Suggestion talk:20071223 Zombie Deformities

Midianian's Vote

Dupe/Spam - Pretty similar to Jon's Wounds. I also like its method of aquiring the disfigurements better (which is practically the only difference). Instead of just random disfigurements from an arbitrary number of deaths, you get them from getting killed in different circumstances. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This system means you have to earn your disfigurements through long term dedication to zombiehood. Leaving it up to how you get killed to determine what you can display means that you either never get all the options (I've never been killed with a flare gun, hockey stick, golf club, etc.) or you organise one of your friends (or zergs) to kill you in the way you need for particular disfigurements. This way is also very interactive, allowing zombies to vote for the flavour they want via the wiki. It encourages zombies to keep playing, and gives a small bit of added incentive to get up everyday from those headshots, knowing that you're a step closer to achieving a goal. Oh, and not all deformities need to be wounds caused by conflict. Some can be decay related -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:58 23 December 2007 (BST)

Getting killed: now that's an achievement that shows true dedication to zombiehood. Or not. I think the best solution would be a kind of combination of these two, but on it's own, I don't think yours is very good. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the tactical advantages that zombies have in death? For an experienced zombie, it costs them, at most, 6AP to just stand up. It costs a whole shiteload more for even a maxed out survivor to put them back down again. That's what ?rise is all about. This isn't just a deformities for deformities sake suggestion, like that one you linked to. It's a suggestion to give zombies something to keep playing for, long term, the longer they play as a zombie character, the more cool descriptions they get. They'd be like badges of honor.
But congratulations, you win -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:05 24 December 2007 (BST)

As I've said in other places, one of the best parts about UD is that there is no incentive for people to play after reaching max level. This means that those who do play after that, do it because they like the game, not just out of habit or because they want to be better than someone else or "finish the game".

In my opinion badges of honor/bragging rights are Bad. They encourage grinding and abusing the game-mechanics in order to attain something that is of no real value to anyone.

While it is true that dying is often a part of many tactics that benefit zombies, dying in itself holds no advantage or benefit. A simple way to increase one's deathcount would be to just walk near a mall in a green suburb and log in every hour to stand up. Sure, survivors would waste their AP on that zombie, but if the zombie wasn't there, they'd just waste it on something else. And all the while the zombie could be elsewhere actually making a difference.

And no, I don't win. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Do you have any idea how damn hard it is to get that many deaths? You have to actively work at it.

2) Deaths is a sign of you helping the horde, especially that many, more deaths means more bullet sponging means lower level zombies actually have a chance at the game. Not to mention it means more break ins because you can not get to 350 deaths without frequent use of ?rise.

3)All of this shows you really lack any knowledge of how organized zombie play works, go back and figure that out before claiming it's useless or that deaths have no impact on the game for them.--Karek^maps?! 01:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Getting deaths isn't hard. You can easily get ~8 per day if you want to.

2) I'm not saying deaths are uselss or that they have no impact on the game. But having a large deathcount itself doesn't prove anything. Dying doesn't prove that you've been in a break-in. Dying doesn't prove that you've bullet-sponged. And of course you can get to 350 deaths without ?rise. It just takes time.

3) You on the other hand seem to have no idea how ferals play. And I can tell you, they don't die all that often. Would you exclude them from this? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfairly Duped

I feel that this was unfairly duped. As said in Midianian's vote, the difference is in the method of acquiring disfigurements. --Pdeq^Talk* 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference being that instead of the type of death, it depends on the number of deaths. To me that is only a minor variation of the concept. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the dupe template for two reasons, 1) Do Not Dupe Remove Something Where YOU Are The Only Dupe Voter, especially when it is so blatantly different and is universally kept(ignoring two people tagging along who have a history of doing so). and 2) It's not a dupe, Jon Pyres suggestion is a new level of clothing, there is no achievement scale in clothing, the ONLY thing similar between the two suggestions is that they both display where clothing does Everything else is different--Karek^maps?! 01:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Dupe/Spam is an invalid vote type anyway, pick a hole but if you are adding spam onto it it is spam, not dupe.--Karek^maps?! 02:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, start complaining about Dupe/Spam now.

1. And where does that read?
2. "The only dupe voter" WTF? I can count three Dupe votes. Having a history of tagging along makes no difference.
3. "Universally kept" has nothing to do with it being a dupe.
4. You seem have a funny definition of different. It apparently changes based on whether you like the suggestion or not. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The way the dupe system has always worked is based on third party review, and considering it's a scheduled protection it should probably be left to the Sysops. Either way you, the only dupe voter to actually try to qualify their vote and the first one at that, have no right to remove it as a dupe, just damn common sense if you want to have it not look like you are intentionally trying to abuse ambiguity in the system to make a point that you've been after for a long time, it's abusing dupe removal, blatantly at that considering there are only three dupe votes as opposed to 26 keep votes, compared to Wave Hello which is pretty much 1:1, yes I know how Wave Hello was removed, don't agree with it but I do agree it was a dupe, has nothing to do with this extremely different case. Put simply, the only thing even close to similar between this suggestion and the one you are trying to dupe it on is that it displays in the profile section, it's not differing in scale, it's not differing in style, it's differing in implementation and is actually closer to any of the numerous badge suggestions than Jon's horrible clothes one, if you had been trying to actually find something that might serve as a reasonable dupe you would have pulled one of those. Long Story short? Not everything with three dupe votes is removed because it's not the dupe voters right to remove it.--Karek^maps?! 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF is you attachment to the keep votes? The number of keep votes has absolutely no relevance to it being a dupe. Yours is the only one that disputes this suggestion's difference to Jon's Wounds.

Sysops aren't mods (as you've youself said). They have no special knowlegde or powers in duping suggestions. Dupe votes have never required any kind of justification and Category:Duped_Suggestions is full of suggestions with only "Dupe - link. --sig" kind of votes. There are also many precedents where one of the three dupe voters removes the suggestion, many of them fittingly done by boxy, but others have done it also.

I wasn't trying to prove a point or abuse an ambiguity in the system. I just think these suggestions are very close. Sure, there are only three Dupes, but this had been in voting for only two days. More were (and still are) likely to come. If you want to prolong this, we can wait and let someone else dupe this, again. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedents of abuse aren't precedents to follow. Dupers should never remove the suggestion, it removes the review aspect. Suggestions:Cycling_Instructions#Dupe, Rule #1, your comment:

Midianian said:

I also like its method of aquiring the disfigurements better (which is practically the only difference)

You actually state there is a viable difference, the method of acquiring the disfigurements, not to mention that you can't really confirm it when it's your opinion that's up for confirmation. Pretty much common sense that you shouldn't remove it, no? It's not my job to prove the suggestion is different, it's yours to prove it's the same, but even then you have failed to do so and your own statement on the vote pretty much proves it otherwise, implementation when it is the suggestion is a difference. It's why this differs from Wave Hello in which the only difference was how many people see it. Like I said, this is closer to a Badge/rank/achievement suggestion than it is to the clothes one.--Karek^maps?! 13:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference (actually a couple), but I don't consider them to be viable differences.

It'd just be silly if those who voted Dupe couldn't remove it. By the same logic anyone who's voted Spam on a suggestion shouldn't remove it as spam (especially when sysop-spaminating). Requiring someone other than one of the dupe voters to remove the suggestion doesn't achieve anything other than requiring one more person who thinks the suggestion is a dupe. Don't make up rules that don't exist.

And there were other differences between Wave Hello and the Emotes suggestion. Mainly the fact that the two work on a completely different scale. But this isn't the place to discuss that. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1 person or 50 people seeing your wave is not a difference except as just that, more people seeing a useless function that does exactly the same thing. As for spams, not the same at all. There are very specific limitations on spam votes that keep them from needing to have a review process, 2/3rds, 6+ hours of voting, and for Sysop Removal at least 7 spam votes and they need to be more than the other vote types. Don't use the exact wording of the rules to try and create a problem where none exists by abusing the system. You, as a dupe voter, can not legitimately review the dupe request, it's like an Arbitrator ruling on case involving him or a Sysop claiming they have the right to blank pages without it being vandalism. If you want to push your dupe reform suggestions don't push breaking the system so that it's actually needed.--Karek^maps?! 16:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does voting Dupe on the suggestion tarnish one's ability to judge it's closeness to another suggestion? That judgement is already needed when casting the vote, so please explain how it is any different for making sure that there are no differences when cycling the suggestion? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Funt's Idea

Why not do it like this? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)