Suggestions/14th-Nov-2006

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

Rabid Dogs

Removed as a Dupe, Spaminated and incorrectly formatted. --Funt Solo 08:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First, Cause a Distraction

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Balance change
Scope: Survivors
Description: The problem with PKing isn't that it exists but that it has a reduced AP cost compared to a zombie attacking someone. There are no barricades in the way.

We know from one of Kevan's updates "As looter raids and sabotage attacks continue, the city's survivors are beginning to camp out in the larger, shared rooms of their safehouses." As survivors grow more suspicious and wary of quislings they've begun keeping a closer eye on each other, making an attack from within impossible unless the defenders are distracted by some external threat or calamity.

Survivor on survivor attacks and sabotage would no longer be possible inside buildings unless the barricades are down, a zombie is present, and/or if a dead body is on the ground. All three of these situations would naturally cause panic and give a raider the opportunity they need to cause destruction and escape in the confusion.

This just gets a PKer's AP cost in line with a zombies. If a zombie wants to attack a survivor they need to either break down barricades, find someone outside, or find a building another zombie broke into. This would just make PKers do the same. Heck, it'd still be a little cheaper for the PKer since they could use crowbars to their advantage when reducing barricades.

This would not affect attacks made by zombies at all. From a gameplay perspective this just provides equilibrium in the AP cost spent by survivors and zombies in killing the living.

Genre Considerations (*with spoilers!*)

Note that in most zombie movies rival gangs of humans must break down their rival's barricades before they can attack. Take the original Romero classic Dawn of the Dead which has an assault by motorcycle riding gang of raiders on the protagonist's mall towards the end. First they demolish the barricades the heroes set up earlier in the film and stroll through the opening. As they exchange gunfire with one of the main characters hundreds of zombies begin to stream in behind them, attacking everybody.
The movie Day of the Dead also ends with a human character turning against his companions, but this time motivated by insanity instead of looting. In this instance he also turns against his companions by opening the entrance to fort they've taken shelter in.
In the newer zombie movie 28 Days Later at one point the hero must infiltrate a mansion occupied by corrupt human soldiers. Before attacking he releases a zombie into their safehouse. As it runs around infecting and sowing chaos he stealthily runs through, killing his distracted human enemies right and left.

Bounty Hunting

This would stop bounty hunters as well. However bounty hunting would no longer be necessary. Killing a PKer would have no tactical advantage since they'd be equally dangerous living or dead. And there'd still be negative consequences for angering fellow survivors...they could avoid healing or reviving you.

Personal Biases Of Author

I play two characters. One of them is Jon Pyre, a member of Channel 4 News, defender of humanity and the fourth estate. The other is a ravenous ghoul, who'll retain his zombie anonymity for now. Let's just say those folks in Buckley Mall are delicious. From both sides of the necrotic divide I have a problem with the current incarnation of PKing. As a survivor I dislike seeing myself, or possibly five or more comrades riddled with holes while we are logged out, all without a zombie brushing the cades and providing a chance to spend AP mounting defense. As a zombie I dislike seeing my own abilities and the tactics of my entire race completely outclassed. I play as a zombie to kill survivors by the billions and enjoy seeing a mighty horde come at my call. I like to imagine the surprise any remaining survivors have after a break-in, seeing all the names of their companions dragged out into the street. And I don't like knowing that I and my hordemates are being outdone by some guy who ran in, cried out "lol, got ya", and escaped with a higher bodycount than all of us zed did combined. It's not that we don't appreciate the help. As I said I don't have a problem with PKing, just that it's currently more of a easy to pull off practical joke than a bloody victory hard fought for.

So that's where I'm coming from.

Overall

This doesn't stop PKing. But it makes the choice between being a PKer or a zombie one of roleplaying, not Out Of Character "how many people can I kill" analysis. The person who views themself as a mindless ghoul, or an evil horde leader, or a messiah of the dead, would have their playing style equally effective against survivors as the the homicidal killer, the evil scientist, the ruthless survivalist, the cruel army captain, or even the pricipled fighter striking corrupt fellow survivors.

Keep Votes

  1. Author This is the definition of balance. Both approaches to a problem (survivors being alive) present the same difficulty. --Jon Pyre 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Combat revival is an annoying enough trend as it is. With this, it'd be the best siege survival technique in the game. And that's just silly. Oh, yeah, brain rot... forgot about that somehow. Basically you've made it so PKing can only be done in circumstances where they could have done the actions as a zombie, hmm... I'll change to keep, but going to think and let other people pick at it. --ExplodingFerret 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Combat revival is the dumbest tactic in the game. Scratch that, the universe. You spend 22-30AP to revive someone who'll commit suicide with 1AP. For that cost you could easily kill the zombie AND have a syringe to revive a fallen ally with. Plus, get brain rot. --Jon Pyre 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. You've solved the age old problem "Once survivors have free-running, They are more scarred of Pkers than zombies."--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 02:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Well done!! - Nicks 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - though listen to Leeksoup if this gets kicked out --Gene Splicer 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep At present, PKers nerf zombies. Think about it, people! For a zombie to kill a survivor they have to find a horde (individual zombies have no hope of doing any real damage thanks to barricades), break down barricades, and THEN attack with their weak (compared to firearms) attacks. The only reason they pose a threat is because they form large groups. If PKers did that, nothing would be able to stop them. An organized group of a few hundred PKers could've taken down Caiger Mall within a couple of days, as opposed to the 2 weeks it took Shacknews. PKers need to be brought back into balance. It should be just as hard for PKers to kill survivors as it is for zombies. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Stop nerfing zombies! - --Pinpoint 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Almost - Seriously, this almost made it. Still, I don't like that survivors can do nothing other than break the barricades to PK. Maybe if an item like a flashbang grenade was added? Maybe you throw a rock? More AP cost for sure, but not this extreme. Leeksoup 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - No, this encourages zerging (one character tears down the barricades and the other PKs). Also, this would tip the game in favor of zombies by far too much because survivors would begin aiding zombies in tearing down barricades. Lastly, it makes less sense to encourage PKing only during a zombie break-in; when zombies are attacking, people usually go after the zombies, not fellow survivors. --Wikidead 01:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Every survivor that tears down barricades is one less zombie of equal effectiveness. Don't you see? That's the whole point. It doesn't make a difference. Also zerging is illegal. If someone's willing to outright cheat, and has the technical know-how to work around Kevan's defenses they're probably cheating anyway. Having two zerg zombies or two zerg PKers would be equally bad. --Jon Pyre 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re to Re: For this, you don't need technical know-how. The game's anti-cheat measures only work if the two zerg characters are hitting the same target, which is not true in this case (one hitting the barricades, the other on a survivor). True as it may be that two zerg PKers would be bad or even worse, find a different way to nerf PKing without giving so zombies such a peculiar advantage. --Wikidead 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Note Actually the game's anti-cheat measures are known to work when two characters from the same IP address are in close proximity. When someone has two characters in the same suburb they generally suffer abysmal hit and search rates, possibly missing upwards of 30 times in a row. --Jon Pyre 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill Junk. I wouldn't stick my neck out to watch someone else. If there's no one else present, this makes no sense. If you can get a greater number of pkers in one place at one time than there are 'bystanders', this doesn't make sense. I don't pk, but it happens, and it should be able to happen. --Burgan Burgan 01:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re That's a rare situation. But there's a simple solution: permit PKing no matter what if there's only two survivors. I don't think that's a big enough difference that it requires I resubmit the whole thing. Kevan can read it as a note. --Jon Pyre 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. I am not a fan of PKing. This is a zombie apocalpyse, not PKer's Paradise (isn't that what Nexus War is for?). However, this idea just doesn't...feel right. I think it best to send it to the discussion page.--Pesatyel 05:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. How would one deal with Zombies spies or Death Cultists if this were in effect? I'm also not a fan of PKing, but this just doesnt work out too well... --GhostStalker 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Death Cultists would no longer be any worse than zombies. There'd be no need to deal with them. And while zombie spies exist I don't think there's a practical way to ever catch them if they're just observering and not PKing, so there's not much point in worrying about it. --Jon Pyre 06:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. This doesn't make any sense at all. Why would a plank of wood on the door prevent you from hurting someone whos right next to you? - Dark PhantomTalk 09:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. I really wanted to vote Keep on this - because PKers have it way too easy in this game, as you say. But, like the man up there said - if there are more PKers than non-PKers in any one building (and who's to say there isn't?) then this doesn't make sense anymore. Remember my Militia idea? I was trying something similar there, but it only got as far as the doldrums of Peer Undecided. People don't like their PKing being nerfed, or altered, or balanced, or made fair. But then, if they liked a fair game, they wouldn't be PKers, would they? --Funt Solo 09:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kill - A good idea. However, before we implement rules that prevent humans from PKing and committing acts of sabotage, there are plenty of other problems (meatshielding, barricade-zerging) that need to be fixed, not just discouraged. This tilts the balance of power drastically in favor of the humans. Chronolith 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kill - You don't want to make it impossible to kill PKers. I know it seems like they're equally dangerous as humans or zombies but you can kill zombies no matter where they are. Human PKers are totally safe while the barricades are up. You can't spend the night in a building with a PKer because they can take out the barricades while you're sleeping and kill you, yet you also can't kill them because that would require taking down the barricades, killing the PKer, and rebarricading. It's not possible. I hope you come up with another solution because it's a serious problem but this one doesn't work. Wfjeff 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. "Cades down! Now I can shoot! Wait...the trenchcoater is barricading, so I can no longer do my reign of terror...NOOOOOO!!!" This will basically get rid of PKing. I like the idea, it makes sense. But, erm. When you look at that sentence, this is what will happen. The only time one can PK is during the middle of a break-in of a seige, but that will take about 5 mintues. 5 mintues.--ShadowScope 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re No. The PKer can break down the cades themselves. Or work with partners. The way zombies do. --Jon Pyre 01:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re But it takes 1 AP to barricade it back up. Spend all AP barricading and then the PKer will have to go back and knock down the barricades, forgetting about the guy who he was just shooting with his pistol. Doesn't sound that realistic. I actually do like Leeksoup's idea somewhat...you have to use a flashbang grenade to be allowed for PKing for one day, annoucing your presence, but in all fairness...wouldn't a person dying from a PKer be enough distraction?--ShadowScope 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Since you ask a direct question I'll put in a second re. If someone's ally was distracted by something and then ended that distraction it's possible continuing your attack might not be possible and a get-away being your only option would make sense. It's the difference between Rambo and the mortal humans that populate zombie movies. And while someone being killed is a distraction it's hard to kill someone in front of numerous armed witnesses and escape if there isn't a distraction to begin with.--Jon Pyre 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re: Are you sure it's legal to do such a thing? But anyway. PKers do flee after they kill someone, they flee outside of a building. Those that don't flee...GET PKED by Bounty Hunters. Besides, you're talking about Rambo in a game where you can carry 50 shotguns. In a game where everyone is heavily armed, killing others is possible. Your NRA example does work inside of the game...which is why the PKer must flee rather quickly, otherwise he will be killed.--ShadowScope 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oh noes! I can't attack you because there's a floorboard over that door! Doesn't make sense! Why let the zombies in to kill yourself too? Seriously- If I'm going to kill you, I'll do it quietly. Not shoot the barricades and open the doors of a building I'm already in. --Karloth vois RR 01:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re And instead it makes more sense to enter a single room with fifty hardened zombie hunters, each carrying multiple firearms, and succeed in massacring a dozen people without any difficulty? That's like a robber trying to hold up an NRA meeting. This change makes enough sense to pass the threshold of a game's logic. This is same world where knives spontaneously became more accurate and where zombies can attack barricades on the other side of closed doors without opening the door. And it's more about balance that anything else. --Jon Pyre 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC) --Jon Pyre 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re Your suggestion is nothing like the above example however- it relies on BARRICADE levels, rather than active survivor population. That's like saying I could only not attack everyone in the above meeting if the doors were closed, regardless of the members. --Karloth vois RR 02:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - As Karloth vois.--J Muller 06:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Don't nerf my PKing, don't suggest odd ideas, yadda yadda yadda...Just like everyone else really.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I'd counter don't nerf my cades, or don't nerf my zombies. If I suggested that upon getting injected with a revivification syringe players could choose to remain a zombie but gain free running it'd rightfully get spammed out of existence. But zombies with free running is no different than PKing as it currently is. --Jon Pyre 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam - I'll be honest, PKing can be annoying, hell yes. I'm being targetted by about what 10-15 people who will kill me- mainly from the Z-Team, or some individual with a problem, who seems to spend all his AP hunting me and a few others. Between them they'll kill me several times a week if they're back in the area, as it is I'm dying about that much at the moment, and Yes it is annoying but I've got over it, If thats what people really want to waste their time doing then fine, even if I wish they wouldn't. But your suggestion works both ways- thats the downside. These PKers happily hide out in a building 2 or 3 squares away from where they've killed us. No-one really knows they are PKers, so if I go to kill them, I have to sacrifice the safety of everyone in the building by removing the barricades just to kill the PKer. Anyway, people don't need reasons to underbarricade- what we need is a soloution to overbarricading. --MarieThe Grove 15:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - This is the stupidest thing I ever heard. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. HOLY SPAM, BATMAN! - Why don't you just try and make Pking impossible, because in effect, this is what it would do. Usually, you have good ideas, but I just have to ask What were you smoking when you came up with this? --Officer Johnieo 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Revivification Mechanics Improvement

Timestamp: Wfjeff 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Game Mechanics Improvement
Scope: Revivification
Description: The structure of the revivification system right now has two major flaws.

Problem One: Revivification Experience

Which is harder, shooting a zombie from a distance just to have it stand up again later, or bringing an undead creature back to life by stabbing it in the back of the neck with a syringe before it kills you? Obviously, revivification is harder. Why, then, does it produce extremely minimal XP given the amount of AP spent doing it?

Under current game rules, reviving zombies is a time consuming and unrewarding endeavor. It takes 12 AP to find a syringe (or 20 if you make one), and 10 more to use it. Plus you have to track down a zombie to use it on, which entails a fair amount of risk. It also requires a 200 XP investment just to get the skills necessary to perform this action. Worse, it can only be performed once on any given zombie. Under the best of circumstances this comes to a very low XP return on AP spent.

10 XP gained / (12 AP to search + 10 AP to use + 3 AP to find zed) = .4 XP/AP

By contrast, using a pistol with the same 200 XP skill investment yields quite different numbers. If finding a pistol clip in a police station requires an average of 15 searches and you get 6 bullets per clip, that’s only 2.5 AP used searching per bullet. If you figure with 200 XP invested in Basic Firearms Training and Pistol Training instead of NecroTech Employment and Lab Experience, that’s a 55% chance to hit. Plus, you can keep hitting that zombie until it dies, and you get an extra 10 XP for killing it. Even if the zed is at only 25 health and is wearing a flak jacket, the XP per AP spent is still double what it is for revivification. This is just plain illogical given how much easier it is to pick off a seriously injured zombie with a pistol compared to revivification.

(26 XP for damage + 10 XP for kill) / (30 AP to find 12 bullets + 12 AP to fire them + 3 AP to find zed) = .8 XP/AP

What’s more, with skills like Advanced Pistol Training, opportunities to find ammo even more efficiently with Shopping and Bargain Hunting, up to 14 extra XP for overkill, and the possibility of finding 60 HP zeds, the XP return on AP for hunting is dramatically higher than for reviving.

Problem Two: Revivification Realism and Potential Griefing

On October 18, Reaper with no name made a suggestion based on a very valid point:

Supposedly, revivification works by the character jamming a syringe into the back of a zombie's neck. Sure, it costs 10 AP, but it never fails. Do they really expect us to believe that it would be that simple? Chances are that you tried to stab someone in the back of the neck with a needle, you're not going to be very accurate, even if you try it multiple times. More importantly, it is the only item one can use on another player that never fails and can potentially grief them (if you're a newbie zombie who doesn't have brain rot and doesn't want to be revived, you'll find yourself having to waste a lot of time and AP finding a building you can get into, jumping out of said building, and getting up again). And it just makes so much more sense that should be able to miss when trying to revive someone with a syringe, since you are performing an action that isn't much different from punching or stabbing with a knife (both of which can miss).

His proposal, in a nutshell, was to introduce a 50% failure rate and compensate with a reduction from 10 AP to 5 AP per use. This didn’t pass because of the large AP penalties for failure. Revivification already requires lots of AP and does not pay off well with XP. However, the point he makes holds true regardless.

Solution:

Revivification Syringes should be classified as a weapon type. Different versions like the Mark 1.0 (now out of circulation), the Mark 2.0, and potentially a Mark 3.0 or higher would fall into this category. It would have an extremely low base accuracy and would require 20 AP to use, making it practically useless to the unskilled user. The NecroTech Employment skill would give a 25% increase in chance to hit and lower required the AP to 15, the Lab Experience Skill would provide a 15% increase and lower the required AP to 10, and a new skill, Field Experience, would be added to the scientific skills tree on the same level as NecroNet Access and give an additional 10% and lower the required AP to 5.

Revivification Syringe
Damage: revivification
Base Accuracy: 5%, 20 AP
NecroTech Employment: 30%, 15 AP
Lab Experience: 55%, 10 AP
Field Experience: 65%, 5 AP

In addition, syringes would be refillable instead of single-use. Bottles of revivification serum would be found in NecroTech buildings just like syringes and could be manufactured with the NecroNet Access skill for 10 AP the same way new syringes can be manufactured for 20 AP.

Furthermore, the XP payoff for revivification should be increased from 10 XP to 20 XP. This would make revivification equivalent to the example of killing a weakened zombie which is, if anything, underpowered. This is a reasonable, balanced improvement.

Let’s do the numbers:

Skill Level Chance to Hit AP Cost Per Use AP Cost to Find 1 Dose Average AP to Find Zed Total AP Total XP XP Per AP Spent
Base .05 20 10 3 413 20 0.04842615
Employee .3 15 10 3 32 20 0.317460317
Lab .55 10 10 3 32 20 .625
Field 0.65 5 10 3 21 20 0.952380952
Current 1 10 12 3 25 10 0.4

Compare these to the Pistol with all skills:

Zed Health Damage Chance to Hit AP Used to Fire AP Cost to Find 1 Bullet Average AP to Find Zed Total AP Total XP XP Per AP Spent
60 5 .65 19 2.5 3 70 71 1.014286

It may seem like a rather drastic change at first but once the numbers have been calculated it is all very reasonable and balanced. Moreover, it gives scientists a chance to level almost as quickly as military personnel while adding realism to the game.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - A very solid idea. At this point, it is impractical to play as only a scientist. It is much easier to level if you take up combat skills. This should help to solve some of that. --Ajforget 05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Works for me. --ExplodingFerret 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Makes sense, I guess. Not sure the refilable syringe idea will be very popular though... --GhostStalker 06:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sure why not.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 06:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep You certainly thought this through. I think its a great idea. It cuts down on the combat revives from noobs, and it gives more purpose to dedicated revivers. Schizmo 07:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Good to see that some people listen to reason. But there are still a few things some don't understand. For one thing, arguing that all classes are the same after a few levels is BS, because the skill costs don't change, and scientists will still need more XP to max out their skill tree. Another thing is that DNA extractors are not a great source of XP for most players, because they can only gather 3 XP per zombie. A person with axe proficiency and hand-to-hand combat can get on average 50 XP (this doesn't count the killing bonus) from a single 50 HP zombie in less than 50 AP. If there aren't a LOT of zombies in the immediate area, scientists are screwed. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill You're missing the point. Guns are for attacking and defense. Syringes aren't for either. They're a rescue mission. And the primary scientist source for xp is DNA Extractors, which can be quite effective at leveling you in areas with lots of zombies. --Jon Pyre 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I agree syringes aren't for attacking or defense. However, although my suggestion puts them in the same format as a weapon, it doesn't redesign them for attacking or defense. It adds realism and provides a much needed increase in XP reward for all the trouble our dedicated revivers go to. --Wfjeff 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - I agree with Jon Pyre. Besides, who here really wants to needlessly complicate the revivification process? --Wikidead 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I don't view it as a needless complication. To me the revivification process is unfair and unrealistic enough to necessitate a change, and although the lengthiness of the suggestion makes it appear complicated, it's really not. It would be extremely easy to implement since Kevan already has items in the game that work this way. --Wfjeff 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I kinda like it...sorta. But your forgetting several important factors. The 10 AP use cost was a needed balance change (it used to be only ONE AP to revive. People use to go on "combat revival" runs where they would stock up on dozens of syringes then revive every zombie they met). Reviving is an "insta-kill" weapon, hence the low XP received. Want XP? Attack the zombie several times THEN revive it (or as Jon pointed out, DNA extractors are the primary source of XP for a dedicated reviver, especially now that there is the option of reviving connected to the scan). And, lastly, classes are meaningless after only a few levels. Don't complain about playing a "hard" class because you chose too.--Pesatyel 07:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re The 10 AP use cost was definitely needed at the time but my system eliminates that need by creating other balancing factors like the reduced % chance to hit. It doesn't unbalance the game, it just makes the revivification process more realistic. Besides, as Reaper pointed out, DNA extractors aren't practical when there aren't many zombies around. Lastly, my biggest concern is not that the class is "hard" to play, it's that it's unrealistic. --Wfjeff 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Syringes arn't guns. Plus it would be very confusing for a new player as to how it works. I could see a new player trying to use it just to find that they wasted 20AP and are stuck outside for a few hours. - Dark PhantomTalk 09:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re You make an excellent point about new players getting screwed by accident. I will modify the suggestion and repost it if you will vote keep once that's fixed. --Wfjeff 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill If it isn't broken... --Garrett Fisher 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill... don't fix it --Officer Johnieo 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill - I'm not in favor of weaponizing and boosting the power of an already significant defensive skill. Chronolith 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re as Jon stated, revivification is not a defensive skill. There's even a wiki page about why hostile combat revives are a bad idea. That's why this suggestion doesn't encourage the use of syringes as weapons any more than the current system, it just implements the same format that guns use. --Wfjeff 23:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Why are you fixing something that isn't broken? That's how many sitcoms die, you know.Waluigi Freak 99 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I know it doesn't seem broken from a mechanical sense but I explain what's wrong with the current revivification system in the suggestion under Problem One and Problem Two. Are you saying those aren't legitimate problems with the system? If so, why? This is addressed to everyone who used the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" line of reasoning. --Wfjeff 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Complicating a simple game mechanic that doesn't need fixed. --Funt Solo 09:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Funt it right. There is no need to complicate this game mechanic. Reviving survivors is its own reward.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Agreed. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Agreed as well.--J Muller 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, How Fascinating! v2 Restored

Timestamp: Lord of the Pies 08:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: A Complaint Regarding the Blatant Lack of New-Fangled Machiney Operated at Sports Venues, and the utter Lack of Enjoyment Resulting from Said Lack of Equipment! [Stadium Improvements, Item Changes]
Scope: Gentlemen who Truly Enjoy the Thrills of such Excitements as Cricket and, of course, Bowls! [Stadiums, Survivors in Stadiums]
Description: Just a word before the inevitable onslaught of stereotypically British language happens; if you don't want to read through that then just read the bolded bits. Anyway, the alterations made are the following (for those of you that read the first version):

Sports Souvenirs removed

Books removed

Radios removed

Stadium Shop mechanics turned into ordinary Mall Shop mechanics

Several search percentages changed

That's pretty much it, I think. The useless Sports Souvenirs and Books are gone and the Shops have been changed, which is what people were voting Kill for and were worried about. I know I'm posting more than one suggestion a day this time, but this is only a very minor revision of a previous suggestion.



I say, one was playing an absolutely gripping game of bowls with one’s fine companions at the Royal Gentlemen’s Club and one noticed a perplexing lack of gramophonic noise (particularly as I smashed Lord Curton’s brilliant setup! Ahawhawhawhaw!) that would normally have accompanied the game with terrific fanfare. How can this be so? One finds the idea that such noble sports as cricket be played amidst nought but silence to be, to use rather foul language, disgusting! Malton, as the cricket and bowls capital of the world, of such a fine country and a beautiful and worthy city in its own right, should not be devoid of reports on the sporting behaviour (although Duke von Baron’s behaviour is noticeably unsporting, ahawhawhawhaw!) of excellent gentlemen such as oneself, especially not at the very same sports venues where such activities are held! With such ridiculous situations as this, one proposes that the standard and maintenance of gramophonic equipment stored at Malton’s sports venues be vastly improved!

1) As one has said (although one must admit, you may have been dazzled by one’s spectacular skill in bowls too hear one’s voice! Ahawhawhawhaw!) the main problem, the focus of one’s complaints, is the most disturbing lack of gramophonic equipment at sports venues! [Radio Transmitters should be able to be found at Stadiums at a search rate of approximately 3-5%]

2) Even when one is reclining peacefully amidst the audience, observing other fine chaps competing in a splendid game of bowls (this is a complete fabrication, you must understand; no other gentlemen can hope to match the skills of oneself and one's most excellent companions! Ahawhawhawhaw!), one cannot hope to distract oneself with a report in the news sheet, for at present there are no printed news sheets inside these sports venues! One finds this to be unrighteous! [Sports Bulletins should be able to be found in Souvenir Stores at a search rate of 5-6%; Sports Bulletins give no XP when read but, similarly to Newspapers, give a short description of a recent event, in this case a sporting event (approximately 15-20 reports would be used); Sports Bulletins are removed from the inventory when read (note that this exactly the same as what I did with Poetry Books to turn them into Bibles)]

3)One finds it revolting, utterly revolting, that one is unable to procure a fine vintage at sports venues. Ordinarily, after our activites, oneself and one's companions would...rendezvous (and one believes that you understand what that means! Ahawhawhaw!) within the marquee to imbibe fine vintages, yet both curiously and shockingly this service is no longer given, and neither is the sale of souvenirs and other most necessary gifts! Quite ridiculous, one is sure you will agree! [Two shops should be added to Stadiums:

  • The Liqour Store would function in the same way as a Mall Liqour Store, giving Beer and Wine at similar search rates.
  • The Souvenir Store would give Sports Bulletins at a search rate of 5-6% (as stated above), Baseball Bats at a search rate of 6-7% and Binoculars at a search rate of 3-4%.
  • Stadium Shops would function in the same way as Mall Shops; any Survivor without the Shopping skill would find Baseball Bats in a Stadium at a search rate of 18-19%, Radio Transmitters at a search rate of 3-5%, Flare Guns at a search rate of 2%, Sports Bulletins at a search rate of 5-6%, Binoculars at a search rate of 3-4% and both Wine and Beer at the same search rate as in an ordinary Liqour Store.

Once the Shopping skill is purchased players can search 'the Stadium' to find Baseball Bats at a search rate of 12%, Flare Guns at a search rate of 2% and Radio Transmitters at a search rate of 3-5%; they can search 'the Liqour Store' to find Beer and Wine at the search rates of an ordinary Liqour Store; and they can search 'the Souvenir Store' to find Baseball Bats at a search rate of 6-7%, Sports Bulletins at a search rate of 5-6% and Binoculars at a search rate of 3-4%.

Once again, this point got pretty out of control, but it's still shorter than before.]

Well, one is afraid that one must take his leave; tally ho!

[Oh, and one point about the Sports Bulletins (and the Bibles); one person suggested that players could suggest Bible verses (and they could also suggest sports stories) that they would want implemented into the game in the rare and strange event that this (or the Cathedrals/Churches suggestion) actually make it into the game.

Oh, and I just want to make a small point clear; Flare Guns and Baseball bats can already be found at Stadiums (at the percentages I've given for finding them in the option of 'the Stadium').

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Stadiums having radio transmitters is a good idea but I'm not sure all the fluff is necessary. --Jon Pyre 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. None of the fluff is necessary. Plus, the funneh aspect of these huge, wordy suggestions has gone, with the ark. --Funt Solo 09:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - That might be because I've had to post this suggestion three times now, but I agree; originally I just intended to use it for the Mansions suggestion (I didn't even plan on suggesting any ideas about other large buildings at all). --Lord of the Pies 16:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re - I can be a right moody cnut sometimes - just ignore me. I should be thanking you for injecting some humour into the page. --Funt Solo 16:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Re - Actually I was agreeing with you. I've done it a few times but now people who've seen any of the others expect it. The writing in the first had such an effect not only because people might see it as funny but also because such a manner of suggesting a new idea on here hadn't really happened before. --Lord of the Pies 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep Revoting keep, as I did for the last time you put this suggestion up. Removing the souveniers was pretty much all it took for me... --GhostStalker 12:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Restored version eh? Could have sworn I voted on this one before ;) --MarieThe Grove 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - All good, but the non-descript bit is worthless. Im tired of it now, just get to the point!!!--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Looks better now. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Revoting. --ExplodingFerret 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - I like more flavor--Lord Evans 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Yep, flavor is good.--J Muller 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - I voted "keep" on a previous version, so I might as well for this also. --Wikidead 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Flavor overkill! --Officer Johnieo 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Unrealistic. Potential weapons such as flare guns are not allowed into sporting venues. --Carl Panzram 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - As I said, Flare Guns can already be found in Stadiums... --Lord of the Pies 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - I find it amusing how all of these power-up requests are couched in these quaint Victorian-type language. Chronolith 05:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Gang Warfare

suggest_time=Funt Solo 10:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Pulled for edit. --Funt Solo 12:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gang Warfare v2

Timestamp: Funt Solo 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Groups
Description: Survivor groups band together for protection, not just from the undead, but from serial killers, rival groups, death cultists and psychopaths. Your buddies watch your back, or patrol the doors in your section of the safehouse, trying to keep you safe whilst you sleep.

Zombies have a pack mentality - banding together into hordes and identifying members of their own pack. When hostilities break out between different groups, zombies from the same pack move to intercept the attacker, blocking and subduing them in order to protect their own.


  • Concept: Survivor vs. survivor or zombie vs. zombie attacks are less effective if the victim has friends in the area that outnumber the attackers. Survivor vs. zombie attacks are not effected.


  • Rules:
    • If the victim of an attack, plus all other characters in the same location with the same group as the victim, outnumber the attacker, plus all other characters in the same location with the same group as the attacker, then the attack % is multiplied by attacker group # over victim group #. That's [Attack %] = [Attack %] * ([attacker group #] / [victim group #]). (Outnumbering your enemy confers no additional bonus - in other words, you can't hit at a better % than normal.)
    • Example #1: Bilbo Shaggins is a member of Lord of the Things, and is staying in a safe house with two comrades. Murderous Bastich is a member of Harlots of Death, and Free Runs in and attacks Bilbo. The ratio is 1:3, or 0.33. Murderous Bastich would normally have 65% to hit with his guns, but in this case he's 22% to hit (65 * 0.33 = 22, fact fans). If he brought Leet Killer (another member of Harlots of Death) with him, the ratio would be 2:3, or 0.67. Both attackers would be at 44% to hit instead of 65% (against any member of Lord of the Things).
    • Example #2: The Jolly Funsters are 23 zombies in a ransacked stadium, quietly playing football with the decapitated heads of the recently deceased. They're attacked by the All-Seeing Eye, a group of 17 zombies who want to claim the Stadium and become the dominant local horde. A 50% attack chance would become 50*(17/23), which is 37%.
    • This only operates if there are only zombies or only survivors in a particular location. (Inside a building counts as a separate location to outside a building.) In other words, if zombies are in your safe house, all bets are off - and a sly murder is easier to enact. So to with zombies - if there are survivors present, the idea of pack loyalty is pretty much thrown out of the window (perhaps literally).
    • In order to stop someone freely switching to the group they're attacking (thus circumventing the rule), changing groups will now have a cost of 10AP. (You can roleplay that any way you like - the time/effort it takes to go through a group's Induction Ceremony, or to adopt their style of dress, or to disguise yourself as one of them, or for a horde to get used to your scent.) So, someone could use that tactic, but it's costly. As for someone innocently changing groups - use the roleplay explanations above as to why switching loyalty costs AP. (Someone could, if they continually target the same group - just spend the 10AP once and then never change their group back. Oh well. Call that a thorn in your side. Your ultimate enemy. A PKer would probably only do that versus a sizable group with multiple targets - in which case roleplay says they're easier to infiltrate.)


  • Justification:
    • PKing or ZKing your enemy is too easy. That needs to be addressed. This suggestion attempts to level out the playing field, and also to introduce a game mechanic for group membership beyond mere flavour.
    • Nerfs PKing/ZKing? - no, it doesn't nerf it, but, yes, it does effect it. You can still attack a victim who isn't with their comrades (or doesn't have any) at your full attack %. Plus, if you're part of a PKing group, you just need to team up and plan a raid, in order to be able to attack at your full %. This makes PKing or ZKing challenging, as it should be. It also makes defending against a PK/ZK a challenge.

Keep Votes

  1. Author - inspired both by Jon Pyre's recent attempt to address this issue, plus my own (Peer Undecided) Militia suggestion, I hope this is seen as a positive boon rather than a strong noose. --Funt Solo 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep Makes perfect sense. Now Ron Burgandy won't keep getting assassinated after the same one person walks past all his 200 guards, who are presumably attached to the wall in Borg stasis. And this shouldn't hurt bounty hunting for the following reasons:
    • 1)If someone switches their group to take shelter from bounty hunters then they've just been forced to spend 10AP.
    • 2) Even if they do take shelter that way it works from a bounty hunting perspective. You'd arrive at a new location say "This member of yours is a PKer!" and then have to proove it to them. You know, the way you would in real life. And then presumably that group would kill the PKer themselves since you'd have trouble doing it. This would end up making both PKers and Bounty Hunters accountable for their actions. You could no longer be the lone wolf doing as you please. You'd need to modify your actions and interact with groups.
    • One suggestion though. Make it automatic for humans but require a skill for zombies. Some zombies support ZKing as a way of newbies leveling up and might not care about getting attacked. --Jon Pyre 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks Jon, that's a good point. I'll make a strong note on that if this ever gets anywhere near PR. --Funt Solo 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Don't ask me why but I like this idea, very much. --MarieThe Grove 16:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - a very well reasoned and thought out idea to counter the fact that PKing is just too easy. Moyes 16:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep Yea, members of a group should be able to protect each other from assassins... Plus, changing group affiliations to attempt to hide won't be as easy anymore... --GhostStalker 16:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (Cant believe I forgot to sign...)
  6. Keep - Feeling very iffy about the fact that it is based on one's group affiliation (what happens to people that are unaligned?), but I feel that it is much more important for PKing to be made balanced. So, keep. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    RePeople without a group are in the same boat as everyone is in now. They've got no back up. That's their choice. (Frankly, it's probably the choice I'd take.) --Funt Solo 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - I like it. Fun new stuff. Rolo Tomasi 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Aw come on, with this everyone will band together and eliminate PKing. It'll become non-existent. It may not seem bad now becuase people are spread but i won't be surprised to see people banding together to reduce the attackers chance to nil.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC) And PKing/ZKing is a challenge! You risk being hunted down and killed yourself...Continuously! And also, i don't follow your logic; If a survivor attacks another survivor then he will be protected by others but when a zombie starts to maul him they all just faze out?--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - I doubt I'll convince you otherwise - but don't forget the flip-side - a PK group like Redrum will gain protection from bounty hunters with this. If someone bands together to protect themselves, shouldn't they gain an advantage for smart gameplay? This wouldn't wipe out PKing by a long shot - it would just be more of a balanced challenge, and therefore a bigger thrill when you succeed. I mean, why should it be easier to play the PK game than it is to play the zombie vs. human game that this is supposed to be? To answer your last point, zombie vs. survivor combat is all figured out - it doesn't need a balance fix. From a roleplaying angle you just say that a zombie attack is sudden and ferocious and difficult to plan for. Or something. --Funt Solo 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - Its not just Humans Vs. Zombies. Remember, Malton is in a state of anarchy. Anarachy leads to looting, murder etc etc all in the panic and survival. A zombie apocalypse will merely spur this onwards. And its not easier to play a PKer. I've had to keep constantly on the move to avoid various bounty hunters and ordinary people whom hear about my murders over radio and decide to kill me for it, stuff like that. Personally i like it how it is now. Everyone in paranoia that the guy they sleep with or the person passing by might kill them? Its perfect.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 19:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Firstly, I don't like there being an AP cost for changing groups. Some people like to change group fairly frequently, or are in to or more groups (depending on where they are today). Secondly, since groupings for zombies aren't as important to survivors because of the lower ingame communication and anonymity, you'll find that all zombies will pretty quickly change to be in the same group. Thirdly, ZKing is a reasonable strategy for newbies that other zombies don't mind. Fourthly, this doesn't seem like the right way of dealing with it -- I'm always a bit suspicious of grouping effects. --ExplodingFerret 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. KILL As nice as it might be, it takes away realism. You might as well introduce NPC's. Daniel Hicken 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. PKing or ZKing your enemy is too easy I disagree. Also, this would encourage survivors to wear group tags even if they don't belong to that group, as it would reduce accuracy of attackers. Think of it this way: A PKer runs through Dunnel Hills and kills 4 unaffiliated survivors. Then, he hides in a random building the other side of town with 15 DHPD members, and changes his tag to DHPD. Anyone who wants retaliation now has a ridiculously low accuracy. Not fair. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 00:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Hadn't notice the suggested change to changing group affiliation. This wouldn't stop PKers, but would punish everyone else. Keep our freedom of association quick, free, and simple. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. 10AP just for changing our group? This would hurt newbies more then anything else, and as other people have said. - Dark PhantomTalk 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill - I like this idea, and I want to vote "keep." However, I would like three issues addressed. First, potential for zerging. Second, what percentage is displayed in the attack drop-down menu? Third, ZKing is neccessary for newbie zombies to gain XP; coupled with zombie anonoymity, it would give young zeds a very hard time getting skills. --Wikidead 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Hmm, I was tempted to Spam because this is an Auto-Defense. But I kinda like it. Problem is, the mechanics just don't work. Even at 10 AP, changing groups is just too easy (maybe if you required people to be on your mutual contacts as well?). As Wikidead pointed out, this would be too easily zergable. But the primary problem is that this is an auto-defense. Just because 5 guys in your group happen to be in the same room doesn't mean you are harder to kill. Are those 5 guys actively doing anything? No. They are, most likely, asleep or searching or doing other things. If the group had to allocate AP to "watching each other's backs" then maybe this suggestion would work. But as it stands now, it is "something for nothing" which is the basic definition of auto-anything. And I think this might take the focus a little too far away from zombies vs survivors than the game really needs. Everyone would be too busy teaming up to either PK or keep from getting PKed.--Pesatyel 04:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - That's the most cogent argument (in Keep, Kill or Spam) about this suggestion I've heard. --Funt Solo 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Better organized groups win. Nerfing gang warfare seems silly. Chronolith 05:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. SPAM I don't like PKing either, but this isn't the solution. At the risk of sounding like Arnold Rimmer, I award this a spam vote because it breaks section 3.4.5 of the "Suggestions Dos and Do Nots" here: [1] i.e. it confers an ability or otherwise empowers people based upon their group --Garrett Fisher 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - Yes, I've read those. I don't always agree with them. I mean, who wrote them anyway? Did anyone vote on them? --Funt Solo 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spamtarded - this would all but eliminate PKing and ZKing (the former being fun, and the latter being the only way for new zombies to get xp). No. Fucking. Way.--Gage 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - I think I've shown how it wouldn't eliminate PKing at all - in fact, it's not designed to. My suspicion is that many PKers simply don't relish a challenge. --Funt Solo 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Breaks the NO AUTO DEFENSE RULE. You can't have any defense when you're not on. It doesn't matter where you are or who you are with. Attacks hurt the same. Ever hear of an assassination? Kennedy wasn't alone. Neither was Lincoln. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - There is no "no auto defence rule" - it's just a guideline. My suggestion still allows for targeted assassinations - they just cost a reasonable amount to achieve. --Funt Solo 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spamarama! - Just because there isn't a no auto defense rule doesn't mean there should be. Also don't nerf my Pking.
  5. Where's the fun? Suggestions are to add to fun of the game- all this does is takes away my hit ratio. Bah! --Karloth vois RR 03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

--Officer Johnieo 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Get out, all of you!

Timestamp: Canuhearmenow Hunt! 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: New Skill.
Scope: adds a awesome skill for survivors.
Description: I'll say it blandly; Feeding Drag only for survivors. Now for the meat of the suggestion, to keep zombie users to yell "SPAM!" I added some detriments. First off, this is a 100XP Zombie hunter skill called "Throw" that you must be at level 15+ to get this. This skill uses 2 AP and can only be used on dying zombies (12 HP or less) which you must first attack to get rid of the zombie anonymity potential, for example it would be "You hit zombie for 3 damage, taking to 11, would you like to throw out?" Then you either keep attacking or click yes. Also, barricades affect this skill, failing the skill costs 1 AP, for example:

Doors open: 100% Success chance

Doors Secured: 80% Success chance

Loose barricade: 70% Success chance

Light barricade: 60% Success chance

all the VS barricades: 20% Success Chance

All Heavy barricades: 0% Success chance

so, how do you like this? In light of the fall of Caiger and dump body change people need ways to get rid of zombies numbering in the teens inside a building without spending tons of AP.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote, could help survivors.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill Survivors don't need to kill zombies easier. HOWEVER...you have given me an idea. Maybe instead of letting survivors kill zombies easier something like this could be used to get rid of zombies before they can stand up again. --Jon Pyre 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Given the complication of making sure you stop just when the zombie is at the right health level, and checking the barricade level (which should be at least loosely -- only an idiot attacks zombies in the safehouse while leaving it open for more to come in), and clicking a different button, I'm not sure it's worth the effort, just kill them instead, and get the extra XP for the (damage + kill + body dump) ((and before you talk about ?rise, if you want to suggests a mechanism dedicated to nerfing that; then go ahead, making it very clear that's what you're doing)). As well as being fairly unnecessary, it's not realistic. How do you suppose you can pick up a zombie and throw them out over barricades when they're still currently trying to claw your eyes out? It's bad enough you can stab them with a needle. --ExplodingFerret 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Overpowered. Also, per Sonnny Corleone's comment. --Wikidead 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Actually I think it's more underpowered than overpowered. When there's a break-in, the first thing to do is to barricade the building again, NOT attack the zombie. Since that increases the amount of AP you spend to throw the zombie out later, you might as well spend that AP bumping off the zombie's 12 Hp and chucking out the body. -- Ashnazg 0658, 16 November 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Wikidead already said it best. Chronolith 05:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - A zombie...a snarling zombie. And you want to grab it when it is alive and toss it out a window? With your bare hands? No. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - as above. This doesn't offer a solution to the body-chucking cost - it just lets you chuck 'em before they're dead. Overpowered. (And, of course Caigar Mall fell - it was ripe to - and the zombies were simply more organised than the survivors.) --Funt Solo 23:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - No. If you really must throw a body, wait 'till it's dead. Balance. --Joe O'Wood 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - As above.--J Muller 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam - You try to throw a zombie out of a building and you're throwing you're arm to. --Officer Johnieo 02:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam -Man is this overpowered! You forget the fact that survivors have Free Running, for one thing. Hmm...spend 2 AP to chuck or zombie or 3 AP (2 with a shotgun) to kill the zombie AND get XP.--Pesatyel 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Spam - As above. Why not just wait to dump the body.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Spam Why waste AP on an action with a chance of faliure when you can already do that with attacks? This would also hurt low level survivors, as they might like to get the kill bonus from finishing off a zombie that's low on health. --Garrett Fisher 15:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Spam - As above, although Sonny's comment really cracked me up.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/14th-Nov-2006&oldid=1878984"