Suggestions/2nd-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

Horrific Handling

Timestamp: Swiers X:00 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: zombies
Description: Horrific handling is a zombie skill. It would be purchased for 100 xp as a sub-skill to “feeding drag”.

When a zombie with the “Horrific Handling” skill uses Feeding Drag, they get a bonus effect identical to “feeding groan”. However, the message heard by others is not the one given by feeding groan, but rather “you hear horrified screams (distance / direction)”. The distances and directions given would be the same as for "Feeding Groan"- "nearby" if its in the same block, or "so many blocks north / south and so many blocks east / west" if the message originated elsewhere, up to the normal maximum range at which feeding groans can be heard.

This would have three benefits. First, zombies with this skill would not have to spend AP’s on using Feeding Groan to attract others. Second, any zombie who heard the “horrified screams” would know that a dying survivor was laying in the streets, waiting to be eaten by anybody quick enough to get there; the information is more specific than "feeding groan". Third, it would add a missing horror element into the game- the death scream of a mauled survivor!

Keep Votes

  1. Keep author --Swiers X:00 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. No, no, nooooo.. aaaaaggghhh Ya got me. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 04:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I like it, although I would like to know the range of the scream. SuperMario24 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Not too bad, - Just needs a bit more locational information.--Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    The locational information would be exactly as for "Feeding Groan"- it is basically a "free groan with drag" effect that uses a different message. So yes, you would know the distance and location. I'll edit the suggestion to make this clear. --Swiers X:00 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Lovely - Sounds flavorful AND useful!--Lachryma☭ 04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Fully Sick Sub-Woofa Mate - But the name sucks. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Very nice.--J Muller 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - i'm listening to those screams already (but i agree with the cap'n, the name really sucks)--♠ Che ♠-T GC X 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - good suggestions get Keep votes without meta-voting. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 07:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Heh, and here I was thinking this suggestion was going to be about food safety, or lack there of (I've been watching too many adverts along those lines...) - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 09:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Boo yah --Gene Splicer 09:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC) And it's not quite free.. feeding groan also tells you how many survivors there are. This only tells you about onespecific survivor --Gene Splicer 09:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HELP ME SOMEONE PLEASE!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Those whiney trenchcoaters' screams would be alovely nightly concert! Rolo Tomasi 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - Interesting, yet the name is quite awful. How about "terrifying grasp"? --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Implemented skill suggestions almost always have different names- I don't care what the name is. Anyhow, there's not really a name for this that won't sound cheesy, because you shouldn't need an extra skill to make somebody scream as you drag them to their doom... --Swiers X:00 19:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep - I thought I voted for this one, must have got carried away with it's awesomeness -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 01:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep - yay, let's scream. If the server can take this extra load ...(?) --ρsych°LychεεELT 09:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - Kinda lessens the usefulness of feeding groan, but this really something that is needed (and adds flavor). Plus, I guess zombies will still groan when they don't want to risk being stuck outside (or there aren't any draggable survivors around), so keep. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keep - Let the survivors inside hear that they are next in line!--SporeSore 13:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Keep - i like the skill and it provides use for the 1500 exp my main has compiled--Mazu 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Keep That is just too awesome. Do it! And I'm a survivor, what's more! - - Scalene's Lollipop.jpg Lil' 'alene Widley 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill I like the basic premise, but you're throwing in a free action (feeding groan). Make it cost 2 AP, meaning you won't get that bonus AP, and I'm in. - BzAli 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Feeding Drag does not directly benefit the user but costs an AP, so adding a "free" effect that ALSO does not directly benefit the user seems fair. Surgery is better than First Aid, and doesn't cost any more AP, right? It just requires special conditions and a skill- as does this. --Swiers X:00 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. kill It needs some sort of slight alteration... maybe if the victim needed to be on less than 10HPs? Not really sure, just seems like a freebie which is a shame cos i want to make them scream!!!--Honestmistake 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    See reply above. Feeding Drag = First Aid. Both are nice effects. Horrific Handling = Surgery. Both save AP when using the skill they improve upon under certain conditions. Of course, first aid and surgery can directly benefit the user... --Swiers X:00 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Have you considered that this will also alert survivors that one of their own is in danger? In come the FAK's and the PK'ers. Either way no more zombie lunch. This is important if the zombie knows there are already other zeds outside, and a groan would be detrimental to the cause. I do not like the auto-action aspect of this suggestion.--SporeSore 18:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Vote changed.
    It works just like Feeding Groan. The only survivors who would hear the screams are those inside the building the survivor was dragged from (who can already see the zombie dragging the person out) and any survivors in range who are OUTSIDE of a building. Feeding Groan does not travel to the insides of other buildings, and neither would this. Feeding Groan does not result in survivors showing up, and neither would this. All it does is draw in more zombies. --Swiers X:00 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Who's Making That Racket?

Timestamp: Blackberrylaw 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: innate ability
Scope: applies to everyone
Description: Humans and zombies alike (while outside) should be able to hear the sound of barricades being created or destroyed within a 3x3 square. Barricading involves either the moving of heavy objects (such as furniture) or the use of a hammer and nails. Attacking barricades involves smashing stuff. Both actions create quite a ruckus.

This should be something innate, like the ability to see flares being fired. Similarly, it would be a passive ability requiring no AP.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep (Author) Let's hear it! Blackberrylaw 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep Ah okay, while outside so no spam, just hearing stuff. If you re-submit with an edit later... I'd say it would only be heard if you heard construction from another building nearby. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep Keep, but with a slight modification. Why not have an option that the user can turn on/off(default off)? That way, they don't have to be spammed during a mall seige, but if they are in a smaller safehouse, then they can turn it on and listen for the barracades. CatEar Alucard 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - The alterations proposed above would make this even better. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Would spam things like crazy in mall sieges and would spam things in general. SuperMario24 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Are you kidding me? Can you imagine the amount of spam this would generate during a siege? Just not needed. Put your suggestion on the talk page so it can be discussed before voting in future. Oh, and new suggestions go at the top, not the bottom.--Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC) And there still would be heaps of spam even outside, add that to the feeding groans, people being dragged out, and killed. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - but I do think this should be moved to discussion. Its a nice notion, but the mechanics / game play need to be arranged to avoid it producing loads of useless information (aka spam) and perhaps also to avoid overworking the server. --Swiers X:00 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Would produce loads of spam.--J Muller 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spam in the kill - tis spam. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 07:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. This would create a lot of log in spam. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - How about gunshots? Dying screams? - BzAli 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - as the zillion kill votes above. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Kill - This would make Kevan buy another 16 servers. (And would make me vote keep on any new earplugs-suggestion.) Unsigned vote struck. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Mutation: Zombie Ability Swap Skill

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 04:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This is an idea for a skill to give zombie some gameplay variety and additional tactical choices. Viral Mutation would be a subskill of infectious bite. The skill signifies the virus has started to mutate within the zombie giving it additional abilities. They would be able to spread enhanced versions of this virus to other zombies, and choose different abilities for themselves, using infected humans as carriers.


THE BASICS: FOUR INFECTIONS There would now be four kinds of infections, named after the color they would tint the hp of the infected survivor. First is the ordinary infection from zombies without Viral Mutation, Green. Zombies with Mutation would now be capable of producing the other three kinds, Red, Blue, and Purple. Zombies would not be able to choose which of these three infections (Red, Blue, Purple) their bite first causes, rather it would randomly produce one type after standing up after dying as a survivor. So each time a survivor is killed and stands up as a zombie it has a 1/3rd chance of being set on red, 1/3rd chance of being set on blue, and 1/3rd of being set on purple. It would not switch when they're killed as a zombie.


DIFFERENT ABILITIES FROM EACH INFECTION Red, Blue, and Purple do not harm the survivors they infect anymore than ordinary Green. Instead they provide benefits to the zombies carrying them. Each of these three colors would give the carrying zombie a different benefit. Note these specific abilities are only examples and could be swapped out by Kevan for something weaker/stronger/different based on voter comments. Here there are three but in gameplay there could be just two, or five or ten. It's all mutable. When voting please vote on the overall idea and not on the following three powers, which are but details:

  • Red (Vitality) - Increases the zombie's maximum health by 10 (up to 70 with bodybuilding). They don't stand up with this additional health though, in order to reach it they must use digestion to go over their starting health. Losing this ability would drop them down to their ordinary maximum.
  • Blue (Healing) - Digestion restores 6 health with each bite (which still does 4 damage).
  • Purple (Speed) - Bite attacks have a 17% of nipping a survivor on a miss, doing only 1 damage but infecting them if they aren't already (raising the total chance of causing infection with maxed out bite accuracy to 50%).

So a zombie would stand up after death with one of these three abilities already active at random. What if they want to switch? They can do that by biting a survivor with the desired form of the virus.


Annecdotal Explanation

A zombie stands up with Blue virus. They decide a higher max health is better for their needs than better digestion. They follow a groan and enter a breached building already under attack. There are several infected survivors. One of the survivors has their health tinted red, meaning they have the Red infection. The zombie first decides to make the blue mutation available for its fellow zombies if they so choose and bites an uninfected survivor, tinting their health blue. The zombie then bites the red infected survivor, replacing the virus in the zombie's body with the Red strain. This changes their ability and makes any uninfected survivors they bite in the future infected with the Red infection. The survivor's infection would stay red, a survivor can only be set to a new color if they're uninfected or with just the unmutated green.

Note that a survivor would not even be able to tell which strain of the virus they're carrying. It wouldn't make any difference to them, all four of them only drain 1HP per AP and can be healed with a first-aid kit. Zombies without mutation could see what virus survivors have but wouldn't be able to carry or pass on any strain but the green.


In Closing Everyone says zombies lack variety in gameplay. This should help fix that, letting them choose between three different abilities and allow them to use infected survivors to trade these powers with each other. Sounds fun.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep It's a bit of a complex idea written down but it should work pretty simple in gameplay. I think this would make the zombie side a lot more fun. Especially if more than three types of infection were put in, heck, the more variety/choices for zombies the better. Please ask if you have any questions. --Jon Pyre 04:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Vaguely Interesting - It sounds good, but I don't like the abilities. But they are minor details, of course. However, how could Kevan condense this idea on the news thing, keeping both clarity and brevity?--Lachryma☭ 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Perhaps "Necrotech Bulletin: The undead are displaying different abilities. It is possible they are spreading new strains of the virus to another through contact with the living." --Jon Pyre 04:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re Thus making the rest of us figure it out, as usual. Okay, fine with me.--Lachryma☭ 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Yeah, sounds alright. Perhaps you could make the different viral strains have different negative effects on the survivors? Such as one that affects low-light vision, so it is harder to find items? And another that reduces hit percentages by say 5%? Damn, did you put this on the talk page?--Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re That'd certainly be something worth considering. I think infectious bite is pretty bad for the survivor already though, if they don't have a FAK they have to drop everything and head to a hospital. That's why I didn't put that in. An implemented form of this suggestion could present both, infectious that either aid zombies or harm survivors, and providing zeds with even more tactical options. If implemented this would probably be changed drastically, like pretty much everything that's been implemented from this page. --Jon Pyre 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Ah, this sounds quite interesting. I like the idea so it's a keep from me. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 05:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - More interesting than.... uhh... Well, anyway, it's a good suggestion. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - That's an outrageous idea! And I think it would work too. One point though, maybe the red/blue/purple forms of infection should stay present in survivors even after being healed with an FAK, just become dormant (do no damage). That way a zombie that comes into a fully healed building, and wants to change infections has a wider range. I could see infection types being selected against, and dying out because of natural selection, due to the zombies selecting the most popular infections to spread -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Aha! - One of the best suggestions I've seen, ever.--J Muller 06:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - I like this. Quick question(s) - A "Red" infected survivor who dies while infected - would they keep the "Red" infection as a zed, or gain a random one? (I'm for the former). Would it be worth keeping "Green" as a option on stand up (alongside the other beneficial infection types). So you may get something, you may not. Currently, when you stand up after being revived - if you had an infection while a zombie, you still have it while alive (until a FAK is applied anyway), so you would know which infection you have as a survivor. Should the application of the syringe cause a random mutation in the infection - removing this knowledge? (and the potential to create voluntary infection distributers in areas where survivors are very safe or sparsely populated). –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re The reason I make dying from a survivor give you a random color is to prevent any strain of the infection from dying out. This way each time a survivor with Viral Mutation dies, the virus mutates in their body again, and any strain can start anew. --Jon Pyre 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - I like it, though the complexity may make it a nightmare to code (not a voting criterion, just a note). One thing I noticed is that zombies with "brain rot" can only aquire the non-green bites by biting a survivor- in effect, they depend on un-rotted zombies to provide the mutations. That seems wrong. Why not just have everybody get a random (non-green) viral strain as soon as they buy the skill? --Swiers X:00 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re My mistake, that's something I forgot. Upon buying the skill you're randomly set to one of the three colors. So a brainrotted zombie would not need to get revived in order to start spreading mutation. --Jon Pyre 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - This helps differentiate between all the high level zombies who are basically the same. Hooray for zombie variety! --Gateking 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - --Deras 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - After all, all those NecroTech scientists didn't spend 6 years going to "evil medical school" for nothing. --Uncle Bill 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - You nearly lost my vote when you said to decide on the concept and not the details (This isn't the place for concepts, it'd be too hard to distinguish them from suggestions that are just poorly developed). Happily though, your examples were good. --Toejam 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Not Kill - I like the basic idea, even if it sounds too complicated. Imagining how it would work in the game, it turns out to be quite simle, I think. Nice one. But still discussable.--ρsych°LychεεELT 09:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep - A bit unnecessarily complex, but it would make being a zombie more interesting. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep - i like the skill and its well though out and flexible.--Mazu 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. It is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I understand how it works. I have the "red" virus, bite someone and the get "red". So anyone that bites that target later gets "red" too? What about the target? Does HE get the benefits? And how does this work in conjunction to "green"?--Pesatyel 06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Well, then my vote stands. This shouldn't REPLACE the regular infection.--Pesatyel 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Yes. If you have red and you bite a survivor, they now carry red, and other mutated zombies can switch their infection to red by biting them. Green is just what I called the ordinary infection we have now since infected survivors have their health tinted green. It'd still exist when zombies without mutation bite someone. Green works differently than the other colors, if you were red and bit a green infected survivor the survivor would become red and you'd stay red too. The target does not get any benefits because they're still a survivor, only zombies with mutation can carry or benefit from the mutated strains. --Jon Pyre 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, what I meant was, would the zombie no longer be able to use "green" then?--Pesatyel 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, because green isn't really anything. It's just basic infection without anything special. Viral Mutation would replace your ordinary green infection with the other three, randomly set each time you die. --Jon Pyre 07:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - over-complicated. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - What if the zed didn't have Scent or Diagnosis? Oh, and it's also complicated and overpowered (at least the current mutations are). - BzAli 09:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Then the zombie would be more or less picking up mutations at random since they couldn't pick targets. It'd still benefit them, they just wouldn't be able to choose. It'd be smart for the zombie to pick up Scent Blood first but it'd be up to them. And as I said, the current mutations are just examples. Perhaps if Kevan implemented this he'd only put in one kind of additional mutation at firstand then add more as he or as the Suggestions page comes up with new ones.--Jon Pyre 10:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    If I read this correctly, dead survivors without infectious bite can cause an infection. No. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Rereading this suggestion made me lost. Therefore, I'm abstaining. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Confusing and overly complicated. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Please don't vote kill just because you don't understand the suggestion. If you have any questions let me answer them for you. --Jon Pyre 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re - I understand the suggestion, but it just took me quite a long time to sift through it and completely comprehend it. I think that it is too complicated for the game. Many of the implementations were straightforward and easy to understand, unlike what I take from this suggestion. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Make it simpler. --Wikidead 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill -BITE BONUS and as axe hack. --AlexanderRM 9:39 PM, 9 Febuary 2006 (EST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. No - Just stupid. Zoift 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Do you have an explanation why? --Jon Pyre 05:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • ReNo - Zombies swapping abilitys using bites, thats's just stupid. Zoift 05:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Mutations (Advanced Classes)

Timestamp: Valore 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill Development for High Level Zombies.
Scope: Zombies At Level 15 and Higher, with Brain Rot
Description: Mutations, basically, a class for zombies to take at their Endgame, meaning they must be Level 15 and above, with Brain Rot. You may only take one mutation, which costs you 500XP. Taking a second mutation is possible if you gather another 500XP, but resets your XP total to 0, and you lose your original mutation.

Why? Most importantly, to allow specialisation during later levels of Urban Dead, especially for zombies, who technically only have one skill tree to the survivor’s three, all the way to the end. Let’s face facts, we don’t have enough zombie players, and personally, even as a survivor, I’d like to see more of the lovable drooling corpses around. I believe this will mark the formation of more zombie ‘packs’ which will make best use of each other’s mutations.

Additional Note, I’ve seen the similar thread in the PR section, surprisingly only after I’d finished with my suggestions. 


Musculature Overgrowth

The virus has concentrated itself in your muscles, swelling them to grotesque proportions, turning you into a lumbering engine of destruction. Survivors flee in terror as you smash through their pathetic barricades.

Benefits:

+25% chance of damaging barricades on successful hit.

Does double damage to barricades

+4 damage to claw attacks, unaffected by flak jackets

+15 max HP

Receives -1 damage from all attacks

Drawbacks:

Attacking and moving costs +1AP

Rising costs +10AP

Cannot use flak jackets

All attacks are made at -10%

Does not benefit from Tangling Grasp

Priority Target: May be targeted separately from hordes, and attackers get +5% to hit.

Comments: Numbers seem unbalanced until you crunch them. They have half the number of attacks, so have half the chance of hitting, but when they do, it’ll hurt like hell. 

Cellular Regeneration

The virus has manifested an unusual ability to mend your wounds. Survivors can only stare in horrified amazement as gashes, pistol wounds and even shotgun blasts close up and mend before their eyes.

Benefits:

For every AP spent, the zombie is healed 1hp.

While lying on the ground, the zombie may lurch back into the undeath, spending only 1AP(6AP if headshot) to launch an attack in the same action on anything around it.

3 AP Feign Death: This zombie may choose to collapse to the ground, feigning death. It retains its current HP value.

Drawbacks:

Maximum HP is reduced by 25.

Loses infectious bite and Digestion skills.

Comments: Basically annoyances, they die quickly, but unless headshot rise up even quicker, getting in a cheap attack while rising. If you don’t kill em in one sitting, not hard considering their HP, you’ll probably have to start over. Good for zombie loners, as well as strategic corpses during sieges, who drop dead to prevent themselves from being headshot. 

Infectious Host

This virus strain has somehow bonded with various pathogens, which have thrived in the corpse ridden environs of Malton, giving you a stomach churning stench, which pales in comparison to the deadly symbiotic diseases you now carry.

Benefits:

Survivors attacking you in melee have a chance of becoming infected.

You may infect survivors through both tooth and claw.

Survivors attacking you while infected do so with a -25% chance of hitting

Drawbacks:

-1 to melee damage.

Loses 5hp if a first aid kit is used on this zombie, not affected by first aid skill

Takes +1 damage from all attacks

Comments: Basically a zombie which dies quickly, ironically fastest to melee attacks which probably end up killing their assailants as well. Might serve to strain first aid kit supplies during sieges. 


Deathly Charisma

You have evolved, becoming somehow connected to other zombies. It seems to urge them on, and zombies in the area move with a certain sense of undying purpose under your unseeing guidance.

Benefits:

Find Horde 1AP: Can sense zombies within a 5 block radius. Similar to Scent Death, but more specific. Returns a message: You sense X minions towards Y

X = a few, a group of, many, a horde of

Y = east, west, north, south

Gather Horde 10AP: Using this skill informs zombies within 6 blocks of the Horde Leader’s presence and identity (group affiliation?), in a way similar to the feeding groan skill. Zombies that hear this call may spend 3AP to join the Horde Leader at his location. This does not work indoors, and stops working if the zombie leader moves indoors, e.g. groans then enters a building. Zombies always join the closest horde leader, or the one who has used the Gather Horde skill most recently.

Zombies in the presence of a Horde Leader may make the following attack:

1AP Mobbing: Flat 80% chance of hitting, but results in only 1 damage, and does not affect barricades. This attack is independent of any other modifiers which may otherwise affect the attack.

Horde Leaders get +10% to all their attacks, and deal +1 damage.

Drawbacks:

Priority Target: May be targeted separately from hordes, and attackers get +5% to hit.

Horde Leaders require +20AP to rise if killed.

Comment: What can I say, good as a solo, until you get repeatedly killed by roving zombie hunters. Allows zombies to congregate and follow you, perfect for zombie migrations, and once the situation degenerates into a zombie on human free for all, zombies can just perform the equivalent of a dogpile, which although does lower damage than individual zombie specialised attacks, will eventually crush the harmanz under sheer weight of numbers.

Conclusions Two of the classes, Cellular Regeneration and Infectious Host, would be suited to both solo and group play, while the other two Mutations definitely lean towards group play, since they actually provide specialised bonuses. Although not unbalanced in their own right, I believe that if these were to be implemented, then similar ‘prestige classes’ should be introduced for Survivors as well. However, I currently have no ideas concerning those.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep- I'm all for zed customization.--Grigori 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Keep - First two classes are good. Last two, not so much. For some reason, it reminds me of the alien classes in AVP2. CatEar Alucard 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. keep

i like the idea of having some zombie costumization just take out being able to change what you chose or make it very costly to change. --Mazu 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Kill Votes

  1. Kill - The zombie should be able to opt out (or buy his way out, or wait out) of any specialization scheme that involves drawbacks. This suggestion only allows a zombie to trade specializations. --IrradiatedCorpse 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Kill 1. There's no reason to turn this game into Resident Evil. I'm all for beefing up zombies so that they're on a more equal footing with survivors, but this blows it out of proportion. Beyond that, there's a more reasonable mutation suggestion already being voted on. Ethelred IV, February 2, 2007 9:46 AM PST
    Improper signature.--Gage 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - The core idea is interesting, but the advantages and drawbacks are too drastic. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - No. This could be a good Idea in moderation, but is way too overly complicated. If zombies beef up with mutations this much, even with the drawbacks. It would unbalance everything, because zombies WILL get maxed out, and no matter how few that may be, and this would unbalance the game, big time. If you add a few SIMPLE advances to zombies, and also add a few simple advanced classes for survivors, then we can talk. - Nibiletz 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - As the others. --Gateking 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - These are too drastic changes. Way too big. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. As everyone who killed. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Zombies shouldn't have a boost in tearing down barricades because that's an easy enough task already. Plus, not with zeds being able to gain XP for tearing down a level, an attack boost against barricades is all too scary. --Wikidead 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Too radical.--J Muller 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - This should be several suggestions. First, the concept of advanced classes is already in Peer Reviewed, but I've nothing against different takes on that subject. Secondly, each one of these mutations should be a separate suggestion - so that we can vote on them properly. You're shooting yourself in the foot by suggesting four at once. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - I hate double-edged skills, because you are spending 500xp for NO OVERALL BONUS. Also, the only thing that makes survivors more specialized is scientists double xp for books. --AlexanderRM 9:46 PM, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

No XP for ransacking, GKing, de-barricading without survivor equivalent

Spaminated with 8/10 Spam votes. The general consensus was that the author should quit whining.--Gage 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Barricade (Nerf) 2.0

Timestamp: Gage 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: balance change
Scope: Everyonne
Description: This one is much less drastic than the other one. Much more likely to be implemented into the game IMO:

Barricades, when completely destroyed, would not be able to be rebuilt for 10 minutes.

I just got into stickling and had the barricades closed on my heels. It was ridiculous.

This wouldn't apply to individual barricade levels, just when the barricades are completely gone.

Note - it has been brought to my attention by MRL1984 that this could also help counteract barricade bots and such. Thanks for pointing that out man!

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - my suggestion, my vote--Gage 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep Something needs to be done about instant barricaders. I preferred the previous suggestion, since it's less "hard wired" into the game, and gives organized survivors a chance to fight back against it, but I vote keep because something needs to be done with barricades. And before you say it, you read the Dos & Don'ts. It doesn't say barricades are sacred cows, just be reasonable.--Bassander 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I couldnt even get in on this raid, but I think it should be 5 minutes to barricade to vs+2 and 10 minutes to full EHB. JohnWilcox - 22:22, 2 February 2007 (GMT)
  4. Keep - what, are there people standing around holding plastic trees just waiting for a horde to break in? takes time to find stuff, get past the zombies etc etc. --Ropponmatsu 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep- I like the idea, dont have to get caded in and can actually make a difference. Will help with bots who do the cading automatically.--MRL1984 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Much more reasonable. --Nimble Zombie 22:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - This is not too bad, although I preferred your previous one. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm just throwing a bunch of ideas out there in the hopes that Kevan likes on of them enough to implement it.--Gage 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. It sucks when you just got into a mall and get a Headshot in 5 seconds, and you have to tear the cade down again... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    It makes zombie baby Jesus cry!--Gage 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - I like it for the bot fix more than anything. --Gut stench FU BAR 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep -- the pool will give you aids! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Gage you are ON FIRE lately. Less absurd then the other one. --Mayor Fitting 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - We must stop the bots!!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Definitely kills barricade bots once zombies get in. I liked the first better though. --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 02:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - As above 10 min isn't really all that long in a siege situation anyway, unless its a Shack siege. ZombieCrack 03:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep It doesn't have to be 10 minutes, 5 or even 1 minute would be great. As of right now, its not fun at all to have the cades go down and be back up in less than 20 seconds --Fjorn 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep - The time limit is open for debate, but yes, YES!! Try to siege a mall with multiple large groups defending it, and tell me if this isn't th enectar of life! Rolo Tomasi 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - For same reasons as I gave in the last version. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keep THe idea is good just change one thing make it 5 minutes and i have one question does complete destroyed mean thee doors have to be opened or not?--Mazu 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I like this one alot more than the last one, but believe it should be after the doors are open and only 5 minutes, not 10, if you implementing time. My reasoning for this is because in 10 minutes, over 100 zombies could easily get inside a building if they used basic coordination on timing. With 5 minutes, it would still allow a large number inside, but would also promote even tighter coordination. SuperMario24 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill This one would be a nightmare- it would (even more than the current scenario) force players (survivors especially, but also zombies) to work like bots. Zombies smash barricades, everybody waits exactly 10 minutes, barricade goes up and then zombies smash it down again. Whoever wins the "fast draw" after those 10 minutes are up wins the game. No fun. --Swiers X:00 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (vote moved to correct place. - BzAli 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC))
  3. kill - I don't think metagaming to coordinate your attacks to the miute should be rewarded. - BzAli 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    That is how it is now... this would help to counteract that.--Gage 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ummm....It would? All this would do it make mall seiges crazy one sided. CatEar Alucard 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Illegal response.--Gage 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Kill Oh quite complaining about the barricades. Zeds now get XP from attacking them and ransacking buildings. Stop trying to take away the primary Human defense.
    Unsigned. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - You've got a much more powerful barricade nerf going to peer reviewed as it is. What? You're looking to fill up the archives with differing levels of barricade nerf suggestions along the same lines? This one is only just different enough from your one of a couple of days ago to avoid duping -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Make it 5 minutes. --Wikidead 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Spam in the Kill - This is pointless. If an attack is well co-ordinated enough to occur en masse within a 10-minute window, then it would inevitably succeed. This isn't a real-time sim, anyway. Most players surely only play for minutes a day. It would be a bit mad to log on and find that you're in a 10-minute "zombie horde barricade nerf" window. Lay off the sauce, Gage. Or go and write your own game, which you can make as stupid as you like. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 00:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - For the same reasons I spammed your last one.--J Muller 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Funt basically stated my thoughts referring to the en-masse attack. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Huge numbers of zombies could get inside in that 10 minute window, not to mention that it would only take two or three zombies to attack at the right time to prevent the barricades being rebuilt for yet another 10 minutes. Sieges are only going to be possible if both sides have a chance. --Toejam 04:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill How about if a zombie breaks through barricades the building collapses and all the survivors inside automatically die. Because this is one step away from that. Why are all these people convinced that as soon as a zombie breaks down the barricades that should mean the building is screwed? Barricades are not strong. They are weak. Two zombies can utterly smash them. Two zombies out of a horde of ten zombies or fifty zombies or five hundred zombies isn't much. If breaking cades = instant loss then it should be possible to cade to a much high level. If zombies want to stop survivors from building barricades they should kill people with Construction. Not wish for their sheer presence to stop people from using their skills. --Jon Pyre 04:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Agree with Funt. In addition, this is even more overpowered then then last one.00Pesatyel 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill Agree with Pyre. Dst3313 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill Timer events do not fit in with this game's mechanics.--SporeSore 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - More overpowered than Ahnuld on steroids. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Vastly overpowered. Altough it's tempting to discuss "how big the time window should be", no matter how big or small the ammount of time is, neither UD basic structure is prepared to calc boosts time or will any ammount of time suffice to some and be fair to others. The "my side wants more fun so lets nerf the other one" argument is not a valid one on the suggestions page and never should be. I rather see claws upgraded to 60% accuracy. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam - The Cap'n says it simply. Also, why should you not be headshot, plopped outside, and cades be built again?! In a real Situation, with so many people holed up in a fortress like a mall, the same thing would happen. I really think that we should listen to what many people have said: STOP WHINING! We have done so many things to make the game balanced, and if you feel so strongly about the barricades, think about players who play zombies and can stand up as the characters they play with ankle grab, should their be a 10 minute wait for them standing up too? Nibiletz 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Crazy talk, waaaay too overpowered. All seiges would be non-exsistant. As said above, Cap'n says it best. CatEar Alucard 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spam - No, no, no, no, no! I'd like to get rid of bots just as much as you would but this creates a loophole big enough for a zombie hoard to march through. I've been in situations where I was the first one to respond and it would piss me off if I had to wait before responding. --Uncle Bill 04:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Double Spam with Cherry on Top Overpowered. Slight modification of a different suggestion under voting. But with same effect: bring barricades down once and have guaranteed free lunch. Use the Discussion page next time. Bluetigers 06:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Super Spam -JUST USE RANSACK! Also breaks are way to common. --AlexanderRM 9:49 PM, 9 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Cigarettes (again)

Timestamp: Nibiletz 22:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: New item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Please read before you drown me in dupe votes. Yes, Cigarettes were suggested as an item before, and shot down. The reason I am bringing it up again is because the archive was removed by the author and I want to re-visit the subject becuase I can't look at the previous developments. The reasons people didn't want cigarettes in the game is ethical, because they don't want to "encourage youth to smoke". So, we are assuming that youth will copy the actions of somthing that is done on a text-based MMORPG? If we think this, then we can also take shooting people out of the game, and axes are mighty dangerous, and people could get splinters if they attempted to build barricades! If we are allowed to preform violent actions on a harmless game, then why would it be an issue to put in fictional cigarettes that wouldn't even be visually seen?

Enough of explaining why the item shouldn't be shot down because of ethical issues. Cigarettes would come in a pack of 12, and found in pubs, mansions, and clubs. Because people holed up in malls in the initial outbreaks were pretty stressed out, there aren't any left in malls. Finding a pack of cigarettes in any of these locations is a 5% chance.

Because Cigarettes are bad for you, everytime you light up you will lose one HP. Cigarettes are just for flavor, and also have good potential as fuel for Roleplay. I think that every time somone in your building lights a cigarette a message could go up saying: Player smokes a cigaretre. This way they would actually have some use if you want to use the items for roleplay. They could bring up policies of smoking and non-smoking in some buildings, and the positions of groups. (Even a Malton anti-smoking leauge!)

Now have fun drowning me in kill votes.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Nibiletz 22:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Yeah, I like this one. I can imagine a bounty hunter lighting up after he's killed an important PKer or something. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I specifically registered on the wiki to vote keep for this one. I want to be able to smoke myself to death. The only change that I suggest is that if a person smoke more than one it says Player smokes a cigarette... and again... and again. same as other repeat actions. EDIT, trying to figure the sig thing. Gm0n3y 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - However, I would like to address a flaw. What would happen if you died from cigarettes? SuperMario24 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep, with change -- I'd vote for something like this ONLY if the second-hand smoke could be used to grief other folks and their HP as well. Asheets 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    RE - First, why? Second, that would make it hated, and also an area effect, both stupid, considering that this is an item only for flavor. If your intent was to preach the dangers of second hand smoke, the suggestions page on the Urban dead Wiki is not the place. Nibiletz 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Don't forget the second hand smoking part!!! And it'll be nice cause people would be spraypainting the walls with con-smoking things, such as "Poop contains ammonia. So does cigarettes." --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep -Mmmmm, boy, flavour! --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 23:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. sorta keep- While i do belive the flavour is a good thing im not so sure on the -HP thing.--Blood Panther 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - We have beer and wine that actually heal and XP, so cigarettes seem fair game. But why not have those heal an HP as well? --Swiers X:00 02:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Surgeon General says cigarettes cause yellow fingernails, hence the -1 HP ;) ZombieCrack 04:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - I like it! Smoking drains 1 HP, but you get it back by drinking. Brilliant! Make it visible when somebody drinks a beer and you've got yourself a deal. --Uncle Bill 05:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Fine with me ... another useless item. Although Player smokes a cigaretre wouldn't be an appropriate message. Höhö. --ρsych°LychεεELT 09:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Fine, why not? It's not like there's a lot of useful stuff to find in those buildings anyway. --Reaper with no name TJ! 22:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - No less useless than wirecutters or newspapers. I'd suggest a minor change though - the first time a player tries to smoke, they should hack and cough (i.e. fail) - that would keep newbies from getting the -1 HP the first time. If they want to keep at it after that, let em. Dst3313 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep So many people complain about suggestions that are not in keeping with the atmosphere of the game, and here is a suggestion that is nothing but. You can drink for 1 HP. Useless. Why not smoke for 1HP? There could be a message such as "You smell smoke as X lights up a cigarette. You stare angrily and muffle your cough so as not to attract any zombies." There could be a 5% chance that a zombie outside hears coughing.--SporeSore 13:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep -This would make people realise that smoking is bad for you, and at full hp you'd fall asleep as or before you died. Smoke, then drink, smoke, then drink... I was thinking of makeing an entire urban dead-based game with drugs as a minor feature: this one lowers AP, this one HP, this one makes you stupid and thus lowers XP... --AlexanderRM 10:00 PM, 9 Febuary 2007 (EST)
  17. keep - this idea is kinda wierd but it just a simple thing that would add somthin to the game. Also why not make you able to give cigaretts to other people since there no danger of abuse it would just be there for the hell of it not everthing in this game need a real purpose.--Mazu 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Decent - It's flavorful and in-genre. Kevan probably has better things to code, but if he ever feels like a minor update or something...--Lachryma☭ 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. keep -well i like the flavor it would add--♠ Che ♠-T GC X 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

#Kill - I really like this idea! -- Ev933n 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Vote posted after voting closed. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Kill Votes

  1. Kill - There's a zillion things lacking in Malton that we have in real life... could it be because they're absolutely useless? - BzAli 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Kill - Wouldn't mind the additional flavor text, but a couple of things keep me from saying yes to this. Firstly, it would allow XP spam for people just smoking and allowing people to get FAK experience off of them. Also, this would make an interesting exploit, because all a bunch of zeds would have to do to seige a building is to free run in, smoke themselves to death, then kill everyone inside. No cades. If I were to suggest a change, it would be to change it to where smoking kills 2 AP as opposed to HP, that way you could say that the smoking shortens your stanima, and you lose the obvious suicide exploits. CatEar Alucard 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re Doubtful. If this becomes a problem, Smoking may become not tolerated in areas under siege. Also, If these zombies came in and smoked themselves to death, it would take a while, long enough for people to grasp the intent and dump the bodies outside. As for the last comment, my intent is not to explain the dangers of smoking in the game but to add flavor! Jesus. Nibiletz 23:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re I'm just saying, in its current form it's got exploit potential. Minorly changed, it would be an awesome flavor item. CatEar Alucard 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Who would want to lose an HP for using an item??? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re People that want to make a example, and add a bit of flair to their roleplaying, anyway, its only one HP, not hard to remedy. Nibiletz 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    In that case...vote changed. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - More useless stuff, just what we don't need. And yes, I'd vote kill on crucifixes too, if they were ever suggested -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - We don't need newbies to find these and think they're useful. --Wikidead 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re -Its not like these will be found where newbies, or anyone else is looking for useful items. They will soon learn that you shouldn't spend your time looking for items at bars, clubs and mansions. Nibiletz 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re: You, me, and everyone else here knows one shouldn't search in bars, clubs, and mansions. Unfortunately, most newbies do not. What happens when a newbie searches a bar, find cigarettes, and then decides to hoard cigarettes? --Wikidead 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - I don't think that this needs to be in the game. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 02:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill We need less stuff without a purpose, not more. What's the point of a "roleplay" item if only you can see it? --Jon Pyre 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

#:Re Hmm? Oh. Well, as I said before it would display a message saying So-and-so has lit a cigarette. I understand what you mean. Unsigned re struck. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. Kill - And I'm a biased party on this, because I hate cigarettes. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re - I totally understand. Nibiletz 15:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. This is even LESS than useless. Man, the game really needs emotes!--Pesatyel 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - What are you, employed by Big Tobacco? Fuck this shit. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re On the contrary, I HATE cigarettes. I find them disgusting. I am only arguing that if the reasons that you feel they shouldn't be in the game are ethical, that can also be argued for the violence and cursing. I in no way like cigarettes in real life, they are vile and have gotten away with many murders. I understand what you mean though, but don't get my false impression. - Nibiletz 15:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. I really dont think this is needed... --GhostStalker 06:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/2nd-Feb-2007&oldid=665127"