Suggestion talk:20070910 Scanner Fix

Response to nonauthor re

I really have no clue what you mean by that, I was referring to stacking that is revive points among other things such as wasteful extracting.--Karek^maps?! 23:38, 10 September 2007 (BST)

Abstaining

I see the point that Karek is making, but I see the virtues in the suggestion. However, there is just no way to know how a change such as this would affect game balance. Revives are one of the main game mechanics, and therefore should be changed only with a "very skilled hand" as it were. While it would make it easier on survivors - and being at that business end of a zombie the last little while, I would like to see them get help - it could be gamebreaking.

I'm just not sure how to vote on this... right now I could be swayed either way... --Ryiis 16:16, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Response to Karek

"Don't correct peoples grammar, it makes you look like a pompous ass."

I apologize for correcting your grammar- it's a habit I picked up in everyday life, and because my friends and family do the same to me, it's easy for me to forget how rude it is. And, I confess, you bothered me some and I didn't much care that it was rude- but I won't do it again.

"Revives cost more than 10 ap, every revive wasted on a rotter is really about 25 AP lost, so approximately the price of two revives."

I don't know quite how to take this: you start by saying that the real cost of revives is more than ten AP (I assume you're throwing in the searching and going outside/inside), then you draw a conclusion based on the idea that revives cost about ten AP. Wasting a needle doesn't carry the cost of two revives: it carries the cost of one. You find a needle, go outside, use it for a revive or waste it on a rotter, then go back inside. You spend exactly the same amount of AP either way (unless you scan first, in which case you spend more on the rotter, because they're harder to scan- but you'd have to be pretty dumb to wast a needle after that... of course, people have scanned and stuck my rotter...).

"Every time you have to clear a rotter you waste between 5 and 240 AP(although you'll never actually use that much) in just combat, out of combat you waste, depending on your weapon choice and search location, up to 50 more AP(this may be on the low side). A simple change like this makes it possible to completely ignore the revive stack without having to have people spread out so that a rotter has no influence on revives and that the only way zombies can slow revives is to kill more people faster, this makes it so that the zombies can no longer weaken the survivor tactic of revive lines(revive points) which was developed to get fast and timely revives, it's not a game mechanic but a player made one."

It sounds like you're speculating a bit on the search numbers, but why not? Sounds reasonable. It doesn't abolish the usefulness of blocking lines, though: you would still waste around 3 AP per rotter scanning through, because of the increased difficulty of scanning rotters, revive lines can be crippled by hostile zombies killing those waiting in line before they get a needle, and there are plenty of dumb survivors eager to waste their AP on you any way that they can. This really isn't even a major change: It's already possible to scan through a whole stack, you just have to be the first one there.

"Your little change makes it so that survivors can go to any stack and always be guaranteed a revive because of the new scan mechanics that are version three(I think profiles and revive this one were separate)"

No, it doesn't: you attribute too much to blocking lines. A zombie blocking the line really only slows it down in an irrational way. If you're at an active RP, you'll get a revive sooner or later, whether or not a zombie is blocking the line. If you're not, youd be better off moving, whether or not a rotter is blocking the line. This proposed change doesn't fundamentally alter the game in any way: it takes something that is already possible (scanning through an entire stack), and makes it reliably so, removing only an element of pure chance.

"The Do Not Mess With Revives spam vote came about because it is Kevan's job to decide when revives need a bonus, because he is the only one with all of the information about how many people get revived every day and how difficult it is to catch a revive."

Kevan has no obligation to implement peer reviewed suggestions, as you know. Saying "it's Kevans' job to decide" is not a valid argument. Also, the information which you say is available only to him is available here. And here's a chart from a conversation that you participated in, and contributed to in a meaningful and positive way, showing that data tracked over a period of time. And here is the conversation. I don't know why you would state that "he is the only one with all of the information about how many people get revived every day" when you know, and have informed others for the general good, that he publicly posts all of the relevant data.

"The goal of the game(very big picture), for zombies, is to make all survivors zombies, for survivors it's to make all zombies survivors. Do Not Mess With The Revive Rates, it screws up the balance, it always screws up what balance there is because it is the main game mechanic"

By this logic, any change which has any effect, direct or peripheral, on the rate at which zombies can kill survivors should be similarly taboo.--Father Thompson 19:59, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Father Thompson, you've already apologized and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but for the record Karek's use of the phrase "playing stupid" is actually correct. If he'd said "playing stupidly" as you suggest, that would imply an otherwise intelligent person playing Urban Dead in a stupid manner. "Playing stupid" on the other hand refers to "playing WHILE stupid" (think "driving drunk") and carries with it the implication that said player's stupidity is either constant or recurring, not simply restricted to UD. In other words Karek impugned the intelligence of a group of people which apparently included you, and due to your limited grasp of English you responded by criticizing his (correct) use of the language. I don't know if that's irony but it's something, and it rankled me. So this is me making a note of it.

Also, you headed this section "Reposne to Karek". I corrected your typo. Cheers!--Mister Nathan Marbles 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Playing Stupid is a turn of phrase that means acting like an idiot, usually when you aren't one, and usually for some reason. It's me saying he/they know better than to buy into what they are saying/doing.--Karek^maps?! 22:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. And he chided you for incorrect grammar. But the turn of phrase is both grammatically correct and widely accepted. IMHO he owes you an apology not for being kind of a dick (though he was), but for giving you bad information. I just wanted that down on paper. Especially since people could be lurking in these pages who may or may not be native English speakers. I don't want anyone taking home bad information.--Mister Nathan Marbles 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this- are you aware of the fact that you just confirmed a contradiction of your original statement? You excoriate me for correcting Karek's grammar, asserting that "playing stupid" was contextually appropriate. Karek responded to you by giving the widely accepted meaning of the phrase, and you confirmed her response. But let's please look again at my original statement, shall we? "You need an adverb there (like "stupidly"), unless you mean to imply that survivors are pretending to be stupid for fun (and I don't get that vibe)." (emphasis added) In other words, I explained the appropriate use of the phrase, by your own admission, correctly- noting that the statement Karek used was only contextually inappropriate, not universally incorrect. I am offended by the insult, but I'm not going to insist on an apology, since I certainly was being a dick- and I don't approve of that kind of behavior. Still, I do wish to note that your assertions about my incorrectness (excepting the typo) were entirely wrong. I do not believe that Karek was trying to imply that survivors were "playing stupid" to try and force an update, and I do not believe that because I choose to have some level of confidence in Karek. A belief that a conspiracy of survivor players were coordinating an effort to screw up, in the hopes that their apparent mistakes would force a game-breaking update, would be insanely paranoid, and exceptionally stupid.--FT ^{MCDU: Black Knights} 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

are you aware of the fact that you just confirmed a contradiction of your original statement? I am not aware of that because it isn't true. Let's recap: "If [Karek had] said "playing stupidly" as you suggest, that would imply an otherwise intelligent person playing Urban Dead in a stupid manner. "Playing stupid" on the other hand refers to "playing WHILE stupid" (think "driving drunk") and carries with it the implication that said player's stupidity is either constant or recurring, not simply restricted to UD." By contrast, your original statement combines with the above "I do not believe that Karek was trying to imply that survivors were "playing stupid" to try and force an update" to create the impression that you believe both "playing stupid" and "playing stupidly" carry the implication of faked or temporary stupidity. I think the point of disagreement is clear. If anyone has contradicted themselves it has been you (originally stating that one phrase should have been used, and now indicating them both to be equivalent).

The bottom line is that either turn of phrase is grammatically correct, and neither stupid players nor smart people playing stupidly deserve to be rewarded. So what are we arguing about again? Especially eight weeks later? And where in there exactly did I say something for which I owe you an apology?--Mister Nathan Marbles 06:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Scratch! Comment removed. You know why? I've decided that we're both just being stupidly. ;)--FT ^{MCDU: Black Knights} 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely okay with that. See you around. (: --Mister Nathan Marbles 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on differences

I have a question. Because i've never actually used a syringe before, what is the difference between the old process and new process (smartest case scenario?)

My understanding is that the current procedure to avoid wasting a syringe would be :-

Scan (until you succeed)

If not rotted then

revive

else

kill/leave RP

My understanding of your proposed procedure would be essentially identical. The only difference would be that you could :-

Scan (until you succeed)

if not rotted then

revive

else

Scan

if rotted then

leave RP

else

Kill first in stack

revive second in stack

(Assuming of course that you have enough AP)

Is that the case? If so is your dislike to do with being able to poke position 2 in the stack Karek?

-Bahhab 10:38, 12 September 2007 (BST)

This actually doesn't have a direct effect on syringes, just scanners. Scanners normally work like this:

First attempt, scan zombie A.

Second attempt, scan zombie B.

Third, Zombie C, etc.

However, if somebody has already scanned all of the zombies in an area, it works like this:

First attemp, scan zombie A

Second attempt, scan zombie A

Third attempt, scan zombie A, etc.

Karek's objection to the change is that, at present, a brain rotted zombie can stand in line until they occupy the zombie A slot, and this allows them to completely block access to zombies b-infinity without a profile link (which can only be acquired from a zombie via metagaming, DNA scanning, or observing the zombie destroy barricades/speak/some other actions- but when they're standing idly in a revive line, DNA scanning and metagaming are usually the only real options). Syringes also go to zombie A if you don't have a profile link for a zombie in line behind them, and since brain rotted zombies are immune to the effects of syringes, you can't get to the others in line until they're killed, wander off, or another zombie occupies slot A. This suggestion would not change the fact that zombie A gets syringes blindly used on zombies- it would only make it possible to scan past zombie A reliably whether or not somebody else has done it first.--Father Thompson 20:59, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Unfairly Duped

This suggestion was removed as a dupe of this suggestion. While I addressed the difference in the body of the suggestion, and in a response to the first dupe vote, I'll spell it out more explicitly, and demonstrate it mathematically, here... scanning a random zombie in the stack is substantially different from sequentially scanning through the stack, not only in the order that it provides the information, but in the ease with which information is obtained, because the "scan a random zombie" suggestion does not include a line stating that the same zombie shall not be scanned twice. So, in a stack of two zombies, my suggestion would cause somebody to scan zombie A, and move on to zombie b. The "Random zombie" suggestion would give a 50% chance to scan either zombie A or zombie B at random- every time you scanned. Thus, the odds of actually scanning both zombies in two AP are only 50%- compared to 100% with my suggestion, because on the first scan you have a 50% chance of getting A or B, and on the second scan you have a 50% chance of getting A or B- without regard to whether you got A or B on the first scan. There is a 25% chance that you will have to expend more than 3 AP or more, a 12.5% chance that you will have to expend 4 or more, a 6.25% chance that will will have to spend five or more- et cetera. Further, the larger the stack is, the more remote your chances of scanning all of the zombies in it within a reasonable amount of tries. At just five zombies, this is what it looks like:

First zombie: you have a 100% chance to scan a zombie you have not yet scanned, and will on average expend 1 AP acquiring new data.
Second zombie: You now have only an 80% chance to successfully scan a zombie you have not yet scanned, and will on average expend 1.25 AP acquiring new data. Average sum so far: 2.25 AP
Third zombie: You now have only a 60% chance to scan a zombie you haven't scanned yet, and will on average expend 1.6 AP acquiring new data. Average sum so far: 3.85 AP
Fourth zombie: You now have only a 40% chance to scan a zombie you haven't scanned yet, and will spend on average 2.5 AP acquiring new data. Average sum so far: 6.35 AP
Final zombie: You now have only a 20% chance to scan a zombie you haven't scanned yet, and will on average spend 5 AP acquiring new data.
Average AP expenditure to scan a stack of five zombies: 11.35- or more than twice what it should cost.
Your chances of scanning the zombies in 5 AP are very remote.

Five zombies is a pretty small stack, and the difference is already pretty pronounced- so this suggestion is substantially different from one proposing scanning a random zombie. It doesn't really matter which suggestion seems better to the voters- if they like random better, they should vote "kill" on this. It's not a dupe. (if my math is imperfect, feel free to correct me- but the fact that it demonstrates is real).--Father Thompson 20:14, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Having read the similar suggestion, I can say that I too believe this was unfairly duped. I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this, but I think the dupe tag should be removed. Random does not equal go in order. --Pdeq 05:15, 14 September 2007 (BST)

It was removed because of the wrong suggestion, but the dupe was with this suggestion (so it would have been removed either way). Both of them scan sequentially through the stack. Because there is no limit or rules to what can be duped it was. - If Jedaz = 05:24, 14 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

I'm planning on rewriting it, and resubmitting it in another form, with language that more strongly differentiates it from the random scanning suggestion. It was removed as a dupe of the random scanning suggestion, not the already removed suggestion- if there is no rule against removing something as a dupe of something that's already been removed, that needs to be fixed, because- and I very rarely use strong or insulting language online- that would be fuckin' retarded. I plan on noting that I'm not the first person to submit this suggestion, but that each time it's been suggested it's been removed as a dupe of a significantly different suggestion. When it hits the suggestions talk page, your comments would be appreciated. I actually kind of regret noting this here- it's not going to do anything, y'know?--Father Thompson 14:29, 17 September 2007 (BST)