Suggestions/7th-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

Ruined Entry: Ransack Large Building Effect

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: One of the staples of zombie movies is that zombies will find a way. Just when you think you're safe zombies will break down that wall, come up from an underground tunnel, break through the window. I suggest taking advantage of this in-genre plot device to extend the benefits of the large building upgrade. Large buildings are malls, mansions, and cathedrals, locations where you can see those indoors in adjacent squares and move from interior square to interior square without free running.

Ruined Entry would be a subskill of Ransack. If a zombie with the skill is inside a ransacked building and clicks on an adjacent ransacked building rather than ending up outdoors they will break their way into that building giving the two buildings the properties of a large building. Anyone, human and zombie, can then see who is in the other building and walk between them indoors without free running. A ransacked building can be connected to more than one ransacked building, as many as are adjacent, ransacked and then connected by a zombie with Ruined Entry. This allows zombies to create "Ruined Entry" networks, allowing zombies to walk indoors between ransacked buildings across entire suburbs. Unlike large buildings however the passage would seal up the second the building is fixed, putting things back to normal. To be clear, this doesn't allow zombies to use ruined entry to free run into barricaded/repaired buildings, only ransacked ones.

So why would this help zombies you ask? Since the buildings are already ransacked it wouldn't provide the benefit that the large building upgrade gave zombies, namely being able to conquer a mall just by clearing one corner. All the buildings are already cleared. What it would do instead though is make it easier to maintain ransack. If you're in a ransacked building with eight zombies and you can see the ransacked building next door only has one zombie you could walk over to make it a bit harder to take. Also it'd make it easy to tell when buildings around you have been retaken. If you can't see into the building to the north anymore that means someone cleared out the zombies inside.

So it really isn't all that powerful since it doesn't help attack survivors. But it would be useful for zombies trying to maintain ransack. You could just walk inside from ransacked building to ransacked building making sure everything is nice and zombified around you.

Notes

  • This wouldn't interfere with free running.
  • Yes this would allow survivors to move between/scout ransacked buildings too but since they can do this with free running already the benefit to zombies would far outweigh the benefit to survivors.
  • Just to clarify, if a zombie with ruined entry inside a ransacked building clicks on a non-ransacked building it deposits them outdoors, as normal.
  • You could still close the door inside a ransacked building that has been breached with ruined entry but since ruined entry bypasses doors entirely it would only block zombies without Memories Of Life that try to enter from outdoors.

Keep Votes

  1. Author It requires a lot of AP for zombies to tell if buildings around them are ransacked and if so how many zeds are inside, which is already a pretty thankless job that requires giving up hearing feeding groans. Unlike checking up on barricades you can't just breeze through from building to building on your way to something else. This should help zombies tell which ransacked buildings need them standing inside the most. --Jon Pyre 02:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hesitant Keep I'm really not so sure, but it would allow a free running of sorts for zombies, without being a overpowered pain... I think it is feasible that zombies clear paths through rubble from one place to another, breaking through walls and such. I would think that it should cost hmm.. 5 AP to make one of these saying a message like: "You smash through walls and rubble, making a clear path to the next building." - Nibiletz 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep I dig this, though I do think the creation part should be AP expensive as above. I think you're going to have a lot of kill votes from people who don't understand that this is ransacked-to-ransacked only, though :P -RSquared 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep You have won me over. Anything that shakes up the game gets a keep from me. Doc Garden 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill The problem with this is that its unbalanced... it would make it virtually impossible for survivors to regain territory in areas where zombies have taken control. If implemented, the worst-case scenario would be that every suburb adjacent to Ridleybank ends up overrun by zombies. Furthermore this seems to border on a certain kind of suggested listed in the "no chance of implementation" section. -Nucleon 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re I think that you are mixed up about what the author is suggesting, Just because a building is next to a ransacked building doesn't mean a passage can be cleared. Your building has to be Rskd. as well. - Nibiletz 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (non-author reply - BzAli 09:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
  2. Kill - This would immediatly alert all zombies to the fact that someone was moving in on their territory. - BzAli 09:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Zombie free running? No. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 09:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Above, above, and above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - One assumes that there are gaps between buildings - streets, alleyways and so on. Therefore, this makes no sense. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re Except Free Running implies that every adjacent building is close enough to jump to. In some cases zombies might have have to break through one window or wall in others two, but they're never crossing a street or plaza to do it. The only streets in UD are street squares. --Jon Pyre 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re So now you're saying it's easier for zombies to break through solid walls (because some furniture on the other side is ransacked) than it is for them to break through 'cades. Riiiight. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Kill - I don't like that the zombies can see into the adjacent ransacked buildings that aren't part of it. The 'wide open/zombie access ease' part I do like, however.
  6. Change the part about being able to see who's in the next building and I'll vote keep. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Change as per Reaper with no name. I really can't see anything wrong with it other than seeing what's in other buildings, as you normally can't if you are crawling through sewers. Otherwise, it's fine. --Saluton 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill/Change - The devil's in the details here. Allowing survivors to benefit from this skill is odd and could make this skill a liability for zombies. For instance, it would allow survivors to quickly find buildings that are ransacked but unguarded. I'd also prefer if this was a passive skill so it'd be free to use. At the minute, it seems a little expensive for what it offers. IMO, if you took out the part about allowing zombies to see into the neighbouring ransacked building it would worsen the idea. To me, that part seems to be the point of the suggestion. --Toejam 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Change - This is a good idea, but like others above change it so that zombies can't see into other buildings --Aeneid 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill, but "A" for effort. Daniel Hicken 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Collapse Barricades

Timestamp: boxy 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Balance change
Scope: Anyone attacking barricades.
Description: If a building is unoccupied by survivors, there is a 30% chance that any successful attack upon the barricades, once they reach VS, will make the whole pile collapse, leaving only the doors secured (if that building has them).

This in no way weaken barricades that people are hiding behind, only those that are abandoned.

  • Makes barricade strafing easier to combat.
  • Doesn't make buildings being used any easier to get into.
  • Zombie territory would be harder to retake.
  • Zombies don't know if a building is occupied or not until the 'cades collapse (no X-ray vision).
  • Only useful in already empty suburbs.
  • The percentage chance, of course, can be changed to suit the barricade vulnerability you want to set.

A negative may be that the zombie wanted the XP for every barricade level, rather than getting in. However XP harvesting is a bit pointless, so this encourages role playing type objectives, where getting inside buildings with prey is the goal, and empty buildings take less AP to identify.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - Challenge yourself -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Good suggestion.--Gage 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. keep -cade strafing is griefing. --Ropponmatsu 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep Wow, so it would easier to get into an abandoned building than an occupied one full of survivors who want to keep you out? Go figure... --S.Wiers X:00 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep -I like the sound of this idea. I also agree with Ropponmatsu, this will combat 'cade strafing used as a griefing tool. Doc Garden 05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. kill But decoy barricades is an important feature in survivor defence. - BzAli 12:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, this weakens, but doesn't totally nerf that. They've still got to knock down the barricades, it's just a bit easier if it's a decoy, and I think they need it. Decoy barricades are being used offensively when it comes to barricade strafing -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Somehow, I like Gage's baricade suggestions better then this. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill You said Doesn't make buildings being used any easier to get into. But it does, because the overall AP cost of cade destruction has been reduced. As decoys are more easily penetrated, that leaves more AP for taking down non-decoys. People talk about barricade-strafing as if it's something that only takes 1AP per building. That's not the case. It's a viable tactic. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill I agree that undefended buildings should be easier to break into, but I think that this is a little too much. I don't like the idea of all of the barricades just collapsing. It would be better if the chance to destroy cades was increased when no survivors were present say from 25% (I is think the current value) to 35 or 40%. That may be a dupe though. --Gm0n3y 19:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Dropping the barricades from VS to gone in one hit seems way overpowered. SuperMario24 21:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Too much. I agree that barricade strafing can be very powerful when abused, but this would make it completely counterproductive. I would prefer that the odds of successful attacks against barricades be increased when there's no one inside. --Reaper with no name TJ! 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    This suggestion evens it out. As it stands now, zombies have to use about 4 times the AP to knock down the cades in strafed suburbs. This would mean that a heavily/VH barricaded building would take about equal AP to knock down as it took for survivors to put up (by my rough guesstimates). EHB's would still take heaps of AP to knock down to VS, before this even takes effect -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 02:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Why exactly should barricades whose buildings are unoccupied be easier to tear down? --Wikidead 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Just as overpowered as on the discussion page (which you thought was a possibility admitted to there). So why the hell is this here? You didn't even TRY to counter any of my arguments, other than the "X-Ray Vison" one.--Pesatyel 04:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't admit that it was overpowered, I acknowledged that I could see how some people (survivor oriented people) could view it that way... that doesn't mean that I agreed with you. If I did I wouldn't be putting it up, now would I -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 07:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Better? You still didn't bother to counter any my other arguments.--Pesatyel 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill Cade strafing should be countered with ransack, not by making barricades collapse for no reason. --Jon Pyre 06:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    They collapse because there is no-one in there to maintain them (if you insist on having a role playing explanation) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Why do you have to maintain a table pushed up against a door? But I really think the mechanics are more important than flavor stuff like that. Why should building barricades which costs significant AP be negated by one hit? --Jon Pyre 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    ==> Gone to talk page (summary, not a 1 AP skill) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. WTFCENTAURS. And for all those morons who follow that rule about spams and kills needing to be justified, something that was added by some random person without going through any form of discussion, I'll say the following: Don't. Nerf. Barricades. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 02:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. SPAM. Seconded. CatEar Alucard 10:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam -Have you ever tried to get an already VS+2 building to EHB? I think NOT. Though this might cause "survivor strafing", one person, possibly with an alternate IP adress, createing hordes of alts and putting one in each building to try and prevent this from being used, which is an interesting idea... --AlexanderRM 5:06 PM, 11 Febuary 2007 (EST)
    I have two dedicated survivors, and one zombie/PK alt... so yes, I have barricaded up from VS to EHB many, many times. Have you played as a zombie trying to find a feed in an overbarricaded, backwater suburb? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Surprise Attack

Timestamp: EL Zillcho 14:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: balance change.
Scope: Zombies.
Description: Everyone knows in urban dead that the zombies never truely die. Eventually they all wake up and start attacking you once again. But how do you know WHEN they will come back? No one knows when they'll come back to kill you, Except for the zombie itself of course. When a dead body rises from the grave it should be able to use suprise attack on any survivor in the same spot hes in, this attack will always have a 100% chance of hitting the person (as the survivor doesnt know its coming). Also it cannot be used against other zombies. When a survivor is in the area and your about to wake up there should be another button that says "stand up(ATTACK)" Kevan can figure out the damage it does, if he wants to add it(or you can give your own suggestions of how much damage it does in your votes:) ). It gives a new enviornment of realisim, horror, and it'll keep survivors on their toes .

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - its always in the zombie movies. Your friend gets killed, some body rises from the grave behind you and sneaks up and bites a nice chunk of flesh off of you without you knowing it(the 100% hit is a 1 time thing, another option besides standing up. so just toss your dead bodies out a little quicker and run from areas with bodies in them). --EL Zillcho 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Why the hell not, may discourage the trenchcoaters from going out and blasting away at the horde outside the NT building during a siege -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - One free attack. 2-3 damage. C'mon, this isn't a free shotgun blast or anything. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Zombie ambush squad is a no-no. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Another thing...100% to hit? That's spam right there! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. kill change this so you can only use it if on full AP and it gets my keep, but as is it makes live combat far too messy! I would preffer it if it just gave a straight double chance to hit for double damage too but will still keep for the first change.--Honestmistake 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. kill - 100%. No. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - No. Anyway: isn't there some suggestion rule or guideline that says you must/should come up with your own numbers, not just 'leave it up to Kevan'? --Gateking 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - I think that 100% to attack is too high and the zombie can surprise the survivor by just standing up and attacking him/her as usual. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill -- Lower the % somewhat.. but then it will become a dupe of a previous suggestion that I remember. -- Whitehouse 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. kill No to 100% to-hit damaging attacks for no extra AP. But it's not a dupe, as the one Matthew links to merely grasps, doesn't damage. - BzAli 19:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. 'Kill - No 100% hit attacks without severe repercussions. SuperMario24 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - No "leaving it to Kevan." Set it in cement then submit. -Mark 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - Anything with a 100% chance to hit is easily abused. Just because you don't see an attack coming doesn't mean it's guaranteed to hit you (heck, you could dodge it by accident!). I might vote keep if it only raised the accuracy by 20% or something. --Reaper with no name TJ! 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - No. Just no. When we've only been given an ungodly high hit percentile, it leaves me thinking that a desire for an "I-WIN" button isn't far behind. When the author can think up and explain a survivor tactic to counter this, I might reevaluate my vote. --User:Eatatjoes 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill - No free lunchs; a 100% attack, while not exactly that, is a bit unbalanced, and unfair to survivors. Rare does not equal balanced might also apply; while not all zombies are going to be using this very often, that doesn't mean it's balanced. --Saluton 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Change - Don't make it 100%. I like the idea of a combination stand up/attack though. I think that's what ankle grab should do. --Uncle Bill 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Kill - As you've said, zombies truly never die. So, then, why give zombies an advantage for dying? --Wikidead 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. no 100% of anything --Ev933n / Talk PPGC 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. KILL - 100%? You're nuts. --c138 RR - PKer 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Dupe - Good idea. So good that it's already on PR, here. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dupe - --Deras 22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Kill -I hate these suggestions that assume you get 100% accuracy against sleeping people or people you ambush just because you don't try to dodge. Barricades don't dodge, and they (I think) have 1/2 accuracy. --AlexanderRM 5:11 PM, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Switch Radio Operation and Free Running

Timestamp: Reaper with no name TJ! 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill rearranging
Scope: Skill Costs
Description: Free Running is without a doubt the most important skill for survivors (at least with construction and lab experience you can rely on other people). It is essential for any and all play styles. So then, why is it a military skill? Why should soldiers have to pay less (and scientists more) for a skill that every class requires? It is widely believed that Free Running works by either jumping roof-to-roof or by making use of some sort of rope network between buildings. Either way, there is nothing inherently "military" about Free Running, as normal people do this sort of thing all the time for sport, exercise, and/or entertainment (track/field, wall climbing, etc). It would make a whole lot more sense for Free Running to be a civilian skill.

Radio Operation, on the other hand, suffers from the opposite problem. Supposedly, the reason why only those with radio operation can broadcast in the restricted range is because of the military jamming communications. Now, how many non-military personnel do you know of that can get around military radio-jamming? Not too many, I'll bet. One would also expect that military personnel would have a much easier time getting around military radio jamming than a civilian would.

Fortunately, both of these problems can be easily corrected by switching Radio Operation and Free Running on the Skills Tree so that Radio Operation becomes a military skill and Free Running becomes a civilian skill. Getting around military radio-jamming should be a lot easier for someone actually in the military than for a civilian, and a skill as essential as Free Running should cost the same amount for everyone.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep - My suggestion, my vote. --Reaper with no name TJ! 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep --Labine50 MH|ME|'07 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - If only to make it easier for survivors to start scientists. - BzAli 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Makes enough sense. As mentioned, this would be a good idea for class balance. I would even vote keep for swapping body building and free running. --Gm0n3y 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - i like it. good job!--Blood Panther 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Good idea --Deras 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Makes sense to me. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - I never noticed that before, but when you're right, you're right. --Uncle Bill 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Free Running as a military skill has always bothered me. --Wikidead 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - I was thinking something like this, except with Free Running and Axe Proficency. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 07:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Yep, sounds right to me. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 10:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. You forgot the part about Freerunning through the sewer!!! But, either way, this is good. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - I am a newbie! I only have VS Barricades as protection! But at least I know how to fiddle with this nob and make my Sunday morning broadcasts! --Ev933n / Talk PPGC 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - Seems reasonable to me. CatEar Alucard 10:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep - getting Free Running is a pain for scientists - this solves that. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. Kill - Your reasoning is somewhat flawed. Scientist types are trained to think, to work in labs. They don't run/jump/climb ropes 'all the time'. They sit in labs and work with computers most of the time. Military people, however, go through running/jumping/climbing ropes in basic training and are in the excellent physical condition needed to free run. So kill for that half of it. If it were just the radio operator thing I'd vote keep, but then that'd also disadvantage future purchasers of the skill, which is not a good idea. --Gateking 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re-Not necessarily. There are many military positions that don't require a lot of intense physical training. And not all scientists sit at computers all day (doctors, for example). What I'm getting at is that it's a general enough ability that you could get away with everyone paying the same amount of XP for it. And like I said, it's so essential to playing as a survivor that it's not fair for it to be cheaper for some people than it is for others. But who is "disadvantaged" by the Radio Operation part?--Reaper with no name TJ! 23:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re- The kind of military people who'd be sent into a zombie situation would be in shape. I can see some scientists being conditioned as well, but I think overall we're working with stereotypes here. Scientists need more training than military to free run. As the the RO part, I'll try to be clear. The people who've bought it already have all paid 100 xp for it. With this change the future military buyers would spend 25xp less, the scientists 50xp more, and civilians the same. I think the general consensus is that changing the costs after a skill has been available for a while is not-good (I may be mistaken on that, though.) --Gateking 02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Going with Gateking on this one, it doesn't sound realistic. Also noting that this would boost newbie suriviors a lot, which is okay....until you realize that newbie suriviors are a source of food for newbie zombies. A boost to one side is a nerf to another side in this zero-sum game of Urban Dead. Sorry, but I feel that suriviors do not need a boost. Maybe later, of course, but not now.--ShadowScope 00:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. The military skills are the down-and-dirty, lots-of-muscle, do-stuff skills. That is why Free-Running is there. -Mark 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill As Mark, Free Running requires a lot of muscle and strength, as well as self-confidence. Sorry. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill As above, plus what starting skill does a scout now get? And is my scientist who already has free running going to get a 50 xp refund? --Cman yall 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Scouts still get free running, just as they always have. This wouldn't have any effect on what skills people start with (or even whether they are scientist,civilian,etc). As for your scientist, this wouldn't be the first time a change has been inconvenient for already leveled players (headshot, for example). --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill Every class has it's advantages. Diagnosis is a pretty crucial skill too. And so is Lab Experience. Should we move those to Civilian as well? --Jon Pyre 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill No, the better idea is to put radio operation in military and keep free running as a military skill. --Aeneid 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. If Free Running is so important, then you won't mind spending the extra to get it. Of, easier, just START as a military. Classes are all the same after only a few levels anyway.--Pesatyel 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill -Same idea as Gateking, if we were makeing an urban dead-based game, Definetly, but changing in the middle, I think NOT. --AlexanderRM 5:18 PM, 11 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/7th-Feb-2007&oldid=1879729"