Suggestion talk:20080619 Clicking Spray Can Should Be More Helpful and Less Painful

Done

Surely keep vote 13 means this can now be removed? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:54, 19 June 2008 (BST)

It's only half implemented. I just tried it. The message is improved but it still costs 1AP. --Explodey 17:59, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Edit conflicted, but same sentiment as above. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:00, 19 June 2008 (BST)

ok.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:03, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Hmm...

Dispite the fact that this was implimented, it would have most likely gone in the undecided or rejected bin... Hmm... What does this say about UD players? They like to **** NEWBS FOR FUN!!! I mean... are unsympathetic to the plight of the new player... I... mean... yeah.... --BoboTalkClown 18:52, 19 June 2008 (BST)

this doesnt say much about the regular ud player, but says a lot about a vocal minority of udwiki users who like to harass new users and their suggestions for shit and giggles to show how big their ePenis are. And one of such users is about to be promoted to crat. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 20:25, 19 June 2008 (BST)

disagreeing with a suggestion is one thing, but why do so many people feel the need to attack and insult anybody who creates a suggestion? this just discourages people from making suggestions or contributing to our community --Scotw 20:43, 19 June 2008 (BST

What exactly does posting the same suggestions over and over "contribute" to the community? Those are the people that get "attacked" the most. As far as this one goes, making a mistake once is understandable, but if it is such an ongoing problem that you feel you need to change the game mechanics maybe the problem is user error and not the game. Why wasn't there a suggestion like this for every inventory item? Why can people figure out to use the weapons you use the drop down menu, but seem to miss the big text box with graffiti next to it?--– Nubis ^NWO 21:14, 19 June 2008 (BST)\

I dunno... Talk to a web designer and ask them why they have to stick to certain conventions and expectations regarding how websites work, even if they're totally inefficient on many levels... Or an artist as to why the human eye/brain is able to conceptualise certain forms and make sense of them, but resists others... Talk a social psychologist about how people come to expect certain things done a certain way, as conditioning... Ask me why I can walk by an obviously posted sign in an office a bazillion times and never notice it ;P (and I may be weird, but I'm not alone...) Seriously... The interface as it was was what we call counter-intuitive. Very much so. What's so hard to admit about that? What's so hard to deal with that, even if YOU were smart enough to figure it out... Not everyone will be able to get over the counter-intuitive "block" as easily as you. Doesn't make them stupid. So, like, back off. --WanYao 22:34, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Actually, there HAVE been suggestions (perhaps only on the talk page) about such items in the past, so by writing a very specific, narrow suggestion (which is what the suggestion guidelines seem to advocate, and de-facto require to get any suggestion to pass) the suggestor avoided a dupe vote. I know because I'm pretty sure I wrote one regarding the GPS unit, and know for certain that I wrote one regarding guns (clicking the gun to reload just that gun, with a special skill that let you load 2 shells into a shotgun for 1 AP) and I suspect those are the tip of the iceberg. It seems the update did cover a wide range of such items.  Swiers 22:57, 19 June 2008 (BST)

What Haggisnuts ;P said ... I admit, I'm guilty of flaming of ridiculous suggestions at times, myself. But I always try to flame the suggestion not the user, and I usually flame only the truly BAD ones... There are a lot of truly moronic suggestions out there, and when someone just posts it to voting without even taking it through Talk / Development, and apparently not even reading the Dos and Do Nots... Then zealously clings to the idea even though it's been very cogently refuted and shown to be bad -- which happens often! Well... SHEEESH! But, as Haggisbum said, some people seem to need to "get their egos off" online... They say they don't need to, but their actions speak otherwise... --WanYao 21:07, 19 June 2008 (BST)

I have to admit, when I saw that this thing got implemented in part, it made me take a look at myself and my vote. I guess the wiki, in particular the suggestions system, has made me pretty jaded. It's a lot easier to tear someone's suggestion down than to constructively analyse it to see whether it could be reworked into something new. Since I've come back to the wiki, I've noticed that Talk:Suggestions has become something of a lions den. I'd almost rather post an idea I wasn't sure of as an actual suggestion, it'd probably get less stick. In answer to Bobo, I don't think that the flaming is confined to newbies. Look at the hate Jon Pyre gets.Anyway, I'm going to try to be more positive with my voting, not in that I'll vote "Keep" more, but I'll try to be less harsh. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 21:40, 19 June 2008 (BST)

True. Gone are the days when abuse was less personal and more centaur based. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:44, 19 June 2008 (BST)

By Jove, you're right! I've not seen Centaurs round these parts in many a moon, WTF or otherwise. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 22:37, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Internet white knights to the rescue! --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:35, 19 June 2008 (BST)

if they slay trolls moar power to 'em, i say. --WanYao 22:42, 19 June 2008 (BST)

White knights slaying trolls? Surely you jest - sensitive fucks like that are delicious prey. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:19, 20 June 2008 (BST)

Spam?

This suggestion is proof that some people will persist in using "spam" to mean "strong kill", no matter how much we remind them that they shouldn't. It probably happens with all suggestions, but with this one it's more apparent than usual. And most of those voters, as regular contributors to the suggestions section, should know better. I'd even go as far as to call it vandalism. After all you are trying to deny others the chance to vote the opposite way to you (by causing the suggestion to be cycled early.) And it's difficult to claim any of the usual reasons (violates basic game assumptions, grossly unbalancing, incomplete etc.) regarding this suggestion since none of these apply.
Of course some of the keep votes are equally daft, e.g. failing to read the suggestion & voting on the already-implemented part (the message) and ignoring the unimplemented & controversial part (the AP cost.) --Explodey 12:05, 20 June 2008 (BST)

Zero cost actions are idiotic, any deviation from this policy will see game breaking suggestions appear, hence Spam votes.

Think it's vandalism? Take it to A/VB. Good luck with that.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:33, 20 June 2008 (BST)

"No free actions" would be a valid justification for a spam vote, but only one (Ocular) says that. The rest are inane or some variant of "unnecessary". --Explodey 10:46, 21 June 2008 (BST)

Violates the Do's and Do nots under free actions. There are to be no free actions of any kind. Also, when you make a mistake, you should pay for that mistake. Taking away the penalty is kind of stupid. Making mistakes is still one of the most important ways we learn not to do things. You dont run a knife along your arm because it hurts, you dont stick your dick in a vise and turn it because it hurts, you dont play very physical sports for four hours when you are unfit because it will hurt like a bitch for a week, you dont sleep outside in a game because you will die, you dont click inventory items when their relevant action button is within three centimeters on the screen and clearly labelled because it will waste an AP. Examining an object is an action, and thus costs an action point. If you dont like it, thats your opinion, but dont accuse those of voting the other way of being vandals. Thats just stupid. Go to A/VB about this. I dare you. Back up your bark with some bite. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:44, 20 June 2008 (BST)

There are to be no free actions of any kind.. That misses the whole point of the suggestion. Clicking on the spraycan never produces any result, so it shouldn't be an action in the first place. It simply updates the page view. Are you saying ?zoom should use an AP? How about attacking targets that are not any longer present? Maybe ?rise should cost an AP...  Swiers 18:23, 20 June 2008 (BST)

Clicking an item is examining the item to see if it has a use. Hence the action. You were there when the hiding of people lists was added: It was because the strike crushed the server beneath its thousand strong heel in a day with banter. Thats a server load feature. ?rise isnt an action in and of itself, its an action call if that action is possible. ?dump is the same. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:27, 20 June 2008 (BST)

Before now, "examining" your spraycan reveled no information of any sort, so that justification is a pretty transparent argument a priori. And in any case, a suggestion saying that a type of action should be removed from the game (in this case, your supposed "examination") is not spam.  Swiers 18:37, 20 June 2008 (BST)

It did reveal information. It revealed that using the can itself was a waste of ap. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:40, 20 June 2008 (BST)

Which is exactly what I meant by argument a priori - you assume it should cost an AP, then defend that argument using that assumption. You haven't explained why a suggestion that an action be removed from the game is spam, you;ve just re-asserted your assumption. Personal assumption is a valid reason for a kill vote, but not spam.  Swiers 18:44, 20 June 2008 (BST)

Its always been that way. Clicking an item in your inventory gives you a message. In some cases the message isnt exactly useful, ill admit, but clicking any inventory item will either use it or tell you that it cant be used that way (In some cases there are no ways to use items, such as the worthless crucifix). In all the cases where the items cannot be used by directly clicking on them, there exists, in the section above them, a place where they can be used, and such things are clearly marked. I shall have you know that i have never opposed the giving people useful messages when they click on the things, i object to giving them that message for free. No free lunches, thanks. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:49, 20 June 2008 (BST)

"Its always been that way" could be used to justify killing ANY suggestion, or even doing away with the whole suggestions section of this wiki. Loading map.cgi gives you new information (messages) at no cost- is that a free lunch? If clicking a button / link results in no possible useful effect, it's not really an action. The entire server transaction could be replaced with client side javascript with no impact on game play, in fact.
Personally, I'd rather Kevan just did away with having any "action" effect assigned to items that are not used that way. Its easy; just don't put an "action" link in the code for those buttons. It would result in smaller code (ie, less server load) and you could click on the button as many times as you like with nothing at all happening as a result. People would figure it out pretty fast, and if they didn't, well, it wouldn't cost them (or the server) anything to have tried. But my personal difference doesn't make this suggestion spam.  Swiers 23:01, 20 June 2008 (BST)