Talk:Suggestions/3rd-Jan-2006
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Suggestion discussion
Today's suggestions
Blood Tracker
- Scent Trail is lost after a distance and is limited only to retaliation. My proposed skill allows zombies a way to proactively hunt survivors in exchange for reduced movement speed. Stating that this is equivalent to X-Ray vision is simply inexplicable - all any low level survivor has to do is run across a heavily trafficked block and his trail is lost. And on the other hand if you say the skill is now useless, keep in mind that it's meant to be similar to Scent Trail in execution - picking off the ones that ran out of AP too quickly. Same purpose as Scent Trail, different execution (IMO better in terms of RP) and possibly more useful. FireballX301 08:32, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- It would be far far far too useful to the zombies. This is a way, for possibly just a handful of AP, of knowing exactly where any suvivor without free running is. Now this isn't so bad if 1 zombie finds your house and starts banging on the door. But imagine if you need to pass through 4 squares, each with over twenty zombies. Multiply it by a billion and you get imbalance --Jon Pyre 16:09, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Thank goodness. Jon Pyre has, at least, thought this one through. That's exactly the root of the problem I had with this. Plus, it's a crapload of data that has to be updated every single time any survivor moves. Not good. Bentley Foss 21:49, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Rocket Launcher
Discussion moved from voting
In reply to CthulhuFhtagn's vote
that doesn't mean that Pile of rot should get to stay. and this is still retarded enough to get spam. the fact some bleeper voted keep on to spite the rest doesn't meen you have to behave accordingly.--Vista 18:54, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
In response to Daxx's vote
RE - I see you all spam voting this, but not the equally stupid air drop suggestions. Drop the double standards. --Grim s 18:45, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE: - Difference being, this is obviously meant to be a stupid idea and doesn't belong on this page. The air drop suggestions are getting killed because they're honest attempts at suggestions. I personally don't believe they are worth Spam votes, and I believe this requires one. --Daxx 18:47, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE: - Spam votes are also for highly unbalancing suggestions like, say, for example... Air drop suggestions... --Grim s 18:53, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE: - I guess the use of the spam vote in that context is subjective. --Daxx 18:55, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Grim s, they're made by people who don't do math and don't know how to make good suggestions. show me one that is in danger of passing, and I don't vote spam on your suggestion. but as long as there are no air drops in the game nor peer approved suggestions to that effect this is spam.--Vista 18:58, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE: - Horrible math is more than enough justification for a spam, yet they are not spammed, and this leacds to idiots thinking that tweaking the numbers makes them more acceptable. --Grim s 19:00, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re: -horrible math breaking the do's and dont's yes, but horrible math alone just makes it a stupid suggestions that takes 2 weeks to get to peer rejected instead of a hour. And if they're stupid enough to think a simple tweek will prevent that. well then they have 10 suggestion in peer rejected instead of one. --Vista 19:42, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE: - Horrible math is more than enough justification for a spam, yet they are not spammed, and this leacds to idiots thinking that tweaking the numbers makes them more acceptable. --Grim s 19:00, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Grim s, they're made by people who don't do math and don't know how to make good suggestions. show me one that is in danger of passing, and I don't vote spam on your suggestion. but as long as there are no air drops in the game nor peer approved suggestions to that effect this is spam.--Vista 18:58, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE: - I guess the use of the spam vote in that context is subjective. --Daxx 18:55, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE: - Spam votes are also for highly unbalancing suggestions like, say, for example... Air drop suggestions... --Grim s 18:53, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
In response to Jak Rhee's vote
RE: - Yes, there should be an IQ test, and you would fail it, because no less that two times i mentioned that this was a suggestion being made in PROTEST at all the fucking stupid air drop suggestions. I Guess blatant honesty goes over your head as easily as all those helicopters do. I shudder to see how you react in the face of subtlety. --Grim s 18:58, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- - I apologise for the harshness, I havent been feeling well (Ive had this flu/cold whatever for.. two months now. Stupid lack of health insurance) and was being snappish. It was inappropriate and I apologise. However, I do NOT beleive the suggestion spage is the place for such sarcastic suggestions "to prove a point." The suggestions page SHOULD only be for suggestions that are at least in the writers mind a serious attempt. For the MOST part, I'm trying to Spam only suggestions that are clearly goofy and the author either A) Didnt spend any time thinking about at all or B) was intentionally not beign serious. The airdrop suggestions, while HORRIBLE, where at least intended to be serious, however misguidedly. Thus, I will kill them and kill them hard. I just dont think this section is the place to be making points in the manner you are choosing to do so. In fact, if you'd notice by the flast clean killing the air drops get, WE AGREE WITH YOU! So why is this even needed? The Air Drop sugegstions will never ever pass.! - Jak Rhee
- Comment - Of course this is sarcasm but sarcasm is still spam. Grim s please take it off the page because this gets long enough as it is with just the serious suggestions. Move it to humorous if you must though I don't think it qualifies. And if he doesn't, could a moderator please handle this? --Jon Pyre 18:55, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE - How about i dont? It has a non author keep, and by the rules it stays for two weeks. Unless you want to render those rules meaningless, you will withdraw your request. --Grim s 18:58, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- grow up Grim s, we don't aprove those stupid suggestions anyway. you want to control what stupid ideas people make. I'm sorry that's not how a wiki works. If a overpowered one gets peer reviewed, I'll be one the breach right next to you to stop it. but now? please stop acting like a spoiled child and remove the suggestion. we got enough garbage to work through already, don't add to it. --Vista 19:02, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Thanks for my daily dose of obliviously unintended irony; nothing like telling someone that you aren't going to allow their stupid idea, and then immediately afterwards, castigating them for trying to "control what stupid ideas people make". Apparently, the way "a wiki works", we all come on and tell other people they can't do something, only we ourselves can do that. Ah, democracy. --Elderdan 20:05, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re I have started a new topic in the talk section suggesting that the Spam rules be amended to allow suggestions that are 2/3rds voted spam (kills not counting towards this total) to be removed even if there is a keep. If anyone thinks that is a good or bad idea let's talk about it there. --Jon Pyre 19:04, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Changing the rules because they get in your way sounds an awful lot like a certain politician we all know of. The suggestion is there to illustrate a point, a point that YOU have all failed to do by failing to spam vote the crate suggestions. By merely voting kill you imply that there is something redeemable about the suggestion when there IS NOT, and people will continuously try to modify them to be acceptable. If you vote spam on the retarded suggestions (And you can), you can save yourself a whole pile of effort and grief in the future. --Grim s 19:14, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Personally, I believe there is something redeemable about the crate suggestions. Again, it's subjective. --Daxx 19:16, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Crates, apart from being an occasional easter egg from kevan, are massivly unbalancing, especially if they become a regular occurrance. They can push you well above your item cap of 51 if gotten. There is no way you can make them balanced. They shouldnt even be in the game. --Grim s 19:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. So kill all the crate suggestions, that's fine. I happen not to agree. --Daxx 19:25, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- there were a LOT of people who agreed with the same sentiment over sub machine guns, yet in the end somebody got it right.--Vista 19:47, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Unfortunately Vista, an occurance that can net you four days searching is overpowered, whatever way you look at it. If people want to direct them, it is overpowered. --Grim s 19:53, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- I'm looking at the Crates| page on the wiki, and by the looks of it maybe half a day to a day's stuff from mall searching can be found inside. Definately not four days' worth of it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:52, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Personally, I found the update rather useless. After all, zombies can smash them to destroy the contents, and since zombies are generally on the streets to begin with, there's almost no chance a survivor can get there before a zombie does unless it's a relatively zombie-free suburb! I mean, it's only common sense that a zombie would want to beat the survivors there to get rid of the crate, right? --Volke 01:45, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- I'm looking at the Crates| page on the wiki, and by the looks of it maybe half a day to a day's stuff from mall searching can be found inside. Definately not four days' worth of it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:52, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Unfortunately Vista, an occurance that can net you four days searching is overpowered, whatever way you look at it. If people want to direct them, it is overpowered. --Grim s 19:53, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Crates, apart from being an occasional easter egg from kevan, are massivly unbalancing, especially if they become a regular occurrance. They can push you well above your item cap of 51 if gotten. There is no way you can make them balanced. They shouldnt even be in the game. --Grim s 19:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Personally, I believe there is something redeemable about the crate suggestions. Again, it's subjective. --Daxx 19:16, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Changing the rules because they get in your way sounds an awful lot like a certain politician we all know of. The suggestion is there to illustrate a point, a point that YOU have all failed to do by failing to spam vote the crate suggestions. By merely voting kill you imply that there is something redeemable about the suggestion when there IS NOT, and people will continuously try to modify them to be acceptable. If you vote spam on the retarded suggestions (And you can), you can save yourself a whole pile of effort and grief in the future. --Grim s 19:14, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- grow up Grim s, we don't aprove those stupid suggestions anyway. you want to control what stupid ideas people make. I'm sorry that's not how a wiki works. If a overpowered one gets peer reviewed, I'll be one the breach right next to you to stop it. but now? please stop acting like a spoiled child and remove the suggestion. we got enough garbage to work through already, don't add to it. --Vista 19:02, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE - How about i dont? It has a non author keep, and by the rules it stays for two weeks. Unless you want to render those rules meaningless, you will withdraw your request. --Grim s 18:58, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Response to Signal9's vote
Are you retarded? What similarity exists between giving zombies rocket launchers and removing zombies entirely? It seems to me that the latter directly undermines the former making them contradictory. Dupe accusation = Squashed --Grim s 20:31, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- The dupe vote was a joke, but you have to admit that the suggestions are similar - both are bitter complaints about other people and "broken" game dynamics. The spam vote is still valid. --Signal9 20:44, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- By your logic, every suggestion is a dupe for trying to make the game more interesting. The spam vote can be as valid as it likes, still got three non author keeps. --Grim s 21:13, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
General comments
Your mewling on the front page does nothing to solve this problem, it just raises our collective blood pressure lowers our opinion of you. --Zaruthustra 19:12, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Since when do you think i have ever cared what you or your ilk think of me? You yourself have demonstrated time and time again that you have absolutely no understanding of the game balance, and while killing outrageously overpowered human skills, you and the rest of the clique killed absolutely everything zombie until i myself acted upon the situation and dragged zombie players kicking and screaming to the wiki. Since then there has been parity on the wiki. Biased dinosaurs like yourself have no place passing judgement against me. --Grim s 19:19, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- You're wrong if you think there is parity here, zombie skills are way easier to pass then survivor skills nowadays. --Vista 19:49, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Yes, because i went and called the entire RRF, the Pwotters, The Undying Scourge, the Church of the Ressurection, and the Minions of the Apocalypse, and pointed them at the suggestions page almost three weeks ago, meaning that there were a whole bunch of people who played both sides here and thus able to make a better judgement call than poor little "I hate zombies" boy above. --Grim s 19:58, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Everyone should have gotten that your suggestion was satire. I did. But any suggestion that is bad AND not serious is Spam, plain and simple. It doesn't matter that it is a protest. My spam vote means "Please don't protest on the suggestion page." If you don't like a suggestion vote kill. But even bad suggestions don't get deleted here unless they're copies or just trying to waste space. Trust me, I understad what you were trying to do. I have written a "protest" suggestion in the past too. But it's a bad idea to do so and just dilutes the purpose of the suggestion page. Just vote kill and move to the next suggestion. And in Zaruthustra's defense, I've never seen him exhibit any kind of bias in his voting, although for that matter I can't remember him voting keep ever : ) Most suggestions aren't good enough to keep. No need to get in a fuss over those. --Jon Pyre 20:07, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- No bias? Do you ever read his comments? "Zombies dont need to be stronger" (Even though we are vastly outdone in the ap war, and we absolutely must horde to break even with disorganised humans). Zurathustra has demonstrated on a couple of occasions complete blindness to the game mechanics, to the point where i have seriously entertained the notion that he is a kill bot, rather than just an idiot. Zurathustra votes kill on absolutely everything pro zombie, and on absolutely everything that nerfs survivors, even a little. He votes kill on everything ludicrously overpowered for survivors as well, just to maintain a facade of being unbiased. A facade easily breached by those curious enough to have a look. --Grim s 20:20, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Note that zombies recently got Feeding Groan which has helped them in regards to AP. Now if one zombie breaks through barricades they can inform every zombie nearby thus reducing AP wasted scratching at buildings. Pretty nice conspiracy theory though. --Jon Pyre 20:55, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- And what does that skill have to do with Zurathustra? Last i checked, Zurathustra != Kevan. If he were, trhen we would be seriously screwed. --Grim s 21:13, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Note that zombies recently got Feeding Groan which has helped them in regards to AP. Now if one zombie breaks through barricades they can inform every zombie nearby thus reducing AP wasted scratching at buildings. Pretty nice conspiracy theory though. --Jon Pyre 20:55, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- No bias? Do you ever read his comments? "Zombies dont need to be stronger" (Even though we are vastly outdone in the ap war, and we absolutely must horde to break even with disorganised humans). Zurathustra has demonstrated on a couple of occasions complete blindness to the game mechanics, to the point where i have seriously entertained the notion that he is a kill bot, rather than just an idiot. Zurathustra votes kill on absolutely everything pro zombie, and on absolutely everything that nerfs survivors, even a little. He votes kill on everything ludicrously overpowered for survivors as well, just to maintain a facade of being unbiased. A facade easily breached by those curious enough to have a look. --Grim s 20:20, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Everyone should have gotten that your suggestion was satire. I did. But any suggestion that is bad AND not serious is Spam, plain and simple. It doesn't matter that it is a protest. My spam vote means "Please don't protest on the suggestion page." If you don't like a suggestion vote kill. But even bad suggestions don't get deleted here unless they're copies or just trying to waste space. Trust me, I understad what you were trying to do. I have written a "protest" suggestion in the past too. But it's a bad idea to do so and just dilutes the purpose of the suggestion page. Just vote kill and move to the next suggestion. And in Zaruthustra's defense, I've never seen him exhibit any kind of bias in his voting, although for that matter I can't remember him voting keep ever : ) Most suggestions aren't good enough to keep. No need to get in a fuss over those. --Jon Pyre 20:07, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Yes, because i went and called the entire RRF, the Pwotters, The Undying Scourge, the Church of the Ressurection, and the Minions of the Apocalypse, and pointed them at the suggestions page almost three weeks ago, meaning that there were a whole bunch of people who played both sides here and thus able to make a better judgement call than poor little "I hate zombies" boy above. --Grim s 19:58, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- You're wrong if you think there is parity here, zombie skills are way easier to pass then survivor skills nowadays. --Vista 19:49, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
This is going to be my only response to this since it shows no signs of turning into anything but noise. For starters I'd just like to comment on how pleased I am that I've gone from being a pawn in the grand conspiracy against zombies to its ring leader. I'm movin up baby! Most of your comments seem to be vague unsubstantiated claims that I kill every zombie suggestion that comes along because I have some sort of vendetta against zeds, and you know, myself. If you look I vote kill on almost everything period, zed and human because I have very high standards of what should get through. In fact one of the few zed skills that did get through was mine. You assert that I vote equally against survivors and zombies to "maintain a facade of being unbiased". Wow, I guess I'm sure doing a good job then. Moving on. You made an (accurate) quote of me saying that zombies don't need to be more powerful, which is true. They dont. If you check they have some of the highest average damage in the game. Thats good enough for me. You omitted what I put after that every time I write it, which is that they need to be more fun and diverse. But don't let that stop you from making me into the embodiment of all evil, if somebody has to inhabit your paranoid fantasies about conspiracies against you in online web games, I'm glad its me. Love, luck, and lollipops, --The shadow lord of the survivor conspiracy, Zaruthustra 21:12, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Zurathustra. Zombie play is very linear, there is only so much you can do that is in genre for them, and that has pretty much all been done. When human groups once again organise sufficiently to render these upgrades all but obsolete, what then? You completely fail to see that allowing zombies to do more with their ap (Other than pointlessly bashing barricades) would make the game more fun for zombies. How about you, instead of SAYING that they need to be more fun and diverse, come up with and post suggestions for that purpose?
- You say you have high standards, but this simply cannot be true. The reason for this is that you kill absolutely everything you dont like, and never vote keep. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from this behavioral pattern is that you oppose anything that changes the status quo, regardless of how one sided it is, like it was a couple of weeks ago (And im not too sure much has changed overall). I never stated you voted equally, I said you killed everything zombie, regardless of how reasonable, while only attacking the most stupid of human suggestions.
- And no, i dont credit you with the intelligence to lead anything, much less a "conspiracy". You are just the most irritating, making assertions about how zombies should be made more fun, but never showing how when confronted. --Grim s 07:19, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- He has come up with and posted suggestions for that purpose. As he pointed out, one of the few zombie skills that's made it recently was his. -CWD 07:44, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Wow, that really made Grim look like an ass. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:30, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Geez, and after all the work I've done shooting down crappy suggestions left and right, Zaruthustra gets elevated to grand lord of evil. Well, that stinks. I've been working too hard on verbally bludgeoning stupid suggestions for two months to just lose out now! :-P Bentley Foss 21:46, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Its ok Bently, there will always be a place for you in the organization. In fact I'm promoting you to grand inquisitor of zombie suggestions. Have at it! --The Great Overlord, Zaruthustra 21:59, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- I call Treasurer!--Jon Pyre 22:42, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- (Applauds Zaruthustra) -CWD 22:46, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT) & --Omega2 22:56, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Can I be Vice President in Charge of Cookies? --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:02, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- (Applauds Zaruthustra) -CWD 22:46, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT) & --Omega2 22:56, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- I call Treasurer!--Jon Pyre 22:42, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Its ok Bently, there will always be a place for you in the organization. In fact I'm promoting you to grand inquisitor of zombie suggestions. Have at it! --The Great Overlord, Zaruthustra 21:59, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Geez, and after all the work I've done shooting down crappy suggestions left and right, Zaruthustra gets elevated to grand lord of evil. Well, that stinks. I've been working too hard on verbally bludgeoning stupid suggestions for two months to just lose out now! :-P Bentley Foss 21:46, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Well guys, the cats out of the bag so we might as well publicize our group site. WCDZ. --Zaruthustra 23:35, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Whee... idiocy *Rolls eyes* --Grim s 07:19, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Reminds me of someone's protest suggestions. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:34, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel that your position is slightly biaised and exagerated. There are a good suggestions being gunned down on both sides, IMO, and yes I've seen many idiots gun down good (IMO) zombie suggestions for no good reason (xp for barricades, zombie skill versions of body building, flak jacket, for example). But that's because no system is perfect, and using the system against itself will fix nothing. Just keep voting for what you believe in, but protests on a suggestion page is still spam. Protest with your votes like the rest of us. --McArrowni 17:56, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- McArrown, use different examples man :-) TWO of those supposedly "gunned down" good zombie ideas (zomb flak jacket skill and zombie bodybuilding) are already in Peer-Reviewed with great support. The only reason they are gunned down if they appear now is they are DUPES.. which is a damn fine reason to gun them down. --Jak Rhee 04:04, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel that your position is slightly biaised and exagerated. There are a good suggestions being gunned down on both sides, IMO, and yes I've seen many idiots gun down good (IMO) zombie suggestions for no good reason (xp for barricades, zombie skill versions of body building, flak jacket, for example). But that's because no system is perfect, and using the system against itself will fix nothing. Just keep voting for what you believe in, but protests on a suggestion page is still spam. Protest with your votes like the rest of us. --McArrowni 17:56, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
