Suggestions/26th-Feb-2007

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

Armor Piercing Bullets

Timestamp: EL Zillcho 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: bullet flavor, new bullet type.
Scope: zombie slayers in search of something new.
Description: armor peircing bullets. with these bullets the effects of the flak jacket are ignored. this would be just like a pistol cilp except with a (A) next to the word pistol clip. these bullets would of course be rare. they can only be found in either of the 2 armories, and you would have half the chance of searching for them than you would with normal bullets.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - As long as this is not a dupe, I approve this message. (I changed the status of only finding them in 1 armory to being able to find them in both, only being in 1 of them would be silly) . --EL Zillcho 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep Oh shit! Armories get something mall guns stores don't.. what are the chances? "Illegal" millitary-grade, ammo, only in the hands of the millitary.. not cops or gunstores. Armories need something, anyways. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I like. Nice, because it can be found in only two locations on the map, and is rare even there. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Should help out with the desperate Fort situation we have at the moment. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 06:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Gives both sides a reason to hold the Forts. Survivors would want to have access to these bullets, and the zombahs would want them not to so their flak jackets would still be effective. --Gateking 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Finally a good reason to try to keep/take a fort. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Cool. (Some other voters CNRed- It's only found in 1 armoury, not both.) --Toejam 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Normally I don't vote keep for pro survivor suggestions, but I like this one. I also think there should be a small chance of finding these in mall gun stores (like a 5% chance that a pistol clip you find will be AP). Also, you would have to be able to choose between firing your regular pistol and the AP one. @toejam, I think that his "found in one of the 2 armories" is ambiguous, but that he meant both (not sure why they'd be in one but not the other). --Gm0n3y 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep Might be kinda cool, but should be kept rare. Maybe limit it to 5% of pistol clips found. Also when you have a pistol load with this you should have two attack options as to which kind of pistol to use. --Jon Pyre 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC
  10. Keep - Sounds good to me. --Sonofagun18 06:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Anything that makes the game less Mall centered is good.--♠ Che ♠-T GC X 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Sounds good to me too --SporeSore 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - i like it just to give forts a pupose and to have somthing you cant get in a mall.--       15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - It has PK potential, but I don't think the average survivor wears a vest anyway. Me likey!--Priz 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep- I like the idea of having to go to a fort for speical ammo. I totally support the idea.--User:drumzero666 03:16, March 9 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Armour piercing bullets for hand guns? Is there really such a thang (even in the zombie apocalypse)? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 03:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - actually there are [[1]] does this change your mind? --EL Zillcho 03:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Rare does not equal balanced, and does equal elitist. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - No. I don't want to lose out on this benefit just because I don't play the game fort-centrically. Make them available in all ammo locations or not avaiiable at all. You could keep the fort benefit by making the chance of finding them marginally higher there than elsewhere. --Grace RR - PKer 18:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - if they were to be in malls, or even worse police stations, then they would be way too common. there only in armories because there worth going to armories for. --EL Zillcho 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re - And players who never go to armouries are left out. I know it may be a hard concept for you to grasp, but not everyone makes use of Forts in their play style. I haven't even visited a fort once since the upgrade, because I travel all over the place with Red Rum. Like I said, make it available for people who don't travel to forts, even if the rate was just at 1% in PD's alone, or drop the idea. --Grace RR - PKer 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re - besides making a new bullet, my secondary reason for putting up this suggestion, was to get people out of the malls. there is almost everything in a mall, and getting something thats not in a mall will make people realise that theres a big world out there. - EL Zillcho 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Change - I normally don't like survivor boosts, but I like this idea. However, I don't think it should only be available in one armoury and not the other. Make it available in both armouries and I'll vote keep. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - lol, I didnt even know i worded it like that, yeah it would be in both of the armories. Sorry for the confusion --EL Zillcho 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill -Rare does not equal balanced. Just because there are suggestions in both Peer rejected and PR that indicate people think it does dosn't mean it does. anyway flak jacket is useless enough already, with this every PKer and his dog would use this and they would be put in the completely useless catergory. --AlexanderRM 7:27 PM, 25 Febuary 2007 (EST)
  6. Kill -Nerfing Flak jackets, AND helping PKers? Zombies aren't the only ones wearing Flaks -BrainsYummy 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

  1. SPAM how dare you mess with my K-Mart! we stock everything under one roof and i will not tolerat the suggestion that our good soldiers left illegal ammo lyiong about! Oh hang on KEEP!!!! burn mall burn die you consumerist pig-dogs.--Honestmistake 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Headless Rampage (Edit)

Origional suggest_time=MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 02:57, 26 February 2007

Removed by author 07:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Sonova, I made an error in the probability and chance part.. the mechanics were fine but.. well Jedaz was right.. and so you should all thank him, he saved you from having to read it. I have "standards" now I don't feel like posting non-carefully worded suggestions anymore. (2 implimented suggestions, so I only suggest relevant stuff, mostly.) This one may come back, after I've very carefully checked the underbody, rotated the tires.. changed the oil.. should cost a couple hundred in manhours, but she'll be worth it.

Faint

I'm removing this entirely because even the author voted kill and admitted it was a horrible idea.--Gage 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghouls

Timestamp: The Mad Axeman 14:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: New type of undead
Scope: Eldar zombies
Description: This idea is to add a new type of undead to Malton - ghouls. Ghouls look rather like zombies except that their skin has withered up, drawing close to the bone. This makes them look thin and feral. While zombies lurch through the streets, ghouls scuttle and scamper, as often on all fours as standing up errect.

Upon reaching 10th level all zombies gain the option to buy the mutant virus skill detailed below. Anytime a zombie or ghoul with this skill is killed they see two stand up buttons. One of these says "Stand up as zmobie" and the other says "Stand up as ghoul". Pressing either of these will bring the character back into play as the appropriate type of undead beastie. Ankle grab only reduces the stand up cost for standing up as a zombie and regeneration only reduces the cost to stand up as a ghoul.

Because they are faster, ghouls only pay 1 AP to move, rather than 2. All ghouls skills cost 100 ep to learn. They are effected by the headshot skill and syringes in the same way as zombies. A revived ghoul functions like any normal civilian survivor. They have claw attacks (20% chance to hit, 2 damage) and the ability to use blunt weapons. They lack bite attacks.

Ghoul are still considered to be one the same side as other zombies. Ghoul against zombie (or zombie against ghoul) is considered zking and earns half experience.

Ghouls are distinct from zombies but not each other. When in an area containing both, a message along the line of this appears, "There are 7 zombies and three ghouls here."

The skills that ghouls have are listed below. The new ones are shown in bold. Those in italics function the same as a given zombie skill but only while a ghoul. Zombies skill that are not listed below become inactive while the character is a ghoul. Survivor skills that normally cross over to zombies also cross over to ghouls. No ghoul skills work for zombies.

  • Scent fear
  • Scent Blood
  • Scent Death
  • Scent Trail
  • Brain Rot
  • Feding Groan
  • Death Rattle
  • Flailing Guestures
  • Ransack
  • Scavanging: Allows the ghoul to search when inside any building. They do not find the same things as survivors, and the exact type of building is irrelivant. Instead, there is a 30% chance that they will find/make something usuable as a club. A club acts the same as anyother blunt weapon (10% to hit, 2 damage) but ghouls can buy skills that improve their performance radically.
  • Lairing: A ghoul can lair in any building that has already been ransacked. A building that has been laired in has its status displayed to anybody entering. Ghouls recieve a +10% search bonus in laired buildings. Survivors destroy a lair at the same time as they repair ransack damage.
  • Feasting: When the ghoul kills a survivor, they instinctively tear chunks out of the body and consume them. After making a kill, the ghoul heals 5 hp in addition to the normal bonuses.
  • Mutant Virus: This skill acts as a flag that tell the game the chartacter is a ghoul rather than a zombie. Because Ghoul move faster than zombies, this skill is equivalent to lurching gait.
  • Regeneration: THe ghoul recovers from injuries very fast. Acts like ankle grab.
  • Pouncing: The ghoul can make powerful leaping and lunging attacks. +15% to hit with claws and weapons.
  • Racking: THe ghoul has learnt to attack with the clas on both its hands and feat. +15% to hit with claw attack.
  • Pounding: The ghoul can throw itself at closed doors until the burst open, allowing entry. Works like memories of life.
  • Smashing: The ghoul can swing a weapon with great speed and agression. +20% to hit with blunt weapons and +1 damage. However, after each attack there is a 16% chance that the weapon breaks, hit or miss.
  • Crushing Blow: The ghoul can now attack so fast and hard that they get another +15% to hit and +1 damage with weapons. The break chance remains at 16%.

This gives ghouls a total of 19 skills.

Ghoul claw attacks are less effective than zombie hand attacks, averaging at 1.0 damage per AP at maximum. However, at 50% to hit, they have the same chance to tear down barricades.

Blunt weapons can go as high as 2.4 damage/Ap, compared to 1.71 for a zombie hand attack, but the breakages mean that ghoul has to restock on clubs sooner or later. THe MBA for clubs under the best of circumstances is 1.71 - exactly the same as a zombie hand attack!

However, the need to resuply means that ghouls have far more reason than zombies to be teritorial. To act at peak capacity they need laired buildings, and will fight to control and retain them. Such conflict will become most severe if the lair is also resouces building for survivor.

Clubs can be used to attack barricades giving a maximum 30% chance to drop a barricade. However, against barricades the MBA is only 0.21 compared to 0.25 for claws, so in the long run it isn't worth it.

This suggestion is designed to make the undead more fun to play. It opens up a new selection of skills for them to buy and allows dedicated brain rotters to switch between the different playing styles that ghouls and zombies use.

Keep Votes

  1. I actually think it's rather good - Read bold text. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. keep - Might as well vote on my own suggestion, no matter how doomed it appears. The Mad Axeman 15:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Out of genre. Change the flavor a lot (like maybe just a mutated form of zombie) and it could be better. And I think it is also worth mentioning that there's no reason why most of these skills/game mechanics can't just be given to standard zombies. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - its out of genre. EL Zillcho 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill It seems much worse than being a zombie. You lose digestion and infectious bite, and have to search for melee weapons that continually break. --Jon Pyre 01:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. 'Kill, and change -You know, there are at least two ghoul suggestions and no vampire suggestions that I know of. Don't suggest ghouls unless you're prepared to suggest skeletons, vampires, mummies, maybe ghosts, possibly even liches. Random idea maybe we should fuse UD with Vampires!? --AlexanderRM 8:12 PM, 25 Febuary 2007 (EST)
  5. Orcs: should explain my objections well enough. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Although I can much work was done, the game is only supposed to have survivors and zombies. No ghosts. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 17:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Out of genre. -Mark D. Stroyer 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

NT Equipment Destruction

Timestamp: People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Game Change
Scope: NT Buildings
Description: After ransacked, zombies get the option to destroy the NT equipment inside a NT Building. This costs 5 AP. If the ransack is cleared, a NT building whose equipments were destroyed would function as a regular building (you cant find or craft srynges inside the building), until its equipments are repaired.

Survivors can repair the building with NT Spare Parts, an item that weights 10 units, and can only be used in a NT building. Repairing the NT equipment grants 10 XP, and costs 10AP. This item can be found in other NT Buildings, at half the rate of finding srynges.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - I hate to see otherwise good suggestions killed because people disagree only with percentages. Also, a state-of-the-art science lab should be harder to repair than a movie theatre or store, especially after a year of siege and lack of re-supply. Rolo Tomasi 17:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Wow Well, since it is a lab.. it takes a hell of a lot less effort to make it completely useless than it does to clean up, and re-stock. Actually, this makes a lot of sense. Zombies don't just ransack a NT building.. they fricking sack it! (In return, scientists got some XP coming to them, if they can take it, fix it, and keep it.) 10 item slots is harsh, but hey, so is a combat revive on your zombie after all that AP just to get in! Some characters would carry 1 of those lab kits, just in case. You know it!MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 09:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep I like it and playing survivor and zombie i reconize the importance to survivors of a runing NT building and to zombies a dead NT building. Just where do you find the NT spare parts? --       15:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - A good suggestion in essence, though I believe the repair rewards and costs too high, 5 XP/AP might be better. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    if you liked the idea, why not vote keep but ask for the values to be changed if it gets implemented ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - The spare parts take up way too many item spots and I think the AP spent for destruction and repair should be equal. By the way, where are the spare parts found? --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Read the suggestion again. Its said that spare parts can be found in any other NT building. Spare parts weights a lot to prevent everyone from running around with spare parts to fix a NT that was just retaken. This is meant to make the action of fully repairing a NT building something important than just a click away action. And it takes more AP to repair it than to destroy it because it is really easy for you to destroy something, but it takes a lot more of work to build/repair it. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re: It does not explicitly say that the parts can be found in any other NT building, it is only implied. I still think 10 item spots is too large, but keeping in spirit with the suggestion 5 item spots is probably better. It prevents people from running around with loads of spare parts, but doesn't totally disrupt their inventory. Your statement about the AP cost is completely logical, so now I see what you are thinking and I agree. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 15:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill This would create the obvious game endpoint where every Necrotech Building in the city has destroyed lab equipment and nobody has any lab equipment to fix them. At that point, even if all zombie players quite the game and started new survivors, they would be no more new syringes in the game, ever, meaning the game would end without some sort of intervention. Not that its likely, but it COULD happen with the above suggestion. Currently UD has (afaik) no absolute endgame situation- they can all be resolved if players change behavior, and I rather like that. --S.Wiers X:00 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    if an endgame situation ever get close, it could be resolved by sending NT spare parts and srynges through evil crates of doom. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not gonna support something that could lead to more crates! Though I might vote keep on a version where the lab repair items were more common. For example, if they could also be found in hospitals- hospitals have medical and research labs, after all. --S.Wiers X:00 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - As above. The spare parts should be able to be found in an NT building regardless of whether or not the syringe-making equipment and computers have been destroyed, if only to make sure that things don't get bad enough for crates to be necessary. And I think 10 spaces is a little extreme. Making it take up 5 spaces would still prevent people from carrying these around a lot. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill I think ransack is a zombie tool to hold buildings, not to put arbitrary AP penalties on survivors after all the zombies have been killed. --Jon Pyre 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill -To your responce to TheDavibob, read voting rules-so few people do. actually the endgame situation already exists: all the survivors die and there is no-one to revive them. Though this would be much easier... and to why I'm voting kill, A.several other people have good points, plus this is a MAJOR zombie buff, and survivors are the ones in trouble- zombie groups are disbanding left and right (see big bash and shacknews, very famous) because they were so BORED. any zombie group that loses is a joke and any group that dosn't win is either outnumbered at least like 3 to 1, very small, or a bunch or clueless fools. --AlexanderRM 8:20 PM, 25 Febuary 2007 (EST)
  7. Kill - Overpowered -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. kill It's allready difficult enough getting revived in some areas. Don't make it harder on the newbie zeds. - BzAli 13:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Multiply by a million. A coordinated group could completely wipe out every NT building in Malton in the course of a single day, by having a lot of members or zerging (but, since the zergs would be at least a suburb apart, would not have the zerg flag set), and then there would be the potential for no NT building to ever be repaired, if they did so as soon as this was implemented, or if they took measures to destroy any that was repaired. And that would completely ruin the balance of the game; anyone who died would stay dead, after the initial, finite, supply of syringes ran out. And extreme scenario, yes, but possible. --Saluton 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - over-complicated, not necessary. Costly != balanced. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Infectious Bite Does Not Outlive You

Timestamp: Timzor 19:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill modification
Scope: Zombies and Survivors
Description: My suggestion is simple: An infectious bite should not continue to haunt you after death. My reasons for this are twofold: Both fairness and logic. First of all, I feel that an infections bite plagues you enough when you get it the first time. It's easy enough to die either from the infection, through combat combined with infection, or through staying in one place and getting attacked, because if you move, you'll die anyway. Now, all that is fair enough. What seems unfair is having it continue to afflict you AFTER you shamble to a revive point and live again. If there is no one around nice enough to provide you with a first aid kit, you will most likely join the shambling dead again in a few turns. Secondly, having the infection only last through one life cycle just seems to make sense. If a necrotech syringe can transform you from a rotting, diseased corpse to a healthy, functioning human, surely it can also take care of the zombie infection you have flowing through your veins.

In summary: The same infectious bite can only kill you ONCE. It should not still be in effect after being revived.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Keep - As the author, I approve of this suggestion. -Timzor 19:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - It's not logical for a revive syringe to be able to repair damaged tissue and cure you of being a zombie... and still leave the infection there. Plus, it really hurts newbies when they die before first aid kits are easy to get. --Uncle Bill 21:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - You shouldn't get to kill someone without ever seeing them, which is what infectious bite allows you to do if the person doesn't have a FAK for when they get revived.--Reaper with no name TJ! 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Bill is right, it doesn't make sense that a syringe prick can bring you back to life but not cure an infection that can otherwise be cleared up with a little Bactine. And it doesn't effectively nerf infectious bite, because you can still die of it the first time around. --LadyEleanor 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep Infection after revive is kind of griefing for a survivor, since you are revived at half health. Normally I wouldn't agree to this, but zombies finally got XP for barricades.. so, yes. (Reviving a zombie costs the other survivor 10 AP.. so yeah cures infection too, all good.) Oh yeah, no more trojan zombies who die of infection.. then get up and whoopass! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 09:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - We can't all be organized enough to carry a backup FAK. Like me for example. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Newer players will probably use any FAKs to stay alive to get to a revive point, and be screwed after being revived. This helps to lessen the grief to newer players IMHO. --NewOrderrr 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - I think that infectious bite should loose its effects after someone is revived. The -20/30 HP is enough of a "punishment", the infectious bite on top of that is a bit too much in my opinion. This does not nerf the skill as its purpose is for survivors to die from it when they first receive the infection, not repeatedly die from it. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 15:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Infectious bite makes sense, but how the hell does a corpse stay infected once revived? Allow it to only work on survivors, not corpses! -- Llwch - 13:22, 28 February 2007

Kill Votes

  1. Kill AKA "nerf infectious bite", AKA "make parachuting more difficult", AKA "revive techs are to lazy to slap a zed with a First Aid Kit, and survivors are to lazy to mention they are infected when asking for revives, so we need to change the game". How hard is it to always carry a FAK for use AFTER revives anyhow? I know my PKer does. --S.Wiers X:00 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - It's really easy to get rid of an infection. Reserve 1 inventory space to keep a backup FAK with you at all times. All my characters keep one handy for when I stand up with an infection, and after I use it up, I go find another to replace it. --Grace RR - PKer 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Which part of dying will cure an infection exactly? Rolo Tomasi 21:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - S.Weirs said it. --Mold 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - You're makin it too easy. --EL Zillcho 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill This would take away one of the main uses of infectious bite. I always infect survivors before killing them. Taking away this long used tactic would make gameplay less fun for zombies. --Jon Pyre 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. change for a keep Instead of clearing you of infection you should get up infected as normal the 1st time. the second time (if it happens and its never happened to me!) you should get up "feverish" and pay 2AP for all movement until cured! A third death (and revive) while infected would cure this status leaving you infection free!--Honestmistake 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. KillNerfs infectious bite, and it isnt that hard to keep 1 backup FAK--♠ Che ♠-T GC X 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill, almost Spam Be prepared, I always carry 3 FAK's to bring myself back to full health after getting eaten. This would make infection kinda pointless. ZombieCrack 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - With 2 maxed out survivors, I've yet to ever die of infection. The whole point of infecting survivors is that it requires an FAK to cure. It's the gift that just keeps on giving -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - Nerf. Already said above. So I will say one more time: Nerf. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. kill - Reasons allready stated above. - BzAli 13:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill - don't nerf Infectious Bite - it's a finely tuned engine - any tampering will make it splutter. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Kill - It isn't logical, true, but like Boxy said, infectious bite isn't that bad, unless maybe your in a survivor free area. In which case you'll get killed soon enough anyway.--Priz 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. The fact that infection lingers after revivification is the only reason I fool with it. Don't nerf it.--Gage 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/26th-Feb-2007&oldid=1882662"