Suggestion:20070910 Scanner Fix

	Dupe
	This suggestion has been found to be a dupe of this suggestion. Dupes are easily found by searching for them in the main and suggestion namespaces.

20070910 Scanner Fix

Father Thompson 15:37, 10 September 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
Improvement

Suggestion scope
DNA scanners

Suggestion description
At present, if all zombies in a square have been scanned (by anybody), it is impossible to scan all of the zombies in that square. The scanner simply gets stuck on the top zombie in the stack- yet, this only occurs when all other zombies have been scanned. This is not simply the way that scanning works- normally, the scanner flips through the stack, providing information for all of the zombies in the queue. I propose that this should be fixed- when all of the zombies in an area have been scanned, the game should continue to notify a survivor that all zombies have been scanned, and no experience should be gained, but the scanner should still cycle through the stack providing profile links. The availability of this information should be fairly uniform and predictable, not just 'first come, first serve.'

It has been suggested that this is a dupe- but I've not found the same suggestion elsewhere. A similar suggestion recommends scanning a random zombie after you've gone through the stack, and swiers suggested a multi-modal scanner with three scanning options- one of which would cycle through the stack in this manner. There is a meaningful difference between scanning a random zombie and scanning through the stack- and I think it's important to preserve the order of the stack to make information reliably available to scanners- and this suggestion doesn't propose new options or added functionality for scanners, it just proposes making the functions they posses function reliably.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep - Not a massive change to help survivors compared to the zombie changes but would be good none the less. --Marie^{The Grove on Tour} 15:47, 10 September 2007 (BST)
2. Keep - This is the way it should work. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:15, 10 September 2007 (BST)
3. Keep - I'm all for bug fixes - Wootle 16:26, 10 September 2007 (BST)
4. Extremely Heavy Keep - Who cares if it's a dupe? I'm all for this! It'll make my job as a reviver much easier. --Hhal 16:34, 10 September 2007 (BST)
5. Keep - This is a change to avoid annoying wastes of AP, so I'm for it. --Flameblade 16:55, 10 September 2007 (BST)
6. Keep - Simple application of real world logic to the actual way scanners would be used. Do not see this as a dupe since previous versions were either overly complex or failed to address the XP question adequately. --Shazzelim 17:49, 10 September 2007 (BST)
7. Keep - Only so others will stop bitching about this problem.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:00, 10 September 2007 (BST)
8. vote changed COULD SOMEONE PUT A LINE THROUGH THIS??? there is absolutely no reason why this should not be the case. anything else makes no sense!--Honestmistake 20:21, 10 September 2007 (BST)vote changed, see Kill section -- Ryiis 16:13, 11 September 2007 (BST)
9. Keep- Anything else would be like using an accordian to wipe your ass- it just don't make no sense. Nalikill 20:37, 10 September 2007 (BST)
10. Keep - I have nothing to say.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:09, 10 September 2007 (BST)
11. Keep Because i don't want to be "Angry German Kid" (do a search if you don't know) - Pardus 21:18, 10 September 2007 (BST)
12. SUPER KEEP! - *hums McDonalds theme* I'm loving it! --Medico 21:42, 10 September 2007 (BST)
13. Keep - Alrighty then.--Private Mark 22:04, 10 September 2007 (BST)
14. Keep - Sorry Rotters, but it's only right. --Uncle Bill 23:07, 10 September 2007 (BST)
15. Keep - It just makes sense.--Seventythree 23:26, 10 September 2007 (BST)
16. Keep - Until yesterday when I had first hand experience of this problem, I assumed the scanner would work as the suggestion says because it just makes sense.Studoku 23:30, 10 September 2007 (BST)
17. Keep - as Seventythree -- Pavluk ^A! 23:40, 10 September 2007 (BST)
18. Keep/Change - I've got something similar under construction on the developing suggestions page. It's specifically targetted towards Rotters, though, which I now realize is a mistake. I'd like to see NecroNet have some sort of use, so I think when a survivor with NecroNet Access DNA scans a Zombie (only successful scans, in the case of Rotters), NecroNet will display not just the number of scanned Zeds in a 9x9 area around the NT, but their names, and thus profiles as well (assuming they were scanned by someone with NecroNet Access). That way, if you have the NecroNet Access skill (which is mostly useless, currently) you can get the profiles of dead friends or rotters, then go out and take care of them. --Steakfish 02:20, 11 September 2007 (BST)

    That sounds interesting, but I'm not going to integrate it into this particular suggestion, to keep it fairly simple.--Father Thompson 20:14, 11 September 2007 (BST)

19. Keep Playing two revivers definitely gets you wishing something like this would get implemented. --Howard Bentley 02:25, 11 September 2007 (BST)
20. Keep agree also with Seventythree --Smokerjoker 03:00, 11 September 2007 (BST)
21. Keep - I like it. --The Hierophant 03:40, 11 September 2007 (BST)
22. Keep - Makes much more sense than the scanner 'sticking' on rotters. --Crystal ^C-Kids 03:42, 11 September 2007 (BST)
23. Keep - Makes total sense. Can't scan the bastard? Move onto the next one! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 05:20, 11 September 2007 (BST)
24. Keep - Holy leotards batman! it's a good suggestion. --Sonofagun18 07:10, 11 September 2007 (BST)
25. Keep - This makes perfect sense in terms of how a scanner would actually work. Honestly, who would scan a zombie, see that it couldn't be revived, and then think 'hmm, maybe I should try scanning it a few more times. Nope, still a rotter. Let's try scanning it again.' --Pdeq 07:06, 11 September 2007 (BST)
26. Conditional Keep – Just want some clarification: As I understand it, you are suggesting that it should be possible to continue to scan through a fully-scanned stack of zombies, rather than constant scanning the top zombie – not that it should be possible to "skip" zombies in any way, shape, or form other than by scanning past them. A rotter in the stack would still require spending extra AP to scan, just as it does when they are first scanned. Correct? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:26, 11 September 2007 (BST)

    That is correct. This is not a suggestion to allow a scanner to skip, just to cycle reliably (still potentially getting stuck on rotters because of the difficulty of scanning past them, but not perpetually getting stuck on any specific zombie because of their place in line).--Father Thompson 20:12, 11 September 2007 (BST)

27. Keep - To me this seems like a technical problem, not a hindrance that was meant to be. It seems highly unlikely that survivors were meant to keep scanning the same zombie all the time once the rest were done, they are not that stupid are they? - Whitehouse 16:08, 11 September 2007 (BST)
28. Keep - The people calling this a dupe need to wake up. The game is very different now than it was a year ago. Let's say someone made a suggestion to remove wirecutters back when they had a use. A suggestion like that would have been killed because they were the only way to open fenced-in areas. But that same suggestion made today would fare much differently, because the game has changed and wirecutters no longer have any use. A suggestion for what was clearly a very different game can not be used to justify a dupe vote. It's not fair to call a suggestion a dupe when the mechanics it deals with have changed, because the suggestion may now have different merit. Since the revive rate is related to overall game balance, if said game balance has changed, there's no reason not to reconsider it. Now, those guys arguing that this would be way too big a change may have a point, though. However, I'm not too sure that's even a bad thing. When I first started coming around here it was common knowledge that zombies had the short end of the stick. But then came encumbrance and ruin mechanics. There are some who now believe that the zombies may in fact have the advantage with regard to gameplay now. Some would like to see a change in the other direction. But I'm rambling now. I say keep because brain rot is too powerful a skill already. Being immune to combat revives and forcing a person to waste an AP scanning over them every time is good enough. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:21, 11 September 2007 (BST)
29. KEEP Brain Rotters do not get to single handedly stop you from reviving anyone in an area. They get to impede you by forcing you to scan them first and spend multiple AP. Impede. Not 100% thwart you. But some scientist without A) Military Skills and/or B)Weapons and/or C) AP to spare killing shouldn't be out of luck because there's one previously scanned brain rotter there. --Jon Pyre 21:41, 11 September 2007 (BST)
30. KEEP Though I don't use a DNA Scanner (I'm a shooty guy...), this just makes sense, and, despite what those in Kill say, WOULDN'T break rev cue clogging. You'd need to spend 1AP to scan. And, sinse it keeps the order, it would be effective every cycle through the stack. All this would do would allow more revives to be thought through! --~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? *Sep. 11^th, 2007 (18:29 MDT)*
31. Keep - I don't think the people who say it'll nerf revive point clogging really understand how revive clogging works. This seems more like a long overdue bug fix to me. --Thelightguy 05:28, 12 September 2007 (BST)
32. Keep - just another survivor-reviver vote --~~~~ [Talk] 10:43, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. I guess I do prefer swiers' idea a bit more than your idea.--ShadowScope 17:22, 10 September 2007 (BST)
2. Kill What we need to do is remove zombie ambiguity. Sockem 19:42, 10 September 2007 (BST)
3. Kill - What's the point? -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 09:08, 11 September 2007 (BST)
4. kill - the arguements regarding revive point blocking have (mostly) convinced me. Change this so that you can still scan through the stack but do not get a profile links (or xp) this would allow revive attempts but they would be blind and prone to get rotters and thus you may still be better off shooting the rotter or coming back later --Honestmistake 12:05, 11 September 2007 (BST)

   The suggestion does state that XP should not be gained. I'm not going to alter it to remove profile links, but a few things are notable: one, it often takes multiple attempts to scan a rotter, so blocking the line still causes survivors to waste AP. Two, well before scanners provided profile links (even before they gave a revive link) they indicated whether a zombie was a rotter or not, so there have never been "blind" revives, only careless ones (and this won't stop those). There is more on revive point blocking in my response to Karek, which I placed on the talk page.--Father Thompson 02:20, 12 September 2007 (BST)

5. Kill - the whole point of not being able to re-scan zombies is so that revive queues can be blocked by a single rotter The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 12:49 11 September 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam It is done the way it is for a reason, changing it is game breaking thanks to the massive buff to revive rates it would provide. Also it is a player made problem that you have all forced upon yourselves, survivors shouldn't be rewarded for playing stupid.--Karek^maps?! 21:25, 10 September 2007 (BST)

   The Smart Surivior actually does not stand up after getting revived, thereby staying alive forever. And besides, Kevan will likely couple this with a very deveasting surivior nerf or just a permenant decrease in syringes, keeping balance.--ShadowScope 22:09, 10 September 2007 (BST)Non Author RE, also read talk page.--Karek^maps?! 23:37, 10 September 2007 (BST)

   I do not believe that this will result in a massive buff to revive rates- I believe it will result in a small increase in localized revive rates in areas in which zombies are blocking revive queues as part of a siege, without having much of a noticable effect on overall revive rates, and a drastic reduction in pointless frustration. I think you're offering a knee-jerk reaction to what you perceive to be a revive buff, without really considering the implications of the suggestion. And "stupid" is an adjective. You need an adverb there (like "stupidly"), unless you mean to imply that survivors are pretending to be stupid for fun (and I don't get that vibe). Also notable is that this does not remove the usefulness of rotters blocking lines- you can still cause survivors to waste AP trying to scan you or sticking you carelessly -it simply removes the possibility of blocking a would-be reviver from getting to those in line behind you at all.--Father Thompson 02:02, 11 September 2007 (BST)

   Don't correct peoples grammar, it makes you look like a pompous ass. Don't assume you know what I'm offering because obviously you don't and you haven't thought through your suggestion enough for it to even be this far. Now, some things you need to understand. Revives cost more than 10 ap, every revive wasted on a rotter is really about 25 AP lost, so approximately the price of two revives. Every time you have to clear a rotter you waste between 5 and 240 AP(although you'll never actually use that much) in just combat, out of combat you waste, depending on your weapon choice and search location, up to 50 more AP(this may be on the low side). A simple change like this makes it possible to completely ignore the revive stack without having to have people spread out so that a rotter has no influence on revives and that the only way zombies can slow revives is to kill more people faster, this makes it so that the zombies can no longer weaken the survivor tactic of revive lines(revive points) which was developed to get fast and timely revives, it's not a game mechanic but a player made one. Your little change makes it so that survivors can go to any stack and always be guaranteed a revive because of the new scan mechanics that are version three(I think profiles and revive this one were separate). It means that survivors AP waste on syringes is largely removed, that they can spend hundreds more AP barricading, shooting, and searching. And that meatshielding and all other survivor tactics becomes that much more effective because death is even more of a manageable risk then it already is. Don't suggest a game change for bad tactics or player made problems, especially one that increases the AP gap between zombies and survivors in such a massive way. The Do Not Mess With Revives spam vote came about because it is Kevan's job to decide when revives need a bonus, because he is the only one with all of the information about how many people get revived every day and how difficult it is to catch a revive. He's already modified DNA extractors twice to make it absurdly easy to get a revive, so much so that it led to a revive nerf. DNA extractors function the way they do because without that one little downside of not being able to cycle through the stack even being able to view profile links of the zombies(which you originally couldn't do) would be too much of a benefit to revivers. The goal of the game(very big picture), for zombies, is to make all survivors zombies, for survivors it's to make all zombies survivors. Do Not Mess With The Revive Rates, it screws up the balance, it always screws up what balance there is because it is the main game mechanic.--Karek^maps?! 02:39, 11 September 2007 (BST)
   

Response on talk page.--Father Thompson 20:01, 11 September 2007 (BST)

1. Spam - No matter how you work it, I can't see how this change wouldn't allow you to just bypass rotters... Which is a completely game-breaking effect: Karek is 247.93% correct. And... both of you, stop acting like such pompus effen arses... Yes, both of you... --WanYao 03:23, 11 September 2007 (BST)
2. Dupe - Close to this, but even closer to this. - If Jedaz = 09:39, 11 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

   The first is addressed in the body of the suggestion, the second is itself in "duped suggestions." I assert that there is a substantial difference between random scanning and cycling through: on those grounds, this isn't a dupe of the first. Is it possible to have this suggestion removed as a dupe if its only valid counterpart was removed for being a dupe?--Father Thompson 20:08, 11 September 2007 (BST)

   The second link's suggestion was removed and resubmitted as the suggestion in the first link. You can see it if you lookie here. As far as I understand, removed suggestions can't be used for duping. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:18, 11 September 2007 (BST) Non author re The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 11:40 12 September 2007 (BST)

3. Dupe - As above --The Grimch ^U! 13:11, 11 September 2007 (BST)
4. Dupe away! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:40, 11 September 2007 (BST)