From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

6th November, 2005

Impale (was Crucifixion)

Timestamp: 09:32, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Hunter Skill after Headshot
Scope: Survivors
Description: This skill is available after obtaining headshot. This Skill balances the ankle grab without being overpowered and unavailable to all starting players. This skill means when a zombie is killed and it stands up it has half the max HP it would normally have. A zombie with 60 Hp would stand up with 30 HP. This would not affect the zombies XP and would not harm level 1 zombies. This skill finally makes use of the crucifix.


  • Keep, Sounds good since ankle grab usually means unstoppable.--Thor
  • Keep, Kind of silly (the crucifixes you're lugging around probably aren't big enough to actually crucify anything,) but it's a good idea.--Milo 14:28, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, I'm all for this. Edit: Talk:Suggestions--Spellbinder 18:30, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or Change, I agree with the idea of Zombie Hunter skills that work on corpses, but Crucifixes are a touch much, if you ask me. You'd have to either carry them around, or gather resources for them, like you do for barricades. Even then it's kind of complicated. You'd need the Construction Skill and... I think that something more along the lines of burning bodies (see bellow) with gas might work better, though with the HP effect suggested here. Plus religious connitations may be irrelevant if we're dealing with a viral infection type of Zombie. (Darien Shields 16:53, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT))
  • Kill, the small crucifixes found in churches could not be used to crucify a zombie. --LibrarianBrent 17:27, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, for plot reasons. while this is a game based on the horror genre, it is specifically based on the zombie horror subset and torture methods are generally not a part of it. There are much easier ways to kill zombies and no Zombie Hunter worth his salt would waste his precious time using a complicated killing method designed to inflict massive pain on a creature incapable of feeling pain. --Kandarin 23:57, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or change, The mechanics are fine, but the flavor needs retouching. --McArrowni 00:15 7 Nov 2005.
  • Keep My conserns have been adressed. Thus, vote changed. --Alexei Yaruk 03:13, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, "For plot reasons." Though again as someone else said, take the idea of gas cans and apply the effect of crucifixes and you've got a winner.--Insomniac By Choice 21:29, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - not only the zombie gets griefed, but it doubles the chance of getting headshotted again soon. No way. --Seagull Flock 15:12, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I agree if you replace "crucifix" with "Fuel can" and make a "Fuel Can" used up when this ability is used and you have a winner. The Person who wrote Burn bodies should replace it with this idea, AP Damage is a BAD idea or pointless--Matthew-Stewart 17:22, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill No way. Come on, let's not make it even harder for zombies to do anything. Headshot already makes being a zombie incredibly difficult. --Pyrinoc 5:27 PM 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change, Ok remove the whole crucifix thing.. but then, I just love the idea... Give the ankle grabbers something to think about --Adrian 17:37, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep XP damage makes life difficult, but after you reach max level headshot means NOTHING. So this adds a little more spice to it. I don't think the crucifix needs to be used, to. And the name can change. Monstah 19:27, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't like it. The religious angle will cause problems. Halving HP is extreme. Even a low-level survivor could kill several 30 HP zombies in a single play session. Unbalancing. Bentley Foss 22:15, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill A: the description needs changing. B: It's far too powerful, in essence you deal an extra 25 (or 30) damage to the Zombie, which would cripple low level zombies without the Digestion skill. Maybe if it was 5 damage when they stand up, but the Survivors don't need an uber skill.--Zark the Damned 22:40, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill It is an over-powered skill, and the crucifixes found in churches are probably the small type (for brandishing or jewelry purposes only) which would not fit a zombie on them -- I have a character carrying 3 or 4 of them at the moment. -- Juntzing 13:26, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill a) It's not clear how this is supposed to happen - I guess we are talking about nailing dead corpses to crosses here, and the author tries to go easy on our sensible natures ;) But if we're talking erecting things, shouldn't Construction be a pre-requisite? b) why should Level 1 zombies have an easier time ripping themselves free of a 6' crucifix? c) The zombie spent XP on ankle grab, why do we have to have something to counter it? If getting headshot enough of a penality, and getting up quick only increases your chance of getting head shot again? d) implementation as written above sounds like a nightmare. Madalex 20:54, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - While I agree the crucifix needs a use, and zombie hunter can be expanded, this is too powerful. And this is coming from a survivor. --Bcrogers 17:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change Based on Talk:Suggestions, I don't think we're discussing nailing the zombie to a full-sized cross, but performing some sort of religious mumbo-jumbo to hurt them. Thus I like it. It seems ridiculous that spending AP to hack down an Ankle Grab zombie or ammo to shoot it down, it stands back up with full health with 1 AP. If people feel this punishes unlucky low-level zombies, ramp it up similar to Headshot: say 5 HP per level (or zombie skill), max half HP. --Jgf 18:18, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change I like it; my only suggestion would be to keep it as it's own seperate Zombie Hunter skill, rather than be a sub-skill of Headshot. Most sub-skills tend to follow in 'the flavor' of the core skill (digestion leads to infection, basic and advanced weapon skills), and this wasn't doesn't quite fit under Headshot. Could make a nice starter for religious/mystic Zombie Hunter skill tree! MorthBabid 21:21, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Humans don't need this, it would make zombies even weaker (still only 40% of the population for now), and along with making zombies more vulnerable to headshot would make this overpowered. Trunksoul 5:02 AM, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Finally there is a use of a crucifix, but it is perhaps too powerful. At the end, men will surely overcome the zombies. Change it so that the crucifix only reduces the HP of the zombie to 40, regardless if it has 60 or 50 HP max. If that is too weak, then subtract a few(5?)AP. Sauron the Deceiver 1:25 AM, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As others have said: Too powerful. It leaves the zombie even more vunerable to more headshots, and makes playing them more frustrating for the lower levels. .--G026r 04:55, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The concept is fine. Crucifix reference can be removed. This Skill is powerful in combination with a HeadShot and therefore should have some form of inherent limitation. For example, you might make the "killing blow" required to be delivered with a hand-held weapon (usually a lesser damage and % chance to hit than a ranged weapon (Gun/Shotgun). Would make more sense with the revised name, "Impale". Add a proper limitation and I'll change to a Keep. --
  • Kill - This does need to be renamed or to use something other than a hand held crucifix to crucify a human sized zombie. I like the idea that you can do something to the zombie before it gets back up and tries to kill you again, but this needs a better explaination/description. --RED KING 23:53, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Squashua 21:52, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 06:47, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Consumer Skill Shopper Tree
Scope: Survivors
Description: This skill adds a +25% modifier to searching standard buildings. For example when searching the arms or a police station there is a +25% chance of finding something during a search. This does not affect the modifier in place for the mall.


  • Keep, Good as long as it is last on the branch of the shopping tree.--Thor
  • Kill, "Scavaging" should totally be a word. But anyways, +25% in PDs would discourage people from using malls, and most of the game's current excitement centers around mall battles. If the % was smaller, this would be a good skill.--Milo 14:59, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Simply too high of a %. Break it down into three or four skills, adding 10-15% to PD, FD, Hospitals, and Teck buildings could be good. but any skill that trumps a mall would be overpowered--Spellbinder 16:32, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, completely overpowered. --LibrarianBrent 17:26, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, way too powerful. --McArrowni 6 Nov 2005
  • Kill or Change, A good Idea. But as it stands too much too fast... --Alexei Yaruk 02:38, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Change to working in junkyards. I agree in hospitals NT buildings and DP,it would be too powerful--Matthew-Stewart 03:57, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I will change my vote if the percentage decreases drastically. But at that point, would it be worth the XPs spent? --Seagull Flock 15:16, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, Logical, I mean people do follow a logic when storing > Weapons in one place, ammo in another ect... so the greater % chance is good--Adrian 17:39, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or Change, Change to at most 10% so that malls are always a better place to search. Break into at least two skills, one for Necrotech buildings in the science tree (something like "Centrifuge Proficiency") and another for other buildings in the civilian tree. Spleenrot 23:14, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Too powerful - if it were to work only on Junkyards, probably the Auto Repair Shops, and perhaps the Warehouses it think it would be okay. Madalex 21:03, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, As has been said, percentage is too high. Good idea otherwise. --Lucero Capell 21:07, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Change the name to "Scavenging" and re-implement this as a tree of percentaged skills (Scavenging I: +5%, Scavenging II: +5%, Scavenging III: +5%, NO Scavenging IV) or specialized skills that are also heiarched and you'll get a Keep vote from me. --Squashua 21:53, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or Change I agree with Spleenrot about the percentage being too high. Decrease it and this would be viable. I would definitely appreciate having even a slightly higher chance of finding a syringe every now and then. --Torvus 22:19, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Change - Just make it +10%, or +15% and per-building-type would be even cooler. Penumbra 21:41, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Change A skill for a higher chance of finding something in a search is a good idea (as long as it comes after Bargain Hunting), but 25% is too high. Change it to 10% (or 15% and have a set of skills for different building types) and I'd be up for it. --Zark the Damned 16:54, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Change Ditto. 25% is too high. Otherwise I like it since there would finally be a skill to help find NT syringes. --Jgf 18:21, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The concept is good but agree that % is too high and would be more effective to break it down by building type. (i.e. Scavaging:Hospital Proficiency +10%). --Hazmat Tom 06:15, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Body Burning

Timestamp: 06:47, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: This skill takes the number of bodies on ground and burns them using a can of gasoline. Burned bodies are have half of their max HP. This skill makes use of the gasoline and finally adds some more fun for high level players. Players using this skill get no XP as this would lead to abuse of just moving square to square burning bodies. I edited my suggestion based off of feedback. Plz review and comment by clicking discussion at the top of the page.


  • Keep, Zombies own the streets and always will this just puts them in another place where they can still gain xp. This doesnt hurt zombies so this is not an unbalanced idea like others suggested in the same theme.--Thor
  • No vote, Edit: as the whole idea was changed, i take back my vote--Spellbinder 16:34, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or Change, Why would burning a Zombie make it end up somewhere else on the map? You're not firing it out of a cannon... But burning bodies as a Zombie Hunter Skill (i.e. one that makes Zombies need more AP to revive, or use more HP, or something) seems like a good idea, and limiting kerosene/gas would balance it. But perhaps limit it to outdoors? (starting a fire indoors would be nasty.) And then 'bonfires' should appear on the map, like flares. (Darien Shields 16:48, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT))
  • Kill, I had no idea fires were teleportatio devices... :P --LibrarianBrent 17:25, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, Thor really shouldn't multivote but he's right--from a purely game-mechanical viewpoint this works well for making it actually possible to break a siege. It gives death a little more impact for all the Ankle Grabbers out there--if the survivors in a mall or whatever can consistently lower the zombie numbers by sending them to other suburbs, they can actually win, as opposed to just...surviving. I like the IC idea of burning the body too--it makes sense from a zombie-movie standpoint. On the one hand permadeath is possible there, but on the other hand there are plenty of already-dead bodies in graveyards that steadily swell the zombie numbers even when no new people are dying. This skill is essentially pretending that the burnt zombie is dead and gone forever, but another new zombie has risen somewhere else that happens to have the same skills.--'STER 18:46, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, It may not be realistic, but it would work well. Jirtan 22:47, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill, I changed my vote because this new version of the skill is both stupid and pointless. Soon enough some one will RE-sugest the usefull version. Its only a matter of time. --Alexei Yaruk 02:39, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP, Something seriously needs done to help survivors to break a seige, especially since killing a zombie isnt much of a hindrance given the angle grab skill. I understand the 'teleportation' aspect of it is not quite realistic, but it is afterall a game. Instead of simply appearing in random places, they could dig themselves up in graveyards. It would at least add an interesting aspect to the graveyard squares. Delphius 02:43, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, A great skill for dispersing a hoard of attacking zombies, but you should limit the random dumping of the body to the suburbs surrounding the one you burned them in, that way zombies are far enough away to not be a threat for awhile until they can regroup. Would make it so the game won't get unbalanced. NATO Master Chief 03:47, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Besides the fact that scattering zombies makes no sense, humans don't need help in sieges. The problem isn't that zombies can't be stopped; they're fucking zombies, that's the point. The problem is that humans aren't supposed to hold buildings. The point of nearly every zombie movie ever made is that humans like to build fortresses, and they never work. Humans need to make proper use of the powers they have before getting new skills.--Insomniac By Choice 11:38, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, A good skill that would return the balance to the game. I think most survivors would agree with me that only running and hiding is not mutch fun. Evrybody [survivors too] want to write the history of Malton and that cannot be achieved by only running. The burned zombie would be lost forever, but another zombie with the same skills would be risen somewhere in Malton, mabe on graveyards? Taht would make the game even more cultic. I like the idea. But please not inside buildings. Gnaag 13:50, 7 Nov 2005
  • Kill - see Insomniac's comment. I see the need to make the game more interesting, but I don't think this is the right way. --Seagull Flock 15:33, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP/CHANGE IMHO the bodies should be teleported to a graveyard instead.. not come.. random place --Adrian 17:41, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, SEE CRUCIFIXION above for a much better and balanced mechanic for burning bodies. This idea is just horrible--Matthew-Stewart 17:46, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Just changed my vote. Crucifixion's mechanic would be ok, because it requires a kill on the zombie. This just hurts too many people too easily. Also, changing submissions with a lot of votes on them already is retarded--McArrowni 04:46, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP/CHANGE KEEP because it gives survivors a way to break a siege. CHANGE in the following manner: 1) Each survivor can only burn a portion (maybe five or ten?) of the corpses present. 2) Burned bodies from the same location rise again at the same (not necessarily the nearest) graveyard. Once the corpses are cleared away, the random graveyard changes. This would make the map much more "interesting" when a huge zombie horde suddenly reappears in an unsuspecting neighborhood. Also, this would prevent a few zombie hunters from completely dominating a horde of zombies. (Kill, burn, kill easily at half HP, burn, repeat, etc.) 3) Reduce HP effect to 10-15 HP or eliminate this effect. Halving zombie HP makes it easy for even low-level survivors to kill multiple zombies in a single play session. As mentioned in #2, this also prevents a handful of heavily armed people from dominating a horde of burned zombies. Bentley Foss 22:31, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This suggestion should be called "destroy all zombie tactics and orginization". I think even the survivors would be dissapointed to see this take effect. Its the fear of these hordes that brings the thrill of gameplay. If it was nearest graveyard and there was 1 in every suburb, and you needed multiple cans to light up big corpse piles (1:5 for instance) then we could discuss it --bbrraaiinnss 7 Nov 2005
  • Keep/Change I think this is a great idea but i have a few suggestions 1. ok this is the most complicated, when the zombie hunter starts the fire it will last for 5 minutes and be marked on the map. anyone who enters the bonfire area takes 3 points of damage for every action they do (this includes exiting and entering the area[the hunter who set the fire can do 1 action after setting the fire without getting hurt]) 2. zombies need 20 AP to get up and get up with half health. 3.(i added this because this burning bodies has no bad affects on survivors.)when there is a bonfire you cannot see any zombies in all squares adjacent to the bonfire.--knightmare
  • Kill Okay, I haven't seen the original version that the suggestion-maker refers to, but as it stands it looks like a small group of zombie hunters would be able to dominate a horde by re-killing and re-burning. I do not see anywhere that the zombies would be 'moved' so this looks very bad for zombies as of the time of my vote. If a zombie player gets caught by even a small but organized group of hunters, their character could very well be trapped in a rapid cycle of dieing, losing 10AP, getting up and dieing easily again. Not very fun. -- Juntzing 13:38, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE There are several posts including this one and many below this that should much more accurately be described with a 'change' rather than a 'kill' vote. It seems there is a pretty universal concensus that some method like this is neccesary to help give survivors some chance against an advancing horde, even if there is some disagreement over the specific mechanics. For example Kevan would obviously need to determine the appropriate drop rates for gas cans, the AP usage for the skill, the number of zombies affected, where they moved to, etcetera. The general idea seems sound enough, though. Delphius 19:07, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or Change As a member of the Yagoton Revivification Clinic, I see a big problem with this. Wouldn't the 'dead'/laying down bodies of humans waiting to stand up after being rez'd be burned as well? I have this vision of PKers hanging around rez clinics, burning bodies, then attacking the even-more weakened human characters when they stand up. MorthBabid 21:29, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Completely agree with MorthBabid. PKers could use this to further hurt those just trying to get back to life. --Hazmat Tom 06:20, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As said above bodies should not appear some other place and the word of pkers said before me. --Sauron the Deceiver 1:31 AM, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill When I see bodies start to pile up in front of a building, I simply relocate a.s.a.p. Madalex 20:00, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I like the idea of burning bodies, but the concept is kind of crappy. Maybe make it so that if a body is burnt, 5 APs are added to the "Stand Up" amount (not for each TIME they are burnt). These APs also affect revivified Survivors in the burnt bodies squares. Honestly though, I'd prefer to see a mechanic for relocating bodies. --Squashua 21:57, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I agree with the above. Body Burning is a good idea, but should affect the ability to stand up (and would be great in addition to a body-moving technique) --Donggrip 11:27, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Hunting Shotgun

Timestamp: 06:47, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Weapon (Shotgun)
Scope: Survivors
Description: This weapon deals 8 damage at a base to-hit chance of 15%. Against flak jackets, this damage is reduced to 6. May be found in sporting goods stores or inside mansions. The weapon carries one shotgun shell at a time and takes 1 AP to reload or fire.


  • Kill, Has no use. Would result in inventory clutter since a shotgun holds more ammo and better % to hit. This item would be the newspaper of mansions.--Thor
  • Kill, ^is wrong, the shotgun's base hit % is only 5. Essentially, the hunting shotgun is much better for characters with no shotgun skills, and slightly worse for those with maxed shotgun skills. I don't see why we need to make it easier for noobs to kill, at any rate, so kill.--Milo 14:35, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, adds more depth to the game and provides an actual choice between guns, something which has been long-lacking here. --LibrarianBrent 17:30, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, --Spellbinder 21:40, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, This is pointless. Delphius 02:44, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - why pointless? It's another weapon, nothing too powerful, and finally Sports stores would be of some use. --Seagull Flock 15:40, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This does not significantly increase the "flavor" of the game. Seems like extra coding for minimal effect. Bentley Foss 22:40, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Agreed; hunting shotgun doesn't add much flavour and seems unusually complex. -- Juntzing 13:41, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Actually, the suggestion doesn't mention whether it should be affected by existing skills. Even if it were not, I bet the next suggestion to came would be either that it should be affected or a new skill to be created. Madalex 20:30, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
AFAIK it is affected by the skills, since it's described as weapon (shotgun).
  • Kill or Change Hunting Shotguns are designed to maximize the chances of hitting a target with a greater spread. AllStarZ 09:34, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Part of the appeal of this game is its simplicity. Add too much junk that isn't all that different from the other junk that's already there, and it begins to look kind of silly. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea, but it just isn't beneficial enough to add code for. Penumbra 21:47, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill It is useless. --Sauron the Deceiver 01:34, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Flak Jackets always subtract 1 HP of damage no matter the weapon, and this is a more powerful, possibly unbalancing, Shotgun. Even with the 1 shot limit, someone could acquire a ton of them and a bunch of ammo and the limit just wouldn't matter. --Squashua 21:59, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Axe Throw

Timestamp: 04:10, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: The Axe Throw skill falls under Axe Proficiency in the Hand-to-Hand Combat tree. It allows the user to attack an enemy with the weapon "Thrown Axe," which uses up one Fire Axe in their inventory for 4 damage at 75% to-hit. There is a 10% chance of getting the axe back. This skill does less damage/AP than the pistol and is harder to find ammo for; it is designed to give melee-focused fighters a final attack to use when they can't afford to miss.


  • Kill, unrealistic and overpowered. 75% chance to hit by throwing an axe? That makes no sense. --LibrarianBrent 06:38, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, This would be a novelty skill like knife, and 75% that has to be a joke. --Thor
  • Kill, Fireaxe =/= Tomohawk. (Darien Shields 16:43, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT))
  • Kill, No thrown weapons. we have weapons that use ammo: guns. and we allready have a huge damage/tiny chance to hit weapon, the flare.--Spellbinder 17:32, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, maybe with a lower to-hit, for knifes --McArrowni 6 Nov 2005
  • Kill - This wouldn't significantly increase the "flavor" of the game. Shoot the zombie a couple of times if you want a guaranteed kill during the playing session. Extra code for minimal impact. Bentley Foss 22:43, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Why should one and the same item thrown deal more damage than when I swing it with my body weight behind it? One of many Why's... Madalex 21:42, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Come on. It's stoopid. Biscuit 02:36, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ^^^ Penumbra 21:49, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The point of being a melee fighter is to avoid having to find ammo. --Jgf 18:28, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Listen to the wise men up there. --Sauron the Deceiver 01:35, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill It's generally a heck of a lot harder to hit someone by throwing an axe than it would be to just smack them with it. This skill isn't worth the extra damage. --Squashua 22:00, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Throwing axes are small, more like hatchets. I don't think you [B]could[/B] throw a fire ax successfully. And, the chance to hit is way too high. --Dickie Fux 03:51, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 03:16, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor
Description: Subskill of Diagnosis. Represents the exposure of the player to the urban dead environnement hence their ability to recognize when another player has an infected bite wound by displaying the hp next to names in red. This places more priority on healing them over other players and helps those who want to play IC. The maximum HP level of the survivor is also displayed next to their name, (Resuggested with proposed changes as listed in archive.)


  • Keep: A logical addition to diagnosis I see no reason why this shoudln't be implemented.--DarkRyNo 05:16, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep: Excellent idea that expands on the currently-limited science tree. --LibrarianBrent 06:36, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep--Milo 14:37, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Usefull in every way, any well worth the skill. but perhaps along with Diagnosis you must ALSO have first aid?--Spellbinder
  • Keep Agreed, very good idea (Darien Shields 16:42, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT))
  • KeepMcArrowni 6 nov 2005
  • Keep <---- 'Nuff said. --Carfan7 23:57, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This would be very nice and very helpful - my NT would love this, and we need more scientist skills, badly.--Arathen 00:38, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Perfect idea. Fits right in. Brizth 00:57, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Sounds great. Jirtan 01:54, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It sounds awesome. Dude003 02:01, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This idea is a good one and not a waste of space like others.Thor 13:57, 7 Nov 2005
  • Keep I think this is the best Idea I have seen. --Alexei Yaruk 02:42, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This is a good idea for reasons above and since the server already keeps of that tag listing it shouldn't be that much difficult than Diagnosis is on the system.--Matthew-Stewart 04:03, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's a good idea.Gnaag 13:57, 7 Nov 2005
  • Keep Good idea, I'd only change the display mechanism, away from the red color to a 'special' character (e.g. '@') as this is more unliky to mess up some of the existing Firefox extensions. Madalex 21:46, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Change the way the skill is displayed (red could cause problems), and also ensure that healer gets appropriate XP for curing. Good skill, though, and useful for people wanting to RP doctors. Bentley Foss 22:44, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It makes perfect sense, fits with the genre/storyline, and, as has already been said, the tag is already there. Kandarin 06:08 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Just jumping on the Keep bandwagon. Excellent idea. --Squashua 13:22, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Amen. Penumbra 21:50, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Awesome Idea! There isn't a better one on this page. :) --Calophi 17:02, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Not to be the only odd one out, but this kind of defeats the purpose of Infectious Bite, which already has handicaps on it. Maybe if this were an equivalent Zombie Hunter skill for scientists, but as the third or fourth skill someone can buy, it's a tad too powerful. Props for a reasonable suggestion, though. --SprngHlJn 22:06, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As for the above kill vote, infectious bite will kill you when you're stranded (as it does damage based on ap use), or hated (pk'r, arse). We do need more sci-skills, and this is reasonable+very useful. --Bcrogers 17:13, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep An excellent idea that makes sense in character and in terms of gameplay. --Jgf 18:33, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep But with symbol instead of color change. --Hazmat Tom 06:26, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Very good and it will get more doctors on the survivors. --Sauron the Deceiver 01:37, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Excellent! Definitely keep this! --Kulatu 01:41, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Perfect! Increases the number of scientist skills, and when paired with Diagnosis, First Aid, and Surgery, would make healing an even more viable career path. --MaulMachine 21:30, 20 Nov 2005 (EST)
  • Keep Not that it needs another vote at this point. --Dickie Fux 03:55, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Adapt Attack Skill

Timestamp: 02:54, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This Skill Gives Zombies a +1% to accuracy for each consecutive attack they make. They lose the bonus if they change targets or perform any action other than attacking, after which it must build up naturally again. This Skill goes under Memories of Life.


  • Kill, unrealistic, requires too much bookkeeping, and is potentially extremely overpowered (against barricades, for example) if used properly. --LibrarianBrent 06:41, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, This is not street fighter combo bonus game its supposed to be slightly realistic. --Thor
  • Kill, Overpowered. This is the most lunatic suggestion I have seen yet. --GameGod
  • Kill, must go. please, everybody, quit with the stacking bonus combo attack ideas.--Spellbinder 01:34, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill For once I agree with spellbinder, dumb, dumb, DUMB, DUMB! A realy BAD idea, even if it kinda makes sense. --Alexei Yaruk 03:18, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - see comment by Spellbinder. --Seagull Flock 15:41, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agreed, too much server bookkeeping. The % incease would only amount to, what, 2 or 3 saved swings when killing a target? Too much coding effort for too little reward. Bentley Foss 22:46, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Yea this is would lead to some of the cheapest barricade glitches. The only way a stakced hit chance would work would be if it were a human in mele combat. --Knightmare 01:46, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't even understand what this tries to accomplish. If this is supposed to stop zombies from attacking everyone in a cracked safehouse only once to infect them (my guess why this was suggested), this won't change a bit. It will only kill lone stranglers caught outside even quicker than they'd die anyway, leaving the zombies with more AP to cause havoc. Madalex 20:39, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As long as it only works on survivors, it's good. You're staying in the same block (if you moved, then the zombie'd have to move, breaking the stack), attacking you, they're cornering you, and just keep swinging. It's not too powerful, it's downside is the amount of AP it'll end up using. By the time a zombie gets a ridiculously high hit rate, they'll be out of AP, and be being targeted. Note: Should also degrade over time. --Bcrogers 17:18, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This is a waste of XP for zombies. --Sauron the Deceiver 01:39, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This seems to be some form of a Zombie Grappling/Wrestling move. While I applaud the attempt, this isn't it. A slight, very conditional, single-time stacking bonus could be quite permissable (ie: Grapple can only be used against Survivors/Zombies. Grapple (15% chance to hit) causes no physical damage against Target. All subsequent melee attacks against Target by Grappling Zombie after a Successful Grapple Zombie are at +10% to Hit until either (a) Zombie moves, (b) Zombie attacks a different target, (c) Target moves, (c) Target dies, (d) Zombie dies.) --Squashua 22:08, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Capture the Building Mission

Timestamp: 02:54, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Mission
Scope: Survivors
Description: This Mission involves Survivors holding a particular Building, to be disclosed at the start of the mission. Survivors must keep Zombies out of the designated building for 3 days. All Survivors in the building get +20XP if no Zombies are inside the Building at the deadline. All Zombies in the block get +20XP if at least 1 active Zombie is inside the building at the deadline (Dead Bodies don't count).


  • Kill/Change: Unbalanced. Rush in with a group, attack, infect, etc. Stand up a few minutes beforehand and don't give the humans enough time to kill you before you take the building. Or, the other side of the story; barricades. Or, when the thing begins, get in some zombie spies. Infect them. Have them search a bunch until they're down to one HP, then have them search a few minutes before it ends. While a king-of-the-hill idea would be cool, Urban Dead has too many variables and tricks to get past it. Idea: Make it so zombies have to protect the building. This prevents problems with zeds respawing inside and that sort of thing. --Elijah 04:38, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill: ^ We're not doing the change vote anymore. Seems to be quite vague as to how exactly the quest would initiate. Would zombies and survivors be notified at the start of it, if so, which ones? If it starts in a building with no zombies outside, then it will be a cakewalk for the survivors inside unless the zombies in the area are somehow drawn to it. --Raelin 05:14, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, 20 XP is nothing and the mission itself is too easy to complete with a last-minute rush. --LibrarianBrent 06:40, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Doesnt sound fun. --Thor
  • Kill - Too easy to abuse with zombie spies. Kill them and they just turn into zombies and ruin the mission anyway. 20 XP is not much reward. Something like Elijah's powerplant mission (an event that effects the whole game, adds flavor) would be better. Bentley Foss 22:49, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I might reconsider it if there were some level of depth & flavour to the mission. E.g. for the mentioned power plant mission, it would add great flavour if it needed some of the newly proposed engineers in the building (not sure of the game database tracks as what class you started the game though). I.e. instead of a generic mission, propose a specific mission. Madalex 20:07, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The idea of a "Hold Position Mission" is nice, but the concept presented leads to many potential last-minute problems and rushing. Not as elegant an implementation as I'd prefer, but I'm not quite sure how this could be fixed. --Squashua 23:45, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Teaching skill

Timestamp: 08:33, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: All players
Description: Players with the "Teaching" skill have the ability to train other players who are one quarter of their level (round down) or less. This skill is accessible to both humans and zombies, though obviously for humans it is more powerful since they can get higher levels. When a Teacher uses their teaching skill (1AP), the first 20 players who in the same location and are eligible students have a 20% chance of gaining 1XP. Numbers are open to suggestion for balancing changes.


  • Kill, This could be easily abused by players with multi accounts. --Thor
  • Kill, As was said, far far to easy to abuse by players--Spellbinder
  • Kill, has theoretical potential but far too open to abuse. --LibrarianBrent 17:22, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, 1: This would give High levles something to do. 2: It would let Consumers survive now that they can't just spawn themselves in Suberbs with malls. 3: It would make working together a less abstract proces int he game, which is allways good. --Alexei Yaruk 02:47, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, 20% chance for 1 XP is hardly abusable...
  • Kill, 20% chance might not look so good, but we're talking 20% on 20 people. That's on average 4xp per AP spent, with no search time required, or anything. The only drawback is it's given to more or less random people. It also looks hard to implement (how to choose who gets the training in a 22+ people place). It's your choice wether or not you want the best source of xp for a group to be teaching in a safehouse, making yourselves a target, but I don't. --McArrowni
  • Kill - Too easy to abuse. Groups of survivors could level up in abandoned areas of the map with little risk to themselves. Bentley Foss 22:50, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep-On the following condition: All XP gains are taken from the character who uses the skill. This makes it a skill that only high levels would use, since they can spare the XP, while it would make zerging the skill impossible (get a character up to level 4, then level up a bunch of new characters really quick). Though the nature of the skill really makes it pretty hard to zerg anyway.Wilcox 20:11, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)
  • Keep, i dont really think this is up for multi character abuse because you would only be able to power level your character up to lvl 8 and thats assuming u have a max lvl character already.--Knightmare 01:54, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Like Wilcox said, if the XP gained were subtracted from the teacher's unused XP this would be great; Great Teacher Largo! Share your experiences! -- Juntzing 14:00, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Even if the XP were deducted from the XP of the teacher, it's abusable. Look at the high-level Survivors and their XP to spare... --Madalex 21:57, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You have to gain your own XPs. --Seagull Flock 22:33, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm just not seeing this as all that interesting. It doesn't retain the feel of a zombocalypse, it's not that powerful in general, and a bit too powerful in especially organised circumstances. Penumbra 22:10, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If this were strong it would kill the game, people would abandon all mobility and barricade themselves into little teaching cabals until they emerge from their buildings as zombie hunter uber-mensch. If its weak its just pointless. This is lose-lose. --Zaruthustra 22:16, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Interesting idea, and maybe it should be implemented for zombies within hordes, but too powerful for survivors: guilds would be advertising it, noobs would go. Unbalanced. --Bcrogers 17:27, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just don't like it, or should I say School's Out For The Summer. --Hazmat Tom 06:31, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill People are strong enough already, but good for weaker people. Even better if it was as wilcox said, then it would be keep. --Sauron the Deceiver 01:43, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Nice concept, but the interaction isn't very sound; Players really should earn XP on their own by spending their own APs, not during off-time at another's expense. --Squashua 23:47, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Shoot into the crowd

Timestamp: 16:37, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill or Abillity
Scope: Survivors
Description: An abillity (not necessarilly a skill you have to buy, but maybe an innate one survivors start with?) for survivors that gives +5% accuracy with guns for every Zombie beyond the first that is in the square, but always chooses one at random to target, not keeping the same target. Possibly with reduced damage to balance.


  • Kill, Basing this off of nothing more then a love of zombie movies, sure you can allways hit a zombie in a mob, however, over 90% of the body no longer cares if it is riddled full of holes. the skill it takes to KILL a zombie, not mearly hit it, is what the % are all about.--Spellbinder
  • Kill, insanely overpowered. Would often lead to 100% chances to hit. --LibrarianBrent 17:33, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, I'd bet someone came up with this after reading some of the zombie modifier ideas from before. Stupidly overpowered. Shadowstar 17:59, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, This is unfair due to hordes this accuracy could be in the 100's. --GameGod
  • Kill - Theoretically a reasonable idea (if you narrowly miss one, there's another zed there to take its place), but bad in practice. Overpowering. Causes extra server load (extra random roll for the target along with the hit % roll and the hit modifier tracking). Survivors could clear out hordes too easily. Bentley Foss 22:54, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill There does seem to be a largeish number of suggestions that have unusual server load difficulties... plus I liken the % to being able to hit joints or the head specifically -- parts that the zombies actually need. This wouldn't really work with that. -- Juntzing 14:07, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ^ the idea isn't that bad... just OP. And humans are not winning by the huge margin some people claim. Ankle Grab was a MAJOR change.--Milo 19:15, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I think everything needed to be said is already said. --Madalex 22:15, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I do not see this as anything easy to implement for a meager 5% Bonus. Possibly some sort of bonus for shotting at a mob of Zombies (or a mob of Survivors) could be implemented (eg: Target = "Random Zombie" or Target = "Random Survivor"). Might help out the Player who shows up first in the attack drop-down, but this proposal isn't that idea. --Squashua 23:49, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 17:01, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie
Description: When landing the finishing blow on a survivor (not zombie) you gain a little more XP from the kill on top of what you already get.


  • Kill, Zombies already get a 10 EXP bonus for finishing someone off. Why unbalance it by giving them more?(Darien Shields 17:07, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT))
  • Kill, Moronic and unbalanced. This is against the entire mechanic of how the game functions. --THOR 05:54, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, 10 EXP bonus exists for a reason. --LibrarianBrent 17:23, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, A counter point to the zombie hunter skill. Most zombies actualy gain XP while being human, hoard the XP, then when they cross over they quickly nab a bunch of zombie skills before a zombie hunter can take the points from them. (my idea by the way) --Spellbinder 17:27, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, Discourages ZKing.--Milo 18:01, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, There are enough skills that help low-lvl zombies gain more xp, that they are barely low-level anymore by the time they get them all... If the zombies ever go back to being badly underpowered like they were a few months (or was it just weeks?) ago, then this should be a feature for all zombies, not a skill. --McArrowni 6 Nov 2005
  • Keep, but the amount should be small and it should be in the digestion skill tree. (--Matthew-Stewart 04:22, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This would not be a good idea, the Zombies have more xp gian than they can use, we nead some more origonal skills for them I am not createive enough to make them but someone else shurely is. --Alexei Yaruk 04:48, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 10 XP is enough. --Seagull Flock 15:45, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Zombies need something to offset the crippling XP loss from Headshot. Even if it's only 2 or 3 extra XP from it. On the other hand, I can see the 'Feast' skill meaning you gain extra health back from eating corpses too..
  • Keep - Keep but CHANGE. Put this under Digestion. Give the zombie a 5 AP bonus if they finish off the target with Bite. Simple idea to code and implement (as there's already a Bite effect check during the roll), elegantly adds some flavor (no puns intended) to the game. Bentley Foss 23:01, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - and CHANGE: +5XP and +5HP for killing an *uninfected* survivor--why would eating zombie'd meats do you any good? --Bcrogers 17:33, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Change to HP, makes sense. --Hazmat Tom 06:36, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill 'Nuff said. Madalex 20:09, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I thought that you already GET bonus XP for killing a Zombie/Survivor. --Squashua 23:50, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'd like to see zombies have an easier time of gaining XP, but just a huge bonus for a kill isn't it. If you're trying to prevent PKing or ZKing, just don't give XP for PKing, period. I'd like a skill with the word "Feast" in the name, though. --Dickie Fux 04:05, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Pustular Flesh

Removed due to updating. See new version


Timestamp: 21:24, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)~
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Cures infection. Can be used up to 5 times.


  • Kill Don't need it. Anybody with the healing kit can cure someone of infection. Main reason: takes up a % in the search skill.--Spellbinder
  • Kill ^ agree. I don't see any reason for needing this. Shadowstar 21:36, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, Curing in fection is a great idea since zombies can attack and infect without using extra ap. this finally helps to balance the game a little bit more. Should be farther down the first aid tree instead of a first tier skill. --GameGod
  • Keep This isn't really my idea (it was in the old suggestions somewhere,) but I feel compelled to defend it. I certainly don't have any FAKs on me, so it would be nice to have a 1-slot item that could cure infection several times.--Milo 21:41, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Kill As it has a certain number of uses, it would probably be a 2-slot item. Madalex 20:15, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, very good idea. --LibrarianBrent 00:29, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Solid use, however antiseptics are IN first aid kits, thats why they can cure infection, should be something like 'Penicilin Shots'. All in all a good Idea. --Alexei Yaruk 02:53, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, we already have first-aid kits. --McArrowni 7 nov 2005
  • Kill - see McArrowni's comment. This is what FAKs are for. --Seagull Flock 15:54, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Not that I'm a strict realist or anything, but I happened to look in my first aid kit at home the other day and low and behold anticeptic --bbrraaiinnss 7 nov 2005
  • Kill What kind of fool would not load a first aid kit without this? ALIENwolve 19:55, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bad idea because it adds to game complexity (extra coding--an extra item to be added to the item lists, issues with % changes to finding first-aid kits, etc.) for no game flavor. First aid kits already serve this purpose. Severely reduces the threat of being bitten and infected. Bentley Foss 23:04, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's just not needed. -- Odd Starter 05:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Totally unnecessary; FAKs come with antiseptic. Too much programming compared to benefits -- Juntzing 14:15, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - and CHANGE: FAK no longer heals infection, one use. Useful in conjunction with prognosis. --Bcrogers 17:37, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - When have you ever been infected and NOT needed the points of healing a FAK gives. --Hazmat Tom 06:40, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A single First Aid Kit (FAK) use kills an Infection. I'd prefer to see that a FAK used on an Infection does NOT heal any HP in that round. --Squashua 23:53, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Speed Loading

Timestamp: 21:49, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)~
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor
Description: Loading takes 0 AP (Can anyone remember who suggested this? It's from the old page.)


  • Keep--Milo 21:49, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - because eventually, after using guns for a long time, you're going to become more proficient at reloading them, and this skill reflects that. --Arcibi 22:21, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - RE: proficiency, maybe require full firearms tree before this skill can be selected? - PreDefined 22:46, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep The cost of reloading is a waste of ap for real players who enjoy the game and have to lose time playing it and enjoying it due to reloading.--THOR 21:49, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or change - Seems too powerful to me. I agree that faster reloading could be a good thing, but a one-skill unlimited instant reloading seems a bit much to me. --McArrowni 6 Nov 2005
  • Kill Loading the shotgun is part of what balances it with pistols. --Spellbinder 00:26, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, should be after Basic Firearms Training on the skilltree though. --LibrarianBrent 00:27, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or change - Maybe a bit too powerfull with shotguns. Would also make pistols next to useless if one has plenty of shells. Brizth 00:55, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ^ agree. Jirtan 01:52, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep A well reasoned idea, however It should be a Zombie hunter skill, and require full skill tree for the weapon involved. Further, I would split it into one that alowes you to lode a shotgun fuly for one ap, and another that would lode a pistol for free. --Alexei Yaruk 02:57, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I would note this should be a zombie hunter skill--Matthew-Stewart 04:27, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Useful for shotgun, since it only hold 2 shells at a time. Shotgun is SUPPOSED to be more powerful than a pistol, so it doesn't need to be balanced to the pistol. Shotgun shells are harder to find than pistol clips, and are only found one at a time, so there would be no problem with ammo balance. Should be under the zombie hunter skill tree. One of the best suggestions ive seen yet. --NATO Master Chief 05:34, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep 'Cause I added it. --Katthew 11:05, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Like said here. After all gun skills. Further, i would split it into one that alowes you to lode a shotgun fuly for one ap, and another that would lode a pistol for free like said before. But seriously, what has speed loading to do with zombie hunting?Gnaag 14:17, 7 Nov 2005
  • Kill - I'm seeing stuff all over the place for zombie skill suggestions that says don't mess with APs. Come on people that are saying that, pipe in on a survivor skill that wants to do it. If you don't want to mess with APs, it needs to go both ways. We don't need to make it even easier for people to run around as shotgun toting crazy people. --Pyrinoc 8:16, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Loading a gun should not be free. At best you could load 2 shotgun shells as one action. This skill would negate one of the few penalties for using firearms over melee. --Zark the Damned 22:52, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Keep but change. Make it a subskill of Advanced Shotgun Training. Allows survivor to reload 2 shotgun shells for 1 AP. Minimal coding required, and adds flavor to the game. (I mean, really, when you think of shooting zombies, you think of a shotgun.) Bentley Foss 23:09, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Would need to be balanced out. Maybe if there was a chance of dropping shells on squares with zombies present. --bbrraaiinnss 7 Nov 2005
  • Keep, definately more realistic, and i agree with the people who say it should only be availible when the weapon training is maxed out.--Knightmare 02:03, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep but Change I agree with Bentley Foss. Make it usable only after full shotgun training as a Zombie Hunter skill, and for fully reloading a shotgun for 1 AP. -- Juntzing 14:19, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm for this as the proposed 2-shells 1-AP with shotty, zombie-hunter only, but with that as the only requirement. --Biscuit 19:26, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. I think it should be a Zombie Hunter skill (rather than weigh down the military tree more), and it should just make reloading free. Why? 1) Simpler code. Doubling up shotgun shells would take some doing, codewise, while just making reloads cost no AP would be a minor tweak. 2) It's not all that unbalancing. To run a pistol, you need to a) find one (or several) and/or b) find ammo, and c) load the pistol with the ammo. You find loaded pistols about as often as you find clips, and you can carry many pistols, so the loading time due to clips is actually kind of fringe. In the case of shotguns it's far more potent, but still doesn't really increase your in-combat damage doing potential, since you can always reload your weapons in advance (case in point, I always do). So I think that this would possibly make the coolest new Zombie Hunter skill. Penumbra 22:34, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep But Change 0 AP is pushing it - EVERYTHING should cost at least 1AP. But improving loading would definigely be an awesome skill, and it should be popped into Zombie Hunter.--Calophi 17:05, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But should be maxed out on the firearms tree. Also like pistol at 0 AP and both shells of shotgun at 1 AP. --Hazmat Tom 06:44, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, but Change Costing no AP to reload a shotgun is too much. The idea is supposed to be that shotguns are strong but slow due to their reloading time while pistols are fast and need less reloading, and this skill would almost totally eliminates the use of pistols. How about instead, limiting it to only pistols (since clip replacement is much faster than shotgun reloading in real life) and only happens about 20% of the time. That way, it's not overpowered, but still has a good use. I also agree that this belongs in the Zombie Hunter skill tree, since it requires lots of time and effort to get there while military skills you can always get in 2-3 level ups, meaning that you can get it quite early if you wanted, which is way too early to me. --Volke 03:10, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As Spellbinder states, this would seriously unbalance the game. Madalex 20:19, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Change this to a Per-Weapon Basis (or Pistol Only) and put it at the end of the tree or alongside the last tree branch after the first firearm % bonus, and I'll vote Keep. --Squashua 23:55, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change I like the idea, though I agree with Squashua that it would be best on a per-weapon basis --Donggrip 11:30, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 22:27, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor
Description: Speaking requires half the AP (can you have 1/2 AP?)


  • Keep Although I don't think you can have 1/2 AP, I think something needs to be done to make communicating easier. Jirtan 22:42, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I remember an old suggestion going something like, speaking shouldn't cost AP, but only the last thing you said was visible to other players. Why not something like that? --Arcibi 22:46, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Kevin is going to make a chat box for this so this is useless and a waste of space. --GameGod
  • Kill - AP costs keep spam to a minimum and encourage role-playing - PreDefined 22:48, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - when kevin makes a chat box in game that will solve the whole damn problem, we don't need a skill for this--Spellbinder 23:29, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep ^ There is no garenty that he WILL. A nice idea, but unlikely to be put in place, still worth a shot. --Alexei Yaruk 03:00, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 1-half AP doesn't exist, 2-UD server currently can't afford more hits, 3-"Since your last turn" summary would become a real mess. --Seagull Flock 15:57, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - All reasons mentioned above. Bentley Foss 23:10, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill 'Nuff said. Madalex 20:22, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Applaud the suggestion, but revise the implementation. 1 Speak = 0 AP. Second CONSECUTIVE Speak = 1 AP. Prone to abuse with someone speaking after every action. Alternatively, Speaking could cost 0 AP if less than 6 characters are typed. --Squashua 23:58, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Specific Search

Timestamp: 22:35, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor
Description: When searching a building, a survivor can specify (by selecting the item from a drop-down list of items that can be found in the area) a certain item to search for. When using a Specific Search, the item that the survivor is searching for gains a 1.5x chance of being found over other items. This DOES NOT add to the overall chance to find an item. Example: let's say searching a building has a 10% chance of finding a first-aid kit, 10% to find a newspaper, and 10% to find a spray can (70% of finding nothing). A Specific Search for a first-aid kit would result in a 15% chance of finding a first-aid kit, 7.5% to find a newspaper, and 7.5% to find a spray can (still with a 70% chance of finding nothing).

EDIT: Changed "text box" to drop-down list --Arcibi 16:56, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)


  • Keep This is a good idea, and can reduce frustration when looking for ammo. --Carfan7 23:05, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, The scavaging skill sounds easier to implement than this one but its the same idea and not bad jsut more complicated. --GameGod
  • Keep, I like it, but how much number crunching is the server going to do?--Spellbinder 23:31, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Not a lot. I'd imagine the formula would be something like this (and I hope I didn't screw this up, math isn't my strongest ability):
    • x : chance to find the item you're using Specific Search for
    • y : difference in normal chance and improved chance from Specific Search
    • i : number of items you can possibly find in that building
    • z1, z2, etc : normal chance to find other items
    • y = 0.5*x
    • x = x+y
    • y = y/(i-1)
    • z1 = z1-y, z2 = z1 - y, and so on. Sorry about the terrible formatting, the formula stuff wouldn't display right otherwise. --Arcibi 01:43, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, Good idea, not overpowered. --Brizth 00:52, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, for syringes and first-aid kits, (where other items found in those buildings are utterly useless and for nearly all purposes the same as nothing found), this sounds like it would be better than the suggestion of +25% to find stuff outside of malls. That other suggestion is being voted off as overpowered. So probably is overpowered as well --McArrowni nov 7 2005
  • Keep This has been neaded for a long time, along with 'serch untill X found'. --Alexei Yaruk 13:07, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep for reasons above--Matthew-Stewart 04:28, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep for reasons above--Gnaag 14:22, 7 Nov 2005
  • Keep I like the idea of it. Maybe make it reduce your overall search odds but automatically find the required item on a success? The types of items you can find would need to be restricted too.--Zark the Damned 22:27, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - Good idea in theory, but it adds complexity (item list would have to be a drop-down box for simplicity purposes unless you really want to parse every single search line and match it to an item name, changes to search algorithm, etc.) for very little game "flavor" in return. Would also make guns more powerful by proxy (less AP spent to find the ammo you want). Bentley Foss 23:14, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ^ agree. Jirtan 23:19, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The way that searching currently works makes this rather difficult to implement. Besides, targetted searching suddenly makes firearms that much stronger - why use a fire axe when you can just target search for ammunition and get more of it? -- Odd Starter 05:25, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The coding and such would probably be annoying to Kevan; lets try to keep them easy to implement. -- Juntzing 14:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Really, how many GPS units and DNA extractors does one need? X1M43 05:38, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It shouldn't be that hard to code, and it would be nice to be able to find what I'm actually looking for a little more easily; also, it's somewhat realistic, too. Penumbra 22:38, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It should be 2x to find that object, but 0% of finding anything else. So, it would actually increase the chance of fruitless searches, but you wouldn't get useless crap. You don't pocket everything you pick up. --Bcrogers 17:43, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill a) it would actually reveal what items can be found in which locations. b) it would shift the balance of towards guns as it would get easier to get fresh ammo. c) junkyards would probably start to get visited way more often than other buildings (not sure about this as I'm not sure what can be found there), leading towards a shift in behaviour. Madalex 20:30, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill You can find anything if you search long enough; just drop what you pick up that you don't want; it costs 0 AP to do so. --Squashua 00:00, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Too complicated for little result. --Dickie Fux 04:12, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 23:49, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Used with gun upgrades
Description: Can be used with the pistol or shotgun upgrades on the pistol or shotgun. There are many upgrades and each can be found in my discussion page--> Link


  • Kill, incomplete implementation of an unbalanced idea. --LibrarianBrent 00:28, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • RE: Did you even read the upgrades on my discussion page? This is basically a accessory or a root idea to my gun upgrades that I have thought of. --Carfan7 00:34, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Some of them were good ideas, but i personaly think that this just adds too much to a simple game. long skill trees and upgrades belong on other games, such as Runescape or Adventure Quest, not on our humble little Urban Dead. Also, i cleened up your link above, hope you don't mind i thought it'd be better for people to follow--Spellbinder 01:12, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Dumbest Idea in here, too much book keaping, not neaded, hard to impliment and realy not very interesting. Just. Plain. Bad. Idea. --Alexei Yaruk 03:27, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Change, This idea has potential but would benefit from a good working knowledge of firearms. Right now this reads like Mall Ninja stuff, but that's not a slam because I started out with that level of firearms knowledge too. Along with altering the text for attacks (from x attacked you for y damage to, say x blasted you with a shotgun for y damage or x smashes you with a lead pipe for y damage) this could lend a little more flavor to the game. Longer skill trees might be a little complicated, but they'll also renew the sense of challenge for veteran players who've acquired every skill possible and are now just stockpiling XP. I suggest that it be a high-level Zombie Hunter skill, with the components only available in Mall Gun Stores. This way a player would have to expend a lot of XP before being able to use these new skills. Mastery of all the firearms skills and shopping skills would be a prerequisite plus possession of at least the basic zombie hunter skill of Headshot. Components could be rare and only modify one firearm in the inventory instead of giving a blanket accuracy, damage or rate of fire increase. Carfan7, you and I should talk. --Skullhunter 23:08, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complex to implement, not enough in return unless you want survivors to start showing off their inventory somehow. And even then... Bentley Foss 23:16, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill While it's a neat idea, all of the actual gun upgrades are rather overpowered. Rarity is also an issue; the statistical effect you are implying might have these at less than 1% probability to be found; is that what you meant? We're still working that out at Search Odds -- Juntzing 14:34, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Adds too much complexity to the game. Madalex 20:33, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This isn't Resident Evil 4; gun upgrades without any potential chance of LOSING said upgraded gun, are kind of lame. --Squashua 00:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Change As this was originally _MY_ idea, I didn't intend it for fixing guns and so unbalance things (altough it's quite an intresting idea), but to fix the possible BIGGER machines found somewhere in the city, like the power stations for example, or maintance the portable generators or other bigger devices found from the "streets". --Jaques Cartier 23:04, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Paralytic Bite

Timestamp: 06:47, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill is under Infectious Bite. Paralytic Bite allows a successful bite to infect a survivor with a parlytic virus which slows them down considerably, forcing them to use 2AP to move a single block. As per Infectious bite, this condition can be cured with the simple application of a First Aid Kit, or any other future method that can cure Infections.


  • Kill Ap damage is allways rejected, and this would prevent survivors cureing infections, ergo WAY over powerd. --Alexei Yaruk 03:10, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Worst suggestion EVER. --Recoil 04:37, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, hahahaha. --LibrarianBrent 03:37, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, I don't think it's as dumb as everyone else seems to, but it's definitely not necessary for the time being. The game isn't unbalanced against zombies any more. If some kind of human skill affecting AP developed, this would be a very good suggestion, I think, but as is, no.--Insomniac By Choice 11:42, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - it's not dumb at all. I quite like the idea, and it's easy to implement. The only question is, as Insomniac says, if it would alter the current game balance. Probably could be implemented if there's a human counterpart. --Seagull Flock 15:08, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it.. it gives some zombies the role of just slowing down their prey so the rest of them can kill him--Adrian 17:35, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill,for the reasons Insomniac By Choice listed, right now no AP damage, which is good but if humans got the ability this suggestion would make more sense.--Matthew-Stewart 17:42, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, if you think its just a unbelivable idea, Gamegod/Libarianbrent/recoil, then give it a SPAM vote, not a kill vote. for myself, i think AP damage should never be implemented, but that dosen't make this spam worthy in my eyes--Spellbinder 18:11, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, for most of the reasons listed above.Lucero Capell 18:24, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep (changed my vote, 8 Nov), it's not stupid, just I used to think it was slightly too much given it's combined with Infectious bite. Unless the infection still only deals 1 damage per move, and not per AP spent. Remember people, you only lose as much AP as a starting zombie does moving. Also, the flavor is a bit weird... how about wicked wound? you are hurt, bad. It hurts to move and you can't go fast? --McArrowni 7 Nov 2005
  • Keep Infection deals 1 damage per action taken, not 1 per AP spent. Slowing the Survivors down should be a valid Zombie tactics, although maybe it should be changed to a leg wound. I like the way people are complaining that a minor inconvenience to survivors is 'way overpowered' but also say that crippling a Zombie down to half health is fine (Crucifixion). --Zark the Damned 22:46, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - All the reasons have been listed above. Bentley Foss 23:53, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - There already is a human counterpart - Zombies start with a 2AP/block move rate. It's simple to cure, easy to implement. Game Balance is a slight issue, but I don't think this hopelessly wrecks balance in favour of Zombies. as Zark noted, it's really a minor inconvenience compared to a horrific crippling. -- Odd Starter 02:33, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think zombies should start with 2AP/move either, as it makes a starting character really hard to play. But would this sort of infection carry over to zombie-hood, thus making a new class of starting zombies that take 3 AP to move? Or would it come back into play when you've been revived, already at half-health, possibly without a FAK or knowledge of where other humans with FAKs might be? ... I just don't think we should make it even harder on the newly revived/newly dead. We should try to encourage role-play, even if most people aren't going to do it. Shadowstar 12:43, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This really should be called "Gaping bite wound" or something... and since zombies start with an AP penalty to their movement (a genre-appropriate AP penalty) it seems fair to put the possibility of the same on survivors. It should not apply to zombies (no pain threshold) Also, the Infection damage rate should be specified; I feel personally that it should be on a move-made basis as well, rather than an AP-spent basis. -- Juntzing 15:02, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This is a good idea. Once a zombie has started in on a human, it should be able to slow it or some such to trap. I like it. --Pyrinoc 22:19, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill CAn anyone say unbalanced move this to peer rejected at once! --PooBear 23:38, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Excellent idea; like a reverse of Lurching Gait applicable against Survivors. --Squashua 23:38, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Wow, this one's causing some argument isn't it? With mine it's 10 keeps to 11 kills--wonder what Kevan thinks...Anyway, I say this is A.) genre-realistic (how many times has the hero had to drag along a wounded comrade?) and B.) would be quite balanced, since as was previously said, low-level zeds have to deal with it anyway.--'STER 00:28, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Hey, my first keep! I like this idea, as it gives infectious bite a little more sting. And remember, some of us old-timers forget the days when just walking around as a zombie took 2APs (i.e., AP is not sacrosanct). And I don't feel it's necessary to say "if zombies get it, so should humans." There's a reason zombies can't throw bile and humans don't have an equivalent to brain rot. And I personally like the name. --SprngHlJn 22:22, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Fits with RP aspects of the game and any survivor worth a spit should always be carrying a FAK or 2 to save their own butt (or in this case, leg). --Hazmat Tom 06:58, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I guess one would also take 2 HP damage if also infected at the same time as the infection has more time to work it's way through your body. Madalex 20:38, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the idea, gives another use to the bite that cause humans to lose some AP. Relaistic.
  • Kill - My gut reaction was that this is one of the best suggestions I've seen so far, but Shadowstar's comments convinced me otherwise. It's hard enough for survivors to get revived already, but standing up with half hp, a health-draining infection, AND doubled movement costs seems a tad excessive. Would change to keep if the infection/wound/whatever disappeared upon death, unlike normal infections. Everyl 02:30, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I really like this idea, on the assumption (condition?) that it doesn't affect zombies. That said, I disagree with Shadowstar when he says "I just don't think we should make it even harder on the newly revived/newly dead." Death should be feared more than it is now, and adding more penalties to death will, if anything, encourage roleplay. --Donggrip 11:34, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep As long as it ends when the person dies, so they don't revive with it. Just because Infection carries over, doesn't mean this [B]has[/B] to. --Dickie Fux 04:21, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools