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

30th December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 13th-Jan-2006

Limb Cutting

Timestamp: 02:05, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: New Skill
Scope: Everyone
Description: making wirecutters and knivesuseful again! a zombie hunting skill would allow you to cut various tendons a dead bodie with a knife or wirecutter making it harder to move until they rest (maybe like 2AP instead of 1AP) or maybe it would make it a little harder to get up. After one use the knife would become dull and no longer useful(removed from the inventory) and after a few uses the wirecutter would become useless (wirecutters can't do damage like a knife so i thought they should get some benefit). Whoever cut the tendons or whatever would get some experience points, but it wouldn't always work and failed attemps would also have a slight chance of using up a "charge" on the item. Zombies could also take a skill like hard skinned or something that would make it harder to succesfully use Limb Cutting on them. I'm not sure if this is balanced or unbalanced but i'm just trying to put new ideas out there and make basically useless items useful.


  • kill - no more AP stealing skills on zombies PLEASE --hagnat 02:17, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: PLEEEASE watch what you are doing while posting a new suggestion Akira ! You duplicated the whole "Current Day's Suggestion" section. I only hope no vote cast on the duplicate was lost. --hagnat 02:27, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Woops and I thought I was bad... =) --Jason Killdare 02:29, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Rhialto 02:39, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See above reasons. Wirecutters are not limb cutters. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:52, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I propose that whoever supports this gets this skill inflicted on them. Permanently. - KingRaptor 02:54, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complicated to code and also violates suggestion rules (don't mess with people's AP and don't punish the player). P.S. lol@Raptor --Daednabru 03:02, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Calling this "retarded" would be an insult to retarded stuff. CthulhuFhtagn 03:42, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Because I want Raptor to TRY. (Come on, you knew someone would take that challenge just for the F of it.) -- Amazing 04:46, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Not even worth for the sake of KR's challenge. If you don't know if something is going to be balencing or unbalencing, chances are, it's going to be the latter. --Volke 05:34, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Okay, what's with the retarded suggestions today, seriously??? I would rather have Neutron Bombs than this: DON'T PUNISH THE PLAYERS, which means no attacking people while they're down. --Signal9 05:37, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Don't punish the players--Vista 12:26, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like actually being able to play the game. Jirtan 15:08, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ok.. Author? Do me a BIG favor... go buy a wirecutter. Now look at it, particularly in comparision to your own body. Do you really think you can cut off a leg with them? No? I thought not. Also, as mentioned above.. DONT MESS WITH AP! Especially with Zombie's AP which already suffers enough with Headshot! Seriously, people... why do you want to imbalance the game even further? Jak Rhee 15:08, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM - Wire cutters are tiny little snipper things. Bolt cutters could do it, but these are wire cutters. On top of that this idea is just plain retarded, and punishes zombies a LOT for death, and we are already punished a lot for that that unavoidable already. --Grim s 18:03, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Spaminate at will.--The General 20:14, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Enough of the "cripple zombies" suggestions. Bentley Foss 20:22, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just based on the realism arguements here... Like needing to ignore the 25 shotguns you can carry, just replace the words "wire cutters" with some larger cutting implement that will also serve to cut through fences. More AP docking for zombies is not a bad plan.--Ev933n 20:43, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This isn't Spam you nunces, it's just a bad idea. This goes to Peer Rejected and stays un-spaminated. Ahh, Ev933n's vote at least counter's any potentially confused user taking it upon him/herself to spaminate this unjustly. Riktar 22:14, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This really should be spammed due to bad writing, huge illogic, unbelievable grief potential, and general idiocy. Oh well. Slicer 00:19, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM - possibly the worst idea ever. --Freakarama 18:03, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Item: Retrovirus Syringe

This suggestion has been Spaminated - 3 Spam Votes were given. The suggestion was deemed to give too ridiculous of an unfair advantage to survivors. --Daednabru 03:33, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT) }}


Timestamp: 03:14, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: When a survivor is lowered below 10 HP they begin to bleed. The status "You are bleeding" will show up in the box that lists your name, XP and AP. When a survivor is bleeding they lose one HP for each action they perform actions cost two AP instead of just one . Zombies, of course, don't bleed because, with their loss of life, they have, of course, lost some bodily functions. Bleeding can be cured with a first aid kit or goes away after a short amount of time.


  • I believe that this skill will be usefull because it makes the game a little bit more difficult for survivors because, as we all know, it is currently too easy for us. I think that the loss of AP is ok even though, I know, no one likes to lose their AP, because after you bleed a lot in real life you pass out. Losing HP makes sense because losing too much blood can kill you.


  • Maybe a new skill could be added called "Tourniquet". Tourniquets stop bleeding but are very difficult to use, which would justify the ability to use them as a skill. Because one who has had experience applying them can make them out of just about anything (a small piece of wood and scrap of clothing) this skill would not require any item. A survivor with this skill may use it on themselves or on others and would gain 2 XP for helping another.


  • HP is now lost instead of AP, I know, I know, no one likes to lose AP.


  • Kill - Please read the Suggestion rules! Messing with people's AP - human or otherwise - not good! --Daednabru 03:26, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - even if with Bleeding only affected movement i'd vote kill on this. No one should walk at 2 AP. --hagnat 03:31, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - No one but low level zombies, I guess. --Horje 03:34, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - This would do nothing but cripple one side in the game and make it no fun to play. I don't think so. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 03:38, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you have less than 10 HP, you are a prime target anyway. Attracting every zombie that can reach you , that's penalty enough. Rhialto 03:46, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombies, especially newbie zombies, get their kills and bonus 10 XP for killing survivors that are already that weak. With this, survivors who can't heal will die before any brain-eater can get to them and take their delicious innards! Weak survivors are supposed to be prime targets to get singled-out for the taking, and with this, that would deprive the undead from what they want more than anything else! --Volke 05:46, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Volke, plus, this is kind of like an auto-infection thing, which... to my mind... makes infection worth less (not worthless, note the space). --Shadowstar 11:26, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Don't punish the players--Vista 12:29, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think a survivor at 10HP has enough to worry about as it is, without this draining them further.--WibbleBRAINS 16:29, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If a survivor only has 10 HP left, they probably won't live long enough for this to matter. Also, if this stacks with Infection, it's pretty much instant death. --Dickie Fux 17:55, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Survivors are close enough to dead at 10 HP anyway. We don't need guaranteed death at this point. Bentley Foss 20:23, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nah, it should be a zombie skill... to rend flesh enough to make bleeding happen. Not an innate weakness in survivors. oh, wait.. it is a zombie skill. oh.. and DON'T PUNISH THE PLAYERS! --Ev933n 20:56, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie AP Buff One: Double AP 6pm - midnight

Spaminated into oblivion with 3 Spam votes and no non-author keeps. CthulhuFhtagn 07:41, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Want to share the link to what it was a dupe of, or what the suggestion was? --Reverend Loki 21:50, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Agreed with Loki. Riktar 22:16, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • If the description says it all I don't think we need to care. Slicer 23:53, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • He said Spam votes, not Dupe votes. --Daxx 00:14, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie AP Buff Two: 60 AP maximum for zombies

Timestamp: 04:11, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance change
Scope: Zombies, those zombies eat
Description: See above suggestion for a rationale. This suggestion, Buff Two: allow zombies (and corpses that are due to rise as zombies)to build up to a maximum of 60 AP. This suggestion does NOT change AP regeneration rates, so a zombie on a strict 24 hour log-in schedule would never go above 48 AP as today. Any AP above 50 would be stripped from characters in case of a revive. A horde of 60-AP zombies is tactically equivalent to adding 20% to the numbers of the horde in present terms. For a headshot (non-ankle grab) zombie there would be 45 AP instead of 35 as now to play with, about a 28% increase - this is the group that would benefit most greatly in percentage terms. If the argument is made that this weakens headshot (and that that's a bad thing) I would answer that this difference makes headshot a more necessary skill to preserve survivor lives.

Votes here

  • Keep - Author. --Goldenboots 04:14, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't mess with AP. CthulhuFhtagn 04:21, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it! Zombies should be able to keep going after a human gets tired. DarthMortis Dec. 29th 11:30 pm EST
  • Kill - I'd vote keep if it was a skill zombies could buy. Rhialto 04:26, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Jack-Swithun 05:12, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This then makes it imposible for survivors to be able to win sieges. What's the fun in a game in David can never beat Goliath, I ask you! --Volke 05:49, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Because this page should be renamed to "leave AP alone". --Signal9 05:52, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't mess with AP. you always end up making not up to par suggestions. sorry to be so blunt. I swear isn't this suggestion spammed and killed before? a couple of times?--Vista 12:33, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/change As Zombie skill only. AP is not sacred. Headshot takes it. Much in contradiction to the suggestion rules page. Which btw has become to large for its own good.--bbrraaiinnss 1340. 30 Dec 2005
  • Kill - Doesn't help too much, you'd have to wait longer to use it all. --TheTeeHeeMonster 14:59, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- In it's current form. Maybe as a skill. As TheTeeHeeMonster says, you aren't actually gaining anything, just delaying the start of your play.--WibbleBRAINS 16:32, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Because "Don't mess with AP" isn't a golden rule spoken by God himself Monstah 17:02, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Is there anything else bad about it apart from "don't mess with AP"? For once why don't we just ignore that rule?--The General 20:21, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You didn't read any of the suggestion guidelines, did you? Bentley Foss 20:23, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I submited a skill like this and it died, this kind of idea is doomed to failure --Lord Evans 20:41, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If it were a skill, it would be good. I agree with The General, the guidelines are not set in stone. --Dickie Fux 20:54, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Those Dos and Do Nots are more guidelines, anyways. Riktar 22:17, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - MUCH more powerful than it appears at first glance. Due to the way barricades work, those 10 AP will all be spent attacking. Decent in principle, will cause havoc in practice, particularly since zombie numbers have gone up recently. Slicer 00:26, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Exactly what Slicer said. This translates almost directly into +10 barricade attacks or +10 melee attacks. Now times that by the 20 corpses outside my door right now. No thanks. People who don't see why this is too powerful aren't looking at the application in regards to finishing off victims/people left half killed. --Nessola 01:22, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT).
  • Keep - Yeah, think about it, zombies don't care enough to sleep, why should they? A living person would collapse from exhaustion long before a dead person with less bodily functions. I like this, this is good. --Horje 02:00, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Um, I did think about it asn Slicer is right, as far as game mechanics goes it is too powerful. And your Argument of "zombies dont care enough to sleep" is a red herring. Zombies are imortal, sleep is irrelevant to them the only reason zombies have AP's is game mechanics and avoiding allowing characters to actually be killed. --Tom mot 00:31, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Zombie AP Buff 1+ 2 = 3

3 spam votes, courtesy of being a duplicate of the two previous suggestions. CthulhuFhtagn 07:42, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Make Wirecutters Useful again

Removed for being a duplicate of Repair Fence, Chain (New Version), Repair Kits and Padlocks, Chains. 3 Dupe votes and no non-author keeps. CthulhuFhtagn 07:44, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Bean Bag Gun

Spam Votes=3, and was said to be humorous, ridiculous, and altogether a bad suggestion. Suggestion was Spaminated! --Daednabru 05:06, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Didn't one of the spam votes had no signature, and thus, is invalid? --Kschang 05:14, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

A signature was added. CthulhuFhtagn 05:19, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I was confusing it with another one. The missing signature was mine, apparently. CthulhuFhtagn 05:23, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Drive Back

Timestamp: 07:15, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Blunt Weapons
Description: I've been trying to think of a way to make blunt weapons serve a purpose. Here's an idea. A zombie hunter level 10+ skill that allows someone to use a pipe or bat to repel zombies without killing them. An axe does a lot of damage and sinks into its target but a bat while harming them less could knock them backwards. I propose a skill to allow suvivors to upon landing a blow with a blunt weapon on a zombie of 10hp or less to drive them out of a building without killing them. The skill isn't overpowered since a suvivor would only have a maximum chance of 25% to hit with a blunt weapon (not to mention the zombie would still be alive outside) but it would be a better option than an axe since you'd have to hit four times with an axe at 40% to kill a zombie at 10hp but only once with a bat at 25% to expel them from your safehouse. It would also be a good option if you expect the zombie to stand right back up and would be a worthwhile item for fierce sieges with real-time combat. It would make sense for this skill not to work if barricades were restored to heavy since there would be no gap in the barricades to drive the zombie back through.


  • Kill -The fact we can not be "Ejected" from a building is all we have left. You want us out of the building, dump us after you kill us. --Fullemtaled 07:20, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think everything should be useful anyway. Rhialto 07:33, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Major game mechanic: Getting rid of a zombie = killing it. Anything else just destroys the game. --Signal9 07:37, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Grant Page 7:43, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill why would you want to not kill a zombie? this is soo far out of genre it hurts my brain -- P0p0 08:53, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - overpowered, bad for game mechanics, etc. Besides they have a use already, a crappy use but a use is a use....--Vista 12:36, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No need, mabey when the game was just starting and there were no barricades, but not now - Jedaz 13:01, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe we should all sit around and weave baskets instead of fighting? Jirtan 15:11, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You're just trying to get rid of the zombie at less AP expense. No. --WibbleBRAINS 16:36, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bleh. If they're that low on HP, just kill them. It's a nice attempt at a zombie-friendly skill, though. Bentley Foss 20:24, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Blunt weapons don't actually cause someone to fly backwards, just like how getting shot doesn't either, not even with a spread fire weapon. This is because of a basic law of physics that, if I remember correctly, states that every action has an opposite and equal reaction. I order for someone to get driven backwards they would need to be hit extremely hard, at a speed that would cause the person hitting them to fly back a little bit also. The bat or pipe is really only an effective killing tool when used to hit someone over the head. This would not effect zombies as much as people because, in Urban Dead, the zombies are thought of as having less than functional brains. In the movie 28 Days Later, the bat was only effective because the zombies were really just crazy people. No, bats should not be effective weapons, especially not when survivors are already so powerful. --Horje 01:57, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - You've obviously never hit someone with a baseball bat. Or seen it happen. Or thought about the bone shattering abilities of a baseball bat. --Nessola 04:53, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT).

Blunt Weapon Proficiency

Timestamp: 07:51, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors, Military
Description: A skill to raise the chance of striking with a bat or pipe to 50%. Makes sense since it's easier to swing a bat than an axe. This would give bats/pipes an average of 5 damage per 5 AP spent which is still worse than an axe's 6 damage per 5 AP spent. The axe would remain the weapon of choice when attacking a zombie except that blunt weapons would become a better choice when the zombie is at 1-2hp, providing an additional 10% chance of finishing them off without having to swing again.
  • Another possibility if you think 50% is too low is to give blunt weapons 55% probability to hit with this skill. They would still be worse than the axe to deal damage but have a 15% greater chance to hit as a last blow.


  • no vote.kill - Sigh. Okay. First of all, why is it so nessecary to improve really useless weapons to the point where they're still useless because a Fire Axe has higher DPA anyway? Secondly, did you look at Advanced Blunt Weapon Training? The only reason I didn't vote dupe is because the other suggestion raises to 35% for pipe/bat and 30% for crowbar. To All: Please stop near-duplicating suggestions. They won't get accepted unless they're significantly better (even if the other was accepted). --Signal9 08:06, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - However unlike that skill this suggestion would actually give blunt weapons a purpose in a specific situation. There is absolutely no reason to deal 2 damage at 35% when you could deal 3 at 40%. The percentage of 50% is the suggestion here not the concept of blunt weapons being better. Were it at 60% it would equal the axe. Were it at 40% it'd just do 2/3rds the damage. 50% is a point where it would make sense as a last attack and be worthwhile for a suvivor to carry both kinds of weapons. Keep in mind Signal9 that this game is not just zombie flavor and fun but also a great deal of math. Our suggestions should deal with these probabilities not just the flavor surrounding them --Jon Pyre 08:12, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re: - Okay. Sorry that I didn't completely catch that (it's pretty late, at least where I am). Still... because it makes such a small difference, I'll have to change it to no vote. --Signal9 08:28, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
        • Re 55% would be more effective while still leaving the axe as a better option overall. I added that option to the suggestion. --Jon Pyre 08:36, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
          • Re: - I'm leaving it as no vote not because 50% is too low, but because I don't see it necessary to have a "finishing weapon" (as flavorful as it may seem). --Signal9 08:44, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill use an axe
  • Kill - Why should every weapon be equally useful? Rhialto 10:15, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • dupe -we've let advance knife training through to fill that the gap. this is exactly the same in terms of game mechanics. --Vista 12:42, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No need, resuggest if Zombies ever outnumber humans 99 to 1. - Jedaz 13:03, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)]
  • Kill - If it was a Civilian skill, I might reconsider. Jirtan 15:13, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - /shrug, I just don't like it. Bentley Foss 20:25, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill While the idea behind this is good, not every weapon should be useful. I prefered the advanced knife combat since it gave a choice between a strong but inaccurate weapon or a more accurate, but weaker weapon. Plus, with double chance to smash down barricades, this would give crowbars a 100% chance to knock it down... Although I don't see why Jedaz seems so hating of it, I mean, it wouldn't unbalence the game, it would just add something to it that isn't really needed and would give uber griefing power o zombie spies. --Volke 01:30, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Survivor wounds

Timestamp: 10:00am 30 Dec 2005
Type: Penalty and flavour
Scope: Survivors
Description: When a survivor is attacked there is a 10% (obviously these percentage could be tweaked) chance that they will suffer a serious wound. This wound would effect either their A) head (causes trouble seeing/concentrating so survivor can only see zombies/survivors in current block) B) arms (causes 50% loss in accuracy with all attacks) C) legs (walking costs 2 AP). This adds extra fear to the game if a survivor suffers a wound and adds some variety and flavour to combat.

Elaborated: Wounds should act like infection (they should be reported to player in the same way) and be cured when a FAK is used. Zombies would not get wounded, only survivors. Wounding blows could be a zombie skill like infection. I feel this would add more variety to combat and create interesting scenarios (imagine wounding your head and stumbling into a gang of zombies because you couldn't see where you were going, or having to settle for an unbarricaded bank to hide in because you injured your leg and couldn't make it back to the mall).


  • Kill - --Fullemtaled 10:18, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - but with some reservations. It should require surgery to cure (I assume you simply forgot to note that). Zombies shouldn't be vulnerable to this, as they don't care about pain. Also, I think that percentage is a little high if it has a chance on every single attack. Either make it a zombie skill to do these devastating strikes, reduce the percentage (1% feels about right), or both. Rhialto 10:22, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Tentative vote noting my general agreement with Rhialto that the specifics might need tweaking. Also I have a question. Are your multiple options all included; i.e. if a survivor suffered these wounds, is there a chance that any of these three could happen? Or are you just throwing possible options for a single type of wound out there? If it is the former, then 1) no one should ever have to put up with more than one of these at a time (no stacking wounds please) and 2) I suspect you are going to hear from people that option C is a bad plan, though I personally have no problem with that idea and most of my characters are survivors. --Thelabrat 11:45, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Don't punish the players this is basically a 3 times more annoying skill than headshot. Got grief?--Vista 12:48, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As Vista said, this just makes less people want to play the game. - Jedaz 13:06, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - You need to elaborate on what you mean. We already have infection. Does that make people want to play the game less? Survivors can be killed. Does that make people want to play the game less? Survivors can kill zombies with different degrees of effectiveness with different weapons. Does that make zombies want to play the game less? My suggestions is just to add a bit more variety and role playing to the combat. Deus Ex has a similar type of damage system and it made the game more fun because it created interesting scenarios. "X is bad because it punishes players" is so general that no suggestion would ever be accepted because ever penalty/skill/improvement benefits one group and disadvantages another. It's all about balance. monstermunch 13:06, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • re no dice, Only propose suggestions that add something to the side it is aimed at. this is just cutting through all that positive stuff and is just meant to grief the other side. ask yourself, did headshot cause grief and people quitting? Yes, yes it did. where is the variaty for the zombie, he doesn't notice anything different. Griefing survivors aint going to help make zombie gameplay more interesting. And before you have the audacity to talk about balance, please do some math on this proposal, 'cause this aint balanced.--Vista 16:00, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would suggest that B be changed to -15% if the hit percent is above 15% and -12.5% for flares with basic firearms, that way it seems fair. --Kryten 14:51, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So you're suggesting a "make survivors unable to defend themselves at all" skill. Seriously, -50%? That brings your highest possibility down to 15% to hit, with maximum skills. No temporary stat skills for hit percentages. Just no.Take that part out entirely (no subtraction whatsoever) and I'll consider. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:03, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • I believe that 50% loss in accuract was a multiplier, not a subtractor. ie 65% x 50% = 32.5%. Still crippling, but not impossibly so. The primary intent is that you should be seeking medical attention anyway, not continuing. Rhialto 15:19, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unneccessarily complicated. Why don't you suggest a minor buff to infectious bite instead? It would be much simpler to implement.--WibbleBRAINS 16:43, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)\
  • Kill - Grief. --MaulMachine 11:56, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - This is extremely cruel to newbie survivors. --Asrathe 20:12, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. Would you like waking up with no map vision, 10% accuracy, and 2 AP per movement? No, I didn't think so. Bentley Foss 20:26, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, I'm mixed with this so I'll vote keep because there's a kill majority. I like this general idea, that survivors could be weakened, but, of course, I play as a survivor and wouldn't want to deal with this. I think there should be some limit though, you shouldn't have to deal with all the injuries at once, that would be impossible. And make it only apply to survivors, too, because zombies don't need any handicap. --Horje 01:50, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unbalanced, this is stacking multiple effects from same attack. making this practically an insta Kill attack. Also isnt there a rule. Don't mess with other peoples skills? --Tom mot 00:43, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - The idea needs tweaking but it certainly is a good one. Perhaps leave it at a -15% to attack while being 'wounded'? --Jinxed 11:32, 02 Jan 2006 (GMT+1)


Timestamp: 11:42, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie Hunters, Zombies
Description: The "Drive Back" suggestion above gave me a great idea (so co-author credit for that guy, I guess ;). How about the ability to MOVE other players with a unique new skill for both classes? I'll elaborate.

Zombie Hunters lvl 10+ - New skill gives Hunters the ability to SHOVE one zombie one block in a chosen VERTICAL or HORIZONTAL direction (North/West/East/South). This costs 1 AP but causes NO or negligible damage. 30% chance of success.

This would allow Hunters to separate Zombies from a group, making them easier targets. Hunters CAN push zombies out of buildings, but ONLY if they number 4 or fewer. If there are 5 or more zombies inside or outside the doorway (a horde), this is not possible due to the crowd of Zombies becoming obstacles to the ejection. (No forced ejections during seiges, basically. Ferals rarely get into a fortified building without some help anyway, so they have less to worry about as well.)

Possible Concerns: PKers might use this skill (if they get high enough in level) to shove fellow survivors outdoors. On the other hand, organized groups could forcibly eject trouble-makers or anybody they don't like, which I imagine would happen in real life too. ("You complain too much! 'Wah, wah, the Zombies ate my family.' OUT YOU GO!")

Examples: Successful push, "You shove the zombie one block North." Unsuccessful push, "You shove at the zombie but your hands slip from its rotted flesh."

Zombies lvl 10+ - New skill under the Vigour Mortis tree gives Zombies the ability to DRAG one survivor one block in any DIAGONAL direction the Zombie chooses (North-west, North-east, South-west, South-East). This costs 1 AP but causes NO or negligible damage. 30% chance of success.

This would allow Zombies to drag a food source closer to other Zombies (sharing is caring). Also, Zombies CAN drag survivors OUT of a building, since logically the horde behind them would only aid in such action.

Examples: Successful drag, "You drag (name) kicking and screaming one block South." Unsuccessful drag, "You pull at (name) but lose your grip on the sweaty, doughy flesh."

If the action is successful, the shover/dragger moves WITH the victim to the new block. If unsuccessful, they both stay put.

Possible alternative: Zombies can get this skill at lvl 8 instead of 10. This may balance out the innate Hunter advantages, and since Zombies are stronger than Humans it makes sense that a lvl 8 Zombie is equal in strength to a lvl 10 Human. However, the ability to drag humans OUT of buildings seems very powerful to me, so lvl 10 is probably the way to go.

I'm particularly fond of the vision of a doorway crowded with the moaning, shrieking Undead sucking some hapless, wide-eyed survivor out into the darkness. Any other sadists with me on this? ;)

Edit: Vista does bring up a good point below about the griefing potential of this skill. While I would hope that most users would not be so frivolous with their AP solely for the sake of aggravating others (woe to the Hunter who shoves me around and then runs out of AP 2 blocks away from me when I wake up ;) I guess it's always a possibility. For myself I'd most often use the skill whenever I see a meatbag in the vicinity of a group of Zombies so they'd have a meal to wake up to. I'd like to continue hearing votes on this, but if concensus agrees it's too grief-able I'll probably kill it myself. Thanks. :)


  • Kill - Movement between blocks is currently choice-only, I'd like it to stay that way, I could agree to a skill allowing Zombies to drag people out of buildings though, as getting people out of buildings already has body-dumping --Kingreaper
  • Kill - Considering the scale of a block is about 100 metres, dragging anyone a block is just ridiculous unless they are dead, and even then it should cost multiple APs. Rhialto 11:59, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I have a feeling I'm alone on this but I'm a sadist, apparently. Consider this a vote for the basic ideas even if the specifics need tweaking. I'm undecided on your level alternative for zombies. The survivor version should be inactive when undead. The zeds would have to go into a building to drag someone out, correct? If not, I'm not sure how that could be implemented without violating some x-ray vision rule and I'd say drop that specific aspect. Also, how does barricade level affect these skills? And either skill should definitely cost more than one AP (2-5 at a guess). --Thelabrat 12:08, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Zeds do have to get into the building first before dragging out a survivor. Barricade rules apply (if a zombie can't pass through, he can't be Shoved out until dead; if a human can pass through, he can be Shoved; Zombies can't pass through barricades, thus they can't Drag through them either). I don't see more than 1 AP being necessary because there's no damage done and the chance of successfully shoving/dragging are kept low. Shoving/dragging long distances would waste a LOT of AP.--Carnival H 14:31, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Rhialto has a point, and all actions that force people to do stuff except dying is worthy of spam. This is forced move. What constitutes a zombie horde, etcv etc. we've had suggestion like this before, a lot. and a lot better ones. AND THEY WERE STILL BAD! think of the gamemechanics. Don't punish the players--Vista 12:57, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: I understand that you think it's a bad idea but let's not go spam-crazy here. Spam is for ideas totally without merit, no? You seem to be focusing only on "What if somebody shoved/dragged me?" and not giving due attention to "How convenient would it be to get a zombie alone or drag a survivor out to play with my undead Thriller mob?" --Carnival H 14:31, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re no i'm looking at the player with whom this would happen. Not me personally. Yes their are some tactical benefits in group play. but on the individual level it's just grief. remember groups are made of individials and that most players are not in a group, so no dice. every propasal should that is made should first and foremost have individual gameplay in mind. conveniance of group play doesn't negate the fact that it is a griefer skill. and yes people would just drag players whole blocks just to grief, also zombie spies and PK'ers would trow out survivors into mobs at frightening rates. But I voted spam because when you log in you should either be in the sameplace you logged out in or dead. there should be no automated actions in the game. But'll I'll change it to kill because there is a keep vote already.--Vista 15:43, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't move people around. A Zombie could wake up one day just to find that they are in a completly different suburb, need I say more. - Jedaz 13:11, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Who would spend most of their AP points shoving/dragging somebody all the way into a different suburb? It's only strategically viable for short distances.--Carnival H 14:31, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - For reasons above.--TheTeeHeeMonster 15:05, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Jirtan 15:16, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Who? Me. I would spend all my AP dragging people to RidleyBank. bbrraaiinnss 1906 30 DEC 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We horde for self defence. Live with it. --Grim s 18:08, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Geez, we haven't had one of these for a while. There should be no pied piper skills that move players around without their consent. The only exception to this remains dumping corpses. This is too open to many, many exploits and annoyances. Bentley Foss 20:28, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Exploit: Let's say you made two characters, zombie Z and survivor S. Z spends 50 AP to move S to a crowd of unsuspecting zombies, S then slaughters some of them and has a few AP to get away. Repeat. --Signal9 20:58, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Alex, I'll take "Overpowered" for 500. Slicer 23:50, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Weapon/Skill Improvement: Advanced Flare Training

Timestamp: 08:30 30 Dec 2005
Type: Weapon/Skill Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: Advanced Flare Training (When you fire a flare into the sky, there is a -=- 20% 30% or 40% (pick one when voting) -=- chance a helicopter will see it and drop a supply crate at your location.) Flares operate in the same manner as they do now when used as a weapon. This skill only applies when a flare is fired into the air flare style. Prerequesite: Basic Firearms Training

Vote Here

  • Kill - For teh cost of a throwaway item and a skill, you get a 20% chance of getting a crate with 2 days worth of searched items? Only if there's a chance it lands on your head and does 50 damage in the process. At any % large enough to be taken seriously it would be overpowered. Rhialto 15:04, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the sound of this except for the percentages. Even at 20% you will have thousands of supply crates being dropped EVERY DAY. With current search chance of 1.58% in PDs you will have 3 out of every 4 survivors with a flare gun per day searching, with current survivor numbers that's 21825 (roughly) flare gun launches per day, then with 20% success we have 4365 (again roughly) supply drops PER DAY. That is 43 supply crates per suburb! Even at a very low rate of 1% you could have 200 drops per day, 2 drops per suburb. The only time I have seen/heard a supply crate/drop was on the day it was introduced. A possible implementation could be like this suggestion Suggestions/22nd-Dec-2005#Chance_of_Supply_Drops_Directly_Proportional_to_Number_of_Lit_Buildings. --Kryten 15:12, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You know... I registered JUST to kill this. I'm a survivor at the moment, mind you, and this is absolutely absurd. Survivors do NOT need any more advantages. The mere existance of crates was more of a boost than we need quite frankly. At least crates, with the way they are now, are interesting. They add a risk/reward deal.. we have to wander out in the streets to FIND crates, putting ourselves at risk at becoming something's dinner. Frankly, this is just a Super Search. No, no, no, no, no.... also, NO! As Kryten point out.. multiply it by a billion. At the same time. See? Don't people know how to read the guidlines for suggestions? Jak Rhee
  • Kill -as Kryten so eloquently pointed out, the only time when this would be balanced is with 0% change of happening.--Vista 15:30, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - overpowered --Signal9 19:39, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Same as above. Bentley Foss 20:28, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - With a 0.01% success rate. If Kryten's math is correct, that will be 2 packages dropped at all ever... per day.--Ev933n 21:20, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Aww, and including flare guns into the algorithm for dropped crates could have been such a great idea! But in this implementation it's just too far out there. Riktar 22:21, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Alex, I'll take Overpowered for 400. Hey look, the Daily Double! Slicer 23:51, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is just absurd. Oh, and Ev933n, if you want the idea to be changed, you vote Kill, not Keep. CthulhuFhtagn 01:39, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill � I think it's funny that the idea is someone can receive "advanced training" for a flare gun. That's four years well spent, right there. Supply crates are fine the way they are. Bartle 13:16, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - I might be alone here, but considering that's what flares are supposed to do, why not? Make the guy wait awhile, or maybe the supply can fall anywhere within the 9 blocks he sees. So, he can't know if his demands weren't answered or if the box is somewhere else. --Monstah 18:03, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Timestamp: 16:36, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement / Location change
Scope: Survivors in forts and armories
Description: The Forts of Malton were designed not just to train and house soldiers, but also as reliable fortifications, cpaable of being a strongpoint if the need ever arose. As a result, they are full of killing zones, easilly defendable locations with excellent lines of fire. To represent this, any attacks aimed at a survivor inside a fort are at a flat -10% accuracy. Zombies lack the brainpower to benefit from this strategic location.


  • Spam - Pointless and unbalancing - --Fullemtaled 16:42, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Imaging a balancing zombie skill; wouldn't you just hate that to happen to you? --WibbleBRAINS 16:48, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - WAY too unbalancing. Zombies have enough trouble taking heavily fortified survivor hotspots as it is, we don't need this as well. --McDave 17:18, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -It isn't unbalancing as there are only two forts in the game. As there are only two forts in the game it is however pointless.--Vista 17:21, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There have been a number of other suggestions to improve forts, many of which are more interesting than just messing with hit percentages. --Dickie Fux 17:36, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too much code for too little use. Other suggestions to improve forts are better. --Signal9 19:52, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Useless. Somebody got mad when they got PK'd, eh? Bentley Foss 20:33, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - No, actually, hasn't happened to me yet. Altough PKers WERE the reason I decided on this wording instead of "Any attacking zombies". Moot point anyhow as it's no gonna work anyhow. Oh well.
  • Kill - Quick, the zombie:survivor rate is 1:2, lets give survivors even more advantages!--The General 20:50, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Vital Decay

Timestamp: 10:10, 30 Dec 2005 (MST)
Type: Balance Change/Improvement
Scope: Survivors & Zombies
Description: Did you ever notice that little section of your zombie profile that says “Died (X) times”? I’ve wondered what that was for, other than a record of how unlucky you were. With this suggestion, that little piece of information takes on new meaning, and staying alive becomes vitally important to your future as a survivor.

Here’s how it works (these numbers aren’t set in stone, so feel free to suggest changes):

After dying your first dozen or so deaths, it becomes harder to jump-start the machinery of life. In game terms, this means that on your 13th death (or whatever), you acquire a 5% chance that future NecroTech syringes will fail to revive you. (For those of you who just mis-read that, this is not a 5% chance to be permanently stuck as a zombie ala BrainRot, just a 5% chance that any given syringe will fail to have an effect. A second or third or fourth syringe may work, depending on how lucky/unlucky you are.) With each subsequent death, the chance of failure for any given syringe increases 5%, up to a maximum of an 80% failure rate. Using my numbers, this means that on your 28th death, you have a permanent 1 in 5 chance of being revived for each syringe used on you (or 4 in 5 chance of not being revived). For added paranoia, code could be written that would assign each survivor a random point after which syringe failure starts. For one character, it might be 10 deaths. For another, it might be 15. For a third, it might be 5. The character (and player) would never know (a) at what point the failure percentage started to accrue, and (b) what their failure percentage is...

Newly-created zombie characters start out with a base 10% chance of syringe failure, which increases by 5% per death as above, to a maximum of 80%. This does not replace BrainRot for zombies - if you want to be a zombie permanently, buy BrainRot. This can be rationalized as new zombies being old dead bodies that the virus has finally affected (and besides, the player chose to start out as a zombie – why should some NecroTech dweeb farming for XP ruin that?). Zombies who started as zombies have the advantage of knowing that they started at 10%, and can do the math from there with every death.

NecroTech DNA Extractors should not show the chance of syringe failure or how many times the character has died. After all, just because you have a gun, it doesn’t mean you’re going to hit your target, even if you’ve got all the levels of pistol training - there’s still a chance of a “miss”.

Flavor: It is often the twist of the zombie genre that the hunter becomes the hunted. This suggestion adds an element of fear to the game (“Gee, it might be hard to get revived the next time.”) along with a sense of realism (in as much as a zombie apocalypse game can be “real”). How many times have you logged in to find yourself dead, and then wandered over to the nearest NecroTech building and waited for revivification, just because you knew it was a guaranteed cure? Meanwhile, you passed up survivors and didn’t complain when someone used you for an XP farm before reviving you? Great role-playing, there. This way, standing around at a revive point just might earn you an additional 10 or 15% chance that the syringe won’t work when used. You might just be better off playing as a zombie for a while – at least you’ll be earning XP’s, and a lurching target is harder to hit than a stationary one.

This suggestion takes becoming a zombie from being an inconvenience to being a real potential problem (nothing puts a crimp in your survivor social life like a small case of being undead), without forcing the player to be a zombie permanently or letting them off the hook easily. Death is easy; life is hard. The high number of deaths before syringe failure starts becoming a problem gives new survivor players a chance, while new zombie players have a chance of staying that way without some well-intentioned survivor with a syringe changing that.

In the long run, I believe this will result in characters who have low chances of being revived taking a stab at the zombie way of unlife (and swelling the ranks of zombies), while still holding out hopes for a revive. These players will have a lot invested in their characters, and will (hopefully) be reluctant to let them go.

As the author, I don't vote on my own suggestions, as I feel making the suggestion in the first place is a "keep" vote. Submitted by --SCAScot


  • Kill - --Fullemtaled 17:38, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -This is forcing people to play zombies, This hurts people who have already chosen "the zombie way of unlife" more because as a pure survivor you just don't die as much as them. You only punish people with this. You want more zombies MAKE THEM MORE FUN Don't force people to do something that they don't want to do.--Vista 18:02, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- This Hurt's survivor's and Don't Punish the Players!!!! --Lord Evans 18:13, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Gee yet another "let's force people to play zombie" suggestion have you bothered to concider that a) not everyone WANTS to play zombie, b) its far easier to die that it is to be revied and c) if everyone becomes a zombie the game is just as dead as if everyone becomes a survivor? --Rolland CW 18:37 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the Mk. III syringe suggestion better. --TheTeeHeeMonster 18:41, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This (1) Forces players to play zombie = bad (2) Discourages NT Employees from trying to revive people = very bad. My NT charachter will get firearms training, hunt you down, and kill you, then revive, then kill and repeat for suggesting this. --Signal9 20:00, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't force players to behave in specific manners. You'll only end up frustrating people. This is a GAME, remember? Bentley Foss 20:34, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Do you want people to hate you? Slicer 23:49, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Search Bodies

Timestamp: 20:41, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Call it whatever you want. Indifference, Fearlessness, Grave Robber
  • Search Body Skill - falls under Cilivian Skill Set. Ability to search the dead bodies (or of just Brain Rotted Zombies logged out for more than certain number of days) lying around with an increased chance of finding any item carried by the dead player. The more bodies there are increases your chances of finding an item. This COULD POSSIBLY take that item from any of the dead players the Brain Rotted Zombie. There is also a 10% to 30% (negotiable) chance of being bitten by a dead body while searching. The more dead bodies laying around that have infectious bite increases your chances of getting infected as well (negotiable)Requires 1AP per use as usual.

When I first saw that there were '20 bodies here' I thought to myself, 'why can't I search them?'

This is an obvious boon to survivors but a hidden gain for the dead, as it draws the survivors outdoors and keeps them there longer. Newcomers to the game that aren't able to enter malls can still find items to help get them XP but the newly dead can also bite someone while they are being searched --Zex Suik 20:41, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

EDIT I have one zombie alt who at this moment is lying dead outside a Necro Bldg so I might be wrong about this. If a Zombie has Brain Rot, doesn't that mean he can't be revived? If he can't use his items and doesn't drop them then when we drop him we should be able to take his items, seeing as how he'll never use them anyways.


  • KEEP Props to meself --Zex Suik 20:41, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam no automated attacks, urban dead is wholy player driven, lets keep it that way. Taking away items from logged out players is bad, You could take the flak jacket of a brainrotted zombie.--Vista 20:50, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE Good point, I edited it --Zex Suik 20:54, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE I edited so that it could possibly be just inactive players that gave up on the game, why let those items go to waste? --Zex Suik 21:11, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I have a couple problems with it. First, this could be used to trade items. Just let somebody kill you, then let them search your body until they get what they want. Second, if the object isn't removed, you could get lots of items that you otherwise wouldn't get... imagine searching a block with 10 people, each with a Flak jacket... skews the odds of flak jackets. Third, being bitten by bodies makes no sense... they haven't risen as zombies yet. Fourth, what if the player that you get bit by doesn't want to bite you? It forces the player to roleplay a certain way. --intx13 20:51, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE I edited out the biting, waiting to see about how people feel about the items being duped or taken. --Zex Suik 20:54, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You didn't even read the suggestion guidelines or the FAQ, did you? Bentley Foss 21:12, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - For reasons listed above and ease of exploitation by zergers --Signal9 21:22, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE How will zergers benefit more from this than anyone else? --Zex Suik 21:37, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re Survivor zergers: make a bunch of charachters, have them search for things you need, bring them together, kill them, and then have your main charachter search the bodies and get the items without having to actually search in different places. --Signal9 22:34, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Pretty much what intx13 said. Also, bodies disapper after 5 days of inactivity (right?). Lots of people don't log in for 5 days because, for example, holidays. This doesn't mean they are not coming back. --Brizth 21:31, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE Please see the edit --Zex Suik 21:37, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Except there's no reason to take items from another players inventory. an outside pile of bodies could just be another place to search drawing survivors outdoors. --Martonic17 22:14, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't mess with inventory and inventory trade exploit. Rhialto 23:48, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - Speaking as a brain rotter, keep your filthy paws off my flak jacket! --Grim s 14:04, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would only vote for this if there was a skill which allowed a zombie to attack with 100% accuracy and 50 damage which could only be used on someone who was bending down stealing items from other people's inventories.--The General 17:06, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Same as above... maybe if there was the skill: Hardened Prisoner of the Undead "Giver" then it would be alright. I could picture it now. "You bend over to rummage through bodies but a zombie walked up behind you and gave it to you, you are now dead and it takes an extra 5 AP to stand up while you apply pain reliever to your butt" (last part of this is a joke)--TheBigT 00:24, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Death Spasm

Timestamp: 16:54, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT-5)
Type: balance change
Scope: everyone
Description: Simple enough, give a 5 minute restriction on humans who die from infection before they stand up. This is to prevent the exploit of Zombies countering the barricades by being raised, running to a building full of survivors, search then until they die from infection (which is a very common thing to have when you die) and stand up immediatly to attack, without actually removing the opportinity of being able to do it. If there is a 5 minute delay, a building filled with survivors is way more likely to have someone log in and dump the body outside before the Zombie actually rise, countering this "exploit". If nobody log in or notice in the time delay, then the Zombie is still managing his trick. --Eagle of Fire


  • kill -thats the cost for a combat revive. and the AP's lost mean that he can't do much damage.--Vista 22:03, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I'm not following you at all. 3 Zombies with free run doing this at around the same time will without a doubt kill any single survivor inside a otherwise barricaded building which should be seen as "safe" very easily without much trouble. Also, I wasn't refering to "war revive", I was more thinking about the dedicated revive points all over Yagoton. This whole "die from infection only to attack survivors in barricaded building" thing is what I'd think is against the whole basics of the game IMHO, and that's why I'm suggesting this. Not because I don't want people do actually do it like I'm experimenting myself lately. --Eagle of Fire
    • one of my alt works as at a revive spot, we've haven't had much of that trouble. and certainly not in mass numbers, so the only time I think what you describe will be a problem is during sieges. and then makes it a no-no, because it limits zombies to much.--Vista 23:06, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill: - On average, 5 minutes is really not enough to prevent spy attacks. Secondly, making any time-dependent additions is a very very bad idea because of the way this game is implemented. --Signal9 22:39, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A server-intensive bit of code to restrict an activity that would still be expected to work anyway if there are less than 50 players in the building? No thanks. Rhialto 23:47, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - Meh what next? Next there is somebody going to suggest that they have "death crap" that prevents everyone from coming near the person for 5 minutes because of how bad he is crapping his pants LOL... but seriously this game is too slow as it is with the 30 minute an ap thing... we don't want to wait 5 minutes every time we die more! Shadow213 01:43, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Deal with it. "Oh my goodness, one zombie entered our mall populated by 200 heavily-armed humans! What ever shall we do?!" Bentley Foss 02:23, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Atrophied Nerves

Timestamp: 22:33, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Zombies in an advanced state of necrotic decay suffer a breakdown of the autonomic nervous system. This failure destroys the feedback loop which the living use to prevent injuries when performing physical activities. A zombie with an atrophied nervous system will take damage from every attempt to attack a barricade, but will do additional damage to the barricade when successful. This does not affect the probability of a successfull attack, only the damage delivered. Pre-req: Brainrot.


  • Kill - Skills that kill the person with the skill are bad. That's the bottom line. --Jon Pyre 22:40, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill: - The way barricades work is: you either cause a part of it to collapse, or not. If you don't change the probablility, I'm not sure what you're suggesting... removing 2 items at a time? That might be overpowered... --Signal9 22:44, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -how much damage does it take, how much less Ap's is it to take down a barricade. Numbers never hurt, numbers help. numbers might make the difference between Keep and Kill--Vista 23:02, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Vista said. Rhialto 23:45, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Decent for small groups, horrible for sieges. High level horde leaders will suicide on the barricades, letting their low-level minions in to do the killing. Slicer 00:16, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment - I just want to mention how hilarious I find this- I'm voting Kill because I think it'd be too powerful, others are killing because they don't think anyone would use it. Smash the wooden shell to get the human meat, and get all the HP back with Digestion and spread a little infection besides. Slicer 00:44, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Jon Pyre said. Arrod 23:45, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So I'm going to get a skill that hurts me and doesn't give me any benifits - Jedaz 01:39, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Interesting concept, but no one wants to lose HP. How about, they do extra damage to the barricade without losing HP? That would be nice. --Horje 01:45, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There's a much better "extra-damage-to-the-barricades" idea on the peer reviewed page. Bentley Foss 02:24, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Skill: Feign Death

Spaminated with 3 spams and no keeps. Not even the author voted keep. CthulhuFhtagn 01:43, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Skill: Dexterity

With no less than six un-opposed Spams, the Urban Dead suggestion reviewers gave this one the twisted coathanger treatment. Slicer 01:09, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools