Suggestion talk:20090326 Burglary (fixed)
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Vote discussion
- Spam - Still no. Zombie rates need fixed first. Survivors do not need this. -- Cheese 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- According to vote justification, this is an invalid vote. Someone strike it as such. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is a valid vote. I very strongly believe that the idea is completely unworkable, gamebreaking and no amount of improvement on the basic idea (without a very radical departure for it) can convince me otherwise. I vote spam on ideas of this nature. Kill on those that are possible to salvage. -- Cheese 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that's not how voting works. The first thing you said, about implementing zombie stuff first, was invalid. This isn't, but it's a kill. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've been here almost 3 years. Don't assume you can tell me how to vote or how the game works. -- Cheese 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do not use the amount of time you've been playing UD as leverage in voting. It's funny how the people voting kill or spam are always the same ones, all the time! Sure you may have been here longer than us, but that doesn't give you the right to spam every suggestion that you don't see eye to eye with. I do not see this vote as being "a crazy uber super power or something else ridiculous at all", rather, it seems fair to introduce a skill that allows people a modest reason for even carrying a crowbar around at all. And why would this unbalance the game in favor of survivors? Destroying barricades anywhere is something that could be seen as inherently anti-survivor. --ScaredPlayer 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- The thing most people don't seem to realise is that zombies are players too. Survivors should not be better at one of the few things zombie players are supposed to do. Ever. That is why it is unbalanced and unworkable. Even something that may seem small to some people can knock things for the other side. -- Cheese 08:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's not questioning your experience, he's pointing out that "Zombie rates need fixed first." Is an invalid vote according to "X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote." and the ""Survivors do not need this."" qualifies it as a kill vote not a spam vote, if your going to make a spam vote justify it as a spam vote not as an invalid/kill vote. Your initial vote should have been put under 'Kill'... --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do not use the amount of time you've been playing UD as leverage in voting. It's funny how the people voting kill or spam are always the same ones, all the time! Sure you may have been here longer than us, but that doesn't give you the right to spam every suggestion that you don't see eye to eye with. I do not see this vote as being "a crazy uber super power or something else ridiculous at all", rather, it seems fair to introduce a skill that allows people a modest reason for even carrying a crowbar around at all. And why would this unbalance the game in favor of survivors? Destroying barricades anywhere is something that could be seen as inherently anti-survivor. --ScaredPlayer 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've been here almost 3 years. Don't assume you can tell me how to vote or how the game works. -- Cheese 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that's not how voting works. The first thing you said, about implementing zombie stuff first, was invalid. This isn't, but it's a kill. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is a valid vote. I very strongly believe that the idea is completely unworkable, gamebreaking and no amount of improvement on the basic idea (without a very radical departure for it) can convince me otherwise. I vote spam on ideas of this nature. Kill on those that are possible to salvage. -- Cheese 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- According to vote justification, this is an invalid vote. Someone strike it as such. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Spam - Survivors should never be more efficent at debarricading than zombies are. They shouldn't even be equally efficent. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Opinion= Kill, not spam. Spam is for overpowered. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is overpowered. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's interesting how people think nobody could find their suggestion ridiculous, overpowered, or a crazy uber power, and thus think they must be abusing the vote. The thing is, I do find it to be some of those things. Consider a situation where zombies were better at reviving survivors that survivors themselves. Ridiculous, eh? This isn't far from that. Attacking barricades is an integral part of zombie play, and it'd be utterly preposterous if survivors were better than zombies even in that regard. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why would it be overpowered for humans to be equally efficient at de-cading? From a realistic and flavour point of view, implementing this would be fine, IMO, as humans are indeed smarter at zombies, and look for the path of least resistance when trying to get things done - that is, trying to disassemble the barricade instead of brute force it. In terms of game balance (which you are oh so concerned with), why would allowing humans to de-cade equally well be in their favor? De-cading can be seen in most cases to be inherently anti-survivor (as I've already said, somewhere). If there are people who will wreck cades with crowbars just to grief the human population of Malton, shouldn't zombies be rejoicing? --ScaredPlayer 00:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ever heard of Death Cultists? We'd get a shitload more of them if this was implemented. "If there are people who will wreck cades with crowbars just to grief the human population of Malton, shouldn't zombies be rejoicing?" That's still unbalanced. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 07:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- You make many good points here, Midinian. However that simply doesn't change the fact that you're supplying no evidence to this being spam, not kill. If you present me with such evidence, then I'll be more accepting. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ever heard of Death Cultists? We'd get a shitload more of them if this was implemented. "If there are people who will wreck cades with crowbars just to grief the human population of Malton, shouldn't zombies be rejoicing?" That's still unbalanced. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 07:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why would it be overpowered for humans to be equally efficient at de-cading? From a realistic and flavour point of view, implementing this would be fine, IMO, as humans are indeed smarter at zombies, and look for the path of least resistance when trying to get things done - that is, trying to disassemble the barricade instead of brute force it. In terms of game balance (which you are oh so concerned with), why would allowing humans to de-cade equally well be in their favor? De-cading can be seen in most cases to be inherently anti-survivor (as I've already said, somewhere). If there are people who will wreck cades with crowbars just to grief the human population of Malton, shouldn't zombies be rejoicing? --ScaredPlayer 00:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's interesting how people think nobody could find their suggestion ridiculous, overpowered, or a crazy uber power, and thus think they must be abusing the vote. The thing is, I do find it to be some of those things. Consider a situation where zombies were better at reviving survivors that survivors themselves. Ridiculous, eh? This isn't far from that. Attacking barricades is an integral part of zombie play, and it'd be utterly preposterous if survivors were better than zombies even in that regard. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is overpowered. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Opinion= Kill, not spam. Spam is for overpowered. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Zombies should not always be better at de-barricading than humans!
Midianian - Although survivors should not be better at de-barricading than zombies in most situations I think when they use a Crowbar it is a valid situation, Surviors are using a tool designed for the purpose of levering away obstructions where as zombies are not, you could also argue that humans are using their brains to find where the most effective way to attack the barricades is. Typically it is easier to lever away a section of wood than it is to break through it (as the zombies are attempting in my mind). --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone who thinks flavour is more important than game balance. Sure, I want the flavour to make sense but balance is much, much more important. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 21:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying flavour should have preference over game balance, but you can't just say x should be better than y, if anything that just results in things being unbalanced. It's more balanced if x is better than y EXCEPT when z. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- But for the sake of balance, X should be better than Y in this case. Survivors at last count have 8 ways of gaining XP, zombies have 3. While survivors can avoid combat altogether to gain their XP, zombies can only gain it through: attacking other players, attacking barricades and destroying equipment. To get these they need to attack barricades. However they can't really get that far in one cycle as you can see here. Survivors don't really need a boost like this, zombies do. Simple as that. -- Cheese 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest I don't see anything wrong with those stats. Barricades are to defend survivors from zombies, if a zombie could get in and kill a survivor with no help from other zombies there would be no point in building barricades. Survivors need those high numbers to survive otherwise zombies would easily dominate the game. The bigger issue (if I'm reading you right) is not that survivors should be able to de-barricade better than survivors but rather zombies don't get enough XP from De-barricading and that they need more ways to earn XP which is completely unrelated to what I'm saying. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the point is that overbarricading is part of the game.The downside of barricades is that you can, and do get trapped outside. Currently zombies are better at humans in only two ways. Smashing barricades, and eating humans. One of the many reasons they currently number only 38% of the population. RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is arguing that survivors get XP for de-barricading, are they? So I'm not sure why your 8 ways/3 ways XP argument makes any sense. ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 00:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest I don't see anything wrong with those stats. Barricades are to defend survivors from zombies, if a zombie could get in and kill a survivor with no help from other zombies there would be no point in building barricades. Survivors need those high numbers to survive otherwise zombies would easily dominate the game. The bigger issue (if I'm reading you right) is not that survivors should be able to de-barricade better than survivors but rather zombies don't get enough XP from De-barricading and that they need more ways to earn XP which is completely unrelated to what I'm saying. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- X is better than Y at A doesn't make it unbalanced, as long as Y is better than X at B. And Y is better than X in a lot of things in this game. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can't disagree with that, zombies and survivors need to have a (roughly) equal amount of advantages and disadvantages and that is currently unbalanced. I think it's just down to opinion now, in this scenario I'm thinking "X > Y whilst Z" and your thinking "X > Y @ A whilst Y > X @ B". I think in an ideal world we would have something like "X > Y @ A whilst Z1 so long as Y > X @ B whilst Z2"--Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- But for the sake of balance, X should be better than Y in this case. Survivors at last count have 8 ways of gaining XP, zombies have 3. While survivors can avoid combat altogether to gain their XP, zombies can only gain it through: attacking other players, attacking barricades and destroying equipment. To get these they need to attack barricades. However they can't really get that far in one cycle as you can see here. Survivors don't really need a boost like this, zombies do. Simple as that. -- Cheese 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying flavour should have preference over game balance, but you can't just say x should be better than y, if anything that just results in things being unbalanced. It's more balanced if x is better than y EXCEPT when z. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Zombies should not always be better at de-barricading than humans!
Both Cheese and DDR's votes should be considered invalid, as they both use complexity of implementation in their justifications - one says it is completely unworkable and the other states that it cannot be implemented. Someone strike those votes? --ScaredPlayer 00:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- You misunderstand both their votes. Also, the invalid reasons make the vote invalid only if they are the sole reason for the vote. Merely mentioning them does not make the vote invalid. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I point....
....all our new and whiny suggesters to rule 5:
- "New and sensitive users should be aware that voters will not always treat their ideas kindly. It may be helpful to wait a few days to get a feel for the place and the other users before subjecting your idea to any possible criticism. If you're unsure, the Discussion page is good neutral territory to suggest, gather feedback, and refine your idea before officially submitting it."
Get a feel for the place includes how Spam is actually used around here and in which cases the guidelines no longer apply and haven't for years. That's called experience in this section.
Or you can all continue to sound ignorant and impotent against even people like Cheese who I don't like. Love and hugs and kisses. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I actually spent a month monitorring the suggestiosn area, then had my suggestion in discussion for a week, to which none of these arguments were made. Sayign that we should bend the guidelines where we see fit is stupid. If you don't agree with the guidelines, and no-one does, then have the system changed. Voting spam on any suggestion you don't like makes kill completely pointless. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
