Suggestions/17th-Feb-2007

Closed Suggestions

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

FAKs manufacture

Timestamp:	--♠ Che ♠-T GC X 06:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Balance change
Scope:	First Aid Kits and hospitals
Description:	Well, this would allow characters with the First Aid skill to create FAKs from the medical supplies that are in a hospital. To do this you have to be in a powered hospital and of course have the First Aid skill; in that case a new button will appear: "Create FAK". Pushing this button will cost 8 AP and would add a new FAK to your inventory. You would then see the message: "You search the wards and gathered enough medical supplies for a first aid kit" or "You search the hospital and are able to make a first aid kit out of the materials you find.". This idea is similar to the current manufacture of syringes in NT buildings.

Keep Votes

1. Author Keep - thanks to Cap'n Silly, Ev933n, Zombie_slay3r , Specialist290, Skitchipoo and Lachryma for helping me with my first suggestion--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 06:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - Me likes. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 06:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - Saw this in Discussion, and I approve. -- TheDavibob ^LLL 08:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - I'm all for manufacturing stuff. ----Cataphract 12:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - Yay doctors not suck --Gene Splicer 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - If you build it, they will come. --Uncle Bill 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - Handy. Hospitals suck just now. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep - Great idea. Syringes can be manufactured, so why not first aid kits? Woot, my first edit. Anotherpongo 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - I was in favor of it while under discussion and think the same now. -- 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - not bad, I'll give you that tipping vote if I can. --S.Wiers ^X:00 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Lovely - There's no need to thank me, Che, all I did to help was capitalize your "i"'s.--Lachryma^☭ 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep we need to get people away from the malls. and this might help do it.--Blood Panther 22:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - Makes much sense to me, even though it is much quicker to search a powered building. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 05:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep - Although given that it's easier to find these in powered malls... I think the AP Cost is actually too high Bubacxo 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Beep - I helped create this monster. I will help it be commonly accepted! --Ev933n / Talk _PPGC 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Deep - I like the idea of making my own low quality "Skitchipoo Brand FAKS" and selling them to others for inflated prices. Yes... excellent... --Skitchipoo 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Keep the idea is good just lower it to only 3 hp healed only having first aid and 8 hp healed if you got surgy and a powered hospital since a make-shift FAK wouldnt be as good as a real FAK you found all sealed up in a box right?--       23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Keep Almost forgot about this. Hopefully it's not too late to vote. --Specialist290^♠ 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Kill Votes

1. Kill - I don't think syringe manufacture should even exist - I'm against the de-randomisation of stuff. (Eloquent, I know.) --Funt Solo 12:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - I am against manufacturing items. - Whitehouse 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First syringes, now FAKs? What's next? Pistol Clips? I'm with Whitehouse on this one. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - The point of this suggestion is to make Hospitals at least as good as Malls, without messing around with search odds or nerfing malls (and malls sieges), but if you are against manufacturing items what can I say?--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - This starts to pave the way to having more than one type of FAK, each that can have different effects (because you won't find everything a FAK needs all the time). --Saluton 16:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - Oh, yeah, I totally forgot Malton has a problem with things running out of stock. Well really now, the idea is that the AP spent ensure you get everything you need to create a FAK--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Revise - Make it surgery and I'll vote keep. (You can't change it now though)--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - I choose First Aid becouse is the starting skill for two classes that at least at the begining spend a lot of time at hospitals. maybe if I have to make a revised version i will change it--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - I'm divided with this one, but manufacturating is not that cool really. It's a dumb possibility that only those limited by a zerg flag could use in benefit against their searches. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Weak Kill - I too am divided on this one. Maybe if it cost more than 8 AP... --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam Ridiculous. You can't manufacture FAKs simply because you know how to use them, surgery doesn't mean shit. --Aeneid 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - You know what a FAK has, then you can pick the items and create one, it' not that dificult, and surgery isn't even in the suggestion, pay attention next time--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Spam - This is a way for zergers to get FAK's without their zerging flag affecting their search percentages -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - no, this a a way to make hospitals better without nerfing malls, but hey I'm new, and I dont think zerging is really as extended as a lot of you think, maybe I'm wrong, but...--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Machete & Axe buff

Will resubmit tomorrow with changes. Sorry for breaking the rules.

---

Town Mail Boxes

Timestamp:	--Carnage 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Flavor/Another Place to Tag
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Here's how it works. There would be "Town Mail Boxes" outside of random buildings in each suburb. They would be available on a few outdoor locations in the city, provide an extra surface for spraying graffiti tags. There would be about three to five Town Mail Boxes in every neighborhood, but more would be found in some places. It costs 3 AP to tag a town mail box, versus the usual 1 AP. So, town mail boxes tags will tend to be more permanent. The change besides the AP cost when compared to a bill board would be that zombies can tag them by "Scratching Them" since there not high up like bill boards and are not as hard as a buildings surface. It would cost 3 AP for a zombie to tag one, a very interesting discovery is that zombies can scratch the boxes very well (Its like they remember how to write when they where alive) so it would appear as a survivors tag would In English not Zombie Gibberish. Survivors Tag: Somebody has spray painted Im going to take over the world onto a mail box. Zombies Tag: Something has Scratched I Smashed your Brains Onto a mail box.

Keep Votes

1. Keep - I think it would be fun for zombies to have a form of tagging don't you ?--Carnage 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill - "I smashed your brains". Hmm... better not. --Abi79 ^AB 15:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Next thing you know, the Malton Postal Service will be back in business, delivering mail all over the city. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - There abandoned Town Mail Boxes!! why the hell would postal service ever have to come back ?? lol, You don't see Bill Board men running around...--Carnage 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

   Well the thought of having mailboxes outside in the city is plain dumb. Mailboxes in the city are located inside the buildings. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Kill - Since when could zombies write? --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - I didn't once say they could WRITE! They can "scratch" the boxes, it looks like writing though...btw, who said zombies can't write ?? Did you ever give one a pen and paper ??--Carnage 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
     • RE - The closest a zombie has ever gotten to writing something was the zombified gunshop guy with his dry-wipe board in 2004's Dawn of the Dead. So yeah, I've seen one with pen and paper, and can personally vouch for the failure of this method. :D --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Dupe in the Kill - this is a Dupe of the already-in-the-game billboards suggestion - except you're calling them mail boxes. What next - graffiti on passing llamas? --Funt Solo 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - Survivors need an item to graffiti, and can get a skill to help with it, so zombies should need a skill, in the Memories of Life tree. Besides, zombies can't write (not enough coordination). Saying that it's scratching is just arguing over the name. --Saluton 16:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill Zombies shouldn't be able to speak or write clearly, ever. Their communication skills should be more instinct based. --Jon Pyre 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill Zombies can't communicate, save by instinct, as above. -- TheDavibob ^LLL 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
8. What? - I don't know what your trying to say...--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - I think it should be the same as spraypainting objects and what the zombies write should be in their language. -- 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - Not needed, and zombies writing is out of genre by a mile. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
11. While I like the idea of Zombie Grafitti (which I think existed as a suggestion already), this is not the way to implement it. --Ev933n / Talk _PPGC 18:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Kill - I was liking this suggestion until I got to the part with the zombies scratching. Urgh. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
13. 'Kill - Just plain dumb extra work on the servers witch takes the place of somthing better and overall more important to the game...--       23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam Votes Here

---

Suggestions for Kevan

Suggestion removed as it was edited after voting began. You have to resubmit it in order to make changes Valore. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Speech

Timestamp:	Jon Pyre 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	It can be hard for a leader to communicate with their group once more people are attracted to their safehouse. Ironically having a large following of devoted followers can mean that you won't be able to discuss you battle plans with most of them. I suggest a new civilian skill: Speech. A person with this skill has a new dialogue box that for 1AP allows them to say a message twice as long as ordinary talking that will be visible by everyone in the room. The catch is it can only be used once a week. After using it the dialogue box would simply not appear on your interface for 168 hours. This allows a leader to give periodic updates to all their allies but the long delay between each use should prevent it from causing server load the way unlimited talking with no 50 person limit did. Sample speech: "Ok folks, we're going to move out! While I think we could hold this building for a while I'd rather go somewhere else and keep that horde that's been following us guessing our position. I scouted and found a library three west that seems ideal. I'll see you there."

Keep Votes

1. Keep Rousing captivating speeches that command everyone's attention are a need for any leader. --Jon Pyre 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - Even Caiger would be safe 167 hours a week...--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - I love all these "Just talk twice" kill voters. HE'S TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU CAN REACH, NOT JUST THE TEXT LIMIT. I honestly think those votes can be struck as irrelevant to the discussion --Gene Splicer 12:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - As Gene Splicer. --Ev933n / Talk _PPGC 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - per changed vote below. Face to face communication = more secure than radio. However, note that the already existing Peer Reviewed skill Orator allows a better effect with fewer restrictions and a more logical limiting factor. In fact, I'm tempted to change my vote again, to "Dupe". --S.Wiers ^X:00 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - Actually feels a little underpowered to me. Only once a week and only twice the normal limit? Well, it's still better than the current system. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill - What's the problem with splitting your message up in two shorter parts? The message limit is already adequate. This suggestion would be far better applied to radios rather than normal speech, IMO. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re Because you can't split it into two shorter parts. The main feature of this suggestion isn't doubling the amount of text but the fact that it can be seen past the 50 person limit. This ability can be used once a week to prevent server load. The reason I doubled it from ordinary talking is that considering this is a rare-use ability you should get a bit of extra time to speak so you can fully express yourself when you do use it. --Jon Pyre 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
     • Re - Oops, I'm retarded, sorry. I mis-read it as "50 character limit" rather than "50 person limit" and thought this would let them send double-length messages. But my point kinda still stands; the radio doesn't have that limitation as far as I'm aware, so the person wishing to send a widespread message could blast it out the radio, and radios aren't that rare in buildings with over 50 survivors present. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

   Kill - I agree with c138. Split-message-up. Unsigned vote struck. -- 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Kill - I think it should cost an extra 1 AP in order to use the skill. -- 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - It may only be usable once a week, but there are plenty of idiots who would abuse this as to make it a weekly spamfest across the city. No thank you. --Gateking 20:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

   kill for now I'm not innately opposed to it, but aren't radio transmissions already audible to anybody inside a building with an active transmitter? This includes both incoming and outgoing transmissions, afaik. That being the case, making a "speech" on the radio allows everybody in the transmitter's building to hear it, and everybody in a building with transmitter tuned to the same frequency, and the first 60 people (afaik) who have properly tuned receivers. Point being, radios are more useful, so who would bother with this sort of speech? --S.Wiers ^X:00 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re Because radios are not private. You might want to tell your allies what to do, not tell the suburb what you and your allies are going to do. --Jon Pyre 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Excellent point. Vote changed. --S.Wiers ^X:00 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Kill - Things like days of wait, AP over 20, items over 2, selfdamage or anything like that are meant to balance a suggestion generally fail miserably. This is no exception. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Re This isn't to balance the suggestion. Speech with no fifty person limit is completely balanced, it was standard for a long time. The only reason it changed was for server load reasons. This allows a leader to communicate fully now and then without doing it to the point it'd cause server load issues. --Jon Pyre 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - Just not needed. Just use that one AP extra. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 05:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - given it's elitist, sparse use, this should not be a skill. --Funt Solo 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Agree with Funt. Besides, don't most "leaders" and "followers" just metagame? I'm all for bringing the metagame into the game, but this doesn't really seem to work there, does it?--Pesatyel 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

---

Machete & Axe buff

Timestamp:	Cataphract 12:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Weapon
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	� new weapon for survivors to defend themselves. READ IT before you dupe it. Because people have been complaining that it makes the fire axe useless, I resubmit this, making the fire axe do 4 damage but with 5% accuracy... Check the bottom of the page for comparison. It actually, at maxing out, makes the fire axe slightly better. And knives are supposed to be poor weapons unless they're starting weapons- they're nowhere near as good at zombie slaying as a good chopping weapon. Machete Damage 3 points Base accuracy 15% Locations Mall Hardware Stores (3%/6%), Junkyards (2%), Forts (5%), Mall Sports Stores(?%), Arms (5%), Museums (3%), Starting Skill: 15% Accuracy Average Damage Per AP: 0.45 Average Damage Per 5 Attacks: 2,25 To Kill 50HP Enemy: 112 Attacks To Kill 60HP Enemy: 134 Attacks Hand To Hand Combat: 30% Accuracy Average Damage Per AP: 0.9 Average Damage Per 5 Attacks: 4.5 To Kill 50HP Enemy: 56 Attacks To Kill 60HP Enemy: 67 Attacks Knife Combat: 45% Accuracy Average Damage Per AP: 1,35 Average Damage Per 5 Attacks: 6,75 To Kill 50HP Enemy: 38 Attacks To Kill 60HP Enemy: 45 Attacks Comments: The machete is a long, wide-bladed knife, closer to a short sword in length, whose heavy chopping blade was initially designed for clearing brush- yet it remains a potent weapon even today in Africa, the Philippinnes and other less developed areas of the planet. In the hands of survivors, it's easier to use than the fire axe due to its better balance and smaller weight, and its cutting capabilities are on par with the firefighter's weapon. (note: the Location find rates are merely an example. Don't kill it just because you disagree with that!). Axe Damage 4 points Base accuracy 5% Starting Skill: 5% Accuracy Average Damage Per AP: 0.2 Average Damage Per 5 Attacks: 1 To Kill 50HP Enemy: 250 Attacks To Kill 60HP Enemy: 300 Attacks Hand To Hand Combat: 20% Accuracy Average Damage Per AP: 0.8 Average Damage Per 5 Attacks: 4 To Kill 50HP Enemy: 63 Attacks To Kill 60HP Enemy: 75 Attacks Axe Proficiency: 35% Accuracy Average Damage Per AP: 1,4 Average Damage Per 5 Attacks: 7 To Kill 50HP Enemy: 36 Attacks To Kill 60HP Enemy: 43 Attacks

Keep Votes

1. Author Keep. Let'see what you think of this. ----Cataphract 12:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak Keep - Hmm, more powerful than the axe at low levels, but not at high levels, if I understand it right? It could be formatted a bit clearer and summarised at the bottom. would work better if lower classes started with it, or higher find stats in buildings kept VSB - if it's meant to be a newbie weapon its no good if only high levels can find it. But I like the basic idea. --Preasure 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep! Adds variety, I'd like to point out that a zombie bite does 4 points and a fire axe currently does.. 3. Um, yeah. Think about it... It's a big assed fire axe.. this makes a lot of sense. Firearms got a buff technically due to generator search bonuses. This is fine, zombies will live... museums would be nice for a noob to search for this reason! MrAushvitz 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. kill - The axe currently only does 1.2 dam/ap. Both of these weapons are capable of doing more than that without any drawbacks. The Mad Axeman 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
2. kill I don't think survivors need a combat buff in this way. --Jon Pyre 15:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - Undermines the pistol and the knife. And is fairly needless. -- TheDavibob ^LLL 15:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - There's too many weapons already...--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: (Two firearms and what, 5 melee weapons (three of which are utterly useless) is too many weapons already? Excuse me, what is this, kindergarden or a field trip of preschoolers? Unless you suggest having only one ranged weapon and only one melee weapon. Wow, what variety!--Cataphract 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

   Re - Only 3 of them are really ever used, and zombies only have 2 weapons.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^'07 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

5. Kill - wot they said. --Funt Solo 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - Pretty much the same thing as the axe, except at starting level. -- 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: Still, the current idea for the machete is to be an axe clone, and I'm offering a different approach, that slightly differentiates. (Btw, thanks for showing me the "Re" trick)--Cataphract 21:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: No problem, I still mess that up sometimes. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if they are clones, why do we need the machete? -- 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: For RP reasons. Heck, I'd stop complaining if I could name my weapons the way I wanted, or could at least choose from a list. --Cataphract 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: I don't think we should introduce a new weapon just for RP purposes if it is the same as another one. I think it should have some sort of significant difference. -- 23:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

7. As you said, we already have 3 "useless" weapons. We don't need MORE melee weapons until those "useless" onese aren't, well, useless.--Pesatyel 21:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: We can't make them useful because of the nature of the game. It's way too simple to really differentiate them, so it should all be about flavour. It's an RPG after all. Perhaps make the other weapons have other uses- like breaking through barriers easier, probably. Crowbars already open stuff better than most. If you ask me, everyone should have something like 10 or 20 HP so they should be easy to kill with just about any weapon, like in real life, so 'average damage' should be pointless. But that would mean more active combat like automatically hitting back at your assailants. Well, that's tomorrow's suggestion. --Cataphract 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Wow, THAT logic make sense. We can't make them "more useful" so lets just throw in more shit and make them LESS useful. Nature of the game my ass. It's just that people continue to suggest NEW weapons instead of even bothering with the old ones. Trust me it would be a lot easier to "improve" a pipe, being already in the game, then to encode a machete. And I wouldn't bother with the your other suggestion if this is the quality of your work, beyond the fact people will spam/kill it for "auto-defense", not to mention changing the "nature of the game." Don't say I didn't warn you.--Pesatyel 05:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: Look, mate, the way this game is, it's all about finding which weapon does the best average damage. It's no longer a fragging game, it's a math challenge. Not fun anymore. At least let's add some flavor. If everybody had 10 HP and your opponent could FIGHT BACK, then it would really matter whether you chose that heavy weapon that's a risk since it's hit-or-miss, or the light weapon to whittle him down slowly and decisively. But the moment I propose something like that, I bet my ass 300% it'll get spaminated cause 'it nerfs gameplay'. Yeah right. --Cataphract 12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

8. Kill - I'd rather see a new ranged weapon than a new hand-to-hand weapon. There are already enough of them. There is no need for an over sized knife. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: I'm a melee enthusiast IRL and a novice swordsman (thus oversized knives are always in need, especially if real swords aren't around). I leave guns to people that know more about them than me- I've never even fired a real one. --Cataphract 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

9. Kill - Machetes aren't something you're gonna see a lot of in a big city like Malton. If survivors aren't even using hammers or wrenches as weapons, what makes you think they're gonna be finding machetes around? Besides, axes don't need a buff, and we don't need melee weapons that are stronger than axes. What we need are the weapons we already have to become better. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
10. As everyone above my vote. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 12:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Strong kill -I like my axe just the way it is thank you. Oh and if you want machetes just vote keep on valore's suggestion earlier up on the page. --AlexanderRM 2:58 PM, 19 Febuary 2007 (EST)

---