Suggestion talk:20080220 Necronet Registry

From The Urban Dead Wiki

As Swiers said: "Once enough zombies with brain rot did this (and I'd make it my sworn duty to ensure they could, by doing Rot Revives) the ability would be totally useless." Maybe it would be a good Idea to have the Registry time out after X amount of days, I would suggest thirty. --Alphonse Burr 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why make it expire at all? So what if every zombie in Malton registered? At least then nobody can whine about combat revives... they were asking for them after all. --Uncle Bill 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Which makes Brainrot all that much more useless. If you really want something like this, do it via the metagame. See this brainstock thread for an idea on how that could be done.  Swiers 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Swiers, but I'm not sure how this would make brain rot any less of a skill. Thank you for the thread by the way. It’s a very interesting concept. Are you trying to say that because brain rotted zombies won’t be on the list, it will be harder for them to be revived? I thought brain rot was meant to keep zombies as zombies. Please clarify if you will. --Alphonse Burr 19:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rotters

Brain rotters would not be counting in the number of registered zombies, unless inside a powered necrotech. Come on, the fact they're brain rotted is in the system. The database would be designed to exclude them. - I'll admit I missed that the first time through. Still, every NON rotted zombie and PKer in the game would go on the registry. And where does this leave the games 200-300 hard working brain rotted survivors, and all the brain rot revive clinic workers? They get no help from this. Most of them are NOT PKers, and almost none of them are zombie spies (they'd be horrible at that job).  Swiers 05:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that rotter survivors and rot revivers wont gain any benefit, but is it mandatory that they do gain some? I highly respect both of these parties for their RP dedication, but they’re not losing anything, their just not gaining any benefit. PKers would get on the list, but there is always the rogue gallery, and if said reviver doesn’t check the rogue gallery, then they suffer the same risk of reviving a PKer at a revive point. (Note: There is nothing wrong with being a PKer anyway. Its not as if it’s some sort of sin to revive them, even if they may come back and kill their reviver later.) --Alphonse Burr 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that its another aspect of the proposed game-rule mechanics that does not reflect game-world logic. Necrotech has the technology needed to revive rotters, so if they have a revive registry, wouldn't they put rotters on it? Or at least have the show up as registered when inside a powered NT building?
And yes, without that, this could easily make things harder for rotters who try to get revives. A common way for a rotter to get revived is to break into a powered NT and use death rattle to request a revive. If most players are used to seeing how many zombies in a location are registered for revives, they would not see that request, and so would be inclined to think the zombie was not sincere in his request. Players more familiar with the mechanics might realize what was up, but this would still decrease the pool of potential revivers who help rotters.  Swiers 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Suggestion says in the notes that rotted zombies would show up on the list if, and only if, they are within an NT building. In fact it happens to be the first line of your first post here:"Brain rotters would not be counting in the number of registered zombies, unless inside a powered necrotech." So, they should have a chance to be revived, just like normal. Now that I think about it, it would let revive clinic personnel tell if a zombie actually wishes to be revived, or if he is just a stray zombie in the building (I'm not sure how often that happens, but it couldn't hurt could it?). That is, unless I've horribly misunderstood something. Have I misunderstood something? --Alphonse Burr 00:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, your right. I just didn't read fully. Still don't think I like it, but its reasonably self consistant.  Swiers 00:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)