Suggestion talk:20070621 Station change/barricade damage warnings

Re:Re:Re: How You Might Be Able to Make This Work(Probably not pass though)

Do not allow them to see when someone outside knocks down the 'cades, or do not allow them to see when a zombie knocks down 'cades. You can not allow such a huge advantage to survivors, that would be like making it so the survivor could view the activity times of a zombie player considering the largest portion of zombie play is attacking and destroying barricades. If you allow survivors to get zombie profiles in such a manner, especially without using 1 AP per profile as is now the standard, you are giving a massive prosurvivor buff. That may not have been your intentions but intentions aren't everything.

So basically make it so this only works when survivors remove barricades or when the barricades are taken down from the inside.--karek 09:22, 22 June 2007 (BST)

I covered that in the suggestion already, where I specifically stated NOT to give us links to zombie profiles. --Aguyuno 17:02, 22 June 2007 (BST)

You still basically say zombies are active and how. So if someone hops outside with a DNA extractor, catches the last zombie to attack the barricades then goes inside and rebuilds barricades, sooner or later they will have every zombie in the attacks activity times and a rough estimate of how many zombies are attacking and when. Stupid idea, broken idea, and in it's own way still a nerf to zombie anonymity. Zombies only know when you kill or revive one of them, survivors should only know when we kill or break their barricades.--karek 09:48, 23 June 2007 (BST)

Re: A Suicidal Angel

This was the vote comment: "kill - Oh yay, another suggestion to make greifing harder than it was before. We all know there are people that would do this IRL, so why remove the aspect from the game? We already have bounty hunters hunting down greifers and PKers constantly, now you wanna make the game less fun for the people that do this stuff for fun? I'm all for a challenge, but this is ridiculous. Just because some people don't like being a zombie long enough to get a revive is no reason to screw greifers over. And the radio thing, your getting a little spam. Wow. Like it's gonna kill you. If you don't like people messing with your station, then don't use a radio.--A Suicidal Angel"

1) Never once did I say that griefers should be removed from the game. In fact, had you actually READ my suggestion before speaking, you'd have seen that I specifically stated

"Griefing will, of course, always be a major part of urban dead; there's no way to completely stop it short of removing the option from the game, and I certainly don't want that. I may not be a griefer myself, but hell, it IS part of the game; removing it is just silly."

2) Besides the fact that I really don't care how "unfun" you find people wanting to balance things because your actions happen to annoy them, must I remind you that bounty hunting RKers/GKers/zombie spies/etc. is not an action supported by the RG - home of bounty hunters? If you're "bountied" because of griefing, report it! They'll get in trouble for it, mate - not you. all. Again, had you actually read my suggestion, you'd have seen me say that as I specifically said:

"I don't know if this occurs anywhere else, but currently my character in Hildebrand mall is having to deal with people repeatedly changing the radio station for no reason except to annoy everyone. This throws everything off because of the fact that now we're hearing completely irrelevant broadcasts instead of ones from other corners of the mall, making it harder to work as a team in the malls (one entity on four separate blocks) or just a general area where all radios are on the same station."

Notice there's no mention of radio spam at ALL? Any idiot can scroll past radio spam (and, of course, you can also tell who's the one who sent it since the people who are in the area of the spammer at the time see "Blah broadcasted _________ from here at such and such a time"), but when the radio station is CHANGED entirely, you miss all the messages that could be anything from, yes, radio spam, but could also be something like "MALL TOUR ON THE WAY!". That's information you kinda don't want to be missing, no?

Now, I'm perfectly fine with kill votes; I expected some, naturally. However, if you're GOING to vote no, please have a good reason for it, okay? Because not reading the suggestion in its entirety before voting no (or even before voting YES) is simply unacceptable, kay? Kay. --Aguyuno 20:57, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Obviously I wasn't clear enough for you. First, don't assume other people did or did not do things. It makes you look stupid in the long run. I always read a suggestion completely through,no matter how crappy the format is or how long it is. I then vote fairly. Now onto my rebuttal.

• Your suggestion seems to me like it's aiming at further removing greifing from the game, even though it's not actually outright taking it out of the game.

• Just because it isn't supported doesn't mean it isn't going to be done. Hell zerging is officially unsupported, yet there are still people that do it.

• You didn't mention people dying outright, but we all know that cades are the only thing keeping us from them. Which if a greifer brings down, then zombies are gonna get in and kill people. Which is something over half the survivor population can't deal with. This suggestion would discourage said griefers from bringing down the cades. Which is why a lot of people would vote yes, just so they don't become a Zombie for a whole half hour. Get what I was saying yet?

• You said, and I quote "This throws everything off because of the fact that now we're hearing completely irrelevant broadcasts instead of ones from other corners of the mall, making it harder to work as a team in the malls"...Isn't irrelevant broadcasts spam? I'm sure if someone ran around saying "I like poo", he would have his talk categorized as spam and irrelevant information. If anyone should read something before posting, it's you.

Next time, don't be an asshat, ask for clarification of someones vote instead of saying they didn't read it. Also, your not still in Ghetto Cow are you?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:35, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Everything self-removed. Why bother continuing this discussion? You're clearly not going to listen anyway. --Aguyuno 22:12, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Jesus man, I don't live on the wiki. Thats the second time you edit conflicted me. Show a little patience. What I was gonna type in response to what you said before wiping the page was: :::Man that sucks,'cause you edit conflicted me. I was gonna say "Alright I'm done here, all it seems to me is that you want to pick a fight over a kill vote. I wasn't diverting your attention, I was curious because I'm in GC, and I didn't see your character." Well, cheers for ending a pointless discussion because you were mad over a kill vote. Also, don't modify my posts. I'll type alot how I want. If you have a problem with it, who cares.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:24, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Wow... I was gonna put soemthing here.... but I think I'll wait till you two have finished.--Seventythree 22:16, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Seventythree, don't ever wait. No matter how heated a discussion is, someone else's input could turn the entire thing around.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:24, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Ok then, well SA has a point, the radio station thing is a little silly, and taking the entire thing too far, but I can also see the point of the barricade watching thing, after all there may be more than one person sabotaging the barricades, adn it makes sense that if you're going to spot barricades being damaged that you'd see all the barricade attacks, so how about you only see the barricade attack when the barricades go down a level? so you'd see mrbarricadehater attacked the barricades, bringing them down to very hevily barricaded Maybe have a skill that allows this too. --Seventythree 22:54, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Who the hell cares though? I mean, I understand that griefing is fun, I really do, but if you can't get caught it's just not fair to anyone else, you know? SA - I editted my post out because how it tends to go when I'm in an argument is I hammer something out filled with rage, then I go through it and remove all insults/swears I think are unnecessary, and then sometimes (this case being one of those cases) I just delete the post in general to end the argument cause I think continuing it is done. As for editting your post... I didn't, did I? I'm honestly asking here; if I did, my apologies, it was a slip up cause I wasn't trying to. I'm a dick, I admit it, but I'm not the kind who'd edit other people's comments xP. That much, I can assure you.

Look, if it means that much to you, I get what you're saying about the radio stations. However, I'm not asking for broadcasting not to be anonymous; it's just that if you're in an actual scenario, a) you'd see people doing that ANYway, and B) Griefing should have a downside to it. It's not like if you PK someone everyone just sees "This guy died"; they see exactly who caused the death. I know that griefing isn't on the same level, but it still makes sense to have it so everyone can see it ANYway. If for no other reason, it should exist for realism. --Aguyuno 00:07, 22 June 2007 (BST)

You should try and remember the old montage of it being a game and not everything being realistic(Zombies where?!) Anyway, this would just lead to PKing and griefing of griefers.--karek 00:29, 22 June 2007 (BST)

I know it's not a realistic game xDD. I just mean that in terms of realism in general, this would make sense. As for PKing/griefing griefers, see my response to SA at the bottom here.

First, Aguyuno edit conflicts me, now you? Geez, am I never gonna get a break? Anyway, this is what I have to say in response Aguy:

Hey, your not a dick, you're simply defending your idea. All that was changed was alot being changed to a lot. No big deal. It might have been an auto correct function in your browser, because I once had one of those programmed into my IE. I was just a bit pissed at Verizon (my ISP). It's okay if you delete your posts, especially if they were in rage. Funny thing is though, I had already read them and was in the process of saying something back both times you removed them. I don't know if you've been through it before, but typing up a nice long statement, only to have edit conflicted with someone who removed all the things you just typed about, can be pretty annoying. Actually, I do agree with you on the cade part of the suggestion. Not only does it make perfect sense, it's also completely realistic. I just don't like the fact that I'd be hunted even more by "bounty hunters" (for lack of a better word) that get pissy over a few zombies gettin' in. We already have a PKer list, makes me wonder what would happen if this was implemented. Just in the future, don't assume someone didn't read. I've seen a lot of people getting pissed beyond belief on other wikis because someone said they didn't read.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:38, 22 June 2007 (BST)

If there is anyone that didn't read, I'd say it was wooty. Not only is his spelling terrible, but everybody knows Zombies can't greif unless they're currently a Survivor *wink wink*.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:10, 22 June 2007 (BST)

Yeah, I'm sorry about saying that you didn't read it. It's just that your points all seemed to relate to things that HADN'T been part of my post; I see where you're coming from now, of course, but I hope you can see where I was coming from at least. And yes, you probably would be killed by "bounty hunters" (including myself, since I really don't care if I end up on RG for it), but just remember that you CAN report people for doing it. There are actually a lot of people in Red Rum (c138 I believe is the forum user name of one of them) who will specifically grief JUST so that when they get killed for it they can report them to brainstock and then kill them legally later on xDD.

And yes, it's blatantly obvious wooty didn't read a damned thing. Or if he did, he's not intelligent enough to properly understand anything said there. However, at least when it was in your case, I figured it would be worth a try trying to "show you the light" - I'm not even going to waste my breath on THAT guy. --Aguyuno 02:42, 22 June 2007 (BST)

Ah, so we did understand what the other was trying to say. And yes I know RR has used that little trick before. I've done it before too. People just don't see traps in this game at all. I wonder how people will act if booby traps get implemented someday? And if you decided to waste your breath talking to him, then I say in confidence that the size of this page would triple. :P-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:58, 22 June 2007 (BST)

I agree, it probably would. Anyway, since you understand the trapping/reporting thing, what's the issue? I say this honestly, and not just cause it helps my case, but if I was a griefer (and sooner or later my scientist character probably will become one since gaining XP with him is too hard and the mass stupidity of survivors everywhere is annoying me ceaselessly), I'd actually find it MORE fun this way since then I could do the whole trapping thing of reporting hot heads xD. I mean there are some, like myself, who know that we can end up on RG for it - we just don't care. Others, however, seem to be totally ignorant of this fact.

So are you still a kill vote, then? Or have my amazing powers of puppy dog eyes and badgering convinced you of otherwise yet? xP. --Aguyuno 03:16, 22 June 2007 (BST)

If you want the truth, I was actually gonna change my vote along time ago. Then you started pissing me off with your rude and hurtful comments ^^. I think it should only display the "blah blah raped the cade" message when they bring it down a full level. The way it looks in your suggestion is that it displays the message every time someone attacks the cades, regardless of whether they actually brought them down a level. Clear that up first, then we'll talk.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:23, 22 June 2007 (BST)

Well, I'm glad everyone seems to be in a better mood now... --Seventythree 09:45, 22 June 2007 (BST)

Yeah, sorry about the comments; I got more defensive than I should've been, rofl. My apologies. Anyway, it's just when people damage it, not just randomly attack it since that won't necessairily cause damage. Again, if it's only when people bring it down a full level, it's just gonna be the same problem it is right now; people will simply weaken things to JUST before busting it down a full level, and then they'll back off so they can't be caught. --Aguyuno 17:05, 22 June 2007 (BST)

I don't know how they'd weaken a EHB barricade to the point where it becomes HB, without actually bringing it down. Every time I've tried in experiments, it seems to go down randomly. I'm gonna change my vote, but mind you it's only because it makes sense IRL. not because I agree with it. Well, see ya.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:54, 22 June 2007 (BST)