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

28th December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 11th-Jan-2006

Brain Rot Modification

Timestamp: 01:54, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill modification
Scope: Zombies
Description: No, this isn't one of those "Make being revived optional" suggestions. I'm merely suggesting that getting brainrot could give an extra 5% to hit to all zombie attacks. It encourages players to permanently play as zombies and as a bonus gives career zombies a bit of a boost.


  • Keep - I love it! 10 is a bit much though. EDIT: I love it now that it's a bit lower. EDIT TIMESTAMP: 00:15 28 Dec 2005 (EST) --MaulMachine 20:59, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)
    • Re: - What the... I thought I put 5%. My mind is going Dave, I can feel it... Anyway, it's fixed now. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:16, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Kill - This is a good idea. It gives zombies power and is an incentive to stay as one. Good Idea. Though, I see where MaulMachine is comming from, I think that providing a really high bonus is important. Change it back to 10%. 5% is low enough to be ignored. --Horje 02:14, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But I'm not planning to buy brain rot just for this. --Penance 02:45, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sure why not. - Jedaz 03:10, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I only vote for my own idea when it has support. --TheTeeHeeMonster 03:13, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - With this, I might actually consider getting brain rot... --Signal9 04:46, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • No Vote - I'm split here. On one side, zombies DO need more power, but on the other side, it's not a good reason to boost them, it's just more of the same, and I really can't find how this would be flavorable (Are zombies weaker because they have a brain slowing them down?) --Hexedian 05:04, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT) not a valid vote; take it to discussion
    • Re: The point here isn't to give them a strength boost, but a numbers boost. Mechanic also pointed out a good way to implement this flavor-wise. Good for you for seeing both sides of the argument, though. Have a cookie. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:31, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 05:14, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill bad idea, elaboration - two reasons, first I don't think that anyone currently needs mechanical boosts at the current time and second, if such an effect is implemented it should be a sub skill under brain rot, not part of it. (Post edited 18:38 28 Dec 2005 (GMT))--Rolland CW 05:24 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep For one reason noted in your description...encouraging people to play permanently as zombies. --Thelabrat 06:53, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Hell yes -phungus420 0654, 28DEC05 (GMT)
  • Keep As the zombies brain slides further into decay, so it's consciousness slides further from the tattered remains of it's humanity, each day becoming more and more a killing machine without any shred of human compassion remaining behind it's lifeless eyes. BARHAH! -SatansMechanic 0700, 28DEC05 (GMT)
  • Keep - If a zombie chooses to become dedicated to the class, he becomes 1/20th more powerful in his attacks. Claw damage per AP goes from 1.5 to 1.65, and bite gets up to a whopping 1.4. Oh no, zombies might be able to kill one and two-thirds characters with a full 50 AP (which they almost never have). Hell, I'd like to see it as a separate skill below Brain Rot. Why would any rational person think this is a bad idea? --Beauxdeigh 07:26, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think this is *awesome*. --Jorm 08:55, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great idea. Make Brain Rot more attractive. --Jack Destruct 09:47, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Encourages more career zombies. Petrosjko 10:22, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There's no such thing as a "career" survivor. Until there is, I don't want ot be weaker than any other Zombie just because I enjoy switching sides. -Skarmory 12:12, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - combat % is balanced as it is, hurts players who want their zombies able to switch once in a while. zombies are only week as their percentage is low. and in a week zombie count has risen 5% lets wait where that takes us, before messing with Headshot or Brain Rot. Lets concentrate on diversifying zombie and survivor gameplay instead of more of the same...--Vista 12:59, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - the Zombie percentage has risen, but the total number of active players has dropped by about 6,000. It's the holidays, people are traveling. We can't tell for sure yet. And this suggestion does raise the zombie count, since they wouldn't switch sides. The % difference is trivial. And as for Skarmory, there are such things are career survivors: They're the zombies that sit at revive points going "Mrh? Mrh? Mrh?" until they get revived. Use an alt if you want to be human, or just ignore that little 5% and switch when you feel like it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:19, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Luckily the zombie count also went up with +700 zombies with the strike still going on. And I find it strange that zombie player would travel less then survivors. So I'm optimistic. If the % difference is trivial, why have it? why not give it to survivors instead? It isn't trivial, it means a boost of 1/6th on bite and 1/10th on zombies attacks. increasing the attack strength of brain rot zombies with 10% to 17%, pretty substancial if you take the 'multiply with a thousand' rule in account--Vista 18:36, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a reasonable suggestion, and the only counterpoints made are from players who are not willing to commit to Brain Rot. --S Kruger
  • Kill - Even though I think we need more zombies, if the ratio were 70% zombie to 30% survivor, this change would unbalance things. --Dickie Fux 16:01, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, combat is already balanced. -CWD 16:49, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep A 5% boost isn't going to unbalance things. Robin Goodfellow 19:30, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - An additional incentive for getting Brainrot also means that the more people that have it, the less chance there is of the Zed population from falling as low. -- Andrew McM 19:38, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - My corpse felt like a killing machine at level 2. I really doubt such a buff is even remotely warranted. --Tyroney 19:40, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: What people are overlooking is that this is such a minor change, and is only an incentive for more people to buy brainrot. This is more about the population numbers than the combat numbers. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:12, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keepgreat idea--Kcold 19:48, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Prefer to see flak-jacket-alike and body-building-alike skills added. --Centerfire 23:24, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too bland. Yeeeeaaaah, I know I'm just "contributing" to the problem by voting down bland suggestions whenever I see them. So I'm opposed to boring suggestions, sue me already. Riktar 23:32, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It will hopefully boost the zombie population which is needed to make UD an enjoyable game. --Technerd 23:44, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - gotta give something to those rotters :D --hagnat 02:16, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep because as has been said, its only 5% and it encourages more zed players. GREEAT suggestion -- P0p0 02:45, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't remeber voting for this, so I will vote, if I did ignore/delete this - --Fullemtaled 02:49, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - 5% isn't a very big boost, but the psychological effect would be amazing. --Xiombarg 06:35, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Although I'd prefere it if it were a sub skill to Brain Rot. -- Poppins 16:59, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - What Poppins said.--WibbleBRAINS 18:02, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea! --Daednabru 01:13, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Eh, there's a tree structure to skills; add stuff as a subbranch of Brain Rot rather than piling bonuses onto it directly. --Spiro 02:37, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No one who speaks brain rot could be a bad person. Potatojunkie 19:43, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Encourages players to make a commitment to being a Zed. I mean, have you ever seen a post-apocalyptic Zombie film where the survivors outnumber the zombies? --Reverend Loki 22:03, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is interesting. Instead of adding skills under brain rot, why not just add to brainrot and be done with it? 5% is nothing to the balance, nothing, so the entire effect is to get a lot more career zombies, which is what we should have. Plus, it erodes at problems like random revives slightly.
  • Kill - Does "attacks" include against barricades? If it does, I'll change to keep.--Pesatyel 02:26, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombie damage is already pretty high, this is still just trying to sway people to one side or the other by unbalancing mechanics. --Zaruthustra 16:35, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zaruthustra has demonstrated time and time again on this wiki that he/she has little understanding of the game balance, and is posessed of a gargantuan bias against zombies. Zombies are hideously underpowered, to the point at which it really isnt fun. The new skill and the large building functionality are helping a little, but the fact is that human ap efficiency far outstrips that of zombies, and when combined with the overwhelming numerical advantage of humans, makes the game paently unfun to those who have taken thye time to weigh up the situation (Nothing crushes a zombies spirit more than knowing that you dont have a snowballs chance in a supernova of winning a siege unless the humans are complete morons). This tweak would be a small improvement in overall zombie ap efficiency, and thus a small twitch towards equilibrium between the two species. Anything that moves towards balance is good, thus i vote keep. --Grim s 17:09, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Rewards long-term zombies and encourages continued play as a zombie. --Mardigan 00:25, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice, albeit small upgrade for 'true' zombies. --Jinxed 10:19, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Keep � I agree that Brain Rot should have more purpose to it, but I'd like there to be an element of fun, too. Like in my Horror suggestion. Bartle 13:07, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not that I dislike the motivation behind the suggestion, but it's boring. Let's see more innovative subskills for Brain Rot to encourage people to buy Brain Rot. --LtMile 16:30, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - It doesn't need to be a subskill. Brain rot dedicates the zombie to the zombie cause. It now has no doubts about its attacks. (Not that a subskill is a bad idea since it at least allows leveling a little more). Mojo 10:22, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - love this idea,love it!! Freakarama 17:27, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - I can't decide whether I like this better as a part of Brain Rot or a subskill, but I do like it, so I'll just vote Keep and let God sort it out later. --MoonLayHidden 09:00, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - for all the reasons stated above - we need to be encouraging more career zombies. --Salicyclic 21:39, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not too unbalancing, but still another good incentive to play a Zed. --Mr. Monkey Man 03:58, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Skill Addition: Stimulant

Spaminated, Three uncontested Spam votes and a pile of kills that would make a Mongol Horde proud. --Grim s 17:14, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Three unopposed spam votes, and terrible spelling. Spaminated --Catriona McM 16:36, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT) }}

Skill Addition: Accelerate Time

Spaminated with 3 Spam and 9 Kill votes. General dislike of suggestion, both flavor (fantasy-based) and mechanics (fractional APs, modifying APs). --Brizth 21:59, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Skill Addition: Diplomacy

Timestamp: 02:12, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill Addition
Scope: Survivors
Description: Diplomacy (Speaking does not cause you to use any AP.)
  • Flavor Text - You are a skilled speaker.


  • Kill - Spammage of text is not your friend. --VoidDragon 03:20, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ditto. Speaking is fine the way it is. Do you want to finish off the zombie, or warn the safehouse about the incoming horde? That sort of thing. Bentley Foss 03:24, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A server change limiting the number of text messages you can send and receive was recently implemented because of too much text. This would only repeat the problem. Rhialto 03:25, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No need, speaking works fine - Jedaz 03:25, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- Amazing. A skill called Diplomacy that makes you want to PK the person that has it. --Jon Pyre 03:30, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT).
  • Kill - As Jon Pyre said - A skill called Diplomacy that makes you want to PK the person that has it just like in real life. Server overload, spam, etcetra is why I kill. If you want to chit-chat go somewhere I won't hear you - like the forums ;) --Signal9 05:21, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is what the various boards are for... --Shadowstar 11:20, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -John Pyre has it right--Vista 13:13, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too many people just love the sound of their own voice. --WibbleBRAINS 13:53, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Leads to spam, and the name...what Jon Pyre said. - KingRaptor 13:55, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Free chat is bad, I don't want to log on to eighty-two pages of worthless chat every time some kiddie decides he is funny. I supported the idea of two free chat lines per day that came around earlier though. --S Kruger
  • Kill - There's too much garbage on log-in as is. --Dickie Fux 16:08, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - How does being a skilled speaker stop you requiring AP to speak?--The General 18:02, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. When I first started playing the game, I thought speaking shouldn't cost AP because it discourages communication. Since then I've learned most communication takes places through meta-gaming, and the speaking system as-is is sufficient for what's left. And what's more, we don't need to make it any easier for people to make "sermons." -CWD 18:23, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - hey, i wanted to vote Keep !!! This way i can write down the whole Da Vinci Code for everyone to read in Urban Dead. :D --hagnat 01:06, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - THis would result in large amounts of spam. CthulhuFhtagn 04:14, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Because, hey, this needs at least ONE keep vote. --Zacharias Cross 05:43, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Spaminating the villages, spaminating the country side. --Zaruthustra 16:41, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Spam because all it would lead to in game is spam. Also, Free actions are bad, mmkay? --Grim s 17:17, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If it was half an AP I'd vote for it, but spending XP to be able to spam galore? Hell no. Slicer 17:22, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Messages from the Military: Tips for New Players

Timestamp: 03:21, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: New item
Scope: Aiding new players
Description: Often during times of war the military airdrops letters to convey a message to the populace. I suggest that searching outside gives you a high chance of finding a Flyer. A flyer would have basic (in character) starting tips for players on it, the idea being that if a new player started an account and began wandering around without knowing what to do perhaps they would search, find a Flyer, and read it before getting stranded outside with too few AP to find shelter. The messages could read something like: "Please remain calm. Finding a safe shelter before resting is of the utmost importance, preferably in buildings that have been barricaded by fellow citizens to prevent zombie entrance. If you must engage one of the creatures be advised that dispatching them without a weapon is extremely difficult. We recommend that all citizens arm themselves if they need fight. Make sure to budget your time wisely, every action counts. Etc..." When I first started I would have appreciated something like this. It's no coicidence most of the players you see stranded outside are level 1. One AP spent reading would be well worth a clue.


  • Kill - READ THE FAQ --VoidDragon 03:25, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's a nice idea, but it's something that happens very rarely (in fact, once per character lifetime), so I cannot vote keep. I vaguely recall being told to look for a safe place to sleep the first time I played, anyway...? Ah yes, the FAQ, that's right. Bentley Foss 03:26, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The game alredy has a message giving new players hints on what to do when they first start. - Jedaz 03:28, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What they said. What could be said in these flyers that isn't already being said (or couldn't be added to what is already being said) when a new character is created? Rhialto 03:29, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good points that it doesn't bring much to people who read the FAQ, but seriously, what does it cost? Unless Kevan needs to add every search manually, this can be done in a matter of minutes, and would certainly help a fair number of newbies. --Hexedian 04:54, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment - I don't want to vote kill or keep, but I think a better idea would be to just add more details to the initial message you get when creating the charachter. --Signal9 05:26, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree with Signal9. This might be a nice thing, but perhaps it would be better to just give starter humans and zombies a bit more of a message when they first join. Even that might not be read, of course... --Shadowstar 12:12, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -ask around, a lot of people like to help newbies, it helps interaction and co�peration. Or read the wiki or the FAQ--Vista 13:16, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You know what? This a great idea! In fact, it's such a grea idea that instead of putting flyers ingame, we'll even make a site to permenantly place all kinds of handy tips and info for newbies! We could give it a catchy name, like The Urban Dead Wiki. It's pure genius, I tell you! - KingRaptor 13:52, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - trouble is, the wiki is just packed full of cunts who love to rant and sneer at newbies. --Frosty 20:17, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you changed it so that it was an item in a new player's inventory, you'd have a cool idea. --Dickie Fux 16:10, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment - My friend finally tried this game. He said he didn't really get it. He searched some places and found nothing. He walked around and saw nothing. He used most of his ap before figuring out he should get somewhere safe. I asked, and he said "yeah, maybe I should go and look at the wiki." In my opinion, this situation is broken. The only reason I'm still here is because I'm the kind of person who just happens to like knowing how everything works, and in finding that out I was able to get started quickly. --Tyroney 19:59, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep yes, help the newbs.. addict more folks. i've had several friends who "just dont get it" and end up dying the first time they play because they stayed outside, or didnt know to look for a VS buidling. some of them came back, many did not. -- P0p0 02:49, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I spent half my APs searching outside buildings when I first signed up. - Isambard 04:16, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't want to vote kill, but having to waste AP to find and readsomething that cuts down on your chances of finding something outside is a bad idea. Maybe if it was something every player started with, or something. No AP usage. --Nessola 09:56, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT).
  • Keep --Kcold 12:53, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Same as the suggeston for the map: Just because you can find the info somewhere else, doesn't mean newbies should go off-site to look for it. It's simple to implement, makes sense in game, doesn't unbalace the game, and adds flavour. Everything a good suggestion needs. --Monstah 19:10, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author vote. When I started playing I didn't learn about the wiki for quite some time. It isn't like the wiki link in the game screen is particularly noticeable. --Jon Pyre 20:41, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep ... except don't make it something you have to search for. Put it in the player's inventory at character generation, and they'll definitely use/read it. The wiki is huge and confusing, and people just want to start playing without having to read an encyclopaedia first. It might even be nice to have three different kinds of flyers for the three different character classes. --MoonLayHidden 09:07, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Vote Gun

Moved due for being vague... and spaminated. And everyone else apparently likes to eat more than work. --ALIENwolve 05:31, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Working is for losers. - KingRaptor 07:18, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Skill: Beserk

Timestamp: 23:o1, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Beserk (You focus for a moment and generate a great amount of hate for zombies. This consumes 1 AP. Your next attack does double triple damage. This attack must land in order for the damage to be doubled tripled. You may only use this skill once every 24 hours.)


  • Kill - Please say this is a joke. An attack costs 1 AP anyway, and it isn't like zombies are powerful enough as it is. --MaulMachine 23:12, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - No. Right now we don't need to waste time making suggestions that we think would be cool. We need to worry about making the game fun for zombies. Maybe this suggestion would do better some other time, but right now we have other things we need to deal with. --Horje 04:17, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - Sigh, everyone is a zombie.
  • Kill - Critical attacks, especially ones that only work once per day, are not good ideas. Bentley Foss 04:40, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill There's no real point using this with any melee attack in the game; you could just make 2 melee attacks, save the 100 XP, and be better off. What it WOULD be helpful for is when you have limited ammo- say with a flare gun, or shotgun. Which is really NOT a time when "hatred" is going to make a diffrence, except in a Bruce Willis movie. Oh, and its "Berserk" as in "Berserker". --Swiers 04:56, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So I can do 30 damage with a shotgun at 65% chance to hit? No. Just no. - KingRaptor 05:23, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - In fact, an insta-kill if properly used. 30 damage at 65% with a shotgun, and 45 damage at 30% with a flare gun. Those numbers are not only insane but ludicrous - think of what happens if 100 survivors come together and use this at the same time. Dos and Don'ts say that temporary stat boosts are a bad idea. Not to mention the server load of an additional flag to implement this. You might as well suggest nuclear warheads. --Signal9 05:37, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -What is the need of this skill, what does it add for gameplay. does it follow the "multiply by a thousand" rule? all things you need to ask yourself before making a suggestion.--Vista 13:19, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - How would hating zombies make bullets do more damage? It would make more sense if it only affected melee combat; it probably still wouldn't pass voting. Also, it's spelled "berserk." --Dickie Fux 16:14, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Multiply By A Billion and No Temporary Stat Boasts.--The General 18:42, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Urban "Diablo2" Dead \�/ --hagnat 01:03, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is a Zombie apocalypse. Go beserk in a zombie apocalypse, and your chances of survival go to slim to none. Also, too good with shotguns. And no, not everyone is a zombie, take a look at the stat page... --McArrowni 15:56, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Silly, overpowered, and misspelled. Three reasons that are each generally insta-kills for suggestions! --Volke 08:02, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Skill: Strength of the Horde

Dupe, still open for voting. Also on same page, a similar suggestion. --Brizth 09:43, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Duplicate of the peer reviewed Prognosis. --Thelabrat 07:11, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT) }}

How Power Plants could work

Timestamp: 06:54, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Power Plants
Description: I've been musing on Power Plants and I have an idea how they could function. The Power Plants can be restarted by someone with a new science skill, Engineering. Each seperate square of a plant would be reactivated seperately, representing a seperate generator. A reactivated power plant would be able to create only a limited amount of power due to the fact that it only has a skeleton crew of whatever suvivors come to maintain it and because the rest of the surrounding grid is down making it impossible to fully power the city safetly. Each square would only be able to supply one suburb with power at a time. People with Engineering would be able to select which suburb, using a drop down list of all 100, power from a given Plant Square is sent to. When a suburb is powered it would be as if every building had a generator operating within it. If a building had a running generator in addition to power from the grid the generator would have no additional effect. Activating a plant square and diverting power from one suburb to another would use a percentage system for success to prevent frivolous switches and to make it difficult to reactivate. Failure would result in a message like "You tap at the controls" and "You flip several switches". When in an activated square the room description would be amended to inform you of which suburbs are powered: "A display panel indicates power is restored to Ridleybank, Molebank, and Darvall Heights." You would not be able to divert power to a suburb if another plant square is already powering it. Zombies would be able to deactivate the system by attacking the control panel (no doubt because of disturbing lights and noise). Attacking the control panel wouldn't destroy it, zombies would just have a chance of hitting a control that would shut down the system. There are only two power stations and six squares in total, meaning that only 6 out of 100 suburbs could have power at a given time. This would be a way for suvivors to selectively lend aid to causes occuring across the city. If there's a big battle going somewhere it would be worthwhile to activate the grid there to gives suvivors an easier time, or perhaps power could be left on in dangerous suburbs to give whatever brave souls that venture there a small advantage in not having to bring generators and find fuel. Keep in mind that the use of this is limited now as the only purpose of power is to make hospitals restore 50% more health per First-Aid Kit but if/as more uses for power are implemented this could be a fun and strategy inducing way of giving the power plants a function. When voting please consider this in the context of being a mechanic for supplying power in general with all its potential applications, not simply as a way of making a few hospitals allow surgery without generators. This would especially be a nice addition now that cell phones have been implemented. It is now possible to use phones for strategies that require people in different areas of the city, not just to arrange rendezvous and call people to your location.


  • Kill - I like your idea in principle, but it's too complex and I can imagine that even with the %success for switching power, it will still be very erratic, once you get two groups fighting for power. I like the peer reviewed implementation of power plants better, which makes me wonder if you read it. --Signal9 07:21, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complex for our particular game. Nifty as hell in another game possibly though. Also what Signal9 said. --Thelabrat 07:26, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea and the skill requirement, but the suburb selection bit is too complex. Have the plants power a certain portion of the city outright, come up with new skills/items/features that require electricity, and give this another go in a few weeks. If you'd like, send me a note on my discussion page and I'll go over this idea with you a bit. Bentley Foss 09:32, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This isn't too bad, but I think I like the other one better, mainly because it's easier to understand. - Jedaz 10:24, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I always thought that each section should power 1/6th of the city, with 100% when each one of those things are powered. - --Fullemtaled 10:30, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -I like the 33% and 100% suggestion better. but kudos for thinking out how it could work, the other suggestion didn't do that.--Vista 13:24, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You are to be commended for attempting to make the currently useless power stations have some function in the game, but the mechanics of this one just seem too messy. I strongly suspect Kevan has plans for the power stations to be implemented at some point. -CWD 21:52, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Wow, a very well thought out plan. The limit of 6 powered squares works well with the idea that there is a skeleton crew handling it and they can't maintain a whole city while there is a battle with the undead going on. It would add a ton of elements to the game. Who controls the plant? Who defends it? How do you keep open lines of communication? Who gets the juice? I think the battles would eclipse the fights at the malls in no time. Sure, it would be complex for Kevin, but He's gotta like a challenge eh? For me, unknowns actually add flavor to this sort of game. --Nicks 18:33, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Thank you Nicks for preventing this from being unanimously killed. Now it's just overwhelmingly killed. --Jon Pyre 19:57, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Refresh Button

Duplicate of peer reviewed Refresh Button. --Brizth 12:36, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Among the Dead

Dupe, dupe, dupety-dupe. Check here for starters. You can't swing a dead cat (or zombie) on those pages without running into fifty clones of this skill. Bentley Foss 19:18, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Skill: Leg Break

Timestamp: 17:50 28 Dec 2005 (EST)
Type: Skill Addition
Scope: Zombies
Description: Leg Break (Your claws attack and punch attack (if in survivor form) have a 30% chance to break the victim's leg. Your hand-to-hand weapon attacks (fire axe, kitchen knife, baseball bat, crowbar, etc (zombie or survivor form)) have a 35% chance to break the victim's leg. The attack must land for the 30% or 35% chance to be rolled apon. Until the victim heals him or herself with a first aid kit, it will cost them 2 AP to move.) This skill cannot affect zombies. If you buy this skill as a zombie it carries over if you are a survivor.


  • Kill - It's a decent idea but a 50% chance is far too much. --ALIENwolve 22:57, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT) Great... now I can't decide. It's still probably going to get flames of "Don't mess with other people's AP."--ALIENwolve 23:01, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - First aid kits just aren't that powerful. In real life, it typically takes surgery and weeks or months of time to recover. You can't just stick a plaster on it. Rhialto 23:03, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - Should I mentioned there are also no such things as zombies and this is a game. I thought the idea was fun and fit the concept of a zombie game. Lighten up, maybe just a little? --Jason Killdare 23:06, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Yes, I know it is a zombie game. But that doesn't remove the need for consistent nonsense. Rhialto 23:14, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
        • Comment - I disagree. This is consistant with the nonsense of the game. FAKs represent the only real medical attention you can receive in the game. Obviously a zombie infectious bite would probably require a lengthy hospital stay and/or a course of antibiotics over the course of days or weeks but a FAK cures that too, instantly.
  • Kill As much as I want stronger zombies, I've gotta kill for the grief. Also, in every movie, zombie bites are incurable. Slicer 23:20, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - In this game they are curable. Furthuremore what does a bit have to do with say, a claw attack or baseball bat, that breaks a survivors leg? --Jason Killdare 23:22, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Not on EVERY attack. Make it only on hands attack or something...? I don't think a bite would break someone's leg, after all. (max 50%*30% = a general overal 15% chance... not bad...) Also, need to add that this doesn't affect zombies or something, or you'll have starter zombies paying 3AP to move and so on... With the current headshot, "don't touch AP" is no longer a fair statement. --Shadowstar 00:16, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So, why can zeds break survivor legs with only claws, while survivors armed with shotguns, baseball bats and fireaxes can't do the same? --VoidDragon 23:29, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - Where does it say claws only? That was just an example.
      • - Think about it. An unarmed zed using this skill would have to use their claws, unless your think that zeds have jedi force-powers which can accomplish this effect. --VoidDragon 23:39, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - And if crowbars and baseball bats have a slight bonus to breaking a guy's legs than claws or punches do, that would give Zulus a reason to carry those melee items =) Nice idea. I like it. Riktar 00:00, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Done - Added 5% extra bonus to all melee weapons. Thanks for the suggestion!
  • Kill -What does it add to gameplay fun? It is an AP penalty, why is that needed? survivors already have to content with infection, what does this do to that? more explanation next time you suggest something will only help your proposals, and make it easier to pass them--Vista 00:19, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - You must not have ever watched a zombie movie in your life. When survivors get attacked by zombies the most exciting scenes are always when the survivor gets injured and struggles to get away at a reduced speed -- all the while the audience wonders if they will make it. --Jason Killdare 00:23, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Jason, sorry but I'm going to sound condescending now. I'll give you a few pointers, 1. Insulting your voters won't help you getting votes. 2. This is a game, movies are fun to watch, this must be fun to play. different medium, different effects. make your suggestions with that in mind. 3. Your suggestions work better if you give more then when you give just minimal information at first and not edited in half way trough Re's. 4. learn from the critique the voters give you. It's called feedback. Use their advice on format and their like in your next suggestions, it'll help. Now on to actually tackling this suggestion, this won't add fun to the game because there is no suppense. you can see on your AP counter how many moves you can make. no suspence for you. the zombie doesn't notice anything different. no change in suppense for them. The audience looking at their TV's at primetime at mighty clashes with zombies aren't there. So where is the suspence?--Vista 01:08, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - my survivor doesn't think it is fun to walk at 2 AP searching for the nearest Revivification Point when he is killed. My zombie didnt' think it was fun when he was just a low level zombie to walk this slow too. No one should walk at 2 AP :\ --hagnat 01:01, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It sounds fun, and it is something hamanz actualy have to worry about. - --Fullemtaled 01:54, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author gets one keep vote. --Jason Killdare 02:31, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with Hagnat, no one should walk at 2AP, end of story. - Jedaz 04:40, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's too powerful if suvivors had it. The 30% rate is also far too high. If it were zombie only, I'd still vote kill in favor of the peer-reviewed Wound suggestion. This isn't bad, but, I dunno....make it zombie only, and drastically lower the chances, and we can talk. Maybe in a couple of weeks, version 2 will get a keep from me. Bentley Foss 05:00, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the Idea of wound/injury/broken legs but it should be universal. Most zombie movies that you speak of have the zombies with the broken legss and arms or just a touso. As far as balance, this is way unbalance. Broken leg just guarantees an insta kill for anyone trapped outside. Currenly when a survivor is infected with bite, they have a limited # of APs to find help before the infection kills them. This effectively Doubles the damage that infection does. I prefer wound or broken arm, that would reduce damage of melee attacks, or reduce attack accuracy (shooting gun left handed instead of right handed.) --Tom mot 00:31, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like this idea but the percentage is too high. Bones are strong... well, if you spend time outside they are (bones are strengthened by vitamins from the sun, no kidding). So, lower the percentage to, I don't know, 15 or something and I'll change my vote. --Horje 02:59, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Zombie players start with existing hordes

Timestamp: 23:07, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Initial Starting Point
Scope: Zombies
Description: Currently, when starting a new character, zombie players are usually alone and clueless. Not being able to find human flesh or anything else worthwhile to do often results in them quitting UD after a single session.

To counter this, new Zombie players should start with an existing large horde, preferably one inside a building with warm human meat. Having their very first Urban Dead experience be a successful one will encourage their continued participation.

"But won't this make zerging really easy?" Somewhat- there's still the IP hit limit, after all. The benefits far outweigh the downside in this case.

Minor edit for zerg prevention: One new character per day per IP. No exceptions.


  • Keep - Dammit! Will you people stop making me make a choice? I guess I'll randomly vote Keep on every suggestion I have neutral opinions on... --ALIENwolve 23:10, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT) One should start out with at least 5 zombies and at least 1 survivor optionally. Nobody wants to start fighting a zombie and have another randomly appear and attack. --ALIENwolve 23:41, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - With one exception. It must be a random starting point that at least 1 other zombie is at; otherwise it seems grossly unfair. --Jason Killdare 23:11, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - We survivors need more targets, and anything that helps make zombies attractive helps us (albeit indirectly). --John Taggart 23:26, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense for new zeds to rise in close proximity to existing hordes that carry the virus. Oh, and Jason, did you actually bother to read the suggestion at all??? --VoidDragon 23:27, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - Yes, I did. Did you read my commment?! --Jason Killdare 23:29, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • - Yeah, and it's fairly obvious that either you didn't bother to read the entire suggestion, or you have trouble comprehending the statement "with an existing large horde". --VoidDragon 23:33, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - encouraging zerging is not a good thing, on either human or zombie sides. I don't mind if we want to put them with other zombies in the small scale, but I don't want to encourage zerging, with or without the IP hit. You can still make 160 zombies that way if you're using paid accounts. --Shadowstar 23:31, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT) Edit: I'm talking about using paid accounts on your MAIN accounts, not all 160 zombies, in which case it honestly wouldn't matter-- anyone willing to pay that much can kill as much as they want, IMO. The 160 would be sheilds and human AP wasters, not actual playing characters: see the definition of zerg. --Shadowstar 00:12, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT) Vote changed to keep based on new edit. --Shadowstar 01:45, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Suggested implementation: random starting point with at least 1 other zombie and at least 1 other survivor in it. I think it shouldn't be much of a problem to program. --Signal9 23:37, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Help's noob zombies alot --Lord Evans 23:41, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Riktar 00:05, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - kill for reasons of zerging, even with the IP limit the abuse possibilities are enormous, there is a reason why we can't choose a starting suburb any more, this goes far beyond that. Starting zombies inside buildings that are under attack! good god, you don't think that'll be horribly easy to abuse? you get through a barricadde, the survivors barricade them back up again before the zombies inside are dealt with. and everybody in the horde start a new character. presto 30+ zombies inside. repeat without attack 10 to 15 times the survivors spend all their AP's fighting the dummies, and you can finish them off, no sweat. bye-bye sieges. edit, works for me.--Vista 00:29, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment Zerging is frowned upon by almost everyone in Urban Dead. For 30+ people in one horde to do it is a flight of fantasy. Slicer 00:37, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • so is pk'ing to a lesser degree, most people hate it yet there are quite a few PKer guilds, quite a lot of people complain of zerging already. when this is implemented a small group of people whould want to do it because they are munchkins and band together, 30 people out of a 40.000 are easily found. i'd wager you'd be able to find quite a few more. Not everybody is as moral as you unfortunatly. the idea is good and helpful, it is just to open to abuse. --Vista 00:46, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - my survivor whas about to hit 'kill' when my zombie killed him off and chew his brain off. Now theer is two zombies wishin this to be keept :D --hagnat 00:58, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Zerging is Cheating, while PKing is in some aspect or another is whole heartedly supported. Bounty hunters are Pkers, organizations who have a "goal that do not include the universal tolerace of all survivors" are PKers. While some don't like PKing, EVERYONE (even PKers) hate Zerging. --Jack-Swithun 01:09, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • and yet zerging happens. People cheat. that is why I'm concerned about it. If it is only 1% or even a 0,5% of the people playing who would get to gether and organize and do this. what then? (BTW I didn't condemn PK'ing. If it wasn't for Pk'ers I'd never would've died and got my zombie levels... just saying that the mayority don't like it.)--
  • Keep Jirtan 01:38, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's not terribly difficult to find other zombies, especially with feeding groan in now. And this feature requires a new restriction on making characters just to implement something of marginal benefit anyway. Rhialto 01:50, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. Though as an alternative to the one character per day rule, I might suggest randomizing the starting hord, and setting it so that no one ip can start in the same hord twice (dont know how that would be implemented). Also, there might be some preference to starting in a hord with a certain concentration of high level zombies (dont know how complex that would be) to make sure that a newb does'nt start in a hord of all newbs, where noone can open a door, and allow an even distribution of new zombies (once the high/low level ratio changes, new zombies will spawn in a diffrent hord).--Zeek 03:19, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think I like it. --Vair 03:22, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, it will help the hordes. - --Fullemtaled 03:25, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah, sounds good, I know what it's like being a low level Zombie not being able to do basicaly anything. - Jedaz 04:43, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I vote kill because it's a once-per-character-lifetime event that has little to no impact on the game at all. Shamble off to find a horde if you don't start near one. It's not so awful. Bentley Foss 04:50, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment - Well, I don't want to vote either way just yet. Wouldn't this be a little hard to code? --Zacharias Cross 05:47, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies can get along fine alone and without a horde. --Xiombarg 06:44, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Because suburbs with many zombies would keep getting more and suburbs without won't get new players appearing in them. It won't help the game if half of new zombies players spawn in Ridleybank. It's better to spread things out randomly and let players use their strategy rather than handing them your strategy. --Jon Pyre 08:10, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Because the IP limit is a joke to anyone with some computer knowledge. Sorry - nice idea, but it'd be too easy to abuse. --Nessola 10:02, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT).
  • Keep --Kcold 12:50, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That would help those new people and help kill some more survivors. --Penance 15:54, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a great idea. It would help new players a lot. --Coreyo 16:38, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The IP limit does nothing to stop people with access to computer labs. I agree that new zombie players need to be encouraged to keep playing, but this mechanism is too ripe for abuse. -- Poppins 17:12, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - where is my vote in here ? ow, here it is. --hagnat 17:37, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT) Duplicate vote removed. We apologize for the inconvenience. --Signal9 20:29, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - sorry but this is made for cheating just goto library , make 150 zombie characters, go home and kill them with main character. stand them up once a day. And part of the enjoyment of this game when I first started was wandering around exploring. this has a very tiny benefit and a very big risk of abuse. If a new player is lost, just read the FAQ and forum like everyone else did. --Tom mot 00:44, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill If zombies only appear in a horde, in buildings with humans in them, doesn't that mean survivers are carring around dead bodies? Also, this would cause an unbalance because survivers still would pop up anywere and have to find a safe zone.--Broton 00:50, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While there is a chance of abusage, I think this outweighs it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:48, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Whoops, I forgot to vote Keep on my own suggestion. Slicer 17:17, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --LtMile 16:32, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

New Skill: Dodge

Three spam votes and a long line-up of Kill votes. Don't Punish the Players --Zacharias Cross 05:49, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Skill: Zombie Bomb

Four spam votes and no non-author keeps. That's spaminated. Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested. Rhialto 04:03, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Skill: Zombie Bomb(Version 2.0)

Three spam votes. That's spaminated. It would be moved to humourous, but it's already there. Rhialto 04:01, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Projectile Vomit

Three spam votes and no non-author keeps. That's spaminated. Rhialto 04:29, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yikes. 4 votes in under an hour and it's gone. I guess people never puke. -- Amazing 17:33, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Not to be overly anal, but shouldn't it have been removed on grounds of being a dupe instead of being spaminated? --VoidDragon 18:10, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yikes Amazing. I guess you never learn AllStarZ 20:09, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Oh, Hi there annoying pest. Nice to see you again. -- Amazing 22:27, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yeah, people don't like it. And I suggested it first. Dirtbag. Edit: Checked the history and this isn't a dupe, it's completely different from my suggestion. It sucks worse, but it isn't a copy of anything. It should be put back.--TheTeeHeeMonster 20:35, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

"Dirtbag"? Well that sure was intelligent. :) -- Amazing 22:27, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • it's removed under spam, not dupe. people found it too silly I think. (I know I did)--Vista 21:45, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools