User:Clay5x/Archive

Archive for Clay5x.

Just a personal archive page in case I need it.

Sandals

This is the traditional footwear alternative to shoes. It would thus fill the footwear slot. Worn for centuries by poor people, monks, hippies, people with bad fashion who typically combine them with socks, beachgoers, people using the same shower used by others, fashion conscious metropolitan women, fraternity and sorority members on college campuses, and countless others.

Typically consists of a flat or high heeled sole and a variety of strap and enclosure styles, from two simple straps across the top of the foot to elaborate knee-high networks of straps, or from the plastic enclosures of "Jellies" to the elaborate jeweled enclosures of Manolo Blahnik.

Traditional sandals have been, and continue to be, made from leather, wood, straw or rope:

Rope Sandals

Black Rope Sandals

Leather Sandals

Leather Sandals

Wooden Sandals

Straw Sandals

More modern versions are often made of rubber or plastic, in a wide array of colors:

Plastic Sandals

Rubber Sandals

For the ladies, there are high heeled and low heeled fashion sandals:

High Heeled Fashion Sandals

Low Heeled Fashion Sandals

That gives some indication of what I mean by sandals. There are many more styles, but this is a brief introduction to the variety.

I see that there has already been a suggestion for flip-flops, which are a particular subset of sandals. This suggestion is now only for sandals which are not flip-flops. I would suggest that it would be nice to have both, but that if only flip-flops or sandals were to be included, it should be sandals, as one could specify in description that one's sandals are flip-flop sandals, if it is that important, but one could not claim flip-flops to be any other kind of sandal - "flip-flop" is unnecessarily narrow.

Suggested styles and colours:

Of course, the minimum implementation of this suggestion would simply be "a pair of sandals," which would be fine with me, as one could add any additional necessary detail in the character description. At the other end of the spectrum lies infinite sandal possibility. I suspect if he adds sandals, Kevan will include something in between, as he has with other footwear, but this is the maximum level of detail I would suggest:

"a pair of rope sandals"

"a pair of black rope sandals"

"a pair of <colour> leather sandals"

"a pair of wooden sandals" (no color options)

"a pair of straw sandals" (no color options)

"a pair of <colour> plastic sandals"

"a pair of <colour> rubber sandals"

"a pair of <colour> fashion sandals"

"a pair of <colour> high heel fashion sandals"

The leather sandal colours would probably best be limited to tan, brown, dark brown, black, and red.

Plastic, rubber, and fashion sandals would probably best be allowed the full range of colours, like trainers.

Of course, high heeled shoes exist in Malton already, which could conceivably be open-toed or sandal type high heels, so I hesitate to include them in this suggestion. However, I thought I might as well be complete, knowing that even when suggestions have been implemented, it is often partially. If Kevan is amenable to high heeled sandals in addition to the presumably closed-toe high heels in the game already, I am sure some players will benefit, given the large number of players.

My primary concern is that sandals get added, regardless of the level of detail. Beyond that, I personally hope to be able to choose from my proposed leather, rubber and rope sandals. The rest I imagine would help players who have other sandal needs for their characters.

Suggested locations:

Cathedrals: plain rope sandals and tan, brown, and dark brown leather sandals for monks.

Towers and Malls: all sandal types could be found at Towers and Malls.

Mansions: fashion sandals and high-heel fashion sandals would be most fitting, and perhaps also leather.

Stadiums: rubber sandals - black, white and blue at Floyde; black, white and red at Clapton; black, white, yellow and green at Rodges.

Hotels: all leather sandals and rubber sandals.

--Clay5x 14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes (Sandals)

Votes for go here

1. Yes - I would vote yes on my own proposal, wouldn't I? --Clay5x 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. I think your idea is great. Sandles are not the same as flip-flops by the way. Flip-flops could be described as sandles, but they really are not the same think. Sandles can be wide-ranging from ancient sandles to regular leather sandlas to flip-flops. No girl or guy are complete w/o them, especially when they want to expose their feet to the air while looking stylish lol. --Vezira 18:05, 30 October 2007 (PDT)
3. Yes - This is absolutely a staple of footwear, and has been for a long time in human history. Adept Omega 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Not feeling sandals at stadiums, nor at hospitals. Who takes their sandals off at the stadium, and what athletic sport permits in any practical sense for the athletes/participants to wear sandals? As for hospitals, they have the little surgical scrub footies, slipper socks for patients, barefoot, and normal shoes for everyone else. Could be wrong, but have yet to see any sandals at hospitals, and I have had my share of hospital stays. The cathedral seems...kind of sketchy, but I'll let it slide, and I like the rest. Also, this is far beyond the scope of that linked weak-sauce suggestion, and therefore not a dupe. Want cheese?--Slightly Lions 09:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

   Re - I think you're right about hospitals, and I'm deleting them from the suggestion with this edit. However, I'm leaving stadiums, with this explanation: My thinking was not that fans would have left their sandals, or that athletes would wear them on the field, but that vendors at stadiums seem to carry t-shirts, jerseys, giant foam fingers, headbands, visors, and dozens of other cheap items of clothing in the team colors, including sandals. Also, it seems likely that plenty would be left in locker rooms - most people who don't want athlete's foot wear them to locker room showers. If you still think that's unreasonable, Re with why, and I'll consider deleting that from the suggestion as well. I think it's important that cathedrals have all clerical and religious clothing - they currently have brown robes, which are almost exclusively worn by monks, so they should have ascetic monastic footwear as well. --Clay5x 06:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Yesss --Wasted wallaby 11:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes - For the hippies!--Seventythree^Talk 10:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No (Sandals)

Dupe, even if it is less descriptive. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re - This is not a duplicate of your flip-flop suggestion. Your suggestion names only one type of sandal, flip-flops, which I voted for despite lack of description and colour suggestions, and which I still support. My suggestion originally included flip-flops, but also all other types of sandal that I know of, and there are many. I have cut flip-flops out of mine, to deny any credibility to this type of vote. --Clay5x 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Yep, it's a dupe and even if it wasn't I would vote no. --Sonofagun18 04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   It isn't a dupe, even though you voted before I removed flip-flops, but thanks for being honest enough to say you would vote no anyways, which is of course a legitimate reason to vote against something that isn't a dupe or spam. --Clay5x 15:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Close enough to be a dupe for me. I don't have high standards on the Clothes suggestion page, just the normal suggestions page. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I won't feel any remorse about playing fast and loose myself. I'm striking illegal votes here. I don't know, and don't particularly care if I'm supposed to - since no one else apparently cares what the rules are or what they're supposed to do when voting. --Clay5x 15:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Ch-ch-chaaaaanges - suggestion altered after voting began. --Sir Bob Fortune ^{RR - FEZ - ATO} 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sword discussion, for reference in case I decide to suggest machete or something similar

Sword

Timestamp:	Clay5x 16:22, 27 October 2007 (BST)
Type:	Weapon
Scope:	Any survivor who wants a sword.
Description:	There are fencing foils now, and all manner of ridiculous and ineffective weaponry. Enough real swords are floating around of the katana and medieval European type, between martial artists, museums, private collections, and weapons collecting lunatics, that they should be possible to find. A sword would be a far handier weapon than a fire axe. A sword should cause the same damage as a fire axe, but have a slightly better hit percentage. It might require a new skill tree, or it might work with the axe skill. Either way, I don't care. I just want a decent sword.

Discussion (Sword)

Actually, I'd say an axe would still do more damage. Maybe lower the sword damage to 2, but raise the accuracy until it seems to have the same dmg/ap rate as the axe.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:27, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Oh, and swords have been suggested before.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:28, 27 October 2007 (BST)

I didn't see it in the archive. Clay5x 05:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No fucking swords. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:28, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Meh. I agree with Shmertsenburgerangle or whatever. BoboTalkClown 17:47, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Engel would do just fine. :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:02, 27 October 2007 (BST)

There is a sword, its called a fencing foil. doc crook 23:42, 27 October 2007 (BST)

And there is a big difference between a Fencing Foil and an actual sword. ;).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:15, 28 October 2007 (BST)

KATANAZ!!! But all seriousness aside: no farkin archaic weapons. --WanYao 01:44, 28 October 2007 (BST)

Technically, an axe is an archaic weapon too. And it's older than a sword. What say you to that? :P.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:47, 28 October 2007 (BST)

It is a fireman's axe, not a battle axe. Axes as tools can be found all over the place; swords and battle axes not so much... And, like many weapons, I would hazard an educated guess that axes were tools before they were weapons... Actually, they were... Flint wood-chopping axes made by cavemen... THAT is what I have to say. :P --WanYao 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a very good chance that axe use is older than fire use making them weapons adapted as tools ;) We is tool using monkeys!!!--Honestmistake 10:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Chicken and egg aside, I'm pretty sure sword-like tools have been around a long time too, like machetes. The relevant concern regarding this UD suggestion, though, is the relative rarity of fighting swords and sword-like tools compared to axes. You can find axes in any fire station, which is appropriate. I listed several possible sword locations below, but I would suggest they be relatively rare - especially functional, non-"display quality" ones (for sake of realism, not game balance - I've repeated elsewhere several times that I'm fine with nerfing sword stats so as not to challenge the dominance of the axe, which appears to have a cult following). --Clay5x 06:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A fencing foil is as archaic as a decent sword, and there are plenty of present day sword manufacturers. The British Army adopted a new design of cavalry sword in 1908. That's old, but hardly archaic. The US Marines, and possibly other military forces, continue to issue swords to officers to this day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Noncommissioned_Officers%27_Sword%2C_1859-Present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mameluke_Sword http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Point_Cadets%27_Sword%2C_c._1922-present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Hilted_British_Infantry_Swords_%281822%2C_1827%2C_1845%2C_1854_and_1892_Patterns%29

Swords are great hand weapons. Traditional slashing swords of whatever origin or era are at least as commonly available today as fencing foils, hockey sticks (outside of Canada), cricket bats (outside of the UK and maybe India), ski poles (outside of the Alps, Norway, the Rockies...) etc.

I have cut plenty of firewood with axes, and the things are tricky to aim at a stationary target on the ground (or between that and waist height on a chopping block) - I would hate to have to swing one at the head of a staggering zombie. The impact edge is small; it's not well balanced. I've also used machetes on vines, shrubs, etc, and they are much easier to swing and hit with - they have a longer edge than an axe and better balance. Machetes are plentiful gardening and landscaping tools, and the longer ones are basically cheap (but durable - many last decades of hard use) modern swords. I might ask for a machete, but the "hunting knife" exists, and larger hunting knives come close to smaller machetes.

A sword could have multiple descriptions, as knives do now, from scalpel to hunting knife - you could find long machetes in parks, mansions (they tend to have elaborate landscaping), cemeteries, cathedrals (they often have gardens); you might find military officers' swords in forts, and you could find "archaic" European, Japanese, and Chinese swords in a goth club, a few museums, and some mansions (collectors). A friend of mine works in a pub with several swords hanging up on the walls as decoration, so you could find them in Arms. Any modern factory might have been manufacturing them near the time of the rise, and could have any style of sword. Many martial artists in Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, European, and other traditions own swords, so you could also find these types in Mansions, Hotels, Towers, and Buildings, kept by individuals at home, on the road, or at the office.

Of course there are the mall knife and antique stores in Dead Rising with Japanese and European swords - which reflects the genre, and could be added to one of the malls. Many Japanese zombie movies like Versus include swords, and they have appeared regularly in European and American zombie and apocalypse films as well - the classic example being legendary zombie film maker, special effects artist, and actor Tom Savini, who did special effects for the original Romero 'Dawn of the Dead,' and appeared in the film as a biker who split zombie skulls with a machete and decapitated zombies from a motorcycle sidecar with a cavalry sword. The currently running series of zombie comics, The Walking Dead, features a female protagonist who uses a sword exclusively. So they are definitely genre-appropriate.

I think a sword does as much damage to a human body (living or dead) as an axe - it is more likely to decapitate or sever limbs when slashing and can penetrate deeper than an axe with a thrust, and has at least as much accuracy in fighting as a knife, if not better due to the additional reach. Of course, I know that something with more damage than an axe and better accuracy than a knife is unlikely to be added due to game balance concerns. There may not even be any way to get something with 3 damage and same accuracy as a knife, or perhaps 45% at full skill, as it would still be the most powerful melee weapon (which I think is realistic - there is a reason why swords were the most popular weapons for many centuries on several continents until the development of reliable firearms). I certainly hope for it. Even if swords were added with the exact same damage and accuracy as an axe, or the damage of a knife but with higher accuracy - say 55% or whatever is enough to give it the same average damage per AP as an axe - I would be mostly satisfied. Clay5x 04:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many kinds of perfectly valid and logical weapons that will probably never make it into this game -- no matter how passionately, eloquently and convincingly one may argue for their inclusion. Not just swords but simple hunting rifles, molotov cocktails, grenades (inlcluding tear gas cannisters in PDs? uhm... yeah...), bo staffs, tasers, pole arms (yes, pole arms! i was being facetious, but only partly... many mansions and old hotels have pole arms hanging up for decoration) etc. etc. Maybe this is a good thing, maybe it is not... But it is how it is... Actually, I believe the reason weapons are limited has a lot to do with the fact that survivors are NOT the offensive character "class" of Urban Dead. That would be the zombies; survivors are defenders not attackers. WanYao 06:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh... just an aside... since we're getting pedantic and all... LOTS of people play hockey in the US, and in Sweden, Finland, Russia and other parts of Europe... Same goes for cricket, which is played MASSIVELY in Australia, and also in many parts of the Carribean -- not just England, India, Pakistan. WanYao 06:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, WanYao. I doubt I'll ever see a sword in this game. Thanks for helping to crush the dream.  ;)

Specifically, though, the idea of including swords would not instantly transform survivors into offensive characters - they would just have one more thing, along with ski poles, tennis rackets, etc, to defend with. As I said, I would be mostly satisfied if the weapons remain limited in effectiveness - a sword identical in performance to axes (just as foils are identical to bats).

For the record, I'm not asking for the other things to be removed, nor am I arguing that they are uncommon, just that they are comparably as common as swords. I agree that many people in many countries use all those things, but I was pointing out that all those things have regional concentrations - a point you reinforce by including another former colony, Australia, for cricket, more icy northern locales for hockey, etc. Some variety of swords are as common - nearly everywhere, from Norway to Mexico to China - as each of those items are, at least outside their most popular regions/former empires/etc. And ALL those things are in Malton, so whether Malton is in England, the Carribean, or Australia, where hockey sticks and ski poles are uncommon, or the US and plenty of other countries where cricket bats are uncommon, swords would be more common than several of those items. So cricket bats might be more common in England, the Carribean, and Australia than swords, but swords are probably more common than hockey sticks and ski poles. Basic point: swords are common enough that they should be possible to find in Malton.

Of course, as you correctly point out, many common items will likely never be coded in this game - several things for good game balance reasons. But you haven't mentioned how or why swords would wreck the game.

Not that you have to. Pessimism is it's own reward, I suppose.  ;) Clay5x 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another classic example from zombie films: Selena's main weapon in 28 Days Later is a decent sized machete - and it hacks people to pieces pretty quick, infected or not. Clay5x 10:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to suggest the machete. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of the swords you see mounted over mantles, in halls, in museums, etc, are, in order of mention...

• cheap (or not so cheap) display only replicas, designed to look nice, but not properly forged to last in combat...ever see that viral vid of the Home Shopping Network clown that breaks a sword on the counter, gashes his arm? Yeah...
• again replicas, or possibly family heirlooms and thusly quite old and best not used in combat...
• more historical pieces, definitely old, even if well maintained, and probably won't keep up after enough zombie chopping.

I'd have to go with those above. No swords. --Slightly Lions 11:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think I outlined above why I haven't suggested machete - small ones are too close to large hunting knives, large ones are closer to swords, and there are many similar long bladed weapons (including long machetes) that I think should reasonably be grouped with swords. Also, having machetes would still not allow for characters like the biker, "Blades," from Romero's Dawn of the Dead, or Michonne from the currently running series of zombie comics, 'The Walking Dead,' or two of the Japanese survivor characters in Max Brooks' 'World War Z,' or many characters in 'Versus,' or plenty of other zombie-genre characters who use swords.

No bubble bursting required, you're absolutely right about display replicas. I would be all for making 90 percent or more of found swords break in people's hands when they try to use them, damaging the user - either the first time used, or after a period of functioning, similar to the pool cue. That would be wonderful.

How about this: if you find a sword when searching, and have no (or low) levels in the appropriate skill, any sword is listed as "sword" in inventory, and you have to try it to find out. If you have levels in the appropriate skill (whether knives or a new swords skill tree), you could tell the difference, and some would appear as "replica sword" while the real thing would just appear as "sword."

Is that more in the direction of something you would like to see in Malton? Would you prefer it if the replicas were impossible to identify, regardless of skill? Or do you think you would oppose any form of sword? Clay5x 06:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind swords. However, you need to define damage and hit stastitcs. Axe damage with better accuracy would almost certainly be instakilled because it obseletes Fire Axes. You could propose same stats as a Fire Axe with a 15% Sword Proficency skill (then it's a dupe of Fire Axe and just a flavour addition,) or perhaps 4 damage with 5% base accuracy and a 10% Sword Proficiency skill (same average damage as a Fire Axe but higher varience.) --Shockeroo 14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about needing to define stats, but they aren't my biggest concern. Stats are part of why I put this under Suggestions: Discussion instead of as a Suggestion for voting. Your stats both sound good to me. --Clay5x 06:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what has been said, including suggestion author's comments. And the fact that most swords you find either hanging on walls or in specialty shops are just not functional as weapons... That being said, honestly... I am not all that opposed to a machete... Why dont you work on that? And, really, I don't like bursting people's bubbles... I just work within the consensus of the game and its community... And that consensus is generally anti-swords, etc. And the reason for that is the ethos of the game... archaic weapons would detract from the gritty, urban, desperate and ultimately modern feeling of Urban Dead (with some excpetions...). However, as I said, machetes may just have a place within that ethos..... --WanYao 19:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, WanYao. I might end up suggesting machete, if this discussion demonstrates that it is clearly not worth my time to file this as a suggestion. One reason I didn't start with machete is that small machetes are close to big hunting knives, which exist in game now. However, large machetes are more swords than knives, and I thought sword was a generic enough category to succinctly describe "long bladed weapon," but apparently it carries some stigma on this wiki that I fail to understand. Swords are still issued to officers in the US Marines, and I think some other armed forces as well.

They are primitive weapons, but so are clubs - bats, pool cues, etc. That, to my thinking, is part of any apocalyptic scenario: if no one is manufacturing high tech metals, machine parts, springs, smokeless gunpowders, shell casings, and so on and on and on - all the things required to maintain and fire guns - then people would have to rely on more primitive alternatives. I think swords would make a comeback. I also think there are enough combat-ready swords around (whether long machetes or swords designed as weapons) that they would be possible to scrounge. --Clay5x 06:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of No Fucking Swords is so hard to understand? --Karek^maps?! 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The part where you write something worthy of reply. --Clay5x 06:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do that when you say something worthy of a worthy reply instead of spreading your duped trenchy bullshit and commenting on shit you obviously have no clue about. Or better yet, just take the time to get informed before trying to include yourself in the conversations. --Karek^maps?! 06:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your ability to use naughty words continues to impress. I'll be certain to take your petulant demands so very seriously, expert. --Clay5x 09:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, I Know someone who works in a museum, and you know those shiny swords they have? Replicas. They're made out of pretty poor quality metal, as far as a sword goes and would blunt and bend very quickly, and they're wheighted completely wrong. And those swords that people have in houses as coats of arms? I'm going out on a limb here and reckoning they're probably replicas too. And those sets of katanas you can buy to decorate with? Yup. Replicas. They might work relitively well for a bit, If you sharpened them up, but after more than a few usese they would blunt or break, and then you just have a lump of metal, of no more use than a pipe. Thing is, no-one realy makes swords anymore for people to actualy use to kill each other. Sure, I could just about strech my credulity to beleive that someone in a city might have a real, useable sword, made of properly tempered steel, but in that case, there would be maybe 5 in the whole game. Bring em in and everyone will want one. And would they realy be any better than an axe, or a length of pipe? Bear in mind, no-one nowdays realy knows how to fight with one (with the possible exeption of fencing).--Seventythree^Talk 07:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the replicas - please see my reply to Slightly Lions above. As for no one knowing how to fight with them, that just isn't true. Many martial artists still practice sword techniques in a variety of styles. Axes, on the other hand... --Clay5x 06:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ 73 but I can name several UK companies that do indeed make real swords and I can assure you that while some museums do use poor quality replica's just as many have the real deal. Of course Wan makes a very good point that the most commonly available swords would be these replica blades i would put money on finding a usable sword in just about any mansion in the UK. The day the dead really start to walk my first stop would be my local museum... unless I was near Leeds and the Royal Armoury where I could also stock up on battle ready armour too!

All that said and i still think i would have to vote kill on any meaningful sword suggestion as it would mess with game balance. about the best i would go for would be if it had the same game stats as the axe and a mirror to its skill tree + an extra level of skill giving an extra 5% to hit! --Honestmistake 10:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for this stats suggestion. As I said above, the stats are not as important to me as the fact that every time I attack with an axe in UD, I think of how unwieldy the stupid things are in real life. --Clay5x 06:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 73. Just blatantly say that no one makes real swords anymore. It's true. All those weapons I make in my spare time? Completely non-existent, according to 73's logic. :P. But honestly? Who would have been able to keep a sword in such good condition for the past 2 years, eh? Guns and stuff are shipped in constantly by the Necrotech/Military guys, but I seriously doubt that they'd send in new swords all the time. And if there were any swords here to begin with, I doubt they'd be usable.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 10:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing about gun resupply: there have been those airdrops, but the rest of the stuff isn't brought in by military - it would be found in the Forts only, or if NT, it would be in NT buildings. We find guns in PDs and Mall gun shops as well as Forts. And all those guns would no longer be in usable condition, much less still there after 2 years of daily looting - same with axes and anything else, 2 years in. But in the game, they are. Swords should work too, by the existing in-game logic. --Clay5x 06:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't realy saying that there are absolutely no swords around anymore, but that most swords are replicas, made from not very good metal. (I'm guessing you know this already, S.A) And note I said that no-one realy makes swords anymore, plainly there are some few examples, but seing as if swords where bought in every 10th person would grab one, It would become just a little silly. (personaly if a zombie outbreak happened, I would pick up a garden spade, or something else relitively heavy with a swing to it, nick a truck and go around getting food and stuff together)--Seventythree^Talk 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, just poking fun at you. :P. It's true though, 9 out of 10 swords that I see aren't even weighted properly. And I'm already prepared for a zombie apocalypse. :D.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly it's to do with the type of metal that's used to make them. Back in the day, even a basic sword would take a skilled smith months to make, so even back in the middle ages there probably wouldn't be that many... and as for katanas..Please! there's only about 7 people left alive who know how to make em properly. --Seventythree^Talk 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so... the Roman army was probably the most successful the world has ever seen (possibly excepting the British army) and the vast majority of its arms and armour were made by unskilled slaves working in production line style factories churning out 100's or even 1000's a day!!! Simple and very effective swords can be made in molds and then sharpened, they won't be as good as an artisan made sword but they will kill with alarming efficiency. --Honestmistake 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but I was talking about the middle ages mostly.--Seventythree^Talk 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

---

---