Suggestions/22nd-Feb-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

VOTING ENDS: 8th-Mar-2006

Regional Reputation

Timestamp: 02:15, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Metagaming addition
Scope: Players with XP to spare
Description: A bit of fun for those who've acquired all UD skills and have XP left over.

The concept is simply that high-level players can bank their extra XP points to establish "regional reputation" around particular buildings in Malton. This conveys no in-game benefit; it simply allows groups to mark out a "home territory." The idea is that, the more work you do to defend (or, in the case of zombies, destroy) certain buildings, the more other inhabitants begin to associate your group with those buildings.

Here's how it works: any player, survivor or zombie, who has 100 or more XP enters a building and hits "Lay claim to this building." The cost is 100 XP per click. The banked XP is credited to the group listed in the player's profile screen -- if the player banking the XP lists "Fryerbank Irregulars" in his profile, then the Fryerbank Irregulars will be credited with a 100 XP "payment" toward claim of the building. Even if that same player changes his affiliation later on, the 100 XP payment will always be credited to the group under which it was initially made.

Multiple members of the same group can bank XP on a building, but no more than 1000 XP can be banked on any building in a 24-hour period. This is to keep the casual players from getting completely shut out.

Every building in Malton will be assigned a certain base amount in accordance with its value. A junkard might have a base amount of 8000 XP; a stadium might reach above 100,000 XP. Buildings with phone masts would be more valuable than those without. Multi-block buildings would be treated a whole -- any XP banked inside any square of a multi-square building is credited toward the claiming of the whole.

Once a group's total XP banked meets or exceeds the base amount, that group is considered to have a widely-recognized claim on the building. An owned building will simply add an extra line to its description which includes the group name. For example:

You are standing outside St Isidore's Church, a large white-stone building. Fryerbank Irregulars is cut neatly into the cornerstone.

Essentially, the regional reputation is displayed as a more permanent spraypaint message.

Even once claim is established, buildings can change hands. If another group manages to bank more XP on St Isidore's Church, the regional claim would be transferred to the group with the higher invested XP. Of course, the Fryerbank Irregulars can continue to bank XP on the church and try to maintain their claim.

Presumably the building claimants will work to maintain their property through the regular inspection of barricades, the fueling of generators and the cleaning of offensive graffiti. (Or, if the claimants are zombies, they'll work to keep their retreat safe from harman infestation.) Survivor groups may find it useful to turn claimed properties into full-service safehouses to keep a variety of survivors coming in and out -- thus making it less likely that any other group will set up shop and start banking counter-claims.

Votes

  1. Kill - Same process of a similar and bad idea. This is way too complex. --ALIENwolve 02:24, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It's pretty simple, really. You sink enough XP and your group claims the building. I'm just wordy. :) --John Ember 02:27, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - It looks fine to me, if you could link to the other suggestion ALIENwolve... --Agent 24601 02:31, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I just fail to see the point of these suggestions.--Mookiemookie 02:31, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It's fun and it doesn't hurt anybody. --John Ember 02:54, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I don't like the idea of ownership in a zombie apocalypse. I originally thought this was a dupe, but I see that you addressed several concerns and made some changes. It's not a bad idea, it's just not in genre --CPQD 03:06, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Right. And technically there's no ownership in this version. --John Ember 03:28, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill The way you build up a reputation is by building up a reputation. The Ridleybank Resistance Front is famous because zombies control Ridleybank, not because they plopped in and dropped 10,000xp. Caiger Mall Survivors is famous because they control Caiger Mall, not because they carved their name into the cornerstone. Channel 4 News is famous because of how attractive we are, not because we're particularly experienced or smart. --Jon Pyre 03:09, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - To be fair, you could say that the way to get better with firearms is to go to a shooting range. Games like UD assign numbers to all kinds of things that aren't quantifiable in real life; why not this? --John Ember 03:30, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Yeah, what everyone else said. --mikm W! 03:33, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Urbandead assign numbers to things in life that aren't reproducable in game. however all things in life that depends on human interaction is reproducable in game because there are no NPCs. If you want a regional reputation, your actions and your spraypaint will speak for themselves. people will learn to recognize and value you according to your worth. A XP sink with permanent graffity won't change that. the added value to people competing over buildings is something I just don't see. too artificial compared to what is already in game.--Vista 08:11, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - It's not a rep if people can see your claim and think "who?" And people talking about their Schwartz in spraypaint is bad enough, we don't need You are standing outside St Isidore's Church, a large white-stone building. An anatomically correct carving of your dad's nutz is cut neatly into the cornerstone. --Brett Day 11:16, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - If a group with that name can come up with the 1000s of XP and spend days banking it on St. Isidore's, I say more power to 'em. --John Ember 14:38, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I just spit up my drink reading Brett Day's comment! But I still think, "Why not?" - Nicks 14:21, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I actualy like the idea, but the suggestino doesnt work. theres no need to spend XP. wander aroudn the wiki some day and get a look at all the groups, you will find alot about the reputation of some players and groups, half the fun of playing UD for me is being part of DHPD , its not an "In game" mechanic, but it works and its the reason i play every day. So if you want reputation or to see it, look at some of the Spray Tags around the area, your bound to find out what groups are there, check out the group and join and take part. Thats my suggestion to players reading this. Have a nice day :) --Kirk Howell 14:41, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Spam - You forget the problem that if a zombie claims a building and survivors enter and barricade, they monopolize while others dive in and the zombie (with friends?) waste time attacking barricades. Besides that, I wouldn't want to waste 100+ XP so someone else can run in and claim it at any time anyway. I'd rather wait for some new skills in the far future. -Kraxxis 17:19, 22 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Zombies don't have to lower barricades to exit the building. I'm not sure what your point has to do with the suggestion. --John Ember 17:24, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Survivors can claim a building, barricade, and leave. Zombies don't get that advantage and so any survivor can simply walk in (even if it were barricaded!) and claim it anyway, while the zombie(s) have to work at the barricades to get back in. They don't have to leave, but if they want to earn XP then they have to at some point. -Kraxxis 17:41, 22 Feb 2006 (GMT)
        • Re - Seems like that simply encourages survivors to act like survivors and zombies to act like zombies. Yes, they have to break in first, but once inside they can bank up to 1000xp. Since survivors are under the same limit, it's not like barricading really affords survivors a major advantage in this competition. --John Ember 17:47, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
          • Re - Survivors just have to enter and over-claim, then barricade (even better if the place was already barricaded). Zombies have to break barricades, claim, then avoid being killed/dumped because they can't keep anyone out. Survivors being survivors and zombies being zombies is what keeps this suggestion flawed. Besides, who would even spend 8,000+ XP to claim a building, much less 100,000? -Kraxxis 18:04, 22 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Author vote. It's fun, it's easy to implement, it gives experienced players something else to do without penalizing anybody. What's not to like? --John Ember 17:24, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Dupe - This is practically identical to a couple of suggestions from a couple of weeks ago, except that the XP cost has been reduced from 120,000 per building to something more manageable. See here and here. Bentley Foss 18:15, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Bentley, one of those was my suggestion; this is my attempt to improve it based on the feedback I received. The differences are subtle but substantial: different metaphor, no PKing required, zombies have same opportunity as humans. --John Ember 18:37, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - I see what you are going for (and think you did well adjusting it for both sides and addressing concerns), but since you can already "claim" buildings with graffiti, I don't see this ever being accepted. Good trying to come up with things for people to spend extra XP on (once you max out in levels, it just sits there useless), but I'd rather see another way to spend it - maybe something with AP adjustment (I know, it's taboo - but Kevan does say in the FAQ that he is planning on doing it, but just hasn't found a good way yet). --Blahblahblah 20:24, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill 40% of people who play online games are immature morons. I will not stand for it if someone puts "MY GANG FUXX0RS YOUR MOM!" onto a building and I can't do shit to remove it. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go paint a barn (picks up box full of babies). AllStarZ 22:48, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill Implementation problems shouldn't be a valid suggestion killer, but to make your idea work, this game requires a registration system. At this point, you can just fill in anything you want in your group affiliation space. Though certain groups in UD are recognised, famous, feared, appreciated or otherwise, it's still not a part of the game mechanics. The titles and group names aren't protected, is how you can put it. In real life you need a badge to be a real cop. Or a valid passport to be verified as a citizen of a country! It all works because it's registered and widely accepted by many people. In UD this doesn't apply. Everyone is more or less volunteer of a group and pretending to be a member is childsplay. Besides, I'm not sure people feel like they need a registration system. And last but not least, one of the dead in the water type suggestions is that you don't try to link 2 or more suggestions together!! Suggest a registration system first, if you want to give this one the slightest chance of succeeding! --General Viper 11:26, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - It makes it so that group actually owns there Hq, or Hospitial, where they hear people, also this will attract attention to that group and possibly be a better way of Recruiting!--DicktheTech 17:05, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Good XP sink for the higher levels. Neet group idea. -- David Malfisto 15:49, 8 March 2006
    • Final Tally - 5 Keep, 11 Kill, 1 Spam, 1 Dupe - 20:33, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Corpse Loot

Timestamp: 9:01 22 Feb 2006
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: *Corpse Loot: You can loot a corpse of its properties.

Note: Zeds can't use this skill (anyone saw a Zed loot a corpse?)

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote.--Nam 09:11, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill This suggestion has many problems. Being incredibly vague is the first problem. would the corpse lose items? if so I'll change the vote to spam. What are the numbers on the looting? figure these things out and then resubmit. --Banana Bear4 09:07, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - No, no, no. You get me wrong. When you looted a corpse it's like looting a shop with the same percentage to find. The difference is that the range of item is what the corpse is holding. (So you can loot 5 portable generators out of a single portable generator holder, even if the holder only have 1 generator). The trick is you don't know if the corpse you are lotting has anything worthwhile or not. It encourages players to travel more (Zombies-adventage), to collect rare items even when you're in the street(Survivors-adventage) and encourage Zeds to throw all of their items away to avoid looting so the server has more space(Keven-adventages, yes, I do think about you, Kevan).
  3. Spam - Leave other peoples inventories alone! Read the suggestion do's and do nots. Edit: Now that you made it more clear, its still spam due to the massive abuse potential. Someone create an alt for a group, find a syringe, die, then have people loot syringes for 20% --Grim s 09:36, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - First, corpses look the same(so you don't know if you are looting the right corpse), don't talk (No hey, I'm here)and it's pretty funny for a survivor to say: "I'm gonna die, prepare to loot me". Second, you don't want to die(especially as a survivor, unless you are near a rev point). Third, you don't lose your item, you just become a street shop.
  4. Kill - Still too vague. Is the looting automatic when you kill the zed, or is it something you have to spend an AP doing? If it's automatic, free, and once-off when you kill a zed, then it's a free lunch. If it's something that costs AP ("searching the corpse"), it's infinitely worse than just trudging down to a resource point and looting for what you want (As you say, it's basically russian roulette as to whether the corpse in question even has anything you'd want. Basically, you'd get a crap load of flak jackets. Survivors barely need one of those, let alone a way of generating them at 20% find rate). --Brett Day 11:11, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - So you propose to have corpses that act as mini-malls where you can get 3-5 buildings worth of items in one spot? No.--Mookiemookie 12:47, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam - Please finish your suggestion before submitting it. This is also open to abuse, as Grim said. Using the metagame, it's quite easy to die/be killed by a friend, in a place with no other corpses (say in a barely-used building). It's not funny... it's disgustingly munchkin, but believe me, the players WILL do it.--McArrowni W! 13:05, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam What they said. --mikm W! 13:14, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Interesting idea, but way to ripe for abuse. - Nicks 14:23, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Not "Spam", but an easily abusable idea. For example, create one Zerg-clone, get a revive syringe, discard everything else, and then kill it. Poof - instant syringe factory, working 4x as well as a powered Necrotech building. --Norcross 14:24, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. SPAM _- OMG i actualy voted spam... ME. THis is called EVIL how evil is this? Mega Evil. your saying that when i die, in the 6-15 hours it takes me to get back in the game, that by that time every PKer /griefer. jerk will be able to take all the stuff i spent Months colecting. do you know how hard it is to find a crowbar and a fire axe and weapons GPS wire cutters, and everything else IF YOUR LOOKING FOR THEM..... I still dont have a Cell Phone. your telling me some F-tard is gonna be able to steal it from me? NO MESSING with Peoples Hard Earned Skills OR inventories, dont steal my XP dont steal my stuff, its hard enough getting a revive without 2 or 3 noobs killing you at the revive point, now yor saying those noobs will steal all my stuff spending 1 AP to get it in 1 minute instead of spending weeks to find it all? I here is a Suggestion for you, how about you stop playing UD altogether your obviously a PKer. --Kirk Howell 14:35, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I want to loot some dead bodies - I think that's delicious flavor. I'm assuming you intended it to be like junkyards, where you can find a plethora of items, but the % are so low for each respectively that you'll rarely find what you need. But you're suggestion doesn't address some points others bring up - and as you can have someone on your contacts list... find their body when they die and, as Grim s said - loot syringes (or even generators and fuel, etc) off them easier than manufacturing or searching in the items respective buildings, it's too easily abuse-able. --Blahblahblah 15:45, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Spam - Leave players' inventories alone! If I died in a mall, people would abuse the crap out of this and get MKII syringes! -Kraxxis 17:20, 22 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - Never touch another's inventory. Velkrin 18:12, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill -possible exploitation, #596. a Group of players drops one or an alt of their own with one syringe, one shell, one clip and one fak in their non-resource safe house. And they're set for life.--Vista 18:15, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - Wow. Let's see if we can violate suggestion guidelines as much as possible! Good job! Bentley Foss 18:17, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - This wouldnt be a bad idea if there were two additions: 1)The skill only works at the time the death blow is dealt. 2) There is a chance that the skill would NOT work, something like 20% chance of the skill working upon death blow of Zombie. Or maybe if you steal an item you dont get the XP for killing the Zombie. There are many ways that a "Stealing" skill could work and there are many ways that it could piss alot of people off. --Starsaver 18:31, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam I am in a bad mood. For every suggestion that gets a Spam from me today, I shall kill 5 babies. For every suggestion that gets a Kill from me today, I shall kill 1 baby. AllStarZ 22:36, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Spam - Way, way, WAY too vauge, and it apparantly creates items from nothingness. I'm tempted to join AllStarZ...--Arathen 03:04, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep — I have always wanted to loot a corpse of its properties. Maybe I can do that as a real life career. Here looks great!!! — Bartle 03:16, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill It's not a spam, because it's still original. But I must admit I laughed my ass off while reading about the abusive posibilities of your suggestion. But here's what you can do: Suggest something like a new skill. Something with the name of Heritage or Inherit. The name of the skill has an elegant but also respectfull feeling to it this way. Then make it fit in the Civilian or perhaps even Zombie Hunter category. If placed in the last one, you can make it lvl10+ before you can buy it. Or make it an extension of the Bargain hunt skill and thus only available after purchasing Shopping and Bargain hunt. Then, when you finish off a zombie (or human for PK'ing people), you have a random chance of actually looting the person you just killed. This chance will be just as high as finding something in resource buildings, with the difference that this search will occur only once. Nothing will be taken from the inventory of the killed person, but the looting person has a chance of finding one of the items that person is carrying around. When inheriting in a mall, the Bargain hunt skill won't apply. The text for Inheriting would be something like this: You hit the zombie for 5 hp. They die. The zombie (or player name) dropped his pistol clip (or other item). This is how I think your suggestion makes more chance. --General Viper 12:05, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)
  21. Spam - Too vague to be considered. --Brizth W! 11:55, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Spam - The awfulness of this suggestion is in line with a biblical plague. It's abusive, makes no sense, and is all around fucktarded. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:21, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  23. Spam - What game are we playing here anyway?--Jim Stevens 21:51, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally: 3 Keeps, 8 Kills, 12 Spams
  24. Spam - As it's so vague i'm just going to vote on the worst case senario (which is stealing items).--The General 13:00, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 3 Keeps, 8 Kills, and 13 Spams.--The General 13:02, 26 February 2006 (GMT)

Zombie Maul

Timestamp: 09:14, 22 February 06
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie
Description: A sub skill of Vigour Mortis.
    • Maul: Allow you (the Zombie) to have a new attack called Maul. This skill has the same percentage to hit as your Hand attack(so it receive improvement from Death Grip and Vigour Mortis as well). When hit, it increases the damage from both the next Bite or Hand attack.

Note:

  • It does stack. Hit it 1/2/3/4/5 times straight will increase the damage by 2/3/4/5/6 times. IT cannot exceed 5 times straight.
  • Its (stacked or single) effect last the first "real" attack you deal, no matter miss or hit, OR the first missed Maul(You mauled XYZ for increased damage, you miss), OR if you run out of AP, OR after 24 hours, OR if you change target or (both you or the target) move away, OR if you are killed, OR if you use it 6 times straight(You mauled XYZ for increased damage, now the counter will begins again).
  • Its increase damage DO get decreased by Flak jacket, giving them a use for survivors.
  • Survivors WILL get the message if a zombie is mauling them.(XYZ mauled you for increased damage)
  • A Zed, when mauling a human,(and hit), will get a message: You mauled XYZ for increased damage.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote.--Nam 09:20, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Zombies do not need to be more powerful - --ramby Talk 10:34, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Much, much too powerful. --Brett Day 11:19, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Overpowering --mikm W! 13:24, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - People, please do the math before voting. This is not overpowered, it DOES NOTHING! No more damage at all, less in fact. Even with bite, if you manage to maul first, the odds of succeeding twice in a row makes the damage the same, or less, much less if you factor in flak jacket. That said, IMO this is too complex anyways, even if it was fixed. Simplicity is good for a game. --McArrowni W! 13:29, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Yeah i did do the math. even if they hit 2 consecutive mauls that means every attack after that does 6 damage and if they manage to hit 5 mauls then every attack is 15 hello... anything that repetitive that does 15 is OverPOWERED! This idea might work if it didnt stack, even so zombies dont need to be more powerful expecaly after the new LAtch on and hit me 100 times in 30 seconds addition. No Zed Combat improvements until there is a survivor combat improvement. --Kirk Howell 14:28, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - As much as I'd love to hit 18 damage at 60% (with Tangling Grasp)... that's just a wee bit much. --John Ember 15:27, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - What he ^ said. And Kirk, if a zombie improvement skill goes into peer review (if it was a good idea, I'm not saying this one) - it doesn't mean Kevan is going to put in the game right away, or even at all. It's not cool/smart to kill what could be good ideas (again, not like this one) because a side 'doesn't need it right now'. You never know what's in the future for this game, and to do that to a good idea spoils it for the future (as it makes it a dupe if brought up again). --Blahblahblah 15:54, 22 February 2006 (GMT) Edit - I'm assuming you mean for it to stack on top of regular damage (as I am gleaming from the last sentence of your first paragraph) so it would be (2,3, or 4) x (2,3,4,5,6) which is ungodly powerful (max bite would be 24 damage/max claw would be 18, minus flax jacket effect - but you'd rarely ever get there because you'd probably already killed them with your previous stacked hits) - as opposed to a straight (1+2+3+4+5), which is useless, as pointed out by others. --Blahblahblah 18:50, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam - No base damage included in your description. If it were even 1 point of base damage, still, you can deal 6 damage per hit? Flak Jacket reduces to 5. Not only that, but Maul would totally override ALL other attacks because it does more damage than any other. EDIT: I did the math, 6 attacks with hand attacks (3x6) straight does 18 damage, Maul does exactly the same (1+2+3+4+5+6). Without tangling grasp, it's only 50% instead of 60%. Now it's just a skill to waste XP on. -Kraxxis 17: 29, 22 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -So basically it is claws with a lower HP/AP so it's less effective, who's going to use that? If you want to give zombies a new and interesting attack to use, make sure has a different place in their arsenal then excisting attacks. The place I used for Bile attack is still unused in the game. try to use that kind of numbers of High damage-low HP/AP and explain why you chose those. give people the math before hand.--Vista 17:52, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - So, if I read that correctly, you want zombies to be able to kill any survivor in six consecutive hits? 3+6+9+12+15+18 = 63 there, buddy. We don't need unstoppable killing machines, thanks. Bentley Foss 18:20, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill Zombies already are very proficient killers (blasts a baby with a SPAS-12). AllStarZ 22:38, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - Insanely overpowered. Ps: Piss off Tranhanam. --Grim s 23:36, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Spam - Inreperably flawed, and I barely even understand it.--Arathen 03:08, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - Please state your suggestion clearer. Show all the math and describe the benefits clearly. --Jim Stevens 22:00, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Nope, overpowered. And the Zombies have a maul already : Caiger. Or they will soon. Timid Dan 16:41, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - At first glance it looks horribly overpowered. At a closer look, it's completely worthless, since it only lasts for one attack, and if you miss with a maul you have to start all over. In fact, using mauling once and then attackin with claws halves your damage per AP. I didn't bother with anymore, but a quick estimate makes claw attacks worse and worse for every time you maul. - CthulhuFhtagn 18:43, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 10 Kill, 4 Spam - 20:31, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Are you Sure you want to drop it like it's hot?

Timestamp: 13:30, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Those with items
Description: Well, before I give the suggestion, let me tell a quick story on how this came to be, explaining why I want it.

I have many, many items. I went to drop one, but accidentaly selected the wrong one and dropped it. This item that I dropped happened to be my only Flak Jacket.

I propose that there is a new feature implemented that allows a user to be asked "Are you sure you want to drop this item?" after they click drop, just to verify it's correct. I'd say it should be a pop-up box with the "OK" and "Cancel" options. Who's with me?!

Votes

  1. Keep - Author --Zacharias Cross 13:35, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - No real harm or benefit. But I'd really like to see a "tick box" function for items that you wish to drop. i.e. Tick the items you wish to drop, then click "drop items". Don D Crummitt 13:38, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Or perhaps just make it imposible to drop useful items like flack jackets DNA extractor FUllY Loaded weapons FAKs. --Kirk Howell 14:22, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - This would be incredibly annoying when I need to drop several items in a row. Change it so the warning only applies to certain items and we'll talk. --John Ember 14:36, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I'm going to vote kill. On its current form, the implementation would be extremely annoying if implemented, as John Ember said. --Brizth W! 14:54, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. 'Keep - Would hurt much --Lord Evans W! 15:32, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - In the six months I've played the game, I have dropped thousands of items, without ever dropping the wrong one. Having to click an extra button for every single one of those items would have annoyed the hell out of me. --Dickie Fux 15:51, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - What he said ^, except I have accidentally dropped and item or two I didn't want to. Having to find that item again pales in comparison to having to click an extra button with every drop IMHO. --Blahblahblah 16:02, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - See above --CPQD 16:03, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Dont punish me for dropping newspapers. --Zaruthustra-Mod 17:13, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - The newspaper thing. Dropping takes too long already. Timid Dan 17:16, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -(editted) most people usually throw away so much stuff that this will hinder them more then it will help. Throwing away your only flackjacket is a pain (certainly if you are a brainrotted zombie) but for every mistake people make it goes right a thousand times. Luckely nowadays with revive for brainrotted zombies, all those mistakes can be fixed again. Sorry for my rather brusque first vote, but I had a long day at work. my apologies.--Vista 20:52, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill/Change - Give the players an option of turning the drop question on or off and you'll get a Keep from me, though I don't think it'd help. -Kraxxis 17:48, 22 Feb 2006 (GMT) invalid vote AllStarZ 22:39, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Change - What Kraxxis said. Monkeylord 21:22, 22 February 2006 (GMT) invalid vote AllStarZ 22:39, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill Dropping stuff is easy enough. And the great thing about UD is that every single item is relatively easy to get, so if you drop something accidentally, it doesn't matter. You can very easily get back an item (except in the case provided by Vista). Now back to the baby killing (takes out chainsaw). AllStarZ 22:57, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I think the half a second that it takes for someone to make one extra mouseclick is worth the APs saved by not having to re-find something you accidentally dropped.--Mookiemookie 23:00, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Half a second? Are we playing on the same Urban Dead server? ;) --John Ember 16:32, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - As a zombie, you really have no need to drop things (And do so at your own peril), and since everything is so easy to find, this isnt needed. Also, i am a strong believer in making people suffer the consequnces of their own clumsiness/stupidity. --Grim s 23:34, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Dropping the wrong item is annoying, but this isn't really needed.--Arathen 03:11, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - What does this do to the server? Twice as many server hits = Lag--Jim Stevens 22:04, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re "Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide."--Mookiemookie 05:22, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep I mean it asks when you BArricade if you want to barricade it to eHB, why not ask you if you want to drop that item you last dropped?--DicktheTech 17:22, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 6 Keep, 13 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:30, 26 May 2006 (BST)
    • Tally Guy Note - I included Kraxxis' vote because: 1. All AllStarZ is not a mod so he can't invalidate a properly signed/dated vote and, 2. Only the Change part of that vote is invalid, the kill part is fine. Velkrin 20:30, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Unloading Shotguns

Timestamp: 15:47, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Shotguns
Description: Ever been in the situation of searching for weapons and ending up with half dozen half-loaded ones? While for pistols it isn't that much bad, for shotguns it's pain in the back.

Unloading shotguns: Using a loaded shotgun in your inventory unloads it, costing you 1 AP.

How it works:

  • Gives you you as many shells as were inside
  • The shotgun is automatically discarded.

Flavor text: You remove the ammunition from your shotgun and discard the empty weapon

(Split from my author-killed suggestion)

Votes

  1. Keep - Yeah. --Blahblahblah 16:03, 22 February 2006 (GMT) Edit - It would assist people with their inventory management. Taking a shell out of a 1/2 loaded shotgun makes the shell only take up 1 space instead of 2. I'd trade the AP for inventory conservation before setting off on a hunting trip, etc. It is useful.--Blahblahblah 18:27, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - yup --CPQD 16:06, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I'd be too concerned that an accidental click might lose me a shotgun I'd want to keep. I'd rather vote Keep on a click on a loaded weapon that unloads it only. Timid Dan 17:10, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: If this suggestion gets Killed, I'll think of an improved version - possibly with something like you suggested.--The Fifth Horseman 18:26, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - don't forget the # sign on your Re's. It resets the vote count if you don't include it. I've fixed the ones you did already. --Blahblahblah 18:30, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -Useless, just shoot it a zombie and drop it. better HP/AP that way and less fuss. Unloading a shotgun is just a waste of AP for no gain, you're better of just searching for another slugg to fill it up.--Vista 17:37, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: Very few players might so thoughtlessly give up the AP spent searching for the shotguns and shells as you have suggested.
    And further searches won't work if you've just managed to get your inventory filled - which can happen when preparing for longer runs. Also, see below.--The Fifth Horseman 18:26, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • thoughtlessly giving up AP? Actually your suggestion takes more AP then mine. My way of playing cost a bit more inventory space (not much, 3 to 4 spaces max) but less AP. you see you don't want shotguns for long runs you want Pistols for long runs, they use less space, have a better HP/AP ratio. Pistols are superior in all statistics that matter if you're out in the field for a long time. In order to be effective you need to know that during a run if you're going to be in a forced siege where you yourself both have to barricade and kill any incoming zombies. If not you use up all your shotgun ammo and shotguns before hand because they are near useless if you’re not in the aforementioned siege situation. But if you are you conserve them like they are worth their weight in gold. You don't throw them away. Because you need a reserve loading capacity for if you come across a shell. (More change of that then finding another shotgun) loose shells cost too much AP to load to be useful in any situation but absolute safety. And seriously if you use your inventory with prudence you can stock up to run the Iditarod twice without problems. This just isn't necessary or even helpful. I just never grasped why people are so obsessed about shotguns, they're ineffective weapons that have only one limited use.--Vista 21:08, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Since the game automatically shoots whichever gun has ammo, I don't see the point of cluttering up the interface with another pulldown. --John Ember 17:42, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: Shotgun(2), Shotgun(2), Shotgun(1), Shotgun(1), Shotgun(2). The game fires the first one in queque, not the one with least ammo. In this situation, you'd have to keep searching for shells to load these two half-filled shotguns. With my suggestion, you'd just unload one of them and load the shell into the other. --The Fifth Horseman 18:26, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - My point is there's no penalty for holding a half-loaded or unloaded shotgun. As long as you have a shotgun to fire, you'll fire it. --John Ember 20:34, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Whilst it's barely ever needed, it sounds natural --McArrowni W! 18:17, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Just because inventory management is part of the tradeoff for the power of firearms. Bentley Foss 18:23, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Excellent, well done. This is indeed needed, especially for those trying to stay fully stocked at the head of a seige... --Reverend Loki 19:01, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Not needed and a waste of AP. --Grim s 23:25, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Shoot it, drop it, call it a day and be thankful it came half loaded, saving you the AP would have taken to load it.--Mookiemookie 02:22, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I don't like the automatically drops the shotgun part.--Pesatyel 09:47, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE: Well, it's assumed that you remove the ammo from one shotgun to load it into another... what would you want to keep an empty shotgun for? --The Fifth Horseman 15:44, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I like it, this makes it so i can get ammo without a free shotgun.--Broton 22:17, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. keep - Shotguns do take up to slots loaded or unloaded, and I'd rather have shells than 7 half loaded shotguns!--DicktheTech 17:26, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 6 Keep, 7 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:27, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Shell Boxes

Timestamp: 15:47, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Shotgun Shells
Description: It's kind of ridiculous to me that the shotgun shells are stored one per inventory slot or two in a loaded shotgun - which takes exactly as much space. Also, who in their right mind would "store" each shell individually, when they can be chucked into a collective storage box?

So, that's my idea how to deal with that.

Shell boxes: A new item that can be found in any place where standard shotguns & shells can be found. This has a low chance of being found, about one per hundred normal ammo finds.

  • Comes with 0-3 shells inside, has capacity of 25 shells per box.
  • Maximum of 1 per person, any subsequent finds are automatically replaced with 1 shotgun shell shell.

How it works:

Loading:

  • When you have a partially empty shell box in your inventory and all your shotguns are full, using a shotgun shell "loads" it into the box.
  • If both the shotguns and the shell box are full, the shell remains in the inventory.

Flavor text (Shell stored): You store the shell in your ammo box for later use

Flavor text (Box full): You try to put the shell in your ammo box, but cannot find place for it

Unloading:

  • When you have a partially emptied shotgun and use the box, one shell is removed from the box and placed into that shotgun.
  • If all your shotguns are full, nothing occurs and no AP are used.
  • Shell boxes cannot be unloaded, only discarded.

Flavor text (Shell loaded): You draw a shell from the box and insert it into your shotgun

Flavor text (All shotguns full): All your shotguns are fully loaded

I know, this allows survivors to store much more shotgun shells then now. However, isn't it bloody ridiculous to run around with 17 loaded shotguns?

The maximum 25 shells per box and one box per person is there to limit abuse, and the only real benefit here is that people can load up on shotgun ammo for extended runs without totally cluttering their inventory. As loading a shell from a box costs 1 AP further in total then loading the shell from your inventory, it is not as "free" as it might seem.

Remember also, that the only real benefit here is storing more ammo - it doesn't help with searching it. You will have to spend more time searching to load up fully on shells.

Thus, all it does is giving you a bit more time between supply runs.

(Split from my author-killed suggestion and slightly adjusted)

Votes

  1. Kill - Honestly, I don't mind the idea of a shell box. However, I think 25 is too high inventory saving. Would go with something like one box of 10 - or multiple boxes of 5ish, as the 1 AP per shell to store it would help balance it - but 25 is too much reward for too little effort. --Blahblahblah 16:08, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - much improved over the original. --Arcibi 16:35, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - You've conspicuously left out how many "blocks" the box takes up in inventory, but I suspect it's only one. (FYI, shells take one each and shotguns take two.) Going from 25 inventory blocks to one is too drastic. While I like the idea of tidying the inventory interface, and this could work for that, the total carrying capacity shouldn't be increased much if at all. If you specified that the shell box takes up the same amount of inventory as all the shells would separately, I think this would be fine. Also, the reason folks carry so many shotguns is so that we can burn our reloading AP when we're in a safe location. The way to simplify the inventory without altering the mechanic there is the previously-mentioned (and peer-approved) Combat Shotgun suggesstion. --John Ember 17:05, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE:A box takes two slots, just like a shotgun would.--The Fifth Horseman 18:32, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Comment: - use #* instead of :*, for proper formatting. --Reverend Loki 19:06, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill The shotgun is basically a big old AP battery. It exists to concentrate days of AP into a few seconds. But this goes too far. You can't just let people store 25 shells for the next caiger siege. --Zaruthustra-Mod 17:11, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill While I agree that carrying 17 shotguns is ridiculous, this isn't a solution for it. People would just carry 17 shotguns and a box of shells Timid Dan 17:14, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill due to the fact that you have to waste so much AP filling/using the box, the only people ever going to use it are the people stupid enough to carry 17 shotguns. because they are the only one that need that amound of ammo--Vista 17:40, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Because it's a waste of AP, and unique one-per-person items aren't something we need to introduce, in my opinion. Otherwise, see my comments on the previous version of this suggestion. Bentley Foss 18:24, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - This would allow a properly prepared hunter to spend months w/o having to restock ammo - this kills balance. --Reverend Loki 19:06, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - Months? If a player is actively hunting and relies heavily on shotguns, he'll use up all the content of the box within two to three days after he ran out of already loaded shells. And that's because it'll take him 25 further AP to load them into his weapons. Also, don't forget that he'll spend three to four days longer restocking on ammo afterwards.--The Fifth Horseman 13:04, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - This isnt a bad suggestion but I think that it should be handled a differant way. Maybe instead of keeping the item in your inventory, you would use it on a shotgun and the item would up the ammo that the shotgun holds. --Starsaver 19:49, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill We already carry an improbably large ammount of items. This isn't helping. (Throws a baby into a river). AllStarZ 23:00, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Increasing human ammo capacity is a bad idea. --Grim s 23:30, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill Overpowered really.. --General Viper 12:22, Feb 23 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill I like the idea, as I like ideas that support managing your inventory, but I think it can use some changes. First I would suggest a cosmetic change like renaming it from Shell Box to Shotgun Ammo Belt. I just can't see people running around with a box of shells. Second, 25 shells is too much. I think that a 12-16 shell capacity would probably be more balanced, but I agree players should only be allowed 1 belt max to limit over-storage. I do have a question, when a "Shotgun Shell" is selected and the player's shotguns are all loaded, does it cost an AP to store it in the belt/box? I'm hoping it doesn't and that only selecting the belt/box item to load a shotgun should cost AP. Those are my thoughts on the matter. --Mobius187 11:22 AM, 24 February 2006 (EST)
  14. Kill Reduce the capacity. Also trying to add a shell to an already full belt or shotgun should cost 1 AP. This would be like grabbing the round and opening the shotgun only to find that it is still loaded. At this point to put the shell back and close up the gun again takes the same effort as shoving it into the shotgun if it were un-loaded.--Jim Stevens 23:08, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill Great idea, but only if the box took up 25 slots, which then it would be a hellva idea!--DicktheTech 17:32, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 14 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:26, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Item Seeding

Timestamp: 17:19, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement to search and drop functionality
Scope: Mostly survivors, but zombies play a part too
Description: We know that Kevan is reluctant to introduce item trading, and for good reason. At the same time, though, wouldn't it be great if you could donate your unneeded inventory to help out the less fortunate? I believe this suggestion could make that possible without breaking the game.

The idea is that dropping an item in an area slightly increases the chance of finding that item in that area, within certain boundaries.

Take the hypothetical Arms building with around 1% chance of finding a shotgun in a search. I propose that every time a survivor drops an unneeded shotgun inside that Arms, the search percentage be incremented by 1%. However, there would be a cap on the increase -- say, 10% max. At the same time, every time a survivor successfully finds a shotgun inside the building, the percentage is knocked back down by 1% -- until the minimum search rate is reached. There would thus never be a 100% or 0% chance of finding any item, but survivors would be able to "seed" buildings with their unwanted inventory in order to assist other survivors.

I don't think this would help zergs overmuch, as losing an item to only slightly increase the chances of finding that same item is not an especially attractive collusion strategy. Really, it just allows survivors to be a bit more generous with their accumulated wealth.

Votes

  1. Kill - End product: Constant +10% to newspapers, and about +.1% to finding useful items. --Zaruthustra-Mod 18:01, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - However, if this were implemented, you'd probably see players get more strategic about dropping items. They might start dumping their newspapers in empty streets and unneeded firearms in police stations. --John Ember 18:14, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill -I echo Zaruthustra, but with a very small add to it, I drop a lot of empty shotguns and pistols. But you find them fully or partially loaded. Either you blow up the server checking the status of whats dropped or it end up inconsistant.--Vista 18:07, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - You're not picking up the same shotgun. It's just a bigger pile overall. --John Ember 18:14, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
    • It does have some interesting mechanics, helping people indiscriminatly, not knowing the beneviciary or the helper, etc. But I do think the search rates are fine as it is. and for picking up from a bigger pile... It's a bigger pile but with more empty shotguns... You drop more empty shotguns in a pile, and consequently the changes of finding a loaded one goes up?.. I would love it it that happend in real life with bottles of booze. (I know, I know, arguing realism, but still...)--Vista 21:33, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Author vote. Another way for survivors to help each other out without making it ridiculously easy to find items. --John Ember 18:16, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Survivors can find items at a pretty well-balanced rate right now. It doesn't need to be changed. Bentley Foss 18:25, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I see what you are going for, and it seems well intended - but it would wind up as Zaruthustra pointed out. People as a whole are not going to think that far in advance to go outside and drop their crap items - and I know oft times I find myself at a point where I only have a few slots available and have to toss unneeded items as I come across them (and would not spend the AP to leave the building, drop the item(s), and come back to repeat the cycle). --Blahblahblah 18:42, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Zombie spy tactic: search books on library (100% per search), drop on NT building. Books found in nt building +10%. --hagnat talk 22:17, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Would screw up hospitals for players, same deal with police departments (ARGH! ANOTHER FLAK JACKET!!) --Grim s 23:28, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Seems unpractical, and partialy hardly believeable (guns reload themselves when you are not looking, just for being in a pile, wtf?). You can't make it add search to good items too much, or some places are going to get too good. And if you don't, most places will have more unorganized people than organized ones. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. Not to mention zombie spies, obv. --McArrowni W! 03:19, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - First, I find too many of those useless papers as is, and this would just make finding them ever more "fun". Second, I can smell the server's smoke allready.--Broton 22:21, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Due to the ammo problem described above.--Jim Stevens 22:55, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill- It makes sense, but if some1 isn't dropping this crap, then when every1 else gets it and use it , where does it go? Back to the fround when we discard it, the search system makes sense already, don't try to fix something that all ready works!--DicktheTech 17:37, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:26, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Syringe Manufacture

Timestamp: 17:43, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: The NecroNet Access Skill
Description: Right now the necroNet skill allows you to manufacture a syringe for 20 AP- I AM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THIS! The problem is that this action also counts as 20 IP hits on the Urban Dead server. This can cause players who share internet access (and thus rely on the IP warnings) to run out of actions without any notice. It also discourages players from using a skill that actually limits the number of IP hits on the UD server. (i.e. 1 hit to manufacture a syringe compared to however many hits on the server it will take to find a syringe)

Votes

  1. Kill - If you don't want the IP hits just use search. You get more syringes that way too. the 20 hits are in place to prevent people from having a fifthy odd characters stocking up on syringes. It a small problem, yes. but the 20 IP hits are also just a small problem. not worth to risking that one griefer with to much time actually does just that. just suck it up and search, it's not the end of the world.--Vista 18:02, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - It's an anti-zerging measure, don't mess with it. Donate the $5 if you need to get the limit lifted. --John Ember 18:08, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - What the two above me said. Velkrin 18:09, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Anti-zerg measure as John Ember said. -Kraxxis 18:19, 22 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - What they said. Bentley Foss 18:26, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - John Ember called it. --Blahblahblah 18:44, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - What they all said. --Dickie Fux 21:08, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam - Removing an anti-zerg measure = spam --Grim s 23:26, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam - What grim said--Mookiemookie 02:45, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Don't want to spent 20 AP? Don't click the button! (Sheesh.) --Gene 03:50, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - $5.00 is so much. MaulMachine 03:56, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Yup, without those 20 hits people would just create dummy accounts with the sole purpose of abusing the 20 AP manufacture action, and yes, spending 20 AP on searching often does yield more syringes anyways. The current anti-zerging rules make sense. --Mobius187 11:40 AM, 24 February 2006 (EST)
  13. Kill - This is one of the best games online and $5 is just too much to spend after enjoying your character enough to level them as far as manufacturing syringes ... shameful --Dunnigan Taggart 06:35, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Totally dumb idea!--DicktheTech 17:40, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 12 Kill, 2 Spam - 20:26, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Drop it Like it's Hot 2

Suggestion removed due to lack of template usage

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/22nd-Feb-2006&oldid=263993"