From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Handgreen.png Archive Page
This page is an archive page of Talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the Suggestions page do so at Talk:Suggestions.



If you wish to reply to something that is archived in one of these pages, make a heading with the same name as what you are replying to and link to the relevant section in the archived page.

  • Archive1 -- Archived 04:48, 16 Oct 2005 (BST)
  • Archive2 -- Archived 22:22, 28 Oct 2005 (BST); 03:09, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive3 -- Archived 04:09, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive4 -- Archived 23:02, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Archive5 -- Needs to be worked on. I'm not entirely sure whether I should just dump everything from December in this page or not. As you may have guessed, I just dumped everything from December (which hadn't had a reply this month) on this archive page. Everything should be there, but someone was editing the main discussion page during my archiving..I don't think I messed anything up, though. Bentley Foss 21:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Archive6 -- Archived 00:30, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT). Not all of January, but the page was horribly long and clogged with old stuff.
  • Archive7 -- Archived 01:09, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Archive8 -- Archived 07:02, 26 March 2006 (BST)

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

These suggestions are currently at vote. Please hold any extended discussion about them here.


  • I play Alta, as a secondary, he does nothing but bust barricade. Now in ridleybank, but before as a independend, doing nothing but opening up safe houses and groaning dinner time to newbies. So I hope both the issue of bias and ignorance is out of the way. That said You're using misleading numbers, First of all, survivors need to search to reach their base damage, true. No matter what, zombie base damage is a given of their skills. Both have their advantage and disadvantage. You try to claim that busting barricades is just like searching. But if you count busting barracing into HP/AP and staning up, you also need to factor in reviving, healing and barricading for survivors. You don't and I won't either, Why? because it doesn't work that way, we neither can figure out precisely enough how it all relates. nor is it actually a valid thing to do. Because you're calculating like every zombie is busting barricades alone and has no alternatives to that. You don't use the worst case scenario when it is plain to see it can't materialise if you don't wan't too. Most zombies do two things when they're alone, they go after a groan, or a stranded survivor, both make sure you have a target for far less a AP cost then busting barricades. Or you join a horde, you do bust barricades, but as long as you don't do large sieges, the cost is so spread out that you've got a lot more AP left on average then the AP you're using. The fact that zombies are better organized is just because of that, they need to, and when they do, they are stronger then survivors. You're just using the numbers too count yourself poor instead of rich. I could make a valid point about ho barricades are actually beneficiary to zombies using your logic. But I know that a lot of zombies want to be able to overwin all survior defenses and be able to either seriously harm or even kill a survivor on their own. But if a single zombie could do that, survivors wouldn't be called survivors anymore, they'd be called victims. Safe houses have barricades because a single zombie shouldn't be a threath to the surviors within. a horde should, and right now a horde of about half the size of the survivors in the safehouse usually wins the siege. I'd call that about right. I don't think a combat boost is neccersary. There is a big point in that zombies are all about combat, but so is feeding groan, or peer reviewed Ransack and Bile bite. -or many other waiting in the que to be added to peer review, we really need to work on the backlog someday.- While non of these suggestions even effect Barricades or increase HP/AP, they would without a doubt make people complain less about the need to brake down barricades. Why not make more suggestions like those? in the end they'll help us all much more.--Vista W! 00:12, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Sorry, Vista, but you completely missed what I was saying. I'm fully aware that factoring in searching makes survivors' damage/AP look just as tragic. The commenter, however, only asked for a rundown of zombie damage per AP with VSB+2 barricades factored in. That's what I provided. No comparison between survivors and zombies was intended, nor do I think any of that is very relevant to the suggestion. I'm not advocating combat boosts for barricade collapses because I think zombies are underpowered, but because I think barricade smashing is extremely tedious. --John Ember 02:04, 22 March 2006 (GMT)


Discussion moved here from main page --Reverend Loki 16:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

  • Dupe You provide the name, I provide the link to the skill. We've got the synergy. Close enough to warrent a dupe. Velkrin 04:20, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Definitely not a dupe. Free Speech is "Everybody gets to make 2 free speeches a day". This is a skill that you have to buy to get one free speech. --Norcross 05:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - I quote the description for the dupe vote "for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions." The only diffrence is that it's 1 less free talk a day, and you need a skill for it. As I said, I consider it close enough to the previous skill for it to be a dupe. Velkrin 08:14, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re - Sorry, but requiring a skill vs giving a free bonus to everyone is certainly a big difference. --Norcross 11:54, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
        • RE - I agree with Norcross that this is not a dupe. Just how much of a difference does there need to be ayways? --Reverend Loki 16:44, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Pandas, Sharks, et al

    • Re - Ah, subtlety. --Ron Burgundy 05:44, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re BURN -Banana Bear4 05:58, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Dude, I'm totally serious. I mean, a panda! I'm sure you'll agree, that's pretty fucking hardcore, or 1337, if i may. --Ron Burgundy 06:11, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Give it up, Burgundy. You have been defeated in Mortal Suggestion Page Kombat. Bow your head in shame and regain your shattered honor with seppuku. Undeadinator 06:18, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re Alas, for I, as Kurosawa's Hidetora, have broken my sword. --Ron Burgundy 06:30, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Pistol Whip

Timestamp: 11:35, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Type: New Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope: Zombie Hunter Skill, Pistol As A Hand Weapon
Description: Prerequisites: Level 10 character, or Level 7 Private, or Level 5 Police

  • Pistol Whip: Skill appears just above most recent Zombie Hunter Skills.

Game Mechanics: Once per location, per 24 hour day, your character may make a "Pistol Whip" as a hand to hand attack. You MUST have at least 1 pistol in your inventory to do this.

This attack's success is at -15% of your current Pistol accuracy, but deals 3 damage. This uses no pistol ammo.

If your character also has the Body Building skill this attack makes it impossible for any zombie you just pistol whipped to attack you with a bite attack for the next 12 hours. This bonus only applies to zombies which are below level 6 (higher level ones have learned to LIKE it!)

"You just pistol whipped a zombie in the mouth for 3 damage! That'll show 'em who's boss!"

"You just pistol whipped ____ in the mouth for 3 damage! Maybe now they'll smarten up!"

"You were pistol whipped in the mouth by ____ for 3 damage! Your survivor just recieved a harsh reminder of what life in Malton has become!"

"You were pistol whipped in the mouth by ____ for 3 damage! Your zombie is unable to use bite attacks on ___ for the next 12 hours!"

"You were pistol whipped in the mouth by ____ for 3 damage! But that just makes you all the more hungry..."

Note: The pistol whipper has no idea if the zombie he just whipped is level 6 or higher, that would be too much for 1 skill.


  1. Keep - Author Vote. Beating on zombies with style. I seriously doubt I'll see many 'kill' results on this one. --MrAushvitz 11:50, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Well, here's one. Not letting zombies attack back? I don't think so! Even worse is that it can be used only on low-level zombies by high-level humans. Sure, pick on the new players and punish them for being zombies!--Catwhowalksbyhimself 11:50, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re They can still attack, but they can't bite the character who pistol whipped them for 24 hours. Which may already be over by the time your zombie logs in anyways. Can add to the "nemesis list", maybe someday when your Z is higher level he may "thank" that player for the favour. --MrAushvitz 11:50, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - No kills, huh? You thought wrong. Utter absurdity. MaulMachine 18:43, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Spam Kill - Once per day/per location random melee attack = useless but flavorful; preventing zombies from using some skills = all kinds of wrongful badness (especially with the X a billion rule) --CPQD 18:53, 5 March 2006 (GMT) changing the mechanics of a suggestion in mid-vote is bad --CPQD 19:35, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Happy with my fireaxe, thanks. I just don't see how it would be helpful unless you like the knowledge that a zed is having a harder time.--Guardian of Nekops 18:55, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam - Wow, this is sweet. Taking away one of the few things zombies can do. thats great. Specifically targeting newer zombies who already have it tougher, that makes this even better. No actually, those are all very bad things. sike. -Banana Bear4 18:57, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - So at best pistol whipping would be on par with a maxed zombie's claws. Humans do less damage via melee because they get to do large amounts of damage after spending the AP to find ammo. That would be worth a kill vote, but then you decide to make yourself immune from a retaliatory bite for half a day. So in effect you're disabling three zombie skills (Lurch, digestion, infectious) with one of your own and taking away a method of attack. So very overpowered. Even if it's only immunity for one player. Velkrin 19:12, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Temporary immunity, for one player, for 12 hours, from the zombie they hit with this attack, from being bit. (Due to this skill's attack, which may miss!) (And your player may not even be anywhere near this zombie, when they get up.) --MrAushvitz 12:35, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - agree with kill votes regarding zombie bite attack Alton Brown 19:39, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam - What they all said. --mikm W! 20:02, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Spam - What they all said, and more Timid Dan 20:17, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill -*Zombies break in, zombies get a WHAP! in the mouth* "HAR HAR zombies! Now you can't infect us!" Just carry a few FAKs, for crying out loud. --WibbleBRAINS 20:24, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Spam - Overpowers survivor attacks by providing a 1.5 damage/AP efficiency non-ammo weapon, which is significantly greater than the 1.2dmg/AP fireaxe; this type of attack is just as effective as a shooting attack (pistol with basic firearms) and is more effective than every other melee attack. In addition, disabling another player's skills is wrong; as implemented, this deprives low-level zombies from utilizing a skill that provides much-needed XP and HP. It also does not make sense that only one player is immune as a result of an action to the zombie's physiology. Nor does it make sense that this skill is limited to a 24-hour window. It's too artificial and construed and totally negates any flavour or style it adds. --ism 22:53, 5 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. SPAM - What they said. --Dickie Fux 00:01, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. SPAM - just forget about it. Pistol whips don't get to outdamage fire axes. You don't get to make a 1/day attack in most cases. You don't get to nerf young zombies who use neck lurch instead of two claw improvement. You don't get to gently tap a zombie on the head to prevent it to bite you for 12 freaking hours. In a believable world, the zombie woudn't care for more than a matter of seconds, not 12 hours. --McArrowni 16:54, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Variable Attack Damage

  1. Kill - Wow! Math! you ever see a two sided die? Sing it Grim daddy. -Banana Bear4 08:04, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Ive seen plenty of 2-sided dice. They're called "coins". --Reverend Loki 16:38, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
      • I am shamed. -Banana Bear4 17:05, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Don't be too much.. you are certainly not the only one to make such a mistake. Hell, my little brother made that mistake, and he's going postgrad for math. I have found, however, that comments such as mine ensure that such mistakes are only made once ;) --Reverend Loki 22:36, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Firm Grip (version 2)

    • Re - Not sure... sounds like you assume that a firm grip will be on a survivor the whole time they're acting. Costing em 25 AP? This assumes that somehow the zombie is able to maintain a grip for 25 AP. Since only one zombie can grasp a victim at a time, becomes much harder. If they don't have firearms skills, why are the going toe-to-toe with an aware zombie? All it takes is one step away and they're no longer losing AP. If they're in for reviving/scanning runs, that's where it becomes tricky, but then, shouldn't they be waiting to catch zombies "unaware" in that case? Often all it takes is 15 minutes... It makes live combat more tactical, in my opinion. The thing is. The grip can be broken and isn't an "instantaneous effect". Odds are, it'll take the zombie 3 AP before it gets a grip. Then it can be lost at a click of button by the victim and an AP, or the zombie misses his next attack and loses the grip. Frankly, it is nearly impossible for a survivor to lose 25 AP to this skill. A smart survivor leaves at least 10 AP to get away and has an escape route anyways. --Greymattergourmet 19:10, 2 March 2006 (GMT) (Edit: somehow something got overwritten-- trying to correct it.)
    • Re You're also assuming this takes place outdoors. If zombies entered a building this would make defending it literally twice as hard. Every time the zombie hit you you'd have to loosen grip for 2AP or keep getting drained. Zombies already have an advantage in live combat, they can continually reinfect their opponent, they can call for reinforcements with feeding groan, they can afford to be killed, their attacks can heal them. Survivors only have a higher accuracy with maxed out firearms because they spend a lot more AP searching for ammunition. Zombies do not need an advantage in real-time combat. Action Points Are Not A Measure Of Difficulty. They are a way of restricting a player's power so they cannot perform more actions than one person should be capable of. Syringes cost 20AP to manufacture not because they take longer to make but because that is how valuable the syringe is. Headshot deducts 5AP not because the zombie is stunned for 5AP of time but because it exists to balance out the AP someone spent killing the zombie. Likewise you'd be doubling the charge for actions that are only worth 1AP. You would make the zombie's attack half as expensive as the survivors. When something is harder or takes longer to do it does not cost AP. I want people to read this badly enough that I WILL WRITE IN RED TEXT BECAUSE WHAT I JUST WROTE IS SO IMPORTANT --Jon Pyre 19:43, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - One of the interesting things in your argument is that you are ignoring some things: how much AP the zombie spent to break through cades to get to the survivor in question. Example, I was with 10 other zombies today who started out with 35-50 AP, broke into an EH building with 8 survivors inside and we all had 20-30 AP left. Further, survivors can be equipped with "instakill" syringes, 1 AP and zombie goes down. They can also be firing shotguns which can do 32-40 HP damage in 6 AP, balance that against the fact that a -maxed- zombie needs to spend 20 or so AP for the same damage. Or, with pistols, similarily, the survivor can do 32-40 in 14 AP. It still takes the zombies 20 or so AP for the same effect. A survivor can do a lot more with sometimes drastically fewer AP in live combat, while sucking out AP from zombies at the cades. Where do zombies get "compensation" for the 5 AP they burn versus the 1 the survivor burns for cading? How do zombies compensate for taking 2 pistol or shotgun shots to every bite they can make in other words, doing half the damage that a survivor does? In a live combat at Caiger, my 'bite only' zombie (with infection and digestion) could not keep up in kill power versus the survivor with the pistol, even as the survivor was choosing to take damage from the infection! Doubling the charge has flavour arguments but also helps to bring zombie and survivor on equal kill potential when toe-to-toe in live combat, which is the only real application of this skill. --Greymattergourmet 20:41, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Jon, it'd be just as easy to say that this skill would exist to balance out the AP the zombie spent getting through the barricades, and that a survivor's ability to counterattack a top-level zombie in live combat is more valuable than his ability to attack a sleeping, low-level zed. The exact nature of AP isn't really at issue here. Also, there's no way the zombie is going to maintain his grip long enough to cost a survivor 25 AP, not when Tangling Grasp is lost 20% of the time and the survivor can hit Loosen Grip at any point. --John Ember 20:07, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re And barricades exist to balance out a zombie's immortality. My point is on a 1 to 1 basis a zombie should not be exponentially more powerful than a survivor. Why not suggest a skill that gives a zombie 10 extra AP a day that be used on anything but attacking barricades? That's also bad idea and even that'd probably harm survivors less than this. --Jon Pyre 20:33, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - You claim the 5 AP from headshot compensates for all the AP spent killing the zombie. How much AP does it take a zombie to deal 30 damage vs. how much does it take for a survivor to deal 30? Typically, a survivor is dealing damage 2:1 vs what the zombie is able to do. Then the zombie loses 6 AP in the end to stand up and keep clawing. Infection? It takes a zombie 3 tries to infect, and many survivors are so not worried about infection in a live fight that they'll keep on taking the damage. I've seen it many times in live fights.--Greymattergourmet 20:55, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re At the end of the day (and hopefully this argument) anything that destroys open-ended amounts of another player's AP is bad. --Jon Pyre 21:58, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Street Cars

  1. Spam - Vehicles. --Grim s 19:45, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Grim, stop deleting other people's votes on other suggestions when you add a vote. Timid Dan 19:58, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: - I didnt get an edit conflict page, and every time i do i go back to the page im editing and start over again to keep the other persons edit as a common courtesy which so many others lack, so i have to say i dont have a bloody clue what you are talking about. EDIT: I went back into the history and it was Blahblahblah who did it you idiot. Before you blame someone examine the history. Edits on one suggestion have absolutely no influence over edits on other suggestions. --Grim s 20:16, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re: [really?] The History shows you deleting my second attempt at a vote. Blah got the first. Timid Dan 20:33, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
          • That appears to be a wiki software problem. Edits in one suggestion shouldnt affect edits in another. --Grim s 20:40, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
            • Re Am I still an idiot? Timid Dan 20:44, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
              • Sorry about that Timid Dan, did it the same way I've always done it - didn't mean to erase your vote. Ha, funny Grim s - when someone else does it, they are not being courteous, but when it's you there's a Wiki bug. --Blahblahblah 20:46, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
                • Re Then explain how my edit to my comment in this suggestion magically managed to delete something in another section. When editing, sections are done completely independant of each other (Otherwise there would be a hideously large number of edit conflicts on this very page). The only possible conclusion is a fault or glitch in the software. --Grim s 22:28, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
                  • My edit that deleted his vote was from another section too. You'll notice I didn't vote on this yet, still undecided. I'm laughing at you because you accuse other people of erasing votes because they are not "courteous" (as if they are doing it maliciously) - when for you "it must be a bug". I agree, It's probably a bug, but your comment was hilariously stupid.--Blahblahblah 22:39, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
                    • Sorry for not responding for a while, but i had better things to do. You would be amazed at how often it happens, and as such i jumped to a conclusion. In hindsight it was the wrong conclusion, but it was one fully supported by the evidence at the time. I know that 1: I dont do that shit, and 2: Other people have been known to do that shit. From that you can probably see where im coming from, unless, of course, you are just trying to be a jerk. And i wasnt saying they werent courteous, if i said anything about them at all it would be that they were arseholes. And i apologise for my earlier comment to Timid Dan. --Grim s 22:38, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
                      • Let's move on and forget it, then. There are far more important things to do, like spaminating those ridiculous trenchcoater suggestions that keep popping up from this one guy... Timid Dan 15:42, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
                      • Nah, I'm not trying to be a jerk - I've never overridden others votes before (I actually didn't even know that you could), and felt like I was being unfairly attacked (accused of doing it on purpose). Anyways, bygones be bygones, and all that jazz. --Blahblahblah 16:12, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Exponential XP

Timestamp: 00:52, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill buying system alteration
Scope: Everyone
Description: I submitted this a long time ago and it was shot down, but it's been long enough and and situation is different enough I believe it deserves a resubmit. I've also clarified the details somewhat, to please don't be an ass and call dupe. Anyway. My idea works like this: Homogeny is a big problem in today's UD world. The suggestion prior to this one, regarding endgame skills with high XP costs, attempts to remedy this problem, but I feel there should be a more fundamental solution. Thus I propose that instead of a flat 100XP cost for skills (with class/crossclass multiplers) the cost should go up depending on your level. The first skill a new character buys should cost 50XP. All subsequent skills should cost a bit more, but going continuously up so that the cost to buy every skill in the game is huge. The progression should probably be something like 50-60-75-95-120-150-190-240 and so on, or just multiply the cost by 1.25 or even 1.5 for each successive skill. But what about all the players that already have huge numbers of skills? Simple: they lose all their skills and are refunded 100XP per each (or 75 for class skills and 150 for cross-class, depending on their status) and this, plus whatever XP they have currently, can be freely spent under the new system. Yes, this will be painful. Yes, I would rather my highlevel characters could stay high-level. But there's really no other way I can think of to solve the homogenity problem short of actually resetting the game, which nobody wants. This method turns an essentially simple skill-acquisition system that becomes meaningless very quickly into one with a lot more depth and strategy involved--you hesitate a lot more before buying Shopping when you know it'll take 100XP before you can get Bargain Hunting, and for that entire 1000XP Shopping will be pretty useless, since it'll be more profitable to search in a Hospital or PD. IF you're going to be a gunner, buying all the gun skills first will make it that much harder to get essentials like Free Running or Diagnosis--perhaps you ought to hold off on the shotgun skills and only buy the pistol ones for now--but of course that means the shotgun ones will cost more later. I think that boost to the flair and flavor of the game is worth experienced players losing some power.


  1. Spam - Don't Suggest Something That Requires a Reset. Read the suggestion Do's and Do Nots in future. --Grim s 01:07, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: I helped write the Dos and Do Nots. I know people don't like the idea of taking people's skills away. However, I believe it to be necessary if this game is going to be as great as it could be. Take note that old players do get to keep the XP they've gained, just in the form of XP rather than skills, so as not to make this system only apply to newbies--that would hurt them unfairly compared to older users.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:14, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: Ha ha. Grim didn't read what he wrote and looked like a duma$$, that's okay though you aren't the first fool to automatically post a "spam" vote without reading the exact wording of a suggestion first. Good burn. Me like SA. Seriously though, quoting do's and don'ts.. you'd better be sure that's what they did wrong before you slap a "spam" vote with your happy links, otherwise vote kill. He specifically said it doesn't require a reset. Pay attention! --MrAushvitz 18:45, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Unfair to zombies, who have a much harder time getting experience than survivors do and just as many "must have" skills. --TheHermit 01:31, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • your argument against my suggestion is that zombies find it hard to get XP? That's not a problem with my suggestion, that's just a problem with the game. Why vote against this because of it?--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:34, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: If you increase the gap between when skills are earned, you also increase the gap between those who CAN get exp very fast and those who can't. Even without all of the firearms skills, survivors can earn experience MUCH faster than zombies. If survivors earn more experience faster, they will possess more skills even faster, and the gap between how fast survivors and zombies level will increase dramatically. THAT is why I vote against it. --TheHermit 02:11, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: I think that's why the "Maxed out" skills favour zombies over survivors. If I'm reading head intentions right, the survivors are only human, and have certain physical limitations. The zombies are immortal, once they've achieved a certain point they can definately surpass the humans! And I for one LOVE the idea of some high powered zombie breaking into buildings and killing 2&3 survivors a session (eventually), it makes the survivors have to rethink their strategies.--MrAushvitz 18:45, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re: Game Assumptions states that "Zombies and Survivors are Equals," that a newbie Zombie should be equal to a newbie Survivor and the same with maxed versions. I've also seen it written, though I can't remember where, that Kevan set up the 5/1 barricading AP ratio because survivors should overpower zombies one to one, to encourage hording. I don't know which is actuall Kevan's opinion, but I'm pretty sure he disagrees with you.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:54, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Developing Suggestions

These suggestions are here for comments/changes before they go to formal voting.


Timestamp: 19:50, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Necrotech Employees
Description: I think it'd be cool to have a skill for NT employees called Traitor, whereby they use their knowledge of necrology, a DNA scan, and a Mk II syringe to furthre mutate a zombie, giving it an XP boost, stronger attack, or randomly rearranging its skills, deleting some and adding others. This might be difficult to keep balanced, but just swapping skills that cost the same might solve the problem. I'm not sure what would be best in terms of game balance.


  1. Comment - Personally I like the basic idea. It fits the theme well, Necro Tech conducting experiments on the zombies and such. I think the skill swapping could be fun - but it would have to be something that is extremely temporary, and even then I don't see it as being popular with voters. Giving zombies temporary AP, HP, and attack boosts is kind of interesting. You'd have to juggle the numbers to figure something out that could work - something that isn't overpowered (or too open to abuse), but worthy enough that people would get the skill. Might be good to have it provide an unknown effect - perhaps a negative, perhaps positive effect - but you don't know until you use the serum. You will need to establish specific mechanics, effects, and provide numbers for them before putting it on the suggestion page. --Blahblahblah 23:45, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment - Deleting skills? Are you on drugs? Actually, go ahead and put this one up. We'll see if you can break 30 spam votes in an hour. --John Ember 18:10, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Comment - EXCELLENT IDEA! But its too abuseable if it messes with skills (greifers) or XP (zerging). Perhaps a wierd thing that allows the zombie to do something special, like pretend to be alive for a certin amount of AP, or something...


Timestamp: 14:26, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Flavor improvement/alternative attack method
Scope: Survivors
Description: As you can read I want to suggest the implementation of a Chainsaw in the game. Because this game takes place in a western culture city, I don't think a tool like this is out of genre. The fact that many people will start to use it as a weapon is not unrealistic either. But here's the one million dollar question: Why this extra weapon?

First of all because it adds flavor and secondly because this gives survivors another interesting method of attack. I'm not sure if players are interested in this new weapon, but the idea of cutting zombies to pieces sounds kinda cool to me!

This is how it works: The chainsaw would have the unique ability to have 2 different attack values, depending on wether you have fuel or not. If it has fuel, the saw would of course be highly damaging. If it doesn't have fuel, that damage is decreased however still worthwhile. Since you still have a heavy sawblade in your hands, you can still lash out at zombies without the fuel. Fortunately, fuel is already in the game so that won't give any problems either.

The only real problem is to make it balanced.. I was thinking about the following:

2 points of damage without fuel and 10% to hit

2 points of damage without fuel, but with hand to hand combat skill and thus 25% to hit

5 points of damage with fuel and with 10% to hit

5 points of damage with fuel and with hand to hand combat skill and thus 25% to hit

The fuel can be used on the chainsaw when you have both in your inventory screen and then click on the fuel can. The chainsaw will then be able to do increased amounts of damage untill the fuel runs out again. If possible, a fuel left% could be displayed next to the weapon. The weapon is activated if you use the fuel on it and you will know it by looking at the added fuel% parameter. Now it will use up around 1% for each AP spent, so this includes walking and speaking! A missed swing could account for 1% as well, but a hit with a target for perhaps 2-3%, since the blade really meets resistance and has to cut through bones and tissue. The chainsaw shouldn't have the ability to be switched off again, so people will have to use the right timing to use their fuel on the weapon. You can do this of course when you're standing on the same square as the zombie and can therefor deal a maximum of 20 succesfull hits with the weapon (which is highly unlikely with 25% to hit of course). It shouldn't be too unbalanced since the chance won't be higher then 25%, but AP spent for ammo (fuel) will probably be a bit less then searching for shotgun shells or pistol clips for your firearms.

The chainsaw would also use up 2 inventory spaces, because it's such a bulky weapon with a possibility to hold fuel. Also generators would be (re)fueled first, so you can better fuel a chainsaw without having a generator in the neighborhood. Finally, the chainsaw could be found at a low% chance in Fire Department building (1%), Junkyards (2%), Factories (5%) and Hardware stores in the mall (5%)

People, let me know what you think ;) The statistics can always be changed! This is just a very raw suggestion! I'll answer your questions and try to think of solutions when objections come up. Tnx in advance to your comments --General Viper 15:26, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)


  • Kill - In order to kill a zombie without body building, you would need to take 40 AP (30 misses for 60% of fuel and 10 hits for 50% of fuel). You would run out of fuel before you could kill it. Honestly the first time that happened I'd throw the goddamn thing away and go back to my trusty fire axe. I think the average AP cost for a fuel can is about 20. So I'd need to spend 40AP to kill just one zombie. Sorry, it's just too inefficient. It does have nice flavor --CPQD 15:22, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Good point, I should do a little bit more math in order to create the right figures. At least it's not ridiculously overpowered, but underpowered so far.. But I'll work on that --General Viper 18:30, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment - You may want to look at this chainsaw suggestion that has already made peer review. All the best ideas are already taken ;) --Blahblahblah 19:53, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Hehe, I see what you mean. Only it wasn't bad now and my own suggestion isn't too bad either considering what other people come up with ;) I'll make a few alterations and perhaps it's not underpowered this time..
  • Comment Fighting zombies with an unpowered chainsaw is like trying to cut down a tree with an unpowered chainsaw. AllStarZ 20:36, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment - Make it so an unfueled chainsaw does nothing at all, but increase the hit rate of the fueled chainsaw significantly. --John Ember 22:01, 27 February 2006 (GMT)

New Science weapon,class and skill

Timestamp: 17:51, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: New character clas weapon and skill
Scope: the science class
Description: New Science class: Necrotech security guard. NecroTech is to secret to be bothered by the police they need there own secret security force. Starts with NecroTech employment flak jacket, Teaser and Pistol.

New Science skills Anti-Intruder training. Raises the percent chance of hitting with the Teaser from 20% (start) to 40% (numbers can be changed). "You have been working with NecroTech for some time and know how to deal with those pesky Intruders"

New skill Advanced Anti-intruder training. Raises the percent chance of hitting with the taser from 40% to 55%. You have reached a level of mastery and you give meaning to the Phrase NONE SHALL PASS.

New NercoTech Building Item Taser Recharge station. This station is to recharge Dead Tasers It runs the same as a portable generator and needs fuel cans to work anyone in the building can use it to recharge There tasers for 10AP. The message would be "you plug in your Taser to the recharge station you have full power" or "you plug your taser into the recharge station but its already full". Zombies would be able to destroy these generators and humans with the barricade skill could fix them. This would make the NecroTech stations targets for zombies so humans Could not damage the zombies with their Tasers.

New sciences skill Taser reconfiguration. With this zombie out break you have reconfigured your teaser to attack the zombies flesh more aggressively but there is a price... When you purchase this skill two things happen you Percent chance to hit a Target (human or zombie) goes down by 10% second the damage values flip Doing 6 to zombies and 3 to humans.

New item NecroTech teaser. NecroTech security guards use this taser to give a "mild" shock to anyone who is not a NecroTech employee.NOTE This is just the discription it does not mean that the sole purpose of these is to PK It does 4 Damage to any human with a 20%(start) chance of hitting it only does 2 Damage to zombies with a 20%(start) chance of hitting due to there dead and rotting flesh. all of these would be in a new skill branch. When a Human is Hit with the teaser It would show "You zap ___ for 6 damage" When you zap a zombie it would be "you zap a zombie for 3 damage it doesn't seem to slow it down" when hit with a teaser it would be "___ has zapped you with a teaser For 6/3 Damage" A taser would have a battery that has Approx 12 shots in it (would work like a spray can giving more or less shots depending on how lucky you get) once the shots run out it is useless and can be discarded or recharged at the station for 10AP. Tasers can only be found in NecroTech buildings.


JavaScript to avoid server round trips

Timestamp: 13:14, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Interface improvement
Scope: General web app design
Description: Just a thought, can't find a similar discussion through the search. But I've noticed that map.cgi makes several round trips to the server which could be reduced.

For example: If you have a gun with no ammo, and you choose to fire the gun, the app makes a trip to the server, and brings back an error message. This trip is unecessary, as the data for this check is available in the GUI already.

One could make a series of client side checks before going to the server, for example using JavaScript. Examples:

  • Firing a weapon without ammo.
  • Reloading a non existent weapon.
  • Using a medkit on self with full HP.
  • Using a medkit on another player with full HP.
  • Leaving a building that is too baricaded.
  • Using a fuel can, when there is not generator present.
  • etc etc.

The problem with this suggestion, is that the external environment may change since you did your last actions. Someone might have gotten hurt in the meantime, someone might have lowered the barricade, etc. Perhaps this can be limited to actions that are related to the inventory of the player, which does not change without the player acting.

A posibility for overcomming the changes in the external environment could be XMLHttpRequest or similar techology for getting the status of a single external object, for example changes in the barricade since your last action. However, this would incur a request overhead, so I'm not certain what one would gain.

A requirement for this suggestion would be that the relevant information is easily retrievable from the markup. It may mean rewriting the semantic structure of the served pages. I mean this only to stop user actions before they happen, not that one skips validation on the server. The server would still have to check for HP when healing, for example, but this solution would reduce the number of "invalid" requests made to the server.


  1. Comment - Well, there's definitely some trouble with the FAK part of this one, as if you embed HP and max HP for every survivor in range in the browser for JS, it's the same as a) having the full list every time and b) not needing diagnosis. It'd probably be far easier (for the weapon code) if the items were not tagged with a "reload" action if you have no weapons, but I have no idea how much of a server load that'd put on if the player's inventory has to self-reference. Timid Dan 14:52, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    1. Reply - One could remove the attack options for each weapon without ammo from the attack list, which would be simpler for the client than my original suggestion. However, this would require that the server checks all weapons when generating the list. JS on the client could do this and spare the server the extra load. Then again, the JS would also need to be transmitted. Unsure how browsers cache this information. My point about healing, would apply to oneself, not to others, as mentioned in the paragrahp after the list. Unless, of course, one applies an AJAX-like solution to the problem. --For d 19:45, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
      1. Reply - I think the extra bandwidth for larger pages with embedded JS might outweigh the extra server processing time, but this is one of those things that we could speculate about all day without knowing the right and wrong of it, unfortunately. I think you're on the right track, though, in terms of trying to come up with a suggestion to reduce some sort of server load. It's the type of thing that isn't asked nearly often enough and there are probably half a dozen immediate ways of making things faster. - Timid Dan 16:27, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment - There are a ton of things in UD that could be Ajaxed to make for fewer page reloads and a better user experience; and I'd love to see it happen. Not sure if Kevan has the experience or time for that, though. --John Ember 16:55, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    1. Reply - Sure, but the question is if a lot of smaller requests will outweigh the one larger request in terms of header and connection overhead. The ammount of actual data transferred would be very low, but each connection would incur a certain overhead. It could be shooting oneself in the foot. Anyone got any statistical comparisons on this? -- For d 19:45, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Zombie Medkit

Timestamp: 23:53, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: New "Item"
Scope: all zombies
Description: Zombies need to heal too even low levels with out digestion.I suggest that when a zombie kills a human character they have a 20% chance to "rip a chunk of meat off of the corpse". Once this chunk has been "removed" it goes into the zombies invantory. Then it can be Ingested for 2ap for 5hp. A zombie can carry as many chunks as he or she wants (up to fifty) but there is a catch. If a zombie has a chunk in its invantory and has not used it for a 4 days it rots and becomes useless (zombies only like fresh meat). The fact that it only heals 5hp and can only be optained from killing a Human makes it not nerf digestion. The text would read "you mual ____ for 3 damage and rip off a chunk of his still fresh corpse" or for humans (now corpses) "A zombie muals you for 3 damage and tears a chunk of of your corpse as you fall to the ground" This would add alot of flavor to the game and it would not be to over balanced. Also think of zombie groups outside of a mall chewing on the dead they have already claimed. You might say "gee why cant zombies just eat corpses?" well think about it zombies only ever eat the living or else they would just eat each other. (yes I know they do in this game but thats not the point). Also zombies would not be able to give the chunks to other zombies (zombies dont share!) Give me your votes this is my last submission for a while.


  1. Comment - It's great flavor, ripping chunks off of dead bodies - but zombies don't need healing (not to say a suggestion that provides them with healing would be a bad one just for that, but it would have to be a really good suggestion with some other aspects or heaps of flavor), death is a minor inconvenience (after ankle grab). I would recommend going through the old suggestions (Peer Reviewed, and Previous Days), and looking for anything with a title that would indicate a suggestion about feeding on corpses and the like. Read em, see what voters thought were good and bad aspects (or the vote recap notes on peer reviewed ones). I really want more flavor in terms of zombies feasting on their kills, it's just going to be hard to figure out a good way to do it. --Blahblahblah 18:14, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. . I always felt the "zombies don't need healing" arguments to be funny (no offense). Why bother having Digestion then? Whether or not a zombie will die frequently, they are still played by players and are constantly doing "non-zombie" things in game all the time. The problem with the suggestion IS the fact zombies have Digestion, so this suggestion isn't really needed.--Pesatyel 04:49, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Infectious blood (reworked with better math)

Timestamp: 06:53, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: *Prerequisites: Brain rot (infectious bite could be added as a prerequisite if you know how we could set it up on the skill tree)
  • Story element:

Whether the zombies initially became infected due to disease, radiation, viruses or an act of God(s) or Demon(s), it is unknown. It is known that now the older, the most decomposed, the most diseased of the zombies have become so putrid that their very blood is filled with death and filth. Leaving those unfortunate souls who get too enraptured in the carnage of death tainted.

  • Theme:

I can't count the numerous grade B zombie flicks where zombies have managed to infect individuals just by getting a drop of blood into their victims system. The infections are usually introduced through openings in the victim's body such as their eyes, mouth or open wounds. I.e. 28 days later.

  • What it does: It expands on infectious bite and gives an actual reason to get brain rot. A zombie with infectious blood has a chance of infecting the player that kills it in the same way that infectious bite infects them. It goes with the theme in zombie movies where someone kills a lot of zombies and has a small drop of blood get in a opening and infects them. See percentage below.
  • Possible flavor text:
  • For those infected
"In the heat of the carnage a drop of the zombies blood" 
"made it into an open wound. You are now infected."
  • For the zombie
"The last thing your rotting eyes see before all goes dark,"
"is blood spraying from your rancid corpse." 
  • other stuff

What this is intended to do is to add a small element of danger, fear, and best of all paranoia. It will have little effect on players but instead cause players to be a little more cautious and prepared. FAX packs are readily available to any player that searches for them. Most Survivors will have a pack on themselves anyway either to cure themselves or others. And since brain rot is a prerequisite you should never have to worry about one out five zombies infecting you. See percentage below.

  • The percentage

The math is based on this. Given that a percent of the zombie population has Infectious blood then there is a statiscal chance of you attacking a zombie with IB. So lets say 25% of the zombie population had IB. Now given that each IB infected zombie has a 20% chance of infecting you then your total chance would be as follows 25%*20%=5% chance of being infected with a zombie kill or a statisticall chance of being infected is 5% or once for every 20 zombie kills.

So given that the zombie population with infections blood is like this 50%IB or 25%IB or 10%IB, then the chance of being infected would be 10%, 20%, 50% respectfully or 50%*10%=5%, 25%*20%=5% , 10%*50%=5%

so after the math the total chance of getting infected should be about 5%  or after about 20 zombie kills

clarification The chance of being infected will be either a straight chance (most like around 20% or so) which could be changed later if a large percentage of the zed population were IB infected or if Kevan knows how to write the code so IB’s chance of infection would change it self based on the IB infected population.

Just like with infectious bite no XP is given to the zombie, only satisfaction at having bled on someone..

  • This is basicaly what is up for vote now. I did reclarify the math so hopefully there will be less confusion about that. Also, some suggestiongs made by voters have suggested that it would be better if IB infectes wounded players only or to make it infect melee players only.

Here are some ideas in reguards to those suggestions.

  • Wounded players only
  1. 1 i could add a bonus to players that are currently not wounded, this would still allow a smaller chance of being infected through an eye or mouth ect...
  2. 2 make another skill that would prevent you from being infected if your at max HP
  3. 3 make it so it only effects wounded players but increase the chance of infection by a small amount.
  • Melee only
  1. 1 make it melee only, im kinda against this because then all you have to do to avoid it is have the killing blow be a gun.
  2. 2 give a bouns to players that use guns to decrease their chance of infection.
  3. 3 add flavor text to make being infected with a gun appropiate

ex "As you examine the corpse of the zombie some of its blood seeps into an open wound, you are now infected" or "as the zombie makes one final lunge for you you just barely shoot it in time in its head, unfortunately some of its blood makes it into an opening on your body, you are now infected."

  1. 4 do nothing.

I realy want to hear comments on these 2 potential fixs. But as always other comments are welcomed. Thanks


  1. comment - I'd choose #1 for the wounded bit, and #3 for the melee only bit... (why should melee be nerfed more than guns?). --McArrowni W! 18:34, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment - I'd choose #3 for the wounded bit (28 days later is the only film I can think of where infection happens without a wound involved - and it's arguably not a zombie movie). I'd choose #3 for the melee bit - even to think of it as the splatter from the gun shot wound hitting you, as you can't attack across blocks it's not too much to assume most gun (certainly shotgun) shots are taken from a relatively close proximity. Some flavor text might aid that cause, but it should certainly be for all attacks - or players would just avoid dealing killing blows with the IB potential weapons. --Blahblahblah 22:56, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Firm Grip (version 2)

Timestamp: {{{suggest_time}}}
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This would be a sub-skill of "Tangling grasp".

A zombie with a firm grip holds its victim tighter, while maintaining a tangling grasp, making it harder for the victim to act. It's grasp is not broken by other zombies attacking the same victim.

Mechanic: Gaining the Grip: A zombie who hits with a claw attack has a %50 chance of gaining a Firm Grip. "You gain a firm grip on Character." "A zombie...and gets a firm grip on you."

Effects: While a Firm Grip is in effect, it will cause the victim to spend one more AP per action. Essentially, a character that is being held by some zombie's firm grip would have to spend 2 AP to attack, search, move, etc. Speaking does not incur this AP penalty.

If someone is held in a firm grip, they would have the following items on their screen: In their status box: "You are Character and you are held (actions cost 1 more AP). You have X HP and..." An action button: "Break Grip".

Losing the Grip: The victim can press the “Break Grip�? button which would cost 2AP (1AP for an action + 1 to fight against the grip). If the zombie loses its tangling grasp (which is a prerequisite for this skill) then the firm grip is also gone. Note: this means that a zombie will lose its Firm Grip %20 of the time. (Based on %40 to miss with claws, %50 of which result in lost tangling grasps). The zombie sees this message, “Your grip on Character loosens.�? and its victim’s actions cost the normal AP.


  1. comment – This has actually been my first skill suggestion for peer review. I'm learning...--Greymattergourmet 19:59, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment - I like Firm Grip and voted for it, but it's no longer listed on the Suggestions page. What happened? --Cybrgrl 20:49, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Comment - It was retracted by Greymattergourmet, who I'm guessing is the author. --McArrowni W! 21:08, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Yeah, I retracted it. It needed work so I pulled it into here for discussion. Version 2 is now up. I guess I should leave this here for discussion until the voting ends on it? (Sorry, first attempt at getting an idea past peer review here).--Greymattergourmet 14:48, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Comment - I'd vote keep on this new version. I'd make zombies really and truly own at on line combat - but such combat doesn't happen that often except in sieges. --Blahblahblah 23:00, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Comment - dont you lose tangling grasp automatically if the human moves?. --User:ericblinsley 5:09, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Comment - Still an awesome suggestion, unfortunate that killvoters overstated the AP effect. --John Ember 19:49, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Quarantine Forces

Timestamp: 00:54, 4 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Character Class
Scope: Survivors
Description: Up on the front of the urban dead site there's a short synopsis.

"The city is dying. Some months on from the first reported outbreak, military quarantine units have closed Malton's borders, and are moving in to eliminate the looters, to forcibly evacuate those civilians who still refuse to leave their homes."

Personally, I think there really should be a quarantine unit. Some kind of new character class bent on rescue or PKing. Now this idea is inherently flawed between the thought of rescue (Where would the survivors go?) and the thought of PKing looters (Wouldn't that put humans at a major disadvantage?), but it would add another dynamic to urban dead rather than just survival.

The thought of there being an area outside of Malton would help with the rescue idea but that would require a major revamping of the game. I also thought about maybe having the quarantine units be able to forcefully move people to shelter, but once again this would be very difficult to conceptualize.

If anyone has any input to somehow make this idea work I would love to hear it. --Lesser Mook 00:54, 4 March 2006 (GMT)


    • Rei was explaining urbandead and the being a survivors too easy problem to a friend and he came up with a similar idea. i think this may be too much of a major game change to ever make it through the suggestions page. id go with a military attack i think theyd be survivors but unable to enter ocupied surrivor barricaded buildings, 'you atempt to climb over the barricad, but some survivors push you out', a similar thing would happen to survivors when they attempt to enter a military barricade, 'you atempt to climb over the barricad, but someone inside begins to shoot at you', i think that would be enough to seperate out a new class of people.things would get complicated when it comes to revives, do military people stay military?(id say yes),can civilians turn to military and visa versa?(i have no idea how it would work because if its too easy it will be abused), can a milatry corpse be spotted?, how do skills compair to other classes?(id give them new weapons, which normal survivors would have dificulty finding, but i wouldnt let them get any non military skills (except constuction and first aid)). but i dont think this would be a good way to go i think alot of discution is needed first. could survivor groups be turned against eachother in a simpler way, perhaps an objective (XP rewards for holding mansions/malls?), perhaps an action/skill (guarding a barricaded building against other groups/survivors?)!--xbehave 19:12, 4 March 2006 (GMT)
  1. All forced movement is bad. Plus, there have already been several suggestions along the lines of "black ops - kill all witnesses", "military units must kill looters", and the like. They aren't well accepted. Dividing characters into "special" classes (based on their initial choice) is bad, because not all the military people want to be PKing/keeping the quarantine. --mikm W! 03:15, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. i think the idea meant a third team not people who play as military class, but i agree that a 3rd team is a bad idea. ive not got round to discusing my ballancing suggestions because i expect it will turn into a flaming, probably involving the WCDZ--xbehave 13:16, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Times have changed, pay attention xbehave. The WCDZ members who used to carry around the biggest flame throwers have moved on to other things. Most of us who remain have joined Project Welcome (or become a moderator in the case of our once exalted leader) in order to continue with our cause of helping the suggestions page be the best it can be, but in kinder ways. The biggest flamers out there now are anything but WCDZ. As to this suggestion, I beat you too it when I first joined the suggestions page many moons ago with this Black Ops peer reviewed suggestion. The key to getting it through Peer Review was not to focus on the PKing aspect - present it, lay it on the table, but not pigeon hole it as a PKer only faction. If it ever got implemented into the game, people could start suggestions based around it to make it more side specific - who knows if they'd get through (probably not) - that was my plan originally, wait for it to be introduced and then start with skill suggestions for it. I made the suggestion when the zombies were more outnumbered than they are now - and a PKer faction seemed a good idea at the time to keep the game interesting. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing my idea in the game, but I'm not as keen on it now as I was back then. --Blahblahblah 20:45, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. how come the WCDZ is suddenly dragged into every suggestion lately? It's not like we've actually done something the past month. And mostly by people who weren't around when we were active. Strange. Perhaps thats' the problem, people simply not knowing what we were and start projecting their own ideas. xbehave if your balancing ideas would work, why would anybody flame them? sure the WCDZ wasn't always nice but it was always fair. a bit strict and argumentive but usually right as well.--Vista 12:04, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Brain Eating

Timestamp: 00:51, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Way back when, there were suggestions for a zombie headshot (the old version). I got to thinking: how about a skill that didn't take away XP, but gave bonus XP to the attacker? Say that if a zombie with this skill killed a human, it would gain bonus XP equal to the amount of XP the human has banked divided by 100, rounding to the nearest XP. Therefore, killing a human with 2000 XP would yield 20 bonus XP, with no loss to the human. This skill would also take the heat off of newbie humans, making higher level characters bigger targets.


  1. Comment - As time passes, there will be more and more people out there with ludicrously high amounts of XP. Currently the record is around 10,000 or so, which, under this system, is an instant level. - CthulhuFhtagn 01:03, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment - Now this I like. I like it very much. A proportional reward for going after the toughest hunters. --John Ember 04:20, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Comment - I like the idea too. I suppose it might depend on if/when we get more skills available. Until that happens, maybe a cap WOULD be a good idea. But at the same time, I don't think there are really THAT many players running around with more than 4,000 XP (of course, what do I know?) --Pesatyel 05:53, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Comment - It sounds abit overpowerd i mean you spend 100xp on this skill and then earning each skill after this becomes considerably easier! I mean certain skill like first aid actually make getting XP harder but life easier, i think this may help zombies gain xp faster and as a result max out sooner rendering it advantageless--xbehave 17:45, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Considering how few survivors have all that much XP banked, most kills will yield one or two bonus XP. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:16, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
      • after playing as a Z for a while i realise how hard getting xp is, and how useful the extra few xp would be--xbehave 17:16, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

Open from Within

Moved over to the Suggestion page by the author. Velkrin 07:52, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

Strengthened Cranium

Timestamp: 06:56, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies with Brain Rot
Description: Posted this on the forums, but it didn't get much discussion outside of sarcastic suggestions, so I'm plunking it down here.

Pre-Req: Brain Rot

RP bit: Zombies with corrupted brain stems have been showing signs of further mutation. Their skulls have been showing signs of thickening, making it harder to keep them down. Effect: Zombies who are killed by headshot become immune to the effects of headshot until their next death.

In coding terms:

If zombie is killed by headshot and headshot flag is no:
Then Set headshot flag to yes - +6AP to stand
If zombie is killed by headshot and headshot flag is yes:
Then set headshot flag to no - 1/10 AP to stand.
If zombie is killed and headshot flag is yes:
Then set headshot flag to no - 1/10 AP to stand.

This means any death after a zombie is headshot will allow it to be headshot again. Doesn't matter if it's via an axe, claw, syringe, window, or evil parrot with heat vision.

A few arguments I expect will pop up:

  • Leave headshot alone! Keven knows best!
I'm sure that's why hes changed it twice. No offence Keven. There is a reason the skill has been changed more then once.
  • You didn't Multiply It By A Billion! It'll ruin sieges!
Not really. Take Caiger Siege Part 2 for example. I was killed via headshot and non-headshot about a ratio 1:1. Besides which, the previous versions of HS drove zombies off because the ferals wanted XP, the current one only means they do about 6 less damage overall. Not really a tide turner when you take into account the easy revival that survivors currently have.
  • No making zombies immune to headshot
Read the skill again. It's a temporary immunity that only activates after they've been headshot and lasts until they get knocked down again.

Possible Side Effects: ZKing spike. Zombie numbers rise a bit. Zombies complain about HS less. Drop in the use of syringes as weapons. Zombies develop rocket launchers, battle giant fish monster for control of Tokyo.


  1. Comment - Non-constructive comments will make you look like a ninny. So says the Author. Said Author should have learned to sign by now. Velkrin 07:19, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment - I like this, I'd vote keep --CPQD 06:53, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. comment - I'd vote kill. Death is meaningless enough already for zombies. I want to see human vs zombie interaction, and this would make any smart human depend on barricade level interaction instead of their guns for protection instead. Boring --McArrowni 15:19, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Death doesn't mean much for survivors either. As I've said before, I killed a guy only to have him come back and shoot me less then twenty minutes later, whereas the standard is a few hours. Effect of NT network really, instead of dedicated NTs you have passerbys making syringes on a lark. Velkrin 17:25, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Comment - Keep, straight up. Survivors already interact enough with zombies, being eaten by them. The good survivor stockpiles ammo for when the house is breached, now that's boring anyway. That skill depending on Brain Rot is a great touch, since it makes zombies more likely to buy the damned Brain Rot to later get rid of the Headshots and start arguing about combat revives! --Omega2Talk 15:39, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Comment - how much does it cost?i think it would be better with 50XP mabye if it only acts once, also i feel the delayed effect mite be a bit of an over compensation. but i quite like the idea of a short term boost that can be used repeatedly, basically using up an unlimited amount of XP so id vote keep anyway--xbehave 18:05, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - It costs 100XP, just like all the other zombie skills. Velkrin 20:14, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

Partial Reanimation

Timestamp: 15:55, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Mechanic change/skill
Scope: Zombies with Brain Rot
Description: Removed by Author due to well thought out, polite comment by McArrowni. You are a credit to Commenters everywhere! ---Gene Splicer


  1. Re This will probably be received by waves of kill/spam. The reason for this is that voters like this game to separate between zombies and humans. I tend to agree with that, too. There is also the chance of multiple players only trying to become half-zombies, to the detriment of the rest of the game--McArrowni 01:44, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Group barricades

Timestamp: xbehave 18:06, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Mecanic change
Scope: Survivors groups
Description: Group barricades

Basic concept: if a group are undisputed inside a building then they can stop non-group members from getting in. Why: so that when the survivor population is too high, they can turn on each other, without it becoming greifing. i think this would keep survivors surviving but stop them from dominating, when zombies become the major threat in an area i think survivors groups in that area would team up, but when lifes easy and their bored they'd turn against each other to show the other groups whos suburb it really is.


1)I think the simplest way for it to work is to give group members inside the building the option to `tell others to allow/stop unknown survivors to enter'.

Note: this could be changed to two buttons 1 for unaffiliated and 1 for affiliated

2)The other option is to have a clan policy, however although this would allow much more specific blocking (e.g not allowing certain groups in but allowing other) it would require significant changes to the groups system.

When you try to get in you would lose your AP and get a message tell you what happened such as `you attempt to climb through the barricades, but a member of the <group name> pushes you back'

Free runners, well when it comes to free runners either

a) they're exempt from the blockings (most realistic but makes the whole thing quite pointless

b)they simply cant get into the building the same way as any survivor cant, but they stay inside the building they were in

c)they reach the square but cant get into the building so they go down to the street

exemptions, in the interests of not screwing over noobs, an exception could be made for all level 1 survivors, they would however not stop the group protecting their barricade. The group would get a message such as `out of sympathy your group has allowed <name to enter>'. The noob would get a message saying `<group name> have aloud you to enter their building'

abuse: this system would actually help to stop griefing, no longer will some greifer walk in trash your generator and walk out again. However it would open up a whole new problem, people changing clans griefing, then changing To stop this you could:

i)not bother its no worse than existing griefing

ii)remove the group name when your not aloud to enter, however this wouldn't help cause rivalries.

iii)change the group system so that it takes 24hrs(or 50AP) to remove clan membership

iv)change the group system so that each group has a leader who has to approve new applicants

skill: i initially thought about requiring a skill called leadership to instruct other group members, but i want to check that the major idea is palatable before working out the finer details

ok so now you've read all that feel free to rip it to shreds:

ALL the talk has been noted, and ive decided not to suggest, on the grounds that people want to keep the game zombie vs survivor and this idea would cause much more Pking (Even if it makes it more like zombie/survivor comabat), so unless anybody has anything else to say ill be removing this from the talk page tommorow--xbehave 02:05, 2 April 2006 (BST)


  1. Spam - Saying it's not griefing doesn't make it so. This would trap so many people outside of buildings, and give zombies a free meal. It would also encourage PKing to remove non-group members to allow that group control of the building. On that note, if the building has to be undisputed for this to work, then no one would from another group would ever get in. The building would forever belong to that one group. Your ideas for fixing the grief of this skill are poorly thought out, and your claim that this stops more griefing than it causes is completely absurd. Also, please note the "Shift" key on your keyboard. This is used to make capital letters. Please use it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:20, 13 March 2006 (GMT) Note: the vote section of the suggestion seems to be broken. Someone try to fix the format, I'm out of ideas.
    • ReWell i supose it depends what you consider griefing, id say that locking people out and killing them, in a legitimate means isnt, but people coming in and smashing your gen without provocation.Would you care to clarify on whats wrong with the anti abuse ideas?--xbehave 16:58, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Certainly. Your anti-abuse features are more abusive than what they're trying to prevent. I think being locked outside for the hordes to eat is a lot worse than losing your damn generator. How would you feel after crossing several suburbs only to be pushed out of your potential safehouse? Your allowance of level one survivors will lead to widespread zerging for the purpose of destroying generators. In the end, you've fixed nothing and have just made things worse for everyon. And now that you've mastered the shift key, try using the " ' " key. This key is used for contractions, such as "I'm," "you're," and "we'd." --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:17, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
        • The main thrust of the idea isnt to reduce griefing its mearly to turn survivor vs survivor into a legitimate combat. The anti-abuse measures I was refering to were the ones to prevent abuse of joining/leaving groups. You have read the suggestion enough to pick up on more poor presentation, but not on the main concept?
          • The point still stands: encouraging PKing is a no-no. It's part of the suggestion guidelines. From what I can see, the main concept is trapping characters outside. I know zombie numbers are low, but this isn't the way to fix it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:08, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
            • The main point was to encourage S vs S fights, i dont see why PKing is a no-no, as all characters are players so Z vs S also result in PKs? what i was trying to do was creat S vs S fights that were more than simple griefing.If the problem is leaving survivors stuck on the street, what if it only aplied to free runners (who dont have problems finding somewhere to sleep)?
              • You're obviously new to the UD community. "PKing" is a term used to describe survivor vs survivor actions. You're right: this is more than simple griefing. This is encouraged griefing. UD is primarily a zombie vs survivor game. PKing, or SvS, as you call it, is a secondary thing. Not to mention heavily looked down upon on the suggestion board. Did you even read the dos and do nots? --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:19, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
                • I looked at the dos and donts, and upon reading them i can not see anything that says "PKing is not aloud" or dont "encourage survivor vs survivor combat", im aware that this would encourage PKing and know that this isnt the most popular thing but after being pointed towards black ops i can see that the addition of a new type of combat isnt completly opossed, the main differences between the 2 ideas is that in my idea everybody can be in a group and you have to knock down the barricades to get to your enemy, but the concept of living vs living combat (what i think youd consider PKing) is key to both!--xbehave 00:17, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
                  • I'm going to end this once and for all: PKing is used in Urban Dead to describe survivor vs. survivor actions. It is not my word, it is the community's word. Go ahead and put this on the suggestions page if you really want to, I asure you it will die horribly. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:35, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Spam - So, you get groups that hold a majority of the resource buildings and exclude non-members?--Pesatyel 03:42, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re well only nasty groups, most building only apear to be owned by groups, when you check out whos actually in so and so 's NT building most arn't in that group at all--xbehave 16:58, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - It will lead to tremendous griefing. And survivor vs. survivor plotlines. Pros/Cons there. I'd like to see the survivors backstabbing each other a little more often and trying to control resources, but this probably isn't the suggestion to do it. Timid Dan 15:53, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re well survivor vs survivor is what im going for, well if survivors can just go into anybuilding they want then any other sorto survivor vs survivors thing would just be annoying because you cant defend yourself--xbehave 16:58, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
    • comment this is an interesting suggestion, I like the idea of a way for a group to properly control a building. I also like the idea of s v s drama. I was too new to the game to Find the Daris, CoL action, but would love to see wars for suburbs, with zeds sweeping the streets to pick off stragglers. If you had to have a large, large amount of players in the building this would be a really good thing, also if the limit on low levels was raised to maybe four or five it would be even better. I would hate to be in a suburb where everyone controlled the entrypoints. Oooh. It would be exciting.
As for Pking, its not griefing. Its the whole game. I don't see what the big deal is over it. -Banana Bear4 07:40, 23 March 2006 (GMT)
The game is supposed to be about fighting zombies not other survivors. I'm not saying PKing isn't (or shouldn't be) part of the game, just that the primary goal of the game for survivors should be surviving against hordes of zombies with the occasional nutjob (ie. PKer or death cultist) thrown in. Frequently, it is the opposite with survivors PKing each other more than even worrying about zombies and THAT is a sign something is wrong with the game.--Pesatyel 21:21, 23 March 2006 (GMT)
Why should it be? I mean, yes, zombies should be a part of the game, but saying what should be the focus based on personal preference isn't a good thing. Why should we leave out something fun because it is not based around SvsZ combat? If it'd be something to do, then put it in the game. Zombies not being that fun to play as is another issue. -Banana Bear4 21:27, 23 March 2006 (GMT)

New Survivor Type

Construction Worker Also check the unofficial(I think) Urban Dead forum.

Timestamp: 03:57, 31 March 2006 (BST)
Type: New Class
Scope: Survivor
Description: Basically this is the an architect class. Starts off with Construct(building skill) and crowbar. Please add your constructive critisicm to help this character type get off the ground
Notes: Spam/Dupe/Kill Ok, for starters you posted this inside my idea below, so we're not off to a good start. The problem here is that this has been done a million times. I think we have one in peer reviewed, a couple in peer rejected, ect.. Your version is also unplayable since it has absolutely no decent way to get EXP to start. --Zaruthustra-Mod 16:29, 31 March 2006 (BST)
Left Queue: 03:57, 31 March 2006 (BST) RE: Sorry about posting it inside your idea. I was almost asleep when I posted it. As for your no EXP start, my reply is to look at Scouts. As for the fact that it has been sone multiple times, sorry I didn't see that cause for some reason it didn't show up when I searched previous day suggestions in Ctrl+F. 21:41, 31 March 2006 (BST).

Crack/hole in the barricades

Timestamp: 02:28, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement to game
Scope: Applies to all humans as innate skill
Description: This will help low level (human) characters to find shelter.Come on when are barricades perfect I suggest all human characters be able to search barricades higher than very strongly barricaded for holes with a percent chance that decresses the higher over VSB the barricade is. This will give low level humans a chance to find a hole in the barricades and get into the building. Zombies will not be able to find holes due to lack of intelligence this ablillity does not harm the barricades so a EHB barricade will stay EHB. it would work just like searching "you search for a hole in the barricade but find nothing" or "you find a hole in the barricade and sneak into the building" The percent chance of getting in would be 20% for HB 15% for VHB and 10% for EHB please give me your suggestions for improvement.


  1. Kill - Marvelous bringing it here for input. It will save everyone (you and voters) much time in the long run. This nerfs "free running", as it puts it down on the list of skills you have to debate whether or not to acquire when you are low level. The difficulty in finding a VSB safehouse initially is part of the fun of the game. Too high a percentage and it's unbalancing, too low and it's not useful. this suggestion that passed peer review addressed the problem you are attempting to solve with your suggestion. As for me, I don't see this version ever making it passed its peers - but that's just me, I don't know what others will say. --Blahblahblah 03:42, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re so maybe to not nerf freerunning it should be 10% then 6% then 4% to make it some what usefull but still better to get freerunning-Deadeye207
  2. Kill - As much as we as a society may look down on crack whores, using them to rebuild your precious barricade is just over the line, man. Oh, er, um... yeah, I don't think this idea is good balance-wise. And I have read te suggestion, really... --Reverend Loki 22:41, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Screw nerfing freerunning, this nerfs zombies. If you could enter a building that is EH, then you have forts at EH and you no longer have scouts... Its just a VERY BAD IDEA. 343 03:13, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

Replacing/Removing memories of life

Timestamp: 19:56, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Modifying a zombie limitation and related skill
Scope: Zombie skills
Description: New version

This would be named: "Knocking doors open" instead.
This change would effect low-level zombies, allowing them to knock doors open/struggle to enter windows without Memories of life.

The reason I am making this suggestion is that the "zombies can't open doors" rule is a relic of old times. A long time ago, there were no barricades, so doors were all that separated survivors from zombies. Nowadays, not only is there barricades, but survivors have much more to fear than newbie zombies who can't open doors, even if they could open them for 15 AP (about a third of their daily alotment).

  • The door would be considered as 3 levels of barricades for this purpose (roughly 15 AP to open).
  • The zombie would see the levels of the door as "firmly closed", "weakened" and "almost open" (or, if a window implementation is choosed, the zombie would see that he is "gripping the window", that he "slightly opened the window", or that he is "halfway inside through the window").
  • Any means of closing the door, including barricading, would put the door back at firmly closed again (or knock the zombie off the window).
  • To prevent griefing, the survivors would not see the detailed status of the door (they would only see "closed" or "open". The zombie still has a big chance to lose AP doing nothing if this happens, but it's his call to risk it or not, and which buildings he's risking it on or not. After all, it's not like this costed him a skill or something.

I believe that this would help newbie zombies, arguably one of the most disfavored class in the game, by lightening up one of the penalties they get just for being zombies (the other major one being moving at 2 AP), and which seems obsolete at this point in the game.

thanks to xbehave (and others) for the feedback :)

These comments were made on the old version (which I removed because it was bloody long

    • I take it no one likes it. lol. and what am I doing wrong with this bloody template?--McArrowni 15:50, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
  1. Comment I think you outline a number of the basic issues with running a zombie character. It takes three times as long for a zombie startup to get to that first level as the average firefighter because of the lack of convenient targets. Nevermind the headaches of the newly dead without vigor mortis. Even with the extra 5% that got added recently, it's still more efficient to go to a revive point and gain the XP as a human before getting yourself killed and spending it on zombie skills. Playing an inexperienced zombie is frustrating and boring. Timid Dan 15:50, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
    • re So, am I trying to lighten this problem the right way, or would there be a better solution? --McArrowni 01:10, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment: hey, I like this idea. A lot! Expect some heavy whining from some people, but that's a great idea, anyway. Maybe make it so that zombies spend 2 AP opening a door, since they pretty much bust through it instead of using the doorknob? --Omega2Talk 15:47, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
    • re Thanks for the feedback. There is much less than I expected on this page. I'm thinking I'll submit it as simply removing memories of life and allowing all zombies to bust through unbarricaded buildings at the normal cost. Maybe tomorrow --McArrowni 01:23, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Comment Erm mabye it could be changed to an AP saving skill, by allowing zombies to knock down doors (id make them a level 3 barricade (15AP), mabye instead of knocking down the door you could be unbaricading the widows, however i think people may consider this a door nerf rather than a way of making memories of life better.--xbehave 16:25, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re If by knocking down you mean knocking open, I'd think it's a decent idea. It sounds simpler though to just allow them to clumsily climb inside through a window for 10 AP or something (in which case the door would remain closed for the others). Would be easier to code/understand IMO (and less RL time spent hacking away at barricades...). --McArrowni 17:07, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re People dont like actions that cost multiple XP, thats why id have it as some sorto barricade level or probability based knocking dowm --xbehave 17:49, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re Makes sense I guess, but the problem is if someone barricades in the time it takes you to knock the door down, it should logically be closed back entirely, right? Then the young zombie would have lost a lot of APs trying to knock this down... then again, it requires no skill, so it's their own damn problem (as much as I hate to say that about young zombies) if they try to knock open a door to a building with active barricaders (I'll put a line saying no one but the zombies know how damaged the door is, so that people don't wait till the zombie used a lot of AP on it to slap some barricades on the door). Yeah, I like your change, and will use that in my final version (which will also be rant-less, and much more concise, I hope. But posted much later, since I have a lot of work to do this week). Thanks for the help :) --McArrowni 01:10, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

New version updated I've saved the old version in a notepad file in case we need it back again and it's too far away in the history (I'm lazy like that). I'll try to post this new version tonight (-5 GMT time)on the suggestion page if I get the chance. Until then, please comment away :). --McArrowni 14:04, 21 March 2006 (GMT) And I'll think about it some more before I do anything... I actually find the 3 levels of barricade thing complicated, and after getting my other suggestion killed partly because no one understood it, I'm not too keen on posting this again, not before I get the wording right. It also seems weird, and bothers me that a young zombie might end up trying to bash the door for hours, just for a survivor to barricade over it restarting the whole process (and can't really see another way to do this). I'll think about it some more, and weight the benefit of the barricade thing and the multiple AP to open door thing. --McArrowni 00:26, 23 March 2006 (GMT)

  1. Considering everything, I probably won't submit this after all. Too much confusion, and I'm pretty sure it would be killed. --McArrowni 14:41, 30 March 2006 (BST)

Syringe Reworking

Timestamp: 20:38, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Balance change
Scope: All players, primarily NTs and Zombies
Description: As of right now, a human with NecroNet Access can revive 2 zombies a day. A zombie with maxed out combat skills is lucky to get one kill working with a large horde. At these rates, it is impossible for zombies to advance their numbers or decrease survivor numbers for a meaningful amount of time without new zombie players joining the game, or survivors willingly switching sides (yeah, right!). Therefore, I propose a three part plan to fix the ratio.

1) Raise the cost of manufacturing a syringe to 30 AP. Syringes can be hard enough to find searching in an ordinary manner (despite supposedly having a 1/20 chance of being found), so their rate can remain unchanged. This will put a stem on the massive outflow of syringes. NecroNet does not become useless, as the extra 10 AP is for the guarantee that a syringe will be found. I have searched three days straight using the normal method and come up empty handed.
2) Players should be able to be revived only once every two days. Considering that a well-organized group can conduct a revive of its member within a few hours, this will allow zombies to make a more noticable dent the survivor population. An in-game explanation can be that the player has developed a slight immunity to the syringe.
3) Have a 5% chance per zombie skill (capping off at 20%) that the syringe will fail. It gives zombies without brain rot a slight protection against combat revives, and also makes survivors who bought lurching gait and ankle grab soley for the purpose of making revives go smoother pay a little more.

None of these points are unfair. The thing is that Urban Dead is the exact opposite of what a zombie game should be. "It's a few brave zombies against a horde of mindless humans," to quote a wise zombie. The undead are an endangered species, and unable to increase their numbers in any significant way. Were it not for a small group of dedicated players who always return to their unlife, the zombie population would evaporate within weeks.


  1. Comment - I normally wouldn't comment, still being new to the wiki and all, but as a fellow syringe-hater I want to say that this sounds better than most of the anti-syringe suggestions that I've seen (including the one currently on the main Suggestions page). There are too many revives out there... and then once we're revived and have no "people skills", we're called "spies" and PKed. Reviving is a nuisance for the professional zombie, and it should definitely be harder to accomplish without us having to build up enough to buy Brain Rot right away. That being said, I agree with point 1, and possibly point 2 (if you can only DNA scan a zombie once a day, then reviving one once every two days seems valid). Point 3 may be a step too many though. While I agree that there should be a failure chance (is there a failure chance now? I don't know...), I don't think it should be linked to zombie skills. Too much confusion there. --Munchfort 23:06, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment - Something like this is desperately needed, if a population crash is to be avoided. --Grim s 00:44, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. comment - PLEASE remove 3 --xbehave 17:42, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Comment - has this been suggested yet? If it wasn't, I would probably vote keep. However, if it hasn't been suggested yet, I'd think about breaking it up in different suggestions. This would prevent one idea from sinking the others, should people dislike a single one of them --McArrowni 22:55, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It was suggested a few days ago and was doing remarkably well last I saw. Something like 75-80% Keeps. --Sindai 04:43, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Comment - Munchfort your wrong on one thing. Zombies can be scanned multiple times a day, it resets after they take an action. And i must say i would vote kill if this got suggested (not sure if it has). As someone who has a scientist character i don't think getting nerfed is a good thing. Scientists start out pretty weak with the only consolation being that later on they are very useful, giving revives earlier than other classes. So sorry, please leave us alone. Also, don't hurt people who want to get revived. You need to understand that some survivors Like being survivors. Don't punish them for trying to rebecome survivors unless you would like it to be hard to rebecome a zombie when you die or get revived. The way to fix the zombie to human ratio isn't in nerfing humans.--Hamster Ninja 12:06, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

Powered Buildings Bonuses 666

Timestamp: 00:50, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: game balance. AHAHAHAHAHA
Scope: Sticking it to zombies
Description: Extrapolates on earlier powered building suggestions, fills a gaping void in my soul where love should be.


When a powered generator is in a factory, the "Industrial Revolution/Child Labor" button will appear. Clicking on this button re-activates the factory, allowing anybody inside of it to produce an official limited edition "The Crow" trenchcoat, signed by Brandon Lee. Players with Headshot also get the option "Target Practice on Industrial Peon", which allows them to fire at mangled NPC child laborers. Successful hits automatically raise the Headshotters hit ratio to 100% for an arbitrary amount of time pulled directly out of my ass.


Malls are notoriously useless and under-utilized. This change would correct that. When all four corners of a mall have powered generators in them, the "Rocket Maaaaaaaaaaan" button appears. This requires that four players, one in each quadrant of the mall, insert and twist their special code-keys at the exact same time. This will cost 5 AP. When completed, rockets extrude from the Mall and blast it into space. It then begins firing lasers down into Malton, creating a blast crater twelve miles long and destroying the atmosphere. Bonus: When there is a person with Headshot, anywhere, this fix changes the Mall into a belligerent Doctor Who dedicated solely to shaping history so that zombies don't appear in the post-apocalyptic Malton, freeing it up to become what it was always meant to be...Denver.


These will change into Mon Calamari battleships whenever the planets align. IT'S A TRAP!

4 or more Malls

When there are 4 or more malls in "Rocket Maaaaaaaaaaaaaan" state at any given time, the "Transformers Robot" button becomes available. When activated, this option combines the malls into a Transformer Robot. Transformer Robots can fire the power of love into a zombie's heart. The addition of a 5th mall turns Mallstro into Mallstro Plus, who possesses the ability to respect the zombie in the morning. Adding Caigar creates either Optimus Prime or an unclosable portal to Hell itself. I'm not sure, as I fear the endless horrors that would be unleashed upon me for such terrible arrogance.

These fixes would make the game much more enjoyable for me, as their passage would destroy the souls of all zombie players, permitting me to feed on their suffering and grow bloated upon their pain. Also, free motherfucking syringes for everybody!


  1. Spam - I get it its pretty funny. Nice parody, you'll be hiiiiigh as a kite by the time you get to humorous suggestions -Banana Bear4 00:58, 17 March 2006 (GMT) Kill - Your edits make this a totally valid suggestion, You had me at Mon Cal Cruiser baby, However, policy says no changing mid vote, so I have to kill that which I love the most, Mallstro, Its just like abraham and Isaac, only its B-bear and Mallstro, why won't an angel fly in to stop me? I weep. -Banana Bear4 04:46, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Rockets! --Fred Dullard 00:59, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Your suggestion would be "Keep"-worthy with a little change: More cyborgs and robots. -Craw 01:01, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - gentlemen! There's a chance this will work! --Arcibi 01:03, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep It's so pure i think i'm gonna cry. The only way it could be better is with the replacing of the rocketmall with a Mon Calamari Cruiser piloted by none other than Admiral Ackbar himself--Mpaturet 01:19, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - No BattleTechs, no Keeps. --hagnat talk 01:21, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Yeah! Battlemechs or bust! --Omega2 01:42, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. WCDZ property - This suggestion naturally belongs in the WCDZ's official top secret suggestion list, as any suggestion of these goal and of this quality would have eventually be thought about by one of our members. Thus it is obvious, blatant theft of our future ideas, so I vote in motion of the WCDZ taking it back to our secret cave, so long as the other members agree. You will not be payed for your work, you will have no credit from this. Join our army or die! [JediMindTrick]For those reading this from history, this suggestion has never appeared here, your viewing of it results from a bug[/JediMindTrick]--McArrowni 01:25, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Addendum: Icecream. --Omega2 01:54, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    1. Agree --hagnat talk 01:29, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    2. Agree --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:33, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    3. Agree --Omega2 01:42, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    4. Agree^2 --mikm W! 03:11, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep This is perfectly reasonable. I think this will help correct the imbalance between different types of buildings.Also I don't see any of my votes here. Who's the dumbass? --Mpaturet 01:56, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Also, since he mentioned Doctor Who, this suggestion automatically gets 1+ free rewrite: just add the asked-for items, some benevolent Gallifreyan will alter time and make sure they get to the right place. --Dr. Fletch 02:21, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Author vote. Realized I forgot to add Admiral Ackbar, also MechWarrior and Brokeback Mountain references. sry guys Undeadinator 01:59, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I love it... there is only one problem 100% accuracy is not enough. Us survivors want something a little more precise... how about 150% accuracy? --TheBigT 02:53, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep I laughed, so you earned it--Bermudez 02:59, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill Underpowered and needs a bit more flavor. --mikm W! 03:11, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - MrAushvitz would be proud of you. --Cinnibar 03:15, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam - Tra la la la la. Velkrin 03:32, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - This is just the best idea ever. I look forward to your next suggestion! --Brett Day 04:16, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Could use a little more backstory, but your mechanics are solid. --John Ember 04:18, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Tally - 10 Keep, 5 Kill, 2 Spam, 5 WCDZ property, 17 Total. --Brett Day 04:26, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Spam - At least it's better than the other powered building suggestions posted recently, but I don't want to take a chance on this thing actually staying and making us all look like doofi (is that the plural of doofus?) --Norcross 05:02, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - doofoi? doofusen? It's so hard to know. But doofi just can't be right. Rockets, though, can hardly escape being right. --Fred Dullard 06:23, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Would be better if there was more face-stabbing.--Jorm 05:03, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - RESOUNDING YES TO ALL OF THE ABOVE. --Jad Tannus 07:18, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - I heart this with everything in me. :-p --TSKy 07:30, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Spam - Needs more Star Wars. --Grim s 08:39, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Love - If awesomeness could be measured in people, this suggestion would be China.--Mookiemookie 14:24, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - This suggestion is civilization. Resubmit it please, and don't change it after submission. - CthulhuFhtagn 19:55, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Precision attack

Timestamp: 21:26, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor, knife
Description: You have fought the zombies for so long that you have learnt to target their weakpoints. The idea is that on 50% of your sucsessfull attacks you will deal double damage.

Knife= 40% hit chance with 2 damage.

So if one uses 50 ap attacking with a knife one is supposed to do 40 damage, way to weak to be usefull. So what I am suggesting is that for every sucsessfull attack with a knife there is a 50% chance of dealing 2 extra points of damage. This would give it the same damage rating as a fire axe.

Knife with precision attack gives 50 attacks at 40% hit chance with 2 damage= 40 damage

Also 50% of the sucsessfull attacks are double damage= 40 damage x 1.50 = 60 damage

Fire axe with 50 attacks at 40% hit chance with 3 damage= 60 damage

Ok they are now even but thats pointless because it costs more experince points to reach the same number of damage with a knife as a fire axe. But the differnece is that if you where having a good day a knife could do a lot of damage while if you where having a bad day you would have very low damage. With an axe the difference wouldnt be as great when having a good or bad day. This makes the knife into a bit of a random weapon but I think it might appeal to people.

So what do you think?

comment I'd vote kill, personnaly. It's just a bigger variance weapon for melee combat, whereas the fire axe already seems like a high variance weapon to me. I'd rather have the other versions of knife combat fixes, where the knife gets higher % to hit (thus filling a high hit/low damage niche for melee survivors)--McArrowni 22:23, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

  • Re - Thanks for the comment McArrowni, but wont knife and axe be almost the same amount of damage if the knife accuracy increases? - Alpha Whiskey 14:26, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re:Re - Yes, but one will be more useful in some situations, whilst the other will be better in other situations. It's all about variance, as in the link provided above. If you are unlikely to kill your opponent in the few APs you have left at the end of the day (like if he has more hp than your damage/AP * your APs left), it would be better to use a weapon with less to hit, but more damage (so you have more chance to get lucky, and kill him even though usualy you woudn't). If your odds of killing him are already good, it's better to use the higher accuracy/lower damage attack (it makes it less likely that you get unlucky, and you don't need to get lucky anyways). It's all explained in the link provided above (or here: the beyond average damage guide)--McArrowni 04:56, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

Frenzied anticipation

Timestamp: 01:49, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie skill
Scope: Barricade breaching zombies
Description: Add a skill to the game called Frenzied anticipation, which would give a bonus on a zombie's first attack after breaking through the barricades.

As your zombie gains more experience, he recognizes barricade smashing as the prelude to feasting, and thus his anticipation causes him to burst into a short frenzy when he finally manages to claw through a building. I would suggest a +15% bonus to hit if at least 4Aps were spent attacking barricades beforehand, and entering a building. The first 3Aps have to be 3 (or more) straight Aps of barricade smashing, and you must spend the next AP entering the building, or the bonus is lost. Thus you could not smash at the barricades three times then get the bonus against a human who is outside.

The (mechanical) logic behind this is that, if the survivors get better attacks because they search beforehand, than zombies could very well gain a small, onetime bonus from hitting barricades. Keep in mind this only applies to one attack per zombie getting through, and must be used inside a building after the long work of breaking down the barricades. Edit: This skill would be a subskill of memories of life--McArrowni 18:18, 18 March 2006 (GMT)


  1. commentID vote keep, i assume the skill would be under memories of life?--xbehave 17:30, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Oops, forgot about choosing a pre-req skill. Yeah, memories of life would fit both the flavour and would make sense mechanically. The skill "could" work without memories of life (you don't have to be the first to enter)... but that would rarely happen. --McArrowni 17:35, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - There wouldnt be barricades enough to break the balance in a siege. I think this little reward for those, who spent almost a daily ammount of ap breaking the cades, would be good. Assuming that you *must* enter the building to earn the bonus will also prevent zeds to break cades from the inside in the first 3 aps and bite a survivor in the 4th. --hagnat talk 17:25, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - It's a small bonus, but a good one. Might even keep the bonus for a number of attacks equal to those spend attacking the barracades.--Theblackgecko 09:55, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  4. Re The suggestion has made and is opend for voting now, here until the 4th of April. Dunno if I should remove this discussion area? --McArrowni 14:33, 30 March 2006 (BST)

Blood frenzy

Timestamp: 17:44, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: After buying this skill, when in an area where survivors outnumber zombies with a ratio of 10:1 or greater, a ‘blood frenzy’ box can be checked, next to the attack button. This box, when checked, nullifies tangling grasp and digestion until unchecked. (Box becomes automatically unchecked when zombie is in any area where the 10:1 ratio is not present.) This can make sense because when all you’re concerned with is killing and maiming as much as possible, you’re unlikely to be tangling your hands in peoples hair, or taking the time to chew and swallow!

WHAT IT DOES: Gives a 20% chance of doing one extra point of damage to whomever you hit. However, due to the ‘frenzy’ element, and the large number of humans present (with the 10:1 ratio) then while your attack may hit, in your frenzied state you may hit other people. The way this breaks down is as follows:

Three humans in a stack of 10- X then Y then Z. Zombie selects human Y to attack with claws at 50%. Obviously, the attack has a 50% chance of missing, but of the 50% chance to hit, only 30% of this is ‘directed’ at the selected target, there is a 10% chance to hit the players above and below the target on the stack. If your selected target is at the top or bottom of the stack, there is a 10% chance to hit each of the two people above (at the bottom) or below (at the top) your selected target.

Basically, 20% of the hit Percentage of your selected attack is directed at each of the closest two people to your target on the stack.

Damage: I’m using 30 attacks, as lurching about and smashing barricades will take at least 20AP, I should think. The chances of a zombie being able to attack with a full 50AP is nigh on 0%.

WITH CLAWS: blood frenzy means a zombie attacking with maxed claws will inflict 54 damage over 30 attacks on average, compared to what would be 45 without tangling grasp, and about 60 with.

WITH TEETH: Whilst attacking with maxed teeth over 30 attacks a zombie will inflict 43 points of damage with blood frenzy checked, compared to 36 without. The exact figure with tangling grasp for teeth is unknown to me, my maths isn’t good enough to work it all out I’m afraid, but I believe it would be a fairly variable amount anyway.

Whats the point? Another zombie skill, partly for flavour, partly to spice it up a bit. Maxed zombies (or indeed, any zombies) don’t have much opportunity for choosing what to do, its just lurch, break barricades, get inside, hit with claws to get tangling grasp activated and then bite away. Wash, rinse and repeat. This would hopefully add a bit of choice and variety to a zombies day without overpowering them, and allow any zombies that are heavily outnumbered the opportunity to do some hulk smashing. Also, in heavily populated buildings (malls, PDs, forts etc.) a zombie breaking in would more than likely do so with several of its friends, thus often meaning that active barricaders are targeted first, ruining the effects of tangling grasp, as the zombies grip can be broken.

Flavour text: (When no extra points of damage are dealt, or the attack hits the selected target as usual, normal flavour text is used, ie ‘you maul _____ for 3 damage’, etc.)

4 point hit with claws: “In a frenzy of blood you maim _____ for 4 points of damage!�?

5 point hit with teeth: “In a frenzy of blood you eat into _____ for 5 points of damage!�?

When attacks hit the people above or below your selected target: “With frenzied anger clouding your vision, you miss _____ and instead eat into/maim ______ for X points of damage!�?

Whether or not the extra point of damage is done is calculated AFTER who the attack hits is. Thus, you could hit the wrong person for 5 points of damage with teeth, if they’re really unlucky!

For people who have skipped through it cos it’s a bit of an essay (sorry!) When a Zombie attacks a lot of people they can do a bit more damage, most likely won’t. Could miss and hit other survivors. Using this attack nullifies benefits gained through digestion and tangling grasp. More choice, variety and therefore hopefully more fun for zombie players.

Just wondered if people thought this was worth submitting, if it could be tweaked to be improved, or even if it’s a completely broken idea. My math aint that great but it seems OK to me, and I play both factions. Also, I was wondering whether or not to submit it under the vigour mortis skill tree (since it’s based around attacking) or the scent fear tree (below scent blood, since you might have to be able to ‘smell the blood’ to get into a blood frenzy.) Any and all input is much appreciated, even about the formatting. Be as critical as you like! --McDave 17:44, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

Votes here

Combat Revive Nerf

Timestamp: Brizth W! 13:41, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie skill/game mechanics
Scope: Zombies
Description: Simple, to the point: A zombie can't be revived within 5 minutes since it last attacked a human (not necessary hit, just attacked). For flavor, choose one:

1) NT can't get a good shot at the zombie as the zombie is trashing around, clawing and biting people.
2) The attacking zombie is in aggressive state, with the zombie's body generating substance similar to adrenaline. This substance prevents NT syringes from working.

No syringes should be wasted, as the game would warn that that particular zombie seems to be aggressive.

So. Ideas? Comments? Praise? Insults?


  1. Comment - The one problem I see is with abusing it to mess up revive points further. --mikm W! 01:15, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re.: - That's why I put attacking survivor as requisite. So, to mess up revive points, a zombie would have to find survivor, attack, and move back to revive point, and repeat every five minutes. --Brizth W! 12:08, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

The Dead Never Sleep

Don't.. whine? Like that's not a personal attack. Doesn't matter version 1 "The Power Of The Dead", and version 2 "The Dead Never Sleep" were spaminated before anyone got to read the full jist of it, also just as people who read it were starting to change their spam votes to kill when they better understood it. What it WAS was a skill that allowed powerful zombies to interfere (but not stop entirely) free running to the building they were in front of (blocking you from running in.) It matters not, my opponents made some very intelligent points, and i as the author am permitted to respond, especially if it helps answer questions. I'm done, for now. Spam votes are abused, and all users are free to point out any abuse, as it happens, as you just did, to me. MrAushvitz 17:27, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

  • That wasn't a personal attack, you may have been whining, but so have plenty of other people lately. If I were planning on attacking someone, I wouldn't be starting with you. Other people including other voters voicing their opinion on other people's votes. As for the matter of the re, I quote the suggestion's page...Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. Yes, it has moved beyond the text a bit, but not by much. Velkrin 01:05, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
    • I understand you guys need to 'clean the page' and get this shit out of there (I am to blame for that I admit.) But, am I supposed to take this abuse and BS? Fuck that noise, it's my idea! You know the spam vote is abused, everyone knows that! This is just so gaddam stupid, no ideas are going to get through, ever, because immature jerkoffs are getting their jollies voting against every good idea they see. it's pathetic, and stupid. (damn keyboard..) MrAushvitz 01:05, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Yes, the spam vote is constantly abused, but you are one of three users that has received consistantly valid spam votes. You're suggestions are not "good", they aren't even decent. I'd go so far as to say they are "stpuid"[sic]. You were offered advice, you were told to leave, you have been flamed, and now you decide to get pissy because someone told you that you were abusing the RE? The fact that you see other users as "opponents" isn't a good sign, it denotes that you now see us as the enemy. If I gave a damn, I would go so far as to say you are becoming paranoid after making dozens of bad suggestions. Another fact that you should be keen too is that people writhe whenever you have a "new" idea. Then you complain when it is spammed out constantly, citing that we hate creativity, originality, and good ideas; when the lack thereof is the exact reason we vote nothing spams and kills. Good ideas pass all the time, they are on the peer reviewed page, you should notice the lack of your suggestions there. Now, if you were to stop suggesting something every day, we may consider what you have to offer, but until then you have my anger and my pity; and I hope that you will take a hiatus to understand why people don't like you or your suggestions. --Arcos 02:12, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
      • "Good ideas pass all the time" (I'm going to quote you on that sometime, not a challenge, just your own words.. I'll be watching your voting on mine, and other people's ideas carefully), "you may consider what I have to offer", bullshit, of course I was offended when asked to leave.. that is how people react to ignor- negative critcism. Look, point blank, the mob doesn't scare me, okay. I don't think like other people, and I don't want to, I just like to share my ideas, and be heard. If I was a musician it'd be a song, about kicking puppies.. it's all good. I don't hate you guys, I just wonder how you guys hope any decent ideas to get through. The ones that did make it through seem like very very very minor rule changes to stuff that already exsists, not many ripples in the water. My perception anyways. MrAushvitz 01:05, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  • But, am I supposed to take this abuse and BS... This is the internet, you are going to get trolls. There is a reason why a very large chunk of what I said was directed at everyone. Your suggestions get voted out because they're normally unbalanced, some absurdly so. I didn't even vote on Dead Never Sleep until after it had enough votes to warent spammination, and even if I had voted kill, or keep, it would have still been spammed out. We have told you more then once, that if you want to develop a skill that has a chance at passing, it's better to take it to the discussion page in order to flesh it out. As for your suggestions being removed via spammination, guess what, it used to be 3 spams and no non-author keeps would remove a suggestion. We had suggestions gone in less then two minutes of being up (I think the record was 1:30), and before that we had a crazy mod who would delete anything that displeased her. The current system is far better then what it used to be, but since it's an open system there will always be idiot roaming about. Velkrin 03:01, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
        • ... too easy. Look I find it frustrating to put so much effort into posting an idea only to watch it blown away before anyone gets the full skinny (and then people tell me put more time into it, well, sheeesh). You make it sound like I should be grateful, I'm not.. my ideas are not being read, they're being erased before more than 8 or 10 people vote on it in many cases. Your opinion that they "aren't good" doesn't matter, it's what everyone thinks that matters. Do you understand? I don't make decisions about your life, you don't make decisions about mine. If you are required to spam my stuff off the page, so be it. Just seems a bit too fast is all I'm saying, I have a hard time believing that you guys are always "right there" to delete it the "second" it hits so many spam votes. Maybe I just pay attention too often, not paranoia, awareness. All good.MrAushvitz 01:05, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

Quiet Kill

Timestamp: 04:03, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item Change
Scope: Kitchen Knives
Description: Killing someone with a knife will only provide a message that the killed party was killed, and not who killed them to all others who witness this event.
This will create more healthy paranoia and fear. While it is true that someone could still shoot someone's life away and then finish with the knife for secrecy, and this is in fact unrealistic, it is important to remember that many things are both unrealistic, and totally sweet such as Batman, the Toxic Avenger, and Admiral Ackbar.

Example In The Building Fire Department are the characters X,Y, and Steven. X kills Steven with a Kitchen knife and Y receives the message, Steven was killed. No mention of who did it. Because there were only three of them in the building Y deduces that X did that, however Y always resented Steven and helps X cover up his crime

  • Development

Some people say that this should require a skill, others that it should require all knife hits. There was a fair bit of negative feedback based solely on the fact that it would be mainly for harman killing harman. The most interesting concern I heard is that it might detract from the zombie/harman conflict, however, I don't think that would happen. I would like to try and see if there's not some way we can all figure out a way to make this work.


  • Comment: And then in large sieges you have a choice of persons A through ZZZZZZZZZZZ. I cannot support anything which would encourage PKing. Velkrin 06:18, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re- yeah, and in that large siege everyone would be all freaked out and excited for the witchhunt if there was a quiet kill. This will not increase the amounts of Human to human kills. Those humans that kill other humans are often glad for the publicity. Its important to remember, in a game with no npc's any combat is PvP, hence any kill is a PK, human Kills zombie kills zombie Kills human Kills human, its all Pking. -Banana Bear4 07:15, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re- I like the idea but then again id like to see more PKing, however as i found out with a suggestion(look above) that implicitly encouraged PKing i found out most people dont like PKing (also PKing is defined as human vs human killing, even tho tecnically all killing is PKing for reasons of clarity PKing is used to refer to Human v Human and Zombie v Zombie (again look above where i tried to argue the point)--xbehave 13:49, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

Reworking Barricades

Timestamp: 23:43, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Mechanics reworking
Scope: Barricading
Description: This is something I thought of just a bit ago, that didn't make much sense. To get inside a barricaded building-

1. Tear down barricades. 2. Open doors. 3. Enter.

Makes enough sense, right? Well, not really. I might just be nitpicking here, but how can a survivor barricade a building from the inside, and build the barricade outside closed doors? A zombie has to tear down barricades before it can get to the door and open it, but survivors can build outside doors without opening them? Please correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.

However, if I'm not wrong, this just doesn't make sense, and could use some reworking. There are a few options, the way I see it:

1. Leave as is. (Do not like) 2. Require doors be open, and are not automatically secured when barricading. 3. Require survivor to be outside to barricade. (Don't like, and somewhat nonsensical) 4. Require both survivor be outside, and doors be open. 5. Zombies must open door before breaking barricades.

Feel free to rip me a new one on this one, I just thought of it and had to get it down before I forgot.


  • Comment - I don't know if this is needed, but if you try it, I'd go for either two or five. with five survivors can go on runs slamming doors if they feel like it, and zeds with memories can go on runs opening them for the little guys, but it could be a pain to tear at barricades just to get the door slammed and then you can't get in if your little zombie. so I think 2 is the nicest one for new zombies, -Banana Bear4 22:48, 23 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment - I think the door you open is 1 inside the building sorto to your stronghold room, id go with 2 5 would only work if doors could be knocked down, otherwise young Zeds are screwed--xbehave 12:51, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment this is arguing realism. Realism is good, but simple logical workable mechanics are better. This all comes form the fact that barricades are a later addition then doors. Why not point 6. change the flavor text? simply remove the part barricaded from the inside And simply imagine that survivors open and close the doors every time they put something on the barricade. problem solved.--Vista W! 12:29, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment - I don't think I would vote keep on this but it gives me an interesting idea. I reckon that if the doors are closed then Zombies can destroy the barricades easier but have to open the door. But if the doors are left open then Zombies take longer to destroy the barricades. The logic behind that is that it's easier to smash barricades if they have room to move backwards (if that makes sense) - Jedaz 00:24, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Wave of the Undead, Zombie Group Skills

Timestamp: 00:50, 23 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie group skills
Scope: Large groups of zombies, lovingly dubbed hordes
Description: Wave of the Undead

This is more of a passive skill. If a group of 20 or more zombies attacks survivors in the same square, WotU initiates. For every 4 zombies attacking, one survivor is put in a different kind of knock-down, requiring the survivor only to spend 2 AP to stand up, as opposed to the ordinary 10(or the Ankle'd 1). However, a survivor in this state can still be targetted by attacks and counts as alive, not a body, and must stand up before taking any other action. Survivors targetted by multiple zombies are selected prominently for knockdown. IE:

  • 24 zombies attack, say, 13 survivors.
  • Let's say 8 zombies target Survivor A, 5 zombies target Survivor B, 3 target C, 2 target D and E each, and 1 target F, G, H and I.
  • With this many zombies, they are able to knock down 6 players. A, B, C, D and E are all knocked down, and either F, G, H or I are randomly chosen and knocked down.

Note that all of the attacks still carry through.

  • Pros: Supports zombie groups, which is how they are ordinarily depicted.
  • Cons: Likely overpowered as is. Needs a % to happen.

Overwhelming Fear

When a survivor enters a square where 10 or more zombies have acted in the last 10 minutes, they become overwhelmed with fear(hence the name) and lose 5% to hit on all attacks. If this amount of zombies increases to 50, survivors lose 10% to hit, and all attacks aimed towards said survivor have a +5% to hit. Finally, when 100 or more zombies have acted within 10 minutes, survivors lose a 15% to hit on all attacks, and attacks against them gain a +10% to hit.

  • Counteractive skill: Veteran Zombie Hunter

Apparently, this would fall under the Zombie Hunter skill tree. Because they have been exposed to the zombies for so long, a zombie hunter naturally fears them less. With this skill, zombie hunters are unaffected by the 10 and 50 zombie increments of Overwhelming Fear, suffering a 5% loss and +5% to be hit on groups of 100 zombies or more.

  • Pros: Further supports zombies groups. Makes a survivor actually have trouble if running into a large, active hoarde.
  • Cons: Needs some kind of limiter as is; obviously, if survivors outnumber zombies, there wouldn't be as much fear. So, in short, need to work out a zombie-to-survivor limiter.


  • Comment - This has some merit for sure. Maybe, ten or fifteen percent? maybe increasing incrementally by four zombies, and if you say that they have to take 2 ap to get free instead of the other knockdown I'll like it even more. -Banana Bear4 22:43, 23 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment - Far to comlicated, there isnt much RT combat anyway, this suggestion seams to have Area of effect which means the idea will be shot down. Also having effects based on the number of players in a square just isnt in keeping with UD , so the idea will be shot down twice.--xbehave 13:05, 25 March 2006 (GMT)

Combat Revives

Timestamp: 07:46, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Game Balance
Scope: Use/Abuse of syringes as weapons
Description: My suggestion on correcting the use of syringes as "instakill weapons" (as I understand is becoming increasingly common) is simple and should not take anything away from either party (exept the unwanted revives of course). The turn after receiving the revive, let the target player decide if he wants to be revived or not. If the target agrees then he is revived as normal. If the target disagrees then he may continue with his zombiing. Either way, the doc administering the syringe should receive the XP for a successful revivacation.


  • REThere are a lot of things wrong with this. this also nerfes both sides. First of all 95% of all action happens while offline, including Caiger. This would remove brainrot along with the status it confers, If people whould be knocked down and then asked the question, It still be an instakill and combat revive whould go up because the one drawback to it (a pissed now-survivor who might make your life misery) is taken away. Dumping the knocked down body whould be easy as the zombie has to anwser a question before rising. So nothing whould change. If people aren't knocked down they'd have to be killed to get out and there are legitimate revives that happen inside buildings. You don't leave what might still be a zombie standing in a safe house) What whould happen to your revive if you're killed? does it affect HP? Revive points whould be impossible as every zombie whould in effect have undetectable brainrot soaking up syringes. random revives whould be impossible as well for the same reason. the only way to be revived whould be through meta gaming, and that is just not possible with 50.000 characters. In reality things are always more complicated then we think. This for example does take away a lot from both sides.--Vista W! 11:28, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  • REI was thinking of a similar idea, but instead of staying a zombie you become an uncooperative survivor. uncooperatives get XP at the same rate as survivors(combat only i think), however i cant think of a way of sugerconing the fact that this would encourage pissed of revivies to PK and i doubt it would be accepted as a result --xbehave 12:21, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re Vista got very good points. I really can't think of any way to get confirmation based revive system to work. Or at least not on any way to stop combat revives (Shameless self-plug: Talk:Suggestions#Combat_Revive_Nerf) --Brizth W! 20:24, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE:one problem is that it's kinda hard to get any XP as a level 0 anything. The biggest problem I see with syringes as they are now is that they are a dreaded "instakill weapon" that are strictly forbidden in other suggestions (see common suggestions). All it would take is a yes/no button popping up next time the cahracter logs in so offline or not I don't see that as a problem. I do understand the problem with "Brainrot" and I don't know what to do about that, which is why this is in the discussion part so hopefully someone can help find a solution. Peace, --Ghirardelli 21:36, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: One of the problems is that what should happen to character before owner logs back in? Should he be standing as a zombie? If yes, what happens if he is shot down? If he falls down when hit by syringe, then it's still a insta-kill weapon, no problems solved. --Brizth W! 23:12, 25 March 2006 (GMT)

Barricades Modification

Timestamp: 07:46, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Game Balance
Scope: Barricades
Description: Introduction
Instead of levels, barricades now have HP. Each sucessful attempt to barricade a building will grant it 5HP.


Attempt to barricade cost 1 AP, and requires the skill Construction.
Each attempt to barricade have 105-(HP of barricade) chances to sucess. This means, if a barricade has 35HP you only have 70% chances to barricade another level.
Barricades cannot go over 100HP.
Survivors cannot enter a building with barricades with more than 50HP.
Attacks against barricades uses the same to hit chances that the weapon in use has. This means claw have 30% to hit, and pistols 65%.
Only meele attack can cause full damage to a barricade, all others cause only half damage. Pistols, Shotguns, Flares, Bite (yes, bite) cause only half damage against cades.
Crowbars have +2 damage and +15% against barricades.
No XP is earned by attacking barricades.
Zombies with digestion, no HP back from damage dealt.
Barricades dont get infected.
Barricades can be griped.
Removed. Overpowered.
The flavor text remains, but the ammount of HP the barricade have follows.
Ex. quite strongly barricaded (30HP)
When barricading over 50HP, the game asks if you want to barricade further. If not, it barricade up to 50HP and then stops.
Ex. Harman1 is barricading a building with 47HP. When succesful, the game asks if he want to barricade further then 50HP. If not, the barricade stays at 50HP. If yes, the barricade goes to 52HP (and surviros now cant enter the building)


  • New human skill, subskill to Construction:
Engineering - Each sucessful attempt to barricade adds 10HP to the barricade.
Note that this skill only adds more HP back to the barricade, but the chances to barricade remain the same. So, if you have a 40HP barricade, it still have only 65% chances to barricade further.
  • Barricades Decay
Every full hour a building remains empty (no survivor have received an AP while inside it) the building loses 1HP. This means empty buildings will lose 24HP Barricade levels.
  • New zombie skill:
Heavy Hands - Claw attacks have +10% aggainst barricades.
Removed. Overpowered.
Claustrophobia - Zombies trapped inside empty buildings (with no survivors inside) have +20% on claw attacks against barricades.

Closing Notes

  • I believe this will bring balance to the for--- erm, to the barricade system.
  • Harmanz now know exactly how much protected they are.
  • Zmobies now know exactly how much they must tear down before reaching the meat inside (if there is meat inside)
  • It will take more AP to barricade a building, but it be possible to barricade more than it is already possible.
  • It will take 23,66 AP in avarage to barricade a building from 0 to 100HP (IF the subskill engineering is aproved).
  • It will take 66 AP in avarage to tear down a 100HP Barricade with Claws.


  1. Comment - Author's Comment. Nothing much to say right now. This idea has a lot of development to be made. Yes, another 'tie-something-to-another-something' idea of mine but, hey, i think this could work out! --hagnat talk 06:49, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    I need the spanish in--- the grammar patrol here. :( --hagnat talk 06:51, 27 March 2006 (BST)
  2. comment - Seams too much of a nerf, VS atm takes 40after punching some numbers i think its fine, although explaining the effect of firearms could be hard, but i think it would open up more barricade attacks by humans, it may still be abit much at only 16AP(22 if flak jacket-ish effect is added) to get a barriacade down by 50AP. The only problem i see is that crowbar is pointless how about you boost the dammage up to 15hp --xbehave 17:55, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    I just changed a few bits of the suggestion, so it gives crowbar a nifty plus, and makes it easier for survivors to build barricades (+5% is a lot easier). --hagnat talk 19:03, 27 March 2006 (BST)
  3. Comment I like this quite a bit and think you're really on to something here. Only thing is zombies can't be trapped inside a barricaded building. You can always click an adjacent square and leave the building, no matter what the barricade level. If that was the thinking behind the Claustrophobia bonus, you might want to revisit that.--Mookiemookie 19:04, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.


I am officially introducing Duped. It is a page that explains why a suggestion is duped out and how to fix it.--Deathnut RAF 06:14, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Nice. But I'm not sure I understand why a dupe needs to be fixed. IMO, if it's a dupe, it's been done, that's all there is to say about it. It's not really a weakness of the suggestion, just that it happened to have been suggested before. --McArrowni 16:20, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
Well, the only time a suggestion should be counted as a Dupe is if it came from the Peer Reviewed. I'd say Peer Rejected as well, but stuff doesn't get moved there anymore, it just get deleted as spam. But sometimes a suggestion from the other categories is also called Dupe, even though, technically, it should be in the Undecided category.--Pesatyel 04:42, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

About unclosed previous days voting that should have been closed

These span back to closing dates as far as the 8th of February. There has been two days ago! Should I revert the page back to what it was before the votes that were in too late, then close the voting as it should have been 20 days ago?--McArrowni W! 16:57, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

Go for it. If the votes were in too late they can't be counted. --Zaruthustra-Mod 18:25, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

I won't have time to move the suggestions to peer-reviewed/rejected/undecided. However I'll do what I can to close previous days suggestion. --McArrowni W! 19:38, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Is it even worth it to place suggestions in undecided? That place is in total chaos... the lastest suggestion there dates from december 29th... and there are many missing before that (and obviously after that too). I'll see what I can do for peer reviewed, at least. But I don't have much time left. --McArrowni W! 21:04, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

Nevermind... I'll start from where Squashua left it... 23rd or 24th of December or something. But I'm not making this a habbit. --McArrowni W! 21:08, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

And nevermind that... not enough time... this is more complicated than I thought it would be... --McArrowni W! 21:28, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Im working on this at the moment. At the moment im reading up on templates before i get fully going, but by the end everything should be where it belongs. --Grim s 00:23, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
Thanks a lot Grim :) --McArrowni 16:38, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Jon Pyre had a good idea for noting suggestion that make peer review that he brought up just before the talk page was archived the last time. Something to the effect of simply noting if a suggestion passed peer review along side the suggestion's title in previous days suggestions. That might be a really good way to go - as the system now is great for organization, but nobody has the time to upkeep it, and everything is just sitting there now (almost 2 months worth). It's only going to get worse, unless we figure out a different way to do it that doesn't require so much time and work - or unless someone dedicates themselves to what will be an incredible undertaking (which I don't really see happening). --Blahblahblah 21:40, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • I'd be all for that. I just witnessed the organization of the previous days suggestions page vs the other ones. I still don't think the previous days suggestin would do a great job at this, but it would do a much, much better job than the current system. So, when do we put up the discussion/vote? :P--McArrowni W! 22:40, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Per "Rule Regarding Changing the Rules" (I'm pretty sure that's the right title) in archive 7 - discussion must continue for one week, and then the information may be compiled into a rule change suggestion for voting. So, we ask everyone to put in their input - and after a week has passed, run a vote on it (as I understand it) --Blahblahblah 01:35, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
      • So, if I understand this correctly, we make a proper section header, and we already have the start of our discussion? Then we talk about it for one week, and then we can vote on it? Sounds good. If that is the case, I'll start cleaning up this part of the convesation to leave only the really related discussion around. --McArrowni W! 03:19, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Yeah, that's how I understand it from this. Hopefully we can get attention drawn to this from the rest of the suggestion community - it's a big mess getting bigger right now.. --Blahblahblah 15:20, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
        • The question is that, since the discussion was archived before the week ended, should we let it stay in discussion a bit longer? --McArrowni W! 18:12, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Marking Peer Reviewed Suggestions on Previous Days

Copied and pasted from discussion in archive 7 on same topic

What if in the closed voting section on the Main Previous Days suggestion page we put (PASSED) next to the name of every suggestion that passed. We would not change the suggestion titles themselves, we wouldn't edit the individual date pages at all. It'd look like this:

Feb 1st 2006

  • Katana
  • Zombies Acid Spitting Skill (PASSED)
  • Police Tanks & Helicopters
  • Mangling Maw
  • Portable Kegs of Beer (PASSED)

Many Peer Reviewed suggestions haven't been moved to Peer Reviewed yet. This would be pretty easy to add and would make it easy to quickly check out anything Peer Reviewed in the archives. --Jon Pyre 15:15, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

  • I don't mind that idea. Something is going to have to be done soon - I think the last day added was December 8th, or something ridiculous like that. If nobody has the time to keep up on the Peer Reviewed page, this seems like a reasonable alternative to me. --Blahblahblah 16:14, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  • I think authors should move their own stuff, and previous days will just become peer rejected. Easier all around. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:07, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  • We could do both. --Jon Pyre 22:53, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

That's where it was at when the page was placed in archive. --Blahblahblah 02:56, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Ok, if no one elso has time to move them then I'll put my hand up and do it, it'll have to be at the weekend though.--The General 19:43, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

  • Yowza! If you can get that done, I will bow down and worship you.. Just be ready to suffer through a huge backlog. --Blahblahblah 22:19, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I'll see what I can do. If I can't get it all done this weekend then i'll finish it next weekend.The General 23:10, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Just a heads up - some people have been moving their own suggestions over since the last time someone moved a whole day(s peer reviewed) over, so be weary if you come across a day that has one moved - not all of them might have been moved. They talk about it a little on the Peer Reviewed Talk/Discussion page.. --Blahblahblah 23:46, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  • You know, it would actually be easier for me if they had just left them where they were.--The General 17:17, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I know. I even thought of making a new page when I was thinking of doing that. Start from scratch to prevent that from being a problem. You might want to just copy the version where Saschqua stopped and do it from there. Or that might end up being more trouble than it's worth. In any case, thanks a lot for doing this. --McArrowni 18:36, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Discussion for altering wording on Don't Mess With AP in the Suggestion Guidelines

Referring specifically to this one. In the FAQ, Kevan addresses the question regarding action points with 'maybe in the future'. I feel it is contradictory for there to be a suggestion guideline against that, when he states he is open to it. If all he is waiting for is a good idea to come along (which, obviously I can't guess his motives - I can only think in terms of what it would mean if I was him) - it seems counter productive to automatically stifle any ideas that come up regarding the subject. If I were Kevan (which I'm not, but as said above - putting myself in his shoes) - I would welcome ideas on subjects I may be considering. It boils down to - it's ultimately up to him what goes in the game or not, why shut out ideas for him to consider if the idea happens to be good? As I understand it, Kevan didn't write the suggestion do's and do not's - the Wiki community did. As long as it is a guideline, suggestions of that nature will always be met with opposition beyond the suggestion's (mechanics) merits. This has nothing to do with those suggestions of this nature which are bad, but to have a guideline that goes against what Kevan himself may intend to implement makes no sense to me. I'd like to open discussion regarding rewording the "Leave Your Own AP Alone" to not be so absolute, or to remove it altogether. --Blahblahblah 22:34, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

I'd say remove it altogether. I can't think of a rewording that would actually make it worthwile. --Pinpoint 06:17, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Quote: As I understand it, Kevan didn't write the suggestion do's and do not's - the Wiki community did.

It's not as you understand it. It's a fact. I was one of the first to start shouting don't mess with AP, because back then we almost had AP suggestions daily, and they were bah-roken. The someone made a Suggestion do's and don't, which at the time was not accepted by all (and as far as I know has never been "accepted" by all, just accepted by some and mostly ignored by others). Anyways, as far as I'm concerned those are guidelines, but too few people realize it, so yeah, I think it would be a good idea to reword it. What I think it should state would be "AP is an extremely powerful mechanic, with very subtle implications, and is thus very hard to balance. It shoudn't be messed around with except by the most experienced of suggesters. If you don't understand why, you are probably not a experienced suggester, and should keep away from messing with AP". And I mean it. Stupid n00bs get this one wrong like 99% of the time. It's worth it to wait for them to mature before they post it if they have a good one, because that isn't very likely. At all. --McArrowni 14:00, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re - I really like McArrowni's wording there. Let's get this changed ASAP. --John Ember 03:52, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

What's With All The Unbalanced Suggestions?

Is it just me or have a lot of unbalancing suggestions been doing pretty well recently? We have majority support for AP draining skills, auto-attack defenses, all kinds of nasty things up on the suggestions page. Hasn't anybody read the suggestions guidelines? --Jon Pyre 23:31, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

  • I'm curious -- why don't we require suggesters to sign their suggestions by name as well as timestamp? I suppose it's to cut down on ad hom reactions to suggestions ("oh no, not another John Ember suggestion"), but it would have the effect of signaling whether it's an experienced suggestion author or a total newb proffering the idea. --John Ember 04:01, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • It not just you. I found it hilarious that the "Bury the Dead" suggestion got slaughtered because it takes an extra 2 AP to stand (not counting the survivor has to waste 1 AP to do it) and then the "Tangling Grasp revised" gets a lot of the same kill voters from the other saying 'yeah, it's ok for there to be an unlimited AP drain for zombies to use against survivors'. When you compare the two, "Burry the Dead" was more balanced. I get the feeling there's a bit of a "Sides War" going on. I tried to bring the issue up before, but it didn't seem to do much good. I think that might have something to do with some of the ridiculous ideas getting so much support, and some of the balanced and good ones (like "Travels Light") getting killed for reasons other than mechanics. As far as the suggestion guidelines, they are guidelines - I don't see them as absolutes (though some voters do). If you take them as absolutes, the headshot revision should never have taken place (don't mess with AP). That was from a suggestion I believe was posted by Amazing (though I'm sure it came up from others too). Honestly, I think people should be weary of the guidelines - but If they can come up with a workable suggestion that is good, I don't think people should be killing it only because it is an function addressed in the guidelines (one voter in particular said they wanted to vote keep on "Travels Light", but they voted kill because it's listed in the guidelines). I honestly don't so much mind seeing suggestions that go "against" the guidelines come up - and have no problem voting spam on them if they suck - I feel it's a good trade off for the chance (and it does happen from time to time) that someone can come up with a workable version that could end up making the game more fun. I think they are called guidelines because they are meant to guide, and not rules because they aren't meant to be absolutes. --Blahblahblah 01:51, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re - Regarding the "sides war," you can blame the WCDZ for that. They're the ones who made the Suggestions page a political issue -- joke or no. --John Ember 04:01, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re - Could you elaborate on that? I guess you see me as surprised...--McArrowni 06:05, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re - Let me just say this: Did the WCDZ not think an organized anti-zombie wiki group would produce a counter-response? --John Ember 21:56, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re - That's horseshit John - It was never an "organized anti-zombie group"' - that's the whole joke. It was created after some people accused some other "high profile" voters of being biased, and having a conspiracy against zombies. We aren't stupid (and many of us play zombies equal to or more than we play survivors) - this game doesn't work without both sides, and we know that. Both sides need to be fun and exciting to play or the game loses it's point. If a counter-responce was created, they are the only ones involved in a conspiracy - and one they accuse others of. Understandably if one person only plays one side, or prefers to play one side - they will tend to be more receptive to suggestion that benefit their side and more opposed to those that do not. I'm just saying that killing things only because "one side doesn't need it right now" or "it's only for one side" are crap reasons, and they serve to make the suggestions page worse for everyone. I'm saying "grow up" to those voters, and if they will not, perhaps the Dupe rule should be amended so that good suggestions are not lost forever thanks to some one sided (short sighted) voters. --Blahblahblah 22:59, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • ReWhat BlahBlahBlah said. The WCDZ was made as a satire to the accusations of people that, I'm very sorry about saying this, but I tend to consider pro-zombie. Not that there weren't cases of people voting for the survivor side (rapid reload... for just one example... and many good pro-zombie suggestion that was gunned down for no good reason). All of which existed way before the WCDZ (in fact the rapid reload case is so very old...). Add to all this that the voting for the current game state (as in, if there are few zombies, no suggestions that would overpower survivors) was almost a policy at the beginning of the voting system, and it's hard to see how you can connect the WCDZ to this. Especially since the WCDZ is now like nearly dead. (was that good enough, boss?). Final note, there are actually advantages of having some people voting for one side, because it helps you keep track of how each side would really welcome a suggestion, without them hiding any part of it. It's just that it can't be overdone or we start losing good ideas. --McArrowni 23:59, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re I understand that it was intended mostly as a joke. What the WCDZ fails to appreciate is that not everyone took it that way. I fully agree that suggestions should not be evaluated on how they support a side, but on how they make the game more fun. --John Ember 02:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  • We're you there before the WCDZ was founded? (a genuine question, I can't remember, I noticed you later after we were established) There was a block of zombie players voting as one on any zombie suggestion and trying to kill any survivor suggestion that didn't give boost to survivors. The mood was quite nasty for a while. they did have a point though, there were at the time quite a lot more survivor then zombie players, while most of the survivors tried to be fair (But some of then were quite biased) simply the fact that a lot of them didn't know any thing about playing a zombie limited them. The zombie players tried to get more (much needed) attention to their troubles. Tempers flared, etc. right now the whole community is a lot less devived and argumentive then back in december/January. The WCDZ actually helped calming the community if anything, by being quite even handed with their mockery and kill vote, (or spam vote... Aaa that were the days...) and making workable zombie suggestions also. Sure the fact that zombies gained some much needed boosts was more important but on the whole the WCDZ has done a lot more good then bad. We certainly didn't start the politicing of the wiki, we actually tried to stop that.--Vista 18:10, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re - I've been in Urban Dead for a while but not as long on the wiki. I didn't know the history, and that makes sense. Still, if the WCDZ has served its purpose as it seems, I suggest putting it out to pasture. Newer zed players will only be infuriated by it, as I initially was. --John Ember 18:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re - The WCDZ hasn't been high profile since Zaruthustra became a mod. I don't ever think it should be completely put out to pasture, because It's hella funny. And I was infuriated by it when I started seeing people comment with WCDZ in their votes too - but I took the time to read the page, and view it's inception, and it wasn't hard to see it was a joke. Plus I actually paid attention to the way they voted, and never noticed a trend (certainly nothing organized) against one side or the other (grant it, some people always favor one side over the other - WCDZ member or not - but certainly no WCDZ member ever killed a suggestion because it was "for one side"). I would be for making it a little easier to tell that it is a joke - maybe a disclaimer on the page EDIT: in fact, just added -, but not to do away with it completely. It's too good a joke to let go. --Blahblahblah 21:04, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  • The not the guidelines that bother me, it's the overwhelming support for bad suggestions. Of course I suspect that the votes really aren't important and that things are implemented based on the merit of the suggestions, not on how many votes they receive. When did the suggestions page even get a voting system actually? I'm not saying we change it, I'm just curious about the history of the suggestions page, whether it was always a voting system, when that was started, etc. Was it originally just a "Suggest things" and voting came along later to make it easier to sift out the good and bad? --Jon Pyre 05:38, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Guilty as charged. I'll have to revise many of my votes lately, because indeed I have voted keep a bit more boldly than usual. IMO, it's the constant bombardment of poorly thought out suggestion lately that makes anything half decent look plain good instead. --McArrowni 16:45, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Yeah, I'm guilty too - same reason, but also because I was so excited to see AP suggestions start to come up. I think about Kevan's statement in the FAQ, and am eager to see him put out a skill or two for that cause. Either way I should probably rein myself in a little too. --Blahblahblah 18:43, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
      • I'd add... As far as the "don't vote for a side" thing goes... Eventually, you have to realize that skills and mechanics don't exist in a vacuum. As much as going too strongly for one side ruins the voting, so does ignoring the aspects of the game with which the suggestion interacts. Kevan has introduced multiple unbalanced things in the game, things that would have NEVER been kept here, and sometimes would even have been spaminated on sight (ankle grab, infectious bite, etc.), and that's not counting things like revivication syringes which are questionable balance-wise. Then there is the fact that a load of new, balanced skills on either side would still unbalance the game. I guess what I mean to say is, what is "balanced" if it isn't at least a little in relation with what is in the game right now. Add to that that you never know how powerful a mechanic is until you see it in action, and it becomes hard to say "this is balanced" or not without looking at the current game. And eventually to "who is winning". I think at some point we just have to know when to stop. --McArrowni 17:02, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
      • In regards to that - what about adjusting the dupe policy? It's never going to be perfect here with voting, there will always be people who troll or vote based on sides, etc. I hate to see suggestions go down that are good - but get gang banged because "they don't need it right now". Maybe if a suggestion is a peer reviewed dupe, dupe as is currently done - but if it was a contested idea, not to delete it. I don't know, maybe Kevan doesn't even look solely at Peer Reviewed, and maybe he keeps an eye on the suggestion page as ideas come in... In which case it wouldn't matter. --Blahblahblah 18:43, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Absolutely. I think we should be allowed to revote on an old suggestion after awhile. The process would probably need to be restrictive enough to prevent some people spamming the suggestion page with suggestions that should be long gone. Something like you must gather the support of 2 or 3 other persons before posting it to be able to start the revoting. --McArrowni 00:59, 4 March 2006 (GMT)
    • As for the history of the voting system and of the suggestion page, I'm starting to think we could have a page for that (like an "About the suggestion page" page). Some of the info is important (mainly for people to realize WHY we have this page, although most people get it, and those who don't woudn't read it anyways... but that's a detail). I think I stated what I know in this page before archive 7. In short, Katthew used to moderate this page with an iron fist and "got overthrown", in a way. Then we deleted all the previous suggestions and began with this system. The exact date that the voting system began is probably the same as the first day of previous days suggestion. Somewhere in November I believe. --McArrowni 16:45, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Moving back on topic, we seem to have been getting another swarm of them. Perhaps there should be some sort of limit on the amount of suggestions one person can make. Say 2 per week not including re-submitted after author removed? Might help to slow the ingress of bad suggestions if they're done by the same author. Velkrin 04:52, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Sounds good. I can think of only 1 person that manages to make more than two decent suggestions in that timeline. Although I could be forgetting someone. --McArrowni 05:58, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I would support such a restriction. --John Ember 21:49, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I see why you want to do this, but I don't think it's a good idea. Jon Pyre makes many suggestions each week, and many are good - certainly few are utter crap. I don't have any problem with spamming worthless suggestions, and would prefer that over a rule change limiting suggestion proposals. Plus we'd wind up with only 1 or 2 suggestions each day - and that's just boring :) --Blahblahblah 22:59, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • On the other hand, there's MrAushvitz... Pyre can write his suggestions down and dispense them regularly in keeping with the weekly limit. Maybe it's three or four a week; that would still eliminate the spamming we've seen the past few days. --John Ember 20:45, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • The 2/Week was just a suggestion, it could easily be increased to something like 7/week. The problem isn't with the sane people making good suggestions, it's with the people that find the suggestion page every now and then and yell 'I must suggest everything I can think of!' then promptly go and do that without actually attempting to improve on their suggestions or read anything other then the template. Really I'm just throwing the idea out for discussion. Velkrin 09:00, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I understand BlahBlahBlah's concern, but so far Jon Pyre is sort of the only exception. Maybe we could make the limit smaller, or just plain not do it. Maybe we have to find a way to get it through the newbie's head, you all know the type (who have to get a suggestion through, any suggestion, NOW, because they feel they just plain have to. Probably because they feel it is necessary for their social acceptance or some such crap) or just plain give them a temporary ban from this page. Or maybe you coudn't be allowed to post new suggestions until you spent one week on this page, or something. That would at least force them to have the time to read. --McArrowni 15:06, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I'm sorry if I come off all wrong here, but I kind of like what the really bad suggestions produce sometimes. Like the bonding that went on as we all voted spam and said things like "needs more cyborgs/rocket launchers/ chimpanzee's" about the suggestion to give zombarz guns. I mean, its not too much trouble to spaminate these flawed ideas, and some of them are a bit of a laugh. Plus it totally strokes my internet ego to know that I am at least not suggesting headshotting corpses or some such nonsense, thats all from me. Thanks. -Banana Bear4 22:43, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Part of me says you are so dead wrong, and part of me says you are really just talking for everybody here, me included :P. The problem is it also has the risk of traumatizing n00bs who might actually end up being ok contributors later on (in some cases, that's doubtful, but still). The other problem is... have you ever tried to sort out the previous days suggestions? Whilst spaminated suggestions are not that bad (they are obvious), any suggestion in between of keep and kill make the whole process tedious (so does kept suggestions, but at least they are kept). --McArrowni 01:36, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Right, gotta stop adding in the spaces before we get a scroll bar. How about a per day amount, for skills you can suggest, such as 3 per day, not counting revisions which the author removed. That would keep it from spamming up too much since the cycling seems to be working well, plus the good suggesters (is that even a word?) would still be able to get their skills in. The only problem is the excessive skill authors removing their suggestions over and over on a daily basis. Velkrin 21:22, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I'd be in favor of that. I can't think of a case when even the authors with a tendency for good suggestions make more than 2 or 3 a day. The only ones I can think of that do that are the authors who just throw out whatever comes to their heads - and those tend to be the really bad ones. --Blahblahblah 22:02, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Less talking, more official discussion of this idea followed by a one week voting :) --McArrowni 22:05, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Hey, can anyone vote on this stuff? A daily limit would be wonderful right now. Especially with He-who-should-not-be-making-suggestions now flipping out over the Spam cannoning of his stuff Timid Dan 22:18, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Yes, everyone can vote (although I was wrong about some of the things I just wrote, the voting lasts two weeks). See here: rules for changing the rules--McArrowni 22:25, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Could really use more votes on it, to make sure it passes. Velkrin 03:45, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I really doubt there are 20 people who read this anymore. We seem to have a catch 22. To change the rules, we need 20 votes, but we can't get 20 votes without 20 people. So if we wanted to change the rules to require, say, 15 votes for an idea to pass, we couldn't.
  • Please sign your comments on the talk page. As for the catch 22 thing, we're going to have to change that rule, by publicizing about it if we must. I guess I'll try to do "shameless plugs" in my vote comments--McArrowni 16:15, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Parallel Evolution

I just wanted to share some information with you all...I was poking around Kevan's site,, and I found another project of his called BlogNomic. A Nomic, I found out, is a game where the players make up the rules as they go along. BlogNomic starts every round with no rules save the ones that describe how one can change the rules. Any player can propose a new rule or a change to an existing one; other users then vote on these proposals, and if a proposal meets a quorum after a certain amount of time it passes and is added to the ruleset. Remind you of anything?--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:11, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

LOL... at least I thought it was funny--McArrowni 00:10, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

Unbalanced Pro-Zombie Suggestions

Now you all know I'm in favor of suggestions that help zombies. I currently play one survivor and one zombie and I frequently suggest things I think both sides need. But it seems that any suggestion that "gets rid of griefing" automatically passes with 30+ votes. I bet if I made a suggestion titled "Getting Rid of Shotgun Griefing" that said that shotguns were too powerful and suggested a zombie skill "Flak Jacket Ligaments" that reduces the damage of a shotgun to 7hp it'd stand a pretty good chance of passing. --Jon Pyre 16:40, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

I'd vote for it. --Cinnibar 02:35, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
Shit. If MrAushvitz reads this... --mikm W! 04:00, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
This should be a cross-skill, since bodybuilding helps zombies, and should help survivors as well. Timid Dan 21:36, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
Folks are just desperate to do something, anything to get zombies back into the game. I can tell you that whole hordes are dropping out of the game because they're tired of attacking barricades instead of human players. The stats, as bad as they are, don't begin to tell the whole story. If something doesn't happen soon there may not be an Urban Dead in six months. --John Ember 18:11, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Resubmitting Suggestions Over Time

Not the best title for the point, I know, but I'm out of ideas...

We all know that a lot of suggestions get shot down because they don't fit the way the game is going at the moment the suggestion is made, like some interesting survivor (heck, even zombie) ideas, thet don't fit the game situation right now. Some of those suggestions are actually good, and could be re-used later when the situation changes, if they weren't considered Dupes according to the rules. So I'm suggesting that a suggestion can be re-suggested without being marked as Dupe, after some time. My initial idea is a time span of a month, since most one-shot authors don't care for their suggestions for so long, and it gives the game time enough to react to any new change Kevan implements (considering that he'd add something at least once per month). The resubmition would be made with a note explaining how the situation changed and in what this would make the suggestion valid again. Given the tendence to forget long-time thinking when times are dire, I fear that at least some good suggestions might be lost because of nearsightedness.

So, any comments?

NOTE: damn, this should have gone to the end of the list. Can someone fix that, please?


Ok, as the previous topic mentioned, some of these zombie suggestions are getting a bit out of hand. Yes we all know that theres a faction balance issue (in fact there always has been and probably always will be). And we know its hard getting ayed out by a shotgun after attacking barricades for an hour, but these "fixes" are ridiculous. The problem is that they assume every harman is part of a huge metagaming group. lets look at getting revived for example.

Group Member: You are hiding in your stronghold, somehow some zombies do manage to coordinate a breach and kill you, before they're all headshot and thrown to the pavement. Outraged about this indignity, you rush to your group forums and contact your friends. Within minutes a team of maxed out ninja doctors in jet black surgical scrubs descend from the second story of the building, kill all the other zeds around you, and stab you with a syringe. You go back into your building and generally feel secure about your own superiority.

Lone Player: You hide in a fire department after walking around town healing people for EXP. In the night a zombie breaks in and uses feeding groan, by the time you get back to your character he is in several pieces. You stand up as a zombie. you attack and hit nothing, move and waste your AP, and decide you rather enjoyed being human. You walk around town and eventually sit on a spot that graffiti has marked a "revive point". Of course this might be a month old, and even if its active there might be brain rotters sitting there. Nobody wants to waste a syringe on you, since they cost 20 AP. You wander from revive point to revive point for a week, and then quit the game.

So please, before you make another suggestion about nerfing syringes, remember that not everybody is a member of the caiger mall survivors. --Zaruthustra-Mod 22:15, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Dating system & Peer Reviewed error

Is there really a point to having the division by date on the Undecided Suggestions and Peer Rejected Suggestions? Seems to me it just gums up the works. Perhaps it should be divided up like the Peer Reviewed Suggestions? By that I mean grouped into general class - Ex: Weapons, Skills, Misc. I also noticed an odd little thing in the reviewed section: "The suggestion must have 2/3 majority Keep to Kill votes (2 Spams = 1 Kill)." I could have sworn 1 spam = 1 kill for the purposes of getting into the Reviewed section. Velkrin 05:12, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

  • I agree. As for the (1 spam = 1 kill) thing, I think it's a leftover of some old time. Check the rule on the main suggestion page, it should have the most up to date rules. A lot of things don't work with that page. It was never really intended to hold so many suggestions (and right now probably doesn't hold all the suggestions that it should). I'm guessing whomever thought up that part of the system didn't expect such a constant flow of non-dupe ideas. (in fact, the first few days were shocking... initialy, it was thought thought we could just cycle suggestions out of the suggestion page after two weeks, directly in peer reviewed/rejected.... no previous days suggestions at all. Boy were we wrong... I eventually coudn't even open the page). Anyways, that would make it --McArrowni 16:08, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Right. I've taken the liberty of chaging the Reviewed page's typo, and have put up the other bit for discussion. Velkrin 03:06, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

Trolling with "RE"

Ok, the awful suggestions are bad enough to wade through. The recent overuse of the Re tag to troll every negative vote by MrAustvitz has gotta stop... Timid Dan 16:21, 27 March 2006 (BST)

  • I told him as much with a comment post-spamination on The Dead Never Sleep, and I also chastised a chunk of the voters as well for various reasons. He has his days. Velkrin 23:26, 27 March 2006 (BST) Edit: Found it. 20:35, 28 March 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal policy discussion concerning policy votings to be opened on the subject of the suggestion page, as per the rules for changing the rules

Limit Suggestions Per Day

Opening this up for discussion, as per the rules. Velkrin 23:54, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Exact text planned for voting, unless someone points out a typo or make a good argument:

I move that this be added to Making a Suggestion.

12. Each author should not make more than three suggestions per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Frequent removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system.

  1. Keep - This is profoundly needed. --John Ember 03:48, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
We're not voting yet :P, this is just a discussion, until tommorow at 23:54 (10 march to be exact). Seems like we're starting well though. --McArrowni 03:54, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
Heh, oops! Um, in that case... Yes or Ten-Four, Good Buddy! --John Ember 03:56, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
  • It seems like a good idea. 3 suggestions per day is certainly enough from any one person and this would stop one person from suggesting an endless stream of suggestions that get fifteen spams each time. I understand there was some confusing about the rule change rules. You only need discussion to last for 24 hours at the minimum, so voting can be opened on this very soon as McArrowni said. --Jon Pyre 05:56, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Hey, I'm with it, it still lets for some good old fashioned rhyming triplets of spam, for me and my misanthropic zerg friends, and it might keep the garbage from filling up the pail. RADICAL DUDE! -Banana Bear4 06:53, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I like it it helps remove the "you have to pass this for this" crap from the suggestions.--Deathnut RAF 18:43, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I think three suggestions per day is too many for some people. A weekly limit would be nice. And a revision limit per day, too... like a suggestion can't be revised more than once a day... Timid Dan 16:01, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Already suggested a suggestion/week limit, people thought it was a little much. As I said, with the higher cycle rate it's less likely to clutter, so a week limit isn't all that necessary. As a side note we still need more votes to get it passed. Do 20 people even check this page? Velkrin 03:29, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  • they do, but just not as regualar as the other pages. It's at nineteen now, it just needs one more.--Vista 17:06, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I'm all for it, within reason 3 a day is no problem for me (max.), a weekly limit requires you to look and see how many they made.. but 10 a week is reasonable (don't make it too low your best ideas will never make it in). But remember currently it is very very hard for ANY ideas to make the grade (2/3 votes just to start) most of them don't even get anywhere near that. If you're trying to save space, hell yeah. But just remember why you're doing this, and it will have an effect on suggestions period. IF I was only allowed 3 (or 2) suggestions a day, it's going to seriously piss me off if they're spaminated, and if all are spaminated, why bother posting anything? -MrAushvitz 06:53, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Why indeed, bother posting anything, if you do not take care to balance it carefully, seeing all of it's implications, comparing it , wording it carefully and elegantly (note, the link may or may not be a good example/model), to the point that most are spaminated. Why wait for a daily limit? Ultimately, every suggester is responsible for the quality of his suggestion. Take my frenzied anticipation idea. It's getting killed because I wrote it in such a confusing way that no one understood what I was doing. Did I complain? (well, except just now. You bastards! :P ). Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, no one is going to take it more easy on anyone because they now must act under a rule that any decent person would have acted as if it existed anyways. Just take more time to develop your ideas. Or don't take more of your own time, but let them sit in a file somewhere, forget what they are about, then reread them a week or so later, with a fresh outlook. --McArrowni 05:39, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  • For today's example of why we need a limit, see the current spree. -Velkrin 04:40, 24 March 2006 (GMT)

Separate Votes for even Easier Reading

Basically, make a Keep section, a Kill section, and a Spam/Dupe section, like this:

Top Vote Line Thingy Here Keeps (underlined or something)

  1. Keep - I likey. Persondude

Kills (again, underlined or something)

  1. Kill - I no likey. OtherPersondude

Spams/Dupes (once again... well, you know)

  1. Spam - This is crap and can't be fixed. Spammerdude
  2. Dupe - Worse than spam, it's a dupe of a really bad suggestion. Duperdude

Bottom Vote Line Thingy

Obviously, the first Keeps should be below the Top Vote Line Thingy

I'm making this suggestion because it seems like no one ever really uses the tally anymore. I know it means using more brain cells for voters (they should anyway sometimes), but it at least makes it easy, as long as no one is a total screwball-head. So, watcha think? --Pinpoint 08:36, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Having once tried to sort out some previous days suggestions, I think this would be great. --McArrowni 17:50, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
I still use tally! This would help to speed things up however, mind you it could get messy if people cross out their votes a lot. Velkrin 03:24, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
I like it. Would make it easier for everyone. --Brizth W! 16:30, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Looks like some people like it. Not real sure how to put this up for a vote if it gets enough support, or when that is (mostly because I just like coming up with decent ideas, but don't read very well). So could someone do that for me if I don't when I'm supposed to? Was that question confusting? It seemed confusing. --Pinpoint 03:58, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

You don't "need enough support" to put it in the voting area. You just need to wait 24 hours or more after the discussion begins, and have no other discussion started in a period of a week just before it (in other words, you can open the voting nowonly have to wait for a week, since a new voting just oppened). Unfortunately, I don't think we have a template for this. So just make it as close as the votes below as humanly possible. --McArrowni 06:19, 19 March 2006 (GMT) --re-fixed --McArrowni 22:02, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re There's no limits to how many seperate rules can have voting going on at once, just each individual person can only post 1 a week. If you've already posted a rule vote that week it's within the rules to ask someone else to open up voting for it instead. --Jon Pyre 20:24, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

Shooting Range in cop station. Builds XP with head shot. [User: Bounty Hunter2000]

"HUMOROUS" Suggestions

Zombies with rocketlaunchers. Spaceships for survivors. Ditzy Cheerleader survivor class. These suggestions are the enemy. And I'll tell you why: they kill the suggestions page. Imagine you're Kevan. You're busy, have several projects you're working on, and have to maintain an online webgame all in your free time. Perhaps sometimes you can check the UD wiki to see if any players have valid suggestions. Here's what the suggestions page should be:


  • Interesting idea for new skill
  • Small fix to improve attack mechanic
  • Idea to improve contact interface

Here's what it's become:


  • Zombies Are Underpowered!
  • Baseball Player class with Steroids
  • Tangling Grasp Isn't Good Enough!
  • Drink a Beer and Pee Graffiti
  • Zombies on a Plane!
  • Interesting idea for new skill
  • Survivors should have to pay 100xp to be revived! Death is meaningless!
  • New Zombie Class: Dinosaur Zombie

If Kevan has to search through fifty layers of crap to get to the one or two good suggestions I wouldn't be surprised if he stops checking this page entirely. And by good I don't mean actually worth implementing, I just mean an honest attempt at making a suggestion that isn't a joke or "my kharagter iz so weeek!" Because I feel that "humorous" suggestions might very well end the effectiveness of this page I would like to start discussion on the following rule change:

Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy will not be tolerated. Posting one or more will result in a one week suspension and the suggestions will be deleted immediately. A suggestions page moderator will make the determination if a suggestion qualifies. A moderator can choose to issue a warning instead and to impose longer suspensions for repeat violations. Posters that feel they have been treated unfairly may seek arbitration. Players that wish to legitimately post joke suggestions may write them on the Humorous Page: any left on the main page will be deleted and not moved there.

Let the discussion commence. --Jon Pyre 15:16, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

  • How about we do it this way:
Comedy - Notify the user that there is a page for humorous suggestions (to protect new users). Repeat offense gets a warning and a third offense gets a ban. Most new users will miss the blatantly obvious link at the top of the page, and though it pains me, some leniency should be allowed.
Satire - Warning on the first offense, ban on the second. Making a point is one thing, but nailing yourself to a cross on a daily basis is a wholly different matter. Most of our major changes have been started because of satirical suggestions.
Insults - Ban on first offense, we don't need flame wars gumming up the suggestion page.
A blanket rule would be too strict for varying degrees of rule breaking. --Arcos 16:43, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I agree with Acros, but I suggest to the mods that they aren't to leniant with comedy, there is a lot of crap trying to be humerous. And I'm for making it a normal ban, not just suspension from the wiki page, but that is just me.--Vista 17:03, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Seconded. Although we may want to add a definition of "comedic" and "satirical" just so there's a distinction. You'd be surprised how often people confuse the two (trust the English major.) --Dr. Fletch 02:03, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Maybe this doesn't need to be heavily codified. What about this:

Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and treated appropriately by moderators. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page.

That way moderators can warn and ban spammers as they see fit. --Jon Pyre 02:01, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

    • This is also good by me. --Dr. Fletch 02:06, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  • This sounds like a very good idea. I'm tired of seeing half the suggestions on a given day being wastes of space. --Sindai 05:03, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Sounds fine.--The General 10:59, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Yep, sounds better. --Brizth W! 11:05, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Wait, so I should forget about submitting Zombie Snakes on a Plane v2? --John Ember 21:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Not unless they have frikkin laser beams, Ember Timid Dan 15:53, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

Change Rejected/Undecided Archive System

I think the current system on the Peer Rejected Suggestions and Undecided Suggestions is clunky, takes up too much space, and is a pain to look through. Therefor, I make this motion.

I suggest that the system for the two pages page be changed to resemble the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page, only simplified. Instead of things like Skill Addition: Zombie, Skill Addition: Survivor, it should be Skill Addition, Skill Alteration, due to the fact that we really don't need as much organization for those two pages. This would serve to compress the pages, and the index bar, as there would be all those dates left and right. Discuss if you wish, I'll put it up for a vote in a few days if no one has major objections. Velkrin 03:04, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

  • Might as well Clarify...basically the text I plan to use for the vote:

Change the Peer Rejected/Undecided sections to have the following dividers:

Class Addition & Alteration -- Game Events & Mechanics -- Location Alteration -- Skill Addition & Alteration -- User Interaction & Interface -- Weapons & Items -- Misc

While it would take a while to sort through the old skills, it would speed things up while looking for dupes and placing the failed/undecided suggestions. The template would remain unchanged. Velkrin 19:13, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Ive been trying to keep this quiet, but i may as well announce that ive been planning to rebuild the Peer Rejected page into something like the way Previous Days page has been built, with it divided into month and day pages. I already have an index page set up to allow me to easily manufacture the pages, all i need is a template, which i am unsure on how to proceed with. Once i get that i can probably get all the stuff done (Including moving all the suggestions to their proper places) in a week, maybe a week and a half. --Grim s 12:44, 26 March 2006 (BST)
  • Actually that gives me an idea. Given the sheer size of the Rejected/Undecided pages, perhaps a combination of our two ideas would be best. Instead of having it all on one page, divy it up into type sections. So you'd have the main rejected page, with the text links like the previous days page for the basic types. Velkrin 05:01, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    • That was basically my plan, creating a main page (By overwriting the existing one, and providing month pages from whcih the day pages could be reached. When you are dealing with as many suggestions as there are, if you try and do it any other way at all you end up with at least one page getting way too big. The only problem is that i cant figure out how to create a template, and ive been looking for weeks. If someone helps me out on that it would be great and i can finally get this monster done. --Grim s 06:20, 27 March 2006 (BST)
  • You could try this page or you could ask the users listed on [1] this page] if you havn't already. Velkrin 06:47, 27 March 2006 (BST)
  • Going to table this for now for the sake of space. Velkrin 20:38, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Marking Previous Suggestions

I'm just a policy suggesting machine, but lucky this is the last idea I have. There was some talk about marking suggestions which had passed, right over here. I suggest we take it up a notch. As someone is going through marking the suggestions on the previous days page, they also color the words which relate the the outcome of the vote. So it would be Green for Passed, Red for failed, and the standard Black for Undecided/Retracted suggestions (no coloring needed). Suggestions would have the color coded bit next to their name, along with a - Moved if they were already moved to the correct section. I would also suggest the (brackets) be removed. Here is an example of what it would look like:

So talk amongst yourselves. I'll wait on the other suggestion until this one fails or passes. Velkrin 22:31, 23 March 2006 (GMT)

  • Sounds good. I can't see any problems with it other than the work that would have to be done. --Jon Pyre 21:54, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Well, if it passes I'd do a week or two just to make sure people have an example to go by. Other then that it's simple count, copy and paste and it can be done by anyone that wants to. Velkrin 07:28, 26 March 2006 (BST)
      • Im against. Ive been cycling the previous days suggestions for a month now, and i can tell you it is a tedious job already. This would just make it worse by far, and people are very unpredicatble. You would wind up with exactly the same situation as you have now with peer rejected and peer reviewed. The work would simply not be done. --Grim s 16:27, 26 March 2006 (BST)
        • Marking the suggestions is not required of the person doing the cycling. This is just setting down a standard for marking off suggestions. As a matter of fact the marking system is to help with the backlog by citing on the dating page if it failed/passed so that anyone sorting through the messages wouldn't have to go through and count them up themselves. The only way I could see it making the problem worse is if some idiot went around marking failed suggestions as passed, or shuffling them around. I don't think it would make the backup any worse then it already is. Velkrin 04:44, 27 March 2006 (BST)
          • Velkrin, you are a funny person, and i think you are a great guy, but you sure are naive. I am the only person performing any task associated with suggestions in any consistent manner (moving the siggestions typically between three minutes and two hours after the day has expired. All this would lead to is the creation of another job that no one will do. It isnt necessary, and it wont be performed, wo why bother with it? --Grim s 06:26, 27 March 2006 (BST)
  • Yes, well, as I've said, it can't get any worse. Mind you I do think it would be rather easy to do, considering I've gone and done a tally for the majority of March. At worst I'll end up like the Suburbs page. Though I suspect that would actually require effort. Velkrin 20:10, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Going to table this for now for the sake of space. Velkrin 20:38, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Because the rule change requires exact-wording of what you're going to suggest, so I'll just shuffle stuff around a bit...:

Begin (semi)Exact Text!

I move that a set method of marking suggestions which have closed be created. This system would use Green for Passed, Red for failed, and the standard Black for Undecided/Retracted suggestions (no coloring needed). Suggestions would have the color coded bit next to their name, along with a - Moved if they were already moved to the correct section. I would also suggest the (brackets) be removed. Here is an example of what it would look like:


  • Wet Noodle - Passed - Moved
  • Silly String - Passed
  • Death by ninja - Withdrawn
  • Stool pigeon - Failed - Moved
  • So full of hate - Failed
  • BFG 9000 - Undecided - Moved

Marking closed suggestions is purely optional, and is not a required part of closing previous days suggestions. The following would be added under the Notes for Editors section:

==Marking Closed Suggestions== The following system is used to mark closed suggestions (with spaces):
- <font color=green>Passed</font color> - For passed suggestions
- <font color=red>Failed</font color> - For rejected suggestions
- Withdrawn - For withdrawn suggestions
- Undecided - For undecided suggestions
The following should be added after the </font color> to suggestions which have been moved to their appropriate section: - Moved

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page.

Voting for a Rule to Limit Suggestions per day

(discussion above on this very page) We move that this be added to Making a Suggestion. (where we would be Velkrin and I, I suppose. or just me, I'm kinda confused how this part goes)(note that the text was written by Velkrin)--McArrowni 00:25, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

12. Each author should not make more than three suggestions per day. This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Frequent removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system.

Vote Yes, No, or Spam below this line:

  1. Yes --McArrowni 00:28, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Yes - I'm the author so I'm biased. Velkrin 01:10, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Yes I doubt anyone can write more than three suggestions a day...unless they have very low standards. This will just keep one person from making eighty "psychic zombies" suggestions, one after another. --Jon Pyre 01:48, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Yes yes oh hell yes. I was thinking of the same theing as Jon Pyre.--Deathnut RAF 05:57, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Yes does this include talk suggestions, p.s i think even a limit of 1 would pass just to stop the spam, im sure you can rember a good suggestion for 2 days!--xbehave 15:33, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Yes - Is it Christmas again already? --Arcos 02:07, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Yes --'STER-Talk-Mod 05:22, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Yes - Acceptable as it is, but i request that any individual who violates the rule be flogged mercilessly. If that could be worked into the rule so as to be official, i will upgrade my vote to Hell Yes!. --Grim s 22:41, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Yes - Three a day is plenty. Perhaps even too generous... but it's a good place to start. --John Ember 01:53, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Yes - --Blahblahblah 16:02, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Yes - And I'd like to see some people limited to 0 suggestions per day. Timid Dan 16:50, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Yes - Yay, at least it'll limit the amount of junk we have to wade through (hopefully). --Pinpoint 08:28, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Yes - --CPQD 23:17, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Yes - Yay. Even lower limit could work. --Brizth W! 14:36, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Yes - If it even slows down MrAushvitz, I'm for it. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:00, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Yes - Although I don't see what's wrong with psychic zombies, I will vote for this. --Fred Dullard 05:55, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Yes - Nerf MrAushvitz please. --Dr. Fletch 11:30, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Yes - Can we just skip the voting and implement this now? He might rush to turn out as many suggestion at once as possible once he reads this. --TheTeeHeeMonster 13:20, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Yes -I'd make it one a day if Jon pyre agrees to it.--Vista 16:56, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I'm not opposed to a one suggestion a day limit. Maybe a 2 suggestion per day limit or a weekly limit could work instead also. Let's get this passed first and go from there. Is there not one more vote? --Jon Pyre 07:59, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Yes --The General 11:02, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Spam - Ha ha ha, what, for real? I hereby dub this suggestion "The MrAushvitz Rule", and will henceforth consider it a personal attack on said user. But tell ya what: if you can give me a rationale for this beyond "haet aushvitz", I'll change to a Yes. Until that day, this is playah-hating ala my Nerf Grim suggestion, minus the benign intent. Grow up, eh? Flimsy point = Made, Vote = Yes --Undeadinator 04:38, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: How about because newbies tend ignore the 'read this' part of the information and go right to the 'how to suggest' part. MrAushvitz isn't the only one around here who has made many bad suggestions within hours of one another. For example, Eddo's Spree which got him booted from the suggestion page, and that was back under the old rule when we could quickly remove the really bad suggestions quickly. Velkrin 08:10, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - So yeah, hey, sticking another rule in that bit of the page new guys scroll right over will work just great. This won't even slow down guys like Aushwitz. Why put the effort into putting up a rule that will go unread and is already, for all intensive purposes, enforced? --Undeadinator 22:20, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: I'm curious... this is spam how? Aushvitz was mentioned because he's the latest example of said behavior, and is fresh in everyone's minds. As well, there's a difference between discussing and trying to propose a rule change if everyone's fed up with the behavior, whereas your suggestion was a large "f*** you" in all but name. --Dr. Fletch 18:16, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re -- I don't believe Aushvitz was mentioned by name, but that's aside the point. This is a suggestion that offers absolutely nothing except more page space devoted to rules newbies don't bother reading anyways. We already have a system that more or less handles this in the almighty Spam vote, and it doesn't cut down on Mod work at all, for aforesaid reasons. It's a longer scroll downwards for me to get to the "good" shit, and it doesn't do anything we're not already doing. --Undeadinator 22:20, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Actually this has been a problem for far longer then MrAushvitz, you just werent around then. It's just the first time such a person has cropped up since the spam alteration. there was wiki before you arrived you know... This suggestion has been discussed a few times before, but that was before he had a good system to change the rules so nothing came from it. In my months here I've never seen somebody suggesting multiple suggestion per day for a week and remain quality. In fact Jon pyre is the only person I've encountered who has posted multiple suggestion a day that were passable, and he usually takes a break after that to gather his ideas.--Vista W! 18:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - So basically, it's a roundabout way of saying "Bad Suggestions are Bad"? It's an arbitrary rule with an arbitrary suggestion limit. The guys who are going to post 3+ shitty suggestions in a day are not going to bother reading the rules, so this is just more useless clutter in an already largely ignored rule list. "No more than 3 suggestions posted in a day, unless they don't suck." Cool. --Undeadinator 22:20, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re: - Yes, and if they go around posting more then 3 suggestions in a day then not only can we remove the suggestion for breaking the rule, but a mod can warn them and point out the rule, which they will then have no excuse for not reading. So which part of it is arbitrary?, I suppose it hasn't been established by court or judge, but then again there are no courts of judges here. Seems to me the limit will be established by reason and principle, and judging by all those votes above yours it's hardly individual judgment or individual preference, nor is it based on one person/event, as we have provided an example of a poster gone mad, and that was just the example I remembered. I have little doubt that there has been more then one case of rampant bad suggestions by the same author, and this helps to curtail the chance of it happening again. To be quite frank, I doubt you had any plans at all to change your vote at all, you just wanted an argument. Velkrin 00:07, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
          • Re - Wanting an argument and wanting some valid rationale are two very different things. This rule is arbitrary (thx 4 lnk) because it serves no other purpose than making you feel better once you drop-kick a shitty suggestion off the page. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for throwing shitty and/or bulk suggestions into the garbage can. I just have a problem with instituting a rule for "Well we told you so" purposes. Furthermore, this doesn't so much seem a guideline against bulk suggestions as it does against bad ones. Let me repeat that: it appears that you're implementing a rule against bad suggestions. It's not a regulation for quantity, it's a regulation for quality: "In my months here I've never seen somebody suggesting multiple suggestion per day for a week and remain quality." If this is intended as an absolute--no more than 3 suggestions per day no matter how good they are--then I'm all aboard with you. Hell, I'd even recommend a cap of 2. But truth be told, I mostly started this argument just to put that point out there. (Oh, and to be a bit of a prick.) And since that's done, Yes for the win. --Undeadinator 02:10, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Yes I read other areas when I can, I just have a life and little time to waste reading each and every detail of this website. I said I'd vote in favour of this and I have, much thanks to those who defended my position, but this will shut some people up, and it increases the value of each suggestion, and forces even people like me to word it carefully before posting it. But here's the other "edge" to the sword, if you abuse your spam vote, when people are only allowed so many suggestions a day, and 2 or 3 suggestions get spaminated, you are, word for word, an ASSHOLE.. and on such note, other users may treat you as such, when you vote as such, you may be even more hated than ME if you post spam all the time, on every suggestion.. so be warned. I'm not joking, I'll be watching to see who thinks before they vote and who hates everything, bitches about everything, and has no ideas to contribute whatsoever. Let the games begin. --MrAushvitz 00:28, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re 2 or 3 suggestions a day is more than anyone can pump out and still provide quality. There has been no cases of the opposite seen yet, except maybe with Jon Pyre. Spam vote abuse is nothing now to what it was in the first week of February. Then we noticed it, talked about it (the spam vote is actually quite murky in application, I know for having tried to limit it back then), and changed. Back then, many WCDZ members and others spaminated stupid suggestions on sight. Now they give them much more of a chance, and the same is true of most other voters, and some even joined project welcome (including, back then, myself). Believe me, you almost had it easy, at least in the beginning. Yet none of the spam-voters were hardly ever universaly hated. On other notes, I really should start a page on the history of the suggestion page. Some day. --McArrowni 05:27, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Motion Passes. Moving shortly. Velkrin 07:02, 26 March 2006 (BST)

Voting for Rule/Guideline Regarding Suggestion Alterations

For history of discussion behind this, see here, and here (apologies, the 2nd discussion was somehow blended with another discussion on "idiot logic", so the first paragraph is unrelated, and the first 1/2 of the discussion has been lost. No idea how it happened, but you can catch the gist from what is there).

I move that the following be added to Making a Suggestion. --Blahblahblah 18:38, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

10. Once you have posted your suggestion, it is considered complete. Altering the suggestion mechanics after voting has begun nullifies existing votes, and is considered an abuse of the suggestions page. Doing so will result in your suggestion to be moved to the discussion page, where you can work out the details and resubmit later if you desire. It is preferred that you remove your own suggestion and resubmit a new version with changes, if changes are needed.

11. "Notes" added for clarification purposes, and correcting spelling/typos are permitted. When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it with the clarification included for the voters who have already placed their votes.

Vote Yes, No, or Spam below this line:

  1. Yes --Brizth W! 18:48, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Yes --Blahblahblah 18:58, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Yes --McArrowni 19:14, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Yes --CPQD 20:42, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Yes --Reverend Loki 21:00, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Yes --Zaruthustra-Mod 21:06, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Yes --Arcos 21:43, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Yes --Vista 21:56, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Hell Yes --Jak Rhee 00:52, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Yes --Jon Pyre 06:24, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Yes --Don D Crummitt 16:14, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Yes --'STER-Talk-Mod 19:52, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Yes - Velkrin 02:54, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Yes --Kripcat 07:25, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Yes --Pinpoint 16:45, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Yes --Lord Evans W! 09:01, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Yes, Yes, A Thousand Times Yes --John Taggart 13:26, 21 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Yes YES! YES! Sorry I'm having an orgasm. Yes. AllStarZ 00:20, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Yes: Idea - after submittal, only votes and comments, etc, can be editted, put a block on the suggestion being altered.--HVLD 03:00, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Yes --John Ember 16:52, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Yes --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:56, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Yes --Arathen 02:43, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  23. Yes -- Not only that, a thousand times yes. -- Andrew McM W! 23:20, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Passed peer voting unanimously, and added to Suggestion Guidelines. --Blahblahblah 19:10, 27 February 2006 (GMT)

Voting For Rule Banning "Humorous" and Satirical Suggestions

Joke suggestions harm the suggestions page by forcing Kevan should he choose to read the page at all, to wade through nineteen "ninja zombies" and "Paris Hilton survivor class" suggestions. If this page becomes nothing but a waste of time I wouldn't be surprised if he stops reading completely. It would be a shame if this page stop being an effective means of proposing ideas and just became the graffiti covered wall of a public bathroom. I put this rule addition up to a vote:

Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and treated appropriately by moderators. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page.

Note that even if this rule change does not pass that does not stand as an endorsement of joke suggestions. Moderators are still able to issue warnings and punishments to vandals as they see fit, this vote is merely to add it to the rules so it can be read by any would-be spammers before they post.

Vote Keep, Kill, or Spam below this line.

  1. Keep Author vote. Because honestly, spam like that will make this page worthless. --Jon Pyre 18:04, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep I would have prefered: "are considered vandalism and abductable by the WCDZ with no PR problems related for said group", but this will do --McArrowni 20:02, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep --Brizth W! 20:09, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Because "humorous" turned into "ridiculous". --Omega2 23:40, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - No fun allowed! --Jorm 23:51, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re This isn't about fun. It's about Kevan actually reading this page and sometimes implementing things from it. We have a humorous page specifically for fun suggestions. That's what it's there for. --Jon Pyre 17:11, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - --Grim s 23:54, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - If they are humorous just move them.. --Technerd 23:57, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Why should moderators have to do additional work because players won't post their humorous suggestions on the humorous page? --Jon Pyre 17:11, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - It was okay with the occaisional, really well-written ones like the WCDZ puts up every now and then, but recently there's just been too many. It's bad enough dealing with dupes and well-meaning but horribly unbalanced suggestions. --Sindai 00:43, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I will miss some of the truly brilliant ones, but they were so few and far between that benefits of this will outweigh all the loss twice over. --Dr. Fletch 02:16, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re People could still make them. When voting to a horrendously bad suggestion in your vote just put a link to a spoof suggestion on the humorous page. I'm fine with humorous suggestions and fun, I just don't want it to hurt the central purpose of this page. --Jon Pyre 17:14, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Well it should help to keep stuff like 'Sharks, pandas, etc' off the page. Velkrin 02:48, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - A big step in the right direction, though it is harsh on new users. --Arcos 03:51, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Moderators could use discretion and just warn people. --Jon Pyre 17:24, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - As much as I understand frustration at dumb things on the page, I don't think this is needed. The spam vote removes awful ideas, Peer reviewed is the place for our mighty Kevan to pick things from is it not? and I don't think I will see the day a panda makes it to peer reviewed. Sure, they sometimes clutter up the page, but there are suggestions that are just plain ridiculous, yet attempt to be serious, and I like those far less than the jokey ones, but we can't ban people for that. I can understand frustration at dumb suggestions, but they never stick around for twelve hours mostly. -Banana Bear4 18:12, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Peer Reviewed hasn't been updated in a while. We don't know how suggestions are read, I don't want to take a chance of a good suggestion being missed because someone imagines themselves Maureen Dowd. --Jon Pyre 03:35, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Peer Reviewed not being updated is another issue. It says in the faq that the peer reviewed is the place used as an idea farm, whether or not it is true, I don't believe there are any other official statements on the matter. Also, if one looks at a page of suggestions, those that are spammed, are removed and left as perhaps, one line of text, whereas those that are kept are more visually impressive, and therefore will not be missed. Undeadinator is also correct when he says that this sets an awful precedent for the wiki as a whole. While you don't want to risk the loss of a good suggestion, I won't risk the whole wiki. Wiki Prevails Jon. -Banana Bear4 07:24, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      Suggestions are being slowely moved to Peer Reviewed, it's just that it's a mamouth job which isn't helped by the fact that people haven't been consistantly moving whole pages of suggestions.--The General 13:09, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - I'm sick of voting spam because someone wishes to air their personal vendetta as a suggestion. --Bermudez 03:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Originally, this was going to be a Kill and a pretext to denigrate you, but you made a good point with the linking to Humorous Suggestions bit. But THEN I remembered that there was an insta-ban penalty attached to satirical hey, I still win! I'm down enough with not putting them up on the Suggestions Page, which I won't do anymore, and the "link to Humorous Suggestions" idea is good. But you've got some seriously Draconian measures there to deal with, basically, internet fart jokes, and that's not cool with me. I'm not putting this to the sword because I think a lot of you are miserly tightwads, even though I do--I'm putting this to the sword because it's exceptionally harsh on newbies. Oh yeah, and it sets a nasty precedent for punishing insults that would get half of the people here banned. S'alright? --Undeadinator 05:50, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It isn't an automatic ban. The moderator is free to warn them all they like before enacting any kind of punishment. This is just a warning to save newbies the trouble of a moderator warning them. --Jon Pyre 07:03, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - A spot check confirms that it is not, in fact, an automatic ban, and that I either hallucinated the whole thing or mistook this suggestion for something else. As such, changing my vote to a Yes, provided that it's made very clear for newbies and so long as it remains more a moral condemnation of joke suggestions than an outright measure to prevent them. Not crossing out my original opinion, however, because I so rarely get to use that word "denigrate" and I will be god damned if I delete it because of a little thing like "facts". --Undeadinator 07:15, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re I would certainly hope that a moderator would warn someone before taking any drastic measures. I don't want to ban anyone, heck I've put a humorous suggestion up in the past myself. It's not an unforgivable offense and I don't want anyone to be exiled. --Jon Pyre 19:59, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - For the love of Zombie Jesus, keep. --mikm W! 12:51, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep --John Ember 18:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - If it weren't for satirical suggestions, we'd still have the awful old spam rules. - CthulhuFhtagn 19:44, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - The line between satirical and serious suggestions can be thin. Craw 20:05, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Really? It seems to me you are either suggesting something you'd really like to see make it into the game, or you're trying to make a point/be funny. Where's the gray area? --John Ember 16:54, 23 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - there are plenty of alternatives to use to make a point/be funny instead of abusing the purpose of the page.--Vista W! 20:48, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - I find it funny that someone invoked Zombie Jesus (a humorous concept) yet voted Keep. And who judges what's funny and satirical, anyway? Most of the stuff MrAustvitz puts up is funny because it's stupid, but he thinks they're serious suggestions. What's the damn objective criteria for "this is satirical and not serious"? Or is it just a blanket moderator judgement call? This is what we have SPAM for. Timid Dan 16:15, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    • Re It's a common sense moderator judgement call. "Zombies With Lightsabers" is obviously satire/humor. "Votername is dumb" is obviously insult. Spam only gets rid of suggestions already on the page. This just warns people not to put joke suggestions or a moderator might warn them. Moderators already have all the flexibility they need to ban offenders, this doesn't empower moderators it just warns posters. --Jon Pyre 19:38, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally: 14 keep (Undeadinator changed his vote to Yes, or Keep, in his re comment) and 6 kill. --Grim s 04:46, 1 April 2006 (BST)
  21. KILL I will have to kill this until theres a clear indication of what is satirical and what is clearly serious. I mean, even those of whom are the most serious can think of some suggestion that are stupid, but they can argue that it is others that do not have sense of humour. So to be honest, it is really a matter of one's conception, I think there should be another alternative, like Wikipedia to Uncyclopedia. A suggestion for serious suggestion, and another one for those that really is taking the piss. I know I will get a lot of BOOs and stuff, but I am trying to give an alternative rather just making decisitions irrationaly. --Changchad 1:43, 3 April 2006 (BST)
    • Vote Failed Velkrin 20:38, 5 April 2006 (BST)
      • Where did you learn to count? 14 for, 6 against. Changchads vote arrived a day late, as the voting is only open for two weeks, and thus closed on the second of april. Even then, the vote is exactly at the required two thirds majority if you count it. It by no means failed the vote. --Grim s 08:56, 16 April 2006 (BST)
        • Well I'd assume my numerical teaching started in Form 1, Mahdi British School. As for why my count was off. Assuming I ignored Changchad's late vote, there was Undeadinator's change in text which I must have passed over, which would put it at 65%,1.6% short of 2/3s. Velkrin 09:16, 16 April 2006 (BST)
        • So... is the new rule passed or what? --Cyberbob240CDF 09:13, 18 April 2006 (BST)
          • I've asked The General to make a decision on it. Velkrin 20:26, 18 April 2006 (BST)
            • This rule is passed and may be added to the suggestion rules.--The General W! Mod 09:08, 23 April 2006 (BST)
              • Did you read the discussion on the talk page? I'm contesting the results of this vote. --Undeadinator 00:30, 24 April 2006 (BST)
                • And the talk page is where he responded. Now lets all stop posting in the archives and argue this in the current talk page. Velkrin 22:36, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Voting for Changing the Vote Template on the Suggestion Page

Discussion is above under "Separate Votes for Even Easier Reading". The tally line is used infrequently, and even then, the person using it still has to count up all the votes, which can be very annoying in some cases. I move that the voting section of the Suggestion Template be changed to include 3 separate sections for Keep votes, Kill votes, and Spam/Dupe votes as noted in the above discussion. I do not personally know how to do this, so I will leave that to other more knowledgable folks if this passes. This change, if implemented, will make it easier for anyone to see at a glance how many Keep/Kill/Spam/Dupe votes a suggestion has.

This is what the new part of the template would look like:

Top Vote Line Thingy Here
Keeps (underlined or something)

  1. Keep - I likey. Persondude

Kills (again, underlined or something)

  1. Kill - I no likey. OtherPersondude

Spams/Dupes (once again... well, you know)

  1. Spam - This is crap and can't be fixed. Spammerdude
  2. Dupe - Worse than spam, it's a dupe of a really bad suggestion. Duperdude

Bottom Vote Line Thingy

"Keeps" should obviously be below "Top Vote Line Thingy Here". Not sure why it isn't. Meh. The rest of it is correct.

Please vote Keep, Kill, or Spam below the line.

  1. Keep - Author vote. I really do think this will make vote tracking easier, especially when determining where to put it. On a side note (not part of the suggestion), it should probably be noted in the "Voting Guidelines" that votes of the appropriate type be put in the right place, although I would hope that would be unnecessary. --Pinpoint 02:25, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Ya, sure. Helps with sorting and such. Velkrin 02:49, 20 March 2006 (GMT) Kill - Ironically I must agree with Pyre and Grim after reading their arguments. Velkrin 08:22, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Can't see it hurting anything. --Dr. Fletch 05:39, 20 March 2006 (GMT) Kill - I, too, have been swayed by the arguments put forth. --Dr. Fletch 13:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - That's nice. I also fixed the lines and added the underline tags. --Omega2 13:52, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill I like the idea for the reasons you put forward, making counting vote tallies easier. However a lot of people decide their votes by reading the ones directly before theirs. If all the keep votes or all the kill votes were in one suggestion some people might just vote with the first section and not bother reading the rest. The current system forces them to scan a mixture of both points of view. I know someone would have to be stupid to do that but I think that's what might happen. "Zombies bites sure could use +8 damage on tuesdays!" "Zombies need better attacks on tuesdays!" "I missed three times when I was attacking last tuesday!" "Strong keep: There is a huge tuesday imbalance with zombies" --Jon Pyre 17:19, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - I likey --PersonMcArrowni 01:28, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I like the cirrent system more. People scan the votes and get a mix of both points of view before they go ahead and drop their own, allowing for a far more informed vote. --Grim s 04:55, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - What Pyre said. I've changed my vote at least a couple of times thanks to good argument by the guys who voted before me; while this change probably wouldn't change that much, it's a minor inconvenience for no real benefit. I can appreciate the drive for better organization, but changing vote order is a no-fly zone in my book. --Undeadinator 05:04, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - this would just lead to people not reading the imput of the side they disagree with, losing valuable imput, and because 10 to 20 people know more then one it limits the chance of creating the best possible suggestion through cooeperation.--Vista W! 18:47, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - This would look nice and tidy until someone decides to change their vote and breaks the whole format in the process. --John Ember 18:53, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I think if the votes were grouped there would be less repitition of the same point over and over, which is one of the reasons i rarely read all the votes and sometimes miss out on some points --xbehave 13:03, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Let's just say that I changed my opinion while reading the comments for this... --Brizth W! 23:16, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Specifically what JE said. Timid Dan 16:16, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    • Vote Failed - Velkrin 20:38, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Personal tools