Suggestions/14th-Mar-2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

Guard

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Now that generators/transmiters are bulky taking up 1/5th of your inventory and hard if not impossible to stockpile in advance, and ransack has large sections of the map left unsearchable it makes sense that equipment deserves a bit of extra protection. Heck, a generator's maximum search rate in a factory is only 3%. Fuel is only 5%. A transmitter is 3% in a firestation.

I suggest adding a military skill called Guard. A soldier who has been trained to guard valuable resources will interpose themselves between an attacker and the equipment. Attacks against generators or transmitters will not be possible unless one of two conditions are met:

1) All the players with Guard are killed. 2) At least 1 survivor in the building is at to 25hp or lower, distracting the guards (forget the generator, that guy is getting killed!) Guard wouldn't protect those injured people the way it does equipment though. The presence of a badly wounded survivor just neutralized the Guard skill until everyone is restored to at least 26hp.

This effectively gives equipment an effective hp of 25. Before an intruder can destroy the generator they must first target a survivor and wound them . This makes sense whether it's a zombie or a survivor attacking. In film and tv zombies always attack the living before they target inedible electronics, and an attacking human would logically have to kill or divert the wary survivors that have banded together inside a building. If the attacker is a survivor then someone other than themselves must be at 25hp.

I think this is a needed buff to protect equipment now that the encumbrance nerf has harmed the ability of survivors to keep generators in reserve. It shouldn't really put an invading zombie out of their way providing they had enough AP. They'd need to attack a survivor to kill them anyway. But this could prove useful during repelled breaches and against survivors that free run building to building and take generators out with a mere 5AP of axing.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Now that equipment is extremely difficult to find and keep it makes sense survivors should have a slightly easier time of protecting the equipment they already have. Who wouldn't guard a generator that is easily destroyed, took you a whole day to find, and weighed a freaking ton as you dragged it home? --Jon Pyre 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep Sounds good. But it should perhaps be described who the guard is, so he could be targetted. A generator is set up here. It is guarded by JohnDoe. - BzAli 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep Sounds fair to me. Simply having a zombie in a room prevents people from repairing building damage, why shouldn't having survivors in an area be able to protect equipment? Considering how many griefers there are in the game, no system will ever be perfect, but this could indeed be an improvement. If zombie players want to destroy an item, why shouldn't they have to do what survivors have to do to search for an item? - --Billy Bubba 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep This is exactly what is needed to balance GKer tactics out. --heretic144

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. Change -When I hear Guard, I think more that the thing is attackable, just that your attack will be stopped by whoever is guarding the thing. I don't know if it would be for the better or for worse, but I'd say that those with guard skill would take the damage instead of the equipment on a successful hit. If it's for the worse, ignore me. --Storyteller 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re That's effectively what would happen as is currently. The attacker would target the generator, but get a message telling them it is under protection. It wouldn't cost them any AP. Then they could attack any survivor they want, the ones with guard or without guard, until they get down to 25hp. That is exactly what you suggested except the attacker isn't surprised by their AP attacking a random person. Instead they get to attack whoever they want and then get to destroy the generator. --Jon Pyre 01:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re I like the suggestion below. Let's change it to that. --Storyteller 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Barely a kill Let's simplify this even further. (It is simple, actually but just listen please...) For each survivor with the guard skill they have a chance of being the target of the attack instead of the piece of equipment. (You get in the way, annoys zombie, but it can still hurt you!) Keep in mind, that piece of equipment isn't a football, you guys aren't playing keep away with it.. get in the way.. risk injury. Then those with the guard skill who are down to 25 or less life no longer get in the way of the attack on the equipment (too hurt!) I'm ok with that! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re I don't see why there's a need to randomize what the zombie can already do. Why put in a chance of attacking a random person, which is ineffective toward's the zombie's goal of killing people, when they can attack and kill whoever they want. They could target those with Guard if they prefer, or anyone else they choose. While high level players would of course want to pick up guard killing the person with Guard might not be the best choice. What if there's a level four person with free-running, melee attacking, axe proficiency, and guard and then someone who's level 30 but doesn't have Guard yet. The zombie is better off with a choice of targets. Also randomized attacks spread out the damage rather than concentrating it on a single person. A zombie is really better off doing 25 damage to a single target of their choice, then destroying the generator, then attacking fifteen times to destroy the generator and hitting 7 survivors for 3 damage apiece.--Jon Pyre 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Even so, we can't let this skill be a 100% effective means of prevent a zombie from destroying generators and radios.. which are.. one of the only decent source of XP for zombies (other than survivors!) We have to be fair, and balanced, to be honest. You're very close, just study it further... thanks. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 10:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - it takes a considerable effort (ie AP) for a zombie to destroy a generator. Guard is essentially an auto-action, so it's a no-no from me. If you think that things are not balanced, just suggest an increase in the search rate for generators - or there's that other suggestion about being able to repair them. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. change i am fine with the concept but not sure of the method. perhaps if the server could assign the "guard" with the most AP (ie the most alert) and then when someone tries to attack the equpment they get a message "it is guarded by X". If X is taken below half hits he/she backs of and its a clear path?--Honestmistake 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - So GKers now have to be PKers too? No thank you. There are perfectly valid reasons to GK. Also, Gennys have just been buffed. –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - It's still too soon to be suggesting new things in response to the recent changes. I want to have a chance to experience smashing a generator before deciding whether to make changes to it. Also I don't like the idea that an injured person could enter the building and just by their presence weaken the generator's defence. --Toejam 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Generators are already difficult to destroy, I don't think they need more protection. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Let me get this straight. You get this skill, that you cannot turn off, that forces you to become a target for attacks meant for an inanimate object. So if someone were to set up a genny in a building where it is not needed and serves no purpose other than to attract zombies, a kind and considerate survivor would have to shoot at his buddies in order to be able to destroy the offending generator that is making them a target in the first place? Seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. And it would also beg the question of why they can't just do this for other survivors as well. And since this isn't linked to that one suggestion you made (or at least I think it was you) about being able to protect people, the question does not have an answer. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - I'm with MrA on this one. It needs to be simplified. Personally, I'd make it a skill AND an action (you know, as your last move you can guard the generator). Perhaps an active guard could block one generator attack per AP they have stored, but they take the hit instead. There should only be one guard at a time (whoever pressed the "guard" button last has guard duty) and maybe throw something in the room description that says that whether the generator is being guarded or not? You know what, we'll talk about this on the discussion page.--Uncle Bill 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. As all above and below. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Want to know the buff gennys got? They last longer, take more HITS to get destroyed. That is a zombie nerf, and it came on the heels of the Surivior nerf. Kevan placed the Genny Levels to make gennys harder to destroy. This problem is already fixed.--ShadowScope 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Considering how hard it is to find generators I don't think it is unreasonable to have both. Survivors got a pretty giant nerf. I think there is room for a generator defense skill that won't take away the zombie majority. --Jon Pyre 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you please at least wait a little while after the changes are played out before suggesting? I don't think it's that's terrible...and just stacking stuff onto suriviors won't make zombies have fun.--ShadowScope 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Generators got seriously nerfed, but practicing necromancy on a bad idea isn't the way to balance them again. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lock & Load

Timestamp: MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Ease of ammunition
Scope: Makes firearm ammunition take up less inventory space
Description: This skill idea, plus the one from yesterday were actually put together (and "on hold") prior to current encumberance changes. Nonetheless.. it is a millitary "ammo storage" skill. I actually have no problems whatsoever with the current encumberance changes, just want to make a few specific items easier to carry.. if you have the appropriate skill(s) paid for! And, if it doesn't overdo anything combat related.

Lock & Load

Appears under millitary skills tree as a sub-skill of Basic Firearms Training. Adds no benefits to your zombie character.

You are very effective at storing your ammunition in optimum locations on your person. Firearms ammunition only takes up 1/2 the regular encumberance for you.

  • As far as actual "combat speed" (less AP spent).. fully loaded weapons at the ready are always better, on the spot, shoot, shoot, shoot. Best XP/AP, right there...
  • You could fire off several pistols or unload all your shotguns, and having more ammo merely means you have more of them on hand to reload them as needed. This skill will come in handy on those days you can't seem to hit a damn thing!
  • For example for 6 AP you could fire 3 fully loaded shotguns, OR fire 1 shotgun, reload it and fire it again (4 shots, 2 reload AP.)
  • For all intents and purpouses this skill also implies you probably also have perhaps a pistol belt, maybe a bandoleer.. shoulder pistol holsters (police), possibly even a millitary or hunting ammunition belt. So your character knows how to make use of such items without them slowing down their ability to draw, fire and hit the target. It is an advancement of the overall basic firearms training, advanced combat, ammo storage, and reloading during combat techniques.
  • All cops have trained for this, and almost every single soldier trained for actual combat.
  • This is an extremely simple means of doing this without having to search for this or that item to the same thing. At least having a skill instead, makes more sense, and makes it a lot more fun. (Profile descriptions..)

This skill, in all honesty helps shotguns significantly more than pistols.. however shotguns themselves are a much larger firearm. So having this skill allows the amount of individual shotgun shells you are carrying, to be considerably less of a hassle. Making it easier to survive perhaps carrying less shotguns, and still be effective against your targets.

Pistol magazines are quite light & not bulky comparatively, so for those who love pistols, this could also save a lot of problems! Leaving more space for FAK's or other nessesary gear.

Firing off your rounds, and reloading, is exactly the same.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep I know and understand that the single shotgun shells are an essestial control of the devastating damage capability of that specific weapon (many players have told me, quite clearly, of that fact.) But, now that we have a much more balanced system of how many guns and whatnot you can carry.. we can use that system within reason, to have a logical means of being able to carry more ammo. 2 survivors: one has a lot of ammo shells in his pants and shirt pockets, readily available... the other, has them all organized in his nice ammunition belt. Who can carry more ammo, really, without dropping some periodically? MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. The size of ammo didn't get changed with the latest update. But this just takes advantage of the change. So I'll go for it. -Mark D. Stroyer 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Reducing ammo from 2% to 1% encumbrance is not outrageous and magazines/shells are quite small. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Lock n' load and ready to fire! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep I could carry that much, besides, only maybe 1/2 of the space is ammo. --Graaj 21:17 03/16/07 (UTC)
  6. Keep -Makes sense. -Heretic144 03:50, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill/Change - I can see where your going with this, but I'm not sure I'm completely behind the idea. I would prefer to give survivors a system of carrying lots of ammo (that takes up little space), but the use of that ammo takes more effort. For example - A survivor can store ammo in a pack of some kind - 1/2 encumberance per clip/shell, but it takes 2AP to reload (1 to remove from box, the other to actually load - storing the ammo doesn't take any AP). The survivor then has two types of ammo = unstored (as now - 1AP to reload) and stored(costs 1AP to unstore, but is 1/2 encumberance while stored). (NB: this is only a thought - still lots of details to thrash out). –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 10:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re I've tried shotgun ammo boxes, bandoleer, and my god, just dozens of different ways to do this. Voters reactions to even the best of them were often moderately hostile at best. It's needed, but this is just the simplest, easiest to understand way possible, bar none. I have yet to see anyone do better, unfortunately. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 10:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - with this, and your previous suggestion, you're essentially reversing the change made. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Only with pistol clips and shotgun shells. Leaving more room for other essentials, when possible, is that bad? Making shotgun shells "smaller", is.. totally fair. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 10:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill -The amount of ammo that you can carry is already formidable. This just isn't needed.--Vista 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - The encumberance change didn't change anything to do with ammo. You can't carry 600 bullets, unless you are kinda mad, or have a Trenchcoat. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob T 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Would encourage commando-style play, where a character stocked up on ammo and went hunting. - BzAli 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Ohh... all that spam must be hard on ye colon thar matey, ye best be seeing a doctor...

Dead Contacts

Timestamp: FriedFish.ca 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Improvement I guess?
Scope: Everyone
Description: So this may or may not have been mentioned before, but I recently noticed that, when one of your contacts happens to die and you just so happen to be right there to watch and possibly laugh (read:your in the same square circle), that when said contacts body hits the turf, your able to attack them. But when you do this, it just tells you that your target has moved away. Therefore, i have decided that

A) you should not be able to interact with dead contacts or: B) You should be allowed to kill them when they are already dead (!!DISCLAIMER!! humor may or may not be contained in option B)

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep BEST SUGGESTION EVER!!! -- FriedFish.ca 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. Kill - The current failure to interact is fine, cleaning it up would be nice but not needed. Being able to actually kill a corpse is way too abusable - imagine the xp you could rack up juggling corpses for killing blow bonus xp. --Mold 06:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill You can revive your dead contacts specifically. Reviving is a kind of interaction and I wouldn't want to lose that ability. --Jon Pyre 08:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill -As Jon Pyre said. You could just ask for a different flavor text. I know people who would shoot dead contacts over and over again, just to get a message stating, "you attack -- for X Damage, he was already dead." That way you both make their Pk-ing life more fun and you drain AP from them which they can't use to annoy the rest of the players. Win-Win.--Vista 10:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Killing contacts when they are already dead doesn't really make any sense, it would be better if the message was changed to "You try to attack name, but then realize that they are already dead." --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 15:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Change the Flavor, not the Product. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Dupe - This is already in Known bugs, Known_Bugs#Contacts_who_are_corpses_show_up_in_your_attack_list. --Toejam 11:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dupe - He's Right. I've had the same bug myself. --Kamden 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. As above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Advanced Axe Training

Timestamp: CrystalEyes 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Human Survivors
Description: This is a suggestion that a skill be added to the human tree to boost the hit accuracy of an axe to 65% in line with current Advanced Pistol and Shotgun Training.

Currently there is a major flaw in the game, in that in order to render the majority of the human population of a suburb all but helpless all a zombie horde need do is take out and hold the nearby police departments and malls. That may seem a lot to do, but any well-organised horde can do it and once they do the countdown to human eradication in the suburb begins, because very soon all pistols and shotguns in the area become worthless once the ammo runs out (take a look at the suburb status map for proof and see the number of suburbs rated Dangerous and Very Dangerous compared to the number of Safe and Moderately Dangerous one to see what effect this can have).

So when the ammo runs out then what? Punch? Not worth the AP. Knife? Not much better. Axe? Now you're talking!

The number of hit points inflicted with an axe is pretty much spot-on in my opinion, but even with Axe Training it is an unreliable weapon. Let's think purely in believability terms: Using a knife with Knife Training has a 50% chance of success, yet an axe with Axe Training has just 40%. Which would you use in a situation dealing with a zombie as in this story: The weapon which requires you to come in at close quarters, or the one which allows you to strike from beyond arm's length? The axe seems the more likely choice. Let's now consider a reasoning for 'upping' the hit percentage: At present it is 40%. We are talking about 'traditional' zombies, right? With an axe aimed at a shambling, slow-moving and slow-witted human form surely you would hit more than half the time if you have decent abilities and strength (which the training would imply), but at present the system would have us believe that zombies can bob and weave like Sugar Ray Robinson in his prime.

The additional likelihood of hitting without adding hit points to the damage inflicted would be believable and would level the balance of the game, which is currently favouring upper-echelon zombies with their 50% success rate on hand attacks (on humans who should be much faster and more agile) and of course the 10% Tangling Grasp bonus.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep: I play as both survivor and zombie and consider this an excellent idea. Ammo is harder to find than rocking horse muck in most of Malton at the moment, so are survivors supposed to fight the zombies with harsh language? The Hierophant 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep: I like this, but it should be 55-60%. I think part of it is whether or not the attack actually hurts the zombie. --Graaj 20:27 03/14/07 (UTC)
  3. Keep - It's becoming increasingly difficult to find ammo, & it's virtually impossible to take a zed out at the moment using just the fire-axe. --CrystalEyes 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep I don't have a problem with any hand weapons getting better chances to hit (considering they all have both lower damage and lower hit % than firearms!) Provided additional skills are required, and it isn't too much. I agree, but the max Axe to hit should be 60% after this skill, because it does 3 damage... (firearms max. 65%, but they're so easy.. point and shoot, really, close combat past a certain point takes more skill, definately, but can be done...) MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 11:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - As a PKer (one character anyways), I fully support this proposition. --Gm0n3y 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Let's buff axes, so they actually become a weapon comparable to the firearms. - BzAli 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - 2 HP damage at 50% per AP for knives is worse then the axes 1HP/AP 3 damage at 40% is 1.2AP/HP. It is indeed less then the zombies 1.5HP/AP for their claw attack, but reasonable compared with the 1.5HP/AP for guns (meant as survivors primary weapons)if you factor in searching. A 65% hit chance with axe would raise the HP/AP to 1.95HP/AP. You'd obsolete guns and give Survivors a weapon that is a full third stronger as the best zombie weapon. Overpowered and unnecessary. If zombies control all ammo points in the neighbour hood, you should adapt your game play. make supply runs, keep hidden until they leave, or simply leave yourself. The game is about always taking the fight to the zombies. In fact, it rarely is. Lets keep it that way.--Vista 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC) edit. Also, this has been suggested multiple times before.--Vista 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Same as Vista. I could accept an upgrade of Axe acuaraccy up to 50%, but 65%!? Stop joking. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - If anything, guns are what need a boost. The advantages of the axe are that it doesn't require ammo, doesn't spam up your inventory with tons of guns and ammo like firearms (which means a lot now), and doesn't require the user to be reliant on PDs/Armouries/Malls. The only advantage of Guns is that they can do a lot of damage in a short time. But to do that damage, you first have to spend tons of AP searching for ammo (which you could have thereotically spent attacking with your axe). Axes need a buff like my zombie needs another headshot. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill, and change -I've always thought mele weapons can be used even without resource buildings and firearms can be used to do allot of damage at once. (explaining why z's don't have them)... you should make the axe about equal dagage to firearms and claws, probably something like 55%, makeing it 5% more accuracy than claws but no tangling grasp. --AlexanderRM 5:56 PM, 14 March 2007 (EST)
  5. Kill / change - I'm not opposed to the idea itself, but the percentages need to be juggled a bit. 65% is excessive. 50% or 55% I could live with. --Dread Lime 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Your introduction threw me. This entire suggestion follows from faulty reasoning. Lack of firepower isn't why you're losing territory, and in fact most zambahz I know just laugh at you when you come out with pistols and shotguns blazing. The only reason most that bother with PDs even do, is because we know there'll be a bunch of easy, AP-drained, trenchcoat-wrapped meals inside. I don't know how many times this has to be said, but aside from xp-gaining, killing zambahz is only useful to clear weak ransacks and knock rotters out of revive queues. So this suggestion basically comes down to let's give harmanz a better xp gaining system. To that I say no, they already have too many easy ways of racking up xp. --Mold 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - a) 1.95 damage per AP with no ammo searching is obscene. If implemented, the person who suggested this would the patron saint of PKers and "zombie spys" every where. b) This would just encourage stupid survivor tactics. Killing zombies when a suburb is already red is fairly pointless- not that killing zombies ever is optimal strategy, even if occasionally required. When a suburb is at red, it needs REVIVES. c) It smells a lot like a Katana. Making trench coating easier != good for survivors. d) Survivors should not be better at wrecking barricades, radio transmitters, and generators than zombies are. With this suggestion, they would be, by a good margin. --S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - As Mold and Swiers! Killing "zeds" isn't what wins survivor territory, it's barricading, healing and reviving -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - As Boxy, and little excessive. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 13:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. As Vista. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - Nerfs guns. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. spam - you clearly don't understand the maths behind the game. No ammo == huge bonus in AP. Only kill zombies if you really, really need to. You know, they just stand up again. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Limited HitPoints for Flak Jackets

Suggestion moved to the talk page as it was the user's second suggestion of the day. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Artifact usage

Timestamp: Chris' 'Redfield 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: item usage
Scope: Everyone
Description: I think that Items from museums like skeletons or paintings should be able to either be destroyed or stolen back from other buildings that they are in. they may be destroyed by either dead or alive, and be picked up and taken anywhere by the living. but only with the artifacts. Items in museums will still be created as normal. note: after seeing some general votes i have confirmed some info for you all. when rensacked these DO NOT go away. humans should be able to kill them too...ill put up the changed version tommorow...

Keep Votes

Kill Votes

  1. Kill/change -I think they should be only destroyable, just my personal opinion. --AlexanderRM 7:25 PM, 14 March 2007 (EST)
  2. Kill I'm pretty sure they die when the buildings ransacked, and anyways stealing is a no no. FriedFish.ca 3:17, 15 March 2007 (UST)
  3. Kill The whole point is that you can prettify your building and keep it nice until zombies overtake it. --Jon Pyre 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Incomplete. Please, in future read the guidelines on making a suggestion. This page is for finalised suggestions, not "I'll put up the changed version tomorrow". Use talk:suggestions if you do not have the time, or place it on your own user page to edit before submitting. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill -This would just explode in survivor drama over something that works best as flavor fluff.--Vista 15:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Incomplete - You aren't supposed to put it up until it's complete. Suggestions that aren't done yet belong on the discussion page. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. As above. And you do know you're not suppose to edit during voting right? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Incomplete, it is missing vital items. Did you steal this from my page? I'm developing a suggestion just like this. :P --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/14th-Mar-2007&oldid=1878985"