Suggestions/11th-Feb-2006
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Closed Suggestions
- These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
- 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.
- Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
- All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
- Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
- 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.
VOTING ENDED: 26th February-2006
Flak Jacket Improvement
| Timestamp: | 01:28, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT) |
| Type: | Game Improvement |
| Scope: | Flak Jackets |
| Description: | Currently, Flak jackets absorb 20% of damage from firearms. I propose that they are changed to have a 20% chance of stopping a succesful attack, NOTE: any attacks that missed the flak jacket would hit with full damage. This would add more chance into the game but would not drastically alter it. If 5 atacks hit someone, the same amount of damage would be lost with each version of flak jacket. |
Votes
- Keep Author Vote Kivals 01:28, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill -unneeded, while the averages would not change, the fact that more of your attacks would miss in effect would make this more annoying then having simply reduced damage. lets give reality as backseat to game enjoyment on this one.--Vista 01:37, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Yucky, what Vista said. --Pinpoint 01:48, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Flak jackets were probably made to only affect firearms intentionnaly. Although I don't think it was thought out that zombies would use it so much. Still, this is more powerful, being on average 10 to 12 more hp, from an item. --McArrowni 02:41, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill Besides, it isn't realism. It didn't include the info that the damage must be above 5, to use it's effect. You could still bite the next and they don't have a jacket there, you could swing an axe to the head and no flak jacket there. And yes, even though you could aim a bullet at the head of the person, your person would probly not be accurate enough from all the tension and would have to aim the body for you to have ANY chance of hitting the head from how much your arm would probly be shaking. (especially if a zombie have a hold on to you)--Shadow213 03:59, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Uh, no--20% damage reduction (for damages over 5) and 20% no-hit rate are not equivalent. Bentley Foss 05:14, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Vista said all that needs to be said. --CPQD 05:27, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Not really necessary. --Dickie Fux 17:23, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Overall a bad idea. --Dude70 19:21, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill- Are the zombies wearing flack armor of gold or something? That's the only way it can be so bright than it blinds you Drogmir 17:57, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - The chances of hitting something with a fire arm are low enough already.. Even with advanced pistol or shotgun training, the odds are 65% (of course to make the game balanced). But cutting that 65% to-hit by 1/5 would make the game just more annoying, plus it would be even WORSE for people who are less experienced on the fire arms skill tree! I can appreciate your effort to think of game improvements and the idea isn't all that bad. But I don't think it will make the game more fun then it already is. In the end I think that hitting with reduced damage, is more fun then fewer chance to hit at all.--General Viper 19:44, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - I agree on what General Viper said (that it would be even worse this way for those people less experienced on the firearms skill tree) --Abi79 19:20, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Tally 1 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:12, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Buy My Pal a Drink
Author seems to have re-submitted this with clarifications: Suggestions#Buy_My_Pal_a_Drink_v2.0 --Brizth 10:19, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Three Free Deaths for New Characters
Author-retracted in favor of Free Death v.2. Thanks for the feedback. --John Ember 16:35, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Stacked up and cleaned up
Uncoordinated yet spaminated. Three dupes won't make a suggestion a good idea. --ALIENwolve 06:05, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Buy My Pal a Drink v2.0
| Timestamp: | 02:15, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT) |
| Type: | flavor, mostly |
| Scope: | survivors |
| Description: | When in a pub, club, or stadium, survivors can use the beer and wine they possess on other players in the same manner that a first aid kit is used, i.e. with a dropdown menu. This still costs 1 AP to do; it only heals 1 HP, no more, as one would expect.
The maximum number of times this can be done in one day is equal to the level of the drinking player divided by two. rationale: Look, the only real game use of this would be to not blow FAKs on healing minor wounds in an interesting and RPish manner. It's not AP effective; this is obvious. Nor is reading poetry nor newspapers--and yet they are there. This is not supposed to be useful. It's just supposed to be something else to do in the game. The danger of zerging seems almost nonexistent.
Ed: Why have we got to go to Liz's? |
Votes
- Keep - Nice flavor. --Brizth 10:15, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Booyah! What Brizth said. Don D Crummitt 10:30, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - hagnat buys the author a drink. --hagnat 10:41, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Its got flavor sure.. but not enough, imho, to make up for the lack of useful function --Jak Rhee 12:39, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - The General buys the author another drink.--The General 13:53, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - What the hell, useful function be damned. This would add a nice bit of flavor to the game. --CPQD 14:08, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Cool. I keep thinking of the wounded guy getting cradled by his friend, who pours whiskey down his throat to ease the pain. Just the thing for a zombie apocalypse. --John Ember 14:29, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Excellent... but there really isn't any reason to restrict it to those buildings :P --Zarquon 15:50, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - I think it's a cool idea (fun flavor), but why put a limit on how many times it can be done? That part seems like needless complication. --Blahblahblah 16:48, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Excellent... this could be used to heal an infection without wasting an entire FAK --TheBigT 17:21, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Sounds fun. Doesn't need the limit on times per day, though; that's just more for the server to track. --Dickie Fux 17:24, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - I still like it, however TheBig brings up an interesting point... will this heal infections? I tend to think it shouldn't, as it's more of a flavorful thing, not an actual tactic. I don't know the odds of finding drinks offhand, but you don't want to nerf infections by providing an easy way to heal them. Also, like Dickie Fux said, the limit is kinda dumb.
- Keep - I love it! And I like restricting it to bars and clubs. Makes those buildings a bit more interesting. --MoonLayHidden 18:19, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
--Intx13 17:25, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)Did not write keep, kill, spam or dupe. --Abi79 19:29, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)- Keep - So long as it can't heal infections, I like it--Mookiemookie 18:23, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Maybe not very usefull, but it makes the game funnier! People will socialize even more now perhaps. General Viper 19:52, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Silly to have it restricted by level, but otherwise I like it. --Dude70 19:17, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - More RP-ing. I like it! --Abi79 19:31, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep You clarified this time so it's doing much better --Lord Evans 20:10, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - I think this adds some nice flavor to the game, and don't see a way for it to be abused, so it looks good to me. --John Rove 21:14, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill -for two small reasons who combined make it a kill, dropdown menu's are supposed to be a big part of the server strain, two why the limit? I'd lose it if I were you, it serves no purpose and it feels artificial.--Vista 00:03, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - What a charming little idea you have here, my deary. --Reverend Loki 00:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Totaly Awsome I love flavor that actualy does something. --Kirk Howell 15:39, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep Now people who say theyre bartenders can actually be bartenders. AllStarZ 16:40, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - author vote. Regarding the level limit: it's intended to reflect the unfortunate fact that noobs can't hold their liquor. Sorry that was unclear. And no, this would not cure infections. --Bulgakov 15:53, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Tally - 20 Keep, 3 Kill, 23 Total. (without Intx13's invalid vote).
- Keep I like it and so long as it can;'t cure infection it's good.-freakarama 17:05, 24 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Tally 21 Keep, 3 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:11, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Free Death v.2
| Timestamp: | 16:37, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT) |
| Type: | Improvement for new players |
| Scope: | Everyone just starting out |
| Description: | I think Urban Dead is kind of tough on new players. While the importance of getting to a safe place each day is explained up front, I don't think most new players fully grasp just what that entails. They find themselves stuck outside an XHB building and are quickly killed. To help ease the new players in and keep folks playing past the learning curve, I propose that every new character be given one "free" death. The first time a new character dies, the character is offered the choice to "Stand up as a human" or "Stand up as a zombie." It would be made clear on the stand up screen that this leniency will not be afforded again.
Once the free death is exhausted, play continues as normal with every death resulting in zombification. Btw, not a new player myself. Main character is level 31. Just want to keep players from getting turned off to the game too quickly. Edit: Commenters have suggested that the free death should not be offered indefinitely, but only until the player advances a level. If the player dies for the first time as a level 2 character, no free death option would be offered. I feel this is a smart way to go. |
Votes
- Keep - Giving them one free death isn't unbalancing.--The General 16:40, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Better. One suggestion: make it only apply to level-one characters. --Mikm 16:41, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - I don't have any objections to 1 free life when starting out. When I first started playing, I ran though 3 or 4 characters trying to figure things out - I'd do exactly that - get stuck outside an HB building and be dead when I logged back on. Not knowing how revive points worked, I just created new characters. Might help save space from some future abandoned characters. --Blahblahblah 16:53, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT) EDIT - The game is designed to be played in a short amount of time. Calling people "stupid" or "idiots" for not reading all of the wiki before starting is pretty "idiotic" of you. That's expecting hours and hours of reading before playing the game, and most people who come across this game randomly or through word of mouth are not going to make that kind of preemptive effort before starting. And what McArrowni said. Nobody is completely free from stupidity, so stop casting stones. --Blahblahblah 19:56, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Shielding people from their own stupidity encourages more of the same. --Grim s 16:58, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Stupid people who dont read deserve to suffer --Jak Rhee 17:09, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - While I didn't like 3 free deaths, one isn't so bad. And blahblahblah is right, it would stop people from creating character after character as they learned how the game worked. Well, it would help, at least. A newbie wants to play a survivor. Why should we punish him or her for not knowing exactly how barricaded of a building they can get into, or that they should get out of Ridleybank as soon as possible? I for one do not expect new players to scour the wiki before joining... and I don't feel that they "deserve to suffer" for not doing so. It is a game, you know... if they're suffering they're just going to quit, clogging up the database with another idled-out character. And why would we want prospective players to quit? Elitism is a bad thing. --Intx13 17:22, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - When I first started I didnt realize that you couldnt go into a building above VSB. I died my first day and had to trudge at 2 AP a move to get to the place where my soon to be team was at. It was very frustrating and I was really close to dumping the character and just quitting the game. I think if this was included it will keep players from quitting because they died. --TheBigT 17:25, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Softening the learning curve is good. How would this affect characters that start as zombie, though? --Dickie Fux 17:27, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - No, no, no. When the game explicitly tells you "spend your first day looking for a safe place to sleep", then you should listen. Part of fun of UD is that it's a difficult, harsh game. If you screw up, you deserve to die. And people: don't whine about barricades being hard to figure out. They were changed a while back to let one know when they're too heavy to bypass. Bentley Foss 17:28, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill Low level zombies have already been buffed some. I think this isn't a good way to go about this. --Zaruthustra-Mod 17:32, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Re Perhaps you misread the suggestion? This isn't about low level zombies... it's about newbie survivors. --Intx13 15:49, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep- souds good to me cause i havn't died yet and i'm lvl 20. I felt like a moron when i first played..... now that i think about you should have a level cap somewhere from preventing people who never died like me from ruling the streets Drogmir 18:00, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill I agree with grim and Jak. No sympathy for the ignorant.--Mookiemookie 18:21, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep- Makes it so new people can actually keep the names they want. Don't act so superior guys. There's an idiot within each and every one of us--McArrowni 18:23, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill- If they don't read the rules, the only way for them to learn is to die. If they don't read the rules at the beginning of the game, I highly doubt they'll read the note taht says "This is the last time you'll be able to stand up as a human freely". -- Ju Ju Master 18:36, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Author vote. Good point about nixing the free death once the player levels. I think that's smart. --John Ember 18:56, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Players choose their class at the beggining of the game. If a survivor wants to become a zombie, he only needs to find a tall building and jump from its window. And why whould new zed/survivor players get a free revive? If they want one, they need to work for it (get to a suburb where there is a Revive point -e.g. Yagoton- , get to the revive point and wait to get revived) --Abi79 19:03, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - love it. newbies do need a LITTLE help --dragonboy218 19:05, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - I like it too. I have about 6 idled out characters from getting acquainted with the system. --Dude70 19:20, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep I got turned away the first time I played this because I felt that it was imposible to stay alive, but my friend brought me back when he started playing Urban Dead himself, so this might help people to keep playing --Lord Evans 20:15, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - It should also tell the person to go to the wiki to learn the game. --ALIENwolve 20:16, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Tally - 13 Keeps, 7 Kills and 0 Spams/Dupes.--21:16, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - You're surely a warm hearted person to suggest something like this. But if new players read the instructions, or just use common sense in the game, they'll be just fine. I haven't been playing that long now and I learned to play in a few days. I got killed a couple of times due to bad luck, but had no trouble being revivified either (once random, once by approaching a scientist in a friendly manner). So I have to be against it.. You should play Tibia for a change! They certainly have no love for weakness. I'm really not advertising, but just saying they were very cruel in that MMRPG compaired to this one --General Viper 22:43, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - same reasons as for the first version, people learn from the concequenses of their mistakes. besides being a zombie is much more fun then it used to. Maybe they'll like it. either way you learn more of the game without this.--Vista 00:07, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill � No. Bartle 00:20, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Unlike Fox News, this suggestion is indeed "Fair and Balanced" --Reverend Loki 00:44, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - They need to learn the hard way that death isn't pretty! --Shadow213 03:50, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - This is a great idea! When I first started, I read the rules (but of course, not having played yet, didn't understand exactly what they all meant). Like I'm sure many other players, I was killed on the street looking for a safe place to spend the night. Playing as a Level 1 non-corpse Zombie pretty much sucked - and it took me several days to get revived. If I die now I'll go along and play a Zombie for a while (I refuse to get revived now until I rack up a few kills!), but I had no desire to do so on my second day of the game - if I'd wanted that, I would have started as one! That first death has made me avoid it since - but a free warning would have worked just as well, and saved days of wandering slowly to find a revive point that was still operational. --Norcross 06:44, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Afraid of turning into a zombie - that's what making playing for survivors interesting --EnForcer32 07:40, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - I made three separate characters that died within 1 day, and played them as zombies while making new ones until one stayed alive, because I figured getting revived had to be hard (it isn't.) This would be very difficult to abuse and very condusive to not putting people off of the game right away.--'STER-Talk-Mod 09:11, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Recent changes have been made to make the transition easier without breaking the flavor of the game. --MorthBabid 11:40, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Tally - 16 Keeps, 13 Kills and 0 Spams/Dupes. 09:11, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - when i started playing UD, i created ~5 characters before understanding the game. I invited some friends to play and they also didnt get how things work the first time and quit. A Get Out of Jail Free Card to newbies would surely make things easier. --hagnat 15:05, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep- This sounds like it would help new players, I myself died my first day, and the next week running around as a zed with no XP waiting for a revive was total hell, its best to learn from experience and getting killed teaches you how to play the game, but it can be frusturating not to have a second chance for days on days. --Kirk Howell 15:43, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Good idea. Supportive for new players. Many of the 'kill' votes seem to be from people who can't really remember what starting out in the game was like. It was tough. --Strapon Bev 20:00, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Having recently started this game my first character died the first night out, I had skimmed through the Wiki and when I started my second character I chose scout because of Free running skill. Giving a Lvl 1 survivor newbie a single second chance with a notice to find proper shelter next time would IMO be useful in retaining them in the community. --Jaeger CDN 18:45, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Let me get this straight, in a town overrun by survivors, you think that people should be able to just switch back to being humans! --Xbehave 15:22, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep - Contrary to what many above seem to think, dumping people in the deep end and letting them sink or swim is not the best way to teach people how to enjoy a pool. Handing out a couple little arm floaties isn't a bad idea --Brett Day 11:51, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
- Tally 21 Keep, 14 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:11, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Quarantine Break
| Timestamp: | 22:05, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT) |
| Type: | Story Development |
| Scope: | All |
| Description: | This is not an improvement to the game mechanics or characters in anway, and maybe rather hard to convey as it doesn't affect the gameplay directly.
What I am proposing is that an area of the border of Malton is opened up due an "incident", causing a new, but small (fifteen blocks), area of the city to be incorporated into the game, even temporarily. For instance, an in-game news posting would annouce:
Current players would have no influence on the actual announcement above, as it is simply story development. However, effectively, a new playable area of the game is opened up. It would cosist of
I believe this would add an immense "fun" factor in to the game, and propose that it would only be temporary. Zombies and Survivors alike would flock to the area, creating a monumental incident that would be recorded throughout MMORPG history (or something). Plenty of battles over the encampment and power plant, the odds swaying in and out of favour, the power in malton continually being turned on and off (if this is technically possible). After a few weeks, the border would gradually be closed with a series of announcements along the lines of:
Further down the line, it could happen again, at another location with different consequnces. This is fairly elaborate, but not impossible. I think it would be a great addition to the game however. Don D Crummitt 22:05, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT) |
Votes
- Kill A huge amount of effort for a largely redundant addition that would expire quickly. --Zaruthustra-Mod 22:26, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- kill - I do not think this is needed just yet, I alkso dislike the word temporairy - --ramby Talk 22:34, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Hey! You're right! This isnt an improvement at all! --Jak Rhee 22:50, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - too much work for too little reward. If you want a new area just move a suburb don't make a new one Drogmir 23:22, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - The people ingame are already quite proficiant at making memorable events themself.--Vista 00:13, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- RE Like whent? The only one that springs to mind is Mall Tour 06 Don D Crummitt 12:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Daris, the Many rampage, Caiger 1, Some of the giddings sieges, (one or two of them depends who you ask) some of the earlier fort sieges, the Malton Iditarod. These are just some that spring up in my mind. so I no doubt missed a lot more too. These used to be events that rocked the game and hade game wide effects on morale, tactics, the forming of groups, etc. The fact that you don't know about any but the one currently in progress shows what would happen to your monumental incident that would be recorded throughout MMORPG history as well.-- and don't abuse the RE -- Vista 13:39, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- RE Fair comment, although I was really being sarcastic about the monumental effect. You guys do get really shirty about this game though, don'tcha? Abuse the RE? How Am I meant to reply to comments then? If too many comments appear, it'll move to discussion, end of. Jeez Louise. Don D Crummitt 14:18, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Pointless--Mookiemookie 02:05, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- RE As pointless as newspapers? Maybe, but, like newspapers, they add depth to the backstory, and it is within genre. Don D Crummitt 12:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Re - Yes, as pointless as newspapers. Except that this pointlessness would take a lot of work to implement in the game, and I'd much rather have Kevan's time and effort spent on implementing things that are not pointless--Mookiemookie 18:20, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- RE As pointless as newspapers? Maybe, but, like newspapers, they add depth to the backstory, and it is within genre. Don D Crummitt 12:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Let's talk about permanent and then we'll have a deal. --Gene 02:44, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- RE I was thinking permanent, but I came up with this as a sort of compromise. I think having a couple of unique building, such as an army camp and power plant would really liven things up. The borders of Malton are far to static. This even would be within genre. The residents would fight back! Don D Crummitt 12:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - What happens if they close it back up, are we going to be stuck in the camp forever O.O? --Shadow213 03:49, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- RE Read it again and you'll have your answer. I think you only read half way. Don D Crummitt 12:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Re Oh... -_- sry I read that part then started going beserk. Still don't like the temporary part. --Shadow213 19:30, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - What's the point? I'm tempted to vote "Spam". --Norcross 06:44, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- RE AS above, this event would only be as pointless as newspapers. It adds a story/genre element to the game. Don D Crummitt12:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - While I appreciate the effort and idea, I don't think an extra 15 blocks means much. Malton is quite large enough already. Several suburbs are chronically abandoned as it is. Bentley Foss 07:58, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- RE They're only abandoned because they are "boring" suburbs - not enough to do in them to keep them populated. Don D Crummitt 12:41, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - I'd like a permanent extension of the borders. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:26, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - Powerplants already exist, Army camp is redundant, temporary is bizarre --McArrowni 16:58, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Kill - I'd like a permanent reduction of the borders. --Xbehave 15:26, 17 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Keep(I know, futile protest vote here) - temporary areas and events are half the joy of Kingdom of Loathing, and I think it's an element that would do well in UD. --Brett Day 11:56, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
- Tally 1 Keep, 13 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:10, 9 April 2006 (BST)
