View source for Suggestions/19th-Dec-2005

{{Closed_Suggestion_Intro}}

=19th December, 2005=
==VOTING ENDS: 2nd-Jan-2006==

===Black Ops===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=01:26, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type=New Class|
suggest_scope=Humans|
suggest_description=Black Ops is a branch of the military with heavy ties to the Necro Tech organization.

Was this branch specifically created to aid the Necro Tech organization with its research capabilities?
Was this branch created to cull the weak from Malton as part of an evil plot in a diabolical experiment conducted by the Necro Tech organization, as some hold the organization responsible for creating the zombie outbreak?
Are they a branch created to kill survivors as part of a government cover up?
Are they simply a specialized branch of the military out to defend Malton?
Is it all of these things, or none?  I would tell you, but then I'd have to kill you - as it is top secret.

Black Ops would be a separate class from the others.  Their box/name tag representation color on screen would be black.  Black Ops would have access to Military Skills for 75 XP (because they are combat trained after all); Science Skills for 100 XP (which differs from the standard Military's 150 XP for science skills - because Black Ops have ties to the Necro Tech organization and they would have a tendency to specialize in certain science skills); and civilian skills for 150 XP (as they are far removed from civilian life).

*'''Black Ops - Riot'''.
::This character class represents Black Ops heavy weapons unit.
:*Starting Skill = 
::Basic Firearms Training.
:*Starting Items = 
::1 fully loaded shotgun (to represent their heavy weapons capabilities)
::4 shotgun shells 
::1 GPS unit (because their intel always tells them where they are in the city)

*'''Black Ops - Reconnaissance'''.
::This character class represents Black Ops stealth unit (that and I wanted to give people a reason to use a Kitchen Knife).
:*Starting Skill = 
::Hand to Hand Combat (to represent their stealth kill training)
:*Starting Items = 
::1 Kitchen Knife (an army knife would be more appropriate for this class, but since no such item exists - kitchen knife is to represent it)
::1 Mobile Phone (because they are always in close communication with each other, and relaying information to base).

*'''Black Ops - Tech'''.
::This character class represents Black Ops ties to the Necro Tech organization, with knowledge of their inner workings.
:*Starting Skill = 
::Necro Tech Employment (as the group has ties to the Necro Tech company - they know all the locations of the company in the city)
:*Starting Items = 
::1 loaded Pistol
::1 DNA Extractor. 


*EDIT - Minor reformatting of skill/item listings for visual ease in reading.--[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 02:09, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*EDIT - Added names to the different versions in case more than one are well received, and multiple character options within the Black Opts class are requested.--[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 05:18, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*EDIT - Voter response indicated a request for additional shells to the Riot inventory.  I added 4 shells in addition to the fully loaded shotgun - which I believe still maintains balance, as a shotgun does deal more damage than a pistol, but there is still less potential for first day playing damage than a private's starting inventory of 18 pistol rounds. --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 16:01, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*EDIT - Added a color box to the class for on screen representation, as I overlooked that detail when making the suggestion. --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 17:29, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*FINAL EDIT - Originally presented as a 'choose your favorite' suggestion.  It has been brought to my attention that that is not the correct way to present suggestions.  My apologies, my mistake.  I removed all my references to 'choose your favorite', and made it one package. --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 01:17, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*'''Keep''' - shameless author vote. <strike> i personally prefer V.2 - as i like the thought of the Black Ops being stealth oriented... well, that and the kitchen knife thing. --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 01:26, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT) *EDIT - i like all of them though, and if all seem popular i can name them for formating into a 3 set class.  also if shotgun with 2 shots doesn't seem enough, a shell or two could be added to inventory.</strike>  --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 02:58, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Much better. But I think the riot class should have a few more shells. --[[User:ALIENwolve|ALIENwolve]] 01:43, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' Even if the zombie numbers are increased, this would be a nice little addition to make things more interesting. However, we may have to axe their movement ability somewhat, otherwise nothing other than death would stop them due to Free Running, which means they could sneak into safehouses, kill everyone, and then leave. I think that we should at least have a way to distinguish them from everyone else. Of course, I suppose this makes everything more fearful for survivors, however, thats kind of the point and would be a good thing right now. Besides, having not two, but THREE sides to pick from in the game sounds fun! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 01:46, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep'''  I like the idea, as well as the stealth part, but a kitchen knife is....eh. What would be cool, is if every black ops agent started with a silenced pistol, which they can use to anonymously PK. Now yes, people would start to hate black ops agents as potential PK'rs and kill them on site, but you did say in your description that there intentions are unknown, so pking wouldnt be such an evil if that was the characters RP purpose . Maybe, as there a stealth unit, there profile would say military only, so now people never know who the black ops agent is. Imagine seeing a message, " a bullet hit you from out of nowhere, you lose 5 damage." people would be SO angry, with a PKer they couldnt see.....Maybe this is a bad idea (my part not yours). Or we can balance that with DNA extractors recognizing them as employees so people, with some work, can find them out. But i must stop now im rambling, so anywayssssss i say keep.--[[User:Mr. Mcdoogles|Mr. Mcdoogles]] 01:54, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Increasing the amount of Exp for civilian skills? That's interesting... I like it! I don't see the stealth thing, though, and I did look for it. If that's in there, I'll change to kill.... --[[User:Shadowstar|Shadowstar]] 01:57, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
:*'''Re''' - i used the word "stealth" for roll play purposes, not a secret killing skill if that is what you mean. --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 02:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<s>2 *'''Kill'''  1 *'''Keep'''These suggestions do follow the story line quite well, but the problem is that they will hardly be used compared to the other classes because the fact that all of them are better in 1 way or another.  V3 is easily replaced by the scientist with necrolab just like it, except a pistol would be useless considering that it has no training in it.  A dagger is easily replaced by the fireman's fireaxe, but items don't really matter since it's easily searchable and along with a cellphone, it's a lil usefull I suppose.  V1 with the shotgun and gps, but with 2 shots, it'll not last long and gps is replaced by our trusty town map.</s> '' no signature --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 15:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) ''
*'''Keep''' - I like it. It would be even better if the hit % for the knife were upped though. --[[User:Arcos|Arcos]] 03:10, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - I like V.1 it seems to meet my expectations of a black Ops. --[[User:Lord Evans|Lord Evans]] 03:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - --[[User:Fullemtaled|Fullemtaled]] 05:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - I'd like all three versions to included as a entirely new category of class, but a better balance might be to give the Black Ops Riot Shotgun Training instead of Basic Firearms. I also think the Kitchen Knife should just be renamed "knife" all the other weapon names are pretty generic... why is the knife specific?  --[[User:Zarquon|Zarquon]] 05:58, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
:*'''Re''' - i thought about doing that with shotgun training, but shells are slow to come by at times and i wanted to keep the riot balance close to that of a private for gaining initial levels. --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 06:12, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Me likes. Oh, by the way, the new update says: "Black military helicopters have been sighted in the grey skies above Malton this week, airdropping occasional supply crates into the derelict streets." ZE BLACK OPS! ZEY ARE HERE! - [[User:KingRaptor|KingRaptor]] 11:00, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''KEEP''' - Me likey. Mmm, black ops . . . One question, though - will they be running around trying to kill rogue NecroTechs ''a la'' Half-Life? --[[User:John Taggart|John Taggart]] 16:24, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - At last, an incentive to start a second character.  [[User:X1M43|X1M43]] 16:38, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - You might want to give the reconnaissance class an ability where if they attack someone with a knife the person attacked can't tell who attacked them. Anyway, I like it, finally a decent new survivor class suggestion.--[[User:The General|The General]] 16:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
:*'''Re''' - i didn't want to suggest any new skills at this point, i just wanted to suggest the new class.  if this class is implemented into the game, a skill set could be discussed and/or suggested at that time. --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 17:29, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*<s>'''Keep''' - This is a good way to diversify the the classes whilst adding some flavor and a bit of intruge to the whole Necrotech idea. The classes are well balanced, though there needs to be some minor tweaking to some of them, it get's my vote. Another good addition is making them distinguishable from regular survivors by the fact that their nametags should be black or grey (like the green,red,blue tags for other surviviors).</s> '' no signature --[[User:Deathnut|Deathnut]] 05:35, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) ''
*'''Keep''' - I love it! But then I would because I suggested it :) Great job firemanstan - better than I would have done. I'm especially pleased to see so many keep votes. --[[User:Vair|Vair]] 21:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Sweet.  Maybe a "stealth" skill would work well.  This would be a high-level high-xp skill that would make it hard (survivor skill to counter) to distinguish between blackops and regular survivors unless you are in the same square.  [[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 23:59, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' -Nice flavor, but much too big for something that doesn't add much new in the way of gameplay. Searching for FAKs and syringes combined with searching for ammo takes too much AP to work in the game. a necro or healer with Axe Proficiency is about the same cost in xp. I just don't see the need for a new class. --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 00:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT) 
*'''Kill''' -- As Vista said, no need for a new class.  And it's not like it's any different really.  It's just a reordering of present stuff.  And anyway, that's why you have a damn military heading.  -- [[User:Tabaqui|Tabby]] 18:10, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
:*'''Re''' - i respectfully disagree.  this new class would add a new layer of fear and paranoia to the game.  survivors trust the military - but should they trust Black Ops?  as it stands now, it doesn't add much aside from roll play flavor (& the change in science/civilian skill costs to mix things up a bit) - but if this class is implemented, it opens up a world of possibilities.  Kevan may add some new skills to it upon its introduction (if he implements it), as there are a bunch of good ideas that have passed peer review in terms of skills and items.  even if he simply implemented the class alone, it opens the door to a different style of game play & new game suggestions.  if nothing else, i see this as a building block for the future (although i do feel it has merit on it own). --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 19:50, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)   
*'''Kill''' - Useless new class, doesn't really add anything to the game. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 21:32, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - FAR too overpowered. everyone would start picking them since they start off with all the equipment everyone wants. --[[User:Danaru|Danaru]] 00:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Too powerful right now, with zombies already reeling.  Would change to keep if tied to 1. Black Ops characters limited to X% of active players. 2. Black Ops characters get regular EXP from PKing.  This would make everyone hate/fear them and balance them out a bit, IMO.--[[User:Bloarg|Bloarg]] 6:06, 21 Dec 2005 (PST)
*'''Keep''' - This is a great idea. --[[User:Eddo36|Eddo36]] 02:19, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*<s>'''Keep''' - this is a great idea plus it adds a little fun to the military :).</s> '' no signature --[[User:Deathnut|Deathnut]] 05:32, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) ''
*'''Keep''' - But I'd like to suggest that Black Ops get full XPs for PKing (and possibly fewer XPs for ZKing?). --[[User:Frosty|Frosty]] 14:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Good flavor, same XP costs to finish the trees as Military (1950), and I'd be interested in the eventual evolution of the conflict to Black Ops + Scientist v. Civilian + Military v. Zombie --[[User:RSquared|RSquared]] 14:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' -verry good idea,  except if they become zombie hunters. has a zombie,  i see most of thing over there be in favor of the survivor, this idea is the kind idea i support, consiedring these balck ops will not be able to cooperate with normal survivor and they will attemps to kill them one day survivor.  they can kill me i dont care but,  if they are implented i hope they will not only attack zombie, anyway black ops are evil in al the resident evil .--[[User:spetznaz21|spetznaz21]] 20:31, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - It would be fun to be a highly trained ninja commando. -[[User:Penance|Penance]] 16:00, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - the same as the regular classes, only more powerful. -[[User:Gtrmp|Gtrmp]] 02:57, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Brainrot Choice===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=02:41, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Skill change|
suggest_scope=Zombies|
suggest_description=A zombie with brain rot will get an option if stuck with a Revification syringe, and can then either '''ignore it and go on playing to stay on their feet as a zombie''' -- or click a "'''Give in to the syrum'''" button to fall down as a corpse then rise as a human as one would normally do when revived. This would make the skill effectively a choice to have their body "reject" the revification solution or have it "barely take effect" at which point they stand up as a human. Brain-rotted zombie is still harder to Scan. Simple.

Effectively changes Brainrot from "Never Revived" to "Revived only by choice." This skill revamp's ONLY PURPOSE is to let peole choose for themselves if they refuse the revival (like during an attack), then later want to be revived - or vice versa.

* Alternately, a checkbox can be added to your Zombie profile with which you can choose if Revivals will work on your character or not. 

* Alternately, this could be an advanced Brain Rot skill below current Brain Rot in the skill tree.

* Alternately, Brain Rot could become a lvl 10 Zombie skill if this were implimented. Those who already have it could be allowed to keep it, of course.

Thanks to Reverend Loki for the great alternate ideas 1 & 2!|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*'''KILL''' - Nerfs brain rot and promotes the use of syringes as 100% accurate instakill weapons. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 03:01, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re:''' - Actually does neither. Makes Brainrot more powerful as a skill and does not change syringes and their effectiveness at all. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 03:08, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**Comment: It nerfs brain rot because it makes syringes knock us rotters down, somthing they dont do now. It allows humans to toss us without actually killing us. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 04:03, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
***No it '''doesn't'''. Re-read and don't reply unless you are the author. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 04:10, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' Why the hell do you need choice? People choose Brain Rot for a reason. THEY DONT WANT TO BE REVIVED! [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 03:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re:''' Then they can ignore the option and keep doing actions as a zombie without penalty. Others can choose to let the syrum revive them if they like. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 04:19, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - How the heck does this nerf brainrot? You can still say "Stand up as zombie.(1Ap.)". Nothing changes. If anything, it makes it stronger, because you can stand up and get a shiny new [thing] that just happens to carry over. The tradeoff of brainrot is that you CAN'T do that after getting it, hence I think I'll have to killvote this.--[[User:Arathen|Arathen]] 03:54, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re:''' This is not a 'nerf brainrot' suggestion if you'll notice. Also you do not get knocked down unless you choose to let the syrum work. Please please PLEASE read the suggestion before voting. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 04:10, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I'd rather see the addition of zombie skills that enable zombies to obtain the benefits of things like Body Building and flak jackets, than modification of Brain Rot. My preference. --[[User:Centerfire|Centerfire]] 03:58, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - What would be the point of getting brain rot then if you are still getting revived? --[[User:Shadow213|Shadow213]] 16:26, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT) 04:04, 19 Dec 2005
**'''Re:''' - It gives you the CHOICE, it doesn't MAKE you get revived. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 04:10, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Am I the only one who read this and understood the usefulness of it? --[[User:Deathnut|Deathnut]] 04:34, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I like the idea, I really do, but I don't like the flavor. The skill is called brain ROT, which means your brains can't be used as a harman anymore. That's my only beef, though, so maybe if Brain Rot was renamed, I'd vote Keep. --[[User:Hexedian|Hexedian]] 04:54, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re:''' - Indeed. Brain Rot could become Brain Atrophy or Brain Damage.. Hmm. Or anything, I suppose! ;) -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 06:24, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - How does the necrotech guy see the zombie until the zombie comes online to make that decision? [[User:Rhialto|Rhialto]] 05:29, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re:''' I'm not sure what you mean about one player ''seeing'' another. Discussion page? -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 06:17, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Why not instead of making it easier for zombies with brain rot to try a hand at playing survivor again, make a skill under brain rot that makes it more fun to play a zombie?. --[[User:paincake|paincake]]
**'''Re:''' - Go ahead and suggest one. This is a suggestion to revamp Brain Rot. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 23:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - The whole idea of brainrot is to commit yourself to playing zombie.  It has both an advantage and disadvantage.  I don't think this idea is either useful or necessary. --[[User:Catwhowalksbyhimself|Catwhowalksbyhimself]]
*'''Keep''' - I would amend it to make a toggleable option available in preferences - defaults to "do not revive", can be toggled to "revive".  If a Zed with Brain Rot wants revived, they have to change this setting before a revive attempt is made.  That means the player does not have to be online to answer any questions about current desires.  '''Alternate''' - make this ability part of an "Advanced Brain Rot" skill. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 20:38, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - <s>The way this is implemented... wouldn't be possible unless both people were online at the same time... --[[User:Shadowstar|Shadowstar]] 21:05, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)</s> Changed to keep based on further explanation. --[[User:Shadowstar|Shadowstar]] 23:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**<s>'''Re''' - Yes it would. A zombie offline wouldn't be there to choose life, so it would clearly play out as it currently does when you inject an offline brain rotted zombie.</s> '''Edit: Holy crap! :D''' -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 23:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - I think this is a good solution to a problem that a lot of people have been griping about (getting brain rot and finding out that flak jackets, bodybuilding, crowbars and whatever else might be added in the future might be pretty useful for a hardened zombie. As for all the people who voted kill on this idea without even reading the suggestion, it beggars belief. This suggestion does not nerf brain rot, does not get you killed by syringes if you don't want it to and doesn't require both parties to be online at the same time. Come on, stop jerking those knees and start using those eyes. --[[User:Vair|Vair]] 21:24, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - I don't get why people are so against ''expanding'' skills.  Brain Rot is controversial enough as it is.  It doesn't weaken Brain Rot.  If anything it makes it more powerful/useful.  What other skill has a disadvantage like that?  "Here, take this skill and you'll lose out on the ability to EVER use this character with 50% of the game!"  No, I don't think so.  I know this game is built so that people can have multis and use them when they wish; but to be forced to use them because they made a simple choice a long time ago?  People it costs '''100XP''' and it has such a ''severe'' downside!?  No, this is a good solution.  [[User:Riktar|Riktar]] 21:50, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' -Why should Zombies have this? If it is to get flack jackets and body building (something every zombie should have) they really should both represented in the zombie skill tree anyway as skills (I'd vote for that). If you want to play both sides, simply don't get it, and accept the occasional insta-dead and random  revive as part of the game --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 23:39, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re''' - They can get bodybuilding and flak jacket before buying brain rot. This suggestion is a revamp of Brain Rot, letting you CHOOSE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE EACH TIME YOU GET THE OPTION. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 23:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
***'''Re''' -ahum mimiMIMI ...YES I READ THAT... cough, (off to discusion page...)--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 00:13, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''', pointless and out of character. --[[User:LibrarianBrent|LibrarianBrent]] 23:58, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re''' Has a definite clear point, and character is subjective to player. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 00:01, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' By choosing brainrot, you are making a choice to commit yourself as a zombie.  If you want to be able to choose, jump ount a window or just find a zombie friend. [[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 01:17, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re:''' Ignores the fact that syringes are insta-kills with an AP cost to stand, walk to a building with a window, jump, and stand again. You can still make a choice to commit to be a zombie with this suggestion. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 02:30, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill'''-- No. -- [[User:Tabaqui|Tabby]] 18:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - While I appriciate the idea, in terms of actual use it wouldn't come up enough to make its implemntation worth it.  Consider: a brain rotted zombie gets stuck with a syringe.  Assuming he's online some sort of dialog pops up for the user saying "do you want to be revived?"  In theory its nice, but UD has nothing else that would pop dialog messages, requiring that to be added from the ground up.  Not to mention there's gonna be extra sever load because the sever now has to: if the user not online check two varibles everytime a syringe is used(brain rot & wants to be revived), and if the user is online wait for a reply (and since a person only gets updates when they refresh, this could be a very long time -say I'm online but waiting a half hour for my next AP to be added).  Also, it really seems to only make sense for a OOC thing (zombies are there to eat, they don't wake up in the morning and wonder "should I be human or not today?"--[[User:Terrgn33u|Terrgn33u]] 01:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''keep'''it is a great idea for the skill.--[[User:revos windu|revos windu]] 11:15, 20 Dec 2005(gmt -4)
*'''Keep''' - I like the check box idea. I have been wracking my brain about what I'll do when I reach high enough level to want it with my zombies....whether to take it or not. Dilemma. This would also allow OLD zombies to get bodybuilding and flak jackets that they couldn't get before. [[User:Tereseth|Tereseth]] 9:44, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Scaled Effectiveness of Syringes===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=04:27, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Balance change|
suggest_scope=Revivification Syringes|
suggest_description=The ubiquity of revives substantially softens the impact of being killed. Revivification is so prevalent that syringes are commonly used as high-percentage-kill weapons -- not weapons of last resort, but as a workaday tactic. Both to help keep survivor death a non-trivial inconvenience, and to limit their application as insta-kill weapons, I propose giving syringes a percent chance of failure, even on a non-Brain Rotted target. This chance would start at 0%, so as to avoid disproportionate impact on newbies, and scale upwards in proportion to the number of deaths taken by the target, topping out at perhaps 50%. In this way no one is forced to continue playing the game as a zombie, yet it may take a greater expenditure of a valuable resource to revive them. <b>Note</b>: I am aware that "revives should have a chance of failure" has been suggested before. Linking the chance of failure to the number of deaths taken by the target is what, I believe, distinguishes this suggestion from spam.
<b>CLARIFICATION</b>: The chance of failure is based on the number of times the <i>target</i> has died, not the number of times that the <i>user</i> has died. So it's harder to revive somebody who's died 20 times than it is to revive somebody who's only died once.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*'''Kill''' another p***ed off zombie who got revived most likely. --[[User:Deathnut|Deathnut]] 04:36, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re''' - Way to sling that ad hominem, pal. --[[User:Centerfire|Centerfire]] 06:41, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - I like the idea of the difficulty of revives being linked to number of deaths. --[[User:TheDood|TheDood]] 04:50, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - [[User:Jirtan|Jirtan]] 04:54, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Increases the penalty for dying frequently, and reduces combat syringe effectiveness. BTW, I thought of this first. :P - [[User:KingRaptor|KingRaptor]] 05:09, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - How on earth would you balance that? Do you know how often zombies die? Besides, syringes already have a counter. It's called brain rot and it's 100% effective.--[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 05:52, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re''' - The proposal isn't to "counter" syringes. It's to help ensure that death's more than a minor inconvenience, and to keep syringes from being auto-hit insta-kills. The fact that some zombies are immune to revivification doesn't make revivification-as-a-weapon balanced qua normal weapons. --[[User:Centerfire|Centerfire]] 08:49, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Seems nice. But what does this mean? That the amount of deaths the user has the less likely to be revived?--[[User:ALIENwolve|ALIENwolve]] 06:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re''' - Clarified the proposal. --[[User:Centerfire|Centerfire]] 06:36, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - [[Suggestions/16th-Dec-2005#Revival_Syringe.2C_Mark_3.0|Revival Syringe Mark 3.0]] is better. --[[User:Matthew-Stewart|Matthew-Stewart]] 06:11, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Most survivors, from what I hear, don't die that often anyways.  This just gives them a little more motivation to stay alive.  And since the cap is 50%, they could still be used as weapons on regular zombie players.--[[User:Catwhowalksbyhimself|Catwhowalksbyhimself]] 06:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Yeah, let's Screw the noobs who die then get killed 20 time's by Zombie hunter's!!!! --14:45, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I like the other idea to limit combat efficacy better. (rev ver.3) Death is already more than a minor inconvenience. I'm not sure why people think it isn't. Just look at all the AP an NT has to put into searching to get that syringe in the first place... Just because it doesn't necessarily cost the zombified person much AP doesn't mean someone doesn't use it. --[[User:Shadowstar|Shadowstar]] 14:52, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Sry, but this wouldn't work because revive already has like a 2% chance of finding from what I heard of other characters I played with.  If those syrenges that is hard to find only has a 50% chance, then there will be pissed off players.  But then again only the weak dies *runs from the hate response* -_-;;; --[[User:Shadow213|Shadow213]] 16:35, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I have a hard enough time finding syringes as it is, I would be very frustrated if the chance of them even working was reduced. Necrotechs have a hard enough time gaining XP as it is and this would just be punishing people for being a support character.
**'''Re:''' - I'm genuinely baffled how you can say that Necrotechs have any kind of hard time gaining XP. All Necrotechs start with a DNA extractor and the ability to use it. You can scan any zombie once per day for 3XP, auto-hitting except when the zombie's already been scanned, or has Brain Rot. This is hard? --[[User:Centerfire|Centerfire]] 18:32, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' Why are you so convinced that syringes are he cause of the low number of zombies? Give them a minor buff or more classes and people will want to be them more, making it harder to revive won't help anyone and will only prove to grief survivors! And now that Headshot is no longer the griefing tool it once was, there shouldn't be a need to grief survivors like this! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 20:45, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re''' - Uh, I never, anywhere, said that syringes are the cause of the low zombie population. Please read the suggestion and respond to it rather than posting knee-jerk and incoherent kill votes. --[[User:Centerfire|Centerfire]] 21:44, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*** I'm sorry if I came off as rude, but it felt like all that was implied by this. I mean, what other reason is there for this suggestion since dedicated zombies can just get brain rot? Nerfing syringes doesn't really solve any problem, and since newbies tend to die a lot before finally getting to a high enough level to sufficiently defend themselves, this would really end up being a painful long-term effect, and unwantedly revived zombies can usually just just from a building, or provoke someone into PKing them (or continue to help fight by PKing for that matter). Of course, others since my initial vote have helped explain my reasons for killing better, so read the other kill votes to understand where I'm coming from. I guess I did seem a bit rude in saying all that, and I apologise, but my kill vote still stands. --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 03:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I don't like the idea that a spot of bad luck can effect a character forever.  Some poor soul dies 20 times right off, and from then on is not as effectively revived forever.  I might be in favor if this only counted deaths over a set period - say, last 30 days.  A player could then overcome the penalty through skilled play.  Also, did not specify what kind of deaths - deaths as a survivor only, or are we including deaths as a zombie too?  Some days, it's hard to cross the street without accidentaly killing a zombie...  --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 20:47, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - If the chance for failure rose quickly but dropped quickly I'd support this, probably. Otherwise a single spot of bad luck will screw over a character for life.--[[User:Arathen|Arathen]] 21:39, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - This punishes survivors for no real reason.  If a survivor doesn't want to be a zombie, they shouldn't be forced into it. Create incentives for them to play as zombies, not problems in transitioning to the other side just to delay them.  I agree that syringes shouldn't be insta-kills, though. --[[User:Drakkenmaw|Drakkenmaw]] 21:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - What with books being added to NT buildings, let alone that scientists get only 5XP for what many call an ''instakill'', topped off with Scientists needing more XP for the more useful skills means that -- regardless of the mechanics behind reviving -- Scientists would be nerfed even harder.  If you were to work in a way that would not take away half the XP scientists get as it is right now, I might reconsider.  [[User:Riktar|Riktar]] 22:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - It does punish necro's as it is their most important way to get xp, before you start with the Dna extractor counter Centerfire, look at the game statistics, they gain their XP the slowest, revive is the only way they can gain xp that has an impact in the game, if you take that away necro's just aren't fun to play anymore --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 23:29, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT).
*'''Keep/Edit''' - I say hit miss always (ie 50/50) It makes logical sense. In order to revive a zed you need to inject it in the base of the head. Now what zombie would let you do that. Also it adds and element of human error (by the way which every other weapon has) Theres not a 100% chance of a good injection always. I belelive that Revive points have become a plauge on the game weaking the zombie side. (PS im alive and ive only died once so) ANd congrats on the abusive. Also to reply line by line style to some args here
A"This punishes survivors for no real reason.  If a survivor doesn't want to be a zombie, they shouldn't be forced into it. Create incentives for them to play as zombies, not problems in transitioning to the other side just to delay them.  I agree that syringes shouldn't be insta-kills, though" He a thought dont die. If a survivor doesnt want to be a zed then they need to not die. Players that WANT to play as zeds how ever have the ablity to jump out a window and re-turn to zed form (which i alo think should be removed from the game). People should be punished for dying. As for the XP argument. healing grants just as much XP so its not there only way. As for the bad luck. What do you call it when you attack 50 times and dont kill a thing life sucks deal with it. This add realism to this game. reasons to vote yes on this idea
A. for realism this creates a bet RPG over all and adds better game play
B. ground- it blances the ground between zed and humans. when i pass a revive point theres awlays tons of zeds who just sit there. they dont do anything but sit there (while easy targets :) its a waste it weakens the zeds forces. i dont know about you but the more active zeds the funner and more challenging the game gets.
C. Creators intent- yes you heard me. the reason Kevian made us turn into zeds in this game was to show how the creeping numbers of undead will rise slowly and overtake humanity. I believe that he didnt mean for the syring to get this much abuse.
D. this is the longest voter youve ever seen. I feel that this should pass so vote
--[[User:Ace448|Ace448]] 01:29, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Leave syringes alone. Making it harder and harder for survivors to come back is a lousy idea. Would your zombies like it if, suddenly, flinging themselves from the top of a tower didn't kill them, and they had to go around for days trying over and over again to die? [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 18:04, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill'''--No.--[[User:Tabaqui|Tabby]] 18:12, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I might think about it if you are talking about number of times killed since last revive (i.e. players that spend more time being zombies would be harder to revive) but if we are just talkinga bout overall kills then you're really just making things harder for high level survivors who have the bad luck of dying a lot.  While the hundred percent kill rate of the syringe may seem like too much consider that you need 2 science skills to even find and use syringes at all (and they're still rare); We're talking about 150 (min) XP and countless AP for one kill here.--[[User:Terrgn33u|Terrgn33u]] 01:16, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*<s>'''kill''' - and what about zeds who want to be revived?</s> '' no signature --[[User:Deathnut|Deathnut]] 05:39, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) ''
*'''Keep''' - Zeds who want to be revived shouldn't have died in the first place. High level characters who die a lot don't deserve to be high level characters. I think this is great for RP. The habit some players have of killing themselves, getting some zombie skills, getting reved, building up as a survivor, then killing themselves again, etc... seems very sad and munchkiny to me. If you want to be a survivor then stay in character, play smart and don't get killed. If you get killed, then you're a zombie, so act like one. If someone revives you then great, but don't expect it. Even if this rule change goes through, it still doesn't have an effect the first time you get revived, and if you figure the failure rate goes up maybe 5% each rev, you can still die a lot before it has an appreciable effect. It really will only hurt those people who die for the fun of it. --[[User:Jstoller|Jstoller]] 05:03, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - I like it. It support the idea that a body that was more damaged would be harder to "bring to life"... [[User:Tereseth|Tereseth]] 9:48, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Drop items: Usability improvement===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=Mon Dec 19 16:08:39 JST 200507:14, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type=UI improvement|
suggest_scope=Dropping items|
suggest_description=Two changes in the user interface:
* After a search, the newly-found items should be selected by default for dropping. This allows one-click dropping of newspapers in hospitals.
* When dropping an item, if another matching item is present in the inventory, it should be pre-selected. For instance, when dropping a "Pistol(0)" to make space, the next such pistol should be preselected. (However, this does not apply to partially loaded pistols, as they differ in their ammo count.)
These two suggestions make the UI more consistent (preselection in the drop-down box for "drop" behaves like previous attacks) and faster to use.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here
* '''Keep''': Makes UI easier to use, easy to implement, does not add complexity to the server. [[User:Telcontar|Telcontar]] Mon Dec 19 16:08:39 JST 2005
Author vote.
*'''Spam''' -There are already several suggestions in this vein. Also, I put your vote in the right place. --[[User:paincake|paincake]]
*'''Keep''' - Why not?--[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 09:06, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - What Grim s said. --[[User:Duranna|Duranna]] 18:40, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*<strike>'''Kill''' - i like the idea of quickly dropping stacks of newspaper, books, etc. - however there are times when i have multiple empty pistols/shotguns, and i want to drop one to free up inventory but keep the others to load with ammo when i find it.  would the default drop selection automatically drop all my empty weapons?  also, how would this effect flax jackets and other useful items - if one flax jacket is dropped, are all dropped, etc.? --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 21:35, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)</strike> '''Keep''' - oops, my bad.  thanks for clarifying that Arathen.... --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 22:18, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - It specifically states that the next item will be ''chosen in the dropdown menu,'' not dropped.--[[User:Arathen|Arathen]] 21:41, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' -I've had the same problem --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 00:28, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Sounds like a good idea to me. [[User:McSnatherson|McSnatherson]]
*<s>'''Keep''' - sound great now to find that dang sniper rifle</s> '' no signature --[[User:Deathnut|Deathnut]] 05:40, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) ''
*'''Keep''' - What's not to like? [[User:Throctukes|Throctukes]]15:33, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}

----

===Supply Drops===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=08:54, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Game shift|
suggest_scope=Survivors|
suggest_description=OK, here goes.

I've never seen people go so long without food. Sure, you've got beer and wine and stuff, but I wouldn't like subsisting on wine.

In short, new item: Food Rations (3). Every day a survivor must have a Food Ration in his/her inventory, at perhaps the 160hit rollover. Upon this rollover one item of 'food ration' is consumed (but not an AP consuming it) - thus a Food Rations (3) will last 3 days. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE any rations, your maximum health goes down by 15 per day down to 5 HP after 3 days. This can be rectified by 'using' Food Rations like any other item to restore your maximum health, spending 1 AP. Drinking a beer or wine may possibly mitigate the need for rations for a day. ALTERNATE USE: A single Food Ration use could restore some number of HP but NOT an infection.

Every day a 'supply crate' will be airdropped to two or three blocks per suburb and its location advertised (you hear a loud crash 3 blocks west), much like a flare. The existance of a supply crate at that block changes the description of the street level of the block (there is a supply crate on its side in the street) and the crate itself can be interacted with, that is, broken open the same way a barricade is destroyed.

Once the crate is open survivors can 'search the crate' for a 30% chance per AP to find food rations (3). They can take as many as they want, but the crate will disappear after 24 hours.

Now. Zombies, on the other hand, will also be notified of the supply drops. What they can do, is 'corrupt' the food such that it's rendered inedible by humans. A zombie on the block of an open supply crate (they can break them open too) will have the option of spending 1 AP somehow destroying the food. Each successful attempt will reduce the net search percentage of survivors finding food by 1% until eventually a survivor only has a 5% chance of finding food rations.

What this does, simply put, is tether survivors to a lifeline and give zombies an opportunity to cut off that lifeline and depopulate a suburb without being forced to clear every barricade and every block.

Other possibilities include having food shops in malls, food in some warehouses, a small chance to find food anywhere.

EDIT: To give time to adapt all survivors would have 2 Food Rations (3) placed into their inventory if this is implemented.

EDIT POST UPDATE: Ahahahah, of all the bloody luck having this sort of be implemented. Though I focused more on the food aspect rather than the supply drop aspect.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*'''Kill''' - Only if we also have survivors look for suitably places to defecate and zombies getting weaker if they can't find live flesh in time. This suggestion fails the law of drama. [[User:Rhialto|Rhialto]] 09:55, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Fairly complicated to implement, but giving more tactical options to zombies = keep vote. --[[User:Centerfire|Centerfire]] 11:20, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Dude this idea is freakin awesome! We survivors will now actually have to eat!!! Plus it starts to balance out the zombie/survivor differential. --[[User:Trayton|Trayton]] 12:13, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Not balanced enough for Zombies. I'd change my vote if Zombies had to canibalize dead bodies or they had a skill where as they could "infect" food unbeknownst to survivors. --[[User:Victor McAxeman|Victor McAxeman]] 19 Dec.
*'''Kill''' - WOOOO! New skill/Event! Renders this suggestion useless! But I don't care! NEW SKILL DAY!!!!!! -- [[User:Andrew McM|Andrew McM]] 14:15, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' New event makes this useless. Also, this is a predicted thingie too, kudo's on creating this Before the new event thingie. - --[[User:Fullemtaled|Fullemtaled]] 14:27, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Probably not too useful, but more than that... It's just boring to have to eat. --[[User:Shadowstar|Shadowstar]] 14:49, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Keeping track of food is boring. --[[User:Dickie Fux|Dickie Fux]] 16:24, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - lol it'll be easier just to heal yourself every day because food drops will be where the zombies will start to hang out and if they continuously infect the food (which food drops are probly like 3 spots per section of malton town).  Then either A. You start hanging out at hospitals or B. you're searching with 5% or C. YOUR SCREWED :D --[[User:Shadow213|Shadow213]] 16:44, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re:''' - Read more closely. Your maximum health falls. So you *couldn't* be healed by a FAK, as you'd still be at 35/35 or 5/5 or whatever. [[User:FireballX301|FireballX301]] 22:22, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Seems like half of it has been implemented already. --[[User:Falk|Falk]] 16:45, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/7th-Nov-2005#Supply_Drop Kill]''' I made a supply drop suggestion a while back and it didn't make it to peer review but I checked the game news and do a little gig.  Actually it was an obvious suggestion Kevan probably thought of it himself too. Also I think getting food is "assumed" because it isn't exciting like the other aspects of the game, or perhaps as zombies you store all the nutrition you need as a survivor ;) . --[[User:Matthew-Stewart|Matthew-Stewart]] 17:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' 1. This has already been implemented, though granted in a different way. 2. The whole "hunger" thing can't be implemented without cauing a ton of trouble. Inventory spaces as it is are already pretty full and requiring food will only make life one big grief to survivors! How they survive without food and water is solved in RP situations, there's no need to give survivors a harder time by making eating a requirement! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 20:50, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' -A point for realism, but as it forces you to do spend AP without any benefit and needlessly complicates matters it just isn't a needed or a "fun" change. --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 00:38, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - this is the reason i never played any of the sims games... i hate playing games where i have to spend my time doing mundane tasks (like i do in real life - it defeats the purpose of playing a game IMHO).  that, and it would be a serious problem for survivors when the zombie population increases (i say "when" because i like to think positive :) ).  good call on the supply drop idea though - you have my kudos (along with Fullemtaled) for being quasi-psychic. --[[User:Firemanstan|Firemanstan]] 03:37, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - It's a game! We don't want to have to do mudane taskes every day, if I wanted that I would be playing the Sims.--[[User:The General|The General]] 18:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - people would be waiting for when the food drops, and take it all, and what if you didn't have any ap? too many ways people could get screwed over for this one. --[[User:Danaru|Danaru]] 00:49, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I like the idea, but needs some work.  In its currect form you're just going the be penalising infrequent players (log out, log in a week later to find that they've all but starved to death).  Suggestions: Perhaps food could be implemented somehow along the lines of the generator system (where only need to get a supply crate a week or so and everyone in a given building is considered fed) and the hp pentality is pretty bad (though I acutally like it, would and this sense of desperation to the game) maybe having food should apply a bonus. Also my personal idea would be give taking food from a crate 100% but can't be done if any zombies are present, then survivors would need to make organised raids (I'd imagine that crate would only appear on open, unfortifable ground).--[[User:Terrgn33u|Terrgn33u]] 01:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===SEWER===
[[Spaminated]] with three '''Spam''' votes, mainly due to lack of detail. A good concept, but not enough detail to be voted on as a suggestion - also, one voter mentioned a better subterranean-movement idea in the form of subways which had been suggested earlier. --[[User:John Taggart|John Taggart]] 18:00, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
----

===Paint-ball guns===
[[Spaminated]] - One, two, three, four spam votes. Criticized as inane, illogical (one voter mentioned that corrosive paintball pellets would ruin the gun), nonsensical, and having poor grammar. To quote ''Convoy'' by C. W. McCall, "We gone by-bye!" --[[User:John Taggart|John Taggart]] 17:52, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

----

===Low-level Zombie Immunity to Headshot===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=19:10, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Skill Change|
suggest_scope=Zombies and Humans|
suggest_description=As it stands, new zombie characters have to spend 2 AP to move and 15 AP to stand up if they get Headshotted- which happens quite a lot considering the number of zombie hunters. I propose that Headshot either doesn't add any AP to zombies under level 5 or only adds 1 AP to their standing up. This will give them a chance to get the necessary skills.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*'''Keep''' - Author vote. [[User:Jirtan|Jirtan]] 19:12, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I would prefer that Headshot be scaled to add 1 AP to Standing Up per Level of Zombie, but only after separating Zombie/Survivor levels.  That would make a Level 1 Zombie spend 11 to stand up instead of 10, etc.  Someone please suggest this as a logical alternative.  --[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 19:33, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - They've already got a 10AP penalty... Squashua, that might be a good idea, but I think we need something quick to give the low level ones a bit more playtime. Maybe when the above is done, then it'd work. --[[User:Shadowstar|Shadowstar]] 19:40, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Nerfing headshot is good. It's a stupid skill anyway. [[User:Matson Jade|Matson Jade]] 19:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Limiting the ability for newcomers to play the game as much as established players just means fewer newcomers and a mushrooming number of players at the level cap. --[[User:Drakkenmaw|Drakkenmaw]] 21:36, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill/Change''' - Dang it Squashua, I was going to suggest that! Jirtan, change this suggestion to make a headshot cost the victim 1 extra AP per <i>zombie</i> level and I'll vote keep. --[[User:Antrobus178|Antrobus178]] 21:48, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill'''- don't nerf headshot anymore! (xp stealing = bad, but dont make it useless) -- [[User:P0p0|P0p0]] 22:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I think a better solution would be to make headshot only effective against zombies with Ankle Grab. Mitigates Ankle Grab while still making it an advantage for zombies, while not affecting players that haven't yet bought Ankle Grab.--[[User:Declan|Declan]] 22:42, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Anybody you'd really like to stay down for those extra 5AP, won't be affected by this ''anyways''.  '''Supra-keep!'''  [[User:Riktar|Riktar]] 22:47, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' Preferrable to removing it altogether. And there could be a logical explanation behind that. [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] 22:57, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' -if limited to the first two levels or Squashua suggestion with a level cap, then perhaps. Once you've got ankle grap it just isn't that powerfull to merit change. but right now, I rather wait what happens, when people actually start playing the game for a while with the new headshot rule in effect to see what it actually does... --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 00:42, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' based on my calculations posted [http://zombies.desensitised.net/board/index.php?topic=4639.msg102213#msg102213 here], this change is definitely needed. [[User:Rhialto|Rhialto]] 08:49, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' Let's just see how the new headshot effects the game, shall we? It's been a day since the new implementation, and you already complain again? [[User:Falk|Falk]] 10:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Ankle Grab can be obtained as soon as level 3.  I suggest that instead of restricting Headshot effects by zombie level, a flat 10 AP cap is placed on stand-up cost.  --[[User:VoidDragon|VoidDragon]] 14:57, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Quit whining about headshot. It no longer drains XP--now everybody's in an uproar over a measly 5 AP. That is 5 AP for a COMPLETE HEAL, you know. Just leave Headshot alone! [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 18:05, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Just leave headshot alone.--[[User:The General|The General]] 19:03, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - I don't know if the mechanics you suggest are best, but some way to keep new zombies from suffering excessively from Headshot would be nice. --[[User:Dickie Fux|Dickie Fux]] 20:44, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - What [[User:Squashua|Squashua]] said/suggested. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 23:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Call me crazy but I actually like the new headshot, makes it much more of a anti-siege weapon (hard to attack when you have no AP). As for the 1 AP per level sugestion it is EXTREMELY unballenced: a maxed out zombie, with all human skills is level 34, even though they have ankle grab you're penalising them a whopping 35 AP (meaning a whole day is basically lost for EACH head shot. --[[User:Terrgn33u|Terrgn33u]] 01:38, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' Once they get lurching Gait, it won't matter as much anyways. Or perhaps it should only affect Ankle-Grabbers? Either one works for me, just give the newbies a break! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 03:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - the new Headshot is good, but does penalize newbie zombies a bit overmuch.  Also, adding 1 per level of zombie '''encourages zombies to not buy skills'''.  That's just silly and counterproductive. --[[User:RSquared|RSquared]] 14:44, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Things are definitely too hard for the N00Bs. [[User:Tereseth|Tereseth]] 9:53, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Rather that Headshot be axed, but this is the next best thing.  [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 23:32, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''', kind of - I'd rather that it took 1 extra AP per zombie level, up to a maximum of 5 AP. -[[User:Gtrmp|Gtrmp]] 02:40, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Maintain Graffiti History===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=19:28, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Location Alteration|
suggest_scope=Locations|
suggest_description=How come we can only tag an area once and then a tag erases the prior tag?  The concept behind this is that there is currently no graffiti history.  Each location very likely has multiple walls and floors.  When I look at a wall with graffiti in the real world, it is covered with tons of crap.  Now, yes there must be some sort of limit to the amount of graffiti that can cover an area and eventually things might become overrun with text, but certainly someone looking at a tagged wall would be able to see different tags placed throughout it's history.  Taggers would be able to overwrite different tags at will. 

'''The suggestion is as follows:'''
* To simulate multiple graffitis, allow for a drop-down that lists all of the graffiti that has been tagged onto the wall, starting with the newest.  This way, anyone can come by and drop-down to see the graffiti posted on the walls.
* Different locations allow for different amounts of graffiti.  The larger the area, the more graffiti can be left.
* When a new tag is left, it overwrites the oldest tag left.

'''Alternate implementation: Slots'''
* Each location of a set number of slots for graffiti, simulating open space (for example, a Bank might have 5 slots, a Mall might have 15).
* When tagging, a tagger selects one of the slots from the dropdown, types in his graffiti and submits.  In this way, some clans can claim certain slots, and some important messages could just sit in unused slots (until written over by punks).
* The newest written tag shows up first in the list.

'''Additional Comments'''
Code-wise, this requires a queue to be added for each location and for the queue to be posted out to the player for each database hit.  Obviously other server-hit fixers within the Reviewed Suggestions page should be implemented first.  Please do not vote against this if the database hits are your argument - this flaw is realized, understood, and stated.

This implementation can be coded to stop spammers.  When a new tag is submitted, the server can do one or both of two things: (1) disallow identical tags from the same player.  (2) log a tagger history and disallow tagging from a player who has just tagged this location within either their last X amount of AP or a set amount of time (30 minutes).
|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
* '''Keep''' - Author vote.  Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.  [[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 19:28, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Most grafitti is pointless junk, so I don't want more of it. --[[User:Dickie Fux|Dickie Fux]] 19:37, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Agree with DF. --[[User:Shadowstar|Shadowstar]] 19:40, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Agree with those guys.If grafitti is important to a group, then it gets them out in the fresh air to maintain it.--[[User:WibbleBRAINS|WibbleBRAINS]] 19:46, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - It'd make the tagging information on the database 10 times the size. That's a lot. [[User:Jirtan|Jirtan]] 19:50, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I hate you because your beautiful. --[[User:ThunderJoe|ThunderJoe]] 20:03, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Maintainance has its purpose. --[[User:Drakkenmaw|Drakkenmaw]] 21:33, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - It removes much from the tagging fun in my opinion. I like the chaotic part of it.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 00:50, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I have nothing more to add, just kill it.--[[User:The General|The General]] 19:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - well, I like the idea... --[[User:Danaru|Danaru]] 00:52, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===AP Overcharge===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=20:20, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type=Balance Change |
suggest_scope=Zombies|
suggest_description='''While on the ground''', dead zombies continue generating ap beyond their "normal" capacity up to and '''not exceeding''' an amount equaling that required to stand up.


As it stands, zombies have a significant disadvantage in the department of ap, and while there are skills such as Lurching Gait and Ankle Grab which help this, there is as yet an undressed issue. The typical zombie starts every day with between a 1 (with Ankle Grab) and 15 (without Ankle Grab, and after getting Headshot) ap penalty which can make playing as one, especially in the early stages, somewhat frustrating. 

The purpose of this suggestion is to reduce the effect of that penalty. For example; a zombie with Ankle grab, who had not been killed with Headshot would, while on the ground have a temporarily increased maximum ap to 51, while one without Ankle Grab, who was killed with a Headshot would have it increased to 65. Because the amount of extra ap does not exceed the amount required to stand up, and only comes into effect while a zombie is on the ground, no zombie would be able to have more than 50 ap at a time to play with.

Ex: BobTheZombie, who does not have ankle grab ran out of ap 25 hours ago, since which time he has been killed with a Headshot. He would have the option to spend 15 ap getting up, leaving him 35 ap to play with (or less if he decided to get up earlier). Or, alternatley, he could wait a few more hours until he was up to 65 ap and have a full 50 ap day (or anything in between). So long as he remains standing, his maximum ap capacity remains at 50.

This relegates Ankle Grab and Headshot to being almost entirely combative skills, but does not remove their other values entirely. Ankle grab now means one does not have to wait as long before getting up with full ap (as well as removes most of the ap penalty for getting up before then), while Headshot makes the target zombie wait longer before they can do this.

Note: I do not like the current title it&#8217;s just the best I could think up, if anyone can suggest a better one I&#8217;m listening.

'''Edit:''' It has been said that death should maintain it's negitive consequences on ap. This could be addressed by rather than having the "extra" ap generated equal to 1/2 of the ap required to get up. If this is acceptable, say so and I will integrate it when I have more time.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*'''Keep''' - I don't see a flaw in that, though it might fail due to complexity of implementation. --[[User:Hexedian|Hexedian]] 20:25, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' The less AP a zombie can have is supposed to go with the strategy of a horde. You have to decide when to get up and and be willing to deal with the less AP. Of course, you could always have a zombie buddy ZK you to have you only need 1 AP to stand up, giving you 49 AP to play with, or you could strategize and manage so that you don't need any more than your current AP to down a survivor or two. Besdies, most zombies get angle grab rather quickly nowadays since falling down and getting up daily for 10 AP really starts to get to them after a while. --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 20:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Sorry but I agree with what Volke said. --[[User:Whitehouse|Whitehouse]] 20:59, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - In that case, a zombie can always have all 50 AP to spend... no. If you want to make it so that you can manage to get around headshot's 5AP thing, I still don't think you have a case, but I'd probably abstain from voting. But death has consequences, which include not having all your AP. With or without headshot. --[[User:Shadowstar|Shadowstar]] 21:00, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re''' - Actually, I think this would only ''soften'' the consequences of getting killed while logged out, against which there is not really any particularly great defence avalable to zombies; especially ferals. Getting killed while playing still shortens your play for the day, and either way there is still the consequence of having to wait longer before playing again.--[[User:Zeek|Zeek]] 23:31, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - As much as I think this would help prevent vast zombie griefing outside of siege situations, this would also effectively remove any negative penalty for death in feral zombies and negate the use of Headshot in those situations altogether.  For those reasons I have to call this a '''Kill'''. --[[User:Drakkenmaw|Drakkenmaw]] 21:13, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
**'''Re''' - See Above --[[User:Zeek|Zeek]] 23:35, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I like the concept of making Ankle Grab and Headshot primarily real-time combat skills, but having a bunch of different max AP values is too complicated.  An easier implementation, I think, would be for zombies on the ground to regenerate AP faster than someone standing. --[[User:Dickie Fux|Dickie Fux]] 21:35, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kull''' - ^ - --[[User:Fullemtaled|Fullemtaled]] 23:38, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - dispite what you say, it would help the hordes more then the feral, you all go to the entrence of the block, get killed, stand up all together at full AP, and the entirely horde can die for free one extra time. costing an enourmous amount of defender AP extra. The feral just want to play once a day and just only gets 48 AP which is already under his AP limit of 50, raising his limit wont help him much. --[[User:Vista|Vista]] 01:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep'''At the end of the day, zombies are still underpowered, and anything that will negate their unfairness should be considered.--[[User:Matson Jade|Matson Jade]] 02:12, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - I am fully in favour of a solution that gives zombies a higher store of APs, but this solution is just way too convoluted. [[User:Rhialto|Rhialto]] 12:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' -  It's basically another nerf to headsot.--[[User:The General|The General]] 08:53, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
'''RE''' - How many people gotta tell you?<u> HEAD SHOT NEEDS TO BE NERFED!</u> [[User:Tereseth|Tereseth]] 9:28, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - do not increase the # of APs.  Instead, simply make the zombie pay a death penalty charge of 1-15 from his AP pool, but TREAT HIM AS A BODY at that point.  He does not have to pay anything more in order to take another action, but he's invulnerable as though he was a body as well (he can still get dumped out of a building).  In that way, the player can then choose to wait until the just-spent APs are back in his pool, eventually giving him his full 50 APs for the day. --[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 14:31, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Maybe allow it for the survivor's use, too, so they won't be crybabies as usual? [[User:Tereseth|Tereseth]] 10:00, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Either this or HP headshot. One or the other, and I probably prefer the other, 'cause this still sees a lot of zombies getting griefed until they can afford to buy this skill. --[[User:Jack Destruct|Jack Destruct]] 09:51, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Hp Head Shot===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=21:05, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)|
suggest_type= Balance Change|
suggest_scope= Humans use it Zombies Affected|
suggest_description= PROBLEM: I say that the Headshot move is bring zombies down.  Now I have nothing on Kevan.  He IS trying his best, but the problem is that he's going to piss alot of people off no matter what.  He's either going to piss off the people who purchased the move, or he's going to piss off the zombies.  The problem is once he made the xp thing for head shot, (which I don't know WTF he did that for)he has offset the balance of zombies.  What makes it worse is, unlike survivors, zombies can't hide in buildings because nearly all buildings are in barracades, making them just swaying outside for a headshot.  This is why I call a solution that isn't the best, but it IS better than the solution Kevan laid out (no offence Kevan it's just Zombies already use up too much AP).
SOLUTION:I say that the head shot should have an effect that every time you shoot the zombie with a pistol, you have a 25% chance to do 3 extra damage.  A still helpful, but not broken skill.|
suggest_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
*'''Kill''' - I think the recent change to Headshot needs time to be considered before it can be conclusively labelled as good or bad for either side.  The zombie strike is about the lack of fun in gameplay, not about the Headshot change.  That's merely the provocation for it. --[[User:Drakkenmaw|Drakkenmaw]] 21:09, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Headshot '''should''' be something different from normal attacks, since it's for high-level characters.  Nerfing it into a simple attack bonus is kind of boring. --[[User:Dickie Fux|Dickie Fux]] 21:29, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
:*'''Re''' - Meh if headshot '''should''' be something differn't from normal attacks, then there really isn't a way of doing that without making other zombies and survivors wanting to be zombies in the future mad at it I guess.  With AP already a concern for zombies and XP with the head shot before, people are starting to get mad.  Now I didn't mean to make it sound like the new headshot is the sole reason for the strike, but you do admit right that it was one of the situations that made the strike happen?  Even if this suggestion doesn't go through, we still need to find a way to make it fair for the zombies as well as the humans.
*'''Kill''' There are 3 or 4 weapons survivors tend to use nowadays. Upgrading one to occasionally do additional damage seems like a waste of XP to me. I always preferred Headshot affecting AP over the griefing XP, and now that it does that, what Drakkenmaw said needs to happen. Also, zombies DON'T use up too much AP nowadays. Most get Lurching Gait first and then accuracy-uppers, then Ankle Grab, which only takes about 2 or 3 levels, depending on what they get and what class they started as. This is incredibly easier to do now that their XP is no longer touched. Not only that, but zombies don't need to look for ammo to do good damage, which means they don't spend the tons of AP survivors do looking for ammo, and don't have to go all-out to hold ammo-containing buildings. Yes, headshot makes things a bit harder for newbies, but it no longer griefs zombies like it once did, and with no XP loss, nobody will stay a low-level brain-eater for long! --[[User:Volke|Volke]] 21:50, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' stealing AP and XP are functionally very simular, if you consider AP simply a way of getting XP, doing 3 damage is worthless.. dont nerf headshot anymore (yet) -- [[User:P0p0|P0p0]] 22:22, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''', headshot is finally balanced and you want to change it? --[[User:LibrarianBrent|LibrarianBrent]] 00:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - To soon to chance headshot again, we haven't even experienced what the new headshot is like! (BTW I think that at the beginning headshot was ment to keep the far less numerous humans balanced against the 65% zombie population. less humans with higher levels against more low level zombies. It wasn't as commenplace a skill as it is now).--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 01:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Right now, headshot is the only tactical and strategic reason to fight back against zombies. If you are going to remove our only game benefit in killiong zombies, propose something that also gives a useful benefit. Right now, death is the zombies' FAK, and this just means they'd use it about maybe 10% more often, but it won't make any tactical difference to kill a zombie with this change. [[User:Rhialto|Rhialto]] 07:08, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Quit whining about headshot. It no longer drains XP--now everybody's in an uproar over a measly 5 AP. That is 5 AP for a COMPLETE HEAL, you know. Just leave Headshot alone! [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 18:06, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' Give the change a chance! Also, Vista is right, when headshot started zombies had the advantage and this was to help give survivors a chance. It worked to, when there weren't many zombie hunters around you put up with it as you very rarely got headshot. The problem now is that there are more zombies hunters than zombies and therefore you get headshot too much.--[[User:The General|The General]] 19:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Might need tweaking, but this would change Headshot for the better. Less broken, unbalanced skills = good. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 21:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - As its stands headshot does nothing but grief. This would fix that. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 03:00, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - If humans have to keep their uber-leet skill, at least this one is non-griefy and doesn't impact someone else's ability to play the game.  I'm certain that all the cretins will start with the "death means nothing to zombies" lines but you know: fuck off.  death happens to zombies EVERY DAY and we shouldn't have to fear it anyway because we're ALREADY DEAD YOU JAGGOFFS.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] 03:02, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Headshots should do something to help the human, not grief the zombie.  Personally, I think extra damage from any weapon, not just pistol, but that's me.  --[[User:Dogbarian|Dogbarian]] 03:32, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep'''-- It's either this or axe headshot all together, but I'd hate to see 15,000 odd "survivors" throwing a collective tanty when they lose their precious griefer-skill.--[[User:Jack Destruct|Jack Destruct]] 04:01, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' I'm tired of survivor character only cats voting down every headshot suggestion.  Fact is zombies still have no skill that is on par with headshot.  Give zombies a brainrot subskill as narly as headshot, or kill headshot--[[user:phungus420|phungus420]] 1129, 24DEC05 (GMT)
*<del>'''Keep''' - This would work.  Although I still prefer just axing the skill.  [[User:phungus420|phungus420]] 0842, 28DEC05 (GMT)</del> ''Duplicate vote deleted and placed next to original vote.'' [[User:Rhialto|Rhialto]] 10:14, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

*'''Keep''' - Change headshot plz [[User:Tereseth|Tereseth]] 10:07, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Less AP per day = Less play time, Less play time = Less fun, Less fun = Less zombies, Less zombies = What apocalypse?, It has all been rehashed hundreds of times, but the base facts remain the same. We are playing this game for fun right? Or was that just me? [[User:SatansMechanic|SatansMechanic]] 0848, 28DEC05 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Everything has just about been said--[[User:Kasz|Kasz]] 11:16, 28 Dec 2005
*'''Keep''' - Keep, keep, keeperoo.  Keep, keep, keeperoo.  [[User:Petrosjko|Petrosjko]] 23:42, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Headshot SHOULD be a pretty powerful skill.  THIS is not it.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 21:57, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Kill''' - Headshot needs to not exist.  It doesn't need changed, it needs axed.  --[[User:Duranna|Duranna]] 23:03, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''' - Headshot should go. But this may be the next best thing. Still useful enough IMO but no longer griefing. --[[User:Jinxed|Jinxed]] 00:07, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT+1)
*'''Keep''' what jinxed said. [[user:barbariandude|barbariandude]] 11:28, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
*'''Keep''', although it might be better off as something like a 20% chance to do 5 extra damage, if not more. -[[User:Gtrmp|Gtrmp]] 02:36, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
}}
----

===Something to Help the Zombies... Siege p0w3rz?!===
[[Suggestions/10th-Dec-2005#Interdiction|Dupe]] by multiple votes. Removed. Have a nice day. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] 23:18, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
----