User talk:Kevan/Archive

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Regarding Namespaces

Is it at all possible to Change the current project namespace from "The_Urban_Dead_Wiki" to something a little shorter, like "UDWiki"? It occurs to me that there is a great deal of stuff that we should be putting in that namespace, that I've been loathe to do because of the really long namespace. I don't think I have the ability to do this myself, unfortunately, but it's a pretty simple change (adjust the variable $wgSitename in LocalSettings.php, and the Project namespace should change with it, or adjust variable $wgMetaNamespace in LocalSettings.php to change the namespace without changing the project name). -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 04:01, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

What do you mean - article subdirectories like The Urban Dead Wiki/Moderation/Vandal Banning? A bit reluctant to make the change because it'd presumably change the <title> tags on all pages, but maybe I'm just underappreciating the need for subdirectories. --Kevan 10:57, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Sorry for the lack of reply. Adjusting $wgMetaNamespace will only change the project Namespace, it won't change the actual title of the wiki, if you're only concerned like that. Stuff like Vandal banning would probably be under UDwiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning, as opposed to what would instead be The Urban Dead wiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning.
This, of course, assumes that we want to use the project namespace for it's intended purpose (and that's meta-discussions and a place for administration). If it's too much of a bother, the current system is really working fine. I just thought it'd look prettier. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 01:07, 11 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] Hit Limit

Hey Kevan. I want to let you know that this is a great game you have here, but I'm just wondering, as are the folks at the Hit Limit how many IP hits manufacturing a syringe uses.

Thanks, Darth Sensitive 23:27, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

It's twenty, the same as the AP required, unless there's a bug somewhere. --Kevan 10:57, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Just wanted to thank you for actually answering my question. Just wondering, is that something that changed at some point? I ask because when manufacturing was first introduced it seemed like it didn't count for as many hits.
Thanks again,
Darth Sensitive 07:38, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
Yeah, it was an aspect I'd overlooked for a few days. It can be a bit harsh when unexpected, though, I'm thinking of changing things so that performing any action that would take you below zero AP or above your maximum IP hits would be unclickable. --Kevan 22:03, 30 March 2006 (BST)
Hmm,I dunno. It would kind of annoy those who stand up or manufature a syringe before leaving the computer for whatever reason for a few days. -- Andrew McM W! 22:14, 30 March 2006 (BST)
Might I suggest asking the user to confirm that they wish to make the choice? Like with jumping from a window. That way it isn't a rude shock to those who aren't expecting it, but can still work from those who want to milk the most out of their time.
Darth Sensitive 22:26, 30 March 2006 (BST)

[edit] Characters on same IP - question

I hope you don't mind me asking here, but I had a question about characters operating on the same IP address. You see, my brother had been playing Urban Dead for a while and finally encouraged me to play. We're both really enjoying the game, but we know that we can't play together because the game would penalize us for working as a team. I was wondering if there was anyway that both my brother and I could play together without penalty (maybe donate for both characters?). Thanks for your time --Bioweapon 02:12, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I think even if you donate the anti-zerging penalties will still apply if you work too closely. You should probably use two computers. --Zaruthustra-Mod 21:32, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
The problem is that we are already on two different computers, just on the same network. I was wondering if there was some way we could use the same network to play together (and I'm positive it's counting us as alts; when one of our computers reaches the hit limit, the other does too). --Bioweapon 02:58, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Sorry, I'm afraid there's not. If I give free reign to players who share the same IP address, I'd also be giving free reign to anyone who wanted to create a mob of multiple characters. (And yes, donating doesn't make any difference, giving free reign to people with more money would have an even worse taste.) --Kevan 21:38, 3 April 2006 (BST)
Since Alt abuse is so under-patrolled, that's exactly what you do. -- Amazing 18:43, 10 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] Amazing Promoted to Moderator

User:Amazing, an individual noted for enciting extreme amounts of drama and ill-will among the user base, was promoted by User:Odd Starter directly to moderatorship. Amazing had previously put himself up for promotion and was so loudly shouted down that he withdrew his candidacy within hours. The reasons given for the promotion were insufficient. They amount to, simply, "I'm tired of dealing with his bullshit so let's see how well he moderates." This is extremely poor reasoning on the Odd Starter's part, and highly irresponsible: if someone has a history of firing bullets around willy-nilly, you simply do not give him a machine gun to see if he can aim better. Further, this sets a horrible precedent. Now, any individual who makes several vandal reports and accusations a day, has a history of contempt for the moderators (including openly disregarding moderator and arbitrator decisions) can expect to be "rewarded" with moderatorship. I think this sends a very poor message to the wiki users as a whole: poor behavior leads to promotion. On another note, the promotion bypassed the standard sysop promotion mechanism. In theory, sysops are to be vetted by the public; this is a dictatorial decision and goes against the spirit of community (especially when the community as a whole has stated that Amazing is not moderator material). Since you are the highest authority here - the only one higher than Odd Starter - I do not know where else to bring this up. It is obvious that complaining to Odd Starter will not bring about any sort of resolution (I mean, why complain to the perpetrator?) so I must take this directly to you.--Jorm 06:38, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I should note that I have not yet taken any actions as a Moderator, so preconcieved judgement of this promotion is without merit. Also, the rules on the Promotion page are unclear as to what "goes through this page" means. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 06:48, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Unless you feel like wading waist deep through forum bullshit, just leave this to us. It'll get taken care of. Odd isn't going to hold the wiki hostage or anything. --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:01, 7 April 2006 (BST)
The case has been referred to misconduct however. Since you are the only person greater in "ranking" than him it would be helpful if you at least looked it over and gave us your opinion on the matter, even if you decide not to get involved in a meaningful manner. My thanks in advance. --Grim s 09:37, 7 April 2006 (BST)
All done before you could even wake up, bang on. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:47, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Thanks, I'll see how the Misconduct thing goes, I'd like to think that peer management was the best way for the wiki to look after itself. Such an opposed player being promoted as a joke or a lesson or a drunken bet is a concern, though (particularly when Amazing has made sweary email threats to me in the past, saying that he intends to undermine the game). Hopefully I won't have to rethink the moderation system for the wiki. --Kevan 08:20, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Oh great. Saying that I very much disagreed with his actions and that I was getting my own browser-based game going where players wouldn't be treated like crap is "undermining the game". Now I see the fish rots from the head. -- Amazing 18:41, 10 April 2006 (BST)
No, you specifically claimed that the only reason you were still playing Urban Dead every day was just to bide your time and suddenly suck out its player-base into your own UD-style game. This attitude seems a fair enough reason for not wanting you to have admin-level abilities on the official game wiki. --Kevan 02:08, 11 April 2006 (BST)
lol - I don't think anyone here is following me anywhere. I don't understand how an "Open Alpha" new game could be a threat to UD, but whatever man. -- Amazing 01:13, 12 April 2006 (BST)
No, quite, I didn't understand it either. That was pretty much verbatim, though, minus the swearing - you weren't just casually chatting about your dragon game, you were making bitter, furious threats, and heaping abuse on me and my game. So I'd rather you weren't a moderator on the official game wiki, thanks. --Kevan 04:19, 12 April 2006 (BST)
I'm sorry that you see voicing concerns about the game's mechanics and playablity as abuse. Also, I said nothing of my "Dragon Game" since it wasn't even a thought back then. I said I might make a UD-style zombie game, to which you replied that the Zombie craze was "over". I guess that explains some things, though. Also, I never made any threats at all. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from saying things like that. If I had e-mailed you a bunch of bitter, furious threats, I think you'd do more than tell me no one cares about Zombies anymore and sit back doing nothing about these 'threats' until this very day. Anyway, I really have nothing more to say to you except.. you know.. feel free to back up that "Threats" thing, because that's an actual criminal allegation. -- Amazing 04:31, 12 April 2006 (BST)
Concerns are fine and welcome, sweary capslock personal attacks are abuse. (And I imagine I just said that society was at the "tail end" of the 2005 zombie renaissance, rather than writing it off that strongly.) But the threats I'm talking about are just the player-base-stealing ones, I don't mean to imply anything more than that. --Kevan 05:56, 12 April 2006 (BST)
Though I'm flattered you think that someone with an upstart Alpha game can steal your someodd-thousand players, I think even those who dislike me so thoroughly on this Wiki will agree I'm not a sweary capslock type of guy. Sweary? Maybe, but Capslock is vulgar beyond profanity. Sorry you took offense at anything I may have said - but really "bullshit" is one of the few words that fits some of the choices you've made at the expense of the enjoyment of your devoted players. Oh well, whatevaz. I suppose time will tell. -- Amazing 20:08, 15 April 2006 (BST)
Oh, I never thought your alpha game was a threat, I just think that the sort of person who makes hollow, upset threats against a game probably isn't ideal for a position of minor power on that game's wiki. And don't worry, I didn't take offence, only weary amusement. But I'm pretty sure that 'PRICK' (with thirty Rs) was in capital letters. --Kevan 01:37, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Kevan, if it were to be possible, could you deliver a final verdict on this matter on the Misconduct page, and end this once and for all? --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:52, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Let it rest TeeHee, the final verdict can't be any clearer than the things displayed before us now. I was never too fond of giving Amazing Mod rights in the first place, but there are limits to delivering blows beneath the belt.. no offense to you whatsoever.--Vykos 21:58, 8 April 2006 (BST)
(Considering Info displayed by TheTeeHeeMonster in my [User Talk Page I take back some of my comments towards TeeHee above, resulting in:) Yes, a sign of closure from the hands of the Mod/Admin team would indeed be appreciated.--Vykos 22:12, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Right. Amazing believes that his moderatorship is going to be re-instated because of Librariran Brent's position.--Jorm 03:29, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Amazing's modship isn't getting reinstated any time soon. Odd is no longer a bureaucrat so only Kevan could do it. Which is another way of saying it isn't going to happen. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:35, 9 April 2006 (BST)

However this does leave us in a peculiar situation. We need more moderators really, but now we have no way to promote them. Me and Odd were the only ones who are here regularly. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:40, 9 April 2006 (BST)

I've got the Promotions page on my watchlist, I'll administer any reasonable promotions that go through, for now. I will look at giving Bureaucrat status to some of the current, trusted moderators, though. --Kevan 03:59, 9 April 2006 (BST)
And I realize you won't honor your former Bureaucrat's vow to reinstate my Modship before you de-Bureaucrat'd him. (Since that would be the honorable thing to do, y'see) Same old same old. -- Amazing 18:41, 10 April 2006 (BST)
*snrk* --Lucero Capell 20:53, 10 April 2006 (BST)
You seem very unhappy here. In fact your last 100 edits were almost exclusively discussing how you've been wronged at this wiki. Perhaps your energies would be spent better elsewhere. --Zaruthustra-Mod 23:41, 10 April 2006 (BST)
What can I say? I reply to trolls like you. -- Amazing 01:13, 12 April 2006 (BST)



[edit] Proposal

As per the conversation on the talk page of the petition to ban the user Amazing, said user has agreed to cease and desist all trolling, baiting and flaming actions provided that the exact same standards be applied to but not limited those he has taken arbitration cases against concerning his person. I have agreed to examine and report all such incidents that would apply to the above and submit them to two unbiased mods for their approval on the pain of banishment if any involved party find me flagrantly abusing such a position towards a bias of any concerned party. The abuse would be determined by aformentioned mods or a predominance of the evidence. I ask for the approval and the enforcement of the agreement should all concerned parties agree to the terms. --Prosperina 05:55 23 April 2006 (BST)

Good luck with this, but I don't see that it needs (or gains anything from) me enforcing it; the two unbiased moderators would seem enough. --Kevan 08:24, 23 April 2006 (BST)
Thank you.--Prosperina 08:25 23 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] IPs

If theres any way we could view IPs so we could ban ranges that would be just super. Some guys been vandalizing the wiki for about 2 months now. Nothing more than a minor pain in the ass distributed over about 100 people, but it would be nice in general to be able to shut this kind of thing down. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:47, 8 April 2006 (BST)

That or you could use more Moderators who are on the Wiki more often. -- Amazing 07:25, 8 April 2006 (BST)
We have enough people to revert his vandalism, the point is that we want to prevent his coming back. --Zaruthustra-Mod 21:04, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Regarding the vandalism going on, moving pages is becoming a very popular and tough to revert form of it. Is there any way to disable regular wiki users from moving pages? It would make things a lot easier for us to clean up the messes. --Grim s 14:45, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah, it's a pain because you have to both revert the moved page back to normal on the page it has been moved to, and then move it back.--The General 21:08, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Or requiring email address validation would effectively slow this type of vandalism down to the point of being worthless. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:17, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Hm, it looks like there's a MediaWiki option to allow IP-range bans rather than single-IP, although it's not clear whether this automatically allows moderators to see IP addresses. I've not got access to the server that hosts the Wiki at the moment, but I'll have a kick around when I do. --Kevan 03:55, 12 April 2006 (BST)
You don't host this on your own server? MaulMachine 12:57, 12 April 2006 (BST)
I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't - Urban Dead would require a pretty damn heavy-duty server, and that's even forgetting the wiki! -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 12:59, 12 April 2006 (BST)
Perhaps another reason why there is no official forum...MaulMachine 13:00, 12 April 2006 (BST)
The wiki's hosted on a separate server to the game, and I don't have call to access its config much. Having kicked around this morning, it seems the range-IP ban doesn't automatically allow moderators to see IP addresses; in fact I can't see any way for moderators to see IP addresses, in any of the MediaWiki documentation. And pulling IPs directly out of the database seems quite awkward, that they're tied to page changes rather than users, specifically. I'll continue to kick. --Kevan 02:43, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Not to try and put another thing on your plate (which is what I'm doing, but oh well), but when next you get the chance, would you consider upgrading MediaWiki to the newest version? There are several features which those of us who like to play around with templates have been missing (such as defaults for variables), though there are several other major changes and security fixes as well. --Lucero Capell 04:27, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Ah, okay, it's now on the plate. --Kevan 02:18, 16 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] Game Changes

Yes, I know you prefer not to talk about game changes, but I think the last two were what the game needed to be balanced... Thanks. Also, and this is the important one, what changes do you regret the most? Do you feel that you have ever made a mistake? For example, supply crates. 343 20:52, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Ha. Yes, I prefer not to talk about game changes. --Kevan 00:47, 14 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] Feeding Groan Bug

This bug is seeing extremely widespread use and as a consequence it is becoming very obnoxious and inconvenient. (For example, usually in the Caiger Mall area I have four pages of groans to scroll through every time I log on.) I figured I'd call your attention to it again, since hopefully it is simple to fix. To clarify, when a zombie is at 0 AP, they can impute ?groan into the navbar and spam unlimited Feeding Groan messages for 0 AP cost. I see about 10 or 15 feeding groans at the same time on every break-in, and I find it hard to believe that there are that 10 different zombies at every random warehouse 3S1E. --Tycho44 06:30, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks, yes, this was a simple fix, it should be fine now. --Kevan 06:29, 18 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] Mods

New moderators are ready to be processed. Which is good since I'm on a finals week(s) wiki vacation and its just the general hopping from one foot to the other. --Zaruthustra-Mod 18:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry to bother, I know you deserved a little peace and quiet after that update but Brizth's bid for moderator is ready for Processing.--Vista W! 13:16, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Conndraka and myself are ready for processing--Vista W! 00:36, 7 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] Attempt to find resolution and common ground

Because of the near perfect split on the discussion of Language an Offensive Users I created a page where maybe we can find an acceptable solution. If not, well at least I tried. Page can be found UDWiki:Moderation/Locational Language/Interaction I took on the mantle of responsible party so that even the MODs can state thier ideas and opinions. Conndraka 19:06, 22 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] Listing new users?

I noticed that wikipedia lists new users on their logs, with the help of wiki extension cunningly called Newuserlog. Can be found here. I was wondering if it could be installed. It would really help Project Welcome to help new users. At the moment recognising new users usually involves them doing something noticeably wrong.

Oh and the installation instuctions can be found here.

Thank you in advance, Brizth W! M T 17:14, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Great idea. It's hard to help new users without actually being sure of who they are. -- Andrew McM W! 19:19, 28 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] Stats page Zombie/Human percentages

From the 21st of April:

Standing Survivors : 19425 (50%)
Standing Zombies : 19425 (51%)

The built in rounding bias is showing :D --Grim s-Mod 05:57, 28 April 2006 (BST)

[edit] Incorrect tally.

In case you haven't been back already, I responded to your comment under UDWiki:Moderation/Promotions#Mia Kristos. Your tallying of the votes was incorrect, unless "For" doesn't count, but "Hell no" does. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:53, 9 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] Adbots

There is plenty of adbots roaming into the wiki nowadays. Most of them use just numbers as their user names. While this makes it easier to spot and remove them from the wiki, i think that we could get rid of them by simply banning all numbers only user names. Is there any way to do this ? --hagnat mod 00:28, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Ah, that's a thought. I'll look into it. --Kevan 04:54, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Hang on! What about 343? He's a person... --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 05:16, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Quoting Grim: -- <&The_Grimch> Actually, all adbot names are the same length, so just ban all numbers only that length -- I think that could work... hum... --hagnat mod 02:53, 30 May 2006 (BST)
Something to consider... by banning this, it will force those behind the adbots to do something different, something harder to notice (like choosing more random, alpha-numeric, names). Better the devil you know? Boxy 15:20, 1 June 2006 (BST)
Hey! You talked about me. Anywho, I know how bad those damned adbots can be, and I think stopping hem is important. Just like zerging, it is one of the worlds evils. 343 U! 15:27, 19 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Promotions *cough*

Just in case it slipped your mind, I'd like to direct your attention here. --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 05:02, 26 May 2006 (BST)

It had actually fallen out of my watchlist, somehow. Thanks, and thanks for the work on the wiki. --Kevan 12:45, 28 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] Bureaucrats

Now that the wiki has a sufficient number of moderators, you might want to look into making another Bureaucrat, to take the promotions of your hands.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 14:43, 1 June 2006 (BST)

Yeah, would be good to have a heavier wiki user weighing the moderation candidacies. Feel free to start a nomination-and-vote system for promoting a couple to bureaucrats. --Kevan 14:46, 1 June 2006 (BST)
Ok the page will be here. I'll start it today and finish it tommorow. Shall a model it on the current promotions system?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 15:02, 1 June 2006 (BST)
Done, you may wish to look over it before I add the link to the front page.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:05, 1 June 2006 (BST)
Seems fine, although reusing the exact moderator-promotion tone is probably wrong - we only need one reasonably-active bureaucrat at any given time, for the wiki to function, it's not something we need a big queue for (and it'd be more useful for me if the discussion ended with one agreed-best candidate being put forward for promotion, instead of half a dozen equally inoffensive ones). --Kevan 16:16, 1 June 2006 (BST)
Ok, I'll change it so that each moderator can nominate themselves and the one most universally agreed upon is promoted.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:37, 1 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] PH

Hey all, sorry to go to the top about this but there's been a large amount of frustration and concern about a group called the PH. They are resorting to zerging\cheating in the game and just don't seem to care about the rules regarding this. I'm hoping this can be looked into at some point and that some resolution can be reached soon. Whatever the decision, I appreciate your time looking into this. If you want to see some evidence, you can see what we have outlined at the PH_Extermination page. --Torvus 03:16, 2 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Something I Find Disturbing

Something I read on Grm s' talk page. I do believe his analysis of the situation is a sentiment shared by most zombie players. It's just a matter of how much each individual player will take before jumping ship. The lifeblood of the game is the community, and the community can't exist if the player base is dying out. With Desensitised being shut down, I don't see things getting any better anytime soon. Please, the next zombie buff should be soon and interesting, or UD may die. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:56, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I fully agree with what Grim s and Xoid are saying, even the hardcore zombies stopped playing. I mean, UD is a game based on two oppositions, if one goes, the game will die. Soon, the survivors will just go outside and scream for zombies to come attack them. --Changchad WTF•W!•SGP 12:16, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Yeah, it disturbs me as well, but I'm not sure how seriously to react to the fact that some of the longer-term, higher-profile players are reducing their presence, or how much I can expect to do about it. I've played a lot of online games, and it does seem inevitable that most people are going to have had enough of any game after nine or ten months of it. It'd be arrogant to think that Urban Dead was any different, that I'd be able to keep every single high-level player constantly interested and active forever.
I'll be watching the numbers, I'm always watching the numbers, I'm doing some background tweaks to encourage new players, I'm listening to feedback and Suggestions, and the next significant change to the game will be something for the zombies. But I think general game fatigue and player-base plateauing is something that's to be expected and accepted, rather than regarded as a problem that can be overcome entirely and indefinitely if only we were to use the right tools (particularly in such a niche-genre game as this, where I imagine we sucked in the majority of Internet's hardcore zombie fans in the first six months). I'm always open to suggestions, though. --Kevan 12:50, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Its my opinion that your powered searches change effectively killed the game. The game was, for all essential purposes, balanced. Maybe a minor tweak to some things to stabilise the percentages, but not much else. The change all but completely negated the effect of the 10ap to revive by making syringes far more common, and then when you pile on firearms on top of that and you have a very serious problem. The fact that ransack was completly and utterly useless (Not to mention almost insulting if what i heard was true: That a human got 1xp for cleaning it up). You say you are watching the numbers, but from the change you made recently and going from history, looking at the changes you made in November and early december (Surgury, Cell phones), it appears as though you dont give a rats arse about them. To be blunt, what i have seen is a string of poor changes that have had the net effect of fucking up the game and breaking the spirit of the long time zombies. It is, in my opinion, only a matter of time (And not much of it) before the game finally flatlines. Oh well. --Grim s-Mod 13:12, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Another thing i just noticed. If it was game fatigue causing the depletion of players, then it would be happening at a roughly equal rate on both sides of the game. The drop is entirely on the side of zombies, indicating that a lot of them are fed up with whats been happening (And the drop is more than a quarter of the number of zombies before powered search (Over 5000)). This isnt game fatigue as you meant it, but more of zombie players being completely sick and tired of being belted down by you for a grand total of ten months from eleven. We have given up on anything even appraching balance appearing in the game, and we have decided to move on. We gave you almost a year to do it, and when it seemed like you did it (10ap to revive) you reverted to form (Powered searches FTW!). Yes, i am very bitter. I enjoyed this game, but honestly, there is no point playing if it appears as though the zombie side exists only as a psychology experiment to see how much a person can handle being screwed over before he snaps. --Grim s-Mod 02:08, 3 June 2006 (BST)
True enough about the veterans leaving; the problem is attracting new players to replace them. There are enough online games that competition for the potential player base is fierce, even considering that few people will restrict themselves to the one game. Getting enough exposure for the game would bring in some vital new blood, but I have no idea how to get that exposure, advertising a free game isn't exactly profitable, even with the ads you've got.
I've had friends who said, "Yeah, I'd play it, but look at the graphics." — easily the most irritating thing I've ever heard. I played ZZT and that's even more primitive than most games from the mid 70s! The UD Toolbar FireFox extension comes partway in dealing with my generation's unrealistic expectation in terms of 'prettiness', but a lack of an equivalent for IE means that a good half, at the very least, of prospective players are unable to benefit from it. All in all there are too many disparate issues for any one man to deal with on his own, yet I admire how you try to.
About the niche thing; I'm certainly one of the exceptions then, I'm no mega zombie fan. (Then again, I tend to like anything that has the undead in it.) Anyway, I'll stop monopolising your valuable time. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:25, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Instead of adding more skills, perhaps its time to review the current ones? (Refer : User:Siddhant/What's_Wrong) I've played UD for a pretty long time. I've not seen a single zombie movie, but the theme appeals to me; and I'd loathe to see UD die. Perhaps getting the zombie PoV ( Visit: #rrf ) might help? I know one thing for sure though; when the ratio hits 35%, there will be no strike. --wcil 13:34, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Not meaning to sound like a spoilsport or anything, but your latest addition to the game for zombies isnt all that useful, and is actually harmful to newer zombies, as they often play solo, and thus have to advance up the old scent tree early on to ensure they get the kill bonus. Typically they would go scent fear and use that while prowling around to leap on a poor bugger marked with an asterisk. Your new change, putting your new skill at the bottom of the scent tree kills this method of progression, and newbie zombies will take the skill later, without knowing what skills reside beneath that skill in the pile. It is my opinion that this skill, in its current location, does more harm than good (And it wasnt hard, since the skill is, essentially, useless. Oh well. At least this time you arent giving humans exp for the zombies actions). --Grim s-Mod 09:53, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Scent Fear is nowhere near as useful as it was when it was introduced right at the start of the game, when barricades were unheard of and the streets were full of wandering survivors. Today, I'd say a lone feral would get more benefit from lurching between a series of small, emergent hordes, than hoping to pass a wounded survivor on the street. It'll still lead them to occasional fresh meat, and they'll certainly stay on their feet for longer.
Are you sure you're not meaning to sound like a spoilsport? I'm afraid it's always been hard to judge how seriously to take any of your game criticism, because you seem to use the same furious hyperbole for absolutely everything. (I used to skim Desensitised to see player reactions to game changes, so this isn't unfamiliar.) --Kevan 11:12, 6 June 2006 (BST)
No. Im just a caustic and nasty person :) There are actually still plenty of people on the street. I found one within a few ap of logging in to test the new skill to see how it was (And killed him too, but thats not very relevant). Scent Fear is also exceptionally useful inside buildings being raided, as the low level feral zombie can pick out wounded people from the crowd (I believe they show as wounded in the room contents description. Its been a while since any of my characters have been like that). The new Scent Death skill masks the presence of these exceptionally useful skills to new zombie players, and adds another 100 exp prerequisite for them. As such it is slightly harder to progress as a straight out zombie. One other thing i noticed when testing it was that it lead to both corpse piles and zombie piles, and in every case, this was to a breached and empty building, or a revive point. The Feeding Groan skill is infinitly more useful for the task, as there will likely be living humans there to eat. Following a horde with scent death you have no guarentee of finding food at your destination. As such, the skill isnt particularly useful for zombies (unless they are looking for a revive point, in which case its pretty neat), but it cuts off the highly useful scent tree from view. In my opinion, the skill would have been better placed under scent fear, scent trail, or next to scent fear. That way players who wanted to find other zombies would have that option for themselves, while those smaller zombies would have better knowledge of their victims (Through scent fear). Oh well. Hopefully thats less hyperbolish and more constructive. --Grim s-Mod 12:07, 6 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Peer Review

Just a question as well (which is kind of related) is it that you are finding it hard to get ideas? We at the peer reviewed page are finding it very long to look through and obviously you don't have the time to look through it all. So we are currently trying to find ways of making it easier to see what players want. Or are you happy with the current system as it is? Well just letting you know just in case you want any input into it. Just visit the talk page for peer reveiwed. - Jedaz 07:37, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I'm fairly happy with the system as it stands; I do actually read all of it, and it's good to be able to see a few different versions of a similar idea, to see if my own notes have missed any potential features or abuses. The only change I'd like to see would be to have clearer suggestion titles; either renaming them once they're archived ("First-aid kits don't work on zombies" is a more usefully skimmable title than "The Horror"), or just summarising the effects of the vaguer ones, on the main Peer Reviewed page. --Kevan 08:33, 2 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Updates?

Umm, I know you have been updating your site lately, but i wish to ask - is there a way to set up a radio transmitter like a generator? If you find one? has the page on radios not been edited yet?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gurlgoinghost (talk • contribs) .

The page on radios seems to cover most of it now. --Kevan 08:02, 14 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Private Discussion

Go to http://modofmod.proboards99.com/index.cgi for Mod Discussions Conndrakamod T W! 19:17, 4 June 2006 (BST)

I think we would be better of using the private board on my forum for mod chat, rather than creating a new board using proboards.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:10, 4 June 2006 (BST)
What's so secret that it has to be discussed in private?--Jorm 23:44, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Quite. What's this actually about? Or do you just think a secret mod forum would be generally useful? --Kevan 03:05, 5 June 2006 (BST)
It would be generally useful.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:56, 8 June 2006 (BST)
So much for "the community has a voice in policy," then, eh?--Jorm 02:12, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Not sure what you mean, we can't pass policy without putting it up for vote on the wiki. Where we discuss it makes little difference.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:50, 14 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Technical question

Hi Kevan,

I'm curious if you can tell me what programming language Urban Dead is written in, and what you're using to generate random numbers? Thanks. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:16, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Hello. Why do you want to know? --Kevan 04:06, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Sorry, that probably sounded a little cryptic. I have read a fair amount about generating random numbers, and I was going to suggest some better methods if you were using, for example, poor-quality built in random number generators. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:37, 5 June 2006 (BST)
I'm using mod_perl's built in one - I was originally seeding it with "srand(time())" until Groove Theory highlighted the horrible patterns; it's been using a straight "srand()" since, which I think uses a combination of time and process ID and chicken entrails, and has seemed okay. I'm not aware of any abusable patterns having cropped up. --Kevan 04:43, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Perl automatically call srand for you? I don't think you have to call it yourself. Anyway, Perl's built-in is OK, but you might get higher quality numbers if you used something like a Mersenne Twister (e.g., this module looks like it might do the trick). That wouldn't give you extra protection against something like Groove Theory, but it might avoid any biases that the built-in generator could be putting into the mix. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:05, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Technically, given enough tries the pattern with that could be discovered. The "problem" being is that it would take such a large number of tries to do it that it is not feasibile to do so within one lifetime. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:40, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Well no, that really depends on the algorithm used. I'm not sure what Perl uses, so I can't really say how high quality it is. What I do know is that the Mersenne Twister is very well respected for statistical use. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:42, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Ah, Bob, I was talking about the Mersenne Twister. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:46, 5 June 2006 (BST)
OK, cool. We're in agreement then. To be exact, the period of the Mersenne Twister is 219937 − 1. But you probably already knew that. (Kevan, have we convinced you yet? ;-)) –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:50, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Of course, a game does not actually require the best in random number generation, merely randomness that actually acts like randomness... -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 11:31, 5 June 2006 (BST)
It's actually supposed to be a very fast and efficient algorithm. Also, it does act like randomness, but still isn't actually random. (Though by hashing the result you can overcome that problem and achieve truly random numbers.) –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:33, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Perl's implementation of rand() is platform-dependent and gets thrown in when the interpreter is compiled, based on your OS. I don't know which algorithms are used for which systems, but chances are good that they're not quite as good as Mersenne Twister. That said, the problem is almost certainly not with the algorithm being used, but rather with the previous poor choice of seed value (i.e. a flat srand(time)) as well as the tendency of most people to find random numbers "not random enough" whenever a 90% chance misses six times in a row. Adding MT wouldn't be a bad idea, but it's wholly unnecessary. I have a hunch that the internal state of the random number generator persists across multiple requests (most other globals do). If this is true, it's slightly better to never call srand() at all, since Perl will automatically do it for you when it's necessary, and the internal PRNG state is pretty much guaranteed to be more random than anything you seed it with. --Fusilliban 07:05, 14 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Extremely offensive

I don't want to spam your talk page, so sorry if I'm doing that, but I wanted to draw your attention to this. I brought this up on Vandal Banning, but was told that user pages are exempt from normal vandalism rules. I find this extremely offensive and disgusting, as I think most people would, and since you are the only person who can circumvent the rules of this wiki, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. This has actually made me reconsider if this wiki is something that I want to be a part of. Thanks. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:32, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Yeah, this is bad, even if it does obviously tell the reader more about Amazing than anyone else. Proposing a change to wiki policy would be a clearer and more useful way to deal with it, though - me stepping in and smiting him would just set a very unclear precedent. --Kevan 05:10, 5 June 2006 (BST)
IIRC, policy changes to disallow this sort of thing have been put forward and shot down repeatedly. I do agree with Kevan's restraint on this; but replace 'unclear' with 'dangerous' — people being afraid of what they can and cannot write because someone who is above the rules comes down and smites them… it just doesn't lead to a productive environment. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:14, 5 June 2006 (BST)
I know that this says more about Amazing than anything else, and I agree that "smiting from above" is dangerous, but does it always have to be referred to like a slippery-slope kind of situation? At the very least, doesn't this violate the rules of the webhost or something along those lines? Who in their right mind could possibly defend Amazing in this case? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:18, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Kevan, would you be willing to start a policy change? I doubt that anyone other than you would be able to start one without it being shot down. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:20, 5 June 2006 (BST)

And it gets worse. I have a feeling this is being driven by the recent changes to Scinfaxi's page. This is just insane. I hate to keep harping on this, but give me a break. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:28, 5 June 2006 (BST)

You want to keep the game alive, remove the toxic elements from the community. People such as Scinfaxi and Amazing are nothing more than a poison choking this whole wiki and the community with drama. I know you dont much care for what i have to say, but the best thing would be to just eject them both. Policy discussions on this kind of thing will fail because they are far too broad and impossible to word in ways that will prevent them from being overprohibitive, or ineffectual. In essence, you are the only one who can actually put a stop to all this, either by excising the toxic elements, or by constantly monitoring to see that things dont get excessive. --Grim s-Mod 05:56, 5 June 2006 (BST) The only other solution i can see is to grant that kind of executive power to moderators, so long as a vote is held among them, with a clear majority. Moderators have been appointed by the community, and thus can be said to speak for the community in that respect. Currently there is no mechanism that would allow us to do it. --Grim s-Mod 06:05, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I would support such a measure, and I think that most others would as well. Something needs to be done to stop this. (It's not only the user pages. The drama war raging over at Moderation Misconduct is bad too, just not in this way.) The moderators on the wiki are sadly underpowered. They need the ability to remove users who are obviously dedicated to destroying the community (Kevan, didn't you mention at one time that Amazing had sent you emails threatening that he would try to undermine the game?) –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:09, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I think this would be better discussed on an actual policy page, where more people could see it and contribute. But I think it might just need a tweak to future arbitration rulings - is the existing exclusion of personal pages an actual line of policy, or just the opinion of previous arbiters? (Although actually, Wikigate arbitrations only mention "personal talk pages" as exempt, so far as I can see, so maybe this is just a straightforward breaking of arbitration rulings.) --Kevan 08:06, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Would you be willing to move this, then, and/or bring it up? I have a horrible feeling that if anyone other than you tries to make this more public, it'll be shot down or flamed into oblivion. Sad, but true. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:15, 5 June 2006 (BST)
But is the existing exclusion of personal pages an actual line of policy, or just the opinion of previous arbiters? If the only reason we're getting "ha ha, I can say anything on my user page" is because arbiters are choosing to exempt them from arbitration cases, then that's the only thing we need to address, and I don't think it'd be massively contested if it's part of the existing arbitration system (which requires the offended user to have attempted amicable resolution, and for the offender to have ignored it).
As I say, though, it does look as if relevant Wikigate arbitrations failed to exempt user pages, so maybe this is already covered by the existing system after all, and is simple vandalism all round. --Kevan 09:14, 5 June 2006 (BST)
My apologies for missing your original question. Xoid and I had to do quite a bit of digging before we came up with the relevant info. It doesn't look as though it's covered under any arbitration ruling or policy discussion that we could find. The only mention of user pages having no restrictions is in this policy document. Unfortunately, that page gives very little information. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 10:09, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Fair enough. I think arbitration would (and should) be allowed to overrule that if it felt it was required, though, which deals with the "ha ha, I can say anything, even after arbitration" problem. --Kevan 10:37, 5 June 2006 (BST)
What about that vandalism case? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 10:38, 5 June 2006 (BST)
My reading would be that no, it wasn't vandalism in the standard sense, but it was a breach of an arbitration ruling (for antagonising outside of a personal talk page). --Kevan 12:58, 5 June 2006 (BST)
The sad thing is that such a mechanism would be all but impossible to force into place for the users interested in maintaining the community. A policy discussion would accomplish nothing, as such a policy would be highly unlikely to pass voting. Interested parties are pretty good at getting people to vote against such policies, and the reverse is often difficult. --Grim s-Mod 08:37, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Kevan, I think I found an easy way out of this. You are with http://123-reg.co.uk/ if I am not mistaken… –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:05, 5 June 2006 (BST)

To narrow it down for you: 5.1.2 on this page. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:07, 5 June 2006 (BST)
I was actually asking for confirmation that we didn't stuff up the whois before wasting his time. –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:10, 5 June 2006 (BST)
They only sold me the domain name, the wiki server's actually on Poundhost. But yes, adopting their T&Cs as wiki policy isn't a bad idea (if tricky to enforce the vaguer stuff). --Kevan 12:50, 5 June 2006 (BST)
According to section 5.1.2, we'd actually be violating the TOS to let that tripe sit there. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:00, 5 June 2006 (BST)
I'd be willing to go through every page on the Wiki to enforce 5.1.2 - Deal? -- Amazing Amazing 18:50, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Consider this effecting policy change when your Mods aren't exactly active in the area of preventing abuse. As you can see - It's working. ;) -- Amazing 18:47, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Rueful's filth has often been excised because we could actually do it. (He placed his on community property.) Moderators are so hamstrung by the current policy that we actually can't do jack to remedy anything of the sort if it is not explicitly in a "community property" sort of area. And as I said on your talk page, Amazing, don't think for a second that people aren't going to shoot down that policy change. Americans seem to enjoy their "Freedom of Slander". Some can't even differentiate between your vaunted Freedom of Speech and slander. –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:56, 5 June 2006 (BST)
The thing is that you guys are entirely capable of changing policy on your own. The key is to organize and get over this false democracy in cases where the good of the entire friggin' service is at risk. Guess what? Unchecked abuse puts it at risk, and I'm simply not interested in sitting back while you guys look away from the destructive and amoral behavior that is festering herein. Make the community better. Settle all of this bullshit in one fell swoop. When the Wiki's usage swells, people come back who have left, and new users pop in without seeing some idiot screeching "UR SUGGESTION'Z SHIT U COCKFUCK" straight off - the community will be better off despite the fact that they may have contested rules of conduct in a vote. -- Amazing 19:05, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Holy crap. Why is this even being discussed? Just ban him forever.--Jorm 19:17, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Hear hear. We don't need to tolerate this any more. MaulMachine U! 19:25, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Above you will find the reasons for all of this. Trolls. :) -- Amazing 20:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Wiki Hostage

some fucktard decided to take the wiki under hostage until Amazing is unbanned. Until then he will keep creating accounts and vandalizing pages. Is it possible to block account creations for a while ? --hagnat mod 03:15, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Requesting permanent IP/IPrange ban on Amazing and this guy. --LibrarianBrent 03:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Locking the wiki to new users would just mean that the terrorists had already won, I think, although I'll look into IP-range blocking for next time. It looks like the vandal's calmed down now that this has gone to Misconduct. --Kevan 04:23, 9 June 2006 (BST)
That won't last long. JimboBob with his ardent use of logic, has torn through what thin justification there was for a misconduct case. Looks like Amazing got what has been a long time coming. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Why was Amazing banned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The General (talk • contribs) .
Check the block log. It's not hard. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:49, 9 June 2006 (BST)
He's back. Obviously. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:37, 10 June 2006 (BST)
Phew! That was intense! --Cyberbob Sys U! 06:38, 10 June 2006 (BST)
What happened? I missed it. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:36, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Not much... just about 25 alts of the 3pagevandle attacking in quick succession. --Cyberbob Sys U! 06:50, 12 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Activity

Despite the fact that we seem to be bitter and implacable foes over Scent Death's usefulness and position, i would like to say that it feels good that you appear to have finally decided to get a little involved in the community. It makes you far more of a person in the eyes of everyone here (As opposed to a statue of a person no one has ever met, but hold in awe), and bodes well for the future of the game if you decide to listen to their concerns and opinions, or even discuss existing issues with them. Other points of view can only help. --Grim s-Mod 13:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)

I have to agree, keep posting, It has a lot of positive influence on the community. Even if it's just one day in a week on the suggestions page. It would seriously help the community regain a bit of stability it has been lacking for a while now.--Vista 11:30, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Yeah, just seeing you around and knowing that your still here is good for the community.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:30, 12 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] XP Loss

I've noticed that a seemingly disproportionate number of bugs deal with XP loss. I have the gut feeling that there is some underlying cause linking them. Would you like me to collect them, sort through the chaff and notify you when done? –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:05, 14 June 2006 (BST)

I can only see a couple of unconnected-seeming ones (one possible simultaneous database update issue, one person probably just forgetting how many XP they really had), so yes, would help to have them collated if your bug senses are tingling. Thanks. --Kevan 07:59, 14 June 2006 (BST)
I looked through the cases, and while my gut still tells me there is something to it, I can't recognise any sort of pattern. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:09, 24 June 2006 (BST)

The only EXP thing that I've noticed was with my Survivor losing the 1 EXP that he had gained after repairing a Ransacked building. Nothing serious though. -- Tirion529 21:09, 14 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Medical Defence Union Copyright

Odds are, if a legal battle ensued you would win. There is quite literally no case. The problem here is the disparity between the parties. Any company big enough to waste its time on trivial matters such as these almost certainly has the resources to tie you up in court for at least some time.

I've seen it too many times before; big companies bully individual roleplayers or even roleplaying groups before over some perceived copyright infringement. If it were me, I'd tell them to get fucked and go for broke, but I'm like that. Frankly, I don't really see much point in bothering to fight it unless you are willing to be in it for the longhaul. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:09, 24 June 2006 (BST)

Quite, that there's no case, and I'd have done the traditional amused-but-disinterested-response thing if was running my own server. The fact that they were threatening my server host directly (and with a 24-hour deadline) didn't give me a lot of choice, though - I wouldn't blame them for pulling the plug to avoid the hassle, or at least to suffer the lesser hassle of me demanding a refund and relocation. Eh. --Kevan 10:33, 25 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] Mod bid thing

Hi, you were probably going to get to this soon anyway, so sorry if it seems like I'm nagging, but the two weeks are up on my promotion bid and I'm curious to see what the different interface looks like (if I get promoted, of course). Thanks. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:51, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Just to note that Vista already promoted BobHammero. --Brizth mod T W! 20:02, 11 July 2006 (BST)

[edit] Bureaucrat

For the next couple of months I will be away from the wiki, I've got just to much work in the immidiate future to put any meaningful time aside for the wiki (or even to play the game) An inactive moderator is nothing new of course but you might want to appoint a new resident bureaucrat. I just feel I can't put in the time to be a good one anymore. Thanks for creating a nice game and letting me play it, and good luck finding a replacement for me.--Vista 21:40, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Not trying to be pushy or anything, but the current round of discussion/voting/whatever on the 'crat promotion page has ended. While Vista has popped up for a brief time, it seems he is away again. –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:06, 16 August 2006 (BST)
It's done.--Vista 01:06, 19 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Other idea

Hi, I authored the anti-bot idea that you killed. :) I was wondering if you'd be willing to tell me what change you have planned that my suggestion inspired? If you'd rather not, I completely understand, but I'm kind of curious as to what you have in mind. My email address is bobhammero@hotmail.com if you feel like sharing (and don't worry, I wouldn't tell anyone else). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:59, 29 July 2006 (BST)


[edit] Serious bug

Apologies for spamming this page but my character seems to have become corrupted during yesterday's server wibble. Very broken indeed right now. I've submitted a report on the bug report page. Even if it's not fixable and my skills etc are gone for good, thanks for a great game.--Apm567 13:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem; looks like you were the only one hit by it. I've dropped you back in a random heavily-barricaded building and given you a pile of XP and a gift pack of items. Your data looks intact otherwise, but let me know if anything weird happens. --Kevan 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I had before this oddness happened so thanks very much. I feel very special...--Apm567 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Extensions

Do you ever consider installing MediaWiki extensions? I've found a few that I think would make things easier on the wiki (listed here), but the ones that I think would be most useful are:

  • PageProtection: would allow restrictions to be placed on pages, or parts of pages (this would be great to protect parts of pages that only moderators should have access to, or stop people that aren't in a group from reading the group's member list, for example).
  • ParserFunctions: this would make it possible to create truly dynamic templates, and things of that nature.
  • SpecialUserScore: strikes me as being great for both bragging rights, and evaluating users for moderator or bureaucrat promotions.
  • Username Blacklist: seems like it would make it infinitely easier to deal with annoying vandals such as PQN who create many accounts.
    –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:04, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Bob's user page has a list of useful extensions. Here is the list, and the ones t