User talk:David Malfisto

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Contents 1 David, Wiki Vandel! 2 Regarding the Elite Skill Suggestion 3 Laser Sight 4 Dupe Syringe Manufacture Suggestion 5 Survivors are more powerful than Zombies 6 Policy Voting

[edit] David, Wiki Vandel!

Please do not edit other users Userpages without their permission. If you continue this behaviour, you may be banned from editing this wiki. The edit in question is here. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 16:13, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Re: First of all: The reason I warned you was because owner of that page, AllStarZ, reported you on Moderation/Vandal_Banning#David_Malfisto. I didn't revert your edit because he hadn't done so himself.
Secondly: After checking the policy documents/guidelines, it seems that we do not actually have clear, written rules about User pages. We seem to have only this. But consensus is that User pages should not be edited by anyone else, regardless of content (with few exceptions, like fixing wiki-technical matters and similar). There are quite many Userpages that are far, far, far more offensive than AllStarZ's.
Anyway, I'm going to pull out the warning, since it seems you were acting in good faith. I'll look into getting the policy documents updated though. Oh and the warning text... That's just the standard warning message, albeit modified a bit. The original is here.
And on complete other matters, you seem to have a shadow talk page at User_talk:DavidMalfisto :D You might want to copy the content here and put that one to Moderation/Speedy Deletions.--Brizth ^{mod T W!} 20:45, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Ah thank you for clearing that up. Do I have to move the shadow talk page :P I prefere to keep my wiki voting comments seperate from my main discussion page - even if I don't use either much.

Well, yes. We try to keep user namespace free of non-existing users, ie. pages that don't have user contributions link on them. See Speedy_Deletions#Speedy_Deletion_Eligibility criterion 11. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 21:34, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Ok, done.

[edit] Regarding the Elite Skill Suggestion

I can't respond to your comment on the suggestions page there, so I'm putting it here. See, searching is a not a one-step process. It's a two-step one. First, the server determines whether of not you find something. If you do, the server then randomly determines what you found, from a list of items available. (Some items appear on the list multiple times in cases where the find rates of certain items need to be raised or lowered.) So, while it ends up as a percentage that isn't in increments of 5%, it isn't coded that way. Also, in case you bring up the flare as evidence to support your case, the percentage of that is divided by two. That's why Basic Firearms Training increases the percentage to 15%, rather than 27.5%. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:54, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I realise that is the case. But there's still no reason "divide by" conditions couldn't be put in place for new content.

[edit] Laser Sight

On your comment on laser sight. I'm glad you agree with me, as ransack and powered searches were two different suggestions made by different people at different times. Kevan combined them as an update later. making sure that the game was better for all.--Vista ^W! 12:11, 7 May 2006 (BST)

True, and I'm awear of that as well. But both suggestions give the other side something to do - attack generators to remove a surivor advantage or unransack buildings. This suggestion just makes the generator (already a good target for zombies) even more valuable to both sides - which detracts from the human-zombie conflict.

I agree that this was a bad suggestion, And I voted kill on it because it didn't help the game. But I don't think it was a bad suggestion for simply targeting one side, as I got the impresion HerrStefantheGreat did. Not every mechanic has to be for both sides. To be a good suggestion, we want to improve the overall health of the game. A lot of updates made the game better by just improving one side, the zombie hand-attack revision, feeding groan, etc. Adding debt to a side helps the overall game, even if the other side gets left out by that suggestion. You do have to make sure that the fun balance of playing both sides stay relatively the same, But by adding something only or mainly for the other side somewhat later that should be no problem. Why artificially limit your options in improving the game? --Vista ^W! 22:21, 7 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] Dupe Syringe Manufacture Suggestion

You appereantly haven't read my vote. That conveniance effects game balance. as a lot of people use manufacture more then searching.--Vista ^W! 20:15, 7 May 2006 (BST)

I'd like to see some sort of poll as to how many users still use manufacturing over searching. Do you? Few players I know do.

shows you know sensible players. while a poll whould be nice we wouldn't be able to get a represantative sample, so we'll have to do with the stat tracker page page. and luckily my work has already been done for me.

Just as the population curves had flattened and stabilized, NecroNet Access was introduced on 19 Jan, and with it, manufacturing of revival syringes. A large number of players who previously eschewed searching for random syringe drops began actively making needles and putting them to use at the queued-up revive points, and the population began to shift heavily back in the direction of the survivors (many of whom were active zombies revived involuntarily).

With the introduction of increased AP cost to use those syringes, however, the trend once again fishtailed. Survivor numbers are down to an all-time low and zombie numbers are up (though not to their all-time high). For the last week at least, however, we appear to be in something like a stable configuration.

-Dan Curtis Johnson aka elderdan

Now I agree with him, and I guess most people you've talked about are either necro's or other experienced players. Now currently reviving is balanced, numbers percantages, etc. are stable, The longer wait time to get a revive means that death means more then just an AP burn again, and that lets survivors remember to be careful and try to do honor to the name survivor. lowering the cost would not help necro's or other experienced player as they would keep searching for better results. But it would again draw in the trenchcoaters and other people who couldn't be asked to go to the trouble of searching, and you'll probably agree with me that there are a lot off those. Now the 10AP use cost whould make the effect different then last time, when we had a swing of well over 10 percentage points, But seeing the enourmous effects that changes in the availabilaty and AP cost of syringes has I'm not willing to gamble, certianly not since the health of the game is the best it's ever been in my 8 months of play. well that my input and i apolagise for the lenght of it.--Vista ^W! 22:44, 7 May 2006 (BST)

The cited stat tracker page is somewhat irrelevant. When syringe manufacture was introduced the convience was well worth the extra AP cost. Now we have boosted search rates I think it's another kettle of fish entirely. Also, given the number of Zombie Buffs (much needed by the way) one cannot simply look at the stats page to see the effect of increasing the search percentages in powered buildings would have on the revive rate - suddenly easier supplies makes playing humans more attractive, while resent sackings of NecroTech buildings in the wake of the 10 AP revive means it will be some time (if ever) if we can see if boosting the find rate of syringes will have any meaningful effect on the revive rate. Personally, I think 10 AP to make a syringe is a little cheap - but it's hardly something for nothing considering the investment needed to hold a powered necrotech building and have all 3 NecroTech skills (which net no meaningful XP). Granted the AP cost for revives cannot come down without a zombie buff (as most newbies will make syringes rather than find them) but this would be a great pretext to give zombies and revivers a buff. David Malfisto 18:10, 9 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] Survivors are more powerful than Zombies

For the love of god, stop being such a n00b. 58% Survivors vs 42% Zombies. Zombies are underpowered not survivors. David Malfisto 22:04, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Ok, numbers have nothing to do with a group being over-under powered. It has everything to do with tools at thier disposial. Most of those are level 1s that just started anyway.--Labine50 ^MHG 22:18, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Removing all the level 1 players: 15 716 Survivors (54%) 13 424 Zombies (46%) Would you look at that - Zombies are still underpowered - by a good two thousand players. Now your arguement is that it takes twice as much AP for a human to recover from being killed than it does for a zombie to return to the fight. It's actually more like three times the amount. On the flip side, it takes maxed out Zombies four times the AP to knock down barricades that can be put up by a survivor with a single skill. David Malfisto 22:53, 8 June 2006 (BST)

[From Labine50's page]

Where did you get those numbers? Stats? If you look at class breakdown (not just standing ones), you'll see this: Total survivors = 28642, total zombies = 15058. Nice huh? Those standing ones also have Mrh-cows included. --Niilomaan 23:16, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Ok, I just used the standing stats because I didn't want to factor in dead and reviving bodies (there are about half as many reviving as dead). Given the fact that by class break down, the gap between Zombies and Survivors is even bigger than going by the standing break down, I'd say that makes my point even more nicely - it is indeed Zombies who are underpowered. 23 379 (63%) to 13 528 (37%) after level 1s have been removed. Thus it's fair to say, zombies do need a buff. - David Malfisto 01:04, 9 June 2006 (BST)

I would once more like to point out, wther or not your a minority group in this game has nothing to do with group numbers, it has everything to do with organisation, and tools at your dissposil.--Labine50 MHG 02:15, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Exactly! And as Zombies can't organise themselves without metagaming, they obviously need more tools at their disposal compared to the survivors currently dominating the game! I'm glad you agree that zombies do need more skills. David Malfisto 10:47, 9 June 2006 (BST)

yes because survivors can infect zombies, Survivors can ransack buildings so that zombies can't find any thing until all 8 survivors are cleared out, survivers curently control more suburbs...and just replace "survivors" with "zombies" and vice versa, and you have the current state of the game.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 15:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Hey David, how exactly how do you respond to that kind of blatant, willful ignorance that Labine50 exemplifies? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:43, 9 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Policy Voting

if you are going to admit that you don't know what the change is going to do, don't vote.--Gage 06:42, 15 September 2006 (BST)

I would have to agree with Gage, the other option is to change your vote to yes, I've also left a comment on your vote as well which basicaly says that you were right that it's a threat that I'll quit moving suggestions if it's not changed. Since no one else wants to move them then I might as well get my way. - Jedaz - 05:13/7/09/2008 10:17, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Here's an idea, if you're complaining that people aren't helping you - you might want to stop and think "hey, maybe not everyone is as big a wiki geek as me. Just maybe they don't understand what to do. Maybe they would help out if they could and had the time. Maybe if I didn't act like an ass, I wouldn't be the only person moving suggestions". How many people do you really think understood what your proposed template change would do? David Malfisto 21:08, 17 September 2006 (BST)

Ok, I'm sorry if I came off like an elitist, I didn't mean to and I've just been very frustrated with the system and really want it change. In response to what you said, there are clear guidelines on the suggestions pages as to how to move suggestions so if people wanted to help the can quite easily read up on it, and if they still don't know they can ask. Secondly at one stage I stopped moving suggestions for two weeks, I belive that would have been enough time for at least someone to attempt to sort at least one days worth of suggestions, but no one did. So as you can see from my point it doesn't seem as if anyone wishes to help with that part of the suggestions system.

I do admit that some people moved their own suggestions into Peer Reviewed, however it ends up causing more of a headache the it's worth because they don't bother to move the whole days worth of suggestions. So I spend time figguring out if somethings going into peer reviewed only to find that it's already in there. Oh, and also you don't get anyone really congratulating you, saying "Good Job" every so often so thats another reason why I'm bitter about it all. Anyway it won't matter soon because I'll just stop moving them for a while and I'll see if anyone wants to try. I honestly belive and still do belive that the reason that no one wants to try is because it's so hard to move the suggestions due to the way the tempate is set out. Hence the change. - Jedaz - 05:13/7/09/2008 01:59, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Good Job. Someone's gotta do it, and you're right, you don't get the credit you deserve. But, I'm looking at the Suggestions page now and I don't see instructions on moving a suggestion. Also, it doesn't change the fact that you didn't explain what your template change would do. Sorry, because I know I'm coming off as an ass here. - David Malfisto 17:44, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Thanks. So yeah, here it is. There are more instructions on the other pages as to what to change the template to and so fourth. I see your point about not explaing how it'ld help, so we are good? No bad blood between us? - Jedaz - 05:13/7/09/2008 02:44, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Of course not. David Malfisto 16:53, 26 September 2006 (BST)