Suggestion talk:20081022 Burnt out cars
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Nope, the whole implementation is a dupe. If you want a non-dupe have him remake it as a flavor update instead of a searching update.--Karekmaps?! 00:42, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- Are the search percentages the same? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:46, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- Dunno about the same, i'd say they're not dissimilar though. I mean if he was proposing 50% search rates it'd be a different idea (still spammable though) butyeah this is really similar to in game but with a tiny bit of flavour explicitly stating there's a car here.--xoxo 00:48, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- About as dissimilar as TRPs and junkyards. The difference in the chance of finding something isn't that big, but the limited range drastically increases the chances of finding the individual items available there. Any of the three items found in cars has at least 10 times the chance as being found on the streets. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 00:55, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- Correct me if i'm wrong but "These cars should be able to be searched and there should be a low probability (under 10%) that you could find either a mobile phone, a book or a bottle of beer in it." means that the chance of finding ANYTHING is 10%, quite similar to the chance now i'd say. Considering there's 3 possible items and the only one of any real worth is the phone, the chance for that is 3.3% hardly game changing odds...--xoxo 00:57, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- So? Streets have about a 6% chance of finding something. You can find at least 13 different type of items on the streets. Divide the 6% among the many different possibilities (13) and you end at about 0.5%. 3.33% ≠ 0.5%. The difference might not seem that big, but look at it this way; 3.33% is once every 30 searches, while 0.5% is once every 200 searches. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 01:10, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- And <10% could be .00000001%. Your point? There's no where near enough information in the suggestion to back up claims of better searching.--Karekmaps?! 01:29, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- Search odds are irrelevant unless they are the best place to find an item. It's not the case for beer, it's not the case for books and it might be for phones, but, it's phones. And the difference between here and somewhere else is minuscule.--xoxo 01:34, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- So? Streets have about a 6% chance of finding something. You can find at least 13 different type of items on the streets. Divide the 6% among the many different possibilities (13) and you end at about 0.5%. 3.33% ≠ 0.5%. The difference might not seem that big, but look at it this way; 3.33% is once every 30 searches, while 0.5% is once every 200 searches. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 01:10, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- Correct me if i'm wrong but "These cars should be able to be searched and there should be a low probability (under 10%) that you could find either a mobile phone, a book or a bottle of beer in it." means that the chance of finding ANYTHING is 10%, quite similar to the chance now i'd say. Considering there's 3 possible items and the only one of any real worth is the phone, the chance for that is 3.3% hardly game changing odds...--xoxo 00:57, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- About as dissimilar as TRPs and junkyards. The difference in the chance of finding something isn't that big, but the limited range drastically increases the chances of finding the individual items available there. Any of the three items found in cars has at least 10 times the chance as being found on the streets. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 00:55, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- Dunno about the same, i'd say they're not dissimilar though. I mean if he was proposing 50% search rates it'd be a different idea (still spammable though) butyeah this is really similar to in game but with a tiny bit of flavour explicitly stating there's a car here.--xoxo 00:48, 25 October 2008 (BST)
This is a dupe, because essentially, you can already find all these items outside. 5 people said this is a Dupe. And the wiki policy states that you just need 3 people for it to be removed as a Dupe. The last thing we want is to clutter Peer Review with suggestions that Kevan already has implemented in some fashion. We have policy for a reason, to settle disputes. A person may say it is not a dupe, but if 5 people disagree, then then prehaps it is a dupe and should be removed. I'm reverting your change, Midianian, only because if you just run roughshod over the votes of 5 people, then dupes become meaingless. I prefer to let them have a say.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 22:40, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- Yes, 5 people said this is a Dupe. However, the Cycling Instructions demand that "there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate", not just that there's three votes and a link. As I've explained above, there are viable differences between this and existing game-mechanics, so I'm reverting your revert. You should read the cycling instructions anyway as you're not cycling the suggestion correctly. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:51, 25 October 2008 (BST)
- This is silly. You say it is not a Dupe and that there is a "viable difference". 5 other people say this is a dupe, and they believe that there is no such "viable difference". Those 5 other people count. How else can you determine what is a "viable difference" except via following the proper policy? Once 3 people state that it is a dupe, then by golly, it is a dupe! You can't overrule what other people state just because you disagree with them...that defeats the whole purpose of voting "Dupe" to begin with! I'm going to revert your revert, let the lame edit war commence.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) On second thought, I sent it over to Arby's. The quicker this gets resolved, the better.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 16:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- On the other hand, over double that amount think it's not, (the people voting kill/keep past the first dupe). Why is it fine to ignore those? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Since ShadowScope hasn't responded on the arbitration case after making it and hasn't exactly been very active recently, the arbitration case is unlikely to go along very fast. As the reason of Dupe removal is not to get the suggestion out of voting as soon as possible, but to prevent cluttering Peer Reviewed with duplicates, I'm putting the suggestion back to voting. If the voting closes before the arbitration case ends (quite unlikely) and the arbitration says it's a Dupe, it can be moved to Duped suggestions (from whichever category it ends up in). --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- And the Arbitration verdict was: Dupe of Cars and Search Vehicles. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since ShadowScope hasn't responded on the arbitration case after making it and hasn't exactly been very active recently, the arbitration case is unlikely to go along very fast. As the reason of Dupe removal is not to get the suggestion out of voting as soon as possible, but to prevent cluttering Peer Reviewed with duplicates, I'm putting the suggestion back to voting. If the voting closes before the arbitration case ends (quite unlikely) and the arbitration says it's a Dupe, it can be moved to Duped suggestions (from whichever category it ends up in). --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- On the other hand, over double that amount think it's not, (the people voting kill/keep past the first dupe). Why is it fine to ignore those? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is silly. You say it is not a Dupe and that there is a "viable difference". 5 other people say this is a dupe, and they believe that there is no such "viable difference". Those 5 other people count. How else can you determine what is a "viable difference" except via following the proper policy? Once 3 people state that it is a dupe, then by golly, it is a dupe! You can't overrule what other people state just because you disagree with them...that defeats the whole purpose of voting "Dupe" to begin with! I'm going to revert your revert, let the lame edit war commence.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) On second thought, I sent it over to Arby's. The quicker this gets resolved, the better.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 16:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
