From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Closed Suggestions

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

22nd November, 2005 - VOTING ENDS: 6th-Dec-2005


Timestamp: 00:14, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item/Mission
Scope: game macanics
Description: In short you have a possibility of finding npc's in certain buildings (towers especially) these are the ones holed up in the closet you find that want OUT NOW! They are VERY rare but you get a lot of xp for taking to a designated drop spot were they leave your inventory (these are their personal items you are seeing). A special survivor skill will give you the drop location you take them to. Additionally zombies get extra xp for killing you when you have these people.


  • Kill - I like this suggestion, I really do. But we have to accept that this game is not Counter Strike. --Otona 00:27, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Too complicated for this game. --Carfan7 00:30, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - way too much stress on server, vaguely defined, I don't like the idea of NPCS.. --RSquared 00:39, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This game is not meant to have NPCs. That is what sets it apart from other MMORPGs. As I have said before, this game is unique in the fact that all interactions take place between players and that the flow of the game is completely determined by players. There is no NPC interference AT ALL in this and that is the way it should stay. You spelled innocents wrong btw. AllStarZ 00:55, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill because of the spelling mistakes, the fact that this game shouldn't have NPCs, server load, and general suckiness. --Jack Harvey 01:07, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The idea is vague and not well defined, but don't listen to the people that say way too much stress on server. A new item that gives you an xp bonus when you reach a certain point on the map is too much stress on the server? Well jeez... We should take items out of the game, they're too much stress on the server. That doesn't make any sense. Everyone needs to stop using that line to justify their dislike for a skill. --Pyrinoc 01:15, 22 Nov 2005
  • Kill This game is designed around having no NPCS. Edit: PLEASE, all spelling nazis leave this one alone. the mear proof that he can't spell in the title will keep keep votes away--Spellbinder 01:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A) Urban Dead =/= World of Warcraft. No NPCs should exist at all, and that's how it'd stay. B) You are now assuming an infinite amount of innocent people who want out of Malton, however rare. C) The game's ideal is that everyone should strive to survive inside the quarantine, not try to escape from it. --Fixen 02:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - "Inocents". Nuff said. --Zaruthustra 02:43, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - if we can get them out, why can't we get out? Kind of silly, since in RP terms, many of the human survivors would probably like to get out. --Shadowstar 04:40, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's a bloody quarantine. As in, "Anybody and anything can go in, but nothing can come out. Ever. And if you try to force your way out, you get to discuss the issue with Mr. SA80A2 Assault Rifle here."
No-one leaves Malton. Period. - KingRaptor 05:02, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 1. No NPC humans. Ever. 2. Survivors are just that--survivors. They're not heroes. X1M43 06:15, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I corrected the spelling of the title. Personal opinion, I think UD is great because there are no NPCs--Matthew-Stewart 07:00, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wow this is a crap idea. --Katthew 07:09, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Can't work as it is. But probably can be reformulated as a mission. --Seagull Flock 12:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Revise and refine this idea; think outside of the box regarding different situations for it. --Squashua 13:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - innocents? nobody is innocent in Malton! --Steve 15:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you could get out, you'd already be gone. --Snikers 15:59, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill' - Like KingRaptor said . . . go to h- Er, I mean, "you're not getting out." --John Taggart 16:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM - The 1st of many? (2 more to go...). Quarantine means that you can't get out... so there. --Adrian 17:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is not WoW. There are no qests. If you want one so bad, go play RuneScape. Lol. --ThunderJoe 18:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This might work as a mission if properly done. Madalex 21:14, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam What are you talking about? --LouisB3 21:24, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No NPCs. Thank you.--Arathen 21:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Change to missions, instead of randomly appearing forever. Also, you could change it to some type of item instead of finding people, so people don't freak out about NPCs. --Dickie Fux 20:04, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - You dont get it do you? These people are EXACTLY like items. The only effect of them is that when the person carying them is killed, they go away. Also they interchange xp for killing the person with them and entering the square were they can be taken away makes them leave your invitory and gives you xp. Think, evacuating furnetuer insted of people, it is the same reactions and it folows the military are evacuating people. Malton was a very large city and we are assuming that at least 50,000 people would end up living in it when the zombies sudenly broke out, then 100's of military an firefightes showed up to keep the place held down. The new charicters would just be people whose ideas reversed and zombies some ove the earlyer dead, Oh and I thought the quarintine was to contain zombies, and could only affect dead. --Mr NoName 23:37, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • RE: - I understand that the NPCs you suggest would function as an inventory item. I suggest they should actually be items in game, like some sort of research info the military wants. That way other players won't bitch about NPCs. --Dickie Fux 17:17, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM -- Third Spam. This isn't a hight tech MMORPG. --Nov 11:27, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Kill/Change- The idea of an SMG that does the same ammount of damage as a pistol and has less acc. seems pointless to me. A better idea would be a rifle. (similar to the grand or M1 Carbine) That does more dmg then a pistol and less then a shotgun.

Antibiotics (total revision)

Removed due to duplicated suggestion here and spam vote.

Yet Another SMG

Timestamp: 06:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Weapon
Scope: Survivors
Description: Location found: Armories, exclusively.

Base accuracy: 5%. Scales with parallel skills to the other firearms, except that SMG Training only provides a 10% boost. Thus, max accuracy is 50%.

Damage: 5. Of course, reduced by 1 by a flak jacket.

Ammunition: Comes in SMG clips. One clip holds enough ammo for 3 bursts. (Note: number subject to change for balance purposes, but 3-ish sounds reasonable and realistic to me.)

What makes it different: For simplicity's sake, the SMG can only be fired in bursts; no single shots. When fired, the SMG makes one attack each against the top three zombies on the stack, each rolled separately. If there are fewer than 3 zombies, each is still only attacked once per burst, so the weapon is only efficient when fired on gropus of 3 or more zombies. When fired at survivors, it attacks the targeted survivor and, if applicable, the two adjacent characters in the room-entry-order queue. Zombies killed by an SMG are never headshot, as precision is impossible with automatic weapons.

Rationale: Under this implementation, the SMG would serve as an anti-crowd weapon. Its armory-only status would serve both to make armories more desirable for survivors to defend and would help them beat back the inevitable hordes of zombies who would be attracted to those survivors. Incompatibility with Headshot also makes the weapon potentially advantagous to medium-level zombies, as they would be less likely to suffer heavy XP loss when levelling in territory near the armories.

Max-skill damage averages to 7.5 divided among three zombies, a little higher than a shotgun's 6.5 to one. However, because it cannot perform headshots, the SMG would actually be less threatening to most zombies, particularly those who have Ankle Grab.

Note: Please don't reflexively spam-vote this. Automatic weapons are among the most common bad suggestions, but that's because most are horribly written and/or thoroughly broken in design - that does not make it impossible for balanced versions to be created.


  • keepI'm surprised, it's not a horrible waste of time to read. I shoud not the search location should ony be forts--Matthew-Stewart 08:02, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill I'm torn, I really I like the mechanic of something that is better against groups and would like to see an item that implements this mechanic, I just think it shouldn't be a machine gun, the behavior doesn't jive with what I'd expect from an SMG. I'd rather see it be something that is quite naturally an area effect, like explosive --Thorbrian 08:32, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Improves gameplay, maintains atmosphere, improves balance, reduces griefer tactics, and doesn't destroy the server. Also well-written. It chains two suggestions, but SMG training is so obvious when introducing a SMG. A definite keeper. --Mendel 10:00, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I never thought I'd see an SMG/assault rifle/machine gun suggestion that was balanced. Way to go! - KingRaptor 10:36, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Good, nay, great idea. But here's the thing. Do we REALLY need another survivor weapon at this point? Sorry to bring down the mass backslapping, but I think it is an important point. - Andrew McM 10:45, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Its well balanced, gives an incentive to go to armouries as well as an extra means of defending them. Fits well with automatic weapons in zombie films, too. - Man in Blue 10:56, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KeepWell you just totally proved me wrong. But still, this most likely won't come into play any time soon. One more thing. Try raising total clip capacity to 15 bullets. Judging by your explanation, i think that you are meaning 3 round bursts. The smallest SMGs in the world have at least 15 bullets. Eliminating headshot from this is a masterstroke. AllStarZ 13:16, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - now go work on a grenade implementation. --Squashua 13:51, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I assume that SMG magazines (clip is incorrect, but I'll let it slide ^_^) can only be found in armories as well. Flavor-wise, I find it funny that Malton is theoretically in England, but automatic weapons are banned there (as in the US)...Re:more than 3 attacks per magazine, you're thinking of burst-fire, not automatic; typical magazines are 30 rounds, and a single attack that spreads across 3 targets could easily take 10 rounds (balance comes into play - there are pistols with 18 rounds, double stacked). Removing headshot makes me willing to vote keep. --RSquared 14:13, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RSquared, check the discussion page. :) - KingRaptor 16:47, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You didnt have me in the begining, really had me in the end :) --Steve 15:28, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Y'know, this isn't so bad. However, I do have one issue: any weapon (as I recall) can perform headshots once you have the skill. I seem to remember seeing somebody use an axe to get a headshot, though I did just wake up and I'm a bit tired today. Anyway, that's minor. I actually like this one. Good job. Bentley Foss 15:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Ah, what the hell. If any SMG comes into play, I'd prefer this one. --Snikers 16:02, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I might go for this if somehow the guns couldn't be carried, but were fixed and therefore could be used only when defending, say, forts and armories. That would balance their higher-than-normal damage and make it easier to defend forts, as is seeming to be something people want. I like this attempt, but I think it's not quite there. -- Ethan Frome 16:39, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I want automatic weapons! --Biscuit 16:44, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - HOORAY FOR FIREPOWER! --ThunderJoe 16:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yay for automatics!--Ringseed2 16:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good. --Sknig 17:34, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - We need this.... are you really expected to kill 300 zombies ONE by ONE? Round of applause --Adrian 17:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I must agree with the crowd - this is the best idea I've seen for a burst fire weapon. Limiting it to armouries makes sense, and killing headshots is the icing. --Zark the Damned 18:15, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This one is a tough one to decide, but as searching for it you'd also turn up plenty of other firearms before you get fresh ammo I vote Keep. Madalex 18:30, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But who says you can't walk up to a zombie corpse and seperate its brain hemispheres? --ALIENwolve 18:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Seems good to me. We'd need the ammo for this to say "Magazine" and not "Clip" to satisfy the gun nut at the bottom of the page. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:01, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -It's good, it's balanced, it adds that extra bit of flavor to the game. --Kandarin 21:28, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -It's well writen, well balanced, and it could result in far more interesting seiges. Though it should be added later on in the game when the zombies get some updates. Phalanix 21:34, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill or Change -I like the burst fire. I like the incompatibility with Headshot so it doesn't turn into a massive griefing weapon. I don't like the inaccuracy. I'll explain further on the discussion page.--Skullhunter 21:38, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I... I don't know what to say. This is actually workable. We don't need more human stuff, much less military skills, but that's not the point. This is the best implementation of an automatic weapon I've seen.--Arathen 22:02, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You've got some pair of rocks for suggesting another SMG after what happened to all the others. But this is well thought-out and, considering the number of "military" survivors in Malton, it makes sense to have a submachine gun. X1M43 22:35, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I fear the PKer potental. cleening out survivors three at a time sounds worse to me then being able to kill three zombies in a mob. The mob comes back, murdered survivors become zombies. but hey, thats me. Thanks for at least giving a good example of a well thought out, if still bad, idea.--Spellbinder 23:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You have my congratulations for making a balanced and feasible format for an SMG. Pat yourself on the back. --Fixen 23:18, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Instant win. --LibrarianBrent 01:33, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Great Idea and that means another gun --Deathnut 04:30, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah, this is pretty nice. Just make it hard to find, and maybe take up three slots in inventory. Or not, I can't really say I know the relative sizes of shotguns and SMGs. --Dickie Fux 20:11, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Sorry for comming in late on this But Man this is the best idea for another Gun I have seen you have covered everyone objections Great Job!!!! --Doctor Putzs 04:30, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM -- Isn't there already a SMG suggestion in the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page? --Nov 11:28, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • No. Anyways, this is a well thought out suggestion, and thats rare. AllStarZ 04:50, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Doesn't sound too bad. --Pesatyel 20:56, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Brain Rot Detection

Timestamp: 8:40 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill, Scientist
Scope: Survivors, Listing Zombies
Description: Brain Rot detection would be a survivor skill under Advanced Necrotech employment under the scientist tree. (I have no good idea for the actual skill name, I'm afraid). A survivor with this skill would have zombies listed under 2 categories, zombies and brain-rotted zombies. The two categories would be distinguishable in the select boxes as well, so you could target one type of zombie specifically for attack, extraction & revivification. The idea is that it would help the scientist save time & valuable syringes, but it would also help them size up a zombie crowd as well, so that they could focus any attacks on those that they can't revive or call on the hunters and military if they see a big unrevivable group


  • Kill - First off, Brain Rot is supposed to encumber survivors. Second, how would you tell whether a zombie's brain had decomposed just by looking? - KingRaptor 10:40, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Brain Rot is to grief survivors? Okay, that's earned this a keep from me. I would have killed it, but now it's a keep. Headshot was to grief zombies, and that's why it was nerfed to a large extent, and a good thing too. If I had my druthers, it'd be nerfed more. If Brain Rot's entire purpose is griefing, then you know what? It needs nerfing too. --Shadowstar 11:12, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think there should be better ways to determine brain-rottedness, but this isn't it. I'd like to see previous suggestions about getting a link to a zombie's profile when scanning and about getting information but no XP when scanning a recently-tagged zombie instead. Everyl 13:12, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If the syringe gets wasted, doesn't that automatically tell you that the zombie is brain-rotted? --Squashua 13:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - 1. I have to agree with Shadowstar. 2. Since NecroTech syringes are relatively rare, we shouldn't be wasting them on brain-rotted zombies. I'd rather jab a non-brainrotted death cultist (like someone from the Church of the Resurrection or the Ridleybank Resistance Front) than a brainrotted one. Why? Because jabbing a non-brainrotted one annoys the death cultist, whereas jabbing a brainrotted one would annoy me (and waste a syringe). --John Taggart 15:22, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I am going to agree with John Taggart here. If headshot got nerfed, so should brain rot. But then again, what are DNA analysers for? --ThunderJoe 16:51, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Brain rot zombies really have the least going for them tactically. Most of them have probably forgotten to pick up choice human abilities and items. Don�t take away their biggest contribution. bbrraaiinnss 16:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I personally don't syringe anyone I can't get a DNA extraction from, and even then I lose a few syringes to brain rotters. I just curse and start swinging my axe - after all, the syringe is worth a few XP, but otherwise it doesn't really affect me that the syringe failed. I think the current system is fair, flavorful (faceless hordes of zeds) and adds an element of chance to revivifying. --RSquared 18:28, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Use that DNA scanner of yours first. Madalex 21:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is what scanning is for. Brain Rot is there to make you waste syringes and keep the zombie dead. AND it's been in longer than Headshot without a nerf. That should say something. Don't fix what isn't broken. Go and get another syringe and zed.--Arathen 22:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Shadowstar, just so you don't misunderstand. Brain rot isen't something that we the players put in. it was put in BY THE CREATOR, KEVIN. ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or come back as a zombie--Spellbinder 23:07, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill What, are you going to peer inside their skull? --LouisB3 23:14, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Since nobody has mentioned it in discussion, I want to repeat what is my favorite part of this idea... it's not the possibility of saving a the syringe (and DNA extraction only helps a minority of the time) - my favorite part is that you can distinguish between zombies that may be open to being revived, and those that are committed to staying as zeds, even when you don't have a syringe. --Thorbrian 11:12, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill We have DNA scanners, don't we? Brizth 16:18, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Syringes != Weapons. Most of my horde's targets are found because you are stupid enough to go reviving zombies at random, thus allowing our rangers inside your safehouses. --Monstah 19:43, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Step 1) DNA scan; Step 2) Decide whether to use a syringe. --Dickie Fux 20:14, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- The balance of syringes (100% effectiveness) is balanced out by Brain Dead Zombies. Changing this would only upset the balance. --Nov 11:30, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Redistribute Ammunition

Timestamp: 11:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: User interface
Scope: additional function to redistribute ammunition in firearms
Description: Add a new button to the user interface labeled 'Redistribute ammunition' which would take all the bullets in your firearms and redistribute them in your firearms so that the first firearms in your inventory are filled up to their maximum capacity.

For example, an inventory with 10 pistols (4)(1)(3)(5)(5)(4)(6)(4)(6)(5) would be redistributed to 10 pistols (6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(1)(0)(0). Cost for this action would be 1 AP, and shotguns would also be affected by it (although the gain would be almost nill).


  • Keep - I've overcome my natural laziness to put this into writing, so I'll vote for it. Madalex 11:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep (previously Kill) - It actually takes a lot of time to crossload ammunition between clips/guns. Therfore, the AP cost should be higher. Maybe 1 AP per gun? - KingRaptor 12:04, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It actually also take a lot more time to cross a whole city block than to pull a gun trigger, and both cost 1 AP. Madalex 12:10, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re:Re - Good point. Now that I think about it, this ability doesn't really offer a huge benefit to the user either, therfore a flat rate of 1 or 2 AP seems fair. - KingRaptor 12:16, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change as I like the idea, but it should be one AP per clip/shell that is being loaded in order to keep the same amount of AP that is being used the same. --Jack Harvey 12:13, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Well, this is not about loading your firearms with new ammuntion, this is about redistributing the current bullets/shells. Look at the example above, both arrays should sum up to 43 bullets (unless I miscalculated ;). So basically, afterwards you still can only pull the trigger 43 times. Madalex 12:25, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Kinda pointless, but harmless. I'd prefer that each item had a unique local ID (local to my character's inventory, not global unique id) so that when I choose to drop the last Flak Jacket in my inventory it does not drop the first one in my inventory that it finds. --Squashua 13:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Inventory management is a part of the game. I rather like paying attention to my ammo supplies. 'Sides, seems relatively useless in practice (do we really want to encourage 15 gun, 20 clip carrying characters?) --RSquared 14:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This would help me and my mathematical game play. I dont want two guns with (5)(1) and an extra clip before I go zombie hunting, I want two guns with (6)(6). --ThunderJoe 16:42, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unless you've got so many items that inventory management is a problem, this isn't at all helpful, as you can just truck out with ten weapons and discard them when they get empty. The real reason I don't like this is that it changes the GUI. --Biscuit 16:46, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No reason for this. (3) and (3) is no worse than (6) and (0). --Sknig 17:36, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - (3)(3) is slightly worse than (6)(0)since when you have a spare pistol clip you end up with (6)(3) instead of (6)(6) Madalex 18:05, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sorry but... how can you get a pistol clip, open it up; and fill another one? No and No and No and No... just waste the ones you have,, and then change it....--Adrian 17:52, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re I must say, I'm at a loss for words. Clips are made so that you can add or remove bullets from them. Madalex 18:05, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Need a reason? Monstah 18:32, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Pretty minor, but useful and make sense. I'm suprised no one has shrieked about server load, though (not that I know how it'd affect the server; I'm not much aof a programmer.) --LouisB3 21:31, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Seems a waste of one AP just to make things "pretty." i dunno about the rest of you, but if THAT many of my guns have ammo, i go out and spend it, then reload.--Spellbinder 23:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Useful for those who want it, harmless to those who don't. No reason not to. --Dickie Fux 20:17, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It has no effect on game balance but would be useful to have for survivors who wish it. --Rolland CW 08:29 ,25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Why not? --Nov 11:33, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Might help some lazy guys like me. Jaques Cartier 19:19, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I don't see where it would cause anyone problems, other than stopping the lose of bullets by reloading as it currently can. --Pesatyel 21:01, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Maybe with an increased AP cost/full clip moved(So six bullets moved for pistols costs 1 AP, etc.). Would then help with IP hits and time wasted. Could maybe be worked into ideas like fast reload. Can't seem to find where that suggestion was... oh well, never mind then. Riktar 06:25, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill No Comment --Matthew-Stewart 07:27, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 12:11 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Level 10+ Zombies
Description: With this skill, zombies would recover a given amount of HP over time. (I'm thinking 3HP every two hours, but as with the Powered Buildings Search suggestion, these figures are used illustratively rather than conclusively, and can be changed as necessary.)

To limit server load, the HP bonuses are only applied when the zombie player logs in. Also, the skill is restricted to zombies which are at least level 10.


  • Keep - Author voting for own suggestion. - KingRaptor 12:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I dunno, this would make things too overbalanced- regeneration would mean zeds would just have to attack , run hide, then gradually heal again. - Andrew McM 12:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Overbalanced? Is there such a thing as too much balance? :P (Yeah, I know what you're trying to say)
Anyways, look at it this way: If the zombie spends AP looking for a place to hide (like us humans do), then it's AP not spent looking for safehouses/smashing barricades/eating humans. Besides, humans can still cap the zombie if they encounter it. I'm thinking of this more as a way for zombies bitten by each other and/or injured but not killed by survivors to recover. - KingRaptor 12:44, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Would prefer an AP-expensed, non-survivor-attacking related way to recover HP; like a 25% chance of recovering 1 HP by spending 1 AP feeding on a body. --Squashua 13:47, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Eh...I don't hate the idea, but it doesn't strike me as worth keeping either. I like Digestion as the zombie way to heal. Bentley Foss 15:59, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I got to go with Bently on this one. Zombies are supposed to only gain health and xp by attacking. This would just add to the frustration of hunting zombies. --ThunderJoe 16:43, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Also with previous two. And it's not realistic, y'know? --Biscuit 16:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See Joe and Bentley. --Sknig 17:38, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You have not reason to keep the zombie alive.. if its level 10 then it'll have ankle grab, so the only thing you lose when he dies is a few XP (if you'r headshot) and some AP... so zombies don';t need re-heal for nothing. --Adrian 17:59, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Digestion is the way. (BTW, wasn't this suggestion already submitted some time ago?) --Seagull Flock 18:38, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So if you're stranded outside, you still might be killed since your HP bonuses aren't given to you until you log in? Then I'd rather login evey
  • Kill besides the DNA, and possibly the generators, is anything in this game time dependent? Skill wise i should say. nothing degrades, nothing is healed.--Spellbinder 23:13, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Well designed, but not really necessary. After a few levels, it only requires 1 AP to stand up after dying, anyway. --Dickie Fux 20:20, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Add this with Digestion and you'll have mega healing zombies. --Nov 11:34, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 12:11 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Small Game change
Scope: All Players
Description: I think that Kevan should reset all the wire fences. Yep, as simple as that. This would give a use to the wirecutters again, and would add new options to the game. This is, I think, better than other suggestions, such as being able to repair fences as a new skill. It wouldn't require much coding(I think), and, hopefully, people will not cut all the fences this time.


  • Keep - Author voting for own suggestion. - Andrew McM 12:39, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombie cultists and griefers would have them all cut again within a few days, anyway. And why would the fences all grow back in the first place? Everyl 13:00, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Still doesn't make it sustainable. And as above... how do fences repair themselves? --Shadowstar 13:12, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • RE: Discussion
  • Kill - Take a couple of minutes to take them all down; would prefer the Repair Fences Skill. --Squashua 13:46, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - But the repair Fence suggestion had been shot down- I presented this as an alternative- Andrew McM 12:39, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yeah, I've gotta vote kill here. They'd be right back down. A repair fence skill (there's one floating around out there somewhere) would be preferable, but there are basic fence issues that need to be addressed anyway. Bentley Foss 16:01, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The fences were there in early-game advantages. Now the fences are all open. I have to go with kill on an NPC event like this.
  • Kill in current form. Adjustments are suggested on the talk page.--RSquared 18:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Again. No place must be zombieproof. --Seagull Flock 18:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm not sure what's more fearsome, the regenerating zombies or the regenerating fences ;) Madalex 21:24, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not necessary. --Dickie Fux 20:27, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not necessary. --Nov 11:35, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Store Dropdown in Mall

Timestamp: 13:38, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Interface
Scope: Survivor Shoppers
Description: In malls, instead of 7 buttons representing the different shops available to a discriminating consumer, show a drop down with all the stores selectable, much like the Attack sections. Submit and reload comes back with prior-searched store pre-selected, also like Attack section.


  • Keep - Ah, you'll all vote Keep for this one too. :-) --Squashua 13:38, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - ^ is correct. Everyl 13:45, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just kidding. Keep. - KingRaptor 13:54, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Easy change, useful. --RSquared 14:18, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Say it with me: "Streamlined interfaces are good." --John Taggart 14:35, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Actually, I like the buttons on this one. Bentley Foss 16:13, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Streamlined interfaces are good! --ThunderJoe 16:47, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea. --Sknig 17:40, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A good one. Madalex 18:17, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Streamlined interfaces are good. --Snikers 18:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Much more organized. --ALIENwolve 18:55, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I was quite surprised that this wasn't already the case when I entered a mall for the first time. --LouisB3 21:33, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't see any reason not to... would be more organized.--Arathen 22:13, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill i am no mindless sheep!--Spellbinder 23:17, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I am! --Carfan7 00:11, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No brainer. --Dickie Fux 20:28, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Good times. --Vellin 01:52, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I like it as it is. --Nov 11:35, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - "Streamlined interfaces are good." Also less clutter. --McArrowni 20:35, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Contact Categories

Timestamp: 14:27, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Interface
Scope: Contact List
Description: Inspired by comments made regarding the Carry Comrade suggestion brought up yesterday, this is basically a minor tweak that allows you to sort your contacts into two (possibly three) categories:
  • Allies - For members of your player group and other players that you're working with.
  • Enemies - For people with whom you just don't get along, or people who've done you a dirty deed and you want to keep your eyes open for them so you can dish out a little payback.
  • Neutral - Someone did you a good turn once, but you don't consider him an Ally yet? Put him here.

N.B.: Carry Comrade is not integral to this suggestion. However, if Carry Comrade is passed/implemented, people in your Allies list would be able to haul ass (both yours and theirs) to safety.


  • Keep - For 'tis my own suggestion. --John Taggart 14:30, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Forget for the moment about the "Carry comrade" bit, I like the Idea of being able to sort my contacts list. - Beebles
    • Re: - The Inspired by bit, or the N.B.: bit? The N.B.: bit merely points out another possible use the Allies section might have. (Edited N.B.: for additional clarity, however.) --John Taggart 15:39, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - nothing wrong here. --Squashua 16:00, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Works for me. I might start putting people in my contact list if this existed. Bentley Foss 16:02, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Eh... I like it. --ThunderJoe 16:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - And it'd work even better if a little (A), (N), or (E) was put next to their names when you saw them in a room.--Jon Pyre 17:02, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd use this feature! forgot to sign, oops... --Shadowstar 20:31, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Pretty sure this, or something like it, has been suggested before... still a keeper, though. Everyl 17:46, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah i like... what about an option to put whole guilds in one section as well (easy guild wars) --Adrian 17:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - If Kevan implements can in-game clan system, that might be useful. If not, perhaps a comment next to the names? --John Taggart 20:15, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I suggested a comment field on the old pages, but this actually will do a nicer job. Madalex 18:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - M-hm. -Monstah 18:33, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Brilliant! -MaulMachine 14:23, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)
  • Keep - I'm tempted to vote "Spam" though. I think I've seen this suggestion before in another form. X1M43 22:43, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, it was in the decussions about his carry comrade suggestion. other then that, i don't think so, not on this page at least. on topic, this idea is good when set off by it's self--Spellbinder 23:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Simple, Effective, good idea--Matthew-Stewart 23:58, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam This is a great idea and all, but I'm fairly sure it's duplicate to one from last week that got kept too? Or am I imagining it?--'STER 00:10, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: You're imagining it. The closest thing I've seen is Maladex's Contact Comments suggestion, where you'd put a note next to each contact in your contact list (like so:
Mr. X - Known PKer (Kill on sight)
Mr. Y - Member of U.N.I.T. (ally)
Mr. Z - Guy who revived me once when I was a zombie. (Ally?) --John Taggart 00:33, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Useful idea. --Dickie Fux 20:30, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I guess. --Nov 11:36, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Fencing for Open Land

Timestamp: 16:52, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: New item, skill
Scope: Survivors, Zombies
Description: Fencing, which could be found in hardware stores and warehouses, would allow suvivors to barricade open land. This would include things like parks, cemetaries and fort squares but NOT streets. If you try moving onto fenced off land you'd would end up standing outside of it (as if it were a building) rather than in it. The skill "Fencing" would use Construction as a subskill but unlike barricades fences can not be destroyed through attacks. Humans could use wirecutters to instantly destroy fences, and zombies could instantly destroy also them with a new skill that would use Death Rattle as a prerequisite. The end result of this would be that only relatively powerful zombies that had xp to spare on this skill progression would be able to destroy fences.

Why this would be a good thing: Currently open land has no strategic purpose. I suspect even with fencing people would not take shelter there because sooner or later a zombie that could cut the fences would come. What the real effect of this would be is to make forts a lot more defendable and require that high level zombies lead the way in. (With forts I would also suggest requiring someone to be inside the fences of the surrounding squares before allowing them to pass to the armoury.) I chose death rattle as a prerequisite for flavour to reflect that only an intelligent zombie could lead a horde that way.


  • Kill - There are a number of problems with your suggestion.
A) Fencing does not hide like walls do. You would need to be able to see survivors inside the fencing, but not attack them.
B) It has no real strategic purpose, as barricaded buildings are better for hiding anyway.
C) If you can't go in, you logically can't go out; People could get stuck in, as there are no second floor window to get out from in a wasteland. --Hexedian 17:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Empty land has no uses, but building fenses isn't the option... have a rethink.. it has potential... but not in its current state --Adrian 17:56, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill in current form. Adjustments are suggested on the talk page.--RSquared 18:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hexedian pretty much nailed all of my problems with this. --ThunderJoe 18:27, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As Hexedian said. Madalex 21:26, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I fail to see how talking lets one magically make fences dissapear. A subskill of MoL, maybe. Not Death Rattle. And this would make more sense as a "Fix Fence" skill so those things aren't just for show. And what of fences that already exist?--Arathen 22:17, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Killing spree... --Spellbinder 23:22, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill What they said above. --Nov 11:38, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - installing a fence in a CITY is not a one-man job. --Squashua 20:08, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Timestamp: 17:41, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Reality Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: Here comes another reality check (lets see how long this one stays alive); the idea is this, spraycans should have a number (say 20) uses on them, each USE is one character, therefore if you write really small messages (example : ":)" it will last you ages; but if you insist on writing long messages, it;ll finish quickly. This is just for realism, OH and tagging skill should bascially increase the amount of characters /can (you learn NOT to use ALL of it)


  • Keep Hope it won't be the last Keep here.... I K.I.S.S. ed it happy ;) --Adrian 17:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Too much to track, doesn't add much to the game. Would just lead to people running around spraying . on stuff and getting stupidly large amounts of uses from the spraycan. --Zark the Damned 18:05, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Would disable some of the more creative uses of spraycans, like "Someone has spraypainted a mural of humans battling zombies onto a wall." Also, 20 tags from 1 can is 40 XP, used properly. Everyl 18:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - this would also require a change of spray cans from 1-slot items to 2-slot items. Madalex 18:22, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See above. --ThunderJoe 18:30, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea; too much to track. --Squashua 20:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What they said above. Bentley Foss 21:35, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Looks like a one-keep suggestion for good reason - not only makes tagging an XP farm, but makes it useless for communication. --LouisB3 21:36, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What LouisB3 said.--Arathen 22:20, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill when you wrote down reality check, did it ever don on you that your on a computer, playing a game.... about zombies?--Spellbinder 23:23, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not necessary. --Dickie Fux 20:35, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I like spray cans as they currently are. --Nov 11:38, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Healing zombies is ridiculous

Removed due to five uncontested spam votes. Placed on Peer_Rejected_Suggestions page. Bentley Foss 21:05, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT) The spam votes were because this was a duplicate suggestion - removed from Peer_Rejected_Suggestions page because the suggestion hasn't been rejected. Thorbrian 5:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Clips are not Magazines!

Timestamp: 19:21, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: name change
Scope: Pistol clip
Description: Pistol 'clip' needs to be changed to pistol 'magazine'. The MAGAZINE is that which holds the cartridges so that they can be fed into the firearm and fired. A CLIP holds cartidges that are to be fed into the magazine. The clip is never left in the magazine. It is either removed or used and then kept out of the firearm itself.



  • Kill because a magazine can be anything that stores ammunition, even a room. --Jack Harvey 19:58, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hate to tell you this but I'm fairly sure that the pistols in UD are six-shot revolvers, which can be clip-loaded but not magazine-loaded. If they were able to fire more before reloading, then I'd suspect that they had a magazine stored in the handle. Were an SMG or some other automatic weapon introduced, then it would use magazines, not clips. By changing it to magazines for pistols, you'd be making the game less accurate. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:04, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Does it really matter? Bentley Foss 20:34, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I thought suggestions were to fix game mechanics and add to it, not correct someone about the proper use of a word.--ThunderJoe 20:43, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I hope this doesn't keep you up at night. --Squashua 20:55, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - When I can't sleep at night, I surf over to and read some of the FC spec there. ;) Madalex 21:10, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill If I wanted a semantically perfect game, it wouldn't involve the undead --LouisB3 21:37, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As Squashua said. --Monstah 22:20, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I have to admit, it's a minor pet peeve of mine as well. But you know what? Language evolves. Within 50 years, "clip" will be an accepted term for a box mag. X1M43 22:45, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This isen't anything i lose sleep over, and thats all that matters to me--Spellbinder 23:24, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KeepDamnit he's right and I for one am not going to stand for it anymore! --bbrraaiinnss 23:28, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm with TheTeeHeeMonster on this one. While six-shot semi-auto handguns do exist, there is an implication that the pistols are revovlers - which do take clips, in the form of speed-loaders. Of course, then, revolvers are not's incorrect either way.

More importantly, leaving it as vague as it is leaves the possibility that it is either a revolver or a pistol, which allows the player maximum freedom in the weapon they use. --Snikers 01:20, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - Damn right that has been bugging me every since I started --Deathnut 04:36, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Um well im going to say this. The gun in Urban Dead is definitely a revolver. No doubt about it. 6 rounds? Not many known semi-auto pistols have anything smaller than 8, the amount in a Colt .45 and Luger. Hell, the Walther PPK has at least 7 rounds, and that is a pretty small gun. Its also the James Bond gun :). Also, pistols refer to any one handed firearm small enough to fit in the hand, but this term is mostly used to define one chamber guns like semi-autos and flintlocks, not multi-chamber weapons like a pistol or Gatling. The word pistol can be used to refer to revolvers, but the term handgun is more appropriate. One more thing. Revolver ammo can be loaded into a revolver 2 ways: via speedloaders or by tediously inserting each bullet. Now since inserting each bullet would definitely take more AP, and a drop-in speedloader is not going to be available to everyone, the ammo is carried in full moon clips. The moon clips are only for rimless ammo, and they are essentially rings with bullets mounted on them at regular intervals to suit the revolver the rounds are being loaded into. Another tidbit of info: the pistol in Urban Dead is most likely a 9 x 19mm pistol cartridge or .45 ACP. Anyways, in conclusion. No, your not supposed to change it. Its a damn revolver. Revolvers use clips. If its called a pistol, it refers to a generic term for all guns small enough to fit in one hand. There, im done. AllStarZ 04:40, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -As was said on the Main forum "In a game where the dead walk the streets to feed upon the living, this is where you lose your supension of disbelef?" --Stroth 08:52, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Pedantic? What next? changing "colour" to "color" because "colour" isn't American? --Nov 11:40, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Revised Fencing Suggestion: Fort defense

Timestamp: 21:17, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Suvivors
Description: This is an updated version of my earlier Fencing suggestion but limited in scope to only Fort defense. First off, the squares around the armoury would no longer be open ground but treated like a single eight square building. They would have an inside and an outside. You could only move to the armory if you were inside, otherwise the armory would not be a clickable link. The armory could be barricaded normally. These outside fort squares would have their own version of barricades: fencing. Suvivors with the construction skill would instead of getting a barricade button get a "repair fences" button. These fences would operate almost identically to barricades with different statuses; light, very strong, etc. Anything above very strong would stop suvivors from passing it.

Here come the differences:

  • 1. Fences can only be damaged by melee attacks.
  • 2. If an fueled generator is set up inside the fence for that square is treated as Electrified. Anyone who attacks the fence will take damage. I am not suggesting a definite amount of damage so this suggestion does not get voted down on that basis alone.
  • 3. Wirecutters would allow survivors to break down electrfied fences without taking damage.

Balance/Flavour Concerns: This would make fortresses a lot more defendable. It is quite possible zombies would die numerous times over time as they attempt to take down the fence and those that made it through would likely be injured. I do not believe this is unbalancing because the forts should be highly defendable. And to maintain the generators would require a continual effort on the part of the suvivors. As for flavour electrified fences work PERFECTLY in a zombie movie. They are a standard part of the zombie mythos at this point, alongside direct headshots and zombie plagues.


  • Keep - Author voting for own idea. Increases fort defense but requires constant effort on the part of suvivors to maintain. If the zombies break in at one point they can swarm the entire fort and disable all generators. Will result in action packed, epic battles without significant changes to the game as a whole. Nuff said. --Jon Pyre 02:15, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this. Nice, concise, and logical. Also, insulated wirecutters = no damage from electrical shock (and most wirecutters these days have insulated handles). --John Taggart 21:38, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - as written. If electrified fences could not be repaired and did damage to survivors traversing them or cutting them, I'd be inclined to change my vote. Also, do zombies take damage for attacking or for hurting the barricade? I'd prefer hurting. --RSquared 21:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I was thinking along the same lines as RSquared, repairing a fence which is electrified? You'd probably need an ability to switch off an running generator or something like this. Madalex 22:12, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Forts "should be highly defendable"? Says who? You're fighting hordes of fearless undead, not an army. And these are forts in the middle of cities. And more than half of the people there aren't going to be trained soldiers. And even if a fort was supposed to be defendable because He Who Sits On High said so, that dosn't make it unbalancing.--Arathen 22:25, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - RSquared: If the fences could not be repaired then there wouldn't be fences period. Madalex: K.I.S.S. We don't need to logically chart out every action suvivors engage in. To "repair fences" we can assume they've taken all necessary precautions. When someone plants a generator in a hospital they don't need seperate skills and actions to replace the fuses, hook up the machines they're using, and sterilize their equipment. And if absolutely necessary there could always be a "pair of rubber gloves" item to allow safe repair. Arathen: It's a fort. They're generally pretty well protected. Watch Day of the Dead if you want to see my reasoning. --Jon Pyre 22:28, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I was thinking both in terms of balance (zeds gotta have a chance to assault these barricades and bring them down, and getting zapped AND watching them get rebuilt while you assault them might be a tad bit much) and realism. Are you willing to work on an electrified fence that's strong enough to do real damage to you without turning the power off? Rubber gloves? C'mon now. I think the survivors would be able to build them up, watch the zeds come crashing over, weakened, beat them off, and rebuild and get a the generator going again (cuz once the zeds are in, first thing they do is hit the generator offline). It'd make for an interesting battle. --RSquared 23:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Sorry for all the Re's, but remember if the zombies break any one fence they have access to all the generators. Plus if the zombies die they can stand right back up. Just need a decent sized horde and you can break through. --Jon Pyre 00:08, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Forts should be highly defensible. It wouldn't be called a fort if it was not.--Eddo36 00:56, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Electrified fencing? This should be obvious: NO. --LouisB3 01:46, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Good, except for the electric fences. Barricades are difficult enough, without doing survivors' work for them. --Dickie Fux 20:42, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Remember that there are only two forts on the entire map. This would make these military bases more defendable than the average police station. In addition running the generators would require constant searches for fuel so the suvivors wouldn't be getting a free ride. --Jon Pyre 06:06, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re - I just fear the two forts would become super-bunkers that could never fall. They should be the most difficult buildings on the map for zombies to overtake, but not invincible. --Dickie Fux 17:23, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wirecutters vs Electric Fence is not feasible. I agree that we need to defend the fort, but I think this idea can be revised and refined and resubmitted. --Squashua 05:30, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools