Suggestion talk:20080221 Some Way to Tell If Someone IS ACTIVE (LOGGED IN)
I think everyone is missing the point here. Yes, the last person is at the bottom of the list. I GET THAT.
Every player has to Log IN. Is there a way to link that to the way their name is displayed in-game? If not, that's the answer I'm looking for. I will delete the suggestion myself. lebourreau 14:49 21 February, 2008
yes, I'm a newbie. When I go to our group's forum, it shows who's on-line. My question is, can something similar be done in-game here? Sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse... lebourreau 14:53 21 February, 2008
as far as i'm conncerned, you're right about the logging in thing... thing is, many people value the aspects of uncertainty that are built into the game... and the fact that instant communication is rare... we don't expect instant responses when we talk to people in-game, and we don't really want to know with certainty who is online -- unless it's through seeing perform actions between our own actions... i don't think i am presumptuous in speaking for a large part of the community on this.... your suggestion isn't something we feel we need, and probably don't want, either. nothing personal, BTW, in that... --WanYao 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks WanYao, part of your agruement is that some players would not want to be seen as active, and therefore, a target. That's a fair arguement.lebourreau 11:47 22 February, 2008
Oh shit...I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the author, le bourreau. I thought that was a non-author RE...Sorry about that! I shouldn't have struck that out... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No worries, you were right, thanks. Discussion is better held here.lebourreau 11:48 22 February, 2008 GMT
There are a few problems with that type of thing, for example you can't make it work on zombie otherwise you remove one of the most important balancing features of the game, Zombie Anonymity. In that case it just means that Zombie automatically have a few targets to infect/attack until they run and that's without any AP expenditure, effort, or actions on that players part as is currently the case. So this would just end up being either a huge zombie buff or a huge zombie nerf. Which is pretty much why there isn't something like this in game, and probably why this will end up not passing.--Karekmaps?! 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please forgive me, but I'm not sure what you are saying: "zombie buff" and "nerf". Zombies lose their Anonymity (being a nameless member of a horde) if they are in your Contacts. But again, that is not what I'm talking about. If a zombie breaks in, he van tell who's active and Drag him outside. Survivors can see which Zombie is active and kill him instead of the next zed who is inactive, and not an imediate threat. Sorry if missed your point..lebourreau 11:54 22 February, 2008 GMT
- You don't seem to understand the game yet, le bourreau (that's ok). One of the main strengths of zombies is that survivors can not choose which one to attack (unless they personally know them... have them on their contact list). You can't choose to shoot only high level zombies over their less dangerous newbie brothers... and you should not be able to pick active ones to shoot over those out of AP. Also, choosing an active survivor to attack is not a good thing for a zombie during a break in. Active survivors have a tendency to move away just before you can kill them, only to be healed for relatively little cost (FAKs are hugely efficient compared to attacks/revives). The best target for a zombie to attack is the one highest on the list of names. That character is likely to be the one that has been inactive the longest, and is the one to have saved up the most AP. More AP to burn means much more dangerous, or much more likely to be able to barricade to EHB -- boxy talk • i 12:11 22 February 2008 (BST)
- thanks Boxy for your input. you do have a valid point, that the guy at the top of the list has the most AP, and when he logs IN, can do the most work. But a guy who is active can barricade NOW and keep out the flood of zombies. All these zombies kill ALL the survivors, and that's what wins mall seiges, etc. If I were a zombie and broke into a building, I'd Drag out the last guy in the list, let my zombie partners kill him, go back in again and Drag out another.
- Also, realistically (REAL LIFE), from a survivor's point of view, I WOULD shoot active zeds over inactive ones. When the IMMEDIATE threat is taken away, eliminate the rest. Sorry about beating a dead horse. You are correct in what you say. I have a different style (for lack of a better term) of playing. Both valid, I think--Le bourreau 17:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the game yet, le bourreau (that's ok). One of the main strengths of zombies is that survivors can not choose which one to attack (unless they personally know them... have them on their contact list). You can't choose to shoot only high level zombies over their less dangerous newbie brothers... and you should not be able to pick active ones to shoot over those out of AP. Also, choosing an active survivor to attack is not a good thing for a zombie during a break in. Active survivors have a tendency to move away just before you can kill them, only to be healed for relatively little cost (FAKs are hugely efficient compared to attacks/revives). The best target for a zombie to attack is the one highest on the list of names. That character is likely to be the one that has been inactive the longest, and is the one to have saved up the most AP. More AP to burn means much more dangerous, or much more likely to be able to barricade to EHB -- boxy talk • i 12:11 22 February 2008 (BST)
I'm sorry to see this die. I do not agree with Aeon17 who says it can't be done, and this was followed by 5 "as Aeon"s. One Kill, with no reason. Two guys never log out (no big deal, they will work to the top of the list, followed in the list by people logged out, so you'd know they were idle).
Two votes for "do not make players targets", I can accept. Consider it dropped.
Now, what do I do, leave this SUggestion to gather cobwebs, in case it ever gets referenced to a later Dupe?..lebourreau 12:05 22 February, 2008 GMT
- Yes. Voting on this suggestion is completed, and its been proccesed and cataegorized. You don;t have to do anything, and in fact editing it further would be innapropriate (technically vandalism). In fact, it should be protected so that only mods can edit it, I think.
Swiers 01:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- He can't anyway, it's protected under a A/G#Scheduled_Protections--Karekmaps?! 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's okay if we still CHAT about it here on the Discussion page, I hope... (?)--Le bourreau 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- He can't anyway, it's protected under a A/G#Scheduled_Protections--Karekmaps?! 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
