From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to 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

6th December, 2005

VOTING ENDED: 20th-Dec-2005

scare crow/trap

Removed due to duplicated suggestion. Bad the first time around too.

    • I read that suggestion, my sugestoin fixed human farming and was only good for zombies, and people who want some distractions. The skill also mInsert non-formatted text hereade use of a cross which the first didn't. It is simalar but not the same as the first, but I addmit my xp gain should have been kept at 1, but that was what I was coming on to change. --Mr NoName 15:19, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Removed due to duplicated suggestion. There are currently over 10 different attempts at improving shotguns, pistols, SMGs, Rifles, Flares, and Grenades. I'll Link every one of them if i need to.

Much more powerful zombies

Timestamp: 00:46, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Drastic balance change
Scope: Z's
Description: Hand attacks should be upgraded to 4 (counting Rend Flesh), teeth to 6. Barricade destruction % should be upgraded to 33% for Z's, headshot reduced to 5(level - 1) instead of 10(level - 1).

No, I'm not kidding. 72% to 28% folks, this game is gonna lose its purpose without a Z threat.


  • Re: This isn't a stopgap, this is permanent. Survivors have a permanent advantage the way the game is now. My main can rampage through zombies; my Z is lucky to get a kill. It's been this way for months. This is fair? Slicer 00:52, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Playing as a zombie isn't easy, sure, but the Headshot and unbalanced statistics of the numbers you're offering up just don't work. Zombies aren't one 'man' killing machines; They're horde creatures. --MorthBabid 01:00, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- And it's too drastic for a single suggestion. Submitting as several suggestions might work better. --Shadowstar 01:00, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill We've been through this. Zombies aren't weak, they're just boring. --Zaruthustra 01:12, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maxed zombies already have a higher damage/AP than maxed firefighters. Damage isn't the issue. Sure, barricade destruction chances could be increased a wee bit, but that's why you have hordes, even feral hordes. - KingRaptor 01:44, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies need to be more interesting, not more powerful. --Kulatu 01:58, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm not even going to bother venting my annoyance at this suggestion. Bentley Foss 02:44, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - see comment by Kulatu. I applaud at your goal and understand it, but the game balance is ok as is, I think that what is needed is some new interesting skills for zombies, some missions, new challenges. Making them more powerful doesn't help. --Seagull Flock 10:04, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - there may need to be more of a balance, but this isn't the way to do it. Also, it's likely that the imbalance in numbers between survivors and zombies exists because zombies are the bad guys, and most people like playing as the good guys, rather than an imbalance in design. --Arcibi 19:21, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe as a temporary event, just to shake things up, but not as a permanent change. --Dickie Fux 21:01, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A zombie is weak and can't get kills only when it is a noob, like yourself you little sht. When they get stronger, they get kills. Plus, there's a little something that balances them. when a zombie dies, little boy, IT STANDS BACK UP WITH FULL HEALTH. when he kills someone THEY STAND UP AS A ZOMBIE AND HELPS HIM. Now, tell me that if the zombie and human were exactly equal, dont you think it would be gay like yourself. Go hide in a hole and wait for the appocalypse to be over noob kid. --APOCzombie 22:29, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT) pointlessly aggressive comment
  • Kill - Tweaking numbers and "nerfing" skills is not the way to go. Offer unique abilities, promote new tactical advantages, and so on. Make the zombies more *interesting* to play and people will, lethality or no. --Drakkenmaw 00:33, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- 'Kay, I'm a disgruntled zombie and even I know this isn't right. -- Tabs 17:33, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Are you mad?--The General 18:56, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -as long as you don't include the new survivor killing gaze of dead skill, I'm voting kill--Vista 13:25, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Power

Timestamp: 01:22, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Change to Balance
Scope: Zombie vs survivor chances to break Barricades
Description: Currently zombies do at least twice the damage unarmed as a human does unarmed, meaning they are stronger, or like-wise able to cause more damage naturally. My suggestion is to increase a zombie's chance to break the barricades to 30%, roughly one-in-three (Compared to the one-in-five now). This places the zombie's ability to break barricades above standard survivors (20%), but below survivors using crowbars (representing finesse, intelligence and tool use, 40%). Survivors can build barricades to Very Strong with near 100% chance of success so it would still be easier to put up barricades than break them down.
  • Option: Make this a skill under Rend Flesh instead of universal adjustment.


  • Keep Personaly, i'd make this a skill, but the idea still has merrit--Spellbinder 01:25, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It could be a skill, but the way it is works, too. --Dickie Fux 01:27, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Make it a skill, to limit the uber hordes smashing everything. - KingRaptor 01:46, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Spellbinder said he'd eat my children if I didn't vote for this. Edit: LIES! . We all know the truth, Spell.--TheTeeHeeMonster 01:47, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I strongly suggest making this a skill, not a universal change. I support it though. --Kulatu 02:01, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think we're in agreement that this should be a skill --Shadowstar 02:22, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Balanced Idea --Lord Evans 02:53, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - as skill. --William Gordon 03:03, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just a couple of determined zombies can already unbarricade a building in a matter of a couple minutes (provided there are no survivors simultaneously counter-barricading). -CWD 03:29, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It has a good amount of logic to it, and I do believe that it should be made a skill, something like "Thick Arms?" I don't know, I am not the creative one. --ThunderJoe 04:25, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Hordes are rare and rather easy to track; this would add alot of thrill balance due to the zombie-to-survivor ratio. And most survivor groups closely watch barricades regardless. Having it as a barricade-only skill is a MUST. Maybe something like 'Dead Weight' that lets the zombie throw more of their body into barricade attacks or somesuch. --MorthBabid 05:22, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't know, I think the whole barricading mechanics are ok as is. And by the way, I'm quite sure that Kevan changes the percentages from time to time... ;) --Seagull Flock 10:08, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep just the way it is. Jirtan 14:25, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - non-balance changing alternatives are good in my book - Skarmory 18:14, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - Kevan already spoke. LS 18:36, 06 DEC 2005 (GMT-5)
  • Keep - Methinks this should be a skill.Osric Krueger
  • Keep - It would work as a skill, if a zombie can become stronger and able to deal more damage to people, why not barricades? I can just imagine a few stronger zombies ripping at a barricade whilst the weaker ones waited with bated breath behind them. -BauulBen 14:27, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I like this as a skill, and furthermore, I like it under the utterly hilarious name "Dead Weight" someone mentioned here. -- Tabs 17:36, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree, make it a skill under rend flesh. --Athos710 03:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd like it as a skill. --Basher 22:42, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Skill. Deadweight. Hee. --Thelabrat 15:36, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That would be quite fair.Not for humans though.(Laughs evilly) --Penance 02:11, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 01:34, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: New attack
Scope: Zombies
Description: New attack that allows zombies to vomit on survivors. It causes one survivor to be more succeptable to attacks under the premise that it gets in the wounds, and lasts until the status is removed by an FAK. Therefore, all attacks against afflicted survivor will deal +1 damage. Flak Jacket effects are still counted. Does not work against other zombies, which prevents ZKing. 10% hit chance. Skills can be added for higher accuracy and direct damage.


  • Keep so the final effect would be a 10% chance to increase all further damage against ONE survivor by one damage on each attack. sounds good. but would it also work for other attacks made by others, or just that one zombie?--Spellbinder 01:35, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - There. It's almost an entirely new idea. Just the vomiting theme that's the same. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:59, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm assuming this works for all zombies? Does it benefit PKers too? Just out of curiosity. --Kulatu 01:59, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Well just about anything can benefit PKers. Take infection. Without any kits, their prey is unable to attack back without hurting themselves. That doesn't make infection bad, though. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:05, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Eeeeew. --ALIENwolve 02:02, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, It really doesn't do much, except cause melee to do 4 damage instead of 3 damage. Bite won't be affected too much because of flak jackets, since the damage will be reduced back down to 4. I can't see this being too bad, except you might try coming up with a more flavorful name. --Vellin 02:13, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't see why the attack wouldn't be effective against zeds as well. You also haven't explained how attacks from other zeds on an affected survivor will be handeled (do the attacking zeds get +1 xp for the +1 damage bonus?), or how healing from bite against a flak jacketed survivor affected by this skill will be resolved. Also, a general note for voters (taken straight from the Rules For Discussion section at the top of the suggestions page): If you only want the suggestion to be kept if it's changed, vote Kill and ask them to re-suggest with your changes. --VoidDragon 02:23, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Sure, plus one damage for everybody. And what part of "Does not work against other zombies, which prevents ZKing." don't you all get? Do I need to put it in bold? --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:31, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Rationalize why it would not affect other zombies. Preventing ZKing isn't really much of a justification, after all this is an independent attack like claws and bite, and every attack in Urbandead is effective against both survivors and zeds. Later modifiers (such as headshot or infectious bite) may have side-specific effects, but primary attacks still do equal damage to both sides. --VoidDragon 17:40, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Yes, I guess we're all going against the rules a bit. Okay, then. Change: make it a skill to use. Void, I don't think you could use it against zombies because the cure is a FAK. They'd get hit once and be stuck with it forever... --Shadowstar 02:28, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bah. I just don't like this one. Bentley Foss 02:45, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Flak jackets should prevent the additional damage, but otherwise it is a good idea --Lord Evans 02:52, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - They DO. It's written in there: "Flak Jacket effects are still counted." Jesus people, read --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:31, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - On selfish "we need a vomit attack" premises alone. Even though I'm not all that fond of "+1 damage per hit!" kind of deals. Riktar 02:53, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Eh, I dunno. Could be useful, but I don't like the flavor. - KingRaptor 02:56, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - What would you like the name to be changed, then? I'm more than happy to help. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:31, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I've read another suggestion like this one and I like both of them. Except you should be able to cure the condition by taking a shower in a building with power demonstrating the importance of hygein, even during the apocalypse. Just kidding, but I like this idea. Zombies need more skills. --Horje 03:52, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, it certainly is better than projectile vomiting! --ThunderJoe 04:27, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill While I'd love to see a good projectile vomit ability in the future, this one just seems pretty...iffy. Doesn't seem to have much right proper 'theme' to it. --MorthBabid 05:28, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I dunno, it doesn't really feel quite right. Adds to damage might not be the best. It also inflicted me with the image of 40+ Zombies having a puking match on a bunch of survivors. Cheers. It is also too Exorcisty. On the other hand, if it does get implemented I can think of a good use for crucifixes along the same theme ;) -- Andrew McM 13:00, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill "Well the good news is they have stopped trying to eat flesh, and the bad news... Well, you dont want to know the bad news." No Vomiting Zombies. --bbrraaiinnss 15:52 Deac 6
  • Kill *Punches himself in the stomach, throws up on a survivor...* Too ...weired.. seriously... if you revise it, change vomit to something else.. and make zombies suffer a bit using it... i'd keep.. till then... --Adrian 18:20, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the vomiting zombie image, but I don't see why being covered in zombie puke would make claw attacks hurt more. --Dickie Fux 20:17, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Broton 00:48, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I was against it a long time ago, and I still am. AllStarZ 02:31, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The FLAVOR, makes me SICK *long bout of laughter* no seriously, its a good idea, but the flavor is all wrong -- P0p0 06:38, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I kind of like the flavor, imagine it, a zombie becoming so decomposed that they have to spill their guts. - Jedaz 10:38, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The idea is nice, does the zombie risk using the attack to make futher attacks hurt more? However, the theme of the attack just doesn't really work. What about change to "Tear at skin"? Same idea, 10% of hitting and makes all other attacks do 1 HP more damage until survivor can patch themselves up, but easier to imagine in the game. Say as an skill in the same bracket as Rend Flesh? -BauulBen 12:05, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill--I want to see a vomity attack because that's just so wonderfully disgusting, but I want to see a GOOD vomity attack. -- Tabs 17:39, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like the flavor. Of vomit. Eh. --Basher 22:44, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Basher said. Hilarious though. --Thelabrat 15:57, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - (i edited your comment Thelabrat, you forgot a ' in your kill vote, and it didnt register) im going to vote kill on any and all zombie barf attacks. i dont like the flavor of zombie vomit. if this was a game about demons or the general undead (as not specific to undead "zombies") i would vote for it - but zombies dont barf, IMHO. sorry. --Firemanstan 02:01, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -Really, come on...--Vista 13:30, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)


(Click, Click) SPAM! 4 Spam votes, including one I added. AllStarZ 03:15, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

So you added a vote then removed the suggestion?--bbrraaiinnss
Its still 4 Spam votes. AllStarZ 02:06, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
The point is that it's funny that you took the time to add one, and THEN you took the time to spaminate it. --Pyrinoc 15:08, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Saw no one deleting this pathetic suggestion, so I took it into my own hands. AllStarZ 20:24, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 03:47, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Allows a surivor to tie up the limbs of a dead body requiring an extra AP to stand up making standing up cost 11 AP (2 AP if a zombie has ankle grab). Once the zombie stands up the binds are broken and the condition no longer applies until the zombie dies and is bound again.


  • Kill - That would take twice as long to dump the body and zombies get up pretty fast if they're online. --ALIENwolve 03:50, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Don't you love all these counterability suggestions? AllStarZ 03:52, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yes, AllStar, yes I do. --ThunderJoe 04:28, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Death! --Lucero Capell 04:45, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not really shifting the AP balance, is it? I presume it costs an AP to tie the zombie in the first place. --Daxx 18:31, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill why must people hate on ankle grab so much?--Spellbinder 23:41, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Spend 1AP max to make it take 1 more AP to stand? This seems about as useful as the kitchen knife. --Drakkenmaw 00:29, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ^,^ -- P0p0 06:40, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Stop screwing with one of the zombies' few advantages. Bentley Foss 09:40, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Oh, wah, zombies actually have a single skill that makes them seem like the killing machines they SHOULD be. Wake up and quit complaining; you can spend two levels as a Z and get it yourself. -- Tabs 17:43, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Game is currently already too unbalanced in favor of survivors. --MicheleColeman 12:28, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -We've got a zombie in the building! lets tie him up! and keep him as a pet!--Vista 13:33, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brain Boil

Timestamp: 04:46, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT) -MorthBabid 05:48, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: attack type
Description: This skill would be put under “Brain Rot”. The idea is that, as the Brain Rot progresses, the necrotic bacteria symbiotically produce nuero-boosters whenever the zombie consumes living flesh. As such, zombies with this skill would have a second attack bar, labeled “Brain Boil”. This would offer all the same attack options as a usual attack, but using it would cost 5xp (representing energy produced from flesh consumed in combat) - not 1 AP.

What's the result? Well, zombies with Brain Rot get to do a bit more (effectively raising the number of zombie attacks, if not actual zombies), have a use for XP once they max out their skills, and can dump XP that would be lost to “Headshot” into making attacks. It also could make playing a mid-level zombie more tactical, and less frustrating... Note that I had considered having this cost 5 HP as well, but that seemed to be MORE powerful, since a zombie could easily use it to drop dead and thus avoid giving survivors XP, or getting headshotted. EDIT- I wanted to add that one of the main reasons I wrote the skill the way it is written is to make zombies unpredictable. Currently, Survivors can just let zombies break inot thier safehouses, know at MOST it will cost them a revive syringe for the one person who gets killed, and maybe a few FAKs. But if a lucky zombie can save up 200 or so xp, he's gonna do a bit more harm than expected (although even 40 extra zombie attacks still isn't THAT much more harm).


  • Kill XP Farming/Regular Attacks, apparently + This skill = Zombie Planet in under a week. --MorthBabid 05:26, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Max effective zombies earn an average of 1.5 xp per AP spent on attacks- and that's when attacking humans, hardly a "farming" situation. That means they have to spend at least 3 AP (on average) to get 1 "Brain Boil" attack. If they attack zombies (the only way to really "farm") it takes at least 8 AP, typically, to earn the needed 5 xp. Making normal attaks would obviously be MUCH more effective than XP farming.
  • Keep - I have not yet thought about any repercussions from this new skill, and I am quite bored with just waltzing around blasting zombie brians all over my fresh graffiti. (And NO, I will not become a zombie because of boredom!) --ThunderJoe 06:52, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is very similar to any suggestion that gives anybody an unfair AP advantage. This means that high-level zombies can attack more than 50 times a day and be able to dedicate their AP to moving. Mikm 13:02, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - "Unfair" is a subjective term. A Survivor can already achieve results at least as nasty as what this would allow by saving up ammo for thier guns. A typical maxed-out zombie does 75 damage with thier 50 attacks; a good survior can do over 300 - isn't that rather "unfair"? High level zombies loose a LOT of XP to headshot, I doubt they could save up enough to come even CLOSE do being as nasty as a survivor who went on a shopping spree.
  • Keep - Zombies need a boost, and this doesn't seem overpowered given the slow rate at which zombies do damage. --Graaaaaaagh 18:17, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This might be a little unbalanced as is, especially if Brain Boil attacks give XP, but there's a great idea in there somewhere. A way to use XP once you're leveled out in order to make your character more powerful in battle--it'd give a use for all those extra points, plus it'd give Headshot a huge new tactical advantage.--'STER 19:04, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Hmm... I'm kind of torn, but I don't like it because it wouldn't work right with the 160-hit IP limit. --Everyl 21:14, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like tghe idea of it, and its not like a zed thats maxed needs that xp anyways (except for my delcicious headshots!
  • Keep, spices the game up a bit more. Jirtan 03:18, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This isn't too bad. Needs some polish, but it's original and has some potential in there somewhere. Bentley Foss 09:42, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Ayus. Tabs 17:45, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Good idea -- Shaolinzombie 19:14, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes. --Basher 22:45, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. It cannot, I repeat cannot be overpowered, because if by some chance it actually did become that big of a deal the survivors already would have the tool to stop it--if you headshot them they can't get the XP. It also means high levels are not immune to headshots anymore. I think it would be slightly better if it forced you to use it in bulk (aka you couldn't brain boil with less than 50 XP) to ensure that this countering is possible, and also to avoid screwing up people's ip hits (the brain boil button would use all your XP at once on attacks). And yeah, you'd have to have no XP for boil attacks. But the general concept is strong, and even without these changes I'd like it. --Brickman 01:44, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds difficult to implement, but otherwise good. --Jack Destruct 02:33, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Would counterbalance the newly improved headshot, which drains zombie AP. --fredrickson
  • kill -not compatible with the new headshot, you'll get one zombie who eats up an entire safe house full with people.--Vista 13:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Necrotic Pathogen

Timestamp: MorthBabid 05:48, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Subskill of Infectious Bite
Scope: Zombies
Description: Inspired by the 'debuff'-like nature of the 'Vomiting' skill suggestion above, but fitting more in with the flavor of what the skill really does. Subskill of Infectious Bite, survivors bitten sucessfully still take the one damage per action point as would be the case with just Infectious Bite.

However, the survivors status isn't "infected" but rather "badly infected". This, in addition to the regular damage, causes the bitten survivor to be more succeptable to attacks under the premise that the infection is far more vile than usual, and lasts until the status is removed by an FAK.

Therefore, all attacks against afflicted survivor will deal +1 damage (not including the damage done from Infectious Bites infection). Does not stack. Flak Jacket effects are still counted. Does not work against other zombies, which prevents ZKing. Uses the bite skills attack stats, which can start from 10% and work up to 30% with proper skill investment.

Note: I'm tempted to add a +1 AP penalty to movement (Read: You get Non-Lurching Gait Zombie speed) commited by the infected survivor that ends when healed or if they die and need to rise as a zombie AND does not stack for multiple penalties, since it goes with the theme. You're feverish and sluggish due to the advanced infection, so you move as fast as regular zombies do. But I'm not sure what the crowd reaction to that would be. Consider it not part of this skill at the time, but tell me what you'd do if it was. I might change it if the answer is positive.


  • Kill - No ap altering effects! --Fullemtaled 06:40, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - What part of "its not currently part of this skill" did you not understand? --MorthBabid 22:23, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - and somehow keep as well. As said many times, Infectious Bite is already powerful enough from a damage perspective, even collaterally as proposed here. I'm ok, instead, with the 1AP loss. It would be just another version of the Paralytic Bite suggestion, and I voted for it. Let's discuss in the talk page. --Seagull Flock 10:17, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is significantly more powerful than the other suggestion, and seems unbalanced for a single attack. --Shadowstar 11:05, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It's actually exactly the same. The only major difference is it's under the Infectious Bite skill, rather than being a new attack with its own advancing subskils. --MorthBabid 22:23, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It doesn't stack, Shadowstar. Jirtan 14:31, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ONE or the OTHER; and no 100% chance either.. or maybe the zombie gets sick as well... --Adrian 18:22, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re It's currently just the one. The AP was an idea, not the actual suggestion. --MorthBabid 22:23, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd rather see the AP penalty on its own, although it would get shot down. --Dickie Fux 20:21, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -survivors should be battling zombies, not the flue--Vista 13:39, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 07:25, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: I personally think zombies are a bit underpowered when it comes to winning in large sieges. Here's one way of making it a bit harder: Zombies spend no AP entering a building. That way when barricades are taken down it is more likely that instead of just one or two zombies a few will get inside. Logic wise it makes sense, think of movies like Dawn of the Dead where once the doors open a whole pack of zombies swarm in, not just one. Maybe some of you will vote this down on DON'T. MESS. WITH. APs. principles but the limited scope of this I think prevents it from being overpowered. And in terms of AP saved it's no more effective than free running so it shouldn't be unbalancing for lone zombies entering unbarricaded buildings.. Of course if you don't think zombies are underpowered that's another reason to vote this down.


  • Kill Craiger was the exectpion to the rule. you have been winning every other siege. Edit: I will only say that we need stronger zombies that are strong singulerly against large numbers of humans, but aer weaker in larger groups. - Fullemtaled 07:42, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just how is making entering a building cost 0 AP going to change anything? - KingRaptor 07:47, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Considering that zombies can get killed and dumped out numerous times during a battle this could potentially save several AP in a day. And it would give one extra attack which could add up over several zombies. It would also allow zombies with few AP to wait until the barricades are lowered just to enter for free and logout to act a meatshield for other zombies. I played as a suvivor at Caiger and I would have preferred more of a challenge. --Jon Pyre 07:54, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Caiger was kind of the exception to the rule, and the zed pop problem isn't that they're underpowered, just not that interesting to start off as. --VoidDragon 13:01, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill *toss out* *walks back in*; revolving doors? --Adrian 18:25, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not even speaking is free. Walking decidedly shouldn't be. --Drakkenmaw 00:25, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just because the zombies finally lost one (Caiger Mall) doesn't mean you should get new no-AP actions. Bentley Foss 09:43, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Pointless.--The General 15:04, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -It isn't the AP cost that is preventing zombies from getting in--Vista 13:41, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Tactical Information at Forts

Timestamp: 08:19, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: The Forts
Description: I think it'd be interesting if you could receive tactical information in forts by receiving combat reports sent there by the military. The information would be random and could be a messages like this: "A voice over the radio reports that 56 suvivors were tallied in Buttonville", "A control panel indicates that a satellite scan of Molebank detected 380 zombies", "A voice over the radio reports that analysts estimate 183 suvivors were killed citywide in the past 24 hours.", "A scout radios in reporting that 54 zombies in Tollyton were killed in the past 24 hours.", etc. There would a random number of these messages daily and would arrive at random times to prevent people from showing up for the 3:00 message and then running away. This would give suvivors an incentive to hold forts and stay in them to get this information. With mobile phones this would allow people to conduct strategies and campaigns over distances using the fort as a military command center.


  • Kill Keep - The idea sounds nice, but the limited info you get wouldn't justify the (current) risks of staying in forts. - KingRaptor 11:12, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I figure that suvivor groups from every suburb would want a representative in the fort in order to receive messages relevant to their area. This could let you know how your own personal conflict was going. It would also be something of a prestige thing, to claim you were able to hold the fort and receive the reports. In addition the information could be made more useful, maybe reporting things like how many zombies/suvivors entered/left an area recently and perhaps more specific things. Finally, you'd want to hold the fort so zombies couldn't occupy it and receive this information. I figure they'd understand the voices over the radio since they can understand human speech. --Jon Pyre 17:27, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, but yes, it would only be usefull after a fort defence overhaul. -- Andrew McM 11:57, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. But, what Andrew said is true. --Dickie Fux 12:33, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Why not? --Kulatu 16:05, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Forts need a bit more awesome. Yeah, I'm using "awesome" as a noun. X1M43 18:13, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - And such is this idea. Awesome. - Skarmory 18:20, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT) EDIT: Also would be a nice reason for the fort to have power.
  • Keep Yeah --Adrian 18:26, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Arcos 19:45, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I don't see what knowing how many survivors or undead are in a completely random, far off suburb would accomplish. Maybe I'm not getting it. What happened to everyone's dislike of NPCs all of a sudden? What happened to Server Load (tallying the surviviors and zombies in a suburb randomly) or Spam (imagine coming on after a couple days to the tons of updates). This has all the different no-nos people seemed to be against. -- Amazing 20:10, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - This isn't spam because you'd want as much of this information as possible. People would come to forts specifically for this information and having more of them would be a good thing. The messages over a day would be fewer than one receives staying in a heavily populated mall. I don't think it would heavily tax the servers since you'd wouldn't so much tally the number of people right at the moment but always keep that information ready elsewhere and then periodically give it to people in forts with a mechanism similar to what happens when someone speaks. Kevan might already have some sort of database system like this to keep track of trends occuring in the game. These aren't NPCs. They're messages. An NPC would be something like an automated zombie or a general store shopkeep. And what would this accomplish? It would allow suvivors (and zombies) to learn how conflicts are going and what the state of the game itself is.--Jon Pyre 20:30, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love it! --MaulMachine 15:14, 06 Dec 2005
  • Keep - Not something I'd prefer to see immediately implemented over other potential suggestions, but not a bad idea to add back some relevance to some very beleaguered buildings. Plus, another good use for the portable generators. Also, this needn't necessarily require that much of a database-storage problem; much of the information mentioned in the suggestion is already kept in order to make sure that people are shown in their proper locations/with their proper HP when observed by others, so a small aggregation/broadcast of that would only require one real search of the stored information. Again, though, other more pressing matters should take precedence. --Drakkenmaw 00:11, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 00:16, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yay! It's a suggestions that makes the more sparse forts have a tactical advantage over the widespread malls! --Osric Krueger
  • Keep Cool. Now the only problem is how to break into a fort, because alot of them are taken over by zombies if Im not mistaken. AllStarZ 05:04, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah, makes sense that the military presence in the evacuation effort would still be making reports. - Jedaz 10:44, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Make them completely randomly timed, and only one every two hours or so (at the most!) and I think it'd really work. Especially if every now and again (like once every 24 hours), along with just the interesting data, you reciceved something like "A single block containing 76 zombies has been observed in Lunkinswood", and the fort occupuiers manically attempting to contact the survivors in Lunkinswood to let them know. -BauulBen 14:46, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep--Awesomeness in a fort-shaped box. When they get fixed up, this is something I would absolutely LOVE to see. It's certainly better and more useful than hanging out in a hospital listening to OMG HEEL PLZ fifty times. -- Tabs 17:49, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep--This is most certainly true. We need a reason to keep forts. -Kamikaze Fozzie
  • Keep - Wonder why the military haven't helped us earlier. --[User:Penance

Dismember. Cannibalize. Incinerate.

Draft. Spellcheck. THINK. --Zaruthustra 20:58, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

High level Prerequisite Skills

Timestamp: 08:45, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance change
Scope: Everyone
Description: Here's an idea to address the dwindling number of zombies. Create several suvivor skills that require a higher level than can be attained by only playing as a suvivor. In order to get these high level skills people will have to level up their zombie abilities. And once revived since these suvivors have several zombie skills lying dormant they will be more inclined to play as a zombie upon death rather than marching to the nearest revive clinic. New zombie skills requiring zombies to increase their level with suvivor skills would prevent the new human skills from giving suvivors an advantage, and would also encourage zombies to play as humans when revived. It'd make things less metagamey and encourage people to play both sides.


  • Kill - I like the idea of 'reviv-only' skills, but basing it on a character level prereq is a bad way to do it because it'll break if other survivor skills are added because that increases potential level for a pure survivor. Instead, I suggest using specific zombie skills as prereqs. --William Gordon 10:00, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hmm... I am a lvl 20 survivor and I have made 1500 exp. I'm going to jump off a building and then get up, and purchase all the skills I need to get to that prerequired level to purcase more skills, then just march over to the nearest revive clinic and wait. --ThunderJoe 13:18, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kevan stated he didn't want to implement anything to force anybody to play a particular side, human or zombie. Which is what this suggestion proposes. --Seagull Flock 14:37, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Fair enough Seagull Flock. But zombies already have bodybuilding and flak jackets as incentives to briefly join the living. This suggestion doesn't FORCE anyone to play a particular side since you don't HAVE to get these skills. And ThunderJoe, I expect most people to do that. But right now when a suvivor is killed or a zombie revived in many cases they stand back up with no relevant skills whatsoever. What's more attractive, spending weeks in order to level up your character to be able to do anything at all or walking to a revive clinic and in one or two days standing back up with all your old abilities. This way when a suvivor is killed/zombie revived they might say "Hey, I can actually play as a zombie/suvivor. I can hit things and have other useful abilities too. I don't need to get revived/jump out a window right this second." --Jon Pyre 17:18, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd like to see some example skills; I envision them being a sort "human who acts like a zombie" type thing, like giving humans a weak bite attack, to show that spending time as a zombie warped their brain a bit. --Dickie Fux 20:54, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I didn't actually have any skills in mind, or what they would be like. I'm just suggesting this as a balancing mechanic. But if you have some ideas for skills feel free to suggest them. --Jon Pyre 21:12, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep interesting.. i could see a skill that, (with bite as a prereq) could give you some defence from bites.. or something.. has merit -- P0p0 06:51, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Anything to make playing as a zombie more interesting/attractive. --MicheleColeman 12:42, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • keep -not sure why, but I like it...--Vista 13:48, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

.50 Sniper Rifle

They just keep coming... Spaminated. --Zaruthustra 16:01, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Impersonate Zombie

Caught this impersonating a prior suggestion, only worse. Spaminated. --Zaruthustra 15:57, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

   * HEHE, just like in Sean of the Dead --Kamikaze Fozzie

Final Solution to the Headshot Problem

Timestamp: 12:44, 6 Dec 2005
Type: Balance change/improvement
Scope: All
Description: Looking over past suggestions, there seems to be a lot of disatisfaction with the way the headshot skill works - removing hundreds of XP at a time, etc. How's this for an idea: Every time ANYONE dies, at the hands of ANYONE, they lose 5XP. If anyone (human or zombie) dies at the hands of someone with Headshot, they lose an additional 20XP (but the attacker only gains an additional 15, and only if that was a zombie). Furthermore, if you drop below zero XP, you need to sell off a skill of your choice and use some of those points to pay for it (although not your original character skill; at that point it'd just stay at zero). After all, surely if a level 15 zombie has been shot or hacked to pieces 42 times - regardless of who by - its rending claws aren't going to be quite so sharp, or its legs not so able to lurching gait. Similarly, a human who's had his head and arms ripped off, been killed and revived is bound to be just a little groggy from the whole experience! Thus, it is possible to have an ever shifting balance of power in this game, as groups try to weaken each other by wittling down their XPs and skills - yet the rate of fall is low enough not to be seriously annoying: you only need to kill one person to cancel out having been killed 10 times yourself (or just shoot someone once to cancel out dying once)! And you can not lose an entire week's worth of hard-won XPs in a moment, but there is a small element of danger to dying at the hands of anyone. Hope that helps make the game more fun for everyone. Please consider :-)


  • Keep -- Author's vote. Adds a new element of danger, and potential for concentrating on specific groups to try and weaken them, while leaving less incentive for zombies to only attack each other for fear of a single headshot wiping out their entire XP. -- Brescia 12:45, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Fullemtaled 13:27, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - messy suggestion. BTW, to sign your posts, read point 4 of "Voting" chapter above. In a nutshell, just type two dashes and four tildes. Like this (without double quotes): "--~~~~". --Seagull Flock 14:12, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Very messy. And humans have a penalty to being killed, they become freakin zombies. --Zaruthustra 15:52, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill sorry Mien Fuer no suggestions with Final Solution in the title. --bbrraaiinnss 16:03 Dec 6 2005
    • Re - Unless it is Final Solution: Booze -- Andrew McM 17:27, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Good boy... combined 2 of my Death Version X ... and came up with something nice... --Adrian 18:30, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Fixes headshots, gives death the sting it badly needs for high-level zeds. Hard to grief, and only really hurts you if you aren't very good.--'STER 19:11, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like the losing skills bit at all. The first part is good. --Dickie Fux 20:51, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too much pain for too little gain. A high-level survivor who dies at 0 XP can drop Tagging, or Surgery, or Knife Fighting - any number of current "vanity" skills - to make up for the loss. Zombies don't have more than one, maybe two, "easy" choices with this. What makes this change better for them? --Drakkenmaw 00:01, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Just leave it alone and stop trying to change something that will never change. --Broton 00:51, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Headshot=Ankle Grab. End of story. --APOCzombie 02:57, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill how bout no? -- P0p0 06:53, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Far from being a fix, this would just make it MORE aggravating. -- Tabs 17:53, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm strongly in favor of fixing headshot, but there seem to be several suggestions muddled together here, some of which, I agree, would make things MORE aggravating. --MicheleColeman 12:51, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't need to make Headshot MORE powerful... you moron. --03:28, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -not compatible with the new headshot--Vista 13:50, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Book of the Dead (aka Necronomicon Ex Mortis)

Klatu Verata Nicto. *Spaminated*. Off to the humor page with you. --Zaruthustra 16:40, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • All these people wanting to turn this into WoW. Also, tha the a.k.a. title is a pet peeve: the Latin means "Necronomicon out of deaths." WTF?
  • H.P. Lovecraft would be ashamed... AllStarZ 20:22, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • So, been watching The Medeval Dead again huh? And the closest literal translation for the whole title would actually be 'the book of dead names out of deaths'. --RitchieB 19:41, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Boomstick Shotgun

Not even Bruce Cambell can save your spam harman. Spaminated. --Zaruthustra 16:29, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Sweet mother of god.... Spaminated. --Zaruthustra 20:52, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Sorting things out

Timestamp: 18:14, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: The main idea is this... in buildings, the items will be placed in a position where they can be found, guns in one place, shells in another ect... (IN RL); so the idea is as below:

For every day (server) that a building has been free of zombies, the chance to find somethign goes up by 1%, up to a max of 25% (25 days); it is assumed that the people instead of doing nothing, were placing things where they could be found. However once a zombie enters the building, he will naturally trash it... so if a zombie was in a building for 15 AP [did 15 actions], the percentage chance to find something goes down to -10%; ie worse than it is normally.

THis gives survivors more importance to specific buildings,to be held, and gives zombies more effect on entering a building.


  • kill - Zombies effect us enough already when they enter a building. - --Fullemtaled 18:19, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea, but something about the numbers feels wrong at the moment. --Kulatu 18:21, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Kulatu. --Shadowstar 18:22, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Because when suvivors find an item they take it, they don't put it on a shelf and label it. --Jon Pyre 18:32, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Although it's fairly sensible, I agree with what Jon Pyre said; no-one tidies up during the apocolyspe. --Daxx 18:37, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Kulatu, but add: When someone takes something (successfull search), the percentage should go back down abit (but not below the current default) to reflect that there's one less item in plain sight. Also, it should only be in effect if there are humans in the building, rather than just zombie free ones. --Zeek 18:55, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -the cleaning lady still hasn't come--Vista 13:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Graffiti Artistry

Timestamp: 20:27, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Same name. Different skill. Different author. Please read before Spaminating. (I honestly don't know what else one could name an advanced graffiti skill.)

This skill would be below Tagging of course. A player with this skill will see a drop-down box next to the regular message box for spraypainting messages. In this drop-down would be a list of images such as "Skull, Dragon, Demon," and other such things commonly depicted in urban areas that fit the dark nature of the game. When a user with this skill selects one of these from the drop-down the message they type into the message box will be accompanied by a small ASCII image above it of the item they selected. Small enough to not be annoying or take up too much space.

When you choose to paint an item with your message, you will use 2x the paint. Perhaps there would be a chance of failing to correctly paint the image, like "You try to spray-paint the Skull with your message, but it just isn't coming together." so all that would end up being painted is your message, even though you spent twice the paint.

What is the up side of this? Well, not only does it add flavor and a bit of badassery (yes, badassery) to the look and feel of "Malton", but it could also give you the same XP boost for a successfully completed image that the Tagging skill gives you for tagging certain special places. This XP bonus could be stacked or not. Either way.


  • Keep - I might be a minority, but I like it. --Kulatu 20:30, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Neat idea. Not an urgent upgrade for the game, though. --Dickie Fux 21:03, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I dont really think ASCII art is neccesary. This is a text based game. You go up and spraypaint "a skull". Or if you want to get a little artsy you spray pain "A dark skull, staring into the depths of your soul". ASCII would just spam everything up and be irritating. --Zaruthustra 21:05, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Text based game. ASCII is text. Works for me. It wouldn't spam anything up at all. Especially not as much as the current diagnosis skill by tagging text to every name in the user listing. -- Amazing 23:55, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Any size would be too much space, in my mind... --Shadowstar 21:20, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this, but please define "small" - 3x3? 4x4? 5x5? --John Taggart 22:10, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Another case of being a cool idea that wouldn't work with the game too well. It doesn't add much flavor, it IS a text based game, and doesn't really achieve anything as a skill. The imagination works better than actual images. "Someone has spraypainted the last supper in stickfigures works just as well. --MorthBabid 22:27, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - I disagree, it adds a lot of flavor. Certainly more than some existing elements. As for not not achieving anything as a skill, there's the flavor - and read the area about XP. It certainly doesn't do nothing. :) -- Amazing 23:55, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Nifty idea, and if people want to describe an image instead it's not like they can't. Allowing people to make their own ASCII on a whateverXwhatever grid would be nifty, but too complicated and open to obscenity--as is is probably the best possible implementation for now.--'STER 00:28, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - YES! No I can spray paint more than just a mural of ThunderJoe blasting away zombies with his shotgun on a wall. I do that alot. --ThunderJoe 02:36, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good, but I think the ASCII image should instead just be a description of the image. Mostly, just a tag with another line. Aside from that, I really like the flavor of this idea. Really works with all the groups running around. --Osric Krueger
  • Keep - Spraycans are wastes currently, to my mind. I like this just because it would make life more interesting than "log on, walk, kill, walk, kill, walk, hideout, logoff". Besides, it would fit so very well with that "Punk" class that got suggested once. -- Tabs 17:59, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Nananananananananananananananana Author-Vote! (to the tune of 60s Batman TV theme) -- Amazing 05:00, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Only having 3 predefined images would get really boring really quickly. And I don't even want to think what would happen if we let people design their own ASCII art to put up... --Jack Destruct 02:48, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: I didn't say there'd be only three, and I said clearly that the images would be pre-defined. Vote not based on suggestion text. -- Amazing 00:13, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -I like to imagine things, besides there aren't pictures (ascii or otherwise) anywhere else (besides the map)--Vista 13:59, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Emotional Atrophy and Ignore pain

Timestamp: 22:05, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skills
Scope: Zombies
Description: Because I know human players are just going to killvote this if I don't give some background first, I am providing a somewhat detailed analysis of the game balance at the time of this suggestion.

As Caiger Mall has shown, zombies are severely underpowered. When one side needs to get heavily organised just to break even with the other side, the game needs a serious tweak. Caiger has also shown that when humans, even if massively outnumbered, get just a little organised, they can hold off hordes indefinitely. While some people may claim that such an outcome is good, as it shows hordes can be beaten, they do not compare the amount of effort each side puts in to such a conflict. On one side, the zombies are all expending all their effort in massive coordinated attacks and on the other a couple of human players are clicking the barricade button as fast as their browser will refresh. All it required was a few people to be online at any given time to minimise the size of each breach in the barricades. The few zombies (And there were very few above 20 zombies, out of almost a thousand outside the mall) who got in would be left to AP out and shot and dumped later by other humans as they logged on. Sometimes this took hours to happen. In short, huge effort versus next to none. On top of that, even a shody revive train can revive the few that the zombies slay in each breach.

In short: The game is hideously unbalanced towards the survivors.

What I propose is two skills to act as subskills of brain rot (to encourage it being taken by zombies) in order to counteract this and restore a semblance of balance to the game

The first is Emotional Atrophy, which would further increase zombies' claw accuracy by 20%, taking it up to 70%, or 2.1 damage per AP. This offsets the AP used on barricades, and allows a high-level zombie who gets through the barricades to stand a decent chance of making a kill. It would make high-leveled zombies something to be feared again, rather than an occasional nuisance and migratory exp farm.

This would be explained as:

"Emotional Atrophy" - The parts of the brain that controlled weak human emotions such as compassion and concern for injury have worn completely away, allowing the zombie to focus totally upon their new path in "life" and causing their minds to degenerate further into raw killing instinct. (Special thanks to Civifan on the UD forums for this, and the name).

The second skill is Ignore pain, a skill that increases the zombies accuracy against barricades by 10%, allowing us to get in for less AP, and help out the younger zombies.

This would be explained with: Ignore pain: You are able to ignore completely the strains of difficult labor that your old body never would have been able to stand. You recieve +10% to attacks against barricades as you tear objects off with brute force that any normal nervous system would never allow you to attempt. (Special thanks to Brickman of the UD forums for this description, and the name).

These skills would encourage brain rot to be taken by those zombies who are holding off out of the fear that a new crossover skill will be added that would be useful for them. It would also make high-level zombies something to be feared again, rather than exp cows whose bites are irritating. These skills would also make feral zombies, who make up the vast majority of the zombie population, stronger and more threatening. Thes skills would also force humans to work for thier victories, while not making them impossible. I know this boost sounds a bit extreme, and to tell the truth it is very large, but it is needed if the game is to be considered a "Zombie Apocalypse" game, rather than the "Sit in the mall and occasionally go outside to shoot zombies" game we have now.

People seem to be mistakenly believing this is because we lost at Caiger. It is not. It is because the game has serious balance issues, and that balance is a long way on the human side of the border. At the moment the biggest threat to a human outside of Ridleybank is that a pker will come by and kill you, not that a zombie will show up and eat your brains. It is practically impossible to be killed by a zombie unless you are either trying to be killed or are stupid and sleep on the street, and even then you meet more humans wanting to heal you than zombies wanting to eat you. The simple fact is this: Zombies do not pose a threat unless very well organised, and even then one can beat them back with half the effort they are expending. It is not fun to play a zombie if you cannot get anywhere. Given the fact that there are only a thousand, maybe two thousand zombies in organised hordes (Less than 5%) i simply cannot understand the irrational impulse to vote kill on this. By all means, vote kill, if you like playing a human versus human game. That is what it is fast becoming. --Grim s 16:16, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)


  • Kill - I've got nothing against the increase in barricade accuracy, but the 70% hit is just too much. — g026r 22:11, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - 3 damage at 70% as compared to 10 damage at 65%? Give me a break <_< --Siddhant 06:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re: - are you saying that zombies would have to look for shells? --Cah51o 17:31, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill A wee too much. but something is needed yes. Also, Caiger was about evenly matched exept at the height of the zombie attacks, an equal or even somewhat lesser # of heavily armed humans should beat the zombies. --bbrraaiinnss 22:21 Dec 6
  • Kill - What G026r said. Plus: 1) you're not supposed to make two suggestions under the same heading, and 2) I prefer sitting in malls, healing folks and occasionally shooting zombies, as I'm only Level 2 right now. This would seriously crimp a lowbie survivor's playing style. --John Taggart 22:29, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - If you're a lowbie "survivor", the LAST THING you want to do is go to a mall under assault by big hordes. Let me remind you again, you're a SURVIVOR. NOT John Rambo. --Siddhant 06:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah! I agree entirely with the author. Any survivor with free running and construction is in no danger atm. --Biscuit 23:24, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Fixes the balance up. Zombies do not get to spend the majority of thier AP attacking, and claws only do three damage a go. Even with 50ap a zombie would only barely be able to kill two un-bodybuilt humans with this. It makes the zombies threatening again for the first time in a long time. John Taggart: You can always run to another mall if things get too hot. 70% accuracy only equates to a 0.6 damage per ap increase, or one more hit every 5 ap. Guns all do more than that, so humans would still win in an out and out fight. Please remember that they sit at 65% accuracy, so 70% isnt really much at all. Zombies need a serious boost and i think this is it. Please remember also that any zombie going for these skills needs brain rot, so they are closing off a large part of the game to themselves. Caiger was won because the humans got organised, The didnt need to do much at all to be honest, all they did was draw in a lot of people (assuring there would almost always be a person or two online in each quad) and set up a revive train, as opposed to massive communication between hundreds of players, arranging attack times and then all charging only for half the attack force to get stuck outside because people barricaded back up while zombies were streaming in. This suggestion would make them work for a victory. Oh, and i am the author of the suggestion. --Grim s 23:32, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's a bit heavy, but drastic changes are required at this point. --Jorm 23:36, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Okay, look. Humans won once. The zombies have been winning for months before this. There's a balance issue, yes, but for goodness sake, don't act like Caiger proves anything amazing. 2.1 damage is a LOT more than guns. See User:Argus_Blood's page, which looks at the efficiency of firearms. With bargain hunting in a mall with all gun skills, the average human damage/ap is 1.797, nowhere near 2.1 damage/AP. Increase it? Sure. But not to 2.1 And most humans do not spend their time exclusively loading their firearms and trying to hit you. --Shadowstar 23:44, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies do not need still more physical power. My zombie is strong enough to kill very effectively, especially since it's topped out on skills and thus fears no headshot. Zombies need more tactical options to balance them while giving them more flexible play. Stronger fists are just more of the same, and can be easily compensated for. --Drakkenmaw 23:49, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies need something to ballence the game. We are currently at 28 pecent of the population. This game is no longer Zombie survival. It is Go out and shoot some zeds and never worry about death. I play Human and a zombie. My Human levels up faster, he is a safer, he can communicate better, he can heal easier, and can cause more damage in combat than any zombie. All zombies have is combat, and the survivors are better than them at that. --Stroth 00:34, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep If it wasnt under brain rot, i would have killed it, but i like it, and its not unbalanced--grassman 00:37, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill KISS --Broton 00:55, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Please keep in mind that claw attacks don't infect or provide healing. Go Grim! Jirtan 03:37, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Regarding some of your points:
    • "As Caiger Mall has shown, Zombies are severely underpowered. When one side needs to get heavily organised just to break even with the other side, the game needs a serious tweak. " - Caiger was the exception to the rule. Out of five major sieges, Caiger was the only siege where survivors were successful. And that was in no small fact due to the survivors being very highly organized.
    • "Caiger has also shown that when humans, even if massively outnumbered, get just a little organised, they can hold out hordes indefinately." - 2:1 is not what I would consider massively outnumbered. And again, the survivors were a lot more than "just a little organized". Networks of safehouses and revive points stretching as far as five blocks away were set up and maintained by the survivors at Caiger, while scouts reported zed:body ratios at each quadrant of Caiger and in the immediate viscinity. --VoidDragon 03:41, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Bad idea for two reasons: 1) it turns a single maxed out zombie into the most powerful killing machine in the game (what zombies with these abilities in hordes would do to game balance is unthinkable) and 2) the problem with zombies at the moment is not their stats but that the lack of options makes them boreing to play, they need more options not stat boosts. --Rolland CW 05:12 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This is a very bad idea. The maximum efficiency for a survivor is currently just about 1.8 hp/ap, and to achieve this survivors have to have all the firearms skills and spend about half their time searching (effectively taking them out of any battle during that time). With ankle grab, this would make a zombie almost unstoppable. Aside: damnit, people, there is NOT a zombie power problem. Caiger required massive organization, and is only the first real survivor victory against a concerted zombie attack. You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Try coming up with something to fix the zombie numbers problem by making zombies more interesting to play. --Argus Blood 08:30, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: - What's more interesting than getting to the humans inside faster? You complain about searching? What's worse is spending 40 ap getting a EHB down to a QSB, and waking up next day with a headshot and yet another EHB. One barricader can keep out 5 concerted zombies. I saw that happen today in Ridleybank (Supposedly a zombie mecca) and time and time again in Caiger. ---Siddhant
  • Kill - I love this wave of "improve zombies" suggestions because they lost at Caiger. Obviously, losing one battle means they're severely underpowered. I mean, it's not like they took Creedy, Giddings, are about to take Nichols, and have won pretty much every major battle. Oh, wait. --Arcibi 15:36, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just because zombies finally lost for once (Caiger) doesn't mean that zombies need to be super-powered. Go re-read the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots and figure out the half-dozen rules you broke. Bentley Foss 09:47, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Why dont you go ahead and tell me, instead of claiming i did without backing it up. Suggestions are not linked, for one thing. --Grim s 16:17, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies aren't clamoring for buffs because they lost at Caiger, zombies are clamoring for buffs because the way the game stands they are outnumbered, outgunned, and can't even grow stronger due to all the headshotting going on. Remember how fun the game was in the beginning, when you were scared of zombies? Before you realized that survival was a cakewalk and that Zombies posed a minimal threat? Zombies could use all the buffs they can get, and I don't think Grim is overreacting. These numbers are, in my opinion, well thought out and appropriate. And for all of you guys shooting down this suggestion because of its format and not its content, please, do the zombies a favor and consider the ideas seriously. Zombies are going the way of the dinosaurs at this point, and as much as humans are denying it, this downward spiral needs to be stopped, and implementation of brainrot skill subsets like these two would be an answer to the problem. --Kerosine99 16:42, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - My two main characters are survivors, but my experience with one zombie is enough to tell me that they need some serious buffing. I think the +20% attack from Emotional Atrophy is too much, 10% would be better. But even at 20%, maxed claws are still less damage per AP than a 65% pistol for a cost of five zombie skills -- which are harder to earn in the first place -- versus just two human skills. Also, as worded, the bonus would only apply to claws, so the chance for zombies to give infections and heal by digestion is not affected. furtim 18:03, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I love this in a way I cannot put to words. Thankfully, Grim, Kerosine, and Furtim have done so for me. -- Tabs 18:07, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm a fan; Brain Rot needs some subset skills (if only for flavour), otherwise I'd never get it; I'd just spend time as a zombie, and alternatively spend time as a survivor every time I got revivified (which would be more in line with roleplaying). It's unlikely this suggestion will pass, given the number of "kill" votes already; but I'd definitely like to see more suggestions of this nature in the future, in any case. --The Brian 19:06, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Game mechanics are seriously flawed. If you survivors want a game you can always win at, I suggest you look elsewhere. -- barcoded 09:45 pm 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill "Because i know human players are just going to killvote this if i dont give some background first, i am providing a somewhat detailed analysis of the game balance at the time of this suggestion." Apparently, we as readers are not worth the suggester's time for him to properly edit his submission. --Matthew-Stewart 19:53, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
So, the basis of your objection is that you think im a wanker. So mature (Edited later to add: Matthew Stewarts comment used to be a hyperlink to a site defining the word "wanker". That has been removed, either by him or a moderator, and as a result this comment doesnt make sense) --Grim s 20:12, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Actually I have voted keep on your suggestions when you have bothered to post well and were good suggestions so this isn't personal. There are many reasons I voted kill on this; first is it is poorly posted, second "combat buffs" are not what zombies need, third you quoted the exception of zombie sieges as an example indicative of the whole, and fourth it's just a bad idea to hand out 70% hit chances. --Matthew-Stewart 20:51, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Combat buffs make the game more entertaining for zombies, and in the manner suggested encourage people to become career zombies to obtain the buffs in question. If zombies must metagame to have fun in our current weak state, then buffing us up into threats again would be good, both for overall zombie numbers, as people would find killing easier, and breaking into buildings less impossible. You have a problem with 70%, but you think 65% is perfectly fine for humans (I dont see you complaining about it). The fact of the matter is that bashing barricades is fucking boring, and while giving us exp for that (Something even the obviously biased survivors here support) would help us a little, it wouldnt make being a zombie any more fun which is the whole problem and the reason for the zombie shortage. There are only so many things zombies can do that are RP, and the main one is attack. Also, unlike you, i was actually at Caiger, and that exception was the one time humans actually stood thier ground in sufficient numbers, rather than deserting it in a panic like they did in the even of every other major siege (Except Creedy, where half the defence force was killed outside the armory due to overbarricading). The point is that Caiger is the only place where humans decided that they were going to hold the mall and actually got themselves organised for a major siege, preparing thier defences. I presented my idea in a fashion i feel was sufficent, with an introduction that set the stage, introduced the problem I and pretty much every primarily zombie player (And more than a few human ones too) have seen for weeks, and proposed two skills that would help alleviate that problem, and resotre some balance to the game. While i know you dont particularly like zombies (Or even revived ones for that matter) you must admit that a game with weak, bored and disheartened zombies is not really much fun. Practically the inly enjoyment i have had in Dulston is the little pk war i have had going with you (We are up 9-2 by the way). The game is meant to be a zombie apocalypse, not a city full of squatters who occasionally go outside to shoot zombies like fish in a barrel. --Grim s 21:10, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Maybe the hit rate can be tweaked, but I like the idea. A lot. --WibbleBRAINS 20:02, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Would you rather we continue to argue the injustice of a zombie losing XP for a headshot while a devoured human brain does no cerebral damage? Zombies up close don't miss; the problem's typically been getting close, such as through barricades. Now the hordes can finally begin acting like hordes and will be the threat we always should have been. --Ruining 1514, Dec. 8 2005 (EST)
  • Keep - I'm starting to get regular messages from players on both sides of the game declaring apathy or disgust with the current state of affairs. Human players are bored because there is zero menace left. Zombie players are disgusted because outside of major horde play there's damn little chance of achieving anything. My last bit of zombie hunting with my human alt involved him confronting a horde in Lerwill Heights. Every day I'd go out to where sixty or seventy bodies were piled up, with maybe ten still standing, and knock off two or three. On a couple of occasions I was attacked while doing this and didn't care in the slightest, even when infected. I simply finished my kills, stepped into a building and free-ran out of the area. I'm taking the character human-hunting because busting zombies right now is no challenge at, excepting cases like Ridleybank where the concentration is so high that they can keep the barricades reasonably hammered down. When the fun in a game comes largely from the player-created metagame and not the actual play, there's a serious problem.--Petrosjko
  • Keep -The stupidity and selfishness of human players is amazing me, I play 1 zombie and 2 humans. My humans have been in the game since July/August and have only died from PKs, that should tell you of the severity of the situation. And to those of you saying this is because of Caiger, it's not. People were saying along time before Caiger that zombies needed a buff, Caiger just brought the issue up to the public. --Qwako 21:00, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zeds need some serious buffs to make this game fun again.
  • Keep --Shaolinzombie 21:22, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The names suck, but the thought is appropriate. Personally, I'd suggest the claw skills go to 65% (plus 15%), to match the advanced firearm skill bumps. And higher level zombies deserve a break on the barricades, bumping the hit% from 20 to 30 is a good move. Come on, this is supposed be a zombie apocalypse, and humans outnumber zombies 70/30! --Dogbarian 21:26, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Great idea. Perfect to have it as a sub of Brain Rot, too. --Kybard 21:33, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Its nothing to do with Caiger, its the fact theres now more people with Headshot than there are zombies, we dropped to 27-28% of the population, ive not even moved 1 of my survivors as theres no zombies around. Zombies are vastly outnumbered and underpowered when compared to survivors and have been for quite some time. Im sure theres only that many of us as well as we to stubborn to give up, ot the % would be much lower. Least the sudden 300% syringe rate was fixed as that was killing us. Im sure many survivors have not tried a full time zombie and dont understand it gets very annoying being weak. Also i see so many dedicated survivors always saying zombie stonger than fireaxe, they fine, like fireaxe is the only weapon they use or something. (Hope this works, first time using wiki) Littlelisa
  • Keep -This game has gotten really boring. I quit hunting zombies with my main survivor character, cause I feel sorry for them now. More Hunters then zombies now. So now I just PK folks, and try to keep ahead of the bounty hunters. I'd like to see something to make zombies scary again, and this looks like a good skill set that wouldn't overtip the scales, and would help alot.phungus420
  • Keep-Zombies need to be made a threat again. This would help put the sides a little more even again.ReverendPhill
  • Keep - Zombies need a boost. Preferably several of them, but this should be one of them. Isn't it funny how every zombie player is saying this and humans are disagreeing? I do think 70% is a tad high but the idea is sound. Murgatroid 22:23, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd rather see an increase in damage than hit potential for zombies, but the idea is sound, and they need something to overcome barricades a little easier (even 5% more would be something). I especially like that the skills require Brain Rot. Any skill that makes zombies more interesting or powerful from this point on should require it. Also, if any of this overtips the scales, then it gets 'nerfed' like headshot. No big deal.--Beauxdeigh 22:27, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. It's a good idea, and makes Brain Rot worth buying. --Navigator 22:33, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good to balance things. It'd be better if it couldn't be used at the beginning, but after a certain level.--Denzel Washington 22:57, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies are far outnumbered and need some sort of help. This seems like a decent idea, as people have said, since it requires players to commit to staying zombies. In a true zombie apocalypse, in my opinion, the survivors should be in danger and fighting to...survive. Thus the term "survivor". >_> I don't think this would make the zombies overpowered, but it might help balance the numbers a little better, and, as has again been said, it can be nerfed if it turns out to be too powerful. I'm not terribly fond of the names, but those can be changed too. Oh yes, two more minor points: I think the humans who seem so quick to reject zombie-helping suggestions are ignoring an obvious problem or haven't tried playing as zombies, and secondly, if people worry about low-level survivors having problems, I would say that low-level zombies are harder to level with.--BlizZombie 23:26, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Like Navigator, I have nothing to add that hasn't been said already. I'm just casting my vote. --Pimplepopper 23:59, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It occurs to me that the 70% hit rate for claws is a bit high -- I think 65% would be better, and is consistent with the maximum hit rates for human weapons -- but overall I think the suggestion is an excellent idea. I particularly like the fact that Brain Rot is a prerequisite for both skills, as currently Brain Rot is as much a hindrance and a help. -- Centerfire 00:38, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I have two survivor characters and the only hard part about killing zombies is finding the blasted things. Zombies have one way of earning XP, can loose that XP easily, and are easily kept at bay unless they resort to heavy metagaming. These skills might actually make an individual zombie dangerous which increases everyone’s fun. --Custodian 01:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Both are very good and well thought out ideas in my opinion. I especially like them being subskills to brainrot. --Murgel 01:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It may be over powered, I agree with Centerfire that 65% may be better, but I especially like the idea of a barricades related skill, and this one has merit. Making Brainrot a prerequsit is a nice touch too. There is a distinct lack of danger for human characters these days, even in the "pre-ankle grab, post 10AP to stand up" days it was still dangerous to be out in the streets, now my human characters have hardly been injured by a zombie in weeks. Nervie 01:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- For all the reasons already listed Vermillion 03:23, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Barricades are BOOOOoooooring! plus I don't get Rot cuz you never know when you'll be able to get that Body Building/Necro Employment or some new one that may come... This would be a great reason for us Rotless Zeds to go for the grey cells. --ScottyBones 03:39, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't think the claw bonus is needed, but zombies should be able to take down barricades more effectively. - KingRaptor 05:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - 1. More reason to level as a Zombie. 2. Individual high level zombies *can* solo effectively. My human alt has never done anything but solo and he has hardly ever been hurt and leveled like crazy. My Zombie, on the other hand, has lost hundereds of XPs to headshots day after day and been forcibly revived four times. It's not that it's *unfair* and my zombie should *beat* the humans. It is alone, my zombie will always be completely powerless, but my survivor can kick ass all day long without any threat and without ever interacting with other humans if he chooses. - Unlife 06:48, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Might make zombies a little less helpless, if they can ever get the XP to buy the skills. Slicer 06:59, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like the skills, using a survivor and a zombie I found that I gained much more experience as a survivor than a zombie unless I metagamed and even then headshots took somewhat of a toll. It is MUCH faster to level as a survivor than a zombie and is much easier to survive as one too. - Kasz
  • Keep The barricades thing is *essential*. The extra hit percentage is a nice touch. Zombies are supposed to be, y'know, frightening. Potatojunkie 11:58, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep For every reason stated. Zombies desperately need bonuses against barricades to combat the sickness of construction/free running combo. They have a harder time getting xp and this is easily taken from them. All they have is combat, and survivors easily outdo them on this front. Unless something is done this game WILL have no zombies in it at all.--Sharamik 12:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Not over-powered, nice added interest to effective zombie playing. --Pooky Romero 15:28, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's needed. --Basher 17:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Think about why you'd want to kill this. Is it because it makes you a little more afraid of zombies? If so, then that's exactly why this is needed. Remember the premise of the game - Xaositect 21:16, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - My main character is human. At no point has he ever been in any danger whatsoever, and that's not for lack of staying in heavily zombie-infested areas. The current safehouse defense system is just too good, the game needs some danger to keep us all on our toes. --Kandarin 22:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep" - This would at least give zombies a good chance to earn 50+ xp in a day (less ap on barricades, more damge = more xp), meaning they MIGHT get to buy a new skill occasionally. Currently is near imposible to level up a zombie past level 5 or so. --Swiers 22:39, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I vote keep cause I like it! --Athos710 03:59, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Caiger Mall is probably less pertinent than the shocking stat that there are more Zombie Hunters than Zombies! My survivor characters have taken to healing zombies when they attack them to preserve the endangered zombie population. Combat buffs and an anti-barricade skill are essential. Of course, by the time zombies can buy these skills they might not need the increased XP gain rate in order to avoid headshots as they may be maxed or very near maxed, but the anti-barricade skill will help to level the playing field a little. Incidentally a 60% hit rate at 3 damage comes to an average damage of 1.8 dam/AP average, 65% @ 3 dam = 1.95 dam/AP average. This percentage bonus could be tweaked after implemented. --Corsair 06:02, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Zombies need a drastic change. If this was implemented in addition with the removal of the need for luching gait then the game would probably be much more balanced than it is currently. --Trunksoul 06:15, 09 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it, it would swing the game towards the zeds, but not overly so.Dhiquad 06:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Capital idea, what what. --Katthew 15:07, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - I don't think, that big changes to the game is a good thing. What if with these skills zombies would rise and outnumber humans, say 9:1 ? Then would survivors get 80% attack? This might go to 100% someday. --Cah51o 17:47, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - Hero mentality of people assures that 9-1 will never be the case, as everyone plays humans. I find your slippery slope fallacy to be equally shoddy. Zombies are in desperate need of a boost this large, possibly even bigger. Humans just dont fear zombies. At the best they treat us with mild contempt as we can hardly do anything. --Grim s 04:52, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Brain Rot is as much a hindrance and a help - and this is one of the things wrong. Zombies *need* to play as the 'stronger race' in order to advance with anything approaching speed. They are in desperate need of some way to gain xp more quickly, and since there is of course only one way for us to gain xp... --Leit 16:33, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think that the zombies should have at least as much of a chance to hit a human as the humans have of hitting them. And the searching for ammo/tearing down barricades thing pretty much balances out, so I'm all for this suggestion. Making the skills a subset of brainrot was just an added touch of brilliance, though if they do they should make bodybuilding a zombie skill as well (though possibly renamed to something like "undying fortitude" or something like that.)--Patrucio 01:15, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - All the reasons I could think of have been stated already. --thomsirveaux99 17:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great idea for rebalancing. These arguments against overreaction to Caiger are simply misleading. The problem is not 1 organized human win versus several organized zombie wins... its the extreme drop in zombie population. Check the game statistics, and then try to tell yourself the zombies are fine as they are. Then try to tell the rest of us while keeping a straight face. --Gromph 20:50, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, it's probably already got more than enough "Keep" votes, but I thought I may as well give it my support. Two things though: I think you can make a better name than "Ignore Pain"(Flavour's fine though) and it is "an extra 10% chance to desstroy a piece of a barricade, for a total of 30%" rather than "the chances of destroying a piece of a barricade are increased by 10% for a total of 22%", right? --Lancensis 21:10, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Awesome ideas that are needed! --Nekoabyss 21:29, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While I do not think it completely addresses the root problem of zombies not being diverse (or "fun" as some say) I think it is one of the best zombie buffs I have seen. And no matter what anybody says, zombies need some buffs. --Tezcatlipoca 02:34, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Agree with various modifications suggestions regarding percentages though. --Thelabrat 16:30, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP--We need more fun Zombies to kill --Kamikaze Fozzie
  • Keep - This is the type of thinking that can really improve the game. Although my survivor has been revived, I WILL be going zombie again, but after so many headshots (I must have killed about 4 people in a week and never had the chance to level up!) I'll be building my XP as a survivor before giving in to my fate! A lot of this is down to the way that the headshot is calculated against the overall level of your character, not the amount of Z skills that he/she has. Anyway, this could sit alongside my skill nicely to really make that fleshbags sit up and sh*t themselves again! --RitchieB 19:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I hereby endorse this product or service. --Navigator 20:53, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies definately need something so that they are feared once again, and also fun to play. At the moment it is not fun spending all of your AP to (maybe) break down the barricades on a safe house only to be APed out and unable to attack once inside.

Survivors should stop whining and start fearing once again. --Jack Destruct 22:37, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - I'd like to see it tiered with Brain Rot > Ignore Pain > Emotional Apathy, and I'd be open to number tweaking, but mainly I'm keep for the brainrot sub skills. Dedicated zombies should have access to skills casual zombies do not. --Fat Charlie 22:37, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Penance 02:20, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - My human is bored stiff because everywhere he goes is completely safe, and I'm not about to stand him in the open just for some excitement. This could make things more interesting for both sides as well as giving incentive to buy Brain Rot. -- ArmourMeado
  • Keep - Zombies need the help. --Martin Odum 17:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Let's get some fun back into the game for both sides. --Strapon Bev 18:44, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies desperately need new skills --fredrickson
  • kill -what zombies need is better defences, more effecient way to get to the survivors AP wise. the combat part is very balanced. What if this makes the zombie population go up to 40%, do you lose the extra powerup? try an other way to make zombies more attractive that doesn't give them permantly the upperhand if their population grows..--Vista 14:12, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Mbututu 14:57, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies desperately need something. Playing as a human is boring because zombies aren't a threat. Playing as a zombie is boring because you can't accomplish anything. These ideas are as good as any I've heard so far. --Kirk 20:04, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep this needs to be kept. For the good of the game.

Skeletal Ribs

Timestamp: 22:35, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Bare ribs blowing in the wind, leaving many places where hard-hitting attacks, such as pistol rounds, simply haven’t the effect that they should. This results in a slight reduction of damage that matches the Bulletproof Vest exactly. (IE, reduces a 5 Damage attack to 4, a 10 damage to an 8, and so forth) This reduction is NOT cumulative with a Bulletproof Vest.

This skill would be nested beneath ‘Brain Rot’, allowing a dedicated zombie to not have to search for human gear, thus staying more in theme.


  • Keep - I was originally frightened to see a crappy Suggestion when I noted that you posted 4 suggestions at once and yet... this is good and fair, but I'm not crazy about the name. And it's a Flak Jacket, not a Bulletproof Vest. This idea is fair and this unrelated Keep kills the SPAMmers. --Squashua 22:39, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm not fond of the name, but I like the concept. --Kulatu 22:40, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good thinking. A bit DnD but good thinking. --MoFo Jones 22:55, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the skill and the name. --Dickie Fux 23:08, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Why have the flak jacket at all then? Its not really for humans, unless you get PKd on a daily basis. --Zaruthustra 23:25, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re Because this is has brain rot as a prereq. Flak jacket works for survivors and non-rotted deaders.
  • Kill What he said. --Biscuit 23:31, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Though, I feel like we've done this before. --Shadowstar 23:46, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 00:28, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I vote keep for the merit of the idea, but I know I already voted keep on the merit of the idea earlier, when it was submitted along with Congealed Flesh. Why is CF on undecided when the one that was the same as this isn't?--'STER 00:44, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Dont really have much of an opinion on this, but whatever. --APOCzombie 03:00, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Helps out the zombies that rotted too early. Jirtan 03:39, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep because its identical to flak jacket (aka no balance change) and to set presidence for zombies getting better. -- P0p0 07:04, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Even if I thought that this skill was useless (which I don't) the thought of skeletal ribs is simply too awesome. --Snikers 15:13, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love the flavor, and the implementation is good. --Arcibi 15:40, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - *insert Zaruthustra parrot response here* --Lucero Capell 03:05, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- The less we have to play as a human just to get along equally well, the better. Especially if you're one of the ones who took Brain Rot earlyon. -- Tabs 18:09, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah, why should dedicated rotters be screwed out of this advantage? --phungus420
  • Keep - Great idea. --Navigator 22:36, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Maybe call it "Decomposed Torso"? -- Caknuck 20:14, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Helps the dedicated zombies. --Basher 22:57, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While getting a vest is probably still going to be easier due to the incredibly slow skill gain of zombies, I for one would like to be able to gain resistance as a pure zombie. --Leit 16:36, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Please please please! --ScottyBones 09:47, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great way to make up for "Rotter's Remorse". It would help dedicated zombies, and would promote newer zombie players to get BrainRot --Gromph 21:31, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Doesn't put people with Brain Rot at a disadvantage.
  • Keep - Brain Rot needs to have more sub-skills, and thus more incentive for people to play proudly as zombies --Jack Destruct 01:57, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - change the flavor, the most damage with attacks are in the soft organs and inner working of the body. after brain rot, those could've very well rotted away too, 'empty husk' works better for me..--Vista 14:18, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The reasons should be obvious. --Kirk 20:08, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Tough as Leather

Timestamp: 22:35, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Rotted more than the typical Zombie, this provides for leather-like skin and hardened muscles, resulting in an overall tougher body for the zombie. This results in the zombie’s hit points increasing to 60, as if the Body building skill were purchased. This skill is NOT cumulative with Body building in any way.

This skill would be nested beneath ‘Brain Rot’, allowing a dedicated zombie to not have to take a human skill, thus staying more in theme.


  • Keep - This is good and fair and I did not suggest this, therefore beating the SPAMmers. --Squashua 22:40, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - What Squashua said. --Kulatu 22:41, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would probably use this name for the 'skeletal' entry above, and call this one something like 'Rigour Mortis'. But the idea is sound. --MoFo Jones 22:58, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good. --Dickie Fux 23:09, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Again, I'm just not down with the perfectly homogenized skills. Kevan allowed you to keep body building as a zombie intentionally, so people would be rewarded for making forays into humanity. --Zaruthustra 23:26, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: - Obviously you haven't seen something like this, then : . I'd love to get Body Building AND Flak Jacket without crossing over. Heck, Zombies have got the Scent Blood = Diagnosis skill, so why not this? --Siddhant 11:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill What he said. --Biscuit 23:30, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Though, again, I think this suggestion's been done... --Shadowstar 23:47, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- What Zaruthustra said. Plus, I don't see it as being particularly useful for a brainrotted zombie. A brainrotted zombie is likely to have ankle grap, and thus only needs 1 AP to stand back up after death and be fully revived w/ 50 HP (or 60 w/ body building). Mikm 00:28, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 00:29, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As Zaruthustra said. --Lucero Capell 03:04, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Helps out the zombies that rotted too early. Jirtan 03:40, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - same as the Skeletal Ribs suggestion. Doesn't add to homogenization because Body Building crosses over, and this doesn't stack with it. --Arcibi 15:46, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Again BR's aren't punished for being devoted to their side, and we are not forced to play as a human for a while if we want to be optimized. -- Tabs 18:12, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I need it ;) --Siddhant 11:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Helps the dedicated zombies. Makes sense that zombies are tougher than humans anyway. --Basher 22:58, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Could care less about homogenisation. I want a pure zombie to be as effective as a pure human. --Leit 16:50, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Though I like the name "undying fortitude" better. --Patrucio 01:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Again, good way to make up for "Rotter's Remorse". I agree with Patrucio on the name though. --Gromph 21:31, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this new trend towards giving zombies with Brain Rot skills to balance out the loss of human skills.--The General 15:51, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - More for zombies! Huzzah! --Jack Destruct 02:01, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -excellent--Vista 14:19, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Window Puncher

Timestamp: 22:35, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The Zombie is smart enough to understand barricades to a point, finding weaker areas, such as windows and doors, to bash through. This gives the zombie double the usual to-hit percentage against barricades, in a manner identical to the use of a crowbar. This ability is NOT cumulative with the crowbar’s base ability.

This skill would be nested beneath ‘Memories of Life’.


  • Keep - This is good and fair and I did not suggest this, therefore beating the SPAMmers. --Squashua 22:41, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You guessed it! What Squashua said. --Kulatu 22:46, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good one. --ALIENwolve 22:53, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But I will note: for completeness sake if your ransack ability were accepted, this skill implies a 'Cleaner' skill for survivors to increase their ability to 'un-ransack' a place ... which I think might be a trifle silly... --MoFo Jones 23:13, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That, or a skill that lets zombies get anti-barricade bonuses witha crowbar. --Hexedian 23:33, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good. --Shadowstar 23:48, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds reasonable Mikm 00:30, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -More good zombie skills!!! YAY!!!!!! --Lord Evans 00:31, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Even though this is the third barricade destruction skill in two days. - KingRaptor 01:56, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Generic positive resopnce! --ThunderJoe 02:41, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - no, no, NO . --APOCzombie 03:01, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Generic positive response x2. Jirtan 03:42, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Decent by my standards, still decent compared to the other craptacular suggestions.AllStarZ 04:52, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL Someone just up and removed my vote on this subject. Where is the people who watch out for this crap. --Deathnut 06:11, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep yes -- P0p0 07:06, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep YAAAAY! Barricades are annoying as hell. --Graaaaaaagh 07:37, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Even with this, barricades could go up faster than they come down. --Dickie Fux 14:40, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why would barricades be placed anywhere other than entry points like windows and doors? --VoidDragon 17:47, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -40%, the same as a human using finesse, intelligence and the appropriate tool, is too high. See Zombie Power for alternate idea. Also why would you barricade the obvious entry points (doors and windows) less than other places?? --Matthew-Stewart 17:55, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep--It's still going to take us forever to get, and honestly, in loads of Zombie movies I've seen they don't bother with barricading glass doors and/or windows, and I know of at least one movie where the Z's later break through them. So for all you people who like to vote according to what the movies say, eat it. This is a keeper. It makes more sense for us to have this than for humans to go around tearing down their own safety defenses faster than we can anyway. --Tabs 18:15, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep--It's in character, and it's needed.--Kandarin 22:55, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes. --Basher 23:00, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Barricades are far too powerful as it stands. --Grim s 04:55, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Though I would call it "Flicker of Thought". --Patrucio 01:23, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea.--The General 15:55, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - too much an increase at once. Tabaqui, they only barricade to "loosly" in those movies...--Vista 14:23, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Something is needed. Perhaps 40% is too high, but something is needed, so it gets a thumbs up from me. --Kirk 20:13, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 22:35, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Zombies are quite adept at smashing things up. The Ransack skill allows zombies to tear up the inside of a building so badly that, in order to find anything useful, a survivor must clean the place up before searching. The more AP spent ransacking a building, the more that must be cleaned up before successful searches can be made. After 4 AP have been spent to Ransack a building, additional AP spent has a decreasing chance of worsening the conditions. (Use the same failure rate as Barricades.) Each AP spent in cleaning up has a 20% chance of reducing the Ransack value by 1.

Barely ransacked. (Ransack Value =1)

Somewhat ransacked (Ransack Value 2)

Ransacked (Ransack Value 3-4)

Well Ransacked (Ransack Value 5-6)

Very Well Ransacked (Rasack Value 7-8)

Extremely Well Ransacked (Ransack Value 9-10)

This skill would be nested beneath ‘Memories of Life’, as they remember what might be useful and go out of their way to destroy these items.

(Final notation: This skill is, basically, Barricades for Zombies, allowing them to make a building useless for searching until cleaned up, in a manner akin to humans making a building unenterable for zombies. This allows Zombies to ‘Guard’ a valuable building, preventing humans from taking advantage of ‘sleeping’ zombies to run in, quickly search, then run away.


  • Keep - Nice idea; I like more Zombie Skills. I did not suggest this and am beating the SPAMmers. --Squashua 22:42, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds funky. I dunno if you should say 'well' ransacked, that sounds too positive. Maybe thoroughly ransacked or severely ransacked or something like that. Otherwise, I think it could make it easier for zombies to fight humans. --Kulatu 22:43, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - "Brillaint!" --ALIENwolve 22:51, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If it were not gross, and biologically impossible, I would want to have your babies. --MoFo Jones 22:55, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think "ransack" implies they take stuff, though, so I'd suggest "Ravage Building" instead. --Dickie Fux 23:05, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Change the names for states of ransackness and I'm in. Would is also apply to searching for material to be used for barricading? And what about a counter-skill or counter-item to increase chances of cleaning up the building? --Hexedian 23:24, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Extremly Well Posted. Fix the condition names and its golden. Hexidian- I can just see it now a swat team of zombie hunters with skills in "advanced cleaning lady"--bbrraaiinnss 23:26 Dec 6 2005
  • Kill Umm... I'm beginning to think some of you are actually the same person. Some of these ideas have merit, but really aren't all that great, and this one in particular is Needlessly Complicated Without Adding Anything To The Game. --Biscuit 23:29, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It reminds me of how hard it was to loot the mall in the original Dawn of the Dead before they got it cleaned up and zombie free. I agree that maybe some of the names could be better but it's one of the better suggestions I've seen here. And maybe the Shopping skill could give a bonus to cleaning up similar to a Crowbar's bonus to break down barricades. It'd help make the Consumer class more valuable too, which would be nice. --Jon Pyre 23:31, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Much preferred as a zombie-goal over the Building Razing idea; in this one, the survivors are still potentially *safe* - but have to invest AP to make a building useful to stay in once more. I think we're already moving in this direction with the generator maintainance for surgery and phone service, but this would certainly provide more of a tactical direction for the zombies to work with. --Drakkenmaw 23:39, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - just pointless. Why would zombies care to protect a building. All they should care about is eating and killing and eating again. -LS 18:46, 06 DEC 2005 (GMT-5)
  • Keep - Okay, though I think the wording needs changing. "Well ransacked?" lol. Maybe something with more flavour. --Shadowstar 23:50, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep ---Lord Evans 00:33, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I imagine the buildings are already pretty ransacked (by people searching it), but hey... -KingRaptor 02:05, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Well there goes all the PD's, Malls, Fire stations, and anywhere we can get a weapon. this is a very bad idea and needs to be killed. --Deathnut 02:22, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But you should have it to where the same goes for the organization, making it more and more organized, making zombies spend more ap ransacking the place. I like being a neat freak. --ThunderJoe 02:44, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Buildings have already been looted and ransacked, and that is noted in the internal descriptions. Why do you think search odds aren't near 100%? --VoidDragon 03:26, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Mikm 00:34, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - --Ringseed2 03:33, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, I like it. Jirtan 03:44, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill eh.. meh -- P0p0 07:09, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Nice possible alternative to the "prevent searching while zombies present" idea. --Graaaaaaagh 07:36, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like this for two reasons, one it adds a benefit for zombies to break into buildings even if the survivors have fled and two at adds an insentive for survivors to defend a building. No more hiding next door to a police station when asleep and then popping in to stock up on ammo later on. Having the Shopping skill to decrease clean up time is a good idea too, makes Consumers way more valuable. -BauulBen 15:00, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Although I'm not 100% convinced, originality deserves applauds. --Seagull Flock 16:05, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think this would give zombie players a lot of personal satifaction, which is good for helping the zombie population. Also perhap replace the word "well" with "thoroughly"--Matthew-Stewart 18:00, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Holy crap. Two suggestions that I voted "Keep" for in one day. The world must be ready to end. I really like this one--it gives zombies something new to do and a way to somewhat counterbalance the annoyance of barricades. Bentley Foss 09:50, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I know; this is like going and having a field day. And this one also makes sense--clumsy zombies are going to trash the place, whether on accident or on purpose. We're here to make survivors' lives hell; hoorah for giving us a way to do so. -- Tabs 18:22, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I like the idea, the same way zombie have to spend 5 times more ap than survivors to get in, if the survivors flee or are killed, then they have to spend ap themselves to use building again. It also would make sieges better, zombies would try and take and hold NT buildings and tear place up to try and prevent revives.
  • Keep - About bloody time. --Grim s 12:30, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love this idea more than any damage or accuracy boost that might come along. It zombies the ability to really mark territory at their own which is something I think they're sorely in need of. -- Memuler
  • Keep - I like the idea Kasz
  • Keep - I like it very much, but the wording needs to be changed. --Basher 23:01, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For certain. Also, I'd like to suggest 'Trashed' as a status. --Leit 15:56, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just because the idea of zombies trashing a place while trying to catch and eat a cat makes me laugh. --Patrucio 01:26, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I dare you to show me one good reason this shouldn't be implemented. There's not enough organized zombies to hold even half of the necrotech buildings or malls in Malton (using the rarest resource buildings for an examples), and even if there were it'd just be incentive to actually shoot them out and not just sneak in and stock up behind their backs. Plus, its in genre and gives both sides needed incentive to fight over important buildings. --Brickman 01:54, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Why not? I am against survivors and zombies having the same skill, but this is different enough for me and adds the tactical play most people say zombies need instead of combat buffing. Survivors have the numbers that deprivation should not become a permanent problem, maybe just localized. --Tezcatlipoca 18:09, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this idea a lot. Adds something else that zombies can do to make game play more interesting. Also a novel idea *and* thematic. --MicheleColeman 13:14, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A part of me really likes this, and a part of me really hates it. First half wins. --Jack Destruct 02:17, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a great idea, makes raiding buildings very worthwhile. Implement ASAP a cracking idea. --hairyjim
  • Kill - The fact that the buildings are ransacked are already taken into account in the search odds. messing with them too much would seriously change the game and favor zombies greatly. If it favors them too much, it can't be turned back.--Vista 14:30, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brain Eater

As long as there is spam, it will get spaminated. Duplicate. --Zaruthustra 23:28, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Raze Building

Timestamp: 22:54, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Barricade Balance
Scope: Barricades and attacking barricades / entering buildings
Description: Barricades are currently unrealistic and unbalanced. Firstly, they appear to be OUTSIDE a building, since a zombie must smash a buildings barricades, then open its doors. Do survivors open the building doors, and move stuff out into the streets in front of the building? Secondly, the description of barricading makes it seem as if each AP used with the Construction skill results in one item moved. And logically, that’s about all the time you’d have, given what else 1 AP can accomplish. How can that stop 100+ zombies? Does every building only have one entrance?

My Suggestion is that Construction / Barricades be left as is (for simplicity), but that the results be changed a bit to make the results of attacking them more lasting and harder to fix. Essentially, Barricades would have NEGATIVE levels (corresponding to their current positive ones), representing the building being itself being torn apart by repeated, ongoing "barricade" attacks. If the building doors were left open (as when a zombie with Memories of Life enters), the doors would not be able to be re-secured until the “barricades” were brought up to at least not being negative any more. When a building was at negative barricade levels, this would appear in its description just as positive barricades do; “the building is unsecurable / very unsecurable / somewhat demolished / very demolished.”

As a flavor enhancement to make barricading (and “negative barricades”) more logical, the barricades should be removed from the pull down attack list. Instead, “raze building” should get its own action button, making it clear that the chance of success has nothing to do with attack abilities, and that buildings can take more damage than simply removing barricades would result in.


  • Kill - I think barricades are fine without this. Also, it CAN'T stop 100+ zombies. If 100+ zombies all attack at once, I'd be amazed to see any part of the barricades left standing before a zombie can use their third action. --Kulatu 22:57, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- have you been at a zombie siege? Those 100 zombies do tear down the 'cades very fast when they act simulatniously, but its VERY unlikely for all 100 (or even a decent portion) to get in if any survivor is present to hit his barracde button. Instead, the 'cades suddenly drop to zero, a few zombies with "memories of life" get into the building, and then (before the pages have refreshed for all the zombie players) some survivor puts one little chair out, and the horde is stopped cold until they tear it down. This repeats ad infinitum, with a substantial AP advantage going to the survivors each go-round. If those 100 zombies razed the building so bad the doors couldn't be closed, a lot more of them would get in.

  • Kill - Much prefer the Ransack effect listed above to provide a counter to Barricades. In my mind, in a ruined building is EASIER to find material to barricade with, not harder. --MoFo Jones 22:55, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - very hesitant to kill this one. Zombies should only care enough about barricades to squeeze through and eat. They are not sappers. I see Zombies having a lot of free time just to attack empty buildings, just like survivors and their fanciful barricading policies. --bbrraaiinnss 23:30 Dec 6 2005

re- I agree in principla, and have been wracking my brain for a balanced mechanic that lets a zombie squeeze past the baracades they are attacking before completely destroying them. I'd be quite happy with such an alternative, as it would remove (or at least mitigate) my annoynce with the "1 chair stops 1000 zombies" effect. In the meantime, I figured I'd suggest something that at least allows 100 zombies to attack a baracade, and for all 100 to actually have some effect, instead of wasting AP smashing something that isn't there.

  • Kill - Given zombie immortality vs. survivor death limitations, this skill would mean a coordinated zombie team would be able to render an area literally uninhabitable for nonteam survivors - that is, it would take more AP to secure the space for staying in than it would take to go elsewhere to sleep. Consider whether you want to see malls and armories almost permanently unbarricaded (and non-barricadable) before you make suggestions with this permanent of an effect. --Drakkenmaw 23:32, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- Urm, yes, I do. In any zombie movie, theres places that are simply never going to be habitable. And its not at all a permenant effect - at worst, it would take 10 extra AP (spent on "build Barricades") or so to get a building secured.

  • Kill - Dude. LOW-tech zombie mmo. Yes it's unrealistic, but who cares? --Biscuit 23:33, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies can tear down buildings the same way you with twenty friends could punch down a bank. They can push through furniture and knock through borded up windows but they can't smash through a brick wall. Besides, zombies don't hate buildings.--Jon Pyre 23:39, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- me and 20 of my friends could easily rip a buildings doors of the hinges, rip out every window, and so on. If we were unconcered with personal safety, we could likely tear out exterior pillars that would cave in part of the roof. I've done some building construction and demolition, I know this as a FACT. And me and my friends don't even have "Body Building".

  • Kill how, might i ask, do you fix something thats not broken? --Spellbinder 23:48, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ransacking above makes more sense. --Shadowstar 23:53, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- I'll grant that the Ransacking suggestion is cool, and less radical. Irrelevant, though- the two are completley diffrent effects, and address diffrent issues.

  • Kill - As soon as you explain to me how you can have a negative amount of furniture and pieces of wood blocking doors and windows...and demolishing a building would make it HARDER for zombies to get in, since rubble and such gets in their way. And how are you going to repair the building if it's demolished? None of this even makes sense. Hell, I should've stopped reading altogether when I got to the part about barricades being unbalanced. - KingRaptor 02:00, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You can try to knock loose the furniture that has been thrown up against doors, and glass windows, but unless you're a Resident-Evil style boss-uberzed, your not going to be able to rip apart concrete, brick, and reinforced steel. --VoidDragon 03:24, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Like Mr. I-Love-Vomiting, you put responses to every single kill vote. Also, we have to make sure that the game balances. If this was implemented, eventually, all the buildings in Malton would be impossible to hold and humans will die out because humans' main role is to defend and wandering outside to take out a few rotters. If humans don't have any relatively strong stronghold to protect, we might as well turn this into a Zombie melee. Finally, razing means to level, and I would like to see a group of 1000 zombies tear down a brick and cement building using pipes, crowbars, baseball bats, and their bare fists. AllStarZ 05:00, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- Um, so I replied? How dare I have a dialog, eh? I guess you can vote based on whatever reason you like... Anyhow, this would NEVER make "all the buildings in Malton would be impossible to hold", anymore than they are currently impossible for zombies to enter. It just would require rebuilding the baracades (covering up empty windows and doorways) to the point where the building could be secured. "Raze" was an imprecise word, picked for flavor; the suggestion text is pretty clear that the building would only be PARTLY and REVERSABLY damaged, until somebody came along and used "Construction". Speaking of which, since when is piling junk in front of doorways considered to be "construction"?

  • Kill nooo -- P0p0 07:12, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Zombies smashing in windows, tearing holes in walls, et cetera, makes sense to me. I like the idea of walking through a zombie-held suburb and seeing nothing but ruined buildings, making it very difficult to establish a survivor stronghold overnight. --Graaaaaaagh 07:34, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There's a much better suggestion just above this (Ransack) that is not a counter-skill for barricades. Bentley Foss 09:52, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- It was a nice idea, but Ransack is better. -- Tabs 18:24, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes things easier for zombies.--The General 16:08, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the flavour of it.--Jack Destruct 02:30, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -I like this better than Ransack but but there is something off, you should have some limit on the amount of zombies then can go trough, if the survivors are barricading it is just to unfair that by chance the entire horde comes trough. It would make sieges too easy and too short--Vista 14:39, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Viral Mutation

Timestamp: 24:00, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: "The virus raising the dead within the city quarantine is already adapting to existence outside of the NecroTech lab environment. This new mutation has begun to re-write human DNA, as stiff zombie limbs develop into sinuous, super-nimble meta-arms. Survivors of the city face a new threat--one that climbs between the rooftops themselves to reach their prey." A Lv. 10+ zombie skill equal to the "Free Running" Scout ability, but with a 70% chance of failure. Once inside, these zombies have a 70% barricade destruction bonus from the inside.


  • Kill Lets just hate on barricades some more. --Zaruthustra 00:04, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Once again, barricades are the only things separating a living human and a dead one. I could only even see this as a *possibility* if each failure (at 70% per movement) dumped the failing zombie back outside, thus ensuring that a wide enough "perimeter" would keep most "flying zombies" at bay by making the AP cost higher than it would take to just knock the barricade down. Even so, one single fluke in the probability means that a zombie gets in almost for free. Without a corresponding nullification ability from the survivors, that's just too much. --Drakkenmaw 00:16, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Let's just piss on one of the only features in the game that is PERFECTLY BALANCED! --Kulatu 00:19, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe if you could have a skill under construction that enabled you to stop this AND STILL ALLOW FREE RUNNING HUMANS INSIDE, i'd like it. --APOCzombie 03:06, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - "RAR!!! nURf T3h b4RRiC4dZ0r!!!" --VoidDragon 03:20, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ^ -- P0p0 07:14, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like barricades as they are now. --Seagull Flock 16:09, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm sorry--you do realize that we'd end up with tens of thousands of mutant rooftop-leaping, barricade-annihilating zombies, and that survivors would be permanently doomed once their numbers grew high enough, right? Bentley Foss 09:54, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Ransack and that other barricade thing everyone likes from earlier is better. Zombies would look utterly cool if they could roofjump but this is just wayyyyy the devil overpowered and silly. -- Tabs 18:27, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Which bit of No Uber Ninja Zombies don't you understand.--The General 16:22, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - why not let the virus make zombies grow wings and laser vision?--Vista 14:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Less is more

Timestamp: 19:10, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)
Type: improvement
Scope: Everyone
Description: The current layout could use some simplification to speed up download and ease server load.

1. List identical items together (along with ammo/uses) example: Pistol [Qty:5][Rounds:23]

2. List room contents in a similar way example: There are 34 people here [click for list] or something like example: Also here are Joe (50hp), Jimbob (50hp), Billy (50hp), and 30 others [click for list]

3. Use only one instance of the select menu for targets. If you specify the size attribute of the select menu, it could also be used for multiple target selections, which would also save more bandwidth, but takes more time to implement server-side handling.

Your average player currently takes up somewhere around 20-30 bytes of text each time they appear in an anchor, and about another 15-25 for each time they appear in a select menu (DNA extractors, first-aid kits, etc...) In a room filled with 2-300 players, like say, in a mall, that amounts to 7-16k just for the player related text (plus another 3-7k per additional select menu). The fact that malls tend to be the best place to find items exacerbates matters. For example, if 20 people in one room of a mall are doing actions at the same time, you could expect to see up to 700k-1.6m drawn from just that room over the course of their actions. Raise that to 1.0m to 2.0m if each one of them possessed one DNA extractor/first-aid kit/etc. Limiting the output in the above ways would remove a significant load from the server, as well as provide a calculable maximum output per click.

Author's note: Yes, there are some *similarities* between point 1 and 'Inventory Stacking', but do not discount point's 2 and 3. Even among 'Inventory Stacking', it *still* differs in that all items are grouped together and charges are shown collectively, not separately!


  • Keep - Well I don't see anything wrong with this, but it can probably wait for a while... --Shadowstar 00:47, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Love the streamlined interface stuff, but this is a duplicate.--'STER 01:27, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - *stares like a monkey with a math problem* i dont get it.. but if what you say is true.. this is a really good suggestion -- P0p0 07:18, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - use firefox and the plugins given. -LS 10:04, 07 DEC 2005 (GMT-5)
  • Keep - If this stuff was all done the right way, and each thing only loaded one time on the page, there would very likely be less server issues. --Pyrinoc 15:21, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It would be even better if I could tell what the hell you are on about.--The General 18:54, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Anticlutter makes me happy. -- Tabs 20:18, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - less clutter and makes the server happier? a win - win baby! Moon stone 23:49, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good. BTW, Firefox and the plugins have nothing to do with server load. --Sknig 01:24, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Stuff like this needs to be done, it'll make the game faster and easier to play --MLF 04:33, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Does need to be done --Daxx 14:50, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very clever way to tie combat upgrades in with Brain Rot. --Graaaaaaagh 23:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Basher 23:03, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Desperately needed. --Kirk 20:17, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)