User talk:LouisB3

Discussion with Brian G.

We're hanging out in the southeast corner of Giddings Mall, in Pitneybank. Coordinates (85,42). Fort Creedy is located southwest of there. People in the group include myself (Ezekiell), with Jonny V in the lead. Sci Guy and Ethansia are next in charge. I don't know who else is exactly in our group, but there are currently 26 people at our location. Not sure when we're going to try and take the fort. --Vinncent 23:15, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Brian, not only did you leave this on my Journal page, you didn't leave your profile number! --LouisB3 02:26, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Redirects

Double Redirects

Please be careful not to make double redirects when making redirects for various pages. If wiki encounters a redirect leading to another redirect, it will not follow the second redirect (this is there to prevent infinite loops, etc.). In other words, if you forward Drop -> Items and Items is a forward to Category:Items, clicking on Drop is going to leave the user staring at the Items page (the redirect, not the final page). I just thought you should know that -Daranz-Talk 19:02, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Thanks. I'm usually pretty careful about that - I try to remember to visit the Special:DoubleRedirects page every time I create redirects. --LouisB3 19:13, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Redirects to Categories

About the redirect of "Hive Mind", I don't see a problem with this if the redirect worked but when it gets to the zombie group page the groups don't show. Could you possibly fix this as I have had the problem before (zombie horde) and couldn't get it to work. Thank you for your time -Matthew-Stewart 20:38, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Not sure how to fix that - I think the only way is to create a link on the zombie groups page that allows redirected users to visit Category:Zombie Groups directly from the URL. I'll try that now. --LouisB3 20:41, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT) Edit: it's not pretty, but it works. --LouisB3 20:43, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Unused Redirects

What's the thinking being creating a dozen redirect pages for various game objects? You do realise that people can use whatever text they like for Wiki links? --Spiro 23:09, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Searches. If one searches for, say, "power generator", they should not be penalized for remembering that the correct usage is "Portable generator." (It had been done before, so I assumed it was ok.) Similarly, it makes it easier for people to wiki-link, since they don't have to deal with verti-slashes and whatnot. Given any reason at all, why not? (I doubt we're running out of space.) --LouisB3 23:14, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Ah, okay, that makes sense. You don't need to bother with catching all the possible upper and lower cases, though, searching is case insensitive. --Spiro 23:25, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

DARIS; daris. Not to get nitpicky, but there is a reason to keep those case-sensitive redirects around. --LouisB3 23:37, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Removing Links from Item pages?

Why are you removing helpful links from the item pages after I went through and added them all? Is there a chance you could at least talk to the person who made the changes before just reversing all that work?

I personally find them helpful when I'm looking for where I can find that particular item. It's just a click away and doesn't harm anything.

It helps to sign these things too. heh --GoNINzo 20:06, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

They're redundant - do you realise they all lead to Building Types? I don't think a string of meaningless blue text is very helpful, myself. I left the Locations headers as links to Building Types, though, so you wouldn't be directed to the "well-known Locations" page. --LouisB3 20:08, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Eh, I disagree, I think it's much better to be able to click straight to that page instead of having to scroll through the page or look through that huge table of contents, considering I put each with a redirect that lead straight there. And apparently, the redirect to a category page doesn't work, I'd like to send it to Category:Locations, which I think has different types of information, like where to find a location.--GoNINzo 20:12, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

The links you created were not directly to the appropriate section of the page. They all led to the top of Building Types. If you want a map, check the Main Page for a link. --LouisB3 20:14, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It was working for me, but I guess that's the limitation of the REDIRECT command. But do what you want, I was just trying to make it easier to use.

Sorry to mess with your work without consulting you. I suppose "ease of use" is somewhat subjective - I think dealing with a table of contents is much nicer than seeing half a dozen italicized links that read "Junkyards." What we can do, though, to make the items/buildings deal much nicer is to make sure the buildings listed as item locations (items pages), and the lists of items that can be found in buildings (building types page), are accurate and complete according to Search Odds data. --LouisB3 20:48, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Misc Conversations

Will do, I'm just doing the base stuff so the actual players will come and fill in the rest. I'll put them under users and add the links you suggested :) --RichiCrypt 02:18, 7 Oct 2005 (BST)

Righto.--LouisB3 02:40, 7 Oct 2005 (BST)

I was reading your little article about Headshot; you said that it does nothing to benefit the survivor, but it does. By taking away experience, you slow down the zombies progress, thus later on, said zombie will not be as powerful as it would have been, thus helping you if the zombie attacked you. What do you think about this? I always figured it was the one saving grace of Headshot. --Ludwig 05:39, 20 Oct 2005 (BST)

Meh. The chances of actually encountering that zombie again, and that stunting its growth would make any difference, are virtually nil. I think I had come up with another reason that it doesn't matter, but I can't think of it now. --LouisB3 21:12, 20 Oct 2005 (BST)

Edit: Ooh, I remembered. The grudge a zombie will hold against a headshooter will easily outweigh its XP loss, if encountered again. --LouisB3 00:57, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

THANK YOU! I don't know why but I felt compelled to flesh out every building they had a link to... You are absolutely right about that be way to exacting. I am sorry for my lack of control concerning this manner, you have saved me from myself.--Matthew-Stewart 02:14, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Any time. (And I thought I was addicted to the wiki!) --LouisB3 02:16, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Regarding your comment on the Deletion page in the Malton Confederacy area: No, I'm not a clone of !1A or whatever. I am, however, someone who frequents the wiki and I'm sick of the abuse Alexei calls fixing. After looking at his contributions I think he's a person who is just waging his own personal war against a group that probably wouldn't let him in. If you bothered looking at his contributions you'd see that he 'fixed' 24 things today alone. If you bothered looking at any of these 'contributions,' you'd probably join me in saying he should Stop It. If you honestly believe I'm a clone made by !1A, check my IP and his IP or ask a mod to do it. --A Concerned Wiki User

Re: The "Not Have Zombies" Compromise - Honestly, I don't want to have a dedicated section for people to come bitch in either. As the suggestion itself shows, however, in the lack of an existing one people will use the Suggestions section for whining in. As much as I don't want a "Grievance" section, I want even less for the suggestions page to become a home for people making "protests" over some view of their problems in the game; that will wind up ruining the only value the suggestions page actually has, by burying the Reviewed Suggestions that Kevan actually looks through on occasion for useful game content in intentionally-worthless "ideas" meant more to make a point than give him any useful feedback. If it becomes too much trouble to look through, he won't, and then we might as well not even have the Suggestions section at all. Hence my offer of compromise - I don't want to see it become a plausible concept that you can force even the dumbest suggestions through by marshalling a forum and getting them all to register just to flood the ballot box. --Drakkenmaw 01:49, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I can understand that. I personally find it hard to believe that Kevan takes peer-reviewed suggestions too seriously, but I suppose that we have to keep hope alive in that regard. --LouisB3 02:14, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Re: your message on my talk page

I responded to you there. I can't remember what your comment was (and mine was not regarding that) butnow I'm curious... what comment of yours were you referring to? I can't seem to find that suggestion about moving free running again. --Thelabrat 21:57, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Re: "Kevan's Ideas" Wiki

You mentioned there was no actual suggestion in the text. I bring your attention to the following text, taken verbatim from the suggestion itself:

• I'd like to suggest a "Kevan's Ideas" wiki page (with spoiler warning) where we can see the direction he wants to go in and any obstacles he's having with half-formed ideas.
  
  

There's the suggestion which it seems you overlooked. Hope this helps. --John Taggart 01:03, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Odd Starter's response to my commentary

General

I've come to the conclusion recently that even if the two sides are of equal "fun" value (for any given value of "fun", we're still going to have a considerable imbalance in favour of the Survivors, for the following reasons:

• New Players. Players new to UD are far more likely to choose to play a Survivor over a Zombie, since the Survivors, correct or no, are painted as Protagonists. People, in general, seem to desire to play protagonists if the decision is given to them.
• Breadth of Play. Survivors have a total of 8 starting positions - Zombies have a total of 2 (including death of a survivor). If every player desired to experience all possible starting points, they would have 4 survivor character for every zombie player they created.
• Starting Bias. If most people start as survivors, there will be irrational attachments to their survivor character, simply because it's all they've ever played. If they cannot find a person to revivify them, it is probably more likely that they will begin a new survivor character than choose to continue as a Zombie, regardless of how engaging Zombie play becomes. Also, if people choose to play both Zombies and Survivors, people are much more likely to seek out Revivification for their fallen survivor, as they are already playing Zombies and probably have partitioned their characters different function (that dying and becoming a Zombie will disrupt).
• Group Membership. Survivors in groups are likely to want to remain in said groups. This is rarely possible if one changes factions.

My expectation is that with all these factors, you're more realistically wanting to aim for a 3:2 balance in favour of the Survivors. I do not think we will ever get to a situation where active zombies outnumber active survivors, regardless of how engaging zombie play becomes. I do still believe, however, that we should still try to improve Zombie play to make it more engaging! -- Odd Starter 04:24, 24 Sep 2005 (BST)

Interesting points, if debatable. I was only trying to address the game engine imbalance against zombies, not players' biases (which are quite a bit more difficult to figure out, as getting inside strangers' heads is harder than crunching numbers.) I have to disagree with the second point right off the bat, though:

• Players are only likely to keep active 3 characters per day (and active characters are the only ones we're concerned with.)
• There are fewer archetypes than starting positions: only four for the survivor side (axe fighter, gun fighter, healer, and NecroTech), and one for the zombie side. Players are more likely to play multiple characters based on role, not starting position. The proportions remain the same, but see the next point.
• The skill system forces characters towards generalization, not specialization. By Lvl 19, all survivors are the same. It's somewhat unlikely that players will maintain several survivor characters if they know that they'll ultimately be indistinguishable. --LouisB3 03:10, 27 Sep 2005 (BST)

To your comments:

• Your first point assumes quite a few things: That players will optimise their turn usage and that players do not donate. It is quite easy to have 4-5 active players if you do not mind playing them in a rotation, and I have heard of several players doing so. Also, if you're donating, you can have, in theory, as many characters as your wallet demands.
• To your second point, my suspicion is that most players don't think in archetypes - they think in classes (and/or subclasses). Either way, yes, that's three to one, but the point still stands - To experience all survivor paths, one will need far more characters than a zombie.
• On the third point, again an assumption is being made that all characters are being made to play only to achieve the perfect outcome. Characters may all end up the same, but in this case, people are likely to get bored, and start over - to experience the game without their skills (or, to attempt to "do things right this time" - and either way, multiple characters is likely to be the cure. -- Odd Starter 01:14, 27 Sep 2005 (BST)

All right, so I'm not too great at figuring how people behave. That's why my original commentary only dealt with the game engine - just "my thoughts", as the section title says, on why I won't try leveling with a zombie (that is, because of reasons that affect everyone, directly or indirectly.)

Still, on that third point: "starting over" means dealing with the same number of active characters, since I'm pretty sure it means no longer bothering to play the old character. And "doing things right" doesn't affect much in this game, besides group play and PKing - it's not like, say, Diablo II, where one wrong click means an irreversible mistake that will still hurt at maximum level. For example, my character at lvl 5 is combat-oriented, but I'm only 200 XP away from being a healer, or a NecroTech guy.

I could further pick over the nuances of your arguments (and you could do the same to mine), but I pretty much agree with your main points.--LouisB3 03:10, 27 Sep 2005 (BST)

Headshot

Perhaps an issue with this is that Zombie Mechanics are not well-known in the general populace. For example, it's actually rather easy to reduce the chances of Headshotting by hanging around a large stack of Zombies - Because Zombies exist as a stack, only the least active Zombie is targettable, and thus in order to get to you, players will need to plow through a good 5-10 other Zombies. It's an easy strategy, and this is meant to encourage hording - but I suspect that newer Zombie players simply don't know the mechanics of this well enough to take advantage of it.

Then again, this is becoming less and less of a viable option in many areas of Malton anyway. Many large safehouses routinely search their local area for Zombie threats, and any stack larger than 2 is going to attract attention - and is then mercilessly whittled down. Because there's no reason not to, safehouses seem to routinely work on the assumption that any collection of Zombies is organised. -- Odd Starter 13:30, 27 Sep 2005 (BST)

It also could be the fact that headshot HURTS. As a zombie goes up in level, every random headshot will reduce their experience gain in a way that no survivor knows. Perhaps if there was a balancing skill that would hurt survivors just as much? -- Jarkman 23:22, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)