User:Asema/phail: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''MISSING CONTENT PLACEHOLDER'''
'''<center>UD Wiki Dramaflamers' Registry</center>'''
----
 
==I'm Better Than You==
 
Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly not contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand why isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --WanYao 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)
 
==TL;DR==
 
You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's exactly what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually played a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is completely pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But smart survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. These are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is not really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they really hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I have. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor or a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really hurting me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing in-genre. And as a zombie I outright laugh at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is exactly what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting constructive and reasonable criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --WanYao 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)
 
==You Didn't Do What I And Obviously Also The Public Thinks==
 
Spam - You get spammed not because this idea is without merit: in fact, I think it has a lot of merit, suprisingly... unlike most of your other mass-produced crap suggestions. No, you get this spam vote as a FUCK YOU! because you don't have the decency and the courtesy to take your suggestions to Talk:Suggestions first. Where this idea, particularly point #3, could have been properly fleshed out developed. But... no... you're too good for that, or something... Spam off, John Pyre. --WanYao 16:35, 25 August 2008 (BST)
 
"Boo fucking hoo [...] I'll do whatever the hell I want" ... Exactly, thanks for proving my point about your lack of respect for the community. But since that seems to be the prevelant attitude and ethos here, I might as well join in the fun... And if that includes calling you names and criticising you for not respecting the community by consulting them before you spam us with yet another half-baked suggestion... which requires users to spend their valuable time voting and commenting on it... Well then... fuck, yeah... I mean, if none of this really matters to you, as you claim, why not just print these up and have your mommy hang them on the fridge and say, "Oooh, what a pretty suggestion, John!"? Yeah... exactly... Spam off. --WanYao 18:38, 25 August 2008 (BST)
 
==Butt Rebuttals==
 
Re Yes. I am too good for that. I'm a busy man and I don't want to spend eight days developing an idea in committee. I'll do it for something freaking complex. For something simple like this I don't see the point. Searching in dark buildings. Seeing a random thing hidden. It's fucking simple. I'm not designing a NASA shuttle. Like it vote keep. Hate it vote kill. I don't really care if that makes me sound like an asshole or not. If you want to vote spam for all my suggestions go ahead. I don't really care if these make it in the game or not. I'm suggesting what I think are good ideas out of the fucking goodness of my fucking heart because I fucking enjoy this fucking game. If you don't like them, or Kevan doesn't like them, or anyone else doesn't like them I don't really give a damn. Don't put them in the game. Boo fucking hoo. This isn't some storied institution so fuck your protocol, I'll do whatever the hell I want. --Jon Pyre 17:00, 25 August 2008 (BST)
 
==A Small Amount of Tolerance==
 
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody dark!!--WanYao 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)
 
We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --WanYao 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)
 
==Mnehhhhhhhh==
 
    More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!
    No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.
    and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.
    This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - tylerisfat 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)
 
==Pseudosmarm Sundae==
 
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- Iscariot GC PK WTE 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)
 
==Crapping On The Users==
 
Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. —[Revenant] [Hey, you!] [Cades] AU 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)
 
 
A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.-- #99 DCC  00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)
 
 
==THE GAME IS STILL UNBALANCED, HOLY SHIT==
 
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded. Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! -- #99 DCC  00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)
 
How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. -- #99 DCC  13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)
 
==Constructive? To Who?==
 
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - tylerisfat 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)
 
==We Have To Put Spins On Our Ways To Put Down Suggestions Just To Seem Beyond Routine==
 
Dupe-o-fucking-rama. And spam-o-fucking-licious. Seriously, man... Read the Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested, already. --WanYao 07:47, 8 September 2008 (BST)
 
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a good thing. --WanYao 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)
 
==This Is Retarded, Just Like Everything Else I Ever See, Hear, Or Comment On==
 
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --WanYao 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Revision as of 23:12, 9 September 2008

UD Wiki Dramaflamers' Registry

I'm Better Than You

Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly not contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand why isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --WanYao 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)

TL;DR

You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's exactly what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually played a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is completely pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But smart survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. These are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is not really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they really hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I have. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor or a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really hurting me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing in-genre. And as a zombie I outright laugh at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is exactly what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting constructive and reasonable criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --WanYao 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)

You Didn't Do What I And Obviously Also The Public Thinks

Spam - You get spammed not because this idea is without merit: in fact, I think it has a lot of merit, suprisingly... unlike most of your other mass-produced crap suggestions. No, you get this spam vote as a FUCK YOU! because you don't have the decency and the courtesy to take your suggestions to Talk:Suggestions first. Where this idea, particularly point #3, could have been properly fleshed out developed. But... no... you're too good for that, or something... Spam off, John Pyre. --WanYao 16:35, 25 August 2008 (BST)

"Boo fucking hoo [...] I'll do whatever the hell I want" ... Exactly, thanks for proving my point about your lack of respect for the community. But since that seems to be the prevelant attitude and ethos here, I might as well join in the fun... And if that includes calling you names and criticising you for not respecting the community by consulting them before you spam us with yet another half-baked suggestion... which requires users to spend their valuable time voting and commenting on it... Well then... fuck, yeah... I mean, if none of this really matters to you, as you claim, why not just print these up and have your mommy hang them on the fridge and say, "Oooh, what a pretty suggestion, John!"? Yeah... exactly... Spam off. --WanYao 18:38, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Butt Rebuttals

Re Yes. I am too good for that. I'm a busy man and I don't want to spend eight days developing an idea in committee. I'll do it for something freaking complex. For something simple like this I don't see the point. Searching in dark buildings. Seeing a random thing hidden. It's fucking simple. I'm not designing a NASA shuttle. Like it vote keep. Hate it vote kill. I don't really care if that makes me sound like an asshole or not. If you want to vote spam for all my suggestions go ahead. I don't really care if these make it in the game or not. I'm suggesting what I think are good ideas out of the fucking goodness of my fucking heart because I fucking enjoy this fucking game. If you don't like them, or Kevan doesn't like them, or anyone else doesn't like them I don't really give a damn. Don't put them in the game. Boo fucking hoo. This isn't some storied institution so fuck your protocol, I'll do whatever the hell I want. --Jon Pyre 17:00, 25 August 2008 (BST)

A Small Amount of Tolerance

It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody dark!!--WanYao 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)

We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --WanYao 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Mnehhhhhhhh

   More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS! 
   No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that. 
   and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you. 
   This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - tylerisfat 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Pseudosmarm Sundae

I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- Iscariot GC PK WTE 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Crapping On The Users

Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. —[Revenant] [Hey, you!] [Cades] AU 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)


A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.-- #99 DCC 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)


THE GAME IS STILL UNBALANCED, HOLY SHIT

Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded. Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! -- #99 DCC 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)

How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. -- #99 DCC 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Constructive? To Who?

Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - tylerisfat 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)

We Have To Put Spins On Our Ways To Put Down Suggestions Just To Seem Beyond Routine

Dupe-o-fucking-rama. And spam-o-fucking-licious. Seriously, man... Read the Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested, already. --WanYao 07:47, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a good thing. --WanYao 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)

This Is Retarded, Just Like Everything Else I Ever See, Hear, Or Comment On

I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --WanYao 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)