User:Bluish wolf

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Characters: Roderick Nathaniel (http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=750139)

Dual nature.JPG Dual Nature
This User or Group supports the Dual Nature Policy & believes that the citizens of Malton should embrace their two-fold nature.

... There also should be two places for groups on your character sheet.


Firefox.png Firefox User
This user uses Firefox.
TUMBLEWEED-aikido-river'n-stuff.gif Supporter of No Tactics
I have no clue what I'm doing.
Un-w.png Project UnWelcome Member
Need help? Piss off.
TheOpportunists s.png The Opportunists
This user or group supports opportunistic behavior.

Some suggestion ideas I came up with. Hopefully someone will read this and improve on them. I can only hope.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070503_Looting

Two Group Affiliations

Timestamp: Bluish wolf 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: User page change
Scope: Everyone.
Description: In your user page, you are able to type in a group that you are associated with, similar to guilds in most RPGs. Now, most RPGs don't allow you to switch sides when you die. So, I don't see why you can only have one group when most groups are either pro-survivor or pro-zombie. Much like how your description changes when you die, you should have two group affiliations - one for when you are alive and one for when you are undead. This way, you encourage players to work together without "locking" them into one side or the other.

Discussion

The problem is, group affiliation really means nothing in Urban Dead. Anyone can type anything in there.--Pesatyel 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but that isn't the problem I'm trying to fix.--Bluish wolf 04:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Then what IS the problem you are trying to fix? If my survivor has a group affiliation, say "Caiger Survivors" you believe it should change if I become a zombie? If that is the case as I, and Mold, pointed out, you can already do this. The thing you seem to be suggesting is that there be two "group affiliations" on the character page, as with the character's description.--Pesatyel 06:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You could also change your character's appearance manually, but the game does it automatically. Same concept. I mean, if your a survivor who died and became a zombie, you really aren't a "Caiger Survivor" anymore, are you? If your a zombie, then you're obviously not going to be helping the survivors. I'm suggesting that your group affiliation should change in relation to your current state. If you are in one of those groups that have both zombie and survivor members, you can simply put the same group name in both of them.--Bluish wolf 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, your saying if you have group affiliation A as a survivor and you become a zombie, you should be FORCED to change it to group affiliation B? If that isn't the case, I'm not understand your suggestion. As it stands now, when you create your character, you have the "survivor appearance" box and the "zombie appearance" box. If you enter something, you can put WHATEVER you want, including the same information in both boxes. What you appear to be suggesting is that there be a "survivor group affiliation" and a "zombie group affiliation" box, but you HAVE to put something different in them. No same information. But the fact of the matter is, unlike Nexus War or other similar games, GROUP AFFILIATION MEANS NOTHING. I can type in WHATEVER I want WHENEVER I want. It means nothing. If you walked into a a building and began reading profiles and saw most of the people there had the group affiliation "MPD" you could do the same and who would know? Not to mention all the non-group affiliated people that could be there at the same time. Unless something gets added to the game that allows people to control buildings or otherwise gives some function to group affiliation (or makes group affiliations visible on the map), this suggestion is utterly useless.--Pesatyel 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I already gave up on the idea, so enough out of you. Go make a suggestion to get rid of the group box entirely, since you seem to think it's useless.--Bluish wolf 08:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You can already do this manually, there's nothing to stop you from changing your group listing any time you switch modes. Automation would be nice, but it's really not needed. And this sort of automation might get a harsh reaction from the people that believe in zombie spies (which are just a bad joke, really) and see them everywhere, and death cultists (which are a legitimate threat). --Mold 06:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should have it so that you can still see both groups. Then, if they belong to a known death cultist group, it would still be listed when they are a zombie and you know not to revive them.--Bluish wolf 06:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
RE what you said to Pesatyel - Ever heard of pavement-diving? What about revive queues? It's actually not all that common for characters involved in the metagame and allied with groups to switch allegiances when they switch forms. More often they just try to get back to what they consider their proper form and get back into action. You sure don't see Mall Tour '07 members jumping up to man the barricades and pass out FAKs all around when some fool combat-revives one; nor do DEM members start eating old friends when they get dropped (in fact DEM runs one of the best revival systems around, if you weren't aware). Not many people who bother to be in a group at all would be in two different groups, or in a group in one form and unaffiliated in the other.
RE what you said to me - That's hopelessly idealistic of you. My main character (and the one I take my wiki name from) belongs to a known death cultist group and he gets revived fairly frequently, others in the group also get stuck with syringes all the time. And it's not like we change or try to hide our group affiliation, we're all quite obvious, loud and proud of what we do. Many people are just too careless to pay attention to group affiliation. --Mold 12:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

there are plenty of groups that take both zombie and survivor members. i find this whole thing un-needed.--Blood Panther 07:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I guess I could join the Malton Zookeepers and stand around in a zoo all day. There really aren't any good zombie/survivor groups.--Bluish wolf 08:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
And yet the Malton Zookeepers are at #10 for biggest group on the stat page. so i guess lots of people think the group is good.--Blood Panther 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I had considered something like this a while ago, but from a different angle. Namely, you should be able to join both a group, and an ORGANIZATION. For example, all those "Malton Fire Department" members could put "Department of Emergency Managment" in their organization field. Organizations would be tracked in a similar, but separate, list from groups. IMO such an implementation makes sense, but isn't really all that crucial to game play. Nor is this one. --S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 14:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be opposed to my idea, I'll just give up. Meh, metagaming's probably overrated, anyway.--Bluish wolf 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say, even if the other morons do not. All you want is the option to put a different Group for zombie and survivor the same way that each can have a different appearance that chnages automartically when you die. Although this can be done "manually" each time an alt dies/revives there is no reason for it not be automatic. That said, I doubt too many people would make use of such a feature, but I wanted you to know at least one person understood your idea... --SporeSore 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I'd use this if it was there. And if you wanted to keep groupa affiliation on death... why not just put the same affiliation in both boxes? --Gene Splicer 13:12, 25 March 2007 (BST)
This woulda saved The Drunken Dead, the RCDC and plenty of other groups a helluva lot of wasted time and pointless drama.--Dread Lime 19:15, 28 March 2007 (BST)

I would vote keep for this suggestion if it gets posted. I for one change my play completely depending on if I am a survivor or zombie. It is completely out of genre and flavor to just move to a revive queue when you die, a zombie would never do this, it would turn around and eat its friends. Conversersly a revived survivor should try to stay alive and play as a survivor. Automatically having your group affiliation change along with your description would be useful and consistent. For those that don't want this, why not suggest that the dual descriptions be removed in favor of a single one so that we can just change it manually every time we die or get revived. --Gm0n3y 19:01, 28 March 2007 (BST)

I think this is a dupe of something in peer reviewed. --Jon Pyre 09:26, 2 April 2007 (BST)


Doors should be first

Timestamp: Bluish wolf 12:01, 27 March 2007 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Zombies.
Description: The previous MoL suggestion made me think about ways to make doors easier on low level zombies. Then, it hit me. After getting through all those barricades, newbie zombies have to wait for someone to open the door. It should be the other way around. Then, high level zombies can simply open a bunch of doors. If a newbie happens along and actually succeeds in breaking the barricades, they can immediately begin feasting on brains. Doors could be closed by survivors, of course, but only if they aren't any barricades or if the survivor is outside.

Discussion That actually makes sense except doors open inwards so you have to break the cade to open the door! Of course as you can't break doors you can't get to the cades to smash em... sadly common sense just wont work on this one really! Personally i would rather see doors form the 'loose' section of cades and all survivors able to build up to the top of 'light'... MOL should have its purpose shifted to make it a requisite for attacking Gennies etc! Won't happen but...--Honestmistake 12:49, 27 March 2007 (BST)

  • But wouldn't this defeat the purpose of doors. As it is now, doors are a last line of defense against the low level zombies. If this were implanted, closing doors would be 'spend 1 AP to make any passing zed spend 1 AP'. That's not really good enough in a game, where zombies have the AP-advantage in anything but defending. - BzAli 21:27, 27 March 2007 (BST)
    • You mean spend 0 AP. You get to close doors for free when you initially barricade.--Bluish wolf 23:14, 27 March 2007 (BST)
      • well if you take the door as being a loose cade and allow all survivors to reinforce it upto light, that gives 4 levels that zeds need to get through which given the number of MOL zeds is probably better than a door! Consider also that this boosts newb zeds too as it would mean they have a chance to get in without help and they can get a few xp in the process! MOL would still be very useful if it was a pre-req for attacking gennies and radios while construction would still be required for any serious attempt to fortify a safe house!--Honestmistake 09:36, 28 March 2007 (BST)
  1. Kill -as Bzali --AlexanderRM 01:05, 3 April 2007 (BST)
  • You realize this isn't actually up for voting, right?--Bluish wolf 01:29, 10 April 2007 (BST)

So... I hear you like mudkips? -- Firemanrik 16:14, 1 June 2007 (BST)


Personal tools
advertisements