Suggestion talk:20071227 Temporary Contacts

Original Suggestion Devlopment from Talk:Suggestions

Short Term Memory & Zombie Recognition

Timestamp:	Swiers 05:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Type:	not sure
Scope:	recognizing zombies by name
Description:	Basically what I'm thinking is that (in addition to the regualr one) each person would have a "temporary contact list". Whenever you moved to new location (even inside / outside at the same block), your "temporary contact list" would be cleared. You wouldn't be able to open or edit your "temporary contact list" in any way. Instead, the game would automatically add any zombie you got a profile link for to your "temporary contact list". People (zombies) already on your regualr contact list would NOT be added, so as to avoid conflicts of color coding and such. This way, you'd know if any zombie you had very recently scanned, been attacked by, or seen perform a notable action was still present, and could single them out for revives or attacks. All "contacts" who were on your temporary list would show up in a color (to be determined) not currently in use by the regular contact list. Is this a nerf to zombie anonymity? Not really. It doesn't actually add any new method of tracking, recognizing, and singling out zombies, it just automates and simplifies the process. A cleverly made firefox extension could actually do the exact same thing. Besides maybe revivers (who have to add lots of dead survivors to thier contact lists, and then remove them) the main folks I expect would actually benefit from this is zombies. The game is MUCH more fun for them if they recognize other zombies, and it helps ferals to recognize group members and potentially join their groups and so on.

Discussion (Short Term Memory & Zombie Recognition)

There are some problems, mostly with revives, barricades, targeting, etc. If they know who is doing what easier it speeds those things up. That and it is, actually, a nerf to zombie anonymity, mostly because of the things you failed to consider, such as users who never move from a spot, revivers, combat revivers, and users who's friends get killed by zombies. The reasons? Well, the big one is it's an auto contact, as soon as you log in you know the location of every zombie that interacted with someone in your square for 0 AP, thus circumventing DNA extraction_{(just attack everyone once to signify you want a revive or say a word such as MRH? or Brnhr)}. There are more issues but the big ones are that this effectively speeds up the process_{(blanket buff to actions involving zombies, esp in real time)}, is limitless, and provides all the benefits of a zombie contact without any of the work or expenditure.--Karek^maps?! 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

By "knows the locations", I assume you mean "can spot as a named individual with a profile link". And yes, that is the point of it. I think you overstate the benefit that would have to survivors, and ignore the help it would be to zombies. And yes, as a poster below mentions, the "temporary contact list" should not be limitlessly large. A limit of 10 contacts or so would be appropriate. Anyhow, given that this CAN be done via an extension, it potentially will be. The only cost in doing it that way would be that you;d have to set aside a chunk of your contact list to be used to store "temporary" contacts. "ActOnProfile" already takes care of the real-time combat issue; when you see a zombie act, you can just pop open its profile and use the ActOnProfile options to attack it. The only "cost" there is having multiple windows / tabs to deal with. Personally, I don't think that making things unwieldy for the player of the game is any way to balance real time combat; it just hands the edge to the person with with faster connection, better extension suite, etc. If zombie anonymity is meant to be an edge in real time combat, then links to zombie profiles should not be provided when it could impact real time combat.  Swiers 21:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think things like ActOnProfile are borderline cheating. It's automation of the process and essentially no better than a barricade bot with the exception that it doesn't think by itself. It's still an unfair advantage that gives a real edge to survivors who need to act on profile(Zombies do not), targeting for important functions like revives is an important part of the survivor game and when you combine something like ActOnProfile with UDWidget's ExpandProfile you are very very borderline bot, as in one small change and you would have Sentinel without barricades being the purpose_{(maybe now it will Combat Revive in an NT automatically?)}. In the end it comes down to not everything in an Extension should go into the game or be used, there are plenty of very questionable third party programs. As for making things unweidly on the player as a means of balance, it's a very common means of limitation. DNA extracting provides a means of balance but you are essentially saying that because it's an extra step it should be removed, just provide a list of the nonrotters on a block that do anything, not problem cause it makes things easier. It lacks common sense, the extra steps are there for a reason. ?Barricade saved time and made things simpler too.--Karek^maps?! 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither ActOnProfile nor UDwidget would be useful in making a bot. ActOnProfile just provides "buttons" for doing things in a location you don't normally get them in. It doesn't provide any option for revives. And if you don;t think its useful to zombies... well, have you ever dished out claw attacks using the f5 key as fast as your browser will refresh? Real time combat is all about fast attacks, and if you can optimize your controller (in this case the browser) to allow that, its not cheating any more than optimizing your mouse would be. Anyhow, in this case there is a BIG difference between "providing a list of every non rotter in the block" and simply eliminating a cumbersome step that anybody could perform, but may be to lazy as a player to bother with.  Swiers 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot in all of that to provide any suggestions for balancing it. I don't like the suggestion on a fundamental level, but, if you want to at least attempt it being fair make it so that the contacts list clears whenever you use an AP, not when you leave the block. That way you don't get free targeting and skirt DNA extractors and the Contacts limit, at least not as much.--Karek^maps?! 01:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, although that pretty much restricts it to being useful to off-line observers who log in an see a long event report. Pretty much the whole POINT is to make it so that if you scan a zombie, you "recognize" them for some reasonable amount of time afterwords.  Swiers 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe make it so the autocontact list only stores the last 10 profiles, but doesn't clear it when you move? Anyway, I think the point was to automate the mundane task of adding/deleting people who are only of temporary importance from contacts, which would be convenient. But yah, speeding up the survivor's actions could be unfair during the occasional real-time battle. I guess it would be akin to automatically marking survivors with certain skills (like headshot or construction) so you'd know to kill them first without having to bother to click on their link. So I see Karek's point.

I think BOTH a limit of 10 AND having it clear when you move might be good, although I suppose in theory there is no reason to have it clear when you move. And yes, you've nailed the purpose of the suggestion. And yeah, maybe you;ve got a good point on the auto-marking of characters who have certain skills / group memberships. There is in fact an extension that does exactly that...  Swiers 21:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Here's a (maybe) better idea: Instead of an autocontact list, have an "Add to Temp Contacts" button when you click on a person's profile. You could store 10-15 profiles on your temp list. If your temp list is full, then adding a new contact would replace the oldest contact in the temp list. You could move contacts up or down to make them appear older or newer, or just plain delete them, or transfer them to your main list. And as Sweirs said, the contact would show up in a different color. Would that work? --Ms.Panes 10:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems a VERY good idea! Though I'd argue it would make sense just to have them added to your temp contacts whenever you open the profile; if you care enough to open the profile, you probably want to have them in temp contacts for a while. That would actually be a much easier extension to code, as well. I can't see any serious anti-real-time-zombie issues arising from that, and it WOULD help a lot in cases where you do mass DNA scans and such. It also seems an easier thing to implement via an extension.  Swiers 21:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically I (usually) put a zombie in my contacts when I open their profile, and I (usually) don't when they're a survivor. So if it auto-added every time you click a profile link, it'd end up clearing out the zombies you want there for a bit and replacing them with survivors that you don't. Besides, if it wouldn't be 100% automatic anyway, I'd like to be able to pick and choose who I add. And I think there'd be instances where someone would avoid clicking a profile link just because they don't want a contact dropped off the list. --Ms.Panes 01:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Give options for the auto-add?

• always on profile open
• only on zombie profile open
• only on survivor profile open
• never

I'd be happy for a separate contact list that would automatically drop the oldest when it's full, even if you'd have to add the contacts manually. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. :) Problem solved! --Ms.Panes 01:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a very reasonable idea. One of the main annoyances to using the contact list for shirt-term purposes is REMOVING contacts you don't care about any more. This would solve that problem, and perhaps even result in smaller contact lists over all. It also avoids the "auto add" feature that annoys Karek so. I like it enough to write it up, thanks!  Swiers 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Suggestion Voting Discussion

Worthwhile?

I've read the suggestion a couple of times now, but I just don't understand why this is needed, or how it would help? As it stands right now, there is already a Temporary Contact system in place of sorts. What I mean by this is, if you are being attacked, the profile is already linked (ie. Zombie clawed you for 3 damage).

As well, if you are going to revive someone, you scan them and then push the Revive this specimen. Could you explain this a bit further for me so that I can have a better understanding? Cheers --Ryiis 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Say a zombie attacks you. You get a link to his profile, but that alone does nothing; you have to add the zombie as a contact to actually single that zombie out for attacks, or in fact to even see if the same zombie is still present at your location. So you open the profile and add them to your contact list... and then a few months later, have 50+ contacts that you don't really need, but aren;t sure you should get rid of. The same goes double for reviving. Say you scan somebody, but aren't 100% sure you want to revive them- instead, you want to scan a few more folks to see if maybe there is a better candidate. So again, you open the profile and add them to your contact list... and again, end up with a bunch of contacts you don't know what to do with.
In effect, the TC's would act as a "short term memory" that lets you recognize dead characters you have had significant interactions with (IE, viewed the profiles of and choosen to add as TCs). Currently you CAN do that by adding them to your normal contact list, but it creates a lot of clutter down the road. Besides increasing user friendliness, reduced contact clutter would also mean reduced server load.  Swiers 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Making the contact list bigger is a survivor buff, they need contact lists zombies actually would do just fine without it, or at least wouldn't be effected at all because they have no reason to add contacts beyond friends and people they like/know. Survivors actually get a use out of the contacts list.--Karek^maps?! 05:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Karek, would you object if the main contact list was cut to 140 to compensate? --Ms.Panes 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Very few people want or need to have 150 contacts, so there is little to be gained from effectively having 10 more. And yeah, the main list could be cut to 140 to "compensate", although that seemed unneeded for this suggestion. I personally use MORE contacts as a zombie than as a survivor, but maybe I'm unusual. Anyhow, this may in fact make the game easier to play as a survivor, but I don't think that hurts zombie players any. If a survivor player can get through their game play faster, they might have time to try the game as a zombie, for example.  Swiers 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was directed at Karek. Lemme fix that. I certainly would be fine with leaving the main list at 150 contacts. I'm just wondering if cutting it would change Karek's opinion any. --Ms.Panes 03:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. My reply was also directed to karek, hence it had equal indentation to yours.  Swiers 04:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can come up with a way that doesn't damage the game, sure. But I really don't think the contacts list, of all thing, need a buff in any way.--Karek^maps?! 05:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How about in the contacts menu it tells you how many open slots you have, and you'd have as many temps contacts as slots you were willing to give up in your main list. There could be an announcement in the game news or something explaining how to use the temp contacts thing. So, if your list is already full, you'd have to delete a few before you could use the temp contact list. Any other problems you can think of? Anyway, it's not about "buffing" the contacts list, it's about making it less annoying to use. --Ms.Panes 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)