Suggestions/18th-Dec-2005

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.

Current Days' Suggestions

READ THE Suggestions Dos and Do Nots BEFORE YOU POST A NEW SUGGESTION.

Add new suggestions to the bottom of this page - duplicate suggestions WILL be removed.

---

Urban Dead: Apocalypse (Syringes don't work for set period)

Timestamp:	3.49 AM 18.12.05 (GMT)
Type:	balance change, temporary
Scope:	Makes death for humans a temporary Big Deal
Description:	I'll try to keep this short and sweet. Basically the suggestion is a big change in the ame dynamic. Make all syringes ineffective until one of two conditions has been met: 1.) A set percentage (say 70-90%) of players have become zombies 2.) A set amount of time (say a month, maybe less) has passed After this the game would return to normal. This would basically change the aim of the game, temporarily, and make it more fun and exciting for both sides. In order to have something to aim for, all survivors who survived until one of the conditons were met would get a special prize. If condition 1 was met, all zombified players would get a bonus and all remaining humans would also get a bonus. I am loathe to sugest ideas for what that bonus could be, but it might range form a new skill, a special item or simply an XP bonus. I favour either a new skill or item whcih is oherwise unavailable to make survival/killing all humans worth aiming for. Obviously it would be necessary to only include players who were registered at the start of the UD: Apocalypse subgame in the stats (for calculating whether the set percentage has been reached for zombies) and bonuses. However, I recognise this would probably be the most difficult part to implement, server-wise. Its not critical to the success or failure of the idea, but without it you would have zerging to meet the target percentage and/or characters getting rewarded for doing very little (creating a new character in the final days of UD:A to cash in on the survivor bonus.) With thse problems in mind, it would likely be easier to code exceptions for new players rather than expose the server to massive zerging, creating an overload. I think this is a good idea because it would actually create the feeling fo a 'zombie apocalypse'. Many people have complained that the game has become boring, and this would be a good way to liven it up, if done occasionally. Dead survivors would have an incentive to turn on their bretheren: getting to the set percentage not only allows those newly dead to revive again, but also gives them whatever the special 'bonus' is for zombies. I'd be interested in any thoughts on whether this is actually workable code-wise, but I am not so interested in hearing that A.) its overbalanced (its overbalanced intentionally, but its only a temporary thing. I have mostly survivor characters and, frankly, the game is dull because death is a mere inconvenience) or B.) It's unfair on survivors (Again, intentionally, but at least the game will be fun if it has an element of danger). I also anticipate some people may suggest this should be a 'seperate' game form uD, on another server. Unfortunately that would not work: the idea needs a pre-existing world like that of the current UD to be successful. I'm betting your survivor died in the first few weeks of playing UD, it would be just plain silly if the server NEVER allowed revives. Imagine foi the first humans on earth became zombies when they died: there sure wouldn't be a human race around today, just zombies. The biggest problem I can see with this idea is that it is IS pretty unfair on new sign ups who want to play as survivors or those who have started them game in the few weeks before UD:A began. Any thoughts on how that issue might be resolved would be appreciated It would also make life quite difficult for scientists, though perhaps, they can still get XP for injecting zombies, but the injections just don't work. Happy voting and thanks for reading. P.S. This is my first suggestion and first use of the Wiki, I have done my best to keep to the guidelines but If I have made any mistakes I humbly apologise <cowers before wall of impending flames>

Votes

• Kill - I fear the masses of survivors who would just stop playing if they're suddenly unrevivable would cripple, maim, and/or kill UD. This just seems a bit extreme. (And, of course, nothing keeps those who stay zombies from reviving the moment they actually can, tipping the balance again.)--Arathen 05:01, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Author comment: - The newly dead would have an incentive to keep playing of course; joining their zombie allies would bring forward the date at which they became revived.

• Kill - Why do so many people think the solution to the imbalance is to stop people from playing as survivors? This is the first to do of THIS kind, but... I mean, this just isn't the way to create balance in the game. --Shadowstar 05:18, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Author Comment: - Its not attempting to create balance in the game. Its attempting to make the game fun for both sides.

• Kill So the zombies have a population boom, and then they go back to normal. Give me a moment, I just had an idea for a new dish. Spam with a side of KILL! 05:47, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Author comment: - I wish you'd read my suggestion properly before voting. I'm not trying to balance the game, i'm trying to make it more fun.

• Kill Doesn't the rules say something about stopgap measures? Anyways, yeah, nothing that forces people to play a certain side will pass here. Yes, this would help the problem, but it would only take less than a week before the tides are turned, and once the syringes are back, people will slowly start to revive their characters and/or start playing them again (as some would have abandoned theirs after their unrevivable death). It's only a temporary solution that solves nothing since the problem will repeat itself in time. --Volke 07:04, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Author comment: - <sigh> Thew only thing i am trying to fix is the game being dull to play. Yes, its a stop gap solution, but only because if we were to alllow UD:A to be a permanent affair there would eventually only be zombies. Spending some time playing UD, allowing the world to reset to a workable level (high human population) and then playing UD:A again is the basis of the idea.

• Kill - Hooray for stopgap measures! Mikm 07:43, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Most survivor players would just start new characters if they absolutely couldn't be revived for that time. Result: Survivors drop in numbers, but zombies don't increase. The game would depopulate rather quickly i fear. Rhialto 09:57, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Author comment: - I think playing as a zombie would be more fun in this situation than a supern00b survivor. Of course, the onyl way to find out would be to road test the idea.

• Kill - "Perma"death, even if non-permanent enough to earn the quotations, is a known instant suggestion-killer. --Drakkenmaw 15:17, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Author comment: - Its npot perma-death on accoutn of being temporary. Permanent and temporary are antonyms.

• Keep - This is a great idea and I suggest everyone read through it carefully before voting. Long term goals are part of what makes an MMO fun, and this would add a great incentive to really try to stay alive or to convert survivors. Would greatly add to the game's longevity. --Phaserlight 15:41, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - My only complaint is that too many survivors would just leave if they couldn't revive their character. Also, you haven't broken any rules, but can you please proof read your work before submitting.--The General 16:14, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Author comment: - Survivors are going to be leaving pretty soon anyway if the game doesn't liven up a lot.

• Kill - i see what you are going for. but i don't think it will work the way you hope. people will just create new characters to play with until syringes become effective again - or quit playing entirely. the best bet for what you are trying to achieve is to work on making zombies interesting to play again, not to try and force people into playing as a zombie. --Firemanstan 19:08, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• kill - I actually would like to try this with my fully leveled out army character, But it would turn into a PKer bloodbath, necro's would be too handicapped for it be fair. And most people would find such a drastic change from current game format very annoying.--Vista 22:00, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - 1) No. No perma-zombieness. No stopgaps. No making NecroTechs useless. Just no. 2) You're abusing the Re feature. 3) You're not even using the "Re:" right. --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:35, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I say keep because I love this idea and considered suggesting it myself. The problem though is in implementing it, which would be ridiculously hard. It needs a ton of work, there would have to be restictions and different rules as well. But if u can fix it up ( a lot) and find a logical way to do it, youll have my keep vote yet again. If you want me to help with some of my thoughts on the idea, RE with a link to a page where we can work it out, id be glad to contribute to what can really be an awesome thing. --Mr. Mcdoogles 23:12, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep I am tempted to edit out all of the kills that obviously didn't understand the suggestion. Did you all even read it, or are you so desperate not to play zombies? Imagine hunting down your friends, enemies, fellow survivors.. their desperation, the overwhelming tide of the dead clamoring for blood. What isn't fun about that? There's no stop-gap.. it's an "EVENT" not permanent change. Imagine the aftermath; the 30% beginning, slowly, slowly, to implement their syringes in covert places, the dead winning the whole city within sight, terror and mayhem everywhere. *happy sigh* I'd vote two keeps, if I could. Oh, and by the way, no need to be so harsh about his replies; it's obviously not abusive, and if you read his suggestion this is his first Wiki attempt, why WOULD he know how to do it precicely?. --paincake
• Kill - I really like this idea. Even though the find rate changed back to normal, syringes are sufficiently ubiquitous that survivors can pretty much undo any demographic progress (read: kills) that zombies manage to achieve in short order. The problem with it, and the reason I'm voting kill? Because I have absolutely zero confidence in the overwhelming majority of players of survivors to actually roleplay the event. Today, when death is but a minor inconvenience, there's nevertheless widespread refusal to actually play as a zombie in the interim; most survivors'll just shamble to a revive point and Mrh? repeatedly. Make death significantly more serious, and these people'll just walk away from their characters until the event's over, and play new ones in the meantime. Your idea's awesome; it's just that the game's player base is, IMO, not adult enough to handle it. --Centerfire 11:33, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I like this idea, and would enjoy playing this scenario out. I can also see how many others wouldn't like it/refuse to play it, though... but then again, I don't care about them. --Reverend Loki 21:26, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• "Keep" - Forgot to vote for it myself

---

Generator Light Advantages

Timestamp:	07:27, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Place
Scope:	Zombies and Survivors
Description:	Survivors gain +1% hit chance to all attacks when attacking in buildings with operational generators, or in blocks with buildings with operational generators. Zombie gain +1% hit chance to all attacks when attacking in buildings without operational generators, or in blocks with buildings without operational generators, or in blocks without buildings. ~~By Stare.~~

Votes

• Keep - Sure. Would provide a reason to add generator to places that wouldn't normally get a benefit. Mikm 07:39, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -- P0p0 08:25, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Bonus is far too small for anything, besides human hit percentages are already very good, they dont need even a 1% boost. --Grim s 11:39, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Bonus is too small to be meaningful, and anything large enough to be meaningful would probably be unbalancing. Rhialto 11:55, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Ditto. Not worth it. --Basher 13:59, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - See above. --ThunderJoe 13:59, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Rework and resubmit with a different way of making generators something to fight over, please. --Drakkenmaw 15:18, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - In favour of resubmitng with a larger bonus.--The General 16:18, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - while i do like the idea of light and darkness having some effect on humans and zombie = +1% isn't substantial enough to make the suggestion worth voting keep on. i agree with Drakkenmaw - rework and resubmit. --Firemanstan 18:41, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - There was a suggestion not too long ago about increasing search odds when a generator is up. I think that makes more sense, and would accomplish the goal of making generators worth maintaining. --Dickie Fux 18:43, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• kill - This seems like a combination of the day/night proposal with the search proposal, I like both better then this one. And seeing the amount of suggestions involving generators, do we really need more of them? --Vista 22:05, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - The figures should probably be bigger, but the idea is fine. And besides, the figures are, in the end, up to Kevin to decide, so voting it down solely on that reason makes no sense. --Mr. Mcdoogles 23:07, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Humans don't need the boost (even if it will hardly do anything at all). Besides, couldn't you say that sunlight would work in a similar manner? --Schlagwerk 06:51, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

Knockdown

Timestamp:	14:39, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombie's (Skill) and Survivors (Affected)
Description:	When a zombie gains this skill for maybe... 200xp, they can use an attack called tackle. Tackle will do basic damage (3) and have a basic hit percentage the same as the claw attacks. However, there is a 15% chance to knock down thier opponent, mostly being a survivor. This would knock the survivor down and allow the Zombie to get away. Since the survivor isnt dead, it would only cost a measly 5AP to stand back up. This is extremely helpful in situations when an active zombie is fighting with an active survivor and gives a bit of flavor without having to just run away. Plus, depending on the reaction of votes, I think the ability for zombies to attack survivors who are knocked down should be available.

Votes

• Kill - It's an Instakill Skill! Anything that knocks you down is an instakill. 'Sides. Aren't zombies more interested in eating brains than knocking the other guy down and running? --Shadowstar 15:04, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - It is a sad day indeed when suggestions are presented that allow zombies to flee. --Grim s 15:08, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Insta-Kill --Drakkenmaw 15:19, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - What makes this skill so great that it cost 200 xp? And if the survivor is knocked down? Can the zombie still attack him? Because I'd hate to be attacking someone and he suddenly goes down and is thus safe from me. And if he can still be attacked he might lose the oppertunity himself to get away if he has little AP left. And if this happens a few times in a row a survivor can lose most of his AP just trying to stand up during a fight. Bad mojo! --Paddy Fitzgerald 16:24, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Breaks two rules 1 Rare does not equal balanced and 2 No Insta-Kills. Plus, it's not in keeping with the idea that zombies are mindless brain-eating machines.--The General 16:26, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - ummm, how does standing up after simply being knocked down require more ap than moving an entire block? --Firemanstan 18:47, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - If I'm reading it right, I don't think this is an instant kill; the survivor stands up as a survivor, with regular HP, no status effects, etc, so it's just getting knocked down. It doesn't need to be 200 XP to buy, and it might work better if it required other zombies to be present, i.e. they're crowding the survivor and dragging him down, which costs 5 AP to escape, but even as is, it's okay. --Dickie Fux 18:50, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• kill -a "measly" 5 ap? Messing with AP is never "measly" Messing with AP is always a no-no and usually massively over powered, this one included. Dickie Fux, curtesy of drakkenmaws' link: Anything that effectively kicks you immediately to the "Stand Up" button regardless of your HP is an instant-kill--Vista 22:12, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Re: Although I appreciate the effort he put into it, Drakkenmaw linking to something I believe he wrote himself doesn't convince me; I would define insta-kill as a) something that instantly changes a character from zombie to survivor or vice versa, or b) something that deducts most or all AP. Also, giving something an AP cost is not the same thing as messing with AP; "messing with AP" means something that affects AP regeneration or the maximum amount of AP a character can have. --Dickie Fux 22:41, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Keep - I say keep though I should say kill. The idea is fine, but theres some issues. I say that first off it costs 1 or 2 AP to stand back up, not 5, because after all your a human and standing isnt exactly rocket science. But cant a person fire a gun while laying down? Why yes, they can, so how about while your laying down, you can use your guns, at a small percentage hit penalty, then melee at a larger penalty, and you cant walk until you stand up. --Mr. Mcdoogles 23:04, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - What's the net effect, besides stealing 5 ap? And yes, just about anything that costs AP from your target messes with AP. We have normal killing, and that should be the only thing that makes you stand up.--Arathen 01:28, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - No Instakill / knockdown / turn into a body, no "stealth" actions while your down, and no attacking bodies. --VoidDragon 03:52, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Who has tried it to know it is an Insta-Kill? "Insta-kill" seems to be the response when survivors don't know what else they could use as a reason. Look, at the moment the only threat for survivors comes from other survivors. It is discussed wether we can start cinemas and pubs again in Malton. Anything that makes life a tad more dangerous for surivivors is voted down. Is the game more fun when there is no danger at all? "No risk, much fun"???? With this effect, then yes, survivors have to PLAN before they go out and do stuff. They need to keep a TACTICAL reserve of AP. I remember not one movie where the guys that "just went out to kill some zombies" returend alive. You plan, or you die. That's should be the name of the game. Anything that makes survivors start to think before they leave their hut is good. I am tired of the "Insta-kill" whining--Falk 6:24, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Not only does this detract from the idea of the constantly advancing zombie horde (instead, we have zombies that knock survivors over to buy themselves time to escape -.-), it also turns the survivor into a corpse, therfore making him impossible for other zombies to attack (in other words, you're depriving fellow zombies of XP). --KingRaptor 06:29, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill Sorry, but if it was better implemented/explained, it would be easier to decide on. I agree that zombies need to threaten survivors more, though, and in that way it does seem a good idea.. temporary helplessness does NOT causeinstant death, and if used for that I might change to a KEEP vote instead. Really, iit should be the survivors that need the "flee" option, I second the motion that it's a sad day when the zombies run from the humans in terror. --paincake
• Kill I find it sad that people complain about an AP reducing insta-kill that hurts humans (syringes, the new headshot, anyone). However, I vote kill b/c zombies should never have to flee.--Duranna 18:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

Close the doors

Timestamp:	15:56, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill tweak
Scope:	Humans
Description:	As the game stands humans during any siege can simply spam the barricade button and any breach caused by zombies will be plugged before even half a dozen get inside. This is because of the fact that humans can barricade with the doors open (Which closes the doors, effectively a free action for the humans). I propose that people should have to close the doors before they can barricade a building to give zombies a chance at getting in when a person is online.

Votes

• Keep - So Sayeth the Author --Grim s 15:56, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -- Seems fairly logical to me. furtim 15:58, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep --ALIENwolve 15:59, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I never understood that either. --TheTeeHeeMonster 16:01, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - You mean that if someone tries to barricade they'll get a message "You cannote erect barricades, as the door is open." until the door is closed? Good idea.--WibbleBRAINS 16:08, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I didn't notice it myself, but yes... Though a very small change it is only logical --Paddy Fitzgerald 16:17, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Although it might make more sense perhaps to keep track of the door separately, and have it still be open when the 'cades come down. They've blocked the doors, not closed 'em... Would help zombies without Memories. Should that perhaps be posted as another suggestion, or be included as an alternative? --Leit 16:30, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Makes sense.--The General 16:31, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Grim, you so smart with your olde english. --ThunderJoe 17:01, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Agreed. I had always assumed if you didn't close them they were still open when the barricades came down. This change has merit. --Fat Charlie 17:14, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - FINALLY! A way to prevent the constant barricade-spam entry control in sieges without impacting the barricade-balance for the rest of the game! I applaud this. --Drakkenmaw 17:17, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Yet another Keep vote. Though I wonder how you can barricades on the outside with the door closed... --Hexedian 18:13, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Needs some modification, though. Firstly, there are buildings that have no door, and you can indeed barricade them. So obviously, the doors being open should not stop construction of barricades- they should just not close automatically. Second, if the survivors do build a barricade when the doors are open, they should not have the option to close the doors until the barricade is gone- there would be to much crap in the way! --Swiers 18:31, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - i didn't know you could barricade without closing the door! but now that i know - what the hell? good suggestion. --Firemanstan 18:51, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Nice. --Dickie Fux 18:52, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Jirtan 18:57, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep "Free actions are bad, M'Kay..." Especially when they don't make sense. --Matthew-Stewart 19:30, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - phungus420 2134, 18DEC05 (GMT)
• Keep - Nice, it's the little balance improvements that are good. Also, Swiers has a good point. -- Andrew McM 21:37, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - So long as the aforementioned buildings with uncloseable doors are taken into account and remain barricadable, fine. -CWD 21:51, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - All this time I just could've hit barricade immediatly? NOOOOOOOO!!!!!! But I agree with Siers and leit, perhaps it is possible to let the doors stay open? If people don't close them it gives the zombies without memories of life a chance to get in. Handy in sieges and it punishes the hasty survivor.--Vista 22:19, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I Especially like Vista's point, barricading hastily and leaving the doors open can take away that last line of defense for low level zombies, a lil flava and a logical suggestion. --Mr. Mcdoogles 22:57, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I make sure the doors are closed BEFORE a barricade is constructed.But this is still great. --Penance 23:18, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep --Basher 00:13, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - It's been said before, it'll be said again. As to why it needs to be repeated... well, don't ask me.--Arathen 01:31, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I always wondered why the hell pushing a sofa against a door magically closes it. - KingRaptor 02:09, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Easy to implement, great for gameplay. Gotta give it to the zeds, they get the best ideas. -Fisu 02:11, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep What Swiers said... --Volke 02:15, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep The "auto-closing" from barricading has always been annoying...always seemed like an oversight rather than a planned idea. --Gromph 03:20, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - I always thought you had to close the doors pre-barricade in order for them to be closed when the barricades go down? Anyways, this fails to address what would happen for buildings without doors. --VoidDragon 03:55, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • RE - This suggestion only affects doored buildings. Undoored buildings stay as normal, because there are no doors to close. --Grim s 07:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Maybe the buildings without doors can have an initial barricade cost of two, just to show how it takes a little extra effort to get them started? This idea seems like common sense, I even thought "Why not make barricading a little more expensive?" Running a block vs. searching a building for a desk/chair/piano, it doesn't seem realistic or balanced to suddenly say NOPE, you can't enter in a single click. This way, at least it takes two clicks. --paincake
• Keep What I have to say has been said already. --Duranna 18:43, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Good idea. What more really is there to say? --Reverend Loki 21:29, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I purpose people have to close the doors, period. --Monstah 16:20, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - It just makes sense. Darrik 22:39, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - The fact that this doesn't exist seems like a bug. Tereseth 9:22, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Should have always been there. This ends up being a very tactically significant change to make the UI make more sense. Constantly clicking "barricade" is a valid tactic just because of the interface, not because it makes any kind of sense. Closing the door, on the other hand, makes sense and will make a big difference at a critical point where zombies often get the shaft. Unlife 10:13, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Good good. Petrosjko 14:32, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

Undying

Timestamp:	18:28, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	In this game killing a zombie really means just knocking it out, making it temporarily act like a normal corpse. It's pretty easy to throw these out of a building which is why clearing a building of all bodies costs 1 AP. How about a zombie skill so that when "killed" you don't get knocked out but knocked down and stunned a bit. It would still cost normal AP to stand, they would come back with full health, and if headshot they would lose xp. The difference is because they're still stirring it is harder to move these bodies outside and it would cost 1AP to throw out each individual one. Mechanics wise it could work so that seperate from the number of corpses present you could see "38 undead are stirring on the floor". If a suvivor tries to clear a building a bodies they'll first move out all the still ones. Then each time they click they'll move out a single one of the zombies with Undying. It would make sense for Ankle Grab to be a prerequisite. This skill is a useful defensive measure for zombies that want to maintain their hold on a building. I know many times when as a suvivor I entered a building with a few corpses and in the spirit of civic duty kicked them all out and the barricaded the place up before moving on. I might not have done so if it would have cost me 5 AP to get them all out. It would also help in sieges by using up valuable suvivor AP. I think it's a handy skill that doesn't give too much of an advantage.

Votes

• Keep - I don't see how a single survivor could move 40 corpses past a set of barricades with a single AP. --Dickie Fux 18:55, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Well I changed my vote as I said. - Jedaz 21:13, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT) - Kill - Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it alredy take 1 AP for each body to be moved out? If I am I'll change my vote. - Jedaz 18:57, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  yes, you can dump as many bodies as are in the room with 1 ap.

• keep - i've never understood how you can clear a room of a hundred bodies with 1 ap. i like this as you've presented it as a skill available under ankle grab (although i think the name could be better) - but i would also go for standard game implementation of 1 body = 1 ap. --Firemanstan 18:58, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT) EDIT: what? if The TeeHeeMonster and CWD are correct (i've never noticed if i've received XP for dumping bodies or not) than that should be addressed. but even so, in my opinion - if someone wants to spend X ap to dump X bodies into the street and receives X XP from it - i don't think that is unreasonable, and i don't think it happens often enough in major quantities to worry about XP farming. --Firemanstan 21:01, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Might just change the AP cost of normally dumping bodies, though. Jirtan 19:02, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I agree this skill should be listed under ankle grab. --Matthew-Stewart 19:26, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Creates another human XP farm - 1 XP per body dumped. Right now it's 1 XP for moving all of them, no matter how many. Whatever happened to shooting down suggestions that gave the humans more way to earn xp? Edit: But what about XP for barricading? 1xp/ap and it got shot down. And don't argue that it died because of the advantages of barricading being enough of a reward. Dumping bodies has the advantage of getting the zeds out. That's a nice reward. Plus, it's still higher XP/AP than books, because it has a 100% chance of working. Theoretically you could move 50 bodies a day and get 50 xp, without ever leaving your building or searching for anything. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:31, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep its just plain logic--grassman 20:09, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Creates another unnecessary XP source for survivors, and conversely unnecessarily makes zombie hoards stronger. -CWD 20:10, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - I don't think the xp gain for suvivors would be so lucrative to be exploited. And it's what, an extra 1xp per zombie killed for someone out there? Considering how much xp is gained just by fighting and killing the zombie 1xp is isignificant. --Jon Pyre 21:03, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -Makes sense and 1AP for 1XP isn't exactly brilliant. --Qwako 21:16, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill -Takes too much time in sieges to dump them one by one, too much an advantage combined with the extra AP. It would be near impossible to get zombies out after a breach untill they run out of AP, And when you have a sufficiantly big horde trough the door it is immediatly game-over for the survivors the first time the barricades are breached--Vista 22:38, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Kind of like how it was game over at Caiger huh? Currently it is 1 AP and 1 XP to dump any number of bodies. Sure, you could farm this new option for extra XP, but the risk of letting ankle grabbers stand up again inside is sufficient discouragement for this kind of farming. Rhialto 22:48, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - It makes sense. --Mr. Mcdoogles 22:54, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I've always wondered how all of those bodies get tossed out.Wheelbarrow or some kind of scooper? --Penance 23:30, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I agree with Jirtan though, in that it would be better to just modify the existing mechanics. --Basher 00:17, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill -- Not necessary. Humans need to keep some kind of edge in sieges, since dumping and barricades are their main counter to the zombie non-fear of death. Better to give the zombies buffs in other areas than to make this harder on humans. furtim 01:08, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - I don't think this should be a skill, since it doesn't really make sense that a zombie wouldn't/couldn't die even after being blasted with a shotgun, or whatnot. Instead it should cost X amount of AP to move Y number of bodies. For example, 1 AP per 3/5/7/whatever bodies. That makes more sense, and fixes the problem that a single person can clear a room of any number of bodies. -- Ethan Frome 02:24, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - This is a new skill for zombies, which is good. It makes zombies harder to expel once they are inside, which is good. People who believe that humans should have 'an edge' in siges against a shambling mass of undead horror don't like it. (Like they don't have enough edges already.) It's a keeper!!! --Beauxdeigh
• Kill - I'm more in favor of a flat 1 AP removes 1 body mechanism. Standard procedure in a siege is to dump a zeds body as soon as you kill it because it might be an Ankle Grabber. --VoidDragon 03:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - I'd prefer just changing the "dump all bodies" button so that it dumps everything at 1AP per, rather than everything at 1AP period. --Centerfire 04:05, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - You guys didn't get the memo about all those entering or living in Malton, CITY OF THE FUTURE, getting a portable teleportation device whose sole function is the removal of dead matter to the outside of their living location, for the removal to a garbage facility thereof?. --paincake
• Keep - I'd prefer it to be a standard game mechanic rather than a skill, but keep anyway. --Monstah 16:22, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Would be a good skill, and would revive the jumping jack tactis of seiging. Tereseth 9:26, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I don't think this would unbalance the major seiges too much (see VoidDragon's comment), but I don't mind the idea of it being a skill. --Blobmorf 18:05, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - This is somewhat similar to a proposal I will be making shortly, so my "Keep" vote is an either/or vote on the Suggestion as both would be overkill. In any case, the reason for my keep vote is quoted from Vista's vote: "It would be near impossible to get zombies out after a breach untill they run out of AP, And when you have a *sufficiantly big horde* through the door it is immediatly game-over for the survivors the first time the barricades are breached." Since a sufficiently large numbers of flesh-eating zombies cooperating *should* be near impossible for a small number of survivors to casually thwart, Vista makes my point. --Unlife 10:22, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

Revivication Text

Timestamp:	20:42, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	text accuracy
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When a survivor is jabbed with a syringe, the game says that "so and so revivified you." you fall to the ground, indiscernable from other dead bodies until you decide to stand up again. So, after being jabbed, you are immediately alive, albeit on the ground and not moving. However, the game says "you are so and so and you are dead" after being revivified. But you're not dead, you're just lying prone now. So the word dead should be changed to "unconcious" or something when you're lying on the ground after being revivified. This is a minor point, but it would make the game more accurate. ~~Stare~~

Votes

• Keep - Well I don't think it would be too hard to implement, and it wouldn't be too much of a major change. - Jedaz 21:09, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - i was debating whether or not to vote on this one at all, because it is such a minor detail. i'm voting keep on it because of its accuracy in terms of the game - if it is something that is easy to implement, and won't distract from other suggestions. however i will change my vote to kill if someone has some inner knowledge of how Kevan goes through suggestions and evidence that this would take away from other peer accepted suggestions' implementation. in other words - i think it is a logical idea, but if it's a matter of only having time to implement X suggestions and this one takes away from one that is better and has more impact on the game - i'd rather see the other go through. --Firemanstan 21:23, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Nice flavour. -- Andrew McM 21:44, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Sounds easy to implement --Lord Evans 22:17, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - An unimportant yet accurate change, why not? --Vista 22:42, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Why not. --Mr. Mcdoogles 22:51, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Sure. Rhialto 23:00, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Makes sense. Penance 23:33, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Okay. --Basher 00:18, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - The only way this wouldn't work is if there are technically only two statuses in the game -- dead and alive. But Kevan will know that better than anyone, and whether it's worth the coding to change it. If it is, I'm all for it. -- Ethan Frome 02:26, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - sounds good. If this was in existance, I wouldn't have accidentally stood up a couple times when I didn't realize I'd been revived. Orihara 05:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

Axe Headshot

Timestamp:	0100, 19DEC05 (GMT)
Type:	game balance
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When the # of zombies is surpassed by the # of zombie hunters, the skill headshot will be permenantly removed from the game. All characters who previously had the skill will be refunded 100XP. Third party note: To those of you who are voting Kill on the basis that Headshot is the only thing zombies fear, I have news for you: Zombies aren't supposed to fear anything, period. When was the last time you saw a zombie movie or played a zombie game where the zombie sees a guy with a shotgun and goes "Oh noes, that guy could blow my brains out with his boomstick! I think I'll go find someone less well armed." Zombies don't feel fear - they probably don't feel anything except hunger. - KingRaptor 04:03, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT) Third party note: This suggestion is probably no longer valid as Headshot appears to have been changed to an Ankle Grab counter --Kryten 10:55, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT) RE - It's even more valid now, as the most of the major zombie hordes are now on strike. Headshot needs axed. --phungus420 1847, 19DEC05 RE Kryten - Ankle Grab is not a counter for headshot. Ankle Grab is there to mitigate the 5:1 AP ratio of barricades. --Siddhant 16:19, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Votes

• Keep - Author voting for suggestion: When headshot was first added it was when fresh zombies stood up for 1AP, there were no barricades. As a result zombies leveled increadibly fast, and are rumored to have outnumber survivors. Headshot was added to help level the playing feild and discourage zombies. Since then, the cost to stand up as a new zombie has been raised to 10AP, and barricades, a 5 to 1 AP advantage survivor weapon has been added. These two additions made headshot annoying. Now that the # of zombie hunters outnumber the total # of zombies, headshot has become a game breaking skill. To help preserve the game, it is time for this skill to go. phungus420 0114, 19DEC05 (GMT)
• Keep - This is a broken skill that adds nothing but grief to the game. --Stroth 01:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• keepWhat .--D4rk N00b said --Nerd123 05:48, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep- Losing experience makes playing a zombie a lot less fun. Survivors need a strong weapon to combat zombies, but the current Headshot isn't it.--D4rk N00b 01:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -- HELLA KEEP. Headshot ruins the game for everyone. furtim 01:03, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep- Get rid of this griefing skill Kasz
• Keep - Ditto. --Basher 01:07, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -- Sweet Zombie Jesus cries when young zombies are headshot until they quit the game. --funkronomicon 01:08, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I'm not sure why Kevan thought taking away XP was a good idea in the first place. Comrade Morgan 01:09, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -- About damned time. Long overdue. Petrosjko 01:10, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Your title makes NO sense but your idea does --Lord Evans 01:12, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep Kill - Changed my vote in response to the new version of Headshot --Dickie Fux 01:14, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Every time a zombie loses days of hunting to a single headshot, an angel loses its wings. Memuler
• Keep -- It has been a long time since survivors needed to keep zombies from becoming powerful (if it was ever the case at all). Servers only to allow one group of players to crap on another group of players. elderdan
• Keep - We must destroy it, for the sake of the game. Dhiquad 01:22, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -Inspector01 01:23, 19 Dec 2005
• Kill - Who wants to have a skill taken away from them, thats just a pain. I dont even have it, and Headshot blows, but it cant just be taken away, its needs to be changed. Also, lord evans, i think what the title means is axe, as in a verb, like to axe headshot, get rid of it, not axe headshot with axe as a noun. --Mr. Mcdoogles 01:28, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Taking away skills is exactly what is happening to zombie players who get HS'd --Elderdan 01:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Did you miss the part where you get back your 100xp? I don't think that's unfair.--D4rk N00b 01:33, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot serves no function besides griefing. It ruins the atmosphere and it has to go. -Kandarin 01:35, 19 Dec 2005
• Kill - something needs to be done to headshot - as i believe it is the greatest contributing factor in the loss of zombie players in the game. however i think it could and should be changed to be less crippling (and less grief laden) rather than simply removed. i would rather see an adjustment to the skill that then the loss of a skill entirely. --Firemanstan 01:33, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT) EDIT: however, i will shed no tears if headshot does end up just being removed. --Firemanstan 01:36, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - This skill adds little to the game aside from griefing zombies, and discouraging survivors from playing zombies when killed. Urban Dead should be a playable game for both sides and not simply zombie genocide. What useful point does the skill now serve aside from erasing the accomplishments and encouraging griefing of zombie characters, especially considering the main focus of the game and the main point of game -- surviving a zombie apocalypse -- is now being driven into extinction? Dangermouse 01:34, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Edit: And for those who want to argue that headshot should be in the game solely because it is in "genre", note that zombies firing guns are also "in genre" as per Day of the Dead. Poorly thoughtout skillsets motivated simply by a genre argument should not be the fundamental reason why a skill is included in the game; playability and balance for both sides should always drive inclusion of skills.--Dangermouse 01:34, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - All it does is grief zombies... -Darkshines

• Keep - While I'd like to see Headshot changed instead of axed, the balance is just too far off. We can bring Zombie Hunter skills back into the game when we need them.--Arathen 01:39, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Comment -- Exactly. Headshot can and SHOULD be replaced with something more useful for humans and less griefy for zombies, but that can be done AFTER it's removed. And it needs to be removed, very, very soon. While there are still zombies playing the game. furtim 04:58, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Keep - How 'bout it becomes a random even kind of thing? --ALIENwolve 01:40, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot is only used by griefing pussies, anyway. --Jorm 01:41, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Yarr! Better than just fixing it. Ye all get ye XP back, to spend on a nicer skill. I also move to have a "bake cookies" skill to replace headshot, and that the cookies can be shared with our zombie cousins in the spirit of BARHAHmas. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:41, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Let's get this stuff fixed. Jirtan 01:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - So... we encourage massive zerging on the part of players who want to keep their headshot by implicitly telling them to push new zombie accounts on the system every day so that they don't lose their skill. And then, we no longer have stats for zombie hunters, so the number of zombie hunters:zombies is now 0:whatever, and so... what, we can put headshot back in? Please don't take skills away. Make them acceptable skills by changing them instead, make them make sense in the game, but don't just take it away. --Shadowstar 01:51, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Not only what's said above, but as things stand right now, fear of getting Headshot is the only thing making zombie characters think twice about: sitting outside a building and accruing AP, attacking building/survivors, repeat; going human, getting infected and down to 1 HP, entering a building, rising for 1 AP, then going to town; other scenarios I can't think of off the top of my head. Zombies can heal and attack without needing equipment, track their attackers, talk, spend 1 AP to stand up, and you're complaining there's an element of risk in the game for those characters? Losing 10 XP per level is a small trade-off for the benefits from those abilities. --Amanda J 02:19, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • There are already over a thousand more hunters than there are zombies. You don't find it just a bit threatening to the whole game? --Fisu 02:22, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Look at the numbers. Few zombies ever get far enough to buy ankle grab. Complaining about 1 AP to stand up ignores that entirely. This idea that things will be thrown out of balance without headshot ignores entirely that things are ridiculously out of balance with it. --funkronomicon 02:37, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Small trade-off? Have you ever even played a zombie? 10xp per level above 1st adds up very quickly for anyone above level 5 or so. I'm currently losing 60xp per day, and recently deceased midlevel survivors have it even worse.--D4rk N00b 02:50, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • "Headshot is the only thing making zombie characters think twice about: sitting outside a building and accruing AP, attacking building/survivors, repeat..." Um, that IS what zombies do in movies, books and other media - they're single-minded creatures that, being undead, have infinite patience... -Empath 21:18, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I don't like the skill when playing a zombie, don't like it while playing a survivor. Let's tilt the balances back. --Fisu 01:57, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I have three survivors, and headshotting random zombies gives me no joy, nor does it add anything to the game from a survivor's standpoint. It is a major irritant to zombies, and actively discourages zombie players from continuing. The game has gone from "Zombie Apocalypse" to "Zombie Unpleasantness." Anything that gives the zeds a leg up, and makes them scarier again is a welcome change. As a first step towards beefing up the zeds, this is a great idea. no signature --Deathnut 07:28, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Down with headshot. - KingRaptor 02:11, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill Headshot gives zombies something to fear. If you remove headshot, what do zombies have to fear? Death? You knock them down and they pop right back up. They can keep up a siege forever because fewer of them would run away from the constant headshotting. AllStarZ 02:28, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • That's just it, though. Zombies *DON'T* fear headshot. Since at least 50% of all deaths are by headshot, they just *quit the damned game* rather than deal with it. The zombies that *humans* are afraid of are maxed out, so it does NOTHING to them. All the skill does is cut down on the number of zombies in the game because no one wants to deal with the tedium of trying to play one. --Jorm 02:46, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Headshot needs to be changed (I really really hate it that my zombie character has now twice gotten within 5-10 XP of leveling up so that he can actually have an attack with a hit percentage higher than 30% and then knocked down by headshots, so I now have to spend days and days trying to get him anywhere near being an effective fighter). But this is not the way. Removing a skill is not a good plan - it just needs to be changed. -- Ethan Frome 02:30, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Don't steal away skills from people who want to keep them just because it ticks you off. -- Amazing 02:36, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Did you ever try reading the suggestion before voting? You get back your 100xp, so nothing is being stolen.--D4rk N00b 02:38, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • But that's exactly what headshot does: steal skills from people who want to keep them. And the only reason some want it around is because they derive some sick pleasure from griefing people.--Jorm 02:49, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • ... Is Anyone allowed to reply to this according to author preference? If so, You are stealing a skill I want. Don't pretend I said something different because it suits you. If you aren't letting people have a free-for-all in your vote area by choice, just strike this out. -- Amazing 04:58, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - We need to redress the balance. -- Ben Disraeli 02:43, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Speaking as a survivor, I will never get this griefing skill, nor do I think anyone should have it - it was a desperate measure implemented to rebalance the game, but has only succeeded in driving people away from this game, and has created a WORSE imbalance. It'd be nice to 'modify' the skill into something more reasonable, but since no one can agree WHAT to change it to, it's better to take it out of the game first, then worry about setting up a replacement after you've stopped it from doing any more damage to the player-base. -Empath 02:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot is a game breaking skill, and has utterly ruined the game outside of horde play, where it is still a pain in the arse. --Grim s 02:58, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I'm all for getting rid of headshot, but something would have to fill the void. I didn't take headshot because I wanted to rob zombies of their hard-earned XP, I took it as a status symbol. It had requirements, and that made it more desirable; that I liked. The taking XP, not so much. --Arcos 03:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot is a game breaking skill. I would prefer if the skill was changed to something useful and not so painful to gameplay, but those suggestions always get shot down by human-only players. --Gromph 03:05, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -Who says the NAME Headshot can't be reused with a skill that works in the game better? But THIS version needs to be dumped.--Pesatyel 03:12, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Find another way to fix Headshot so it counters Ankle Grab without demolishing lower-level zeds. --VoidDragon 03:17, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -I've said it before, I'll say it again "Headshot blows."--Athos710 03:24, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - It is a myth that Headshot is a counter to Ankle Grab. Barricades -- which waste a zombie's AP -- are a counter to Ankle Grab. Headshot's not a counter to anything. It's a terrible idea that needs to go away. --Centerfire 03:54, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -I was one of the lucky ones. I started when the game first started. Both of my zombies were nearly maxed when Headshot was introduced, and have kept ahead of the XP game since the "new and improved" Headshot was incorporated. Oh, and that's just my zombies. My two maxed out humans (levels 30 and 21) don't have Headshot, and won't get them."--WitchDr13 03:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• SPAM - nurfs headshot --Deathnut 04:32, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • This is a completely unjustified, and also poorly spelled, spam vote. This suggestion is not advocating nerfing headshot, as numerous other suggestions have. This suggestion simply adovates its removal. Thus, it is not spam. Actually read the suggestion next time before spamming it with spam votes! If you don't like it, vote kill. -Kandarin 04:42, 19 Dec 2005
• Keep - This game is dying. This skill is killing it. --JediMastaYoda 04:34, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I have tried to get friends into this game as zombies, and they have abandoned their characters for survivors due to the perception of being griefed. I told them to play their survivors and to save up the XP and jump. The skill has broken the social implications of the game. The game will remain balanced without it. --ism 05:00, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I consider headshot to be even more griefing than the brainrotters sitting at revive points all day. --Hexedian 05:07, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Playing as a zombie, getting through the mid-levels were almost quit-worthy frustration. It is not something seen anywhere else in the game, and could be a cause of the huge current inbalance. Anything permanently removing XP or AP is just trouble. --Gnat23 05:35, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot, while originally a powerful zombie-discouraging tool in the hands of a few dedicated high level players, has proven to end up being completely unfair to zombies and destructive of the UD experience in general. All the arguments have already been stated. The verdict is clear: Get rid of it. Slicer 05:40, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Headshot needs changing, not removing entirely. Or, if it is removed, something should be immediately inserted to replace it. If you remove headshot, there will no longer be any reason for survivors to interact with zombies in any way besides running away. While this is certainly sound survivor strategy, it removes the opportunity for seiges, and would encourage extremely out of genre actions. there hasn't been a zombie movie yet where the survivors had no motivation to at least put up token resistance before fleeing. Rhialto 05:45, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill While I agree that headshot isn't the best implemented skill, it serves a vital purpose in the game of provideing zombies something to fear, otherwise survivors have no method of encourageing the zombies to go elsewhere. In responce to the "third party edit": in movies zombies also stay dead once killed and I, for one, personally concider headshot far better than permadeath. Rolland CW 05:48 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • - It doesn't appear to be doing anything about making zombies afraid. The only two reactions to headshot I see are grim resignation and, eventually, quitting the game entirely. --funkronomicon 06:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I was writing this suggestion today, and he beat me to it. You want head shot to be changed? Fine, change it. But while you sit here and debate a suitable replacement, we're losing zombie players by the boat load. Get rid of this god-awful 'skill.' - Calon 12:03, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill A very good case is made but ultimately I think maintaining the implied referrence of the skull (with a bullet hole) and cross bones symbol of the group I belong to is more important. Also headshot isn't about making zombies "afraid", rather it is about being able to slow them down (in terms of progression). Zombies in the Malton Mythos are much more powerful than zombies in any other zombie mythos. Seriously without headshot they would be like thousands of Jason Voorhees rather than the zombies from Night of the Living Dead. --Matthew-Stewart 06:05, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Headshot has slowed zombies down, in terms of progression, to the point where humans are sleeping openly in the streets. If that's the game you want to play, realize there won't be any Zeds. Enjoy your PK war. --funkronomicon 06:22, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Voting to keep a game breaking skill because your logo will need to change is the stupidest reason, ever. As it is, I don't see how a skull with a bullethole in it is invalidated by removing a skill. --Jorm 08:44, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep Headshot looks and sounds cool, but when you have a character waiting to be revivifed at a revivification centre and get headshot THREE TIMES, the skill becomes a bit, shall I say, #%&$ annoying. --Chineselegolas 06:34, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I was going to vote to have this changed, but screw it. Headshot sucks. In response to new Headshot - I think 5 AP is too much for starting zombies(i.e. 15 AP to stand up after Headshot is very steep), I say Headshot should be done away with altogether. --Schlagwerk 07:00, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - My survivor character doesn't even attack zombies any more because there's no way to unbuy headshot. It's a horrible skill that adds nothing to the game other than something for dickheads to crow about. Potatojunkie 07:19, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - The whole "zombies fear it" argument is a load of hooey! We don't fear it, we're just sick and tired of taking 2 steps forward and 1.99 steps back on a daily basis. You don't fear something that happens every. single. day. You just get sick of it, and tired, and then you walk away cause it just isn't any fun anymore.Kashara 07:33, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - If one really thinks, then all "kill" arguments are whining or invalid. I never understood why "don't mess with AP" (APs regenerate on their own, doesn't hurt to lose them, just wait) trumped "don't mess with XPs" (which have to earned, worked for ... it hurts to lose that).--Falk 07:39, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep: FINALLY, A GOOD REASON TO BUY HEADSHOT. But seriously, we need to have *more* skills, not fewer. So lets replace it with a new one we can all love to hate. =D --paincake
• Kill - I'm a bit confused to why you called this axe headshot where this doesn't have anything to do with axe's (unless I'm reading it wrong). Taking someones skill away is not good, and this could trigger just the second that someone was about to kill someone. It just doesn't seem fair. - Jedaz 08:15, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • This doesn't prevent you from killing your opponent. You, as a survivor, gain or lose nothing, really. It won't affect your combat abilities in the slightest.--Jorm 08:44, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I love it. Great suggestion. --Shaolinzombie 08:18, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - A truly innovative solution to a common problem. Kudos! --Graaaaaaagh 08:37, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot is broken. I recognize what it was put in to correct, but the solution did not scale over time. It simply punishes players and takes their rewards without any direct benefit to the player with the skill (except the knowlege that he has harmed the other player). --Unlife 08:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill -- But only for little niggling reasons. No headshot with axe, only firearms so you have to collect ammo, take the xp loss down to 5xp per level, only affects after lvl 5 then maybe i'll vote keep. Headshot is THE grief of the game, but it is also the only way to keep zeds down. humans only have one life as ahuman, then they need revive, but zeds are invincible. headshot is just way too much overkill, but it is kinda helpful. let the flaming begin. -- Andrew McM 09:17, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Zombies don't *need* keeping down. People are NO LONGER PLAYING THEM because of this skill. It doesn't matter if it's 10 xp or 1 xp per level: it's a grief skill, and only griefers use it. You wanted to keep the zombies down? You think headshot was the way to do it? Congratulations: you were right! Now we're quitting the game by the boatload, and the humans win and can play their little PKwar games! Yay! --Jorm 09:54, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Any argument I can make has already been stated by someone above. I can't get any friends to play new zombies in the game, a number of my old regular buddies have already left, survivors all complain about the dullness of this 'Zombie Apocalypse' and it is due to a skill only power-tripping griefers enjoy... --Keith Moon 10:53 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Get rid of this griefing skill, and something (ANYTHING) from the dozens of peer-reviewed survivor skills can take it's place. --WibbleBRAINS 13:31, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)EDIT: Change to Kill.Just read the new game news. Oh happy days, now the game can get back to being about survivors vs zombies, rather than PKers vs PKers.--WibbleBRAINS 13:45, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - This is necessary more than ever before --Daan 14:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I'm sure there are better solutions that this drastic one, and that the new Headshot is already a step forward, but phungus420 is right. Zombies shouldn't fear anything, and their number is decreasing from day to day. I want a damn Z apocalypse, not PK wars. --Seagull Flock 15:04, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Deleted previous entry: changed reason from before. Even with the change in headshot, it is still terrible that one skill in the game should make things so difficult for zombies to have fun playing. The change now will make things extremely rough on newbies and force people to go for ankle grab first, which means attack accuracy will be lower for longer, and make things rougher. I don't understand why, if headshot MUST exist, it can't do something like knock a zombie out of the building. Same XP, same AP, but you are pushed back. --Duranna 15:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot must be headshot...never to return... no signature --Deathnut 07:28, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot is a grief skill. Zombies have a hard enough time as it is. Zombies without ankle bite now have to use 15 AP to stand? Ridiculous. --Kirk 16:31, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot may have served a game-balancing purpose in the past. Now it's just a griefer skill whose death is long overdue. --DJRJ 16:49, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - The change in headshot has made it a much better skill for both zombies and survivors now. And yes, I play both zombie and survivor characters, and standing up for 5 or even 15 AP is going to be a hell of a lot better for me than losing more xp than I could accumulate in a single day's AP. Mrdbeau 19:23, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot=Griefing. New changes have just moved grief from lower level zombies to higher zombies. --Stare 19:50, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - It's the end of the game unless this happens. - CthulhuFhtagn 19:29, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT) (Code for signature hasn't been working right for me recently)
• Keep - Please Kevan. I love this game, but this is ruining it for me and all my zombie breathren. Don't make me want to leave. Darrik 21:08, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Keep, keep, keep! McSnatherson
• Kill Before anyone accuses me of being biased to one side, I must point out that while the new headshot affects newbies badly, they keep their XP, so even with the 15 AP standings, they won't be newbies for long before they start to level up and get ankle grab! People are complaining about headshot hurting elites now, however, that was kind of the POINT behind the change! Before it did nothing, which meant that elites would be almost unstoppable if enough of them were fighting! It was a useless griefing skill before, but now it only slows down the zombies instead of just griefing them!In fact, becuase it's no longer the griefing weapon it once was, my zombie no longer fears being stuck as a mid-level for eternity! This new headshot will only make a difference in sieges, and even then, zombies can still win as long as they overwhelm the survivors, which is easily done in swift sneak attacks! --Volke 21:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • never mind that being headshotted removes the AP needed to smash through a heavy barricade. Nor that zombies have to meta game complexly to get the level of organization needed to breach a defended building while humans can talk on phones and fire flares within the game to easily organize. Nor that humans can spam barricade a broken defense back up instantly, nor that any headway made by zombies can be rolled back by the human ability to clean out all bodies with ONE AP. But hell, the zombies can fix that with swift sneak attacks, FLANKED BY BLITZKRIEGS!--Stare 05:08, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Oh boo hoo, we must now take 6 AP to stand up instead of 1! I'm happy with this change because it means I don't have to remain a level 6 brean-eater forever! I can finally become among the zombie elite! Yes, I now have a max of 44 AP instead of 50, but I can easily cope with that since I only need about 30 to do what I need to do each day, the rest being used for infecting. Also, barricades have NOTHING to do with this! Barricades are to slow doen zombies, and if you don't like it, suggest removing barricades so that it's like it was back in the beginning! Metagaming has nothing to do with this either, as being sure that when standing up with full HP near the key locations can still be a well-used strategy against the "harmanz"! At most this affect sieges marginally, so it really won't make a difference in the end. However, I'll bite that it doesn't make sense that they can barricade without first closing doors, as that doesn't make sense to me. Dumping bodies is... Meh, inconvenience at best compared to the barricades. Lastly, having been in sieges like that, I'd say that they're quite effective, and only failed ONCE the entire game! Now really, there is no need to act that way, so please relax and think for a bit, because it sounds like you're treating headshot as if it affect XP as well as AP, which it thankfully does not! Look, I understand that you want headshot gone, and in a way so do I, but being able to make survivors waste syringes and being able to undo all 50/60 damage they do to us at the cost of a single AP isn't exactly fair to them, either. --Volke 08:21, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Keep Headshot, but in a modified way. What you are all overlooking is that headshot is supposed to be, like brain rot, one of those flavourful skills. It's there to add a colourful image to the game itself for the survivors as Brainrot does for zombies. The image is that the warrior has become so skilled or powerful in his continued and long drawn out fight with the zombie legions that he can quite literally hack off a zombies head. Thus the loss of experience in the past was a way of describing this action. However, it has been used and abused to the point of griefing against zombies. So Kevan modified it. No exp loss anymore, but a movement penalty instead. Now, this, whilst fine in principle is fundamentally going down the right path, but is damaging overall to new and experienced players alike. My suggestion is simple, and keeps both with the balance of the game as well as the flavour behind the skill of Headshot itself. Basically, if I could change the skill, a survivor would not cause experience loss to a zombie headshot, nor would the zombie lose AP from the mighty blow. However, the zombie would be stunned for a short period of say 2 hours where he spends the time regenerating his bone and sinews in his head and neck or whereby he fumbles around looking for and reattaching his head. The zombie neither loses experience, nor AP, but effectively is taken out of action for a short period of time. Now whilst you may all scream and dance about how unfair it is that you can't automatically stand back up to fight instantly, just think for a moment, overall, you as a zombie are not losing experience nor AP, just being delayed for a short period before you can attack again. Infact, you'd actually be gaining a hellava lot more under this system then any of the previous ones. So I say keep Headshot, modify it slightly and get on with the game as it stands. Squidgey 08:57, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT+11)
• Kill Something needs to be done about the zombie numbers, but I don't think removing headshot is the answer.--Homunculus
• Keep Before I would have said just nerf it, but not now. It definitely needs to be nerfed or killed, but considering the effects of nerfing it on the community it may be safer to just axe it and witness the definitely much smaller wrath of the hunters. --Brickman 01:37, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep Maybe "remove headshot" would be better English, but fact of the matter remains, my two characters, both zombies, have seen less and less playing time since the game turned from a MMORPG into a MUSH. --DirkDirkly 02:24, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill -the new headshot isn't yet a day old and already it is killing the game!! Zombies are so downtrodden. o NO what ever shall we do? ...How about we wait untill we actually SEE what the effects are? or is that too sane for the mayority?--Vista 02:29, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep Headshot is a serious annoyance. I don't fear it however. Zombies know no fear. Orihara 05:15, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep Time to get something done. no signature --Deathnut 07:21, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - I play both zombies and survivors. I find Headshot ineffective as a survivor and undaunting as a zombie. There's room for improvement, sure, just in the other direction. Any zombies found "striking" will be mocked, headshot, and sarcastic graffiti left on the wall behind them. This ain't your place of work, it's a game. --Jim Bubba 10:08, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - It is too powerful a skill when multiplied by a billion. Get rid of it. If you must, come up with something to replace it later on, but get rid of Headshot now. It's a game breaker. --Xaositect 02:07, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Riktar 03:29, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Having more Zombie Hunters then zombies is illogical and as I think has shown unbalances the game even more. This is a good step in the right direction and prods both sides to maintain the balance. --Paddy Fitzgerald 11:43, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Level the playing field. --Jack Destruct 22:39, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Axe the old Headshot, axe the new Headshot, axe all griefing skills. --Kanuri 22:45, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Personally I'd rather see it changed or something added to the zombie side instead, but the game needs to be fun for zombies. Since large numbers of zombies seem to be unable to deal with headshot existing axe it and move on. --Johnnymarrow 00:57, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Not only you have to spend 2 ap by step as a newbie, but also 15 ap to stand up every time you get killed. What's next? flamethrowers that do 25dmg and have 65% hitting chance?. --Locke.dragnarok 9:44, 23 Dec 2005
• Keep - Because it borks the game. -- Ruining 1402 Dec. 23, 2005 (EST)
• KEEP - love it --revoso 01:33, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - This or the nerf. Make it a random chance to deal 1 point of ap damage in addition to hp damage. Tereseth 9:31, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I agree.Headshot has weakened the zombie hordes. --Penance 17:06, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - When zombies are as outnumbered as they are now, there's obviously no need for Headshot. --Electrocutioner 13:39, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Headshot is, in my opinion, the product of trying to do too much at once. Kevan saw zombies were (at the time) overpowered in every area, so he nerfed them in every area. Problem was, that was too many nerfs at once--10 AP standups, barricades and headshots, perhaps even more since I wasn't there. While in the short term it was nice, in the end it has become clear that just one of those would have been enough. And as much backpedaling as he may try to do, it would be so much easier to remove headshot and do the work of five updates worth of updating for making the zombies happy. --Brickman 01:06, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

Brain Gain

Timestamp:	01:50, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Many people I heard of because of mess-ups in the mistake of buying brain rot. Because they do this, they have to suffer for the rest of the game (this especially applies to high level characters who wants to have all the skills and accedently buys this). When you use Brain Rot function, Brain Gain replaces the Brain Rot Skill and Vice-Versa. That was people who have messed up could have a chance to experience the land of the living once more instead of suffering the rest of the game as a zombie.

Votes

• Kill -- This is stupid. furtim 01:13, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - How can you accidentally buy a skill? --Basher 01:22, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Re - By clicking the Buy Skills page too quickly and indiscriminately, trying to scroll and accidentally clicking instead... in short, I've done it. e.e; It's a gigantic pain in the ass, too. --J Lurhstaap R 12:33, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Kill - I'm all for the warning, but we hope one day there will be skill subsets of brainrot, this would be impossible if this were implemented. A warning should be given though. phungus420 0125, 19DEC05 (GMT)
• Keep - I support losing skills by player choice, including headshot and brain rot. This would need a warning, just like the other brain rot should have one. --Shadowstar 01:54, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - I love this idea. --WitchDr13 02:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - There was another proposal, which gives a warning and confirmation request for brainrot (and other new skills which would cut off parts of the game). That would be far preferable to this, but this does seem to work, albeit sub-optimally. Rhialto 05:31, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - Skills which completely negate other skills are a BAD idea. If you dont want to be a zombie permenantly, DONT PICK BRAIN ROT. Its really quite simple. --Grim s 07:14, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - a warning given should be enough. If you're stupid enough to buy it and then still want to be revived, tough luck. Making brain rot reversible hurts the Necro too much--Vista 02:34, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Keep - people shouldn't be forced to be permanently dead if they chose to be brain-rotted and then changed their (rotted)minds later--Gheritt

---