pull out the duplicates and delete this. What made you think it would work this time? --Zaruthustra 23:31, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Now its time to turn my fury on this unfortunate fellow. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! NPCS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THIS GAME. NO ITEM TRADING WITH ANYTHING THAT IS AN NPC. AND HOW THE HELL DOES EXCHANGING ITEMS GET U MORE AP???? Besides, what use is money in a zombie outbreak? Malton is basically a war zone. The living fight the living and the dead, and the dead fight the living and amongst each other. What use is money in a war zone? No no no.... Blow this idea to hell. Tired of idiots trying to implement NPCs into the game. The day that there is a successful NPC idea is the day I stop complaining AllStarZ 05:11, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam This idea takes about 3 different suggestions, Store being one of them, and THEN slaps on idiotic suggestions like trading nailclipers for AP!--Spellbinder 19:10, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I prefer the dead Container Bucket suggestion. --Squashua 05:44, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I have not yet played WoWc. I couldn't find the previous GS suggestion and wanted to clarify some small points. I don't care what an npc does with 800 newspapers. Let him make z scarecrows or a giant paper-mache Go Away! sign. If you've spent 2 days looking for shotgun and shells, you just want more ap. None of this play-by-mail. Some people just want to sit down and play to their heart's content. And there's no home version. Ap is the most important thing in the game. hp is for when you're unlucky enough to be locked outside. And nobody needs two or more wirecutters or two gps's. Accidentally finding them is a waste of the ap used in searching. Why Not try to get some ap back? There's no money in Malton! Not in amounts that would save you from zombies, anyway. And putting the GS in the Zoo or the Mantion or something might draw people out of hiding and get z players into areas they had ignored.-
  • Spam -- Third Spam vote. --Nov 01:26, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- We just need to have trading implemented. --Pesatyel 21:41, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I'd rather see the ability to turn a stack of, like, 10 newspapers, into a point on barricades or something. At least that would shut the "OMG USELESS NEWSPAPER" people up, stupid an idea as it is. -- Tabs 20:07, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Burning Fever

Timestamp: 17:53 EST
Type: Zombie Sub-Skill
Scope: Infectious Bite
Description: Those zombies with infectious bite can buy this subskill. Those survivors who are bitten develop a fever in addition to the normal infection damage. This fever causes infected survivors to hallucinate. The actual mechanic here is that survivors would show as zombies for the hallucinating survivor. The effect ends when the infection is cured.


  • Kill - Pointless. One zombie on the street? It's a zombie. 50 zombies inside a barricaded building? They're suvivors.--Jon Pyre 23:00, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wow, one place where this would be effective. I really think this is just a bad suggestion. And what realistic explanation can you give us for the sudden halusonogen (sp?) found in the zombie's bite? Think it through, and Jon Pyre is right, it should be obvious. --ThunderJoe 23:06, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Griefers will love this. Need to explain why you suddenly unloaded all your ammo onto a safehouse with a handful of low-level survivors? Why, you thought they were zombies, of course. — g026r 23:10, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No thanks. You haven't specified a way to get cured. Also, people could just use common sense ("Hey, I found a bunch of zombies inside a Extremely Heavily Fortified building that required Free Running to reach! They must be zombies!") to figure out who is who. Packing multiple status ailments from the same attack (Bite) is also not going to curry favor, methinks. Bentley Foss 23:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT) Just to point out, the method of getting cured was added after my original vote...
  • Kill - I fail to see how this meshes in with the rest of the game. It has no practical use as a skill most of the time. Just an extra 100xp for zombies to burn. --Zaruthustra 23:48, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Wow, I cannot understand the intensity of the negative response to this. I think it needs tweaking, but I'm voting keep because it's a much better idea than people others seem to think it is, and I'm putting my thoughts on the discussion page. --Dickie Fux 00:14, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Um... Someone with a fever causing them to hallucinate, from what I know, tends to die without real medication, especially if they're already injured. I don't think a FAK would cut it. And the Jon Pyre stuff is also true. Though, if I saw two zombies in a room, I wouldn't necessarily know. I've seen two zombies in barricaded buildings... --Shadowstar 03:31, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -why you ahve to be such un-imaginative? a zombie bite you for 3 damage, sudennly you fell how the world changes, a little... and then you have no ammo, youthink that people are talking but they are eating your brain,you find your weapons "unloaded", and you think that you find a "zombie" or, you keep shooting and you dont notice you already killed him, you find the heavily barricated buildings as: "this building has no doors, indeed this building has no door nor windows", or if you can enter into a building you find "the doors wide open" and full of zombies, i think that this can have a enormous range of options,i believe that itwould need a lot of programing , but it would be so much fun --Onimoz 03:40, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill From g026r:... but I feel the need to point out that he did specify a way to get cured: The effect ends when the infection is cured. This would imply that a FAK would cure it, as FAKs cure the normal infections--Spellbinder 19:12, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Work out the specifics (percentages, points, healing, etc.) and I'll think about this. --Squashua 05:45, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Vague. --Nov 01:28, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Intriguing concept with possible use for making Infectious Bite an actual threat, but needs work. Sorry. -- Tabs 20:09, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Play Dead

Spamminating the countryside, spamminating the peasants. Bentley Foss 06:04, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools