Suggestions/2nd-Mar-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

Use ___ on ___

Timestamp: 00:21, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Streamlining the interface
Description: Insted of even stacking the selection bars I think you should only have one. Use ____ on _____ . The first section would let you select wepons as normal or first aid kits or DNA extractors or seringes. This would also help you from accidentaly healing the zombie you were going to revive, and in finding what you are going to do things with. The second would be the selcetion on everyone in the area like normal Exept Yourself to heal yourself just click on the first aid kit icon. Finaly the word Use would be on a clickable botton that would give the disired effect. This would remove all of the selections that could clutter your invintory.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. --Mr NoName 00:21, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Weee! Now I can claim that it was an accident when I shoot people! - CthulhuFhtagn 00:31, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - There's a technology-specific reason why this doesn't happen. Simply, it's much easier to do it the current way, and the current system makes it reasonably difficult to accidentally do the wrong thing. Bentley Foss 05:20, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Dupe this has been suggested before, I can't find the damn thing because I'm on a time limit here. so if somebody else will do the honors?--Vista 11:33, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I like the current way!--DicktheTech 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 3 Kill, 1 Dupe, 1 author Keep, Total 5.--The General 14:30, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Zombies know too much!(revised)

Timestamp: 17:54, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Zombies without memories of life.
Description: Why can zombies tell humans apart? It makes no sense, a zombie can't tell the difference between two human meat bags. I say that zombies should, when encountering a human or group of humans, see this "you see a group of tasty looking meat bags". But upon gaining the skill memories of life the zombie is then able to recognize different humans. Zombies that cannot recognize humans would attack a random human when attacking much like when a human attacks a zombie. It just makes sense for zombies to not be able to tell humans apart. When zombies with the skill scent blood but does not have memories of life sees a group of humans they can still attack the weakest human or which ever one they want with out it being random. But it would still show only meat bag not "so-and-so" NOTE: This does not get rid memories of life's effect only adds to it. This stops newbie survivors from being killed over and over just because a zombie feels like killing the weak player. Oh and to all you zombies who say that this will make even less people play as zombies how? This doesn't change anything except zombies can't tell the difference between people it does nothing to effect the way zombies attack but think about it in a zombie movie have you ever seen a zombie go after a certain character? I don't think so it makes no sense for zombies to tell the difference between humans I agree there needs to be more zombies but instead of changing unrealistic things to help them out, we need more zombie skills.

Votes

  1. Keep- Author vote-01:25, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - It still sucks total ass. The reason it sucks is as follows: It's a total nerf for low level zombies. Now, instead of being able to target enemies that can't headshot them in retaliation, they have to attack at random. It's a balancing mechanic. Balance takes precendence over realism. Hopefully this has been enough justification. - CthulhuFhtagn 01:32, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    Comment Justify. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:16, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re- I love how you zombies just think about zombies. Currantly a zombie can see who its attacking where as a human cannot. My human char has been killed and infected at least twice by a uber zombie that I attacked. when I die as a human I turn into a zombie which I don't want to play as. Zombies should be fearless they don't run away just because it's a strong human no, they attack. I've lost many kills to zombies running away while I am fighting them I think newbie zombies need more skills not un-realistic abillitys.-Deadeye207 02:01, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Want some cheese with that whine?--Mookiemookie 04:45, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - All characters can tell humans apart and all characters can't tell zombies apart. It's fine the way it is. --mikm W! 02:06, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re- You may think its fine but it dosn't make much sense. My idea adds to the realism and flavor of the game-Deadeye207 02:11, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Changed my comment because it was rude for no good reason. It seems that the author has resubmitted because the other version was being killed because of the spelling, and thus my dupe vote was, as far as I'm concerned, unneeded. To author: note that it is customary to retract the old version of your suggestion when making a new version. Note also that you might want to tell us why you resubmitted it if it is not obvious. --McArrowni 02:59, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Dupe - You didn't even fix the spelling --Cinnibar 03:01, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re- Its not a dupe please read it first I have changed the way it is written and "dupe" implies I copied someone else I submitted that one yesterday it should have been moved to previous days submissions if you look at the time stamps this one is from today and the other one is from yesterday please change yor vote to kill or keep, thank you. And yes I did fix most of the spelling I admit some of it may have gotten through BUT I did run a spell check before submitting. THIS IS NOT A DUPE The submission was re-written some what to let my original point shine through please stop voting dupe becuase it is not the same thing-Deadeye207 03:04, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re to the Re O rly? Read the dupe vote description at the top of the page. I was there when it was written, you know. Your suggestion is the SAME BLOODY THING as you suggested yesterday, and unless you can prove otherwise my vote stands. And fix your bloody Re tags (it should have a #* in front of them, so it doesn't mess up the vote count). Unwarranted comments. I'm officially retracting these (and those originaly accompanying my vote) on account of that I have been an idiot--McArrowni 03:22, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re Sorry for overreacting. Didn't notice the new spelling. Anyways, as far as I'm concerned you can delete my Res and your responses to them. As for the "I was there when it was written" bit, I thought you were trying to pull a fast one over the description of the dupe vote. It is obvious now that I was somewhat mistaken. --McArrowni 04:46, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - This is still garbage. Don't forget that "realism" and "flavor" needs to be sacrificed for fun sometimes, because there is a human being playing behind that character. Now will you please stop resubmitting this? --Mookiemookie 04:22, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Dupe - of your earlier, shit suggestion. Zombies are on the decline and have been for months, with only brief growth spurts occurring when we get a new boost (vanishing when humans counter the boost, or get something new), and you want to nerf Zombies. use your head for once! --Grim s 04:40, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - The current system is fine. Don't force zombies to require a skill in order to attack specific targets. And think about how screwed up this would make "Scent Blood" if you bought it before this, hmm? Yeah. And, newbie survivors can just deal with it. That's life in UD. Bentley Foss 05:23, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam - Though while you're at it, why not come up with a skill that would allow zombies to recognize names of buildings? Or read the buttons in the Urban Dead UI? Yeah. --John Ember 05:42, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I told you I would kill this again. It changes the game and would adversely affect zombies. I do not like the idea of making zombies less fun to play. Especially not when I accidentally brainrotted the first character I ever made. -Banana Bear4 07:43, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Zombies can't tell Zombies apart. That I think is 'nuff said. Blue Wild Angel 11:19, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -This would only target low level zombies and recently dead survivors/zombies. both are very weak and need actually a boost tomake playing as one more fun. this would nerf them in the name of realism. realism should mainly be used as a to make the game more playable instead of less--Vista 11:40, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - Zombies are anonymous, while humans have an identity. Arguing in favor of realism should only be done if the skill makes the game more fun, not more frustrating. Lots of things in this game don't make sense: holding 20 shotguns, being able to cure an infection in seconds with a simple first-aid kit, limitless supplies, no perma-death. None of those things make any sense to me, but you don't see me suggesting to remove them. --TheTeeHeeMonster 13:54, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Dupe - No different than your previous suggestion. I see you ran it through a spell checker, but it didn't help you because the title of the skill is still screwed up. I don't see any difference between this and the previous one besides that. Timid Dan 15:23, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - I still don't think this is a good idea. (1) Newbie zombies are weak enough as it is, give 'em a break, will ya? (2) You say This stops newbie survivors from being killed over and over just because a zombie feels like killing the weak player. I don't know any zombies who do this; zombies target the experienced Construction/Headshot/low HP/NT crowd for a variety of reasons, and often leave the n00bs alone. --WibbleBRAINS 18:12, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Makes sense to me. Zombies should have about as much success distinguishing individual humans as humans do distinguishing one chicken from the next. Food is food. Plus, it makes Memories of Life more attractive. --Cybrgrl 19:23, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - I still don't like itbut this time you have corrected the most of the spelling and grammar. I have fixed any remaining grammar mistakes in the suggestion and I have corrected the spelling and grammar in your re's.--The General 20:37, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Great, you've learned to spell check; so I won't be an ass about it this time around. The fact is, this suggestion is just one more way to nerf the zombie class. Their ability to pick out low levels to munch on is vital to them leveling up, without it they might as well throw themselves out of buildings until they get bored for all the good fighting will do. And, though a moot point, it would have bad interactions with Scent Blood and Scent Fear; meaning the entire tree would have to be reconfigured to avoid such a thing. --Arcos 21:35, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Let's address the Anti-equality squad(ie. the masses who wish to promote Zombies and Cheating, as their every comment proves, and make sure anyone who has a good suggestion or wishes to better the game gets spammed with their warped comments that bring down the game). Zombies adore attacking the weak and helpless newbies for cheap XP since they can level faster that way, they neither attack indescriminately nor target the stronger players... This change doesn't discourage or impair Zombies at all, it only makes Zombie Spies reconsider their line of work as they suddenly become as prone to be the target of a Zombie's attack as the other people around. Now, I agree, there needs to be a way to target a single target, but they shouldn't know one human from another besides HP if they have the appropriate skill and the fact they hit a specific one and want to continue to hit that one. What needs to be mentioned instead is a seperation system that allows humans to target Zombie #4 instead of Zombie #2 and vice versa allow a Zombie to target Human #7 instead of Human #43. Stop making a big to do about spelling and grammer, not everyone on the web speaks the same language, and grammer and spell checkers are rarely perfect. As for Zombies anonymous vs Humans have identities, actually it is as likely the reverse... humans to Zombies are either all nameless cattle to be culled or potential future Zombies, not individuals with names and identities, meanwhile... Zombies can be former friends and loved ones, casual aquaintences, or even just the guy that fixed the barricade last week to a human. If a Zombie wants to know one human from another their are two options, they can get the MOL Skill, or they can do the cheap tactic that Zombie Hunters can already use to know one Zombie from another, add them to your contacts and they show up as a name. I will repeat this for those too dense to grasp it, the current status quo only encourages Zombie spies(not Zombies, change it and Zombie spies will decrease which means Zombies will increase. Despite you obliviousnous to this fact, since most Zombie spies will find constantly being turned back and forth to be too tedious once they're as likely if not more likely to be killed by their Zombie allies as they are by Humans that catch on to their spying), and targeting specific people like newbies and guys you recognise for the forums and Wiki that you don't like. --Pvt Joke 11:27, 3 March 2006
    • Re - You must only play survivor characters. Zombies in fact do target higher-level survivors more often than new players, and zombie spies are already in danger of attack from feral zombies who don't know they're not really on the "human" side. Your comments show a tremendous ignorance of the non-human side of Urban Dead. --John Ember 19:29, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Spam - Want realism and flavor? Let's remove the syringes because reviving zombies is far beyond realistic and infections can't be cured. In fact, let's delete all zombies who were headshot because they shouldn't be able to stand back up. -Kraxxis 15:36, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep i was going to vote kill but Pvt Jokes comments make so much sense that i changed my mind! while 'realism' is not a good enough reason to include or remove anything in the game this does fit genre and will not make it harder or less attractive to play a zed just a little more random. this does not make playing a zombie any less fun and it actually seems like it will reduce abuse. as for interfering with scent blood could a new message not read something like 'their blood still fresh in your mouth your prey has fled to x'? finaly i will appologise if i screw this page up (again) i am just not good with computers...--Honestmistake 12:28, 4 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - Doesn't seem logical to me!--DicktheTech 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - As a zombie player, and a low-level one at that, it makes perfect sense. Why would your basic brain-muncher be able to tell humans apart - more so, why would they care?--wererogue 10:49, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 11 Kill, 6 Keep, 3 Spam, 3 Dupe, Total 22.--The General 14:39, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Tangling Grasp Immoblization

Timestamp: 01:48, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill mod
Scope: Zombies
Description: Successfully tangle grasping a human creates the chance of preventing that human from moving to another block or leaving or entering a building.

After grabbing a human, there would be a 5% chance that human would not be able to move when he tries to, burning 1 AP in the struggle "A zombie has grabbed you. You cannot escape." The more zombies that grab you, the higher the probability of a failed move. Each zombie grabbing increases the immoblization chance by 5%, to a maximum of five zombies or 25% chance of immobilization. "X zombies have grabbed you. You cannot escape." (five maximum because there are really only so many places to grab someone.)

A further modification could be that the human would deal damage upon escaping from the zombie for experience. "you punch the zombie in the face for 1, damage and escape." perhaps the more zombies you escape from, the more xp you get. "In a terrified frenzy, you batter the five zombies for 5 damage each and escape." After all, escaping from 5 hungry zombies is certainly worth 25 XP --Stare 01:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Votes

  1. Kill - Immobilization is bad. Especially for players who can't fight for X reason (no fighting skills/weapons, little AP, low HP). Sure, it's more realistic, but it makes gameplay much less enjoyable. --mikm W! 01:56, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill You can't win in a fight against a zombie, not unless you have a big stockpile of shotgun ammunition you spent a week collecting. Even then you couldn't defeat more than one really. If zombies can hold you in place you're completely screwed, especially since your browser might not reload fast enough to break free. --Jon Pyre 02:36, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill Badly formed suggestion. Too many "could be" and "perhaps" clauses to know what is being voted on. --Cinnibar 03:03, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill See Cinnibar's comment. Also, right now I don't believe two zombies can grasp the same human... the second one would break the first's grasp--McArrowni W! 03:13, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Immobilization is bad. I know it's been said, but it deserves to be said again.--Guardian of Nekops 03:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Thankfully, the fellows above me have said just about everything I would have said, had I said it first. Bentley Foss 05:25, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - As others have said, but I think it has possibilies though --Private Chineselegolas RAF 06:06, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Firm Grip was a better version of this in my opinion, but that still had a few holes. Blue Wild Angel 11:21, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill -There is a very good reason why the current grasp is constructed as it is. more would boost the already superiour combat abilaties of zombies too much. with your suggestion 5 zombies can enjoy the boost against one survivor instead of just one. Also the fact that what you consider it's main effect (it isn't, the main effect is the 10 percent boost for 5 players) it is such a limited skill only usefull for active combat (extremely rare in this game, happens almost exclusively in large sieges). and then immobilazation is very annoying to the recieving player player with any noticable benefit for the zombie as he usually has enough other targets to focus on. --Vista 11:51, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - At most, survivors get a ¼ chance of not moving, and even then 5 zombies on one survivor means they'll be dead in no time. I say flat out no to immobilization, but if it were even a good idea then 5% would be far too low. -Kraxxis 15:41, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - It's worth keeping,I would lie to have a chance roaming the street, not just pushing my way through waves and waves of Zombies!--DicktheTech 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 10 Kill, 1 Keep, Total 11.--The General 14:32, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Pep pills

Timestamp: 02:40, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: A new item would be introduced: a box of pep pills. When consuming one box of pep pills, it increases your AP cap by 5 AP for the next 24 hours. Any other box of pep pills consumed within 48 hours after drinking the first one has no effect.

Votes

  1. Kill- No I am sorry its still not balanced If I horded 10 of these during a mall seige It would give the human side a HUGE advantage change it to only being able to carry one at a time and you might get my vote maybe make it more interesting that "energy drink" thats kinda boring too.-Deadeye207 02:49, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Deadeyes, read the suggestion. The effects do not stack. Hoard 10 of these, you'll just be waiting longer than it's worth. And if you wait until you have 55 APs in a siege, you will likely die in your sleep, or be less to the defenders than the guys who moves when it hits 30, anyways. I'm still killing this, because I don't think this really fits on an item in a believable manner(I take an energy drink/pep pill, go to sleep, and wake up with more energy??? weird).--McArrowni W! 03:08, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re-Did I say they stacked? no I dident still if I used one every 24 hours it would give the human side an unfair advantage if thats more clear-Deadeye207 03:11, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
      • It says 48 hours ya dolt. In any case, I think I'll change the name... AllStarZ 04:53, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re Thanks Deadeye, that's much more clear. However, I do not see the problem. Each to his own oppinion I guess. --McArrowni 05:02, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Go. Read. Learn. (Sorry, copy & paste is easy...) Bentley Foss 05:28, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Not again... what's next, battery clips you can attach to your nipples once per day to increase your AP? "Travels Light" was a nice idea, but we don't need to drag out every energy boost idea that's already been killed and reword it to use the "Travels Light" effect. --Norcross 15:10, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - No more strength/adrenaline/caffine AP boosts, please. --WibbleBRAINS 18:22, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - "battery clips you can attach to your nipples" sounds like a great idea! /thumbsup (On the suggestion, why do survivors get extra AP and zombies get left in the dust?) -Kraxxis 15:43, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - 50 Ap is enough, get use to it, it's not changing any time soon!--DicktheTech 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 7 Kill, 0 Keep, Total 7.--The General 14:29, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Ammo Conservation

Timestamp: 03:27, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill, Military
Scope: Survivors
Description: There have been several suggestions to redistribute ammunition in one's inventory, but in this skill I hope to suggest the mechanics for this change and be highly specific. I believe this is important, it can be frustrating to have one gun with 3 bullets and another with two and not being able to transfer the ammunition to another gun so you can discard that gun or reload another clip in without wasting bullets. Here is how it would work:

Pistols Clicking on a gun would unload it and transfer the bullets to a new item in your inventory that would be titled "Bullets X". That simply lumps all the loose bullets single into one item, and X is the number of bullets you have. Bullets X would count as one item for every five bullets, if the total was not divisible by five it would round it up. If you don't have room in your inventory and try to unload a gun you'd just get a message: "You're holding too much to carry them seperately." Clicking on "Bullets X" would cost one AP and subtract up to 6 bullets from X and load it into the emptiest pistol in your inventory. If your emptiest pistol already had some bullets in it it would only subtract the number of shots from "Bullets X" needed to fill up the gun.

To illustrate: In your inventory you have Pistol (6), Pistol (2), Pistol (3), Bullets (13). You click on Pistol (2). Your new inventory looks like: Pistol (6), Pistol (0), Pistol (3), Bullets (15). You discard Pistol (0) and then click on Bullets (15). Your new inventory looks like Pistol (6), Pistol (6), Bullets (12)

Pistol Clips You would still find individual pistol clips and could reload guns with them. However if you reload a gun that already has ammunition in it the excess shots are added to "Bullets X". Also if a player wants to streamline their interface clicking on a Pistol Clip when all your pistols are full will merge it with "Bullets X".

Shotguns are also included in this skill But that would be simpler. Clicking on a shotgun would just unload one shell into your inventory. There would NOT be a shells x button. If you didn't have room for the shell you'd get the same error message as above.

What Would Cost AP? Taking bullets out of guns would not cost AP. If you're unloading one bullet out of a pistol it isn't worth it to spend an entire AP for a single shot. I feel this skill would be worthless if you charged additional AP to move things out of guns. And remember, "AP Is Not A Unit Of Time". Though it takes an AP to put bullets into a gun that's an issue of game balance not a measurement that it takes 1AP of time to move bullets in guns. I want to stress this point strongly, AP is a method of limiting a player's power, not a measurement of how long it takes to do something. If you use that logic it doesn't make sense that it takes just as long to say something as it does to perform surgery. Remember this isn't giving a player more ammunition, it is just letting them make their inventory more efficient. Putting bullets into guns would cost AP. It would not cost any less to put bullets into guns from "Bullets X" than it does to load a clip. You still have a ratio of 6 bullets inserted per 1 AP spent. If you charge AP to unload then it'd be charging 2AP for the benefit of rearranging your ammo: 1 to unload, and 1 to load again. This does give using this skill a cost, later you'd have to pay an AP to put the bullets back in. It is not giving it away for free and I think charging 1AP per six bullets is fair, otherwise you'd per charing an AP for single shots! This wouldn't be a freebie because of the AP cost to reload, you simply wouldn't chuck the excess bullets over your shoulder which if you think about it just makes sense. Ammunition is valuable, it makes perfect sense logic and flavor wise you would not discard bullets just because your gun has a few inside already.

Discarding bullets You could discard "Bullets X" however this would only reduce 6 bullets from it at a time. You wouldn't need to worry about accidentally discarding "Bullets X" and throwing away 5 clips worth of bullets.

Where this should go on the skill tree It'd just be a subskill of Basic Firearms Training. You have a general idea what to do with guns, getting better at arranging your ammunition is a natural progression of being experience with firearms.

In Conclusion It lets Pistol (3), Pistol (1), Pistol (2), Pistol (4), Pistol (1) become Pistol (6), Pistol (5). Need I say more?

Votes

Comment - Don't pistols & pistol clips hold 6 bullets? Why are you constantly talking about 5 bullets as a unit? --Ralav 03:53, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  1. Kill - Keep - yes, pistols can store 6 bullets, but the idea is good to pass. I have seen worse math in here to worry about this --hagnat talk 03:56, 2 March 2006 (GMT) Changing vote to kill. It is a good idea, but it must cost 1 ap to move bullets around. And please tell me you didnt call me a brain fart. --hagnat talk 20:00, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Doh. Brain fart. I'll fix it. The suggestion remains the same though. --Jon Pyre 04:03, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill Make unloading or juggling the ammo around cost an AP and i will change my vote. --Grim s 04:35, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I just feel it wouldn't be a worthwhile use of AP then. It would probably still be better than nothing but not charging to move things around in your inventory as to not waste ammunition doesn't seem unfair. You'd still need to pay AP to reload.
      • Re: - The thing is that unloading is an action, and thus it should cost an AP. There is also the fact that this allows you to increase your overall ammunition capacity from holding partially loaded guns, as once you unload one gun to load another, you can fill the ones emptied with spare clips and thus pick up more in a PD. I dont see why such a benefit should be completely free, in line with Dont give it away in the Suggestion Do's and Do nots. --Grim s 10:56, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It's that I don't think the overall cost of loading ammo should increase. If a player loaded a gun, fires three shots, and finds another gun to transfer the ammo they'll have spent 1AP loading, 1AP unloading, and 1AP loading again. I don't want to double or triple charge for the same bullets, I think 1AP per clip of ammo loaded is a fair price. --Jon Pyre 18:06, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I like the idea of removing the excess guns I have and not losing a shot.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 05:03, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - There's a better ammo suggestion in peer reviewed, though sadly I'm too lazy to link you to it. It was reasonably recent, though. Bentley Foss 05:30, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - This is well thought out. --John Ember 05:49, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Finally, I would be able to toss the guns with 3 bullets, without having to waste the ammo --Private Chineselegolas RAF 06:03, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Well thought out. I like it. Oh, and Bentley, you're not supposed to vote on a suggestion relative to others. Vote on this suggestion's merits. --Pinpoint 06:11, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Where did you get this idea? Besides this suggestion is about solving a (percieved) problem. If you believe there to be a better fix to the problem lying around already the merit of this suggestion is very limited as it doesn't meet the standard you now know excists. We don't need every possible solution in peer reviewed, only the few that are the best. --Vista 11:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Probably from the top of the page where it says, "X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote. You are voting on the merit of THIS suggestion, not how it compares to others." Even then, you should at least link to the other suggestion to really make the Kill vote justified, instead of sending people to find it on their own. Seems like common courtesy to me.
    • He doesn't vote Kill because he want another skill implemented first, He votes kill BECAUSE THERE IS A BETTER SOLUTION (to him at least). You also misinterpretate the bit you are quoting, that is meant to stop people from voting against a survivor skill as long as no zombie skill is implemented first or vice-versa, we had that a lot a while back. Linking to another suggestion is always a good thing to do.--Vista 01:48, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Use the gun with 1 bullet first, then the next gun with 2 bullets, then one with 3 bullets and so on. Discard the empty gun(s). Easy. Don D Crummitt 11:07, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - That would be an easy and simple solution to the problem, but unfortunately you cannot select which gun you would like to fire first. If your inventory has: Pistol (3) Pistol (6) Pistol (6), you have to fire the first from the right. This suggestion is an interesting solution to the problem. -- Andrew McM W! 14:17, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re True, but that is not a problem in itself. You will fire all bullets consequently without having to "reload", no matter how the bullets are distributed. Once the last gun is empty, discard it. Don D Crummitt 15:11, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Me likey, me likey. I always wished to throw 3 of my guns and to keep their ammo. --Abi79 13:02, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Kill - We can already carry so many guns... it should at least cost 1 AP to manage our ammo Jon Pyre has a point. Again. Stop making me look stupid :P --McArrowni 14:19, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It would cost 1AP as you'd have to reload the gun. Every time you unload a gun you'll have to pay for it eventually, I just don't want to charge 2AP, 1 to unload and 1 to load. It'd be pretty silly to spend a whole AP to save a single bullet. This way 1AP total is only charged per six bullets moved. --Jon Pyre 18:09, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 6 Keeps, 4 Kills, 0 Spams/Dupes -- 14:27, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Looks pretty good. --Blahblahblah 15:02, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - It's nice to be able to manage ammo, but there are much less complicated ways to do the same thing. --Norcross 17:41, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - we really need a function like this and so far this is better then Ammo boxes and all that stuff that lets you carry more ammo then you should. it solves the problem of finding half empty guns and not being able to empty them withough fireing ALL your ammo. Love it Keep everyone vote keep or die. lol just kidding --Kirk Howell 23:19, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - If if costs AP to load a weapon, then it would cost AP to unload a weapon. Resubmit with a modified AP section and I will change my vote. It's a good premise. --Jim Stevens 23:49, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re AP is not a unit of time. It is a representation of how much power the player has to affect the game. If you have Pistol (1), Pistol (1), Pistol (1), Pistol (1), Pistol (1), Pistol (1) why should it costs 7 AP to merge them into one pistol? It is fair to allow unloading for free and then to charge 1AP to move all the bullets to a single gun, otherwise it's cheaper to just discard the gun and search for pistol clips! --Jon Pyre 00:04, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - I think the sentiment is that it should cost AP to unload. I also think if you click to dump Bullets X it should dump ALL the bullets in the slot. Also, the Peer Reviewed suggestion Bentlely was referring to, I believe, is this Use_emptiest.--Pesatyel 21:56, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Except that the action of taking out bullets should cost AP, cuz organizing bullets in more tedious that loading bullets--DicktheTech 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    Tally - 7 Kill, 9 Keep, 0 Dupe, 0 Spam, 16 Total –Xoid 13:26, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Firm Grip (version 2)

Timestamp: 14:41, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This would be a sub-skill of "Tangling grasp".

A zombie with a firm grip holds its victim tighter, while maintaining a tangling grasp, making it harder for the victim to act. It's grasp is not broken by other zombies attacking the same victim.

Mechanic: Gaining or regaining the Grip: A zombie who hits with a claw attack has a %50 chance of gaining a Firm Grip. "You gain a firm grip on Character." "A zombie...and gets a firm grip on you."

Effects: While a Firm Grip is in effect, it will cause the victim to spend one more AP per action. Essentially, a character that is being held by some zombie's firm grip would have to spend 2 AP to attack, search, move, etc. Speaking does not incur this AP penalty.

If someone is held in a firm grip, they would have the following items on their screen:

Right above "Possible Actions", in bold: "A zombie holds you. All actions except speaking will cost 1 more AP."

An action button: "Loosen Grip".

Losing the Grip: The victim can press the "Loosen Grip" button, which would cost 2AP (1AP for an action + 1 to fight against the grip) in order to break free and be in a normal tangling grasp. The zombie sees this message, "Your grip on Character loosens." and its victim's actions cost the normal AP.

If the zombie loses its tangling grasp (which is a prerequisite for this skill) then the firm grip is also gone. (Note: As it stands, tangling grasp is lost when either character moves to another block, the zombie changes target, or %50 of the time when a zombie misses an attack on a grasped victim. Missed attacks mean that a zombie loses its grasp in a minimum of %20 of its attacks.)

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --Greymattergourmet 14:41, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Excellent. Getting gripped would make for some heart-pumping action indeed. Great balance for Headshot in that it gives the zombie a way to steal a bit of AP from the human; however, the victim can easily limit the AP taken by simply running into another block. Thus, it's not overpowering. --John Ember 15:20, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Don't mess with other people's AP. Timid Dan 15:26, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I like it, survivors have headshot, we have firm grip. - --ramby T--W! - SGP 15:33, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Whatever, I'm starting to be confused. But I think this could be ok, although if Kevan implements it he will probably need to implement something else for survivors or weaken another skill. --McArrowni 16:04, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep-Wonderful well written not over powering very good-Deadeye207 16:30, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Still good. --Dickie Fux 16:34, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill- Has everyone gone insane? "Wow, this skill is really overpowered, let's vote for it!" In real-time combat, Digestion beats just about everything a survivor can throw at a zed, excepting shotguns...and even then, it can be close if you miss a lot. Now you propose to tack on an AP penalty in addition to Infection? No! Bentley Foss 16:39, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - You know, I once accused certain people on this board of being nazis. I hated 'em, shooting down peoples ideas like gunners taking on a kamikaze death squadron. Now, whilst there's no room in the real world for any sort of facism, I think that this board may indeed need some sort of Schutzstaffel to manage the board. Of course, I don't really believe this, I was just being a complete wanker. Ha! Still, I kill! Don D Crummitt 16:47, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Of course we're insane, Bentley, but that's not the point. The point is that this only matters for the uncommon real-time battles, that you only have to lose two AP to it, and that zeds need more skills anyway. I want to be more afraid of zombies than I now am, and this does that without giving them too much power.--Guardian of Nekops 16:51, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Too overpowered. an extra AP for every action? Nooo... maybe an extra AP to escape - move to a different square, enter/leave a building - I would consider, but this is too much. --Reverend Loki 16:56, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Gets my vote still, although does the firm grip remain when the zombie goes offline, thus making this useful outside of active combat? Blue Wild Angel 17:03, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I would say no. Also, I suspect a tangling grasp is broken when you go offline. (Not sure).--Greymattergourmet 17:55, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Just because I can, also Bentley stop talking out of your arse. Digestion doesn't beat just about everything. A 65% 5 damage pistol > a 30% to hit 4hp heal anyday. --Qwako 17:26, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill Sorry but Bentley Foss is right...even a well armed survivor can't compete against a zombie when the zombie's attacks gives the survivor the equivalent of 25 AP a day! This would be just as unbalanced as a survivor skill that causes zombies to spend 2 AP on their next action for every time they've shot because the bullets "shock" them. Sure you can make a case for it flavor wise but the mechanics are where it fails. Just way overpowered. There's a few other flaws with this assumption. You're also assuming the survivor has A)Ammunition B)Firearms skills. In addition a survivor can't afford to burn out all their AP in a fight like the zombie can. They need to reach shelter. The extra 15 AP the survivor loses because of this skill might be what they need to find an unbarricaded building. This would just be a complete and total nerf of a survivor's ability to engage in real-time combat. --Jon Pyre 18:20, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - way too overpowered. --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 18:26, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - 'Loosen grasp' isn't overpowered. You get grabbed by a zombie. You spend 1AP to break that grasp. Then you're away. --Strapon Bev 18:42, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Makes sense to me. Humans have an advantage in live combat as it stands. This balances the playing field.--J Livingstone 19:02, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Survivors shouldn't be able to walk through a mob of zombies without some trepidation. This will put a little fear into them. --Cybrgrl 19:10, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - I want to see more live survivor-against-zombie fights, not less. With this, survivors will simply walk away from every online zed they encounter, and try to shoot the next sitting duck they find. --hagnat talk 20:11, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I don't see that. Humans may run if they find a zed has gotten a Firm Grip on them, but otherwise that'd be overreacting. And the best-armed may choose to stay and fight it out anyway. --John Ember 21:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Majorly overpowered. Would see the end of real time combat as something exciting in this game, which would be a sore loss. --Grim s 20:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - This is invaluable in helping the zombies counteract the low cost of brain support systems rebuilding of barricades. Too many times have groups of zombies been kept out of buildings because 1 lone human can build barricades faster and cheaper than several zombies can bring them down. If the zombies can manage to get them down and 1 get in, then the "Z" can keep the human from building so far, so fast. --Egbert 21:48, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - But if this fails, i recomend you resugest the idea with out the AP changes, i think you should change it to all actions have a 20%(could be 30%) chance of escaping, with a boosted 25%(could be 70%) of escaping if you use a 'struggle' button, that way you keep the key feature of the idea, not allowing Survivors to run around, but you lose the key downside that your messing with other peoples AP.in the intrest of fairness id keep the escape rates high and apply them to each Z that is holding you seperatly.sorry if it sounds like im changing your sugestion completly im just trying to work around the AP drain--xbehave 22:25, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill Live combat favors zeds already, and this is way too cheep, taking away AP in the adition of being infected and tangling grasp makes this way too cheep anyone trying to make their way past just a few zeds would be dead instantly. COMBAT IS BALLANCED stop Messing with it. and Dont Mess with my AP. There is no downside to this skill, what is the penalty? perhaps the zed because of its tight grip can no longer dodge attacks as well so other melee attacks by other survivors hit 100% and fire arms increase by 5%. that would make sence if he has a grip on me i'll be holdinh him tight in place and ym buddies can finish him off. OH but you will cry if someone makes a ballanced suggestion like that.... --Kirk Howell 22:54, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill *sigh* I was so ready to vote keep on this when I saw it on the discussion page.. But I have seen the counter arguments, and they are good. I love the idea (flavor/"realism") of gripping your prey actually holding the person - but I love on line combat more, and this would just result in survivors running from on line attacks. Maybe something like a survivor gripped must spend 2 AP to move away if they attempt while they are being held - but anything more just makes it so they will always run away. --Blahblahblah 23:43, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Oh my god! if this passes, humans might fear zombies! Humans might have to run from Zmobies again! Oh god! this is a fine thing. Maybe it would make being a zombie more fun even? whoa whoa whoa. If the harman gets grabbed, then the harman can run away, and not lose 25 hp, It isn't a big problem. It just might make it so that harmans get killed by zmobies sometimes, and not just other harmans. This is a really silky smooth idea, actually, its not quite perfect, I like the idea of a survivor having to spend extra xp for running away more -Banana Bear4 23:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 15 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 SPAM/Dupe --Dickie Fux 00:51, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. SPAM -Did somebody pull open a can of stupid or something AP PENALTIES ARE A BALANCING MEASURE, NOT TO BE USED TO FUCKING ANNOY PEOPLE WITH. yes headshot is annoying, but it is meant to balance the fact that zombies don't fucking DIE. if these kind of suggestions continue we're going to fucking suggest we end up with only 1 ap in the end. fucking stop it already. If you're suggesting a AP penalty on anything but a UNBALANCED part of the game you're an idiot and a big one. Luckely does Kevan decide what goes in the game instead of the people who keep suggestion AP penalties or we'd be out of a nice free Browser game by now.--Vista 01:58, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - At least I can read... see there are arguments about the thing you have just called me an idiot for. This is supposed to be a Balancing Measure for Live Combat! Not to Annoy Someone! So, what balances zombie immortality? You said that headshot does... But someone else argued that Barricades do? How about this for balancing? Drop all zombies AP to 30 and get rid of barricades and headshot. Because that's how much hordes zombies usually have left after headshot and barricades. So, what really balances that out? What balances the fact that a zombie can soak a full cycle's worth of AP into cades and only have AP left to groan? What balances the fact that a zombie hunter can down a zombie in 8-10 (up to 14) AP, take 6 AP off of the zombie, heal for 10 hp while the zombie stands up and have another go and still have the HP and AP to flee? In Live Combat. Zombies are better in live combat...? Hah! Do the math! What getting an infectious bite in takes 3 AP to succeed (on average), will probably cost the zombie tangling grasp, and is reversible with a 1 AP spent by a survivor. Firm grip is a third-tier skill, which means that it would probably be taken by a level 8+ zombie. Comparable to Zombie Hunters.. human hunters. On top of that, I honestly expect, if both zombie and human started at full AP in the same block, on average the human would lose about 10 AP +/- 3. Compare that to the fact that in the same AP cycle and combat the zombie hunter will take 12 AP off of the zombie and still have AP to run or even freerun to some place with safe cades. The zombie won't be able to chase him to his "Freerun haven", the zombie hunter can just pop in and out of his safe haven, breaking the grasp, dropping hp from the zombie, maybe taking an occasional hit or bite, what balances that? Infectious bite: that's even *if* the zombie chooses to lose AP to infecting the human, who can easily soak the infection damage while downing the zombie, and making bites is more likely to cost the zombie his grasp. Meanwhile, the survivor can heal up the infection and repeat as much as he likes to harvest XP from a freestanding zombie. It will be tough on low levels, but they need to learn caution. Not this Rambo crap that survivors pull because there is very little reason to be worried if they engage in a live combat with a zombie. Survivors have immortality too: revive syringes, fak's and knowing when to flee combat.--Greymattergourmet 14:47, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - Overpowered. Drop the AP penalty and increase the "lose grip" chance to, say, 30% and I think you'd have a real winner. --TheHermit 02:52, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - Puts a little fear into survivors. Feeling particularly abusive today, are we Vista? --Pinpoint 09:40, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill/Change - AP penalty on everything except speaking is a bit too much. While it's more "real" it still makes survivors suffer immensely. (people like Vista make reading suggestions so much more fun and makes me feel smarter) -Kraxxis 15:55, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill - Yeah I agree with the other kills... you need to get rid of that AP penalty. --TheBigT 17:32, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep - No overpowering, but improves on the ZOmbie skill and makes sense--DicktheTech 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  32. Kill - I just don't like the idea of having to spend twice as much work to leave when my character is already weak (I'm a scientist, not a fighter)Hamster Ninja 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 17 Keep, 14 Kill, 1 Spam.--The General 14:26, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Know Your Own

Timestamp: 20:50, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Other
Scope: Organized Groups
Description: I have noticed that it is difficult to tell if a given person is part of your group/faction in game. I suggest that anyone belonging to a certain group/faction would see the members of their group/faction either in a different color, or with some other tag. This would make it easier to not commit treason in as a member of a zombie-human joint group/faction, thus making combat easier. I do realize that it would be easy to disguise one's self as a certain group member, this responsablity should lie in the groups' leaders.

Votes

  1. Kill I like survivors being on one side and zombies being on another. --Jon Pyre 21:53, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - I dont think thats what the suggestion is about, read it again. Slavik 01:17, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - Wake up and smell the corpse, there are some zombie-human alliances who go after PKers and ZKers. Lord Tataraus 02:20, 4 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill Easily abusable. --mikm W! 22:15, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Abusable? yes but what would people gain? Small groups know everyone in them and large groups couldn't care less. A good idea. Slavik 01:17, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -How the bleep can you commit treason in this game? this suggestion doesn't do a thing --Vista 02:01, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - *SCREEECH!* (car brakes) How could zombies benefit from this? Survivors can't tell zombies apart, neither can zombies! -Kraxxis 16:00, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Author Vote. You guys don't get it, your a survivor, and a zombie kills; now your on your way to a revive point when your on teammate bashes you around and you end up dying 20 times untill you're finally turned back. This would change the whole "Survivors can't tell zombies apart, neither can zombies" bit so there would be a "friendly zombie", your teammate, and the basic "zombie" the same would go for survivors. -Lord Tataraus -02:20, 4 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - See above--DicktheTech 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I like this, since for one thing in so many backstories people talk about seeing people they knew as zombies. This would make that a bit more plausible and i think would make the game more interesting.--Hamster Ninja 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 3 Keep, 5 Kill, 8 Total.--The General 14:23, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Body slam

Timestamp: 22:14, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill set
Scope: Zombies
Description: Back story the zombies are learning to use their resistance for pain to their advantage slamming into humans with deadly force. A zombie sees a survivor a tasty meal. He goes to attack it when he trips and slams into the survivor he feels a dull thud as he hits the ground with his prey and begins to eat.

How it works This is a new move for zombies called Body slam it would be purchased for 100xp. The move does five damage to a human and one damage to the zombie. The base accuracy for this move is 25%. The message would show “you slam into ____ for 5 damage but the force of the blow damages you�? for humans it would be “A zombie slams into you for 5 damage it seems stunned by the blow�? It would work the same zombie vs zombie as zombie vs human.

The upgrades: Running speed You have learned to move faster giving your prey less chance to get away. Your accuracy for slam increases by 15%

Tough skin You have been slamming humans for so long you no longer are hurt when performing the action.

NOTE Slam does not I REPEAT does not give you health from digestion this is what balances it out. It’s a strong hit but you gain no health its good for fishing moves and low level humans. Also the skills tough skin and running speed are under Body slam on the tree however the order in which they can be purchased could be change depending on voter’s choices. The message when attack with slam having tough skin would be “you slam into ____ for 5 damage�? and for humans “A zombie slams into you for 5 damage�?. I don’t think the damage for this move needs to do any more damage tell me what you think guys I hope this doesn’t get shot down to fast…

Votes

  1. Keep-Author vote straight up homies dont be dissin' yeah ok ill stop-Deadeye207 22:14, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - With just two skills your can deal 2 damage per AP. It's completely overpowered. - CthulhuFhtagn 22:18, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re and with a pistol fully maxed out its more. this has only a 40% to hit MAX so its not over powered at all considering you dont get health from digestion with it-Deadeye207 22:22, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re For a pistol, you have to SEARCH to find ammo. A maxed-out surivor uses about 9AP to find a pistol clip in a mall. Thus, the average damage (assuming he has a pistol) is (5HP * 6 * .65 chance) / 15AP = 1.3 HP/AP A shotgun gives (10HP * .65 chance) / (9AP to find a shell + 1AP to shoot) = .65HP/AP --mikm W! 22:34, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re to the Re how about 20% base with a 10% incress thats 1.47 damage per ap sound good?-Deadeye207 22:38, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
          • ReYou probably should take this down and move it to the discussion page where a suggestion can be developed before voting. --mikm W! 23:46, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I dont think its over powerd, and even if it is short spree of overpowerd Zeds would even out numbers for abit!. - xbehave 22:18, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Overpowering. --mikm W! 22:34, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Claw attacks would be useless if you had another melee that does the same thing but more dmg per AP. --Agent 24601 23:11, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re wow guys thanks for the construstive critisiem much better than the "OMG joo sucks teh AsZ" thanks ill think about what you guys have said and re tool my suggestion and re submit later-Deadeye207 23:16, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - You know, its a sort of neat idea. Its definitely too powerful though. and doesn't add anything really new -Banana Bear4 23:59, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Nothing new, makes claws obsolete (claws do not work with Digestion, btw). Also I never saw how much damage you are supposed to take when attacking. --McArrowni 00:41, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    Re yeah I know I see now its over powered ill work on that and re submit later-Deadeye207 00:49, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Much too powerful. Claws become obsolete (only, you can't grab with this skill). What effect would it have on barricades? -- Cinnibar 01:37, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re-Man thanks guys all good suggestions I will work on this also if you have any other ideas drop me a message-Deadeye207 02:04, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Calculate the HP/AP next time, if it's higher then Claws, it's overpowered. The higher your damage the lower your HP/AP should be ideally--Vista 02:08, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Overpowered, but nice sort of primitive attack idea. (Only the original author and the person being REd can comment - please read rules mikm) -Kraxxis 16:06, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Great idea, not overpowering, and helps, but doesn't heal those buggers--DicktheTech 17:13, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 3 Keep, 8 Kill, 11 Total.--The General 14:20, 15 April 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/2nd-Mar-2006&oldid=1064602"