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 November, 2005

VOTING ENDED: 14th-Dec-2005


Timestamp: 00:55, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Food can be found in Arms, Pubs, Hotels, Schools, and Towers at a very high rate, because there's not much variety in items in all of these buildings. Eating Food can heal 3HP (that amount is to your discretion; some said 1, and I want 3, but whatever you like). You cannot feed others. This is useful in healing small amounts of damage, such as from a minor zombie counterattack while you're shooting at it, when you don't want to waste a First-Aid Kit nor sit in a building as an odd 47HP person for someone to target.

(Optional #1) Eating regains the player 1 AP. Therefore, adding in to the 1AP loss to any action other than dropping stuff, Eating costs 0 AP. If we keep the gain at 1AP, there will be no "hoard a stock and use it" abuse.

(Optional #2) Zombies can eat too. They can't go and get more other than what they had with them when they died, though.


  • Kill If it only healed 1hp I'd be for it. We don't need first aid kit lite, but something to fully heal people at 49hp without wasting a FAK would be useful. --Jon Pyre 01:03, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Addressing your three suggestions:
    • Heal 3HP: There have been a flurry of comments on other health related suggestions that FHKs sufficiently address healing concerns. I add my voice to this chorus. Humans do not need another item to heal themselves, FHKs work fine and any new item is an undue boon.
    • Regain 1AP: In addition to the predictable but meritorious "don't mess with AP" mantra, this would also be counterproductive. Finding food then at best would do nothing (if I found it on the first search I'd spend 1AP to have an item that gains 1AP) and at worst would create a net AP loss. Why would anyone use this?
    • Zombies eat too: Zombies have the digestion skill. This is more than adequate. Moreover, unless I'm mistaken, zombies cannot search for nor use items. --SCOS OJ 0115 GMT, November 29, 2005.
  • Kill i just went over the Food Preparation suggestion, and indeed, this is different. not any more intellegent, but different.--Spellbinder 01:53, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I will not spend AP's looking for food just to heal one..--Heckkk 05:14, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I believe it is already presumed that food and water are available (survivors DO have to eat). If this were added and a player couldn't find "food" would his character die? --Pesatyel 22:42, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - We have stuff like beer and wine, sure they're unpredictable and everything - but this isn't exactly AP efficient when other people can stock skills and FAKs that are exponentially more effective. To some above comments: About spending one AP to get an item that gives back one AP. Why do people use shotguns? Because you can spend a bunch of APs loading them, and then wait for your AP to recharge and use them the next day. Same for the AP-recovering ability. Seriously, people, 3HP isn't that much. And it's still useful if it was only 1, consistent, HP regain. Also, he said that zombies would only be able to use food that was still on their character before they died. And lastly, no one said anything about dying due to lack of food. At all. Riktar 02:15, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- What goes in must come out. Do you recommend that we waste 1AP every day or so to excrete what is eaten? --Nov 08:04, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Effectively pointless. Why not have a 2HP and 4HP healing item as well? Just us a First Aid kit. --Drakkenmaw 21:07, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea of finding a way to implement food as an RP flavor option in the game. I can't articulate exactly what it is about your base idea (I loathe the optional ones) that doesn't sit right with me but here I am all unrightly sitting anyway. Drawing board. --Thelabrat 09:10, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We have beer and wine that fulfil this exact function. I'm not sure why this is necessary, beyond flavour considerations. --Daxx 15:03, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Finishing Move

Timestamp: 01:08, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors
Description: When attacking an enemy with 1hp left your attack has 100% accuracy.
  • Optional 1: Limiting this ability to certain weapons.
  • Optional 2: Making the prerequisite for this skill Knife Proficiency and only allowing knives to be used for the finishing move. A good way of making knives have some value. It makes sense logic wise too: You shoot and chop at the zombie as it approaches you and when it's right up to you you finish it with stab.
  • Optional 3: Making this a zombie hunter skill and require Zombie Hunter as a prerequisite.
  • Optional 4: Making the hp level of the enemy be 2 or less for this skill instead of just 1.

Vote keep if you like the straight ability with or without these options and indicate which you prefer.


  • KILL - Forgive the borderline ad hominem attack, but seriously, this is a joke right? A 100% accuracy shot? So I could keep logging on half an hour after I take my "last" shot and shoot any zombie there with 100% accuracy? While this is an extreme example, consider the case of the Caiger Mall survivors, where they could each just wait until they had 3 APs, step outside, all collectively shoot at 100%, and step back in, and repeat every 1.5 hours. No insta-kills please, and no 100% probability for anything dealing with damage. --SCOS OJ 0115 GMT, November 30, 2005.
  • Kill - ^He doesn't get the difference between them having one hp, and you having one ap.^ But I say make this a zombie skill. They could use some more. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:20, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP - Yeah, the idea is that it only works when the survivor has 1hp left. I love this idea. It adds satisfaction and flavor, a (badly needed) new Hunter skill, and doesn't unbalance the game at all. I'm for options 2 and 4, and also think that it Definitely needs to be hunter only. [Edit: Submitter, please reword and resubmit this idea if it gets shot down due to clarity. This is as meritorious as any skill that's ever been submitted.] --Biscuit 01:23, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Knives only and zombie hunter.--Milo 01:30, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Wand of Defiance! i use your p0wwah to blast the mindless hoards!--Spellbinder 01:50, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - What on earth does this have to do with wand of defiance? Wand of defiance was a poorly made piece of (insert curse word of choice here)--Osric Krueger
  • Kill In a field of heavy competition, this is one of the worst serious ideas I've ever seen here. --Zaruthustra 01:52, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I thought I was pretty clear but hey. This only works when your TARGET has 1 hitpoint. It does not matter how many hitpoints or AP you yourself have. I imagined a suvivor shooting a zombie, swinging his axe into it's chest and then when it's right up in their face and barely holding together jamming their knife through the bottom of its head. --Jon Pyre 02:03, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep That seemed pretty obvious to me, to. This vote is only keep for the variant under Knife Combat; it would actually give knives a use again and doesn't affect balance, since any zed with only 1HP is dead anyway. Plus any more zedhunter skills are good.--'STER 02:19, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm against 100% hits of any sort. — g026r 03:42, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Knife only and/or zombie-hunter is good. Making it a zombie skill would probably help the horde, though not overly so. I would be in favor of increasing it to 3-4 HP though, that is, anything you can kill in one hit with the weapon choosen (Knife or claws/bite...) --Hexedian 04:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Anyone with knife skills at the moment is clearly just a tuppany whore. A zombie hunter has some use for the knife afterall... --Zalien 08:00, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I suggest under 5 HP, only for the ZH tree with knife and rereq. knife skill, though any hunter worth his salt finishes with the flare gun for the extra XP and, well, flair. Still...Krauser! Go get the girl! --RSquared 16:38, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - knives and zombie hunter only, and you've got a winner. --Arcibi 17:00, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You could more easily accomplish this by reducing zombie HP maximum by 1. This knife suggestion does the same basic thing as your knife option, but it's more balanced. --Dickie Fux 17:45, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You are just trying to guarantee a survivor getting the 10XP kill bonus.--WibbleBRAINS 18:05, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I actually rather like this. I mean, how often do you run into a zombie with exactly 1 hp? The only thing do you know he's only got one hit left? X1M43 18:18, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This isn't Mortal Kombat. --Matthew-Stewart 20:52, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Make it work with only one or two types of weapons, and a zombie hunter skill. Then it's totally a go. Maybe the shotgun? I mean... how can you miss with a shotgun? And they do seem to be used less than pistols... of course, knives are MUCH worse off. So I take that back about the shotguns. Also agree it should work when the knife attack will kill in one hit. And Dickie Fux, why can't they both be implemented? One as a zombie hunter skill, and one as a knife tree skill? Riktar 02:22, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Completely unnecessary. Now, if this were a zombie skill, on the other hand... - KingRaptor 02:30, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 100% == bad. Incredibly specialized circumstances under which this could be used == bad. Another "easy finish 'em off" survivor suggestion == bad. This idea == bad. Bentley Foss 04:42, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This skill is only here for when hitting with the fire axe leaves the opponent with one or two hp. Seems fine by me as is, nobody uses a knife as is. If you want to make the suggestion more peer friendly, you could just make it a bonus to accuracy.
  • Keep -- but make it only for melee or hand attacks. --Nov 08:06, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill yes, 'great' idea, a intsa-kill move--Heamo 13:55, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It doesn't unbalance the game because it is almost completely useless.--The General 16:26, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - as one of the alternatives you suggest: Zombie hunter only, and knife only. --Monstah 21:55, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why include this? Is it *that* much of a problem, missing on that last 1HP-attack? --Drakkenmaw 21:09, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No comment. --Squashua 14:47, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 100% to hit? No thanks. --Daxx 15:04, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -This would trouble me whenever I am a zombie as I tend to face people while they are still online.--Penance 22:27, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Light Zombies on Fire

Removed due to duplicated SKILL. you.... you suggested flare, a skill thats allready in the game and better then what you suggested.

Colored Flares

The duplicate suggestion Colored Flares was spaminated at 01:48, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT) before anybody could get hurt. --Zaruthustra

Construction Fear Factor

Timestamp: 02:02, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance change
Scope: Humans
Description: A need to address the balance game is becoming apparent during the battle of Caiger Mall. It is impossible to successfully lay siege to the Mall. Is this the way the game should play out? Let me remind everyone of Dawn of the Dead before they answer� Something�s gotta give. I suggest Humans be unable to construct barricades while �live� Zombies are inside a building. As is no matter how organized the Zombie we can hardly get +20 Zombies in which barely dent the +100 plus Humans inside constantly building barricades and Healing People. Humans should be too Scared to build barricades while Zombies are breathing/munching down their necks. This does not make it impossible to defend the Mall you simple need to clean the Zombies out quickly which should be no problem for you when you have +500 Humans inside.


  • Kill I feel your pain but this completely destroys the harmans ability to defend themselves. Better ways to fix zombies than this. --Zaruthustra 02:05, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill So they become so paralysed with fear that they can't nail boards to a window, but they have sufficient courage to go outside and engage the zombies? Gaaaay... AllStarZ 02:07, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill AllStarZ, it's not very nice to use gay pejoratively. Oh yeah, the idea is really bad, I'll spare all of you the usual analysis. SCOS OJ 0215, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You zeds lose one battle out of the 5 months this game has been up and you start whining. You want to screw over all survivors just because you can't break one mall? And Allstar has every right to say that your suggestion is too happy. You're just intollerant of other people's opinions. Geeze. And before you correct people on the English language, try spell checking and proof-reading your suggestion. Update: he was so embarrassed he removed his reply to Allstar. Heh. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Kill - Stupid idea with no chance of passing. --Deathnut 02:22, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • To fix an error that spellbinder pointed out. --Deathnut 05:53, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Kill votes are for bad ideas. Spam votes are for spam. Spam votes are also 1/2 of a kill vote when the final tallys are counted. so your spam vote actualy only counted as .5 on this really bad idea. lession learned, spam votes should not be used on really poor ideas, but used for ideas that are so horrable they need to be immeditly removed.--Spellbinder 02:58, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Stupid idea, stupider pejoratives used by AllStarZ. --LouisB3 03:04, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Honest to Hell, people; can nothing be said against humans or in favor of zombies without you beardos voting it down? The idea of zombies retaining memories in their nerves isn't realistic enough, but the idea of humans ignoring walking, munching zombies to construct barricades is? What's wrong with you? In a game about zombies, where humans don't fear the zombies, something's broken. --Ruining 0630, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like it, I really do. But it would mean dozens of zombies pouring in all at once which while genretastic is also suvivor dooming. --Jon Pyre 03:35, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The idea has merit, but the way it's implemented just wouldn't make it very fair, or interesting. It's quite possible to have a few people make a barricade while the rest take care of the zombies, and we can assume most survivors, by now, are pretty much immune to the normal fear effects of the zombies. I would be quite happy to vote keep if someone finds a reasonable way to implement this, though. --Hexedian 03:59, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - As if undoing death for 1 AP isn't being powerful enough. I'm sick and tired of you zombies whining your asses off about being "underpowered", because that's bullshit. If there are living dead outside, I'm not going to be too scared to make a way to prevent them from getting to me. If anything, I'm going to be more likely to find ways to keep a distance between me and them. And if I remember correctly, it wasn't the zombies who tore down the barricades in Dawn of the Dead, it was the humans screwing each other over. --Arcibi 04:13, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A further suggestion to the author: perhaps rather than totally eliminating barricading when a Zed is in a building it would make more sense for barricading to be more "difficult." This way the penalty can scale with the number of Zeds in the bldg. --Joeyo 04:49, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, unbalanced. Ruining, shut up. --LibrarianBrent 05:22, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sure, let's just wreck the only thing capable of preventing zombies from eating hamans as they please. How about NO? - KingRaptor 05:31, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Realisticity. Keep your emotion under control, guys. - Gauldoth 10:48, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Realistically speaking, a force of 500+ organized veteran survivors / zombie hunters should not be frightened to the point of being incapable of throwing furniture against the entrances at the sight of a single zed. --VoidDragon 15:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But as Joeyo said. Make it more difficult to barricade, not impossible. As in, the chance to put a new barricade item decreases more than usual --Monstah 15:53, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change- Nice suggestion. An increesing difficulty would be best, based on groups of zombies of 5 for instance. Also A name change, I think you insulted the "manhood" of a few of these "experienced zombie hunters" by calling them scared. Its the logistics of barricading a door while being eaten that is the trouble --bbrraaiinnss 17:26, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Impossible to successfully lay siege? Don't take this the wrong way, but are you actually on drugs? It's impossible to not, if you just stay there. Survivors cannot win sieges unless the zeds just get bored and leave; it's a literal impossibility to lower the enemy's numbers at all, while zeds kill survivors and force them to spend time and effort on revives. All it takes is a slight slacking in survivor numbers or effort and they all die. Zombies are basically invincible. If anything, sieges should be nerfed, not siege defense.--'STER 18:40, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Perhaps just make it a little more difficult to build a barracade (take 2 or maybe 3 AP) if multiple (say 5 or 10 or more) zombies are present. --Pesatyel 22:45, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT).
  • Kill - Yeah, sorry to say, but it's just too drastic a reaction to the survivor's boon. I know you zulus need some help, but this isn't the way. Riktar 02:24, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The zombies were taking malls regularly before. I don't see why suddenly you'd need this skill. I assume it's a numbers game. --Shadowstar 02:57, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - One psuedo-success out of an unbroken chain of zombie victories, and suddenly barricades are all powerful? Eh, no. Get over it. Changing barricading ability is a bad idea any way you try to do it. Bentley Foss 04:44, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies have taken down mall after fort after mall for months. Just because enough humans have banded together to barely hold out in a mall the game is suddenly unbalanced? I don't think so. This is just ridiculous. --Argus Blood 04:53, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bleseley Mall and the armory at Ft. Creedy prove that a group of orginized zombies can indeed take a well defended position. I think that your example of Caiger mall really is the exception, not the rule. --John Maddox 05:12, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- All the above --Nov 08:10, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You may not remember the time before Construction came into being, but I do. Zombies weren't talking about things being "balanced" then - they were talking about utterly annihilating the survivors down to the last man. Hobbling the Construction skill won't make things balanced, so much as it'll throw the balance entirely in the opposite direction. --Drakkenmaw 21:16, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricading is fine as is. --Seagull Flock 22:08, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Axe Accuracy

Timestamp: 03:12, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: Axe
Description: I suggest that we give the Axe another upgrade. This upgrade will add 15% accuracy to the axe. It will come after axe proficiency. It will say Advanced Axe Training.


  • Keep Im tired at swinging at air. --Deathnut 03:21, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You miss most of the time with an axe to make up for the fact you don't need to search out ammo. --Jon Pyre 03:31, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam your not even TRYING. --Spellbinder 03:36, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE To quote you "Spam votes are for spam. Spam votes are also 1/2 of a kill vote when the final tallys are counted. so your spam vote actualy only counted as .5 on this really bad idea. lession learned, spam votes should not be used on really poor ideas, but used for ideas that are so horrable they need to be immeditly removed." So who did learn a lesson here today? --Deathnut 03:47, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      Well played. however, i was hoping two more spams would show up to remove said suggestion from the boards. i was hoping in vain.--Spellbinder 23:54, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Negative. Axes will be too powerful in contrast to guns. - KingRaptor 03:37, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - ^ What they said. ^ — g026r 03:39, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why do you even need axe training for? Everybody knows how to swing an axe, right? And what kind of school gives "Advanced Axe Training" course? No firefighter or military course, I bet. Axes aren't designed to be a combat weapon but a tool. There's no such thing as axe training, except maybe to chop a few pieces of wood.
  • Keep - When you train to become a firefighter in real life they spend a good amout of time teaching them different ways to swing an axe for different things like swing at 'this' angle to break 'this' easyer. Hot Shot 03:50, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hell no; now you know what it feels like to be a zombie trying to bite something, rather than your 60% accuracy gunfire doing significant damage. --Ruining Some GMT time, 30 Nov 2005
  • Kill, incoherent. --LibrarianBrent 05:20, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill At current axes are aprox. as effective as zombie attacks. If Anything needs to be changed its that zombie melee should be better than survivor rather than better. --Rolland CW 05:38 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- P0p0 05:23, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • No reason for the kill provided guidelines for voting do not require a comment
  • Kill Another "I hate game balance" idea. Die idea, die. --Zaruthustra 15:05, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm pretty sure the survivor weapons have been successfully balanced. This isn't needed. --Dickie Fux 17:53, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- My zombie is sick of biting at air. I agree with Dickie Fux, survivor weapons seem successfully balanced. --Pesatyel 22:47, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT).
  • Keep - It can be difficult to find weapons when you don't want to spend all day checking the PD for a handgun. I swung at air about 10 times in a row today while fighting a zombie. Give us melee guys a chance. --coreyo 03:16, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - At 55% accuracy, I'd stop bothering with guns. There's a reason to keep axes and firearms at where they are now. The balance is fine. Bentley Foss 04:46, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- The axe has a low chance to hit because you don't waste time searching for ammo... --Nov 08:11, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't use guns because once I find one I can never find ammo. So this will give me and my axe a chance to kill a zombie insted of concrete.--Broton 22:55, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Axes are balanced. Immediate AP expenditure for immediate return, instead of significant prior AP investment. --Drakkenmaw 21:18, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't see why people should bother searching for ammo, then. --Seagull Flock 22:10, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would be happy with only 10% even. --Thelabrat 15:33, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The weapons were developed with balance in mind- Pistol- low damage, high ammo. Shotgun- High damage, low ammo. Axe- Low accuracy+damage, no ammo whatsoever. Upgrading the axe would throw the balance. -- Andrew McM 15:45, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Gun Jam

Timestamp: 03:44, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Random Event
Scope: Guns
Description: To make it a bit more realistic, I think that the guns should randomly jam and cost an extra AP to fix. This just adds a bit more realism, nothing else. I think this should have a very rare chance. Maybe, 5%?


  • Spam - This has already been suggested, it was rejected--Fullemtaled 03:54, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think if your fighting for your life everyday you will keep what your using in good shape Hot Shot 04:00, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill guns only jam when you dont know what your doing or dont take care of it, or if the ammo is bad. -- P0p0 05:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Civilians and scientists probably wouldn't know what they're doing with a gun though. --Vair 09:31, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re - Repeat after me: Basic Firearms Training. --VoidDragon 18:29, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT) original author responses only
  • Spam - Same reason as Fullemtaled gave. Duplicate suggestion. --VoidDragon 15:06, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - More realistic, but too complicated and not necessary. --Dickie Fux 17:55, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Revolvers don't tend to jam. The pistol in the game is most likely a revolver, due to the 6 rounds and the fact that Brits as far as I know have a ban on semi-auto and auto weapons. When you press the trigger on a standard double action revolver, it turns the revolving part to align a chamber with the barrel, and also cocks the hammer and releases at the same time, and if the hammer fails to ignite cartridge, pressing the trigger again will move on to the next round. Also, its impossible for a double barreled shotgun to jam, because it has only a few moving parts and no possibility for a magazine jamming. AllStarZ 19:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill If you proved a link to said suggestion, this one is removed. PERSONALY, i don't think its a copy, just a bad suggestion.--Spellbinder 23:56, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this idea and I don't think that the pistols are revolvers because they have clips. But I think that basic weapons training should stop this from happening or at least it doesn't cost an AP to fix it (like, with training it will say something like this "your weapon jammed but your knowledge of guns allowed you to quickly repare it"). Good Idea --Horje 00:30, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this idea as well. I'm a survivor, but as long as the percentage isn't too big... it won't hurt that much. Adds flavor. Riktar 02:26, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The power of guns is already quite balanced out by the fact that you have to spend forever searching for ammo. Bentley Foss 04:49, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- The current guns are OK. --Nov 08:13, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ruins the ability to budget AP to get back to a safe house.--The General 16:37, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Weakening weapons is not a good idea. Introduce alternate good things, don't crap on what's already in existence. --Drakkenmaw 21:21, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 03:45, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill would allow zombies to make a different type of attack: grab. This type of attack is one familiar from movies; where someone is surrounded by dozens of zombies and gets pulled apart by them as they rip off their limbs and feast on their organs. Here's how it would work gamewise: the attack would start with a very low accuracy making it worse than hand attacks in terms of damage dealt over time. The accuracy of this attack would improve the more zombies are in the same square with you until the point where it becomes better than hand attacks and then some. This would make fighting a large horde a little more dangerous than fighting a lone zombie because if any of those zombies are active they can do a little more damage than solo undead. Notice I'm not specifying damage or percentages, but it wouldn't be amazingly better than hand attacks, just worthwhile for a zombie to get and use when appropriate. There'd be a maximum (and not too high) accuracy bonus so the potential benefit wouldn't be infinite.


  • Kill - Zombies are dangerous enough as it is! --Fullemtaled 03:53, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't really think it makes sense to have a different attack that's easier in crowds, specially grabbing. --Monstah 03:52, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ferals need help. Hordes don't. - KingRaptor 05:57, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I agree ferals need help but I think there should be additional dangers to getting surrounded by 50 zombies. My reasoning for why accuracy improves is that it's harder to dodge grabbing hands when you're surrounded by them. You can sidestep a lone zombie's grab pretty easily. --Jon Pyre 06:02, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- Bad idea for balance reasons. unless 13:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think this is needed. At Caiger, at least, survivors who stand around for long get killed quickly. This is a well-balanced suggestion, though, compared to most I've seen for horde effects like this. --Dickie Fux 18:00, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Doesn't sound too bad, but isn't the "dangerous" thing about being in the same square as 50 zombies that you can potentially get hit by 50 zombies already? --Pesatyel 22:51, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT).
  • Kill - I don't think it's that bad to give hordes a boost compared to ferals. Besides, smart ferals usually follow hordes in-game anyways. However, this idea does sound a little too overpowered considering the linear count (+1 zombie = +1 accuracy bonus? (by +1 I mean, a linear bonus, whatever that bonus is... bah, never mind)). Personal suggestion: Grab starts off really low, but on successful hit, other zombies using Grab receive big accuracy improvements. Though that's probably too server-intensive. Meh, just a thought. Riktar 02:30, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Oh no, it wouldn't be 1 to 1 for zombies to accuracy bonus. Maybe 5 to 1 or 10 to 1. And it'd have a max ceiling too. Maybe in the 15% area. --Jon Pyre 02:51, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Eh, I dunno. That's assuming somebody is stupid enough to move into the middle of a pack of zombies. Something about this bugs me, but I'm not sure what. Bentley Foss 04:52, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Something similar has been suggested before. --Nov 08:13, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unnessecary.--The General 16:40, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Another Grab

Timestamp: 04:01, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Not the same author of above, but I like the grab idea. This skill allows the zombie to grab a survivor, at an unspecified chance (same as hand attack, maybe?). After succesfully grabbing a survivor, the zombie can only a)let go, b)bite that survivor. The survivor, when grabbed, can only Attempt to Break Free, with, say 65% chance. I don't know how dead/alive/undead status is stored in the server, but I figured grab status might be pushed in the same DB field. The drawback here is that you need to add a field to store who you're grabbing. Or maybe add a grab field which accepts user ids or the value "grabbed". I don't think this requires too much coding, but then, I might be wrong. Hope I'm not.

(bumped up the release chance, would you reconsider?)


  • Kill I disagree with anything that prevents movement.--Fullemtaled 04:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: The point is not preventing movement, is getting the player stuck until he frees himself. He can only try to release himself, but then the chance that he does it is fairly high, so there won't be much AP wasted. --Monstah 19:16, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- This has already been suggested a few days ago. --Nov 04:14, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I think it would be better if the person that was grabbed had a higher hit % with melee weapons and pistols because of the close range, but if they are grabbed by more then one zombie then they can only "Attempt to Break Free" --Hot Shot 06:17, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- I'm with Fullemtaled. unless 13:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yeah, the same idea has been suggested before. --Dickie Fux 18:12, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Sorta. What this one says is that the survivor spends extra AP for everything. THat way, I agree it would be a lot easier to hit the zombie. What I suggest is that, when grabbed, the human can't do anything but try to break free. So, he can't really shoot the head which is just beside him, because he can't do anything, except breaking free, and then he's back to normal. --Monstah 19:13, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Spam, kill, it's all the same. Why would a zombie bother to grab a survivor instead of just kill him outright? You're thinking along the lines of real-time combat, when this type of game is most certainly not suited to real-time combat (and indeed, when the vast majority of combat occurs when the attacked player is offline). Bentley Foss 04:54, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Pointless - don't waste the AP, just kill the person. --Drakkenmaw 21:24, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Tagged Flak Jacket

Timestamp: 04:28, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Humans
Description: If a human has a spray can and a flak jacket, they can spend 1 AP and spray a large mark on their flak jacket (I'd say either "S" for survivor or "R" for revive.) If the human player is killed then as a zombie the tagged flak jacket is mentioned next to their username so people with revive syringes know who actually wants to be revived.

Votes here

  • Keep - I like it --Hot Shot 04:29, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep but only if we can tag other things besides R or S on it -- P0p0 05:27, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Good idea, helpful to survivors and doesn't completely stop brain rotters from makeing trouble. Besides, story wise it not like everyone doesn't know about revivals anyway. --[[User:Rolland CW|Rolland --Nov 08:16, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)CW]] 05:43 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - True Rolland. but it just feels like death would feel less important if people were just writing "Please revive" on themselves. I suggested dog tags earlier so I'm up for a suggestion like this but I don't think this is it. --Jon Pyre 05:57, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Feels very metagamey. I also don't think it needs to be any easier to get a revive, since it's already pretty trivial. --Graaaaaaagh 06:34, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- Make it use up a whole spraycan and let users write only one letter. Then it's interesting and cool. unless 13:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think that it would be easy to implement and doesn't effect game balance. --Crunchyfist 15:52, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - When my survivor gets killed, I play as a zombie; when my zombie gets revived, I play human. I would prefer everyone to do that. --Dickie Fux 18:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think it'd be a good idea. Where is it going to say your description? If you're standing in the middle of 50 zombies how is it going to happen? --ALIENwolve 19:35, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you're a zombie, who's ever going to be able to tell? The game does nto support this feature, unless a zombie speaks and you can see a link to their profile. Just go wait at a revive point like everyone else. Bentley Foss 04:56, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I agree with Bentley Foss --Nov 08:16, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/Change -- I like the idea of being able to spray paint more things, but not really this particular implementation. Good idea in general though! --GoNINzo 20:37, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's easy enough to snag a revive already. --Drakkenmaw 21:26, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bentley hit the nail on the head. --Daxx 15:06, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Fireman's Carry

Removed due to duplicated suggestion: link provided by aware wikier Dickie Fux

Shotgun Trap

Removed due to duplicated suggestion. Link and Link Brought to you by aware user KingRaptor, the letter L (for Lazy) and the number 0

Mutant Strain / Necrotherium

Timestamp: 06:44, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Class
Scope: Zombie, Game
Description: PRELUDE�

Playing as a zombie, and talking with others who play as zombies, I've noticed that being dead isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sure, we're immortal��but being part of a swarm and dealing with the "Glass Ceiling" for skills makes things a bit tedious. There aren't any real classes for zombies, and the RP potential is low. That is the major reason for my submission. I do not believe that this idea will pass into the game, or receive any Keep votes, but if it gives anyone an idea that is actually GOOD, well . . .


The Necrotherium, a monstrous undead creature. It is essentially a zombie, only much more dangerous and chaotic. Think of the Licker, Bandersnatch, or Crimson Head from the Resident Evil series, only bigger��what I'm talking about is essentially an undead tyrannosaurus. It differs from true zombies in that it is very strong but can act only as an individual.


I have a few ideas, but I don't really like any of them, so I'll leave it up to you guys or Kevan. UPDATE: Thanks to some suggestions, I've realized it's best if the Beast comes about accidently, so I'm sticking with #2.

1a) After gaining Brain Rot (or perhaps Ankle Grab), a new skill becomes available for purchase: Mutant Strain. Once THAT is gained, it becomes possible for the zombie to become a Necrotherium. If the zombie enters a cemetery it is given an option called MUTATE. If pressed, the zombie loses all his AP and absorbs the necrotic biomass of the cemetery. Once 10 (or possibly more) AP are gained (regardless of Ankle Grab) the zombie is able to stand up as a Necrotherium.

1b) Same as above, only after gaining Mutant Strain, if the zombie enters any outdoor area with more than 5 (or 10, 15, 20, or whatever) dead bodies on the ground, the it is given the MUTATE option.

2) A revivification syringe has a 1 in 150 chance of turning a Mutant Strain zombie into a Necrotherium (in this case, Mutant Strain should be much easier to acquire, possibly available once 5 Zombie skills have been earned). A limit would be placed on the number of Beasts possible at any given time. I say at least 20, because one for every five suburbs isn't too much to deal with.


The Necrotherium has lost much of its sensory capability during the transformation, and as such cannot distinguish between survivor and zombie (or other Necros)��all players are described as "Meatsack" or some such thing. For example, the area description would read "There is a Meatsack here" or "There are many Meatsacks here" with no HP counts or anything else. It's important that numbers have no definition to the Necro player. When attacking, there will be no dropdown list, just an ATTACK option. Likewise, other players will only see it as a "Necrotherium", since it has mutated beyond recognition. Also, the Necro would have little perception of its environment��all locations would be seen as "A building" or "An open space". These rules prevent the Necro player from coordinating with other players, such as a zombie horde. The Necro must be on its own.

In addition, the Necro cannot enter buildings, since no door would be large enough for it. As this is the case, the Necro has no reason to attack barricades, and cannot even see them as being separate from the buildings themselves. These rules prevent Survivors from being specifically targeted as prey.

Because of its increased mass, the Necro ought to have a high amount of HP, such as 100-300 (I think 250 is fair). It is immune to infection, headshots (pointless, see below), and revivification, and cannot be healed, or use Digestion or items (including any flak jacket defense). When attacking, the Necro actually attempts to hit three different targets (one for each claw and one for jaws), meaning that each time a Necro attacks, three different players may be injured. Note that if the Beast attacks just one player, it can only do one limb's worth of damage. The hit percentages and damage caused by these attacks are carried over from the skills of the original zombie. If a Necro is killed, it loses all its XP and degenerates back into a corpse, becoming a regular zombie again (who may or may not need to relearn the Mutant Strain skill).

Once a zombie becomes a Necro, it loses access to the old Zombie skill set (like when being revivified into a survivor) but gains its own smaller set. Something like:

  • Sprout Tentacle
    • Extra Mouth
    • Extra Tentacle
  • Necrophagy

Sprout Tentacle would give the Necro the ability to attack four targets at a time (the fourth treated like a tentacle, 2 DAM 30% TO HIT). Under this skill would be Extra Mouth, and Extra Tentacle. A fully upgraded Necro would be able to attack six targets at a time. Possibly there might be a Necrophagy skill that would allow the Necro to regenerate 3 HP for each half-hour spent in a cemetery (in which case, a Necro would need some flavor text to know it is in fact IN a cemetery).

A Necro could also have the option to roar, which would be treated in the same way as a flare ("You hear a terrible bellow x blocks north y blocks west"). It would be interesting if the "birth" and "death" wails could be heard as well.


The way I've outlined it above, I don't think the Necro would have any significant negative effect on the game. It would give Survivors and Zombies a common enemy, and since Necros can't hide in buildings, hunting them would be a bit fun. Simultaneously, it would provide a metagame for bored zombie users.


I humbly await your ridicule.


  • Kill - I'm not too keen on the way they're spawned with the dead bodies and whatnot but it's an interesting idea. The problem is if zombies had something other than suvivors to pursue, something that was just lying in the open, why would they bother hacking down barricades? Also, since suvivors usually stay inside the Necrothingies would probably just attack zombies. --Jon Pyre 06:55, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - But I LOVE this suggestion - so, change rather than kill. I love it because playing a zombie is a thankless task and it needs to be made more fun - having a very small chance of playing out the rest of your zed's life in a blaze of gutsmashing glory would certainly give the life-challenged characters a peak to aim at. I also think the suggestion is in genre. I don't think it works entirely as it is. Here are my suggestions for improving it: 1. Change the name - necroflaviwhat is too long and hard to shorten. Why not simply call it a beast? As in 'a beast attacks you for 17 damage'. Seeing a beast walking towards me would give me more of a fright than a necrojobbiething. Second point: becoming one of these things (I'll call them 'beasts' from now on) is weirdly tortuous and out of character for the game. On the other hand, I loved your idea about revivication syringes going wrong. Why shouldn't they go wrong from time to time, and what on earth could the results be? Given a sufficiently slim chance of it happening I think that that should be the sole mechanism - zombie must be brain-rotted for it to happen of course. Third thing: I would say that having a bunch of beasts roaming around the game, regardless of how difficult the game becomes for them, could spoil some of the fun. My suggestion would be, rather than giving a slim percentage chance of getting a bad syringe, just limit the number of beasts there can be at any one time. A number between 1 and 3 does it for me - say, when a brain-rotted zed gets jabbed it may become a beast and until that beast has been killed, there are no more chances for others to become one. I like the suggestions for limiting the beast's abilities and alegiances along with the massively high HP. Best, most fun zombie suggestion I've read. --Vair 07:27, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - Yeah, I don't care what it's called. "Necrotherium" was just the first thing I thought of, and it is admittedly screwy. I like your limited numbers idea, though. The reason I made the transformation process so complicated was to cut down on the number of zombies willing to go through with it. �Bartle 07:46, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The idea sounds fun, but since it can't enter buildings or break down barricades, you're stuck with eating...other zombies. I like Aberration better. - KingRaptor 08:00, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL No, it is over powered and some firefox additions would give the three the ability to corordinate beyond believe. Imagine three of thos things standing on next to the other on seperate squeres in the open! It would slaughter everything that moved! So no, it is unbalanced, and it is to hard to kill at that.--Fullemtaled 08:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I was thinking of a number closer to 1 than 3 but you are right - it wouldn't even take a firefox extension to be able to make a beast recognise building or character types - just another browser open with a different character, a look at the map or a friend on IRC/IM. One big beserk zombie at a time wouldn't be so bad though and it would encourage more collaborative gameplay (on both sides) as well as giving the zeds something to wish for. --Vair 09:29, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re� While these are somewhat relevant objections, you can see I went out of my way to stagger the Beast's power. It can't enter buildings, break down barricades, or even choose its targets, so even in the unlikely event of a firefox hack, the strategic capability of a Beast is hampered. That's because the idea is meant to be fun, not an attempt to power up the zombies. This is an MMORPG run on HTML, people. Not D-Day. Bartle 16:25, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Sorry, its a good creative idea, but I don't think it quite fits the game. And it really reminds me of the Abomination from Warcraft 3.
  • Kill i agree.. zombies need to be more powerful.. but this wont do that. this will make fewer zombies and more necro-thingiemabobs. Also, resident evil is a bastardization of the zombie genre.. espeshily in some of its newer incarnations. Zombie games shouldn't be about running from giant indescribable monsters.. they should be about running from zombies. that being said, zombies need to be kicked up a notch YES-- P0p0 08:51, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Me likes this suggestion. Eddo36 10:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Minority or no, I liek the idea, and this implementation. Especially having to find a large pile of dead bodies to mutate. - Skarmory 14:13, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Change it so that there is a limit (very small limit) of these mutants and you have y support. --Kulatu 15:04, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hey look, I started a trend with my suggestion about Aberrations. Giltwist 15:35, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I LIKE IT. No matter what you say, if it's open to vote i can vote Keep. I like the idea of the beast forming on the graveyard best, too. And you know what, author? Ankle Grab, Infectious Bite and Surgery were all suggested here and shot down before implemented on the game. So, no worries. Kevan reads the Rejected ones, too, and if he finds them interesting, he codes them! It's all up to him, after all, so don't let the Kill votes bring you down. Keep on suggesting. --Monstah 16:04, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep via Vair's suggestion on brain rot + syringes, no extra skill necessary, though I like the name "Necrotherium." Sexy. It's a nice counter to all the 'nerf brain rot' whining that's been going on lately. More thoughts on talk page. --RSquared 16:53, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change - This sounds like a great suggestion along the lines of "Zombie Elite." However, I don't like the idea about attacking 6 targets at a time. I'd also like the Necro to be able to attack barricades in order to aid other zombies' attacks, though. Otherwise, it would have no use other than as a sitting duck in the street that survivors would avoid, and the poor Necro would be forced to ZK (or whatever's in front of it) for XP. --Fixen 18:03, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think this and the Aberration suggestion I helped work on would take the game far into Resident Evil territory, and I realize some people aren't crazy about that. However, because of the fact that there would only be a few of these things running around (and maybe none at all), and it's temporary, and most of all the term "meatsack," I like it. It might make a good event, rather than a permanent addition; January could be Resident Evil month, or something. --Dickie Fux 18:34, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Finally, a really cool idea that's actually really hard to abuse. Just adds a bit of fun, doesn't unbalance since it's impossible to aim, or at least very hard. I suppose you could write down where you were when you transformed, or find a corner of the city and work places out from there, or something.--'STER 18:51, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I Like the idea, but make a special revivation serige so that they don't just kill every zombie in a suburb. The seringe would turn them into a zombie again. --Mr NoName 20:41, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'm sorry, but this griefs zombies too much and overpowers survivors! That's right, it would actually benefit survivors rather than make a common enemy! You see, survivors can easily just duck into barricaded buildings and simply wait out the storm. Sure, zombies can still attack, but they'd be better off trying to break down barricades to hide from the monster, of which survivors would then go on to waste them once inside. Plus, attacking 3-6 players at once will make it DEVISTATE hordes! Zombies aren't supposed to have to hide each night like survivors do. Besides, this game isn't supposed to be a ripoff of Resident Evil (despite it being a great game, as well!). --Volke 23:35, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is incredible. It will fix the balance problem because so many people will want to become Necrothiums that they will want to be zombies. And then when too many people become zombies it's ok because most of the things on the street are Zombies so it would end up killing a lot of them. It's a really cool idea too. But I don't really love the way you become one (either that or I just don't really get them). I think it should be more based on getting to a high level and then getting the skill of "Mutate" (that would cost a lot of XP) and then going to the proper place to Mutate. Also, about the name: I guess some people don't like it but I think it's fine. If you change it make sure it has Latin in it like Sineanima - "without a soul". Lastly, you should be able to hear them from a few blocks away. --Horje 02:13, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like this. Dedicated zombie hordes would keep reviving their zeds until they'd all become these beasts...and these things are WAY too powerful. You have to think about ways these suggestions can be exploited. This one can be exploited a LOT. (have an alt scout out your attack area beats your "cannot target" safeguard, etc.) I also do not like that "attack multiple targets in the same action" bit either. So, kill. Bentley Foss 05:01, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -I like this idea it sounds fun --Lord Evans 05:55, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change - I think fighting something like this would make for a kickass event. The changes I would make are as follows: Chance to become a necrotherium is one/ten thousand; only one necrotherium can exist at one time; creature heals one hp every half hour; creature sees barricades as strong buildings and can attack barricades; Those who hit the necrotherium get double experience; Kevan doesn't tell us when he instates this major event. --Osric Krueger
  • Kill -- Complicated... and would change the feel of the game from survivor vs. zombie to something different. --Nov 10:10, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Zombie xp pignata. And pointless, plus possibly out of flavour. This cannot enter buildings, thus it will attack zombies almost exclusively. Zombies will die, and not care since they don't lose xp. However they can attack it for xp... So in short no one will really care except people who gain xp... far from any type of "Terror"--McArrowni 14:03, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I wouldn't want to play as a necrotherium... no fun at all, despite the killing power.--Milo 22:02, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I can't decide which I dislike more: the concept itself, or the goofy, pseudo-Greek name. "Death animal"? What? --MoonLayHidden 08:50, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • ReNecro- (corpse; death � from Greek nekros) + -Therium (beast; mammal � from Greek ther). Corpse Beast. So stop being a linguaspaz. Bartle 19:38, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The way its written this will actually hurt zombies more, as those are the guys that tend to be found outsie. Rhialto 22:23, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too weak, if they can't enter buildings - few creatures aside from zombies themselves are ever outside in numbers. Really only useful for ZKers. --Drakkenmaw 21:29, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm not sure I like the fact that they'll only be attacking zombies for the most part, but this suggestion rates pretty high on the fun scale. Even if it doesn't get implemented in the form it appears here, I'd like it if this made it to the main suggestions page just to increase the chances of Kevan reading it and possibly getting some sort of inspiration along these lines. --Chester Katz 20:10, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Scary Event Stuff. Fun. --Squashua 14:49, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Will actually hurt zombies more, as you don't find survivors outside. Not helping the zombies out, really. --Daxx 15:10, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -So good it got Squasha to comment. Absolutely must keep meatsacks. Mmmmm....meatsacks. Might need some tweaking once implemented but I like the idea of going slightly Resident Evil. --Thelabrat 15:51, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -It's a great idea.I would want to be one too...yes, a giant zombie t-rex.-Penance 22:39, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Anything to add more zombie flavour and options. Vasi 17:36, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Radios for Group Communication

Timestamp: 06:51, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: New Item
Scope: Suvivors
Description: I suggest a new item for suvivors in groups: radios. These walkie-talkies could be found in police stations, fire stations and mall tech stores. Very simple: you can use radios to mass send a message to everyone in your group who has a radio (they're using the same frequency as you). Radios would have a range limitation and only send messages to people in the same suburb. This is different than mobile phones! Mobile phones are good for talking with specific individuals across the map. Radios could be used for mass messages like "We're battling them off at the Wyck Fire Station, everyone get your butts there" and "Wyck Fire Station is a lost cause. Don't come, we'll regroup at (34,28)". Radios would not need powered masts to work either because they are for short range communication only. This item would let groups that stay close together operate with greater coordination, just like in real life.
  • Optional: Requiring a "Radio Operation" skill to use them. Kind of interesting to have a skill just devoted to improving group communication. What do you think?


  • SpamKill -- Similar to this suggestion. --Nov 07:01, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE Well it could have an imposed skill and high ap like 5 per talk, that would reduce spam drasticly. Make it a civilian skill, so it would take at least 100 xp, and it would take 5 ap per communication, which would allow only 10 communication on a specific frequency, which in turn would not allow a sufficiant room for uselss spam^^;--Fullemtaled 13:04, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I made that suggestion too. This is a very different one. Here I suggest radios act something like a group chat. You shouldn't vote spam on a suggestion just because the concept of radios in general has been put forth before. --Jon Pyre 07:35, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Perhaps the author made the mistake of calling it "radios" rather than "walkie-talkies" or something. In any case it's not spam at all, the other suggestion required a separate radio transmitter building and contemplated a centralized broadcast node, whereas this is just point to point, person to person communication. It's an excellent idea, a novel and thoughtful expansion off the mobile phone item and does much to promote teammwork and RP w/out creating an undue benefit to survivors. I really like the Radio Op skill too for the same reasons. Bravo. --SCOS OJ 0734, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I agree with that guy^--Fullemtaled 07:43, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I agree with the guy above that guy^ also: maby the addition of seperate channels would be good to help cut down on spam--Zeek 11:12, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- Teamwork is the focus of keeping survivors alive. Allowing small group communication is great. unless 13:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Cell phones anybody? I think talking to a hundred people at once kills the feel of the game. Its supposed to be survivalist, not coordinating a rampaging army of harmans. --Zaruthustra 15:10, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - In game communication is probably the weakest link of this game; it's just not worth it currently. Sure, you can use message boards or wikis, but that's just not as fun as it being in game! That and it breaks the supension of belief. --Zarquon 19:59, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A similar suggestion was offered before. Moreso similar than the one linked to above. But I won't vote Spam - I'll just say, that while I think the idea of suburb-wide communication has merit, that having it in portable item format, available at every square in the suburb, and no matter the condition, is a little too much. Even with the skill and the rare chance of getting the walkie-talkie. And how will the game handle it if a walkie-talkie-carrying survivor is killed? They forget how to use the item? Even if they have Memories of Life? They "accidentally" change the station after dying? Again, I say the idea has merit, but I liked the concept of having it require a building (like a police station, hospital and/or fire department) with a power generator. Would also give more reason to have power generators in other resource buildings besides phone masts and hospitals. Riktar 02:54, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Cell phones become useless pieces of junk if the cell phone towers aren't working. Maybe for balance, add the requirement that survivors must find batteries for their radio. Maybe something like 25 transmissions = 1 battery. coreyo 03:22, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - How do you "tag" who your radio communications go to, and why create something so powerful compared to the only other current long-range communication devices? --Drakkenmaw 21:32, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam/Kill - Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions#Report to Authority is in Peer Reviewed and is a fine implementation. --Squashua 14:53, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Balanced, as long as it requires a skill to use. Improving ingame communication is good! --Daxx 15:11, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Lone Predator

Timestamp: 08:21, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Level 10+ Zombies
Description: This skill would give a 10% accuracy bonus to all attacks and increase barricade damage chance by 20% (10%). Effect is halved if more than 10 (5) zombies are in the same square, and negated if the number of zombies exceeds 20 (10). Lone zombies and small groups would be more effective, while hordes won't be overpowered.

Italics represent potential reductions for balance purposes.


  • Keep- Author voting for own suggestion. - KingRaptor 08:21, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill On second calculation. No, never it is unbalanced.--Fullemtaled 08:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill yeah, unbalanced.. and it helps the really powerful old zombie players, not the noobs who get killed and quit the game cause they dont wanna be a zombie. -- P0p0 08:54, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Hmm, perhaps. If the barricade destruction bonus and/or zombie number cap was reduced, would it be fine?
BTW, this suggestion would also benefit lower levels (albeit indirectly). A Predator zombie could go to a safehouse and wreck the barricades effectively, allowing low and mid levels to enter and eat the survivors inside. Also, lower levels would benefit from this. - KingRaptor 08:58, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re The thing will nto let me post the specs because the size would get to big, so in short, It would be too powerfull even with one zombie at leval 10.--Fullemtaled 09:19, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- The essence of zombiedom is attacking in hordes. This directly belies that principle. unless 13:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the concept of increasing the barricade destruction percentage for zombies by 10% (perhaps as a skill with Memories of Life as a prerequisite) but only letting it work in small groups doesn't work for me. --Antrobus178 14:18, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't understand the point. Because a zombie is used to working alone he gets bonuses? --Pesatyel 23:00, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think this has some potential. Maybe if it only effected lower level zombies...? I'd like to see the feral zombies have more chance against the humans. --Shadowstar 03:02, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Lone zombies don't need to be super-powered. Bentley Foss 05:03, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 11:54, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Prereq: Ankle Grab (and/or Memories of Life?). Allows a single zombie to squirm through/past a barricade without damaging it, at AP cost equal to 10 pts per level of barricade (so 10 for loosely, up to 50 for heavily, anything higher is impossible). This would be of little use to hordes (if you have 3+ zombies it's cheaper in AP to just tear the barricade down), but makes it possible for solo zombies to infiltrate safehouses. Limiting factors: the zombie will not have many AP left after breaking through (at most 10 AP for VSB), and since it's essentially a solo tactic he'll probably have the undivided attention of the safehouse occupants once they notice the intruder. Might not be a very powerful skill, but it'd give solos a more exciting option than plodding through the streets looking for hapless newbies. Would require allowing survivors to clear bodies while barricaded ("throw 'em from the roof"), for obvious reasons. (Another user made a similar suggestion a while back; I've tried to avoid some of the issues that got that one shot down.)

Edit: A couple of respondents have suggested that allowing hordes to infiltrate multiple zombies is too powerful. By my calculation, it costs an average of 10 AP total to destroy a loose barricade, or 10 per zombie to squirm through; 20-40 total for light, or 20 per zombie to squirm; 50-70 for quite strong, or 30 per zombie to squirm; 80-100 for very strong, or 40 per zombie to squirm; 110-130 for heavy, or 50 per zombie to squirm. In every case, if you have more than two zombies it costs more APs to squirm than to just break the barricades down and swarm in (which incidentally opens the doors for reinforcements). How can this possibly be cost-effective for a horde?


  • Keep- Author voting for own suggestion. I'd rather spend 10 APs fighting inside a safehouse, with the risk of a headshot, than 40 APs finding a stranded newbie. --William Gordon 11:54, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill Over powered, maybe 10 per 1 item in barricade Which would mean any more then 5 items would be immpossable--Fullemtaled 12:18, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Re: That's exactly what he wrote? --Monstah 16:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Re: Not quite, I had it at 10 AP per level of barricade. A light barricade (2 levels of barricading) is 2-4 objects, so what Fullemtaled suggests would be a lot more costly in APs and make anything past the beginning of 'quite strongly barricaded' impossible. I think that would be excessive; at VSB, a zombie who gets through will only have 10 AP left - assuming he's stood on top of the safehouse for long enough to make 50, which comes with its own risks. --William Gordon 22:01, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Me likes it. Would make surviving trickier. - KingRaptor 12:45, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- Makes life interesting. Keeps survivors using teamwork. Suggest you change it, though, to not make infectious bite potentially overpowered against single survivors. Dunno how. Maybe make the zombies stand up after wriggling through? Maybe implement an HP cost? unless 13:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Though it seems fair it's actually insanely overpowered against all but the most active players. If you don't log in every day to check for squirmed zombies they can just pass by your barricades and in one day can eat you. --Jon Pyre 14:31, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Jon Pyre said. Consider changing it to make it less overpowered. --Kulatu 15:02, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If there's a single survivor in the building, and he doesn't log often, then he's got a problem. If there are 3 survivors, chances are at least one will log in and see the zombie before he gets his AP back, so yes. --Monstah 16:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - this would add an uncertanty to the game. --Deathnut 17:35, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like the idea of individual assassin zombies infiltrating buildings. I like the way you're trying to balance it, but this suggestion cheapens the reason for the very existence of barricades. As some certain survivor groups have barricade plans that keep certain buildings at VSB level, this suggestion could also pose a serious threat to players who seek temporary refuge in such buildings, especially newbies. When, say, 5 zombies squeeze themselves into a VSB hospital, they will have 20 AP each, combined to 100, to make hell of some injured survivors inside. In fact, they have enough AP to leave after the carnage. (I may be wrong...can zombies get out of a barricaded building?) --Fixen 18:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: See my edit above - if you've got 5 coordinated zombies, it's more efficient for them to just tear the barricades down. At 10 objects for VSB, it costs them an average of 100 APs (20 each) to break down the barricade, getting them in with 30 APs each. Squirming through costs 40 APs each (I think you missed one level of barricading), leaving the infiltrators with just 10 AP each. I know which I'd prefer.--William Gordon 22:01, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill So lets say this. A horde of zombies are outside the building. They tear at the buildings barricades and bring it down to heavily, and then they send in the zombie stormtroopers to attack. And if Im not mistaken, is it impossible to throw bodies out of a building if its too heavily barricaded? If it isn't, then survivors will have a shitload of a problem on their hands because if they cant throw out the body, they leave it there, and so another one can come in, and eventually build up a large concentration inside the building. AllStarZ 19:57, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: I think you may have missed the bit where I said "Would require allowing survivors to clear bodies while barricaded ("throw 'em from the roof"), for obvious reasons." This is the 'obvious reason'. As for the tactic you suggest, it's not cost-effective for any horde greater than two zombies.--William Gordon 22:01, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Yeah, and about that, exactly how many buildings have roof access from the inside? If it was an apartment building yeah, but what about many other buildings? AllStarZ 03:47, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
        • Most major buildings in Malton, actually. You need to get onto the roof for maintenance purposes anyway, a ladder's not very practical for anything much larger than a regular home, and getting in a cherry-picker is inconvenient. Hospitals, PDs, fire stations, office buildings, hotels, malls - all of those are likely to have access to the roof from inside. (Hospitals, PDs, and fire stations also often have comms equipment and/or helipads on the roof, adding another reason for roof access.) Warehouses, auto repair, libraries - maybe not, but it's not terribly hard to make roof access if you really need it.
Or, if you prefer, "they throw the bodies out through the same exits that any survivor can use for a single AP, wherever those are". It makes no sense that living people can get out, but can't throw out a body of the same size. --William Gordon 06:28, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't like any ideas allowing zombies to go past barricades without breaking them down. Allowing them to do so, well, I'll put it this way, why not just remove barricades 100% and only give them squirm? Barricades are easily taken down by one ot two zombies anyways, they're not as hard as your numbers up there claim. Yes, the numbers work for newbie zombies, but experienced ones can break them down more easily, especially since zombies can still use crowbars, which have a x2 chance of hitting and damaging a barricade. Fixen gave the best example for why (and yes, they can exit just as easily as any survivor can). --Volke 23:55, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Crowbars do not help zombies get through barricades; they only give that bonus to survivors. See Crowbars and Talk:Melee_Weapons. So we're still left with the choice between five 10-AP zombies who squirmed past your VHB, and five 30-AP ones who spent the XP on something else and tore your barricade down. --William Gordon 22:26, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like it because, if even survivors can't get through heavy, why should zombies? Regardless of AP cost. And the AP cost is so high it's kind of... either suicidal, or boring for the zombie that makes it through. Perhaps make it cost a smaller number of AP, but only possible once the barricade is down to strongly or lightly. Just a thought. Riktar 03:01, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Uh, no. If the living can't see a way past a barricade, the unthinking dead should not either. And congratulations, you blew 50 AP squeezing through a really heavy barricade-- enjoy waking up with a dent in your skull from headshot, after your bullet-riddled body has been dumped outside. Bentley Foss 05:05, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: 'Unthinking dead' was why I suggested Memories of Life as a prereq. Unlike humans, zombies don't care whether they tear themselves open on jagged metal or dislocate joints getting through a tight spot. The only barricade a zombie can get through that a survivor can't is heavy, and as you point out this is fairly pointless for the zombie. --William Gordon 22:32, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Hey, it takes up massive amounts of AP. The zombie would have to walk up, squirm in, and then be left with about 5 AP. Taking misses into account, 5 AP is nothing a simple FAK won't fix. Zombies need an edge right about now. Osric Krueger
  • Kill --Nov 10:16, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --McArrowni 14:14, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Doesn't make it any more interesting to play a zombie if you allow this in the game. It just makes it tougher to play a survivor. --Drakkenmaw 21:36, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No comment. --Squashua 14:53, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Winter season

Timestamp: 13:42, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Flavour
Scope: Outside descriptions of blocks
Description: As the winter season begins, add flavour to the outside block descriptions. FoEx, instead of "You are standing outside the Laimbeer Building, a tall white-stone building." have it say "You are standing outside the Laimbeer Building, a tall white-stone building covered in snow." and similar addendums. "Caution: Slippery surface!" sign could also be added to the inside descriptions of public buildings like malls etc.


  • Keep - I like it, but I don't think it'l happen any time soon, as the ammount of work required to write up alternative descriptions of every block in the game (along with any affected buildings) would be rediculous. Maby some day though. --Zeek 14:22, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- What if Malton is in the tropical or sub-tropical zone? What if Malton is in Australia or New Zealand where winter occurs in summer in the northern hemisphere (i.e. June)? This is a global game. Let's keep it that way. --Nov 14:26, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the idea. Also, I thought it was estabglished that Malton was in the Northern Hemisphere somewhere (England, I think . . . ) --John Taggart 14:34, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Adds flavour and helps you feel like you're truly in a living world. I support things like that. --Kulatu 14:58, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill With all the critical fixes and awsome ideas we could lobby to get coded in, snow is just really far down on my list. Sorry. --Zaruthustra 15:08, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zeds frozen solid from exposure aren't very threatening. --VoidDragon 15:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - who says it has to have a gameplay effect? Anything that adds flavor to the game is okay by me. --Arcibi 15:38, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep The work doesn't necessarily have to be that big. I'm the author, so I'll vote keep :) --Madalex 15:49, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sure. Backup the map and make small changes as time passes. By mid january there might be already a lot of such buildings, and when it's over, just restore the backup. --Monstah 16:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yum yum, tasty flavour. As long as there's no gameplay effect --Kindie 16:13, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just who, in the middle of a zombie apocalypse, is going to think "Hmmm, it's about time I put the 'Caution Slippery Floors' notice out"?--WibbleBRAINS 18:32, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re The janitors of course. Who else do we have to thank for still usable restrooms, especially in the malls? ;) --Madalex 13:42, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I say, its snowing! Brian, fetch me Petey, my axe. Im going to go chop down a tree. Have the decorations ready when im back! AllStarZ 19:33, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep everything that adds flavor is good. i like it;-)
  • Keep? sure. whatever. knock yourselves out.--bbrraaiinnss 22:48 Nov 30 2005
  • Keep I usually don't vote on stuff added purely for flavor, however, I like this. Sure, it's not needed anytime soon, but who said it has to be added as soon as voting ends? Or even at all for that matter? Either way, I like it and wouldn't mind it being implemented one day. --Volke 00:07, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Apologies for those who live in the tropics but I want a White Christmas in Malton (Zombie Carolers and all) --Matthew-Stewart 03:43, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Heh, this is actually amusing. The change only takes place a couple of times a year, and it makes things interesting so, y'know, I like it. Bentley Foss 05:07, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sure, more vital suggestions could be implemented - but in the meantime, this at least deserves a place in the queue. Adding a tag to descriptions during certain times of the calendar shouldn't be too hard. Riktar 06:00, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A good suggestion IMO, but does anyone know how hard it'd be to actually implement this? John Maddox 06:19, 1 Dec, 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Heck, nothing wrong with a little flavor-text. --Drakkenmaw 21:38, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Have environmental changes affect gameplay - frozen zombies don't move as well; no snowplows - slower travel. --Squashua 14:55, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Adds flavour. Gets a keep from me. --Daxx 15:12, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love flavour suggestions. Flavour is my middle name. -- Andrew 'Flavour' McM 15:49, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Head Blow

Removed due to duplicated suggestion. Link

Yummy Brains

Timestamp: 16:25, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill, Prerequisite:Digestion
Scope: Zombies

Whenever a zombie with this skill lands a killing blow, using a bite attack, on a player without Brain Rot, it feasts upon the yummy brains inside. The zombie gains additional HP, equal to that gained by digestion.

The extra HP may become temporary bonus HP, in excess of normal maximum HP, up to a ceiling of 60 HP. For example, if a zombie with this skill can kill three other players without taking damage, it could have 60/50 HP. But once those temporary HP are lost, they cannot be regained except with another meal of tasty grey matter.

Ex-survivor zombies with bodybuilding will not find this skill particularly useful, since they already have a true maximum HP of 60, but the extra healing still helps.


  • Keep Author vote. --Frobozz 16:25, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Hey! I had that idea! It was even layed out on my user page. By the way, no temporary health gain. That sucks. When I post my idea it will be better in terms of balance. And you will probably vote kill on it, but you're just bitter. On the other hand your idea is something that will benifit zombies, so okay. - Andrew McM 17:47, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - I dont like the Idea of zombies getting full HP without getting bodybuilding. --Deathnut 17:38, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it --Hot Shot 17:51, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. Finally a suggestion for 60HP for zombies which might be a keep. --Monstah 19:02, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Following skill to digestion? --ALIENwolve 19:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea of a reward for eating brains, but a powered up Digestion is too much. Also, this is really complicated. --Dickie Fux 19:23, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re I don't think this is particularly complicated. It's just like digestion healing with a different check for the upper bound and a different event trigger. --Fbz 21:38, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would not have temp HP, however. Also, it might work to allow any killing blow (not just with a bite attack) to heal a small ammount of HP instead of just extra HP on a bite kill. --Zarquon 20:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just get rezzed and take body building.... I think this would tip bite into the "too good for its own good" level. Also, making timed status effects is bad. --Zaruthustra 00:27, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re What timed status effect? --Fbz 21:38, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Some fixes: zombie loses extra hp with each AP used, like infections, down to his maximum. Only gets it when he kills another survivor rather then as a bite skill, allowing claw zombies the same gain.--Spellbinder 00:41, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Although the idea sounds neat... I don't think we should be encouraging ZKing, should we? --Shadowstar 03:10, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re Does nothing to someone with brain rot, and zeds can't exactly check each other for that. --Fbz 21:38, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good. Just make the bonus less for zombies eating other zombie's brains. --coreyo 03:24, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good all around. Riktar 04:27, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT) Note: Please do not delete my edits. I will assume that was an accident.
  • Kill -- Too complicated as it currently is. --Nov 10:19, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re You attack with a bite. If you kill someone, you get 4 hp. If they had brain rot, you don't. If that puts you above 60 HP, you now have 60 HP. Complicated? --Fbz 21:38, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I just prefer the alternate varieties for this suggestion. --Drakkenmaw 09:04, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No comment. --Squashua 14:56, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Enhanced Scent

Timestamp: 11:30 AM 30 Nov 2005 EST
Type: Skill Prereq:Scent Blood
Scope: Zombies
Description: Allow zombies with Scent Fear and Scent Blood to 'smell' injured humans inside buildings from the outside. Not necessarily the number of humans, or the individual player, just that a building is occupied by one or more injured (and thus tasty targets) humans. Aids zombies ability to pick inhabited buildings over random smashing of barricades to see what's inside. Humans getting to building will leave a blood trail zombies can then follow.


  • Kill - Ankle Grab working the way it does, zombies are unstoppable, and the only real way for humans to fight back is to waste a zombie's AP by barricading up uninhabited buildings. Maybe if the skill's strength diminished as the barricade's strength goes up (with heavy and stronger barricades allowing no scent), I'd reconsider this vote. --Arcibi 16:48, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It does seem a little strong but it's such a good idea. A possible change would be to split it into two skills where the first allows you to scent survivors with under 25HP and the next skill allows you to smell any wounded survivor. --Antrobus178 16:57, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill same reason as Arcibi. --Deathnut 17:41, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - In most zombie movies, zombies have some way of telling when humans are inside a building. Being able to smell bleeding humans seems fair; barricading and attacking empty buildings is no fun for anyone. --Dickie Fux 18:51, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yeah. --Monstah 19:04, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A good suggestion to allow zombies to tell if survivors are in a building that fits in with the established flavor! However, I would suggest that it would only be able to "detect" humans that have 25 or less HP left. --Zarquon 20:04, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep The survivors should be the ones in trouble. Currently the zombies are the ones. Like Zarquon said, only actually wounded survivors (less than 25 hp) should trigger the skill. It's rather easy to avoid getting hunted down, stay healthy. --Jaques Cartier 20:21, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Nice one. Finally something for the zombies. Brizth 21:08, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good suggestion --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:22, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice suggestion...would add a nice "hunting" element to the game--Nicks 22:26, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep In genre improvement that doesn't unbalence game. --Clickytickytai 21:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If this were implemented, all it would take would be one or two zombie hordes to clear out all but a few safe houses. This would also lead to PK'ing, as people would kill any injured newbs that happened into their safehouse and were below 25 HP. (They could heal them too, I suppose, but you know not everyone will see it that way.) Basically, any injured person who doesn't have a FAK becomes a liability. I'm all for balancing the game, due to falling zombie numbers and other factors, but this isn't it. -- Ethan Frome 22:59, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Doesn't unbalence the game? One of the main strategies for survivors is to barricade empty buildings as a decoy! Why is it that whenever a strategy works, people try to suggest ways to take it away? Besides, you can already tell if a safehouse has survivors in it: PD, FD, and hospitals. Those always have survivors in them, no matter what. --Volke 00:19, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombies dont have xray vision for a reason. They dont need this. --Zaruthustra 00:25, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes a lot of sense. --Joeyo 01:03, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But only let it detect if someone inside is at 25hp or less. This would be a bit overpowered if 49hp suvivors became a liability. Having a dying bleeding guy around though, it makes sense to have to patch them up in a hurry. --Jon Pyre 02:42, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Perhaps instead of it being 25hp, making it lower like 15 or 10hp? Perhaps change the name to "Scent Death" because these survivors are on the edge of kicking the bucket? --John Maddox 06:28, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Sounds similar to another suggestion... --Nov 10:20, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Though I feel like I heard this before... --McArrowni 14:16, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Change the numbers where it can be detected by zombies outside to something sensible, like below 25, and try then. --Drakkenmaw 21:42, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This was suggested before, and I'll vote again. Jirtan 06:14, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Maybe make it also so that when a human is killed inside a building the zombie is notified, as well. The reason I say this, is that this might create an environment where healed survivors become paranoid, and if they don't have enough FAKs (or are unwilling to use them), will finish off wounded survivors and throw their bodies outside, hoping to throw off the zombies outside. I know that might sound appealing to some of you, but it sounds more like griefing to me. Riktar 03:27, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Should be able to smell whether humans are inside, I like it. --Dogbarian 04:26, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No comment. --Squashua 14:56, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Given that this only works when there are injured survivors inside, it's a very good idea. I suspect many people are killing this because they think that it's a catch-all skill. --Daxx 15:15, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Daxx is right, the description says injured. That means less than 25 HP. --RottemBanana 15:56, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - good idea! --Firemanstan 19:57, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Barricade Queue

Timestamp: 18:00 30 Nov 2005 GMT
Type: improvement
Scope: barricades
Description: Barricading moves you to the top of the room list. Why? So zombies can eat you first when attacking. Think about it you�re the closest. Could work with dismantling them too. As a further indication of a saboteur; but really Im just pandering to the survivor vote with that bit. REQUEST CLARIFICATION on room listing system (author assumes entering is the only placement method) Please visit Talk:Suggestions/30th-Nov-2005


  • Keep Hi. --bbrraaiinnss 18:06, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That's a more reasonable suggestion, but if I'm not mistaken, taking ANY action take you to the top of the list. If it doesn't, or it's possible to keep the barricaders at the top, then it seems like a good idea to me. --Hexedian 18:10, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This seems sensible (if what Hexedian says about any action moving you up the queue isn't true). Will add a frisson of fear to survivors building the barricades.--WibbleBRAINS 18:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As far as I know, any action puts you on top of the queue. If I too am wrong, then might as well keep. --Kulatu 18:19, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - makes sense. --Arcibi 18:29, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Currently, I understand taking any action moves you to the bottom of the list. Just reverse that, and this suggestion has been implemented. --Dickie Fux 18:53, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)~
  • Keep - *nod nod* --Monstah 19:05, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If you barricade you'r near the door right? --Adrian 19:07, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - One of the few ideas I've seen that bridge the "fun > realism" gap successfully. --Kehraus 19:14, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea. --Basher 19:20, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Wouldn't be a good idea if any action caused this. --ALIENwolve 19:31, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Sounds reasonable. --Pesatyel 23:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT).
  • Keep - Simple, sensible and probably fun suggestion. --Vair 23:27, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yes! i love suggestions that don't drown in their own stupidity! --Spellbinder 00:43, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like. --Joeyo 01:04, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love it - Jedaz 01:14, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why? Where does the survivor move in the list if they go search or reload a weapon or do some other action after they build a barricade? Something in the technical realm also doesn't sit well with me, but I'm not sure what it is right now. Bentley Foss 05:10, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If the game doesn't already do this, it should. Riktar 05:59, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Zombies have full access to the drop down list... doesn't matter if the person is top of the list or not. It's also going to be slightly difficult to implement. What happens when 2 people simultaneously barricades? Will it crash the server? --Nov 10:36, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So people get Punished for repairing barricades?--The General 20:21, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I see no particular harm in it, since zombies generally target barricade-enabled people in buildings first anyways. --Drakkenmaw 21:47, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No comment. --Squashua 14:56, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Quote from The General 'So people get Punished for repairing barricades?' No, the 'Reward' is that they become safer- this adds danger to doing so. It could also be interesting in a safehouse of cowards- no-one will want to repair the barricades as they will be first munched, so everyone dies. It's called natural selection for a reason, folks. -- Andrew McM 15:55, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Multi-side Items

Timestamp: 18:00 AM 30 Nov 2005 GMT
Type: Inventory improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: When playing a zombie I noticed that although you can use metal pipes, crowbars and flak jackets it still says 'As a zombie, you are unable to use the objects you are carrying. Drop metal pipe, crowbar, flak jacket'. I propose to have it so that these three items appear in an inventory.


  • Keep - Author votage. -- Andrew McM 18:23, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If you can still use it, your inventory interface should show it. --VoidDragon 18:50, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think blunt weapons show up in your attack listing. That's good enough for me. --Dickie Fux 18:57, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep The current setup could be kind of confusing for noobs. Just change the text to 'As a zombie, you are unable to use some of the objects you are carrying.' and hove only the useful ones appear in the inventory.--'STER 19:02, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Agreed. --Adrian 19:04, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Yeah. --Monstah 19:07, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not yay for typos! --ALIENwolve 19:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I dropped my first flak jaket! --bbrraaiinnss 19:47, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Ha! I dropped all my items on my first char because of that message! Then again, I also didn't realize you could become a survior again... --Zarquon 20:32, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Pesatyel 23:17, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT).
  • Keep - Sensible change. --Joeyo 01:06, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For the newbies. Riktar 03:10, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's sensible, it's good, but there are so many better things to do... (Really, you'd need two drop menus then?) --Shadowstar 03:21, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Ditto being good for noobs. John Maddox 06:31, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No harm in helping newcomers. --Drakkenmaw 21:49, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No comment. --Squashua 14:57, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brain Bite

Removed due to duplicated suggestion Link provided by author. At least they are being polite.


Timestamp: 19:03, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: Please dont go SPAM and compare it with ninjas.. please read all of it first.

The Zombie Hunter learns how to hide before he shoots (zombies being stupid creatures); when the stealth skill is attained, there is a 50% chance that the zombie will not see him during a longrange (not Melee`) attack, and it will appear as "SOMEBODY attacked you for X HP"; good for the zombie hunter who doesn't want to risk getting caught. Also BLOOD SCENT [or whatever its called] will remove all chances of stealth; therebye giving the person the choice of risk.


  • Kill - I'm also against stealth of any type. Besides, do we really want to make the game even more frustrating for the declining number of zombie players? — g026r 19:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author vote.. Also if you learn that Coolguy888 shot you dead.. what use is it to you? Its not like he's next to you waiting --Adrian 19:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The usual complaint that zombies do not track humans by sight alone applies here. --Dickie Fux 19:25, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Muzzle flash and sound would still give you away. --VoidDragon 19:59, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill To answer your question, if you are active then you can check his profile to see if he has headshot and if not you can safely start to eat Coolguy888 -Matthew-Stewart 20:37, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Well.... i meen if he shot you dead, your going to figure out weather or not he has headshot, right? sorry matt, but even stealth when dealing with names are bad.--Spellbinder 00:19, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - With 50% change of failure... even if it was somehow unbalancing... it's not 100% effective anyways. The only thing is, is it really useful enough to be added? And as a zombie hunter skill? Granted, if it was available before level 10, it'd probably get annoying for zombies pretty fast. (Still not unbalancing; just annoying.) Riktar 03:16, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombies are not 100% stupid, they're more feral. They rely mostly on instinct. And no. Lay off the zombies for awhile guys. Focus on zombie abilities, and on abilities which won't make zombies suffer. AllStarZ 04:27, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you don't want to get caught, make sure you can kill them dead before you open fire. Bentley Foss 05:12, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Sounds good, but 50% might be too high. --Nov 10:38, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too weak to be useful, and would be overpowering if it was useful. --Drakkenmaw 21:51, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 20:50, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor (with beer related skill or body building?)
Description: You gain 4 xp for emptying a bar or club of bodys. 2xp for all other buildings.


  • Keep - Creator vote. "You can't come in" "Garr" Hahaha--Mr NoName 20:50, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Haven't we had ENOUGH humorous suggestions this week? --Zarquon 20:53, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - This isn't a humorus suggestion numbskull. --Mr NoName 23:44, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Allright, I understand it now, but don't like it, still. --Monstah 21:12, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this, mechanically speaking.--Milo 21:24, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I actually wanted to vote "WTF" but I don't think that's a valid vote option. Seriously, to borrow from the eloquent Monstah, What the hell do you mean? --SCOS OJ 2131, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It means you get 4xp from throwing the dead bodys out of a bar or club and 2xp from throwing them out of a normal building, instead of the normal 1xp from doing either of these.--Mr NoName 23:44, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Survivors already have enough ways of getting XP. --Pesatyel 23:25, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT).
  • Kill made me laugh, sort of works on the same level as Tagging, but i'm worryed that pkers might abuse this. would make clubs hotspots for zombie hoards to attack, as barricades would be understandably weakened there. but why would zombies want to enter and attack a place that they know they are going to get killed for more xp in? only farmers would want this. in the end, relizing that this would be a farming skill, i voted kill--Spellbinder 00:17, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This isn't a humorus suggestion numbskull. How very very tragic..... --Zaruthustra 00:38, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill OW, you broke my funny bone. --Vellin 02:09, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill You killed my humor, so I'm going to kill your suggestion. Not Funny 03:14, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes, it's funny. But why not? Not like you gain oh-so much XP from throwing bodies out of buildings which are rarely populated as it is. Believe me people, you won't be seeing a rush of XP-farmers running to the closest bars any time soon, even if this were implemented with much higher XP rates. 4XP for bars sounds good. Riktar 04:15, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So this is a skill that you have to purchase...? Exactly how often do you come across bars that need to be cleared of corpses? This is so incredibly situational and truly minor that it's not a change worth making. Bentley Foss 05:14, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- How do you ride a bar or ride a club? You would need a very big saddle to ride buildings. --Nov 10:39, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Is this a class? If so, does it come with a skill? If so, what's the skill called and why can anyone take it? Too many questions left unanswered, for a generally stupid concept. --Drakkenmaw 21:53, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No comment. --Squashua 14:58, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Would have voted Humourous, but this isn't even that funny. --Daxx 15:18, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Projectile Vomit

Timestamp: 20:50, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Attack/skills
Scope: Zombies
Description: New zombie skill that allows a zombie to throw up an acidic bile that damages players' skin. It would be given to all zombies at its most basic level: 10% chance to hit, with 2 damage to the character it is targeted at, along with 1 to each of the persons directly "in front" and "behind" the character in the stack. Thus, if Guy1, Guy2, Guy3, Guy4 were in this order in the stack and Guy 2 is successfully attacked Guy1 and Guy3 would take one damage each, while Guy 4 is unharmed. If Guy4 is attacked, Guy3 is the only player "next" to him and therefore the only other one to get damaged. In its first form, the attack does as much damage per ap as Claws and Bite, only spread out. Possible skills for greater accuracy, damage, and wider splash effect can be added along with it. To prevent ZKing, this skill does no damage on other zombies (considering they would all have this stuff inside of them anyway). I'm open to critique on this suggestion, and ideas for upgrades.


  • Kill -This is not Aliens: Resurrection. Zombies don't have "molecular acid". Edit to response: nor is it Resident Evil; who says zombies are mutants (other than the Imperium )? What if they are just zombies?? The Mythos of Malton isn't explained so neatly, it is open to speculation (as it should be). --Matthew-Stewart 22:55, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Moved to discussion page.
  • Keep -I think it would be cool to have somethen like that.--CanadianMan 00:04, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'll vote for my own now that it has some support. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:30, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - thats actually a really good idea. zombies need new abilities. a beginner zombie can barely do anything --Rill117
  • KILL GUYS! THIS IS AN AREA EFFECT ATTACK50+ ZOMBIES USEING THIS ATTACK--Spellbinder 00:49, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT) ... would be no different than 50+ zombies biting. This actually gives smaller-numbered groups an advantage: they can make humans use up ap and med kits healing the multiple wounded.
  • Kill --Zaruthustra 01:25, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this idea because Zombies need to be more powerful. Maybe get rid of the area effect part. Also, it would be good if they ran out of bodily fluids and had to wait for them to regenerate. Stomach acid contains Hydro chloric acid so that would hurt but isn't bile just an emulcifier? Anyway, GOOD IDEA. --Horje 01:53, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Jesus, doesn't anyone do math anymore? --Vellin 02:06, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT) Removed. Before you ask if anyone did the math, make sure you did it right.
    • Re - Apparently you don't. I said this had the same ap/damage ratio as bite and claw start out with --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:11, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - ... --VoidDragon 02:32, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Spellbinder has a point, and zombies are not walking BioCannons. Would've been better if the person hurls on him, possibly causing him to get a zombie infection because of the infection entering through the eyes, which AIDS can do as well, and even the chance of that happening is pretty slim. Walking BileCannon 03:01, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just say no to area effect attacks. Bentley Foss 05:15, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just say no to area effect attacks. <-- repeats after Bentley Foss --Nov 10:41, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Someone was playing X-com 3 yesterday huh? A bit of realism please. --Adrian 18:13, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Moved to the discussion page.
  • Keep - Not that I actually like the idea, but somebody should strike out all the "OMFG AoE NO!1" votes. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF EFFECT ATTACK. IT HITS AT MOST THREE PEOPLE FOR A TOTAL OF AT MOST FOUR DAMAGE. DO THE FUCKING MATH!--Milo 20:29, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Moved to the discussion page.
  • Keep - Monstah 22:09, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No area attacks. Rhialto 22:39, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Much hate for the AoE. --Drakkenmaw 21:56, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No comment. --Squashua 14:58, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - First of all... wtf, zombies throwing up on people as an attack.. how often if ever does that go into a zombie movie? come on... zombies are supposed to be scary not pathetically disgusting...--Ringseed2 15:03, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sorry, no. --Daxx 15:19, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - nope. nope. nope. i agree with Ringseed2 - barf attacks are not 'cool'. im not opposed to the idea of area attacks, but im not down with vomit attacks. --Firemanstan 20:08, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools