Suggestions/21st-Mar-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 02:03, 25 April 2006 by Zombie (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

Degrading Slap

This suggestion has been slaped and spaminated with 1 Kill vote and 7 Spam votes. Humor is subjective, and the voters didn't want others to be subjected to this suggestion nor its personal attack. Velkrin 04:35, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Orator

a Dupe of Peer reviewed Limited Free Speech Basic rule of suggesting: Not every possible variation of a suggestion has to be in peer reviewed. And for further referance, It only needs 3 dupes before you may remove it. waiting until it has 8 out of 15 is curtious, but unneeded.--Vista W! 21:54, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

First Aid Kits

Timestamp: 03:37, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Doctors
Description: Necrotech employees are able to make syringes right. Well why cant doctors have a skill that lets them make first aid kits? If a doctor is in a hospital with power they should be able to make first aid kits that takes 20 Ap to make but fully heals the target. This wouldn't make it to easy to heal because it takes Ap to make the kits, so it wouldn't overpower the survivors.

Votes

  1. Kill I don't think I like this idea, but try it again and say what the new improved FAK's can do, I think I still will not like it though. Wow, so its like a shotgun FAK? This is not a viable suggestion, sorry. The whole, getting massive hp for little ap is one of the few things zeds got going. Even though this would take 20 to make it would take one to use. Bad, us harmanz got enough ap storage items already. -Banana Bear4 03:44, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep-Author Vote -zwwright 03:53, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - And awaaaaay we ride down the slippery slope. Syringes =/= FAKs.--Mookiemookie 03:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - If someone is willing to spend 20 AP for something that takes considerably fewer Ap to obtain, they deserve this 'skill.' --Gene 03:47, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Why would I spend 20 AP for one FAK, when I can get 3-7 in a hospital or 5-9 in a mall? --Bermudez 04:02, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Pointless. No one will use it, lower the AP cost significantly. Post scriptus: Hey, Gene, try to keep your votes above the line that is surrounded with an exclamation mark, inequality signs, and dashes, and reads in all caps, "Vote above (above being surrounded with asterisks) this line." Good God! You, too, Bermudez! Destin Farloda 04:15, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Normally it would take 4-12 FAKs to fully heal someone, thats 4-12 spaces of inventory that are also not being used for things like ammo, guns, syringes, fuel, wirecutters, etc. This forces a survivor to make choices, and prevents someone from coming along and saying 'Zombie hord? HA! I can continually heal so that they'll never be able to kill me.' Velkrin 04:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill So, for 20 AP I can heal 50/60 HP? The reason for the manufacturing syringe skill is because of the specialized nature of the item. People already stockpile syringes, imagine people stockpiling these "super" FAK. Not to mention you forget to say anything about XP.--Pesatyel 04:23, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Again with the manufacturing... syringes were a special case because the average 20 searches to find one were absolutely hammering the server. Kevan had balanced them so low to avoid combat rezzing that they were both frustrating and a liability to the game operating correctly. And to the guy above, it wasn't easier to find. It was about 20 AP to find one on average after the necrotech front search odds nerf. We don't need to destroy all random search odds, especially when they conflict with bargain hunting. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:26, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill the Whole idea of a heal all FAK is too easy to abuse.--Deathnut RAF 05:04, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - A FAK that can automatically heal 60 HP? What are they packing it with, prune juice and old issues of "Penthouse"? Harmanz do not need an insta-heal FAK. Banananananana(wheeeeee)Bear made the point that survivors already have enough AP cannons, and Velkrin made the point that meatbags should have to make some inventory choices beyond "How many loaded shotguns should I carry?" This suggestion FTL, but don't get discouraged or nothin'. --Undeadinator 05:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - If survivors get this, why shouldn't zombies get a skill that kills survivors for 20AP? And then what? A new gun that insta-kills a zombie for 20AP? and then a zombie skill that causes infection that takes 20XP per action? Slippery slope indeed. --Nov W!, Talk 05:51, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Ridiculously overpowered. Insta-heals are game-breaking. --ism 06:16, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill You're completely confusing the point of syringe manufacture. It merely exists to save the server hits and to save the player's time. An analogous comparison would be to be able to make a normal first-aid kit for 5AP or whatever amount of AP it takes to find one. This suggestion is equivalent to an idea to have "Manufacture Supersyringe" for 40 AP that revives two zombies at a time. --Jon Pyre 06:34, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - FAKs are probably the easiest item to find (I'm too lazy to check the search odds page...) Syringes are at the other end. Thus this skill is not needed. And humans definately don't need more powerful FAKs. --Brizth W! 11:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam - Quote: but fully heals the target. Hell no. --McArrowni 13:34, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - I agree with McA Timid Dan 15:08, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - If someone is willing to spend 20 AP for something that takes considerably fewer Ap to obtain, they deserve this 'skill'. - So true... --Omega2 15:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Fully heals the target? Badly overpowered. --Reverend Loki 16:56, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Fully healing a survivor with 1 hit totally nerfs zombies in a seige scenario. --WibbleBRAINS 17:00, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill -- If the created FAKs were identical to normal FAKs, this might be a good idea. As it stands, it's horrible and abusive. furtim 17:19, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - Why god, why? -Nubis 17:31, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Spam - Can you say game breaking? --Lordofnightmares 20:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - Broken, and not any good to start with.--Vista W! 22:00, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. kill - rather than make FAK's constructable, maybe have doctors have a better %find for FAKs in medical and nectrotech facilities, because they would know better how to scrounge up what was needed and what is useful.--Lehk 16:59, 1 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 2 Keep, 20 Kill, 3 Spam 18:43, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Grace

Timestamp: 04:03, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: newbie help
Scope: newbies
Description: Newbies would begin the game in a state of grace that reduces HP loss by half (both zombie and human). Grace is removed by either (1) taking a violent action or (2) carrying a weapon. For example, a newbie firefighter would not start with grace because of the axe. However, a newbie zombie would get grace until he uses his claws or bite for the first time. Also, a newbie consumer could have grace until he picks up a shotgun shell. The newbie NecroTech labbie would loose grace on the first scan.

Why? Grace encourages newbies to play longer and get hooked. It is frustrating for a newbie to spawn near a horde and die before figuring out the basics of the game. They quit and don't add anything to the game at that point. Perhaps newbies would play longer. A zombie horde can still kill a grace-endowed newbie, but it gives them a little more chance to run.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote - looking for ways to encourage new players (and further lag the server) --Agazman 05:10, 21 March 2006 (GMT)-AGazMan 04:03, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - What about med kits? An older person would get a healer alt, then find a flak jacket, never owning a gun, or quiting when they do. A shotgun would be ruduced to 8, then to 4, making then a super healer. I dunno, it'll be abused. 343 05:20, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Sorry for my lack of clarity. You could not have a high level character with grace, because any action gaining XP removes grace. Further, newbie zombies wouldn't be hunter-killed before they find a horde. ----Agazman 05:26, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - In either case, that means you need to resubmit this to clarify that. But I'd drop a Kill on that, too, despite the fact that I like the idea: doesn't fit with the genre, though quite frankly I could give a shit about that, and it would require some sort of device to let the player know that they are, in fact, "n00b lozars". But mostly, I don't see a point. Most green players make grabbing a gun (or whatever) their first order of business, so this essentially does nothing for the vast majority of the new guy population. There's probably more reasons to dump this, but I won't list them here. Stick with it, though, I like the thought behind it. --Undeadinator 05:36, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Screws newbie zombies. Newbies get to be skip the frying pan stage like everyone else. Velkrin 05:29, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - See my Re. Also: Say WHA, Velkrin? --Undeadinator 05:36, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam The idea of a level 1 zombie or survivor with 100hp wandering around is not a good idea. The zombie doesn't need it, and if the newbie sleeps outside they're dead even if they have the equivalent of 500hp.--Jon Pyre 06:31, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Helping new players is nice, but I don't think this will help new players. Well, not many. Also training wheels might just make it harder to ride the bike on your own. Only the bicycle is filled with zombies. -Banana Bear4 08:23, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - While not totally a bad idea, THIS version is useless, especially with the XP point mentioned in the RE to 343. So a newbie should never gain XP or search (lest they find a weapon, clip or shotgun shell)? Newbie zombies wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING. And Jon Pyre, were did you get the idea they were walking around with 100 HP? According to the suggestion, they still have 50 HP, they just take half normal damage.--Pesatyel 08:31, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Taking half damage means it takes as many hits to kill something as if they had double their normal hit points, thus making 100 hp equivalent to 50 hp and halved damage. This is what I learn from maths. -Banana Bear4 08:36, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I believe there was a much better version floating around in past suggestions somewhere that allowed 1 or 2 or 3 free "stand ups as your own type" for newbies. That was much better, as it didn't take away from everyone else's play experience... not by a bread crumb. Finally, most newbies, especially zombies, will try to gain xp on their first day... thus defeating the purpose of this skill. --McArrowni 13:38, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - ^^ Yup, that was my "Free Death" suggestion (the first version allowed 3; this was too generous and I cut it down to 1 in the second version). I'd still like to see that implemented. I agree that newbies need a bit of easing in, but why should we take away their combat if they want the training wheels? --John Ember 15:04, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - This is a zombie game, not some angels vs demons junk. -Nubis 17:29, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I'd suggest making a tuturial, explaining the how and why for both sides but the server would very likely explode. These kind of suggestions do nothing for me, I'd actually think you'd confuse new players even more instead of helping them.--Vista W! 22:06, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Imagine the zombie horde in which half knock down the 'cades and attack, and the rest become AP and bullet sponges. Survivors could play a similar game as well. This nerfs everyone's combat capability and while noble, doesn't do much to help retain or teach noobs in a meaningful way. --ism 02:06, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - No in-game justification for Grace or why it would be lost upon picking up a gun. I also think this would be more likely to annoy and confuse newbs than to help them.--Guardian of Nekops 21:16, 31 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 11 Kill, 1 Spam 18:42, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Syringes Go Stale

Timestamp: 09:57, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Items (Syringes)
Description: The overall prevalance of combat revives is placing a serious strain on the player-base. Since the advent of NecroNet, syringes have effectively lost their value and are being used as throwaway weapons.

I propose that syringes be time-limited - that they go "stale" after 4 days. During the four days after a syringe is made, it is fully-functional; however, after 4 days it becomes useless. This serves to eliminate the massive stockpiles of syringes and bring the game back into alignment with the stars and happiness of unicorns.

There are two potential modifications to this suggestion (aside from the time limit). Either of them could be implemented independantly.

  1. Only syringes created through NecroNet would expire. This would give incentive to search rather than to manufacture (and thus bring that part of the game back into play). I like this format.
  2. Whether or not syringes that expire would automatically be removed from the inventory is another question. One could argue that they would silently go bad, but it would be frustrating to stab a zombie with the needle only to find out that you've wasted an AP. I am ambivalent about this; I think it makes no difference either way.

Votes

  1. Keep - author vote. --Jorm 09:57, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - That's one way to kill the revive glut. Petrosjko 10:00, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - In the interests of making death mean something, i must vote keep. Currently death means more to zombies than humans. --Grim s 10:02, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    right now the death mean cost is 1 or 6 AP per zombie and a survivor death is about 55AP minumum devided over 2 survivors. Although I agree that the death of a survivor should mean more then just a Ap cost, But lets not execturate--Vista W! 12:26, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Yes think of the poor zombies! --Kasz 21:04, 21 March 2006 (AEST)
  5. Keep - My NT is just no fun to play anymore. --Alicia Jennings 10:08, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - More manual searching would just be a pain and an increase on the server load. --Gogglehead 4:32, 21 March 2006(CMT)
  7. Kill - Would incourage zerging. - --ramby T--W! - SGP 10:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Admitidly level 3 zergers, yes? Zergers who exist anyway, yes? This would just mean that the zergers stock of syringes would expire after 4 or so days. -- Andrew McM W! 10:44, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I'm for this. --Kibbs 11:08, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Should reduce the rate of combat revives and encourage more careful play by dedicated survivors -- Davedavinson 11:16, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill/ (change) - I like the basic idea, but I think it would work better in reverse (ie, the found ones go bad, but not the NecroNet manufactured ones). In-game it makes sense because they are newer, but more importantly it would make NecroNet much more useful. Right now you might as well search anyway, you average the same find rate without having to bother buying an extra skill and keeping a generator running. --Norcross 12:00, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Please, for the love of the god of your choice, fix syringes. This is a step in the right direction.--Mookiemookie 12:13, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Something needs to be done about syringes. This idea is as good as any. --Jack Destruct 12:29, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill -Actually I agree that something has to be done about the ease you can revive people, but this isn't as good as any. This doesn't even come close. messing with people's inventory after they've put a lot of effort in it (getting those 50 syringes takes weeks) isn't a good or fun mechanic with some unwanted side effects. (with your suggestion combat revive will actually increase, saving syringes if you have to many will be useless so better revive anybody then let it go to waste.) why not revert back to syringe mark Ithat'll make this a lot more dicey for survivors adds more targets on the street, nerfs combat revive a bit. Or ask for the implementation of syringe mark III? Or even better: invent a more new mechanics like the mark III. Your suggestion is however not the way to go about it. It is so much better to improve the game instead of simply shifting the grief.--Vista W! 12:42, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep/Change - I agree with Norcross, as who knows how long the syringes have been lying on the ground? --Private Chineselegolas RAF 12:45, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - What? How the heck is this suppose to encourage people to not use syringes as throwaways? It doesn't decrease the number of syringes that come into the game, it'll just encourage people to use them fast before they go stale. So, this would *increase* combat revives. --Brett Day 12:53, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Not really. Those of us who know combat revives are a bad idea are definitely not going to, and those who don't would have done something stupid anyway in a "run or die" situation. --Dr. Fletch 13:14, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: - This suggestion removes half the reason combat revives *are* currently a bad idea. No point saving them for when your side needs them if they're gonna go stale; might as well use them to get some XP. --Brett Day 17:16, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - I like it. I'm for it being found-only on the syringes expiring, but frankly, it's all up to Kevan in how to implement this in the end, and I'm for it either way. --Dr. Fletch 13:14, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - This wouldn't increase combat revives--it would make syringes too valuable to use for combat revives. Potatojunkie 13:15, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - ...with found and manufactured syringes treated the same, just for simplicity. --Dickie Fux 13:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - It would force NTs to do more than stockpile for an eventual attack. It would also force some of the humans sitting in "safezones" to leave more often than once a week when their needle stockpile is full. However, I think it should be 4 days of playing. Some people may search, then not log in for 4 days and thus lose all their searching. --Duranna 14:12, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Im all for making the game more balanced, all this means is that the scientists have ap to do other stuff meanwhile and only make the syringes when they are needed, that creates a feeling of rationing. Also make this suggestion so that both sorts of syringes go stale (those that are made through necro net accsess and those that are found). --Alpha Whiskey 14:21, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep --Irishmen 14:37, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Sounds interesting. --John Ember 14:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Spam My name is Kevan. I think I'll introduce a feature that reduces server load and saves people real world time spent tediously searching that doesn't actually give a gameplay advantage. Oh, what's that Suggestions Page? You zombie players don't like that? No problem, I'll just go shoot the server with a magnum. Also Leave Other People's Inventory Alone. NecroNet isn't a problem. You don't like syringes, say you don't like syringes period not that "NecroNet is causing a survivor glut of reviving". Think they're too easy to get? Say: Make syringes harder to find and increase the NecroNet AP cost to an equal level. We cab debate that. Spam is when you directly suggest to reverse something Kevan just put in the game. Something that saves time and server load is A.O.K. Also, you all know I'm not biased against zombies in any way. I play a zombie and suggest zombie suggestions all the time. But how come every time a really one-sided pro-zombie suggestion comes around about eighty-five people I've never seen before vote keep on it? --Jon Pyre 15:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill- This is a truly awful Suggestion. Combat revivers pay the ultimate price- Zombies come back, Pk them, and jump out the window. only idiots combat revive, And now you want to nerf US normal revivers?? standard kit is two syringes, to keep two syringes, thats one day in 5 taken off to make syringes, tying us down to Necronet terminals, meaning that the necronet terminals need to be powered, So people will start searching for generators and fuel all the time, taking 2-3 days out of five to power the building. all in all, 4 days in five are dedicated to the pursuit of syringes to revive our dead friends, which will be revived on day 5. therefore, high level survivors never move, and revive queues get longer....--Dark Wingstalker W! 16:00, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill- This doesn't seem the right solution. First of all, it would make the advanced NT skill worse than playing without it. Actually, the only 'hope' survivors fight for is an scenario where they had revived all zombies (or buried all them 1000 feet under ground). If you want to restore balance, just make zombies deadlier, thus increasing the syringe waste ratio, or half the find chances without advanced NT and/or without powered generators. --Doc Groucho 16:14, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - This is so stupid. What is the point in keeping a syringe incase a group memeber needs a revive? You morons are so stupid. this will Increase the number of combat revives because players hoping to use syringes for their proper use will see the time running up and rather then waste the syringe will use it for combat revive. Combat reviving is a huge waste of AP due to the fact that revived zeds could start shooting them or jump a window and be alive within minutes. And at 20 AP/ syringe is high enough a price already for a real revive. Next time draw a graph or something before making stupid suggestions and makeing stupid keep votes. PS chemicals dont get stale in 4 days it would take years in open containers to lose any parts of the solution to evaporation or contamination. I hope you realize that just because something stupid passes, doesnt mean it will ever ever be implemented. --Kirk Howell 16:22, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - Just exacly how is this supposed to prevent combat revives? Well, maybe it might, on some situation, but would also raise random revives to record high. --Brizth W! 16:33, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill/Change - I would think a adding a % of syringe failure would be a better choice. Expecially since the syringes are being manufactured by unskilled persons. --Technerd 16:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: You need the Third Level Necrotech Skill to make a syringe, You're not really unskilled. Quasispace 07:56, 30 March 2006 (BST)
  30. Keep - not author vote. Timid Dan 16:42, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill - combat revives should be fixed but, the 2 ways to get syringes are supposed to be even, even if it makes sense searched syringes should go stale too!--xbehave 16:46, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  32. Kill - John Pyre, the reaons for all those keeps votes is simple: Ninja Zombies. --Bermudez 16:48, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  33. Kill - Syringes need fixing, but this isn't the way to do it. If I've got a stockpile of five syringes that will go stale tomorrow, I'm gonna use the things with abandon. I'll just walk into a random horde, combat revive (and thereby piss off) five zombies, and return to my safehouse. Otherwise, I would have kept them for people who wanted a revive instead of just stabbing them into the first zed I see.--Guardian of Nekops 17:10, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep -- BIG keep. Come on, this only hurts "cold storage" characters. An active reviver can easily spend all of his NecroNet bounty before it goes bad. If he's really close to a revpoint, he steps out and revives two zombies per day, no problem. If the revpoint's a little farther away, he spends three days building up a supply of six or so syringes (if he uses his extra 10 AP to search, he gets a few more), then revives six or so zombies on the fourth day before his first syringes go bad. Piece of cake. Again, somebody who's actually going out and reviving rather than just storing up 50 syringes on an alt won't have a problem with this. (Actually, personally, I wouldn't be making a distinction between searched and created syringes, but I understand why jorm included that.) furtim 17:16, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - All this takes away from the game are syringe stockpilers. I'm sure that's not too much of a sacrifice. -Nubis 17:23, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep -- Chemicals go bad, food goes bad, why not syringes? And I HATE those trenchcoat wannabe-scientists with 20 syringes going into a horde and screaming "I'LL GET YOU ALL" -Craw 17:26, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  37. Keep -- Syringes are already a near- perfect weapon; one jab, which cannot miss, and the zombie is out of action. If syringes were scarce this wouldn't be so bad, but they're not at all scarce. NTs carry dozens of them and use them as weapons. This modification would help keep syringe value high, as scarce items are naturally more treasured. Syringes would once again be very valuable, and to waste one on a combat revive would be a serious tactical decision -- as it should be. --Liche 17:36, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  38. Kill - Can't put my finger on it, but something about this doesn't feel right. Personally I'd suggest limiting the number of syringes you can carry, rather then having them expire. Velkrin 18:55, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  39. Kill - This is the wrong way to go about changing combat revives. It affects too many other things negatively to be any sort of solution. Though Combat revives might be a bother, this wouldn't solve the problem. -Banana Bear4 19:07, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  40. Kill - I aggree that the syringes need to be fixed, but this is not the way to do it. Besides it kind of nerfs scientists who have to travel from suburb to suburb looking for the 25% (it seems like it) of zombies who are not brain rotted. The NecroNet access skill was basically implemented to allow scientists to stockpile syringes. Lastly, it becomes annoying to have to search an NT building with 50 AP only to find 1-3 syringes. --Lordofnightmares 20:46, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  41. Keep - tl, dr. Haha! God I crack me up. Seriously though: this doesn't hurt active revivers one wit, it DISCOURAGES zerging, and it stops those crazy trenchcoats from strapping syringe-bombs to themselves and running into a zambah cafe. Not only is this a keeper, I'd recommend kicking it back down to three days. --Undeadinator 21:02, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  42. Keep - I like it!. - Nicks 21:03, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  43. Keep - make a syringe, use a syringe, how hard can it be? I think four days is pretty generous, too. My NT would have no problem with this, because he pretty much just makes them as needed. --Fred Dullard 21:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  44. Kill - I have got a GREAT idea! Lets make it so that Zombie claws rot off after 4 weeks! That way, Zombies have to get more XP after they.. Oh wait, punishing the players is a horrible idea! --Ev933n 21:51, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  45. Keep - I like this. --Elhan 22:57, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  46. Keep - About time! --Boogedyboo 00:04, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 28 Keep, 17 Kill, 1 Spam, 0 Dupe
  47. Spam - Don't mess with other people's inventory. Also, if you hate combat-revives so much, get Brain Rot. - Asrathe 02:14, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  48. Keep - It would be more RPGish if zombies couldn't be turned back into humans so eaily, but fair that they could still be turned back. --Zorch59neo
  49. Keep - I run a revivification clinic and this would not affect me or the organisation in any way. We use up syringes as soon as we make them, or as needed. This prevents stockpiling and makes syringes the resource it is, and opens up a new avenue of strategy. --ism 02:22, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  50. Keep - Interesting idea, making syringes just as easy to gain, but stops people from stockpiling them for weeks -- Nervie 10:13, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  51. Keep - I like this... Helps to prevent "undoing" the work of 30 zombies by 1 character. --Greymattergourmet 18:29, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  52. Keep - Greymattergourmet couldn't have said it better. It could be a good temporary fix at least. --Kraxxis 23:25, 22 Mar 2006 (GMT)
  53. Kill - I have a better idea... how about when you manufacture syringes you make a Mk III and they can go bad after a day, but if you revive someone with this syringe they stand up with full health. That would make sense and I would vote keep. Other than that I don't like this idea. --TheBigT 02:04, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
  54. Kill - This isn't the way to go about what you're trying to accomplish in my eyes. This is not balanced by any stretch.--Jmwman 22:05, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  55. Keep - It seems balanced to me. --Throctukes 12:57, 26 March 2006 (BST)
  56. Kill - DAMN hard on newbie Necrotech Scientists. You've just finally got your first 100 xp... spent all your time getting a syringe... and then you learn, though it was never mentioned, that they're time limited? Hell no. Ignatius Newcastle 13:53, 26 March 2006 (BST)
  57. Keep - I think it would only increase combat revives among those who already have big stockpiles. After those are gone, it would make stockpiling difficult to impossible, which seems like a good thing. --Bob the Mediocre 02:19, 27 March 2006 (BST)
  58. Kill This griefs scientists and makes revive points more troublesome than they already are. Ever tried running one? Brain rotters ruin a good amount of syringes, and this only makes reviving others needlessly more difficult, since you can only really use about 6 before any of them go bad! If this was intended to get people to play as zombies more, it won't help. --Volke 17:15, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally 35 Keep, 21 Kill, 2 Spam --19:18, 28 March 2006 (BST)
  59. Kill I agree that something needs to be done about comabt revives, but this is not it. You obviously didn't take into consideration the way normal revives will be effected by this. Different people have different styles of play. Some people like to stock up on needles/ammo, then use them all at once, while others like to find only the amount that they actually need and use it immediately. You are basically forcing everyone to play the second way, and that's unreasonable --Rozozag 23:33, 30 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 35 Keep, 22 Kill, 2 Spam 18:41, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Frenzied anticipation

Timestamp: 14:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie skill
Scope: Barricade breaching zombies
Description: I suggest that we add a skill to the game, under memories of life, called Frenzied anticipation, which would give a bonus on a zombie's first attack after breaking through the barricades.

As your zombie gains more experience, he recognizes barricade smashing as the prelude to feasting, and thus his anticipation causes him to burst into a short frenzy when he finally manages to claw through a building. I would suggest a +15% bonus to hit if at least 4Aps were spent on both attacking barricades beforehand, and entering a building. The first 3Aps have to be 3 (or more) straight Aps of barricade smashing, and you must spend the next AP entering the building, or the bonus is lost. Thus you could not smash at the barricades three times then get the bonus against a human who is outside.

The (mechanical) logic behind this is that, if the survivors get better attacks because they search beforehand, than zombies could very well gain a small, onetime bonus from hitting barricades. Keep in mind this only applies to one attack per zombie getting through, and must be used inside a building after the long work of breaking down the barricades.

Note/Clarification: The suggestion is intended to work wether or not any of your 3 attacks on the barricades are successful, and to work even if you don't give it the final blow. Barricade smashing is a teamwork, even for zombies.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. I was looking for ways to compensate for the AP drains of barricades, without rendering survivors defenseless. It's my opinion that this is a good (start for a) compromise, but of course, I'm a "little" biased, and it's your oppinion that matters. Vote away :) (and I await your comments)--McArrowni 14:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - good one, a slight compensation, just wondering what happens when another zombie finishes the barricade just before you do and you dont get the last action as smashing the barricade - Alpha Whiskey 14:46, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Actually, I never intended to say anything about succeeding to bring down the barricade, or even bringing down a level of the barricade. What I meant was 3 attacks on the barricade followed by entering the building. The attacks could have been made hours before the barricade is breached in RL, as long as they were the 3 previous moves to you entering the building. --McArrowni 14:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - The idea is pretty, but the mechanics are either too complicated or too confusing (and I'm sure someone already tried something along those lines before), and the results are negligible (only a single attack with a bonus for a single zombie?). Try to clean that up a bit and re-submit the idea, and I'm going to vote Keep. --Omega2 14:52, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I like where you're going with this, but as above, it's a bit complicated and may actually be even more frustrating (if another zed comes along and "steals" that bonus you were counting on) than smashing 'cades already is. What if Frenzied Anticipation simply offered a temporary combat boost for every successful collapse? These boosts would be quickly exhausted once combat actually began, but it would certainly offer some good compensation for the tedium of breaking in. --John Ember 14:54, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - There is no "stealing of the bonus" unless that zombie killed the last survivor inside the building. --McArrowni 15:02, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Okay, but the mechanic still strikes me as odd. --John Ember 16:20, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I think it works this way: If a zombie spends three or more consecutive AP attacking barricades, then an AP entering the building, it gets a 15% bonus to its first attack. That would apply to all zombies, not just the one getting the last hit on the barricades. That said, John Ember's idea is probably easier to code and easier on the server. --Dickie Fux 14:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill However without searching for ammo survivors are left with a 3 damage attack at 40%. Zombies have better attacks on the whole with 3 damage at 50% or 60%. They don't need a combat boost. Urban Dead is primarily a battle over barricades. They aren't meant to easily fall, otherwise zombies would instantly win. They can be destroyed with the efforts of two zombies. Having two zombies active before a survivor comes on a common occurence as long as survivors don't outnumber zombies. It's extremely common when zombies outnumber survivors. And of course it can be arranged through metagaming quite easily. The difficulty zombies have breaking in is a reflection of numbers, not of a problem with barricades being too powerful. Neither side should be rewarded for simply playing the game. I wouldn't want survivors to get a "Determined Defense" bonus if they spent their last 3AP building up barricades. --Jon Pyre 15:30, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - "I hope you washed your ass this morning.." "Why is that laucet?" "Because it's about to be bitten by a zombie!" "Ohh good one my good man." "Dear GOD Sir Reginald, what AM I smoking?" "Bloody well, I say, this zombie does seem rather excited to have made it past the barricade, look here how much more effective he is at attacking." "Capital! About bloody time the blokes had a chance to get us back for building all these damned barricades, I say it's about time they got to munch on some serious ass, wouldn't you say?" "Oh, indeed, look here, I say, he's almost eaten my arm.. truly a shining example of the improved capabilities of the species. Looks like we have our work cut out for us." "If only one could get the wife to be so excited. Haww haww haww!!" Hawww! haww! Oh god, that is just so improper, yet nessesary, bloody well can you hold the tea cup to my mouth, it appears both arms are gone by this point.." "Not a problem, mate." "Bloody marvelous, well time for me to be going to the other side for a while, shouldn't be hard to spot me, even as a zombie have the biggest mustache in all of Malton, hey what." "Carry on!". --MrAushvitz 14:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Due to the fact that the bonus can be "stolen" by another zombie. Not a horrifically bad idea, but it needs more work. Timid Dan 16:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Actually, the bonus cannot be "stolen" by another zombie. Either you have been attacking the barricades with your last three moves, then entered the building, or not. It doesn't matter who gets the last shot at the barricades. There is no mention that you lose the bonus if anyone else hits the barricades while you are attacking them. --McArrowni 16:59, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Ah. I did not understand. I still think it needs a little more work, though, but I don't know what to do to it to fix it. Timid Dan 18:54, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - zombies need this! i got disturbed overnight and the zombie only got me for 10HP --xbehave 16:49, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - The benefit it gives is so little as to be negligable. One 3 damage shot at firearms accuracy after breaking down the barricades? -Nubis 17:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - That was actually the point. Now multiply it by a million. It only takes 3 barricade attacks to get your bonus, and many zombies who will have this skill will also have tangling grasp OR infectious bite. This skill makes it easier to get those two started, for the first attack of nearly all high-lvl zombies in the siege. IMO, combat is mostly balanced already, and you can't give too much of a bonus to either side. This aims mostly at giving a zombie who spent some time on the barricades a small satisfaction everytime he hits with his first attack--McArrowni 19:09, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill -Something, anything to stop the line of suggestion that gives zombies a combat boost for everything they do and try to sell it as increasing 'fun'. you already get something 'fun' for busting barricades, You get to eat survivors. just like survivors get their 'fun' from searching. both the sides have about equal amount of boring things to do before they can get to the fun stuff. After they've done their boring bit survivors are more 'fun' to most people because they have more and different things to do besides attacking things. Give zombies more 'fun' options, the biggest zombie increases in numbers wasn't after a damage boost, but after feeding groan and headshot, both had no relation to what individual damage a zombie could do.--Vista W! 17:45, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Makes sense as a game mechanic? Check. Adds flavor? Check. Make sense from a point of "realism"? Bonus! --Reverend Loki 22:41, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - hagnat talk 03:08, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - But don't forget door-opening as equivilent to barricade-bashing. Ignatius Newcastle 13:58, 26 March 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - Well balanced. --Bob the Mediocre 02:54, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 9 Keep, 6 Kill, 0 Spam 18:41, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Bloodlust

Timestamp: 17:03, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Shameless variation on McArrowni's suggestion above.

Summary: Successful barricade collapses net temporary combat boosts, making barricade smashing more fun and rewarding the most tenacious zeds.

Mechanics: Zombies who purchase Bloodlust will see a simple, ASCII "frenzy meter" appear underneath the status display on the left side of the interface. When empty, the meter looks like this:

--------

There are 8 increments. Each time the zombie achieves a single collapse on a barricade, while outside the building, the meter is filled up by one increment:

*-------

This represents the zombie becoming increasingly frenzied as it senses the nearness of its next meal. With every collapse, it grows more and more excited:

***-----

Finally, it breaks in. It spots a human morsel and goes crazy. For every notch filled up on the frenzy meter, the zombie will be able to perform one boosted attack. The first four notches provide for a damage bonus of 1+; the latter four provide 2+. Once combat begins, each successful attack drains the meter by one notch.

As barricades are often brought down by zombies working in teams, the most likely result will be a handful of zombies getting inside with 2 or 3 bonus "frenzied" hits each. However, a lone zombie cracking open a stubborn safehouse, may find himself rewarded with the max frenzy:

********

A lone zombie can thus conceivably work up as much as 12 bonus damage (1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2). A significant boost, but it represents a suitable reward for such a tenacious zed. And again, note that in most cases you will see teams of zombies working together and acquiring less of a total bonus. Assuming a team of zombies have this skill and get between one and four collapses each on a VSB safehouse, you're looking at about 8 bonus damage. Throw in a few younger zeds who lack the skill and you're looking at even less.

Net result: Suddenly, zombies look forward to smashing barricades because they know it'll boost them later on. Getting collapses is actually fun! At the same time, survivors may have to consider how much more frenzied they're making those zombies outside by building the barricades so strongly. Do you take it to XHB in order to lock them out, or keep it at VSB in order to prevent a few of those critical hits?

Note: Attacking barricades from the inside would not boost the frenzy meter.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. Please -- something, anything to make barricades more fun to fight. --John Ember 17:16, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Much better then McArrowni's version. --Bermudez 17:29, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Although I think one damage 'increase' all around instead of the two for the last four would be more balanced, this actually lets a zombie do some good damage after cracking open a VS+2 building. -Nubis 17:42, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -Something, anything to stop the line of suggestion that gives zombies a combat boost for everything they do and try to sell it as increasing 'fun'. you already get something 'fun' for busting barricades, You get to eat survivors. just like survivors get their 'fun' from searching. both the sides have about equal amount of boring things to do before they can get to the fun stuff. After they've done their boring bit survivors are more 'fun' to most people because they have more and different things to do besides attacking things. Give zombies more 'fun' options, the biggest zombie increases in numbers wasn't after a damage boost, but after feeding groan and headshot, both had no relation to what individual damage a zombie could do.--Vista W! 17:45, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I fully agree that searching could be made more enjoyable too, and I've made other suggestions to that effect. Why should we have to live with parts of a game being boring? Let's make it more fun for both sides. Isn't that the point of this page? --John Ember 17:59, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I would feel far better about the cades springing back up everytime I got them down a level if this were implemented. -Banana Bear4 18:03, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Vista, do you play a zombie? Getting through barricades is perhaps the most dull, droll, and boring part (yes I know that's all redundant, that's the point), and by the time you get through, you often only get a few attacks anyway. This suggestion does indeed up the "fun" quotient of being a zombie. Zombies are all about killing. That's all they do. Therefore, any suggestion about zombies is probably going to, and should, revolve around combat. Survivors get to search with much higher success rates than zombies go through barricades, when you compare the number of searches to the number of pistol shots. Out of curiosity, what does the damage/AP ratio for a fully upgraded zombie look like after you factor in busting through even a VS+2 barricade? --Pinpoint 18:05, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Good question. Assuming about 1 collapse per 4 hits, you're looking at 40 AP to destroy the cades and 1 AP to get in. That leaves, on an ideal day (fully rested, and not recently killed or headshot), 9 AP. Tangling Grasp makes this tricky, but take the average of 55% hit rate and you're looking at 15 damage, or about 0.3/AP over the day. With Bloodlust implemented, assuming the zombie is the only one working the 'cades, he can expect 27 damage, or about 0.54/AP over the day. Factor in a headshot and it becomes 5 damage, 0.1/AP over the day without Bloodlust; 8 damage, 0.16/AP over the day with it. --John Ember 18:16, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Given the number of times I've broken into a safehouse only to end up dealing about 2 damage before my AP ran out, I can see this being a nice little boost, even if only temporarily. --Dr. Fletch 18:28, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I find nothing wrong with this suggestion, other than the fact that I wasn't the one to make it. Timid Dan 18:56, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill Vista is right. I play as a zombie. It's fun to attack barricades. I can usually bring them down to Quite Strong, I save a few AP, then check back later to see if another zombie broke down the door by building (well...breaking) on my progress. 50% of the time they have. I rush in and manage to get a good number of hits in, and I can let out a Feeding Groan so every zombie nearby also knows the door's open. Other times I break them down by working on someone else's progress. Zombies are militarily quite adept. I've managed to wipe out several survivors inside Tynte Mall. They don't need combat bonuses just for doing what they're supposed to do. Don't cite Caiger Mall as an example of zombies being unpowered. There are about 2000 survivors inside the mall and there are 600 zombies outside. Zombies shouldn't be more powerful than survivors on a 1:1 ratio. If they're vastly outnumbered, yeah, it'll be hard to get through barricades. But attacking under normal conditions zombies need no incentive to attack barricades. --Jon Pyre 19:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I suppose fun is subjective, but I suspect you may be the only zed in all of Malton to feel that way about barricades. --John Ember 20:00, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Adds flavour and doesn't seem unbalancing. -- Davedavinson 19:48, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Sure. Petrosjko 19:52, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I like it because it contains the ONLY 2 things about a zombie's psychology that matter. The only time they get excited: They're about to get something to EAT, the only time they get angry: something is preventing them from getting something to EAT. It is a zombie rage.. a feeding frenzy, works for me man. Ever notice how that 1st zombie that makes it in a building is the only one with a real wild look in it's eyes, cuz it sees a lot of meat.. and it wants all of it, now! Besides, you just wasted all your AP making it in, why not get a few real GOOD hits in before your session is over.. satisfying. MrAushvitz 13:52, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - I like the idea. Nice little extra reward. --Brizth W! 20:20, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - This is one of the best suggestions I've ever seen. --Sindai 20:22, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - What happens to the meter when I AP out, though? If I hit "********" with my last AP of the day, then log in a day later, do I still have all that frenzy built up? I doesn't break the skill if it does, but it seems a little weird for a zombie to stand around in a frenzied state for an extended period of time. --Dickie Fux 20:38, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It is weird, but only because Urban Dead is weird in that way. I can get a Tangling Grasp on a victim and come back hours later and still be holding him tight. If you've maxed your frenzy meter, you're almost certainly about out of AP out that point. If you lose your boosts because you can't do anything with them right away, it'd result in more frustration than fun. --John Ember 21:04, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Would suggest that the meter decreases every attack not just every sucessful attack, but the suggestion is overall good. --Lordofnightmares 20:54, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 14 Keep, 2 Kill, 0 Spam
  17. Keep - Good. --EnForcer32 22:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep Hellz yeah. --Cerebrus13 23:06, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Sounds good. -- Kripcat 23:24, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Makes it seem like you're punishing people for overbarricading. That and the hords, which are already quite deadly, could easily 'charge up' as it were, leading them to become even more powerful. Velkrin 00:37, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Actually, a large horde will tend to net less of a combat boost under this suggestion than an individual zombie, as explained above. The point is not to penalize survivors, but simply to make fighting barricades more rewarding for zombies. --John Ember 02:07, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - but it need some mechanic so it is not 1-barricade-level-down-1-rage-level-up. Because this way zombies will have too much power just for breaking barricades. I say, the lower frenzy meter is, the higher the chances to get one frenzy point after a cade level is down. Starting with 75%, going down to 40%... when the zombie has 7 frenzy points. Also... frenzy points must be spent after EACH attack. Even missed ones. --hagnat talk 03:14, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Yeah, I agree with frenzy points being lost after even missed attacks...--Greymattergourmet 18:21, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Should make barricade-bashing slightly less awe inspiringly tedious.----Throctukes 12:22, 26 March 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - It'd even give survivors a use for flak jackets other than to protect themselves from pk's.--Trepp 10:54, 2 April 2006 (BST)
  25. Keep - Aw hells yeah. Finally, some incentive to rip apart filing cabinets. --Undeadinator 05:28, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  26. Keep - More fun, reason to claw refrigerators to fine-dust like particles. --Zombie-10:03(EST)
    • Tally - 22 Keep, 3 Kill, 0 Spam 18:40, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Maggot Infested

Timestamp: 09:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: New method of spreading infection
Description: Maggot Infested

To date there are no other animal species we know of that can become zombies, but they CAN carry the virus (if that is the cause.) One of the few lifeforms which has always been a nuiscance to man is of course, flies, who happily spread any disease mother nature can cook up to keep our numbers down. (Once we're dead, they're always there to feed on our stinky corpses, even if they get up and start moving, flies have never been overly picky.)

Your zombie is literally crawling, your body swimming in maggots! Once per day (based on game's 24 hour day cycle), the very 1st time you are HIT with a shotgun attack the following happens:

Player who shot you reads "Your shotgun attack just blew a spray of maggots over other survivors in the surrounding area!"

How it works: When 1st hit by a shotgun blast (once per day) outdoors 1 survivor (other than the shooter) is hit with maggots, indoors up to 5 survivors (other than the shooter)are hit with maggots. When "hit" by maggots each survivor has a 10% chance of being infected by the zombie virus! If hit by maggots, the survivor reads! "Nooo, you just were covered in maggots! Ewwww!", and if they were infected, infection message follows.

But MrAushvitz, are you on crack? Maybe, and yet I keep making suggestions. Look, this adds a bit of a "ewww!" element to the game, but it will be another way of spreading the virus other than just bites. Keep in mind it is an infection which is trying to turn everything into zombies, and it needs a little help. Adds some "fangora" disgusting element to the game, and it is quite a small bonus.. it doesn't do anything for the zombie itself (than some satisfaction that some dumbass just hit you with a shotgun, again.)

If you regularly use shotguns indoors, not smart in close quarters, you're helping spread contamination by covering your compatrioits in infected maggots (one of which may have landed in someone's mouth!) But it's not 100%, so it's more fun, you see. A zombie who just made it inside a building only to go down in a hail of shotgun blasts will be "content" knowing that the survivors inside now have a new problem to deal with.

This is a punishment (of sorts) from nature for spending too much time hiding indoors, with too many other survivors (too many people=disease!) It is also currently the ONLY "anti-gun" skill the zombies have, let's keep it, it's such a small bonus really.. you like it. come on.. like it!

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. Can't say it's an auto defense, cuz it doesn't defend the zombie from anything. It just punishes the attacker's nearby "friends" when used under bad circumstances. it's only once per day, so it circumvents the "multiply it by a billion" rule. Even then if a bunch of zombies make it into Caiger mall and get blasted, it makes sense the mess results in some infected survivors.--MrAushvitz 09:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - if you read the zombie survival Guide, it says the zombie virus scares off all animals and insects dont feed on them, This is true of many movies as well. Plus its REALLY difficult to get the hang of ;P --Dark Wingstalker W! 16:41, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Just took the time to read the zombie guide, where does it say this.. you got a link, or was it one of the other player's later guides? Just like to be informed. I will read it, but I'm not gonna spend all day looking for it. Zombies in movies (especially old ones) had maggots on them, so I ain't budging. A matter of perspective as to what "your" zombie is like. --MrAushvitz 09:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill I had a zombie break in in a building with 100 survivors, 20 other zombie also enter. all of us get attacked with shotguns. Now everyone in infected. Som much for it "circumventing the "multiply it by a billion" rule"--Bermudez 17:06, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Technically, if 20 zombies broke in, each one shot can only have a chance of infecting 5 people once per day, if hit by a shotgun blast.. each survivor has a 10% chance per maggot splatter, pretty low.. think about it. A bunch of shotgun blasts, close quarters, only matters if all 20 were maggot infested, even then 10% for the survivors hit by maggots, doesn't that seem more fun? Just requires different tactics, indoors use a pistol, or an axe! 'm just giving those 20 zombies something to feel better about before they all go down under a barrage of bullets.. --MrAushvitz 13:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -- "But MrAushvitz, are you on crack? Maybe, and yet I keep making suggestions." This pretty much says it all. furtim 17:25, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Damn, I was hoping by poking fun at myself some people might vote keep, bet you almost did though.. heh, heh, heh, next time. --MrAushvitz 13:27, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - What Furtim said, although I think you may have redeemed yourself a tad with the above suggestion. Anyways, zombies really don't need additional ways to spread infection. -Nubis 17:45, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam - In case no one else says it, your suggestions are surpassed in badness by their flavor text, and your name looks to be in really poor taste. HaHa! Josef Mengele! lollarious. -Banana Bear4 18:01, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - No auto-defence. Velkrin 18:07, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - What does it defend against? Oh wait, it doesn't defend the zombie at all! It just makes a big mess when you shoot the zombie with a shotgun (which normally happens anyways), but.. it means that mess can infect people in the area if they're unlucky. As I said before, no auto defense, it's a deterrent/punishment for shooting shotguns indoors. --MrAushvitz 20:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I liked your other infection suggestions better. --John Ember 18:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - I know, I know, but if I resubmit it too soon all we'll see is spam votes, I'm going to rework it and simplify it. What I'm going for is other ways zombies spread infection, not just bites, survivors making mess is another way of also spreading infection. It's a disease.. it spreads, as it should. I think. --MrAushvitz 14:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Just stop making suggestions already. This is awful. Timid Dan 18:59, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill "But MrAushvitz, are you on crack?Maybe, and yet I keep making suggestions." No judgements here MrAushvitz but honestly, are you on crack? --Jon Pyre 19:45, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - No, if I was chances are people would vote Keep a lot more often, ha!. I put that in the suggestion on purpouse, I have a sense of humour, it's all good. --MrAushvitz 140:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill -No auto defence, no MrAushvitz--Mpaturet 21:31, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - You are correct, it is not an auto-defense. In that it does nothing to defend said zombie. --MrAushvitz 16:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Spam - Area of attack auto-defense? No * ∞ --mikm W! 21:55, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Correction: Area of EFFECT as a result of a specific attack, once per day, 10% effectiveness for 1, or 10% effectivness for 5 indoors. Have you ever played a game where something you kill leaves something behind when it dies, other than a body, like a poison cloud, or a fiery explosion? A spray of squirming maggots is a very very small version of this, give the little guys their chance to shine! free maggots now! Free maggots now! --MrAushvitz 16:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Dupe - Dupe of "Bargain Hunting". Maybe not exactly the same, but close enough. --Norcross 22:13, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - .... WHAT?!?! How in the "Jesus Jumped Up" world of what "Is Not Meant To Be" does a zombie, swarming with maggots, have, anything, even relevant, related, similar or spoken of in the same sentence as Bargain Hunting. And in your mind a dupe of said skill, no less. I send thee to the KITCHEN sir, get thee back to thy kitchen and speak again no more of this, fool. --MrAushvitz 16:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Spam -trying to be funny in flavor texts is bad, Autodefences are bad, (and yes sadling up players with adverse effects when they attack something is an autodefence, learn the lexicon.) punshing player for what they supposed to do is bad. failing the multiply by a thousand is bad. and abusing the Re function is specifically mentioned upon this very page as a big no-no. you are slowly but seriously ever more stepping into troll country. I'd rather not have that.--Vista W! 00:24, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Tring to limit my ability to defend my suggestion is bad, trying to prevent my ability to point out abuses of the rules is bad, having 2 of 3 suggestions today (and I made none yesterday) spaminated before more than a handful of people got to read them, is bad, placing a spam vote, for a "brand spanking new" idea, that noone has ever suggested before, without a link to show how it's a spam or dupe of something else, is bad. I'm no Troll, just smarter than 3/4 of these voters, live with it. Mark my words, the lack of flexibility, imagination, and intelligent voting is why there are so few skills for zombies, it's impossible to make another one get through, period. I did do the multiply by a thousand, and a billion, it's still once a day, per zombie.. so it's inherently limited. I appreciate your position and trying to educate me as to how things work here, but the "trolls" ain't me. Strange as that may seem. You aren't causing me grief, but the "rule mongers" can be very annoying when they ding you for something that (when you read it yourself) is merely their interpretation of what was written. Can't shoot me for breaking the law until the law specifically states you're allowed to. --MrAushvitz 16:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - It's ironic that you call Norcross a fool and claim yourself to have a sense of humor, as I think it's quite the opposite. You, sir, are a fool with a poor sense of humor, and thus, you may as well have no sense of humor at all, as it benefits no one. On the other hand, he is a... non-fool with a sense of humor. I found his comment enjoyable... yours on the other hand... well... talk about foolish. It sounds like we have a sort of arrogant pseudo-intellectual amongst us... one that is so brilliant that he insults the people that decide whether his pathetic suggestions are kept or destroyed by saying that he is smarter than three-quarters of them. Utterly intellectual. Not only do you insult them, but you insult them in comparison to yourself and you insult their intelligence. The irony almost outweighs the idiocy. To the actual stupidity of the suggestion... The person is firing a shotgun, not a mini-rocket. Additionally, the shotgun is blasting into rotten flesh, not a plank of wood; it's not going to splinter and fly in a trillion pieces in a trillion directions. It's like shooting a couch cushion; the pieces will just crumble off. Skipping the drug comment with your attempt at "humor"... "If you regularly use shotguns indoors, not smart in close quarters." What the Hell is that? Not smart to use the gun for its design-purpose? It's a short-range weapon! The great God of Logic frowns upon you.... tenfold. Destin Farloda 01:25, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Oh, I'm sorry, did you not understand the physics of what pellets can DO to a human body (living or otherwise), little pieces tend to end up, everywhere. It doesn't take a rocket, you ain't hitting wood, it's flesh, made (mostly) of liquids and if you're indoors, and there's other people around you, it would be more accurate to say missing with your shotgun blast might be worse for the survivors than the zombie. But hey, I won't get too technical. No you liked his comment because it didn't make any sense, and it was wrong, this skill IS nothing like bargain hunting, period. The only people I insult (ever) are the ones stupid enough to challenge me without using some KIND of good intelligible defense, I respect even grim, and he's insulted my ideas more than anyone! You know why, he's a dick but he's honest about it. This guy, put a DUPE vote, saying my idea was a DUPLICATE of something made before. There is NO DUPLICATE here, none, this is brand spanking new "freshly slapped ass" out of the delivery room fresh! Yea verily, and thus, I am not a prick, but people are abusing the rules, with their votes, and I think, that makes, some people, assholes. You however were very intelligible with your remarks, and I have no choice but to respect that. I may not agree, but you are free to do so. --MrAushvitz 16:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Punishes survivors for working in groups, hits multiple targets, and griefs survivors without much benefit to zombies. I came very close to voting 'Spam' on this. - Asrathe 02:24, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 11 Kill, 3 Spam, 1 No-link Dupe 18:39, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Zombie freerunning

Timestamp: 18:15, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: Basically, when xombies spend all their AP breaking into a safehouse, they'll have about 30 seconds before everyone either runs off or kills them. So, how about if zombies have bought 'Free running' as a human, when they break into a safehouse, they can move to adjacent ones using one AP - without having to break into another building!!

Also, this'd reduce survivor's dependence on barricades, as they'd have to watch for zombies breaking in in other places and free running to their safehouse.

It's just a thought!

Votes

  1. Keep - I'm voting for my own (we strike out unsigned author votes, yes?) --Dr. Fletch 18:33, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - The very act of being dead prevents one from being able to perform the acrobatics involved in free-running. What with the decay, being less agile, and nearly-complete lack of memories of when you were alive and what you knew then. --Dr. Fletch 18:33, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Hahahahaha. --Sindai 18:40, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I see what you're getting at in the mechanic (zombies can pick their entry points, so holing up in a single XHB building may not be enough), but the flavor is all wrong. --John Ember 18:43, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - First, safehouses don't always have anyone active inside. Second, zombies need a skill to walk like humans, I doubt they'd be able to run/jump like them. Velkrin 18:46, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - If (Note the italics) a free running alternative for zombies were to be made, there would at least have to be something different to seperate it from the survivor skill. Additional AP for a zombie to Free-Run at the very least. This would also probably hurt zombies more than help, as it would encourage rampant barricade strafing. -Nubis 18:56, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - Next up, we have suggestions that Surgery and Tagging also carry over to zombies.... Zombies are not Survivors. Timid Dan 19:01, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I don't think that Zombies (who I also play) should have that skill. Unless of course they were Ninja Monkey Zombies !KyleTravis 19:10, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - The idea behind this is something I kind of like. The idea of zombies falling out windows of towers and crashing through the roof into a safe house is a fun one. If something like this were to work, maybe it would need, a fail percent, and a hp penalty? I don't know. Just blanket freerunning zombies isn't right though. -Banana Bear4 19:16, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Right now you can enter a building with no barricades, then freerun to the closest safehouse. Every building connected to a building that is connected to a building that is... (do this a few times) connected to a safehouse, is a possible entry point for these zombies.... unstoppable... --McArrowni 19:24, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Spam - Are you INSANE? Why don't you just get rid of barricades? What's next - survivors are no longer allowed to enter buildings? Zombies take no AP for moving or attacking? All the weapons in Malton break? --Snikers 19:29, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Spam Zombie freerunning is as ridiculous as Survivor Ankle Grab. --Jon Pyre 19:33, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Actually survior ankle grab is quite common. Dammit I broke the list. Can someone fix this please?--Mpaturet 21:38, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • easily done. you just have to start with a # same as always and then use a *. thay way the counter skips your 're' without breaking the chain.--Vista W! 21:49, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep You sexy bitch! You just gave me a very much needed zombie skill idea (indirectly) HEIL!. --MrAushvitz 12:33, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! --Undeadinator 22:01, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - There, there. Here is some money, go drink until the hurting stops.. --MrAushvitz 16:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re: - Aushvitz, I must admit... you're entertaining me more now that you're getting a sense of humor, man. (Sorry. Someone had to say it, and I have no reputation to ruin.) --Dr. Fletch 01:05, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill with predigious. this could allow a zombie in roftwood to free run to caiger. as much as that would be fun this would be game breaking and give large hordes the power to kill every survivor in the game.--Deathnut RAF 20:33, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam fucking overpowered and you inspired MrAushvitz to post another piece of shit. Also nerfs zombie spies and spells the end of "Serious Business" jokes--Mpaturet 21:34, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - ... he's got you there. But zombies MIGHT need a different skill that helps their movement, when they're higher level anyways.. I have plans, oh GOD I have plans. --MrAushvitz 16:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. KILL -- DEAR GOD, KILL IT NOW! furtim 21:11, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - come back when you're serious.--Vista W! 21:46, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Spam - My eyes! My eyes! --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:49, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Spam - No. Just no. --mikm W! 21:52, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Spam - Oh why don't we just get rid of the barricades... --Brizth W! 21:58, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - Not fucking with the barricades. Although, I do like the flavour. Perhaps if this has a few limits. --Ev933n 22:20, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - While I understand why you're suggesting this, and although the very idea of a zombie horde jumping from rooftop to rooftop is endlessly entertaining, this would probably lead to the death of every survivor in the game. -- Nervie 10:25, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 12 Kill, 8 Spam 18:38, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Cell Phone

Removed for not using the template. --Brizth W! 20:05, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

The Power Of The Dead

Spaminated with 8 spams (out of 10). Overpowered, among other things. --Brizth W! 21:47, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Exponential XP

Timestamp: 20:31, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill buying system alteration
Scope: Everyone
Description: Resubmitted from the 14th, where it's pretty dead due to most voters misreading the suggestion. The following sentence added for clarity:

THIS IDEA DOES NOT RESET THE GAME. YOUR SKILLS ARE WIPED, BUT ALL THE XP YOU'VE EVER GOTTEN, INCLUDING WHAT YOU HAVE SPENT ON SKILLS, YOU WILL GET BACK, SO YOU CAN BUY THE SKILLS AGAIN. THEY'D SIMPLY COST DIFFERENT AMOUNTS. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE VOTING. THANK YOU.

I submitted this a long time ago and it was shot down, but it's been long enough and and situation is different enough I believe it deserves a resubmit. I've also clarified the details somewhat, to please don't be an ass and call dupe. Anyway. My idea works like this: Homogeny is a big problem in today's UD world. The suggestion prior to this one, regarding endgame skills with high XP costs, attempts to remedy this problem, but I feel there should be a more fundamental solution. Thus I propose that instead of a flat 100XP cost for skills (with class/crossclass multiplers) the cost should go up depending on your level. The first skill a new character buys should cost 50XP. All subsequent skills should cost a bit more, but going continuously up so that the cost to buy every skill in the game is huge. The progression should probably be something like 50-60-75-95-120-150-190-240 and so on, or just multiply the cost by 1.25 or even 1.5 for each successive skill. But what about all the players that already have huge numbers of skills? Simple: they lose all their skills and are refunded 100XP per each (or 75 for class skills and 150 for cross-class, depending on their status) and this, plus whatever XP they have currently, can be freely spent under the new system. Yes, this will be painful. Yes, I would rather my highlevel characters could stay high-level. But there's really no other way I can think of to solve the homogenity problem short of actually resetting the game, which nobody wants. This method turns an essentially simple skill-acquisition system that becomes meaningless very quickly into one with a lot more depth and strategy involved--you hesitate a lot more before buying Shopping when you know it'll take 100XP before you can get Bargain Hunting, and for that entire 1000XP Shopping will be pretty useless, since it'll be more profitable to search in a Hospital or PD. IF you're going to be a gunner, buying all the gun skills first will make it that much harder to get essentials like Free Running or Diagnosis--perhaps you ought to hold off on the shotgun skills and only buy the pistol ones for now--but of course that means the shotgun ones will cost more later. I think that boost to the flair and flavor of the game is worth experienced players losing some power.

Votes

  1. Keep - I've already given all my arguments in the suggestion.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:57, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - After re-reading it, yeah, I think I could get in on this. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:34, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Makes the game more like almost every other game, where it takes longer to get higher and higher levels. Me like. -Nubis 20:37, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I liked it then. I like it now. --Guardian of Nekops 20:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Not a problem, we all like it if it is balenced. Which it is. --MrAushvitz 14:39, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Other people made great points. This scales up too fast... you shoudn't have to have played for years to get your knife combat. --McArrowni 17:15, 22 March 2006 (GMT)Keep - Should make it easier for newbies. Currently it takes less time for a high-lvl character to gain a level (or two) than for a newbie to reach his first level... --McArrowni 21:18, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Yay! Now I have to rebuy all only a few of the skills I spent months getting! Not to mention that it fucks over newbie zombies, since they already find it bloody difficult to gain xp. - CthulhuFhtagn 21:30, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Sounds reasonable. --mikm W! 21:34, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Your skills wiped = reset. You're talking about taking everyone, turning them back into a newbie, and telling them they have to re-buy some, but not all, of their skills. What happens to the folks at 9 HP with bodybuilding? Or the guys with a syringe, a shotgun, some FAK's and a pistol? Half the inventory they have is suddenly useless, or near-useless, because they can't buy back all the skills to operate the inventory. Imagine the level-2 scientist who's got ten syringes saved up... he's suddenly nerfed because he can only buy back one skill! The zombie that spend two weeks working up to get his third skill is suddenly rolled back to two skills because he doesn't have enough XP? It's a reset, it's a rollback, it's bad. Yes, I'd like to see skill costs go up, but nerfing most of the population and pissing off the players isn't the way to implement it. Timid Dan 22:04, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - How do you like it if existing character sheets are not messed with? --Ev933n 22:14, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Exponential experience is almost *always* better than static XP systems. Some of the numbers still need to be worked out, but yeah, hell yeah.--Ev933n 22:10, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I voted keep before, and I'm still voting keep. And for anyone who says this is nerfing newbies, why? Re-read the suggestion: the first few skills will cost less than they currently do. Let's take a hypothetical lvl 2 scientist with lab experience, on which he spent 75 XP. He gets that refunded, spends 50XP(minus the class affinity bonus) on it, and voila, is back to his skill level but has at least 25 XP more than he started with. This "reset" would greatly benefit anyone less than level 5. --Ralav 00:14, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Had a vote here earlier, must have been eaten by a non-conflict bug. Anyway, if I wanted to buy my skills again I'd start a new character. As for the homogenity, there are better ways to go about it. Velkrin 00:30, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. spam - This is stunning, this is so broken and everybody is voting keep. lets start with level ten, about midlevel that cost you, 1.650XP. Sure, thats sound not to bad, level 15, you're starting to become fleshed out, thats 4.900XP. That more then the people maxed out with all the skills, both zombie and human could buy. level 20: 11.400XP Level 35, Do you really want to know? That means nobody would ever max out, nobody would ever play both sides. you'd pay incredible amounts of XP without ever seeing any improvements. Guns? cost to much, so nobody buys them, so nobody uses them. Everybody would have the same few skills because nobody could afford to pay for any of the others. experiancing both sides or switching would be impossible. Sure this would help both sides, untill you hit level 11 after wich leveling becomes almost impossible. All the games that have incremental XP cost have incremental XP bonusses. in the end leveling cost the same time. how many of you want to play 6 weeks to advance from level 15 to level 16? or play longer as the game as excisted to max out? there are 50.000 character in play. and about six times that many made in a couple of months the turn over is huge. people would leave because the game would stagnate around level 12 because nobody is goin to be thrilled when after about 3 months since they last bought a skill they finally get tagging. How many player would even resume playing after the reset when their level is suddenly halved their way of playing is made impossible? I'd be another reset in way, the streets would be empty agian and finding other player would be near impossible. I'd just shelve this away under, people voted before they thought about it. Thank god this is a dictatorship and Kevan decides instead of us. Seriously not one of your best.--Vista W! 01:16, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Spam - ^^^ What he said. Run the numbers. Even with 50 xp for the first skill and a 1.25 factor for each successive skill, the 16th or so skill costs over 1,400 xp. No. I'm sorry, that's just silly. I have to chalk this up to people not visualizing how exponential increases work over the long term. Secondly, someone said that most RPGs work this way. This is correct, but most RPGs also have exponential XP gain. UD does not. After a few combat skills your rate of XP gain is totally linear. To summarize: Other RPGs: Exponential XP requirements and exponential XP gain. Urban Dead: linear XP requirements and linear XP gain. It's that simple. --Sindai 01:24, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - I calculated what it would cost me to go through this process under your "cheapest" model. I would get about 3700 XP for all my skills. Then I'd be able to buy them all back for the low, low price of 74,640 XP. It took me about six months to get to my present level. Under your model, I'd need to spend about 9 and a half more years to win those capabilities back. --John Ember 02:37, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill It is a reset, you just get to keep your character name and get a small amount of xp for playing already. It's kind of nice not to have to wait 2 years to get every skill. --Jon Pyre 03:59, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - For the reasons mentioned by the other spam votes. --Grim s 10:49, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill Idea is nice, numbers are terrible. --Brizth W! 12:07, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - The idea is nice but the numbers are just horrible. It would take forever to max out a single skill tree. --TheBigT 02:13, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Spam - I like the idea of exponential XP gain but the numbers are ridiculous. If this was implemented then I would quit the game and go play something where I could make progress. This idea, as written, is, therefore, Spam.--The General 13:19, 28 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 8 Keep, 7 Kill, 5 Spam 18:36, 7 April 2006 (BST)

The Dead Never Sleep

Spaminated with 9 Spam votes out of 13. Overpowering, no AP cap... --Brizth W! 00:20, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

I should also point out a few things since they seem to get lost in the mix. Yes, I know I shouldn't but it needs to be said. MrAushvitz, please refrain from using Re to reply to almost every vote. Everyone else: Do not use Re unless you are responding to an author's comment on your vote, or you are the author. Do not RE other people's comments, nor the author's comments on other people comments. Please keep the personal attacks off of the suggestion page. Votes are subjective, so don't whine when someone votes spam and you think it should be kill. Velkrin 00:27, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

To the discussion page with further chatter. Velkrin 00:57, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/21st-Mar-2006&oldid=215619"