Suggestions/17th-Mar-2007

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.

Injury

Timestamp:	Murray Jay Suskind 08:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Gameplay
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	As time has worn on in Malton, survivors have managed to build up a minimal resistance to the zombie infection. Unless directly infected by a zombie, survivors who appear to have been killed now have a chance to stand up alive, though severely injured. Essentially if a survivors are PK'ed or attacked by a zombie that never infects them, they'll have a 50% chance of standing up alive instead of as a zombie. In turn their status will be "injured" where they have 2/5 of maximum hp and it will take 2 ap to commit any action except speaking (which would still be 1 ap) until the injured survivor gets first aid.

Keep Votes

1. Author Keep -- Throwing the survivors a bone. I concede this may need some tweaking, though, as it limits the damage that can be done by a low level zombie. -- Murray Jay Suskind 08:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - There's no logic in that a person shot by firearms without any contact with zombie virus get's zombified--Duke Garland 10:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - I wonder how many people read past "now have a chance to stand up alive"--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 23:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Duh - Infection=zombie. Tripping over your own knife=dead body. As being a dead body is boring, this is a good compromise.--Lachryma^☭ 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

   Keep This makes a lot of sense. --heretic144

   Keep This is an interesting idea, but needs some teaking. The "Last Gasp" idea mentioned in the kill section would be a little more accurate, and it should be less than 50%- maybe like 30%. Heroic characters in movies shrug off wounds that kill mere mortals, and I think if survivors have that chance, it would make it more interesting for them.--razi

   improper votes.--Gage 09:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill — When you're dead, you're dead. When you're below 12HP, you're injured. Ridiculously overpowered. Death = zombification. --Anotherpongo 09:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - Nerfs NewbZeds, PKers, and being shot will kill you. -- TheDavibob ^T 09:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - No. This is not how Urban Dead works. The mechanics are not set up for this. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill Ehhhh... while I do think biting should be made a more worthwhile attack option than it currently is, doing it by making biting mandatory to ensure you actually kill your target (assuming you manage to bring them down after the bite and before they get a FAK) doesn't work for me at all. --Mold 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - Death = zombie. -- 15:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill -The mechanics are broken as hell. This removes the biggest advantage zombies have over survivors in a substancial part of the in-game deaths. You simply have two different groups that'll keep standing up when killed. Imagine the lack of progress in a seige. As for flavor: The zombie virus and the infection bite are two unrelated things. If you commit suicide, you stand up as a zombie without being bitten as well.--Vista 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - When you die, you should be zombie. Plain, and simple. --Kamden 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - Nice idea, but the above reasons are true. A better mechanism would be to have a skill called "Last Gasp" that kicks in when a survivor goes to / below 0 HP from damage due to a damage source besides a zombie's attack. Last Gasp would mean you have a <50% chance to stand up as a survivor with <=6 HP's, instead of as a Zombie, with penalties similar to above, and would not function if the survivor had any infection or died from suicide. Probably should be a sub-skill to Body Building, or maybe Headshot. --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 17:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill- I think this game goes by "Night opf the Living Dead" rules. Even if you are killed conventionally, you still come back as a zombie.--Grigori 17:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Change - While I am not necessarily against the idea behind this suggestion, it's still to powerful in it's current form. The odds of successfully standing as a survivor should be much lower. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Absolutely game breaking.--Gage 09:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Spam - Death is death. You die, you're a zombie. That's how this game works. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 10:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Spam - Death =! Extreme Injury. Death = Death. As above, basically. --Saluton 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Spam' Shoulda called this "get rid of zombies."--Pesatyel 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Spam - Heresy! And terribly overpowered. This is just wrong on so many levels... --Uncle Bill 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Spam - It reminds me of the "Game Rot" skill on Humorous suggestions. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Spam - it doesn't matter how you die, you rise as a zombie. Otherwise, you'd be, well, dead. Right? --Funt Solo 09:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
8. As all these spammers. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Duffel Bag

Timestamp:	Zeek 12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Type:	New Item
Scope:	Players who carry stuff around
Description:	Essentially a simple canvas duffel bag with a strap for easy carrying of small to medium sized items. In the inventory it appears with a drop down menu similar to that of a DNA extractor, however, instead of listing other players it lists the items contained within, along with the options to “fill” or “empty”. Selecting any inventory item from the menu removes it from the bag and places it in the player's regular inventory at a cost of 1ap. Selecting the “fill” option prompts the player to select items from his or her inventory to place inside the bag at a cost of 1ap apiece. Selecting the “empty” option dumps the entire contents of the bag into the player's regular inventory at a cost of 5ap, provided there is enough room. The duffel bag has an encumberment of 10% and a storage capacity of 15%, allowing a player to carry up to ten of them (duffel bags cannot be placed inside of other duffel bags) for a maximum inventory capacity of 150%, and a maximum effective capacity of 140% (until the appearance of some 1% items at least). The maximum practical capacity is somewhere below that, and left up to the player to decide between having more total items, or more items immediately at hand. Found in sports stores, stadiums, hotels, railway stations, schools and towers.

Keep Votes

1. Encumbrance is not a word you hear very often, so I looked it up. Encumbrance: any burden, difficulty, responsibility or obligation that encumbers one or restricts one's movement or freedom. Then I looked up encumber: to hamper, impede, to burden or to block up. It makes sense that the items you are carring impede and hamper you less when you can carry them in a duffel bag. And from a gameplay perspective, it's nice to have the trade off of easy item access versus greater inventory space. In response to other voters: encumbrance means how how impeded/hampered you are. That doesn't necessarily correspond to how much weight you are carrying. --Toejam 16:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep I like it. The trade off between accesability and higher carrying capacity is good. - BzAli 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill - No. A simple duffel bag would not increase your encumbrance level. Encumbrance is how much you are physically able to carry, bulky items more difficult. And what is the point of having another mini inventory as well? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 13:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - I believe you misunderstand the mechanics of the suggestion. Let me try to explain it another way: each duffel bag has the effect of raising a character's maximum encumbrance level by 5%, but at the same time partitions off 15%. Anything in this partition cannot be used until it is moved into the main inventory. The total inventory size goes up, but but you cannot use this increase to help carry anything that would exceed one of the partitions (such as a christmas tree).--Zeek 11:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - Encumbrance corresponds to how much weight a survivor can physically carry, not the manner in which items are stored. -- 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - Encumbrance, in the news announcement of March 6th refers to "heavy or unwieldy items", which I take to mean both weight and size, as well as shape (that is to say, how easy it is to keep a good grip/balance). Any of these factors can be at least partially negated by storing said items in a bag with handles or a shoulder strap, making them easier to carry than a number of loose items.--Zeek 11:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

   Re - That does make sense, but it just occurred to me that it would be impractical to store certain items in a duffel bag. Things like fuel cans and flak jackets would actually be larger than the bag itself and therefore be impossible to put in the bag. -- 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Kill - As Zombieslayer. --Kamden 16:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - I don't think people are able to carry 2 pistols, 3 shotguns, a ton of ammo, an axe 10 FAK's and a generator like they do now without some sort of duffel bag, shopping cart, or their like. In fact if you want to increase inventory space a more realistic item to introduce would be the U-haul truck. For what’s it worth, your suggestion actually has workable mechanics and it seems that thought went into it. You've already performed better then a lot of other suggesters. Unfortunatly I don't think the subject you chose is in need of improvement. The amount of stuff you can carry is already formidable. I'd say try it again on another subject--Vista 16:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - Before the update I would have definitely agreed on your first point, however now it seems to me more as though they are just sticking what they can into their pockets or a generic sack. As to the need, I admit that it's debatable, and might even agree with you. The suggestion was more because I liked the idea of adding another level of sophistication to inventory management.--Zeek 11:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill -You know, people have said that encumbrance is based on bulkieness of the items rather than weight for "heavy lifting" and similar skills, and now they say it's based on weight to oppose this? your both wrong, encumbrance should be based on how much data it takes to store the items-just not realistic any other way. You DO realise that, until the encumbrance nerf, characters were indishtinguishable for aliens with psychic powers (the metagame), wings (free-running), and the magic ability to store items as energy and re-create them when needed? (the inventory- 51 items is the max number of items they can remeber. --AlexanderRM 3:26 PM, 17 March 2007 (EST)
6. Same as Zombie Slayer.--Pesatyel 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam — As Dux and ZedSlayer up in kill. Fairly ridiculous, and not worth voting on for the full two weeks. --Anotherpongo 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. spam - in roleplay land, I've already got a backpack, or something. I'm not carrying all that stuff in my hands. This is assumed. My characters also go to the toilet and stuff, but there's no game rules for loo paper, or jobby size. --Funt Solo 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Spam - I don't want trenchies carrying around forty shotguns. And Funt's comment makes me wonder... do zombies need to shit? --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 11:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - At a maximum of ten bags, and two shotguns per bag, they would be able to carry as many as twenty shotguns, and be able to use none of them. Furthermore, if you ignore that fact then it costs them an additional .5 to 1ap per shot as they now have to spend 1ap each time they pull one out of a bag, and then either drop it or spend another ap putting it back each time they want to take out another one. If they are willing to invest that sort of time searching, bagging, unbagging, and then either rebagging or starting over again, then I say let'em.--Zeek 12:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)edit: The current maximum number is 16 shotguns, by the way, for a difference of four.--Zeek 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Stockpile

Timestamp:	Jon Pyre 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Now that the heavy hammer of logic has fallen and survivors can no longer carry eight generators while leaping from building to building I suggest carrying this logic further and letting people store items too heavy for them to carry in buildings to be picked up later as needed. Stockpile would be a Bargain Hunting subskill, the third tier skill to crown the consumer tree. After looting items your survivor is cunning enough to hide them away safetly, from zombie and human alike. In any unransacked building the character would have a drop down menu labeled "Hide" beneath their inventory listing each item in their inventory as an option. Clicking that would cost 1AP and move the item into their stockpile, a second section of items located beneath the Hide button. At the bottom of the Stockpile section would be a drop-down menu labeled take, listing every item in your stockpile as an option. Clicking it would cost 1AP and move that item into your inventory, space permitting. If your inventory was full it'd give you a generic message about being too encumbered to take that item. Stockpiles would also have a size limitation based on how much you can hide in limited space, only allowing you to store items equivalent to 50% of your normal inventory's maximum encumbrance. You can't use items that are in your stockpile, only in your inventory. And obviously you can only take items from or hide items in a building when you are in that building. Additionally you may only have 1 stockpile at a time. If you try to hide an object in a building when you have your stockpile set up elsewhere you will receive a warning message: "You can't keep track of that many hiding places. If you hide an object here you will lose any items hidden elsewhere. [Don't Hide] [Hide Item]". So that's stockpiling for you. A single hiding place of your choosing to keep a number of items in reserve equal in encumbrance to up to 50% of your normal inventory's size. Oh and one last detail that's pretty crucial: If a building is ransacked all stockpiles inside are destroyed. So yeah, it'd be pretty funny for a survivor to hide twenty first aid kits in a building only to lose them all the next day during a zombie assault. So that's something for the survivor to consider when picking where to keep their things. Being mobile, able to free run from building to building and hide anywhere is the survivor's main tactic for safety now that zombie numbers are high. While keeping a stockpile lets you store items in reserve it also severely limits the survivor's ability to say "Hey, twenty zombies outside. I think I'll move a few blocks", because they'll either need to abandon their items or withdraw them at 1AP apiece. Note: It'd be kind of nice to inform a zombie ransacking a building which and how many stockpiled items they destroyed: "You ransack the building overturning chairs and tables. While rampaging you destroy ten first-aid kits, 3 generators, 2 spray cans, a radio transmitter, and eight fuel cans carefully hidden by survivors." Note: To avoid confusion about which square a stockpile is hidden in and because cavernous buildings aren't ideal hiding places it might be a good ideal to disallow stockpiles in malls, stadiums, and cathedrals.

Keep Votes

1. Author An item retention skill with a pro and a con = Tactics! Tactics equals interesting gameplay. This is a buff, but a severely limiting buff (if they choose to use it) that might actually help zombies sometimes by making survivors less willing to flee. A survivor's greed might result in their death. And yes, survivors perishing because they put more value on material goods than on their own lives is extremely in genre. And this is a good ten days or so after the encumbrance change so I think I've passed the "Wait and see what happens before you suggest" period. --Jon Pyre 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep -- Improves interaction with ones safe house. It doesn't change encumbrance as you can I think resource building should not be allowed to have stockpiles in order to avoid that it will act as a simple replacement inventory. The benefit for zombies is not only that they get more pay-off from ransack with destroying valuable resources but that survivors with stockpiles are less mobile and more likely to stay put in their safe houses. Making barricade busting more rewarding as the change of pay-off increases. I would set the limit that you can stockpile a lower at no more then 25% tops so you can have some essentialness but not enough to avoid making trips to resource buildings. That way it'll bring more debt to game play for both sides without unduly destabilizing anything--Vista 17:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep -While this makes the game even less realistic than the encumbrance nerf, I'll pass over that for the fact that it makes survivors stronger. though I really don't see why we can't just remove the encumbrance change altoghether, it makes no sense and is a major survivor nerf at a time when one REALLY ISN'T NEEDED. --AlexanderRM 3:37 PM, 17 March 2007 (EST)
   • Re I can certainly see the reasoning behind the encumbrance nerf, after all carrying 3 generators doesn't make much sense (I can hardly lift one in real life!). And it also reduces the trenchcoating "I have sixteen shotguns, booyah" kind of mentality that isn't quite fitting for a zombie apocalypse. But I think Stockpile makes sense. In zombie movies people often have caches of items and fight to keep them even if running makes more sense. --Jon Pyre 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep Good Idea. --Fireman22
5. Keep Great Idea. If anything, you should be able to have more than one stockpile. Perhaps one for every five levels, or a skill that lets you have extra piles. --heretic144
   • Re When writing this I did consider presenting it as three skills, one to have a lone stockpile and then two subskills, one increasing how much you can hide in a single location and the other allowing you to hide items in two locations rather than one. I think that might be a bit much with one suggestion, and a bit overpowered. If this were implemented though the next time zombies get a new skill a follow-up skill to Stockpile might be a nice counterpart to it. --Jon Pyre 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - I'm going to hide my stuff behind a velvet Elvis painting. This suggestion rocks! Yay tactics!!! --Uncle Bill 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - As Vista. --Last Ranger 021:46, 17 March 2007 (PDT)
8. Keep - A really great idea, and very in genre. -Cutlet 04:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - A good way to keep more of those hard to find, hard to carry but very useful items. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - once it was the PKers you were obsessed with, now it's the new encumbrance rules. Having said that, you've balanced this nicely. --Funt Solo 09:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
11. I was trying to think of a reason for this vote, but all my reasons are stated above this vote. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep --Abi79 ^AB 12:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep Why not, it's easier get stuff moved around. --Mosqu ^{GCM GRR!} 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep - Awesome. And by my view, neither survivor nor zombie has cause for complaint. --Forlorad 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Keep - I like it. It allows survivors to have more stuff without actually having more stuff. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Keep - It's natural and, with zombie percentage approaching 60, necessary.--Jonathon Quimby 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Keep - I've been contemplating about suggesting something like this for a while now! Love the idea!! I think 2 or 3 stockpiles would be good enough if this passes so you can transfer stuff between different stockpiles for whatever reason. --Kyrygvald 16:48 March 27th, 2007 (UTC)
18. Keep - Yet another reason for survivors to defend a location rather than flee at the first sign of trouble (not exactly a bad strategy, but still) and it gives zombies more bang for their ransacking buck. --Mobius187 March 28 2007, 8:16 AM (EST)

    Keep - Great Idea especially if you want to hold a mall or other building for an extended period of time giving survivors a little help when a big group heads their way. --GhosteOfSpectar April 1 2007, 1:41 (EST) Vote posted past deadline. --^T 20:59, 1 April 2007 (BST)
    

Kill Votes

1. Still thinking it's overreacting to a simple nerf. Also, there HAS to be some limitation to where you can stasth stuff. Otherwise, people will start placing it ANYWHERE (junkyards, malls, etc.), and that is just too much of a buff for me to consider. Have stashes be placed in banks? I'll also wait to see what other people would say.--ShadowScope 15:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re This doesn't really negate the encumbrance change. Even with the additional space it probably comes out to less than you could have carried on your own previously. And you need to spend 2AP for each item, to deposit and take it out. And you risk losing it all to ransack. And why not let people hide it anywhere? They can only hide things in one place, might as well let them choose. Remember this isn't depositing a first-aid kit in a bank vault, it's just hiding something behind furniture, in a vent, inside a drawer, anywhere to keep others from finding it. --Jon Pyre 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill — Leave encumberance alone. --Anotherpongo 16:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Re Technically this doesn't change your encumbrance. You can't carry any more on yourself than presently. Yes, it does let you store some items elsewhere but not that many and it's inconvenient, AP costly, and quite risky. --Jon Pyre 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
     • Re — Sorry. Let me rephrase that. "Give encumberance a chance". Better? --Anotherpongo 08:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

   Abstain Kill - I see the the mechanics and server load reasons for limiting the number of stockpiles to just one, but unfortunately flavour-wise, it feels too artificial that survivors have such short, small memories. If people thought there was a risk of forgetting where they hid things, they would write down the location(s). --Toejam 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   • Re Any game will be filled with artificial constraints. Why can't survivors burn down buildings? Why can't zombies eat their victims down to the bone so they can't stand up again? Why can't you just grab a generator in a different building and carry it to your safehouse? Logical thought is the scenic backdrop in any fictional story or game. It has to be convincing enough that you don't notice it. But it shouldn't get in the way of improving the story or game itself. Don't assume either it's just a bad memory. Maybe having too many stockpiles means they can't take time to ensure the others haven't been found. Maybe hiding all over the place means they took less time finding a hiding place previously and their stockpile wasn't that well hidden. Instead of "you can't keep track of that many hiding places" perhaps the message could say "you can't maintain that many hiding places". Either way, the difference is miniscule and it's unlikely either would be used if this were implemented since most implemented suggestors are drastically fine-tuned after peer review. --Jon Pyre 17:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   Artificiality's a balance: one can accept the oddities that come from the assumptions made when modelling the world - Malton being made of squares, everyone can carry the exact same amount etc, but it is possible to go too far. For instance, I wouldn't accept a gun that only shoots people who have two d's in their name. Anyway, this doesn't seem as bad as I thought it was when I first saw it, so I'm withdrawing my vote. --Toejam 13:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

3. kill/change the idea is sound but its too much of a survivor buff for mallrats as is. Change it so that if the number of survivors in a building goes over 50 there is a 1% chance per survivor present that searchers find some of the stash... a building only has so many hiding places and this would reflect that. It would have to be done ccarefully to minimize zerg abuse but i think it could be made to work. Alternatively a message to say you could not find anywhere to stash things could be issued in any building with more than 50 people in it? --Honestmistake 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
   • 'Re Rather than base it on the number of people it might make more sense to prevent this from working inside of large buildings. After all, large buildings usually have cavernous spaces not really ideal to hiding things. If you change your vote I'll put a note on the suggestion to that effect. --Jon Pyre 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Noistill think limiting it by the number of people works better. No one uses cathedrals anyway abd in over 2 years i still have not been to a stadium. lots of people do "live" in malls, PDs, NTs and hospitals though and allowing 50+ survivors to stock x number of spare items will make it damn hard for zeds to get them out! --Honestmistake 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Arc Welder (Repair Torch)

Timestamp:	Fireman22 4:44, 17 March 2007 (EST)
Type:	Generic item/weapon
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Needs a (battery pack for one repair) ( 10 xp per repair) fixes generator takes two slots both be found in auto repair shop 15%, Factorys 8%, Warhouses 7%, Hardware Store 12% as a weapon (battery for 6 shots) reloads by clicking on fuel can when arc welder is being used as a weapon. base damage per hit 4 Base to hit 10 %. upgrade 30% (mechanical skill basic training) (must have construction skill first) upgrade 40% (Mechanical skill advanced training) when at 40% burns Zombies 1 hp is lost for every action such as attack and movement. Taken after burned by (arc welder) unless they click a box which will apear as brn this will cure them but for the sacrifice of 5 ap. (Mechanical skills cost 100xp to all human classes.) automaticly activated when purchased. Costs 5 ap per repair. (Mechanical skill is linked to the construction skill tree) (does not cross over to zombies)

Keep Votes

Keep- Sounds good.

• Unsigned vote struck. --Funt Solo 09:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  

Kill Votes

1. Kill- Basically gives humans a bite attack that can also repair stuff, from what I gathered. No thanks.--Grigori 20:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill- I get too much Dog Welder vibes from this suggestion. Not good. --Vista 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill- I'd like this as a weapon, however your suggestion is not thought out very well. I think you should have put it on talk:suggestions first. Heck, it's not too late, withdraw it now. Community discussion is the best thing for a suggestion like this. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - A little too much for one item. Consider using it just as a tool for fixing generators and skipping the weapon part entirely. Aside from that, time on the talk page wouldn't hurt. Find a way to work duct tape in, and you'll have yourself a winner. --Uncle Bill 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - I prefer the idea of repair kits. --Funt Solo 16:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - There was another suggestion made about repairing generators which I prefer over this one. -- 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - Way too powerful in combat+An extra feature=Bad. It needs to be weakened considerably in order to get a keep from me. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - How about an ax that has wrench in the handle and shoots grenades that launch bee's? But you gotta find the bee's in the park... --S.Wiers ^X:00_{x-mas tree dead pool} 23:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. You gotta be kidding - A 1.6 damage/swing attack, infectious bite given a new paintjob and handed over to the survivors, and making GKing more of a pain in the ass to do? While we're wishing for ridiculous things, I'd like a pretty pink unicorn. I'll be the hit of the neighborhood. --Mold 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Spam - Your suggestion is basically more powerful than anything already in the game. That's why I spam it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Spam — As above. By the way, S. Wiers, the plural of "bee" does not have an apostrophe. It is simply "bees". Yes, I am a stickler. --Anotherpongo 08:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Is this humorous? Cause it sure made me laugh! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---