Suggestion:20080123 New Game Statistics

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Reviewed.

20080123 New Game Statistics

Cpt Masterson 02:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Score Tally/Statistical Data

Suggestion scope
Game Stats

Suggestion description
Add # of powered buildings and # of ruined buildings under Mobile Network Coverage. This is essentially the survivor vs zombie score card. Sure, we already know that the number of active zombies and zombie hunters are relatively equal and that only 18216 survivors remain out of 1,112,489 but I think a comparison of powered vs ruined would give a better picture of the ebb and flow of the game.

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. Keep - Meh, whatever, makes sense... OH! FIRST VOTE!!!... sorry I couldn't help myself... --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Keep - I'M FIRIN MAH LAZER!!! I'm sorry, I just love that phrase today. BoboTalkClown 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Author Keep - The spam votes don't make ANY sense to me. Powering is not easier than ruining, it takes WAY more AP to power a building and keep it powered. Ruins aren't detrimental to the zombie cause, that's like saying powered buildings are detrimental to the survivor cause. The difference is ruins and powered buildings are both visible on the map which is a substantial difference. --Cpt Masterson 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep - Show how much of the city is in Zed hands, sure why not? --FXI 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Keep - Similar to my http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_UI:_Sub_Pages#Building_Condition_Stats, but a worth updating, and I didn't mention powered buildings in mine. To those who say this is "unfair way to keep score" - so what? The information has uses other than score keeping.  Swiers 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep - The only relatively sane suggestion of everything today. --Private Mark 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Keep/change - Instead of counting only ruined buildings, count ransacked/ruined buildings under one number. That should solve things for people who oppose it on the basis of not wanting to encourage ruination. --Ms.Panes 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Keep - Even though 72.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot. --Uncle Bill 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Keep this would be an interesting stat --Scotw 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Keep - pure zombie players are such whining bastards, honestly! If survivors don't use group tactics, they complain that survivors are dumb and disorganised, then if survivors use smart tactics like keeping a ruin for an entry point, the ardent zombies start whining that ruins are useless for them. A ruined mall isn't useless, is it? A ruined NecroTech? Plus, it's always "that takes soooo much AP for a zombie, but for a survivor it's free!" Bullshit. All the time - bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Survivors have to find generators, then they have to find fuel, they have to transport it to the location, they have to feed the gennie, fend off attacks by zombies, griefers and fecktards, and then to repair a ruin before doing all that, they have to carry around a clunky repair kit - which (despite what the z-whiners would have you believe) takes considerable AP-effort to find in the first place - before any repairs are carried out, which costs even more AP. This fallacy that survivors get everything for free and that zombies always get the shitty end of the stick is getting really tiring. New survivor type: analyst. Earns XP by listening to whining zombies. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Funt, can I put that on my user page? It's beautiful. --Ms.Panes 09:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC) non author re -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:19 23 January 2008 (BST)

11. Keep - Sounds good to me. --Ciaran Deckardson 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Keep - statistics are nice. also; as Funt--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Keep - As long as you can still see the zeds and harman numbers. -- Quizzical  Quiz  Speak  15:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Keep - Ah. So true. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Vote changed. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

14. Keep - I'd probably never use it myself, but Funt Solo's empassioned speech has moved me. But completely agree with him, but it was well done.--Actingupagain 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Keep even if what the spammers are saying is true, it wouldnt hurt to know these numbers. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Keep as Funt Solo and others --~~~~ [talk] 18:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Keep - No harm. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Keep Do I like cookies? Affirmative. Do I like this suggestions? Affirmative. --Happy doodle 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Keep - I would like to know these numbers; however, I believe that the author of this suggestion might need to reword it a little better to show less of an emphasis on the whole zombie vs. survivor aspect. The numbers, in and of themselves, would be helpful.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Keep - Seems good. Omega 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Keep-YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAH! Population isn't all (since a high percentage of survivors are incompetent, and more zombies are great tacticians).--Shotstol 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Keep - I'm competitive. --Heretic144 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Keep - Statisticians everywhere aplaud your suggestion. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Keep This is good. But I think Ransack AND Ruin would be better... ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Keep - its not so much a score card as in the team with more wins, but once people got used to what sort of numbers were common variations would become obvious.--Jed 07:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Keep Good. --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Keep - Great idea! This could be justified in game as a compilation of the External Military reports. --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Keep - Ransack and ruin. -Inky 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Keep - I like it. --The Gecko PKer 02:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Keep - It's reasonable, and I like it!--Kolechovski 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Keep - As so many above me. Acoustic Pie 19:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Change - make it ransacks instead of ruins -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:15 23 January 2008 (BST)
2. Change - As boxy. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Change - As Midian.Studoku 13:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Change - How about ransacked AND ruined buildings? (I do not know if Boxy suggested that ransacks should automatically include ruins.) -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 14:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Change - I almost voted for this one, but as so many above have said, ransacked would be a better statistic. if it's an either or, I'd rather see that. Make the change and you get my vote. - Headshot Hal 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Ruins mean nothing, power means quite a bit. Ruins are extremely difficult to get unless buildings are already empty, powering is ridiculously easy to do. Ignoring that I'm sure that this has been suggested before pre-ruin and ruin doesn't really qualify as a big important or special addition to this suggestion to make it stand out from the others just like it.--Karek^maps?! 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Spam - What Karek said. Ruins are detrimental to the zombie cause, and should not be encouraged to be made. Once the issues with Ruin are fixed, I'll consider keeping it. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

   Vote expanded upon on talk page, for the author. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

   Abstain - If this included the populations of individual 'burbs as well, I'd be all for it. But perhaps that's for an entire 'nother suggestion. --Canker Sore^{|CK | GC | ZHU | MEM |} 05:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Invalid abstain vote struck. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Spam - Ruin, in its current state, is more useful to survivors. Some survivor groups intentionally leave buildings ruined as visible entry points. - Grant (talk) ON STRIKE 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Spam - Given the ease of powering and the difficulty (not to mention uselessness) of ruin, this really doesnt serve a purpose. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
5. You almost had me vote Keep, but these Spam voters here make a good point. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Spam - You had me on your side for a while, but this won't do because ruin doesn't pose enough a disadvantage to survivors to be consider a zombie score. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)