Template talk:Antidualnature

Well this is odd. 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Care to be a little more specific? If you have suggestions for a better presentation then I am all ears. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not the presentation, the stance. It's pretty silly. 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dual Nature stance is what is pretty silly. I can't actually believe there is so much support for it. It goes against everything I been trying to achieve and how we been playing the game since 2005. O_o -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Zombies play as zombies, survivors play as survivors? Yep, totally unusual. :/ 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are describing the normal way of playing. Dual Players don't do that. It is the whole point of this template. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Missed this one, oops. That is how dual nature works - when alive, play as a survivor. Doot-dee-doo, survivory stuff. Then, when a zombie, play as a zombie. Nam nam nam, zombie stuff. Revived? Survivor again. It's pretty flavoursome and very grokkable. 22:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Grokkable? (???) Anyways, you just described how ridiculous it is. If you can't stick to one side of the game then you deserve the template I just created. I.e.: being treated like a spy from both sides. Why DN players could not see this coming is way beyond me. It is only logical. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read moar Heinlein. As for zba!!ngh, my own Dual Nature alt is a trusted ally with two survivor groups when she's breathing. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

To grok: verb, to understand innately and entirely. Also it's not ridiculous. It's competely flavoursome. When a survivor dies, they become a zombie. They don't become a dead survivor. Even if you want to completely remove the rest of the genre entirely (in which dual-natured play is 99.99999% par for the course), then you just have to look at how standing up as a zombie after dying gives you zombie play options. You can't barricade and install generators and pick up items as a zombie. You can eat and claw and ransack. Same goes in reverse - revived zombies can't ransack buildings or groan/bellow or infect survivors. They can free run and cade and search and all that other harman stuff. Dual nature just makes sense, it's pretty much the opposite of ridiculous. 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What I often find funny is how people try to defend themselves with situational evidence which make no sense in the conversation. Yes, survivors die and get revived, and zombies occasionally get revived too and then kill themselves. But when you are part of a side (humans or zombies), you are expected to go back to your side ASAP. Not because it is a trend or because you follow blindly what others tell you to do, but because you want to do it because you want to play one side or the other. Now, DN players don't do that. So what does that lead us? To the very least, it lead us to a third side which didn't exist before this DN stuff became popular. And after that, you expect the pro survivors or the pro zombies to accept them blindly without even an afterthought? No, sorry... It's not only ridiculous, it's crazy thinking.

I can think of plenty of reasons why I would never trust a DN player and even be inclined to treat them just like a zombie spy. And, without surprise, those reasons are pretty much similar to those I have to flag griefers and pkers as what they are: people you can't trust by their actions. Also pretty much why I think twice, thrice and sometimes a fourth time before wasting a needle on a random zombie who happen to have all the pro zombie skills in his skills tree... I'd often much prefer saving it for someone of my own group I am sure is not going to cause more havoc than if I just left him/her rotting in line. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  00:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What is this? What actually is this nonsense? Is this a joke? 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be a joke? That's how I been playing the game since 5 years anyways: spot people who do things we don't want to happen and add them to the list of people we don't want to work with. DN is simply a new genre to add to a new list. I took the time to investigate what DN players do before flagging them in my zombie list, about two to three weeks. That they play as true survivors or not doesn't change a thing in my own personnal lists when they get back the next day to chew on me and my friends.

By definition, this "group" is open to all. So, in essence, the PK next door is just as prone to become DN than anybody else. They simply can't be trusted because of that... And they publicly tell that they do play zombies. It simply make my life easier since I have less checkup to do before I know who to help and who to leave be. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  01:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to believe someone who has been playing this game for 5 years is so fucking dense and shortsighted. -- LEMON #1 00:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And there you won't see me surprised the least to read that from someone who simply don't understand how things works in the game. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  01:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After all your attempts at feigning literary sophistication I found the above response highly amusing. -- LEMON #1 05:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming from someone who simply don't seem to know that it is possible to create an alternate character to play "all the game possibilities"... I am, again, not surprised in the least. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, it's in-genre and sensible - how many films feature a survivor dying and then continuing to actively help survivors? I can only really think of Day of the Dead (the original loosely, more strongly in the awful awful remake), whilst every other instance is more along the lines of "Oh hey Johnny's dead. Oh hey Johnny's now eating Jimmy." 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. However, this is not a Holywood movie but an internet browser game. There is not a lot of games, movies or about anything zombie in which you can come back from the death 378 times and still remains exactly the same either, isn't? Thus I simply can't adhere to the comparison. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  22:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh! You're right! In a hollywood movie things should happen like in movies. In games, people should EXPERIENCE every facet of GAMEPLAY there is to be had in this fucking GAME!!!! Actually, no that's WRONG according to you. super massive sigh. -- LEMON #1 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why I said earlier that I don't want to turn this page into a fan page. To prevent nonsensical comments like this, for example. When you do realize that what you just said make no sense whatsoever in this conversation then feel free to come back to me. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The hilarious reality is all the bullshit you've said above makes no sense either. You're sidestepping the points, and showing how narrow, ancient and idiotic your view of UD's community is at the same time. And I'm not a fan, thanks. I don't DN, but you're just being a massive retard. -- LEMON #1 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Zombies standing neatly queued in a cemetery and being careful not to rock the boat in the meantime is what is pretty silly. I goes against everything the zomie genre tries to achieve and how it has been running since 1968. Srsly, DN is for me the only way to play a harmanbargar without feeling utterly and ridiculously out of place. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to turn this talk page into a fan page discussion about people who like Dual Nature or not. The template should tell you pretty much what I think about DN and I don't feel the need to add to it. The Talk:Dual_Nature_Policy page is there for that. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page that isn't restricted by being a group page/user page/admin page. Therefore, you can hardly force any discussion to an end. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

One way is Arby's, but an Arby's case based on this talk page is utterly ridiculous. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I could put an 800px pic on it. That would probably help to make it look like SERIOUS BUSINESS in A/A. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Or I could make a really bad joke about your signature which breaks policy! -- LEMON #1 00:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is like kinda funny. -MHSstaff 01:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

People on UDWiki have differing opinions shocker!

UDWiki:Specific Case Editing Guidelines Thanks kids. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree on Dual Nature, the point of the game is you can be a zombie, get shot down and revived to be a human, think of it this way, you start off as a survivor and if you're into roleplay, you go about you business scoping builds and living in the post-apocalypse that is Urban Dead, of course when you do get eaten you're now a zombie. Your entire purpose as a zombie would be to eat the brains of any human you encounter, then you get revived and as a survivor you're sort of like "Oh thanks chap, good show saving me back there I seem to have blacked out entirely, anyway I'll be off on my way now to get gnawed upon in some other suburb". In my mind Dual Nature makes complete sense, as the individual would not supposedly be aware of his/her actions after zombification, or revivification allowing the person to live "two lives" as one person. Whether people abuse Dual Nature as an excuse for spying or not is just a part of internet communities in general, but I'm sure some people who ask for respect when they roleplay in this manner are a high enough level and in control of a few other friends enough to grief the person right back. It's a post-apocalypse, everything is supposed to be anarchy. --EveryTimeV 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)