Suggestions/30th-Jan-2007

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

Burning Zombies / Stop Drop Roll

Timestamp: User:ransomnator 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
Scope: Humans attacking / Zombies being attacked
Description: Imagine burning zombies with fuel cans! Isnt that exciting!? You would use one much like a FAK or a syringe in that you select how you would like your fuel can to be used (hmmmm in the generator? or on the nearest zombie!!) It would work from a damage point of view much like the zombie bite infection whereby a zombie would be hurt 2 - 3 hp / every AP used for a maximum of 5 - 10 moves (5-10 % chance of fire extinguishing itself with every AP used). Zombies on fire would be unable to attack (all of their attack percentages would be reduced to zero) until they put the fire out!

With that said, the zombie counter for this could be "stop drop and roll" which would be a new life skill for zombies. The move would increase the percent chance of putting out the fire by 15%.

Experience points given to humans (pyros?) could either be over time until the fire is extinguished (tricky), or it could be randomly generated between 5 and 10 exp as soon as the human torches the zombie.

This new way of attacking zombies is intended to be an 'anti seige tactic' to be used against zombie hordes attacking buildings. The EXP gained is kept low relative to the possible damage carried out to make this a secondary mode of attack. I thought of this as I find there is a real imbalance in the game when it comes to defending buildings (especially malls) from zombie hoardes as they concentrate on one section of the building. It is extremely easy for 100+ zombies to chew through EHB's and the only current way to make them stop is to kill them. This could buy people more time (to reload, bring up cades) and string out the fight. Plus, burning zombies would be a hell of a lot of fun!

Thanks 4 reading!

Keep Votes

  1. Keep -Would have abstained, but just had to say: and just why are zombies better at metagaming than survivors? What we should do is not make it easier for individual zombies, but even harder for them and easier for large groups. not only would this make it even better for zombies to work in groups, this would also mean that veteran zeds would need to be even more determened (or even more group-devoted). zombies with more incentive to work in groups + zombies who don't give up = death to survivors. I don't see any game imbalance. --AlexanderRM 8:04 PM, 4 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill Badly put together, hard to read, and generally too good for survivors. Why do they need anything better than infectious Bite, when they already have loads of stuff? Ridiculously overpowered, and Zombies are hard done by as it is. And I play with a survivor. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 06:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Yay, now we can cremate zeds! --Wikidead 07:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. 'Kill Although it would be ironic for a city consisting mostly of firefighters to start gasoline blazes everywhere, survivors don't need an ability to drain health from zombies ala infection. It's too powerful. --Jon Pyre 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - there is already a very fine molotov cocktails suggestion in Peer Reviewed - this mish mash offers nothing better. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Lets see...if zeds were real, and we put them on fire, we would have walking undead torches. Are you sure you want to burn Malton to the ground? --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill Overpowered! - BzAli 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. A creative suggestion, but too powerful for survivors, and the mechanics of it need some work. --ExplodingFerret 15:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Nyet - The fact that a 100 zombies can chew through EHB easily makes this game fun. Zombies are players too, so be nice to them.--Lachryma 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - More than 1HP per AP is too much. And I'll only vote "keep" on this if I get to use fuel cans to set fellow survivors on fire as well... --c138 RR - PKer 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - Sorry, much as I would like to see fuel cans used in this way, I have to agree that if you set them on fire they would only become walking torches which means not only could they attack but if they grabbed on to you, you would suffer burning damage in addition to the bite.--John Blast 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Kill - Have you ever even played as a zombie? Most likely not; else you would know that survivors are the ones who have it too easy. Zombies are so underpowered it's not even funny; they win battles because they are MUCH better at metagaming than survivors. But they are still losing the war according to the stats page. The objective of zombies is to increase their numbers by killing survivors, and the objective of survivors is to survive. So if zombies aren't killing survivors faster than said survivors are getting revived, then the survivors are winning. And guess what? Zombie numbers are dropping. Even if we assume that it is entirely due to players leaving the game, it still means the same thing: zombies are losing. Therefore, survivors don't need a buff; especially one that they can use to prevent a zombie from performing any actions. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill!! - WTF? You shot yourself with "zombies can't attack". In case you don't know, the unzead can't feel pain. Fire would not affect them, they would still be after flesh. They would incinerate you with them. -BrainsYummy 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Change - Make it harder to set the zombies on fire... maybe ignite the zombie by shooting it with a flare gun or something. Then throw in something to make it cool for zombies. A flaming zombie would probably do a lot more damage than one who isn't on fire. And lose the "stop, drop and roll." It's out of genre, and if the zombie gets burnt to death, it can just stand up again at full health anyway. It would be a really cool idea, but zombies need a buff right now, not the other way around. --Uncle Bill 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. This has been suggested before, but I don't have the inclination to look it up. Why would a zombie give a crap if it was on fire? In fact, wouldn't a burning zombie do MORE damage with attacks?--Pesatyel 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Kill - Fun: yes. Balanced: nope. I like the idea of burning zombies. But it shouldn't be that powerful for humans. Better, if zombietorch would be able to deal more damage, as suggested above. -- ρsych°LychεεELT 05:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Kill - This is a bit funny, but not so much. Also, I agree with the person who said earlier that this would be very out of character if you were a fire fighter. --GhostStalker 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Way overpowered, 2-3 HP per move, and if they don't have the requisite skill they can't put out the fire. Give your zombie brethren a break. For the love of all things holy, NO! -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 06:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Most people don't stop drop and roll. Why the hell would zombies do it? --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam - I don't even know what to say. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam - I don't even need to read the suggestion to know this is Spam. The title does that for me. – Nubis NWO 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spam - Above, but read anyways. Still spam. SuperMario24 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    ROFLWOFLZ - This suggestion enables the roffle to set my waffles on fire.--J Muller 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    You may unstrike your vote when your provide a valid reason for your vote. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Spam I've suggested something similar and its been shot down. A lot. Mattiator 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Antiviral Vaccine (Revised)

Timestamp: JohnRubin 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Item
Scope: Infection, curing infection, first-aid kit, a new item
Description: This is an update. The initial suggestion can be found here.

At the moment the infection caused by an Infectious Bite can be cured with a first-aid kit. This limits the usefullness of the Infectious Bite for zombies since its consequences can be easily reverted in the process of restoring HP with a first-aid kit, which an infected survivor usually does anyway. Some people say that "the massive amount of collective survivor AP... is spent countering infection". I argue that infection nowadays is healed almost immediately along with restoration of HP taking no AP at all in most cases. That is why, in the words of another person, "being bitten by a zombie is currently about as dangerous and terrifying as being licked by a poodle".

I hereby suggest that the process of curing infection should be separated from healing wounds (restoring HP). This can be achieved by introducing a new item – antiviral vaccine. Using an antiviral vaccine on oneself or another survivor cures the infection immediately at the cost of 1 AP. This also consumes the vaccine. Using a vaccine on a survivor who is not infected wastes 1 AP, but not the vaccine. Curing another survivor earns you 1 XP.

In effect, the property of curing infection should be removed from the first-aid kit leaving healing properties only. The message that you get when healing an infected survivor may say that infection has not been cured.

Another change concerns infection. Simply put - infection should end with death. Once you are dead you are not infected anymore. This means that once you are revived you are not infected anymore either. Especially considering the fact that when you are revived you are treated with a revivification syringe, which brings you back to life - you would expect such a powerful thing to take care of any kind of infection. (Many thanks to SuperMario24 and GhostStalker for their remarks.)

Antiviral vaccine should be available by searching in any hospital, NecroTech building or infirmary (with chances to find to be 12%, 12% and 10% respectively). During discussion of the initial suggestion some people were concerned that the suggested search rates are too low. First of all - those are search rates for unlit buildings. In buildings with a generator they will be higher. Second - in hospitals and infirmaries survivors will also find first-aid kits, with which they can restore their HP. So it seems quite unlikely that one will die of infection, while searching for an antiviral vaccine in a hospital or infirmary - unless one has less than 10 HP to start with. Anyway, this suggestion is actually about infection becoming a threat for survivors - there should be a risk that you can die of infection.

Introducing this item and changing the properties of the first-aid kit may require a change in the game mechanism that would allow a survivor (perhaps with a certain skill) to recognise infected survivors, but such a change is not in the scope of this suggestion.

Separating the process of curing infection from restoring HP will make curing infection more difficult and thus will make the Infectious Bite more effective.

P.S.: To those people who think that "a standard First-Aid Kit in a zombie apocalypse would probably carry some sort of antibiotic for the infection" I say: People! Have you ever seen a first-aid kit? And we are talking about apocalypse here. Who would supply your first-aid kit with vaccines in the middle of apocalypse? Anyway this suggestion is not about realism. This suggestion tries to make the game a bit more challenging for survivors and a bit more rewarding for zombies - in a word, more interesting for everyone.

Keep Votes

  1. Inventory management would become a little harder, and infection would become slightly more of a threat as less people can or will bother to cure it. Sounds like a good solution of the problem to me. --ExplodingFerret 15:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. I like the idea but would personally make FAKs cure the infection in hospitals and allow revive syringes to double as anti-virals if you were desperate. it makes no sense that they do not purge the infection and i have long thought they should, or at the very least that manufactured ons should.--Honestmistake 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - It stands to reason that a FAK would not include an anti-viral vaccine for curing an infection as re-animation of a corpse. They might exist in an NT building but not anywhere else. --John Blast 18:37, 30 January 2007 {UTC} Funt, is there any particular reason you speak to people the way you do? Why do you insist on answering people in this manner? Seriously, what is your deal? There was no reason for you to begin your comment the way you did, nor end it in that manner as well. You need only be civil and answer his question. Who are you to call someone else stupid? What makes you so superior over John? Think before you write. --John Blast 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - I liked the last one, and I still like this one. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - I think that infectious bite needs an upgrade due to the matter that it isn't really threatening when you receive it. Adding a new item to counter the effect of the bite would reveal its true potential. Maybe adding an i in parenthesis next to a survivors name would indicate that they are infected (ex. Zombie slay3r (i)). Additionally, when I was a low-level survivor I never died from an infection, I always found a fak or someone healed me. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Well its a good idea and also don't let the rule hounds get to you, to my understanding they seem to lack any mathematical ability at all (Is a 95% confidence interval generated assuming a normal distribution too much to ask for?). --Etherdrifter 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Logical suggestion. -Rocker820 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - I like biscuits. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - The Infection skill does need to be more affective. I mean who dies from an Infection, no one thats who. --Sonofagun18 CFT 10:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Logical, i like it!--Captain911 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Hesitant Keep - I guess ending infection upon gettting revived would be very helpful, just helpful enough to vote Keep on this suggestion. Also, thanks for the props. --GhostStalker 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - People this is so obvious! A First aid kit is a box with bandages, compresses, disinfectant and freaking plasters used to bandage a wound, not heal a mysterious disease none's ever heard of. 1000% support. --DinkyDao 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. What's in a FAK. Hm....Anything medical. Oh...and if this is a revision, I suggest you remove the original and say you're removing it to revise it. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 14:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Done. Thanks! --JohnRubin 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Killl - Inventory management would become much harder, if you also needed to carry a couple of vaccines with you. - BzAli 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Things people carry in their inventory: shotguns, shells, pistols, pistol clips, FAKs, syringes, a DNA-extractor, a fire-axe, a crowbar, a flak jacket, a portable generator, fuel cans, spray cans (that's what I have right now). Some go so far as carrying a mobile phone and binoculars. But perhaps you only carry shotguns. And a katana. --JohnRubin 15:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - partly, for quoting me and then completely failing to address the issue I raised - but mostly because this is over-complicating a simple system for no apparent reason. Infectious Bite doesn't need a buff. I say "the collective AP required to heal infection is massive". You say, just, "no, it isn't". Wow - great argument there. First, a survivor must search for a FAK - that cost an unknown amount of AP, dependant on the nearest source and the % chance of finding one. Then they will travel back to their original location (perhaps). Then they get bitten. Then they use the FAK (probably before they actually need to, because nobody likes being infected). How much AP did that cost? More than "no AP at all", which is what you said. If you're going to argue a point, at least switch on your brain first. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re I argue that in most cases you cure your infection as a side effect of restoring your HP back to normal. If one does not heal oneself to full health after taking more than 5 AP worth of damage then I say that person is an... is taking unnecessary risk. Healing HP requires massive amount of AP - I do not argue with that. As for massive amount of AP spent countering infection - well allow me to question that. So until you can provide some numbers to support your argument I would say it is just an opinion. And many thanks for being polite! --JohnRubin 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - I'm being as polite as I can manage despite your seemingly intense stupidity. If a survivor has 10HP, and no FAK, then they can wander around forever (yes, forever) and not die. (Assuming nothing else happens to them.) If they have 10HP, no FAK, and are infected - then they have 10AP (barring speech) in which to succesfully find and use a FAK, or they're dead. Now which part of that amazingly simple logic do you fail to understand? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Funt, is there any particular reason you speak to people the way you do? Why do you insist on answering people in this manner? Seriously, what is your deal? There was no reason for you to begin your comment the way you did, nor end it in that manner as well. You need only be civil and answer his question. Who are you to call someone else stupid? What makes you so superior over John? Think before you write.--John Blast 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    [non-author re struck --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)]
  4. Kill - I've been thinking a bit since the ealier revision of this suggestion. While I still think it would make sense to separate the Zombie Infection from Damage, I don't think we need another inventory item for it. The Revive Syringe should cure the infection (a necrotech product cures a necrotech created plague) as well as bringing the target back to life. Application of a FAK should just cure damage. –Ray Vern phz T 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (additional - Don't really know if Necrotech created the plague or not - but they specialise in dealing with it, and that's enough for me –Ray Vern phz T 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC))
    Kill Same reason as last time. Look, if you are infected before revification, and you don't have a FAK, you have 25 actions to get inside a hospital, hope they aren't heavily barricaded or ransacked with a zombie inside, and search for a FAK. Not easy. I've nearly died doing it. And since when did newbs know to carry half a dozen FAKs, in case a zombie fancied a bite?
    Unsigned vote struck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I know what you're trying to do, but I don't like it. The premise for a FAK healing an infection is that you patch up the wounds infected, and that keeps the infection from spreading and all that. -Mark 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill Same reason as last time. Look, if you are infected before revification, and you don't have a FAK, you have 25 actions to get inside a hospital, hope they aren't heavily barricaded or ransacked with a zombie inside, and search for a FAK. Not easy. I've nearly died doing it. And since when did newbs know to carry half a dozen FAKs, in case a zombie fancied a bite? -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re May I ask if you have read the suggestion through? Because if you had you would surely notice that the update suggests that once you are revived you are not infected (even if you were before you died). Once you die your infection is gone. --JohnRubin 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re What I am finding annoying about this is the way you pressume everyone plays the same as you, always carries a FAK, etc. If you are on 16 health after being ripped apart by a zombie, that infection will cost you your life, especially if you are a newb. Because you've been playing longer doesn't mean everyone has. You want to be a first time player, who doesn't look at the wiki? Maybe it's more fun that way. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill Dude, It takes a ton of AP to heal an infection, especially if you are a noob. When I started out as a survivor (I'm a zombie now) I was killed by infections so many times it drove me insane. Anyone who isn't experienced can't find a hospital, probably doesn't know about first aid kits, and will wander around aimlessly until they die. Unless you plan to make some kind of crazy system where only people over level 5 can't be uninfected with a FAK - no. wooty4518:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Dude, don't tell me who many AP it takes to heal an infection because I played Urban Dead for quite some time myself (and something - perhaps your user page - tells me I played it longer than you). The same in-game message that says you are infected tells you that the infection can be cured by a first-aid kit. I will not comment on somebody not being able to find a hospital with 3 maps and a Wiki. --JohnRubin 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Weak Kill - I did not like the original idea, and do not like this one. Infectious bite is fine as it is. I just realized that you addressed the revive issue. Still don't like it, but changed my vote to a weak kill. SuperMario24 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - I like the realism suggestion :D --Deras 21:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - Is there something in the fucking water or something? What is it with people wanting to make playing a survivor less fun? It's a bad way to try and get more people to play zombies.--J Muller 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - If the power of survivors is reduced, then so should the power of zombie be reduced in correlation. --Wikidead 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. I voted Keep for the original, but now I kill this revivison. Why? The needless nerf of Infection. I thought this was supposed to be a BUFF for Infection.--ShadowScope 02:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. The simple thing to do would be make a FAK used to cure infection NOT heal HP at the same time. This just overcomplicates things.--Pesatyel 03:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Kill -Your right that people wouldn't go around in the zombie apocalipse putting vaccines in first-aid kits, but neither would they go around tossing them on the floor in hospitals. --AlexanderRM 8:21 PM, 4 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here


Blah Blah Brainrot etc

Timestamp: Gene Splicer 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill, ish
Scope: Zombies
Description: That a hidden counter be incremented every time a Character with Brain Rot spends an AP while alive. When this counter reaches or exceeds 250 (i.e. after just over five days worth of AP is spent while a Survivor) the Character is given the opportunity to buy a Civilian "skill", "Full Recovery". If this skill is purchased the counter described in the next paragraph is set to 0, and Brain Rot is removed from the Character. This represents that the Character has spent sufficient time alive, and therefore with a fully functioning immune system, for the injured parts of their brains to heal. I know brains damage doesn't repair itself quite that easily, but you can't fix bullet wounds with a first aid kit either.

A Character with Full Recovery would be unable to immediately repurchase Brain Rot. Every time a Character with Full Recovery spends an AP while dead, a hidden counter is incremented. When this counter reaches or exceeds 250, the Character can once again purchase the Brain Rot skill at their leisure. Doing so removes Full Recovery and resets the counter in the previous paragraph to 0. This represents that the Character has spent enough time dead, and therefore decaying, for their brain to reach a sufficiently gooey texture to once again render standard syringe work inviable.

This gives someone with Brain Rot who does not really want it any more the ability to remove the skill, and in a flavourful rather than metagamey way. Given that to remove Brain Rot you need to a) get revived in a powered NT building and b) spend at least 5 days alive as a Survivor (but not neccessarily all at once), and once you do you will not be able to get it back again for at least another five days, it also addresses the main concerns that people had for the (many) other suggestions along this vein, to whit; switching back and forth between revivable and unrevivable on a whim is not possible, as it would take at least ten days and a reasonable amount of effort to go the full circle.

Edit: Added after posting, but before voting!

If Brain Rot is ever expanded into a full skill tree, any purchased subskills would go dormant upon purchase of Full Recovery untill Brain Rot is repurchased. The same would apply for Full Recovery, if applicable. Also, it goes without saying that buying Brain Rot or Full Recovery costs 100 XP each time.

Keep Votes
Keep Votes here

  1. I'd use this. It's be cool to be able to mess up revive queues but not have to be a zombie forever. --Toejam 00:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Not... quite what I had in mind, but every vote counts, I suppose --Gene Splicer 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep Brain Rot should harm scientists, not the player who bought it. --Jon Pyre 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. keep - I like the basic idea and flavour. The Mad Axeman 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep (with suggestions). -I'd prefer if the counter was reset after dying, meaning a full 150 AP in one go as a survivor. Would make it a bit harder, but not impossible. - BzAli 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Don't buy Brain Rot unless you have every other skill. If you don't want it, don't buy it! In fact, the UD Toolbar has something that allows you to hide Brain Rot on the skills page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Don't complicate a simple system. --Wikidead 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Pointless complications. --ExplodingFerret 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Simple. Don't want the "complications" of Brain Rot DON'T BUY IT.--Pesatyel 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - And I dont see how this is relevant to how it already is. -Rocker820 05:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill (Spam, really) - so, the more the brain is rotted, the more chance there is of a miraculous recovery? No. That's stupid. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Uh... Funt? Read the fucking suggestion next time. --Gene Splicer 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Brain Rot allows a zombie to not be combat revived and to sabotage DNA scans. Those are the benefits. The cost is no more human skills. Hopefully an irreversible survivor skill, such as Pacifism or Humanitarian Ethos, will be introduced at some point. Funt is being nasty again. Maybe he should take a week or two away from the wiki.--SporeSore 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re It has a downside (cannot be revived by choice without sonsiderably higher than standard reffort). No human skill has a downside. Well, except First Aid --Gene Splicer 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Re - Nothing is equal in love or war.--SporeSore 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Re - You said it cost no more. I have refuted this, trite sayings irregardless --Gene Splicer 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here


Personal tools
advertisements