Suggestion:20110528 Balanced Search Rates

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Revision as of 16:20, 4 June 2011 by Katthew (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing


20110528 Balanced Search Rates

-- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:04, 28 May 2011 (BST)


Suggestion type
Balancing


Suggestion scope
Everyone


Suggestion description

The huge margin between zombies and survivors in the past month has revealed the extent to which search rates are manipulated based on the S:Z ratio. We have had ridiculous claims of extremely high syringe rates in ruined NT buildings, etc. This has caused a fair bit of discussion in the UDWiki community at least, many groups in the game wish to see it gone so that more of a challenge is offered to survivors and so zombies are a bit more rewarded for their successes.

Basically, I'm proposing that the dynamic search rates be altered so they are much less extreme. I think the extent to which the search rates are altered by the ratio should be a fraction of the strength they are now, possibly abolished altogether. I think Kevan should decide that based on the feedback given in this vote.


Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
# justification ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


Keep Votes

  1. Author vote. I want a bit more of a challenge tbh -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:05, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  2. Support/Keep. Say this passes are you just going to show the results to Kevan?        13:49, 28 May 2011 (BST)
    Yes, if the support is strong enough for a change I'll definitely be posting this to Kevan as a mixture of both a suggestion and a makeshift petition. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 14:12, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  3. Keep them static. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 14:11, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  4. Survivors need tough love. --Rosslessness 15:51, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  5. Keep - Static.-- | T | BALLS! | 16:52 28 May 2011(UTC)
  6. Keep- More killing is good. --Akbar 04:41, 29 May 2011 (BST)
  7. Keep Good Static Good Hagnat Good Zombie Good Lord! --Emot-siren.gif LABIA on the INTERNET Emot-siren.gif Dunell Hills Corpseman The Malton Globetrotters#24 - You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 18:19, 29 May 2011 (BST)
  8. Keep - The search rates hitting 1 needle/AP (IN RUINS? I DIDN'T KNOW PEOPLE COULD SEARCH RUINS UNTIL EVERYONE WAS DEAD JESUS HOW CAN YOU SEARCH A RUIN?) was completely ridiculous. Zambah apocalypse becomes a pipe dream :( --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 20:05, 31 May 2011 (BST)
  9. Keep The ridiculous find rates when the survivor ratio gets too low is stupid. Get rid of "coddle the survivor" and maybe make the game the zombie apocalypse it should be. This won't ever actually happen of course, but it's nice to dream. --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Crywig.gif 21:25, 1 June 2011 (BST)
  10. Keep My own investigations into the matter have shown me that it truly is insane how much these search rates are altered. Additionally, whoever suggested that "making it easy for survivors to find stuff" is a victory condition for zombies needs to critically re-evaluate their thought processes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mordred (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.
    Really, when it takes major game changes such as this to keep the survivor ratio over 25%, it IS a victory for the zombies. --Fjorn 04:23, 4 June 2011 (BST)
  11. Keep As above. --Fjorn 04:23, 4 June 2011 (BST)
  12. Keep I see the "kill/spam pro-zombie suggestions" crowd is out in full force. Can't let those zombies have fun in this game no sir! *sips beer, cocks shotgun, finds 40 syringes in a ruined building* --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 14:09, 4 June 2011 (BST)
  13. Keep This is a Sisyphean vote because Kevan will never change the search rates because he is a terrible game designer who couldn't design a Find-Your-Way-Out-Of-A-Paper-Bag game. While fixed search rates would be nice, and go a minute fraction of the way toward fixing the game's innumerable problems, I get the feeling it'll never happen because of what a lazy schlub Kevan is. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 17:20, 4 June 2011 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. The suggestion is rather vague but so is the game mechanic. Anyways, the dynamic search rates is an attempt to "normalize" the population, so one side does not get wiped by the other. When survivors have the upper hand, their search rates suffer, when the zombies have the upper hand, survivor search rates are better (as far as I understand). So now in Urban Dead's present state the search rates are much higher for survivors (especially at 15% survivors) to compensate the unnatural influx of zombies (the Dead are not always here in such numbers). What about when the Dead are not around (which is most of the time)? Survivors will not have their search rates reduced, thus giving them more of an advantage, and thus creating more extremes in the ratio. This probably gets boring for the winning sides, zombies shamble streets and can't find as much against survivors sitting in safehouses doing nothing. The ratio at around 50:50 gives something to do for both sides, one side not having the upper hand on the other. And I feel like if the game was constantly skewed to one side (which it is sometimes often for the survivors) it makes it less fun for people in general. UD's PvP, if it's not challenging for one side, it's boring, too much, people may leave. --  AHLGTG 17:33, 28 May 2011 (BST)
    tl;dr it's to balance the ratio near the middle, (probably) to keep the general populace happy --  AHLGTG 17:33, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  2. Kill I'm fine with the current system to be honest. Like I mentioned at the talk page, I think these are necessary to ensure some balance in the population ratio. Maybe the system needs some tweaking but that seems to beyond the scope of this suggestion. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:34, 29 May 2011 (BST)
  3. Kill: No.Treviabot92 21:18, 1 June 2011 (BST)
  4. Kill Personally, I'd like to more about how this works before even thinking about changing it. --AORDMOPRI ! T 21:39, 2 June 2011 (BST)
  5. Kill: I have enough bad luck finding what I need with present "high" search rates. Dynamic search rates, as I understand, were put in to keep the game balanced. If anything they need to be raised.--Moodie  Talk  Contributions 23:31, 2 June 2011 (BST)
  6. Kill: The search rate adjustment is put there for a reason: balance. How can survivors recover megahorde otherwise? Creating new scientist alts? That won't even work when all NTs are ruined. -- Kittithaj 00:51, 3 June 2011 (BST)
  7. Kill: The survivor population is already low enough even with the higher search rate. The adjustment is there to ensure the survivors aren't wiped out. What are the zombies going to fight against when the survivors are gone? Themselves? Look at how quiet the other two permadeath cities are now after being overrun by zombies. Besides, higher search rate means nothing when syringes are so AP intensive to use in the first place. -- Crystal Roselle 6:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  8. Kill: Balance is a good thing. As it is one of my characters (played survivor only) has been waiting for a revive for well over a week. If I were a new player or not that dedicated, I'd just leave the game for a while. The last thing this game needs is fewer players, imo. --Zarneverfike 08:48, 4 June 2011 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - There's not even really a suggestion here. Not to mention that static search rates are a bad idea, there's a localized population adjustment too iirc. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 19:04, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  2. Spam Kill this... with fire!! And i play zmobie before anyone accuses anyone of sumthing --hagnat 19:44, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  3. Spam What you are actually suggesting is removing established victory conditions from the game, hence my spam vote. When the search rates bang up like they did, its an indication that zombies reached their "victory condition", and the game is being "reset". Gracious winners would be happy with that. And when the rates drop back down (at 25% / 30% survivor), the game gets more challenging (in a normal sense) again. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 20:07, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  4. Spam While I agree that zeds need to be improved a bit overall, this suggestion wouldn't do that. It would just reward those who play zeds out of spite. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 22:43, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  5. meh as above-- HEY! HANDS OFF MAH BOOBS!   bitch   COBRA!   אמת 01:06, 29 May 2011 (bst)
  6. Spam - Will hurt zombies in the long run, since the usual state of the stats page is a survivor majority. -- Spiderzed 16:44, 29 May 2011 (BST)
  7. Spam - Uhhh... ~Vsig.png 14:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  8. Spam - --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:20, 1 June 2011 (BST)
  9. Spam - Seems to be a silly idea, doesn't it?--Trendiggity 01:27, 2 June 2011 (BST)



Voting Rules
Current Suggestions

Advice to Suggesters

  1. Adding options to your suggestion is not good practice. Others will not vote on the options, only the main body; please don't ask them to do so.
  2. Once you have posted your suggestion, it is considered complete. Altering the suggestion mechanics after voting has begun nullifies existing votes, and is considered an abuse of the suggestions system. Doing so will result in your suggestion being removed from the voting system to removed suggestions, where you can work out the details and resubmit later if you desire. It is preferred that you remove your own suggestion and resubmit a new version with changes, if changes are needed.
  3. "Notes" added for clarification purposes, and correcting spelling/typos are permitted. When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it with the clarification included for the voters who have already placed their votes.

Advice to Voters

  1. You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated.
  2. Before voting please read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested Ideas Page to read about concepts that have been generally considered unworkable in the past. You do not need to follow the guidelines on these pages but they are worth consideration before casting a vote.
  3. One vote per user. No exceptions. You cannot use multiple wiki accounts to vote on a suggestion.
  4. To Vote, use the [edit] button at the top of the voting section, then enter your vote in the the proper format to the end of the relevant section (keep/kill/spam).
  5. It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion.
  6. Votes must include a signature in order to be considered valid votes. To sign a vote, use --~~~~. Please remember to sign your votes! Unsigned votes will be deleted after 30 minutes or when found.
  7. Each Suggestion will be open to voting for two (2) weeks, measured from the suggestion's Timestamp, unless it is a Dupe or Spam. If, at the end of that time, there are two thirds (2/3) more Keep votes than Kill votes, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page. Otherwise, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Rejected Suggestions page.
Rules for Discussions

Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions. This page and archived suggestion pages only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss the suggestion or vote here, please use this page's Talk page (Suggestion talk:20110528 Balanced Search Rates). Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. Developing Suggestions can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted.

Valid Votes
  • Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit.
  • Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit. If you need to discuss a rule fix, use the discussion page.
  • Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions.
Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.
Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM. Spam votes will be counted as Kill when votes are tallied.
  • Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion.
Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described on the cycling suggestions page. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied.
  • Humourous, for suggestions that are obviously intended to be satirical, or of comedic value only.}}
Suggestions can be removed with Humourous votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.
Invalid Votes
  • Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide.
  • X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote. You are voting on the merit of THIS suggestion, not how it compares to others.
  • Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote.
Comments
  • Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.
  • Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout <s></s> in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.
All Caps

Try to avoid YELLING, writing in bold, or using italics, except when emphasizing a point which has escaped other voters.

VOTING EXAMPLES

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Best. Suggestion. Evar. --Bob_Zombie 04:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Good sugestion. no signature --FakeSuggester 07:39, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - This is a terrible idea, but you can totally fix it up. --NegativeGal 06:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Please be more specific about how to fix it on the discussion page. --MrSuggester 14:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re - Sure, I have detailed my proposed fixes here. --NegativeGal 23:38, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Kill - You will eat my poopie and love it! --PooEater 11:12, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Note - Inane vote removed. Defend in discussion. --DaModerator 11:13, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels is an inappropriate Survivor Class. --NoFunAtAll 09:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  2. Dupe - Duplicate Suggestion --AnotherSuggester 05:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Personal tools
advertisements