Suggestions/24th-Jan-2007

Closed Suggestions

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

They've Breached the Defenses!

Timestamp:	Bassander 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Balance change with barricades
Scope:	Attempting to use construction with standing zombies present.
Description:	It seems a major concern with many players is the effectiveness of barricades. Many feel the zombie players are leaving the game because of their inability to do much due to the difficulty in removing barricades. Therefore, I suggest a small change to barricades—if a zombie is standing inside of a building, it is more difficult to nail boards across the breach, shove the stove in front of the door frame, etc. while he is there to threaten survivors. Game wise, this would increase the failure chance for the Construction skill by 25%. From no barricades to very strongly barricaded, it would now have a chance to fail if any zombies are inside of the location. For the various levels of heavy barricaded, the failure rate with a standing zombie would increase by 25%, making It extremely difficult to bring up the barricade levels. Why is this necessary? Currently, it is quite difficult for zombies to make very much headway with active barricaders. The defense mantra is “Barricade, heal, kill, dump.” Most realize that zombies which do finally breach a building aren’t really much of a threat, because they have spent their day’s worth of AP pounding on the barricades. But with this modification, there would be a small reward for a zombie who breached the building, making it easier for the horde to enter until he is removed (Because the defenders will have more trouble repairing the hole.) This would make the skills feeding groan and drag a bit more effective; feeding groans generally lead to a bricked up wall, despite the fact that there may by 10 to 20 zombies inside the survivors can chip away at over the next day with impunity now that the barricades are up. Feeding drag would also be slightly more effective, because an active zombie wouldn’t be “blocked” as easily because someone is barricading while he is chewing on people. This might give zombies who successfully breach a building a bit more sense of satisfaction in merely getting in, which is now just frustrating with very little to show for it. Undead standing outdoors have no effect on barricading difficulty.

Keep Votes

1. Keep Author vote -- A small change, but one that might make things a bit more interesting in Malton and keep zombies more interested in the game. --Bassander 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep What the hell. Although i seem to recall there's a PR one kind of like this already, something about holding the door?...--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep Makes sense. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Come on, it's only 1 AP lost for every 4 barricade levels made. Just spend another AP again.--ShadowScope 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
5. This seems like a reasonable type of change to make. --ExplodingFerret 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep I like it. --Murray Jay 10:10 24 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep Makes sense. 25% really isn't that much considering how many survivors are usually in a building. Just makes it harder for individuals to barricade really. --Ashadoa 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep You guys below are viewing large-scale co-ordinated strikes by zeds as the norm, when in fact they are the exception. Shacknews is the only horde thats really been able to pull it off so far, they are gone now. As it is now a group of survivors can easily hold back a horde of twice their number, for days even months. Its totally believable that barricading would be harder with a standing zed inside the building looking at you. ZombieCrack 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - I think you're assuming that barricade odds are 100% when below VS (which isn't true, it's just that barricade odds decrease for each level of barricades currently up, leaving secured buildings at practically 100%). Nevertheless, this is needed. Zombies are far too weak, because it is impossible for zombies to consistently breach an EHB building in an even battle (equal numbers, timing, and metagaming), since it takes 68 AP (more than a day's worth) to do it, and any damage they do will be reversed before they can continue. The ONLY reason zombies ever win is because they are extremely good at meta-gaming and attack en masse when survivors aren't on. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - Another step in the right direction. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 21:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep - Nice...and I play a survivor! - Nicks 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - I play survivor and zombie. I don;t understand most of the kill voters... they appear to be playing a different game to me --Gene Splicer 11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - It makes a great deal of sense. When Survivors put back up the barricades it really does neuter feeding drag, which could really help the newer low level zombies. --ZombieChow47 02:44 31 Janurary 2007 (GMT)
14. Keep - Nothing Is Free Your zombie has to make it inside, to screw up the defenders inside from barricading. Note: The only survivors this really affects are active ones and you are still free to deal with the problem.. with your high damage firearms and so on and so forth. That's very cool. True seige tactics, get in, stay standing... if you can.MrAushvitz 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Keep - Why bother trying to keep zombies out if there already inside? -Downinflames 05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Don't get me wrong, I think you should make playing zombies more fun, but don't nerf survivors to do it. If people are quitting because they think zombies can't do anything, well, the recent inability of survivors to actually hold buildings should demonstrate that they are wrong.--J Muller 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2. I don't think this is a dupe, but this is better.--Pesatyel 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill Two zombies can break down any level of barricades. Just two, paving the way for all the rest. It's hard enough to defend against an organized horde busting into your building all at once. Survivors have to clear out a building before they can repair ransack. Zombies have to clear out a building before they can prevent barricading. That seems balanced. --Jon Pyre 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Conversely, just one survivor is able to raise barricade levels back to extremely heavily. Secondly, your scenario most likely assumes the zombies have the two skills Vigor Mortis and Death Grip, while the survivor merely needs the one skill 'Construction'. I don't see parity here, sorry.--Bassander 03:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Re Aye, but for every zombie that breaks in you need to have survivors with military skills to repel them. It's all a matter of timing really. Breaking through barricades isn't easy, and deliberately. A good defense is there to balance out that zombies are invincible. --Jon Pyre 07:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Or, they can run to another barricaded building anytime between the breach and tomorrow. This change is not meant to completely defeat survivor's ability to barricade; merely slow it down some. If a survivor wants to bring a recently breached building back to extremely heavily barricaded, he's going to have to waste a lot of AP to do so. I'd assume the game would evolve so that, with a few failures, survivors would bring the building to QSB or VSB, have to deal with the zombies inside, and then to extremely heavily barricaded. I think forcing survivors to have to actually deal with zombies who make it inside is fair enough, considering the huge expenditure of AP they need to do to get inside.--Bassander 6:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Kill - No, not unless survivors get a new skill that increases barricade construction success rate back to normal. --Wikidead 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - this is overpowered to fuck. Take it to the discussion page to sort out the numbers. Nerfing barricades is not the answer to game balance. And I'm sick of hearing how upset the zombies are. Poor ickle zombies. They kicked arse with the big bash and the fall of caigar - where exactly is this lack of ability I keep hearing about? --Funt Solo 08:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - That's the whole point of ransack, isn't it? - BzAli 13:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - No! Playing as a survivor is already hard enough. By making it harder it won't make more players become zeds. --Abi79 ^AB 14:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
8. From no cades to VSB? What the hell? You'll just make the survivors desert the game since this will most likely affect the newbies. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 15:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - How would zombies outside halt the barricading process? If anything, the chance of barricading would be increased when survivors see a zombie outside. This is a major nerf.Waluigi Freak 99 15:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   And your vote goes against exactly what is in the suggestion. "Undead standing outdoors have no effect on barricading difficulty." Only undead which have entered the building would have any effect on survivors inside the site trying to barricade it.--Bassander 6:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

10. Kill - I don't believe this is a good method based primarily on the ransack ability. It seems balanced enough as it is, in my opinion. SuperMario24 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Kill - I think this is a great idea, however because of the heavy game mechanic tweaking, this would have merited a place on the suggestion talk page first methinks. A little discussion is necessary to clear a few things up. And what is with all of the "oh, I'm a survivor and it's soooo harrrrd!!!"? Bullshit. Survivors have it easier than zombies. If it was so hard, how come there is around 65% survivor ratio? (sorry for going a little off-topic) --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Kill- Don't mess with cades man. I'm sure there are other ways to help zeds.--Grigori 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Kill Failure chances are high enough as they are. also the game is unbalanced towards zombies. and "barricade, heal, then shoot" dosen't work if even one zombie which got inside has ransack. --AlexanderRM 8:16 PM, 24 January 2007 (EST)

    "Failure chances are high enough as they are"? 0% chance of failure for most barricade attempts is too much as it is? Lollercoaster.--Bassander 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Re: -obviously you have never tried to build up a barricade that is vhb or above. failure chances may be o% for low ones but they jump later. If this was an across-the-board cut for only EHB or above i'd support because that way i't finally be able to keep up with those greifing idiots in milverton instead of blowing all my AP to bring it to eh just to find it at ehb in the morning. --AlexanderRM 8:30 PM, 26 January 2007 (EST)

14. Kill if barricades can't ever hold, there's no point to having buildings at all. You may as well make it a zed against zed game at that point. Dst3313 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

1. Zombies On A Train - Leave Barricades Alone. Says it all, really. --Sgt. John Taggart^{UNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ!} 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   "Avoid suggestions that excessively weaken barricades or allow zombies to bypass them entirely" this change does not fit into either of those categories ZombieCrack 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   [non-author re struck --Funt Solo 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)]

---

Zombie Instinct: Newbie Tips

Pulled for revision. Voters thought the AP cost should be in line with newspapers. --Jon Pyre 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Zombie Instinct: Newbie Tips (Revised)

Timestamp:	--Jon Pyre 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Newbie Zombies
Description:	Newspapers were just made more useful for survivors by providing newbies with tips. Howabout something similar for newbie zombies? I suggest giving all zombies an "Instinct" button. Clicking it costs the same amount of AP as reading a newspaper and provides a random hint for the zombie. Here are samples of what some of the hints might be like: "You feel that going after groans might result in a meal" "You don't yet know how to open doors. Hanging around other zombies may increase your chances of getting in a building." "You sense that staying inside a ransacked building will prevent it from being barricaded, but prevent you from hearing groans." ...and more! Taking Memories of Life would get rid of the instinct button. The zombie is relying more on their intellect and less on instinct, and also by that point a player really shouldn't need the instinct hints anymore and would appreciate a less cluttered interface now that they'll be picking up skills like Flailing Gesture and Scent Death that add on new buttons. This should be pretty simple to add and may help some newbies early in the game.

Keep Votes

1. Author New version with a tiny change. I personally think this and newspapers should be free, so this way if newspapers are made cheaper this could be too. --Jon Pyre 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - With the AP-cost set to 1, I'm all for. - BzAli 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
3. No problems now. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep This should help newer zeds a little... --Slayerofmuffins 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - It sounds acceptable to me, but could you give an example of more tips? -- 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
   • Re Hmm..."Lit buildings seem particularly likely to hold prey". "You notice there are seven levels of barricades: Extremely Heavy, Very Heavy, Heavy, Very Strong, Quite Strong, Light, Loose. Breaking the more powerful ones may require more than one zombie to cooperate." They'd all be pretty obvious stuff but if you're new it might not be so obvious. --Jon Pyre 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - I still think it should be available after MOL (just for interest), but the AP change is enough for Keep - nice idea. Balances things out. --Funt Solo 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - Now this is a good pro-zombie idea, unlike that piece of spam up above. --Sgt. John Taggart^{UNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ!} 17:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep - Better late than never. Though really, both this and newspapers should contain the advice "read the damn wiki info, that's what it's there for." --Swiers ^X:00 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - Sounds good. Helping newbs is always a good idea. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - This seems perfectly reasonable and well thought out. Although there might be accidental clicking of instinct, it balances against the fact that survivor newbies must first find a newspaper. SuperMario24 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep - Very reasonable and very fair. I like it. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - As above. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep- Great idea, would really help out early zeds, I think.--Grigori 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep - nice, but is true, the best hint you can give a newbie is "go to the wiky"--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Keep - Nice, more Newbie help!--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Keep - Just like last time I voted on this. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Keep - Yes. --Dead Man Wade 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Keep - Being a low level zombie is really hard. This should help things a bit.--Lachryma^☭ 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Keep - Because zombies don't read the paper. It would be funny if they did, though. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    Keep - It's always a good idea to help newbies.

    • Unsigned vote struck --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Keep - As long as it doesn't give stupid or misleading advice. --Wikidead 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Keep - Should help a little with the survivor/zombie ratio.--J Muller 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Keep - Now... I like it! --Abi79 ^AB 12:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Keep - Newbie help = good. --Winnan 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Keep - As above. --Gateking 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. Change - This should be somehow equivlent to survivors reading newspapers, right? Well humans pay more than just 1 AP per newspaper. They also have to look for it too. Just a thought. -- Goron40 13:35, 25 January 2007 (EST)
   • Re True, but survivors can also ask for advice from other players. And newspapers are found as you search for FAKs, something everyone needs. --Jon Pyre 06:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
     

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Sewage Plant

Timestamp:	Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	New Buildings
Scope:	The city of Malton
Description:	Well, UD is set in the modern age, in a fairly modern city. To say that we want it realistic is certain. How about adding sewage treatment plants? Where else does all of the city's crap go? building size - 1x1 Average building mechanics, in regards to barricading however, the functionality of the building is its defining factor. -Firstly, because of the stench of the building, the following description will be shown to survivors outside within one square of the plant - A pungent odor wafts from the sewage treatment plant to your [location here]. -Secondly, the odor is stronger to zombies and can be detected by them easier from a much further distance using scent death. (This is to create a building important to zombies, which they will be drawn to). -Next, suiciding in this building would be possible. There will be an option to jump into a sewage vat - you are sucked to the bottom and drown in the filthy water. Your body is then dumped outside. -Revivification inside the building is impossible, because of the infectious diseases present. -When the building is ransacked, survivors are infected on their second action inside the building (read: free running will not cause you to infect). Repairing the damage will stop this effect. -Zombies can also move survivors into the building using feeding drag (however, normal parameters such as 12hp still apply) I have tried making a building type that will be attractive to zombies (feeding drag inside, easy suicide, smell from a distance) and repulsive to survivors (rp purpose of a smelly building, game mechanics of infection and no revivification). (kudos to Funt Solo, zombie slayer, SoreSpore, Lachryma and Honestmistake for the ideas and discussion)

Keep Votes

1. Keep Now this is what zombies need, not overpowered combat buffs. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - You can vote for your suggestion, Dux. Anyway, it's a cool idea and I like it, but I really don't deserve the kudos, since I didn't help much.--Lachryma^☭ 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Author Keep - Oh yeah durrr. And Lachryma, credit is given where credit is due. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - I like it - it's quite mad. (I don't deserve any credit either - but thanks anyway.) --Funt Solo 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - It sounds like a good combination of the content on the talk page. Thanks for the credit by the way, even though I don't think I did that much. -- 23:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep- I like it. It's like a zombie sanctuary.--Grigori 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - Sounds ghastly. I love it! --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep - Me like, but drop the part about the infections. We don't want newbies wandering into these at random and then getting infected, now do we? --Wikidead 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - An interesting new building, for once. To the noter below: where it goes is essentially an irrelevant part- don't kill an idea based on pedantic details. --Karloth Vois ^RR 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - Ridleybank would make perfect sense for one these things. --Gateking 11:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Can we enter the sewer to shoot undead rats? --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 13:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - Excellent. A Zombie buff that only tweaks the balance a little. I have a feeling that'd make zombie play more 'fun' too - it'd help balance survivor-zombie numbers without really increasing zombie attack capability. Very nice. Would kinda function as an anti-mall, a zombie hotspot - just what the game needs. People complaining about it not benefiting survivors are being a bit silly - that's the point ¬_¬ --Ashadoa 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - I don't see why not. It won't really hurt anything. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep - Sorry I wasn't around for the original vote on this one. For the poeple who have voted against this I suggest you reconsider. The idea is to give zombies a place to hang out and the only way to do this is to make it unappealing to survivors. You oppose an idea that offers a small non-buff to zombies without taking anything away from survivors. Shame on you. --SporeSore 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (@Dux: I usually would not care about something so petty , but since I made significant contributions you could have at least moved me up in your credits somewhat.)

    re - Dude, the names are seriously not in any order. But thanks anyways. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 07:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

15. Keep - A great idea, and one that would give zombies some (more) advantage, in addition to making the game a lot more interesting - for example, taking and keeping the Sewage plant would be a badge of honor on any survivor's vest, considering how hard it would be. --Saluton 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Keep - Nice. -Downinflames 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. against -- everything is good, except for the no revive thing. I play a combat revive character, and love to go against common practice. Don't nerf brain rot. Asheets 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   re - How would brain rot be nerfed? This is no city-wide effect or anything. Just inside a few buildings. Besides, brain rot is most effective in sieges and screwing with revive points - not that important while standing around building up AP. Oh, also note that your second action will infect you. That includes reviving people, and standing up from revivification, so there is little point.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Unfinished - It's good, and I like it, but I won't vote keep until I know where these buildings will go. Other than that, nice suggestion! -Cutlet 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   re - Does it really matter where the buildings go? Really? In the end, I leave that up to Kevin - his game, his city.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Not too bad but what, really, is the point? Survivors have no need, according to the suggestion, to visit and only the most ignorant would be sleep outside (even sleeping one square away is better). There was some stuff in discussion about "suburb-wide" effects or such. Without that this is nothing. Hell there aren't even any search rates. At least THAT might make SOME kind of point for survivors to even bother with it.--Pesatyel 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   re - That's right. There is no need for survivors to go there. For once, zombies truly have a place called home. And suburb-wide effects? Ha. Even I and several others who were discussing realised it would have been spammed into oblivion.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

4. I just don't see the point. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   re - I have certainly given a point. Whether you take it as one you agree with, or disagree with, is up to you. However, you have presented neither of theses two here.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC) That was unneeded on my part.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Weak Kill - I like the idea of a place that zombies can hang out where survivors that attack them will succumb to an infection long before killing any of them. Like a zombie safe haven. But yeah, I'd want to know how many there would be in Malton. One to every 4 suburbs or something? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   re - Again, Kevin's game, Kevin's placement.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   re -If it's only one plant for all of Malton, then I say it's not worth the effort, if it's one plant per suburb then it's highly overpowered, so yeah, it does make a difference to my vote -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

6. kill - Why would survivors bother to fight over this place? There's nothing for them except trouble here - you haven't listed any search items. A survivor would have to be pretty desperate to stay here. The Mad Axeman 10:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   re - Er, that is the entire point of this suggestion - Give zombies a place in Malton, not simply stupid combat buffs. Does there need to be a reason why survivors need to fight over this place? And do there need to be items? After all, what would you find in a sewage treatment plant? maybe some metal pipes, a newspaper? Not enough for even small mention really.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   re - Sorry, I just don't like it. This is a zombie barracks, a place where a zombie hoard can strike out from and retreat too, safe from harm because anyone who tries to attack them there gets infected. This is as bad an idea as putting guns on the outside of forts to automatically shoot any zombie who attacks. The Mad Axeman 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

7. kill sorry but unless there is a reason for harmanz to go there it is just a zombie haven. Also, automatic infection after 1st action is too much (50:50?) Oh and thanks for the credit, its always nice to see my name in print! --Honestmistake 12:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - Sheesh, show some proper grammar if you're going to kill a suggestion. On topic: This bears a common similarity to a multitude of suggestions that have been shot down: Traps. Traps are considered to be an auto-attack, something which is frowned upon in UD. This bears the same similarity. Anything that does things without actually costing a player AP. Basically this is an auto-attack. --Goron40 13:42, 25 January 2007 (EST)

   re - People, please read the suggestion carefully! Yes, it is an automatic attack, however only when the building is ransacked!. So it is possible for survivors to keep these places. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   rere - I realize this. My point still stands however. --Goron40 18:14, 27 January 2007 (EST)

9. Kill revive points are already sort-of zombie safehouses, and ankile grab mostly eliminates the need for them. and most of the people who voted kill also have good points. the game is unbalanced as it is, don't make it worse. Check out nexus wars, the creator has a very good reason for not having a stats page. Now compare that to urban dead: "for instance, zombies make up 30-some percent of the total population and allmost no one has ever realised that the reason the majority of the characters are human is because most of the players are human. the reason people play as survivors is because they like surviving. --AlexanderRM 8:44 PM, 26 January 2007 (EST)

   re - Dude, seriously, did you really think through the suggestion? How would this unbalance the game? The zombies are not any more powerful across the entire city, just in a few buildings. A few. And hey, the game is unbalanced. How come there are 65>% survivors? Because they already have their fancy malls and guns and forts. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 07:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---