Suggestion talk:20090406 Limited Give
Discussion (From Developing Suggestions)
-1 Morality point if you read the name and went 'gah' without reading the content--Kamikazie-Bunny 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- +1 Troll point for the generic and inaccurate name, +1 Self-Righteousness point for pre-emptive moralization. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I qualify for the troll point or inaccurate name, generic yes... But I'll gladly take the SRppem... oh +1 point for knowing the point game. --Kamikazie-Bunny 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is quite a limited "Give" suggestion. It's inaccurate the same way as saying "9/11 was orchestrated by a group of simians". It's technically true (humans are simians), but the majority are going to interpret it incorrectly. Using such an inaccurate and generic name is just inviting people to go "Gah" when they see the name and quite possibly ignore the actual content (hence the Troll). Actually, it's not until the fourth paragraph where you explain that no, it's not the regular completely retarded "Give" suggestion. So yeah, call it "Limited Give" or something and people might pay attention to it. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, name changed. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is quite a limited "Give" suggestion. It's inaccurate the same way as saying "9/11 was orchestrated by a group of simians". It's technically true (humans are simians), but the majority are going to interpret it incorrectly. Using such an inaccurate and generic name is just inviting people to go "Gah" when they see the name and quite possibly ignore the actual content (hence the Troll). Actually, it's not until the fourth paragraph where you explain that no, it's not the regular completely retarded "Give" suggestion. So yeah, call it "Limited Give" or something and people might pay attention to it. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I qualify for the troll point or inaccurate name, generic yes... But I'll gladly take the SRppem... oh +1 point for knowing the point game. --Kamikazie-Bunny 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It'd be nice to see people be able to give each other the flavor items and whatnot, but I doubt it will happen. Kevan did say in the past that he was working on some kind of workable way of doing this and explains why it isn't in the game here. --Johnny Bass 14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Scientists level quite effectively from reading. This is a zergers slow burning dream. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would be an issue, 10AP a day for zergs is not exactly going to break the game and I'm pretty sure the 'professional' zergers out there have a more effective strategy such as FAKPunching in hospitals, good point though but I just don't see a significant risk of Zerg abuse. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I attempted something similar to this a long time ago:
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/21st-Aug-2006
That was as good as I could get it. I don't fancy your chances, but have a look at that and see if it gives you any thought's. The Mad Axeman 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think our suggestions are opposite ends of the spectrum, Mine gives useless items, yours does not. The biggest difference is mine drastically reduces the zergabusility by preventing consumables being transferred. Having read it though an idea for transferring consumables has come to mind... you can only give items to a player if they do not have one in their inventory... But I'll see how this one goes and might expanded it to include that pending on feed back or voting results (people give a lot more feedback there). --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the "jerk" factor here is wildly underestimated. You could just shove thirty useless items into some guy's hands just to be obnoxious. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing - assuming it costs AP to give, but not drop. It could be fun, in a petulant sort of way. -CaptainVideo 03:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is probably the biggest problem. There WILL be assholes who will do that, whether it costs AP or not.--Pesatyel 04:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- So I suppose that, should this be implemented, a "accept/deny gift" option is in order? --Private Mark 07:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but then no "giving" would REALLY get done because of the 10 minute game window.--Pesatyel 10:12, 29 March 2009 (BST)
- The jerk factor is mostly negated by the 0AP to drop function, the only other concern would be IP limits from dropping which is rarely an issue for most players. Jerk loaders would spend 50AP to offload their contents (assuming their entire inventory consisted of books and beer) on to someone else but cost 0AP to drop. An obvious solution (which I missed) would be to prevent givving of items to someone over 100%Enc, which I will add now. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:21, 30 March 2009 (BST)
- Perhaps, but then no "giving" would REALLY get done because of the 10 minute game window.--Pesatyel 10:12, 29 March 2009 (BST)
- So I suppose that, should this be implemented, a "accept/deny gift" option is in order? --Private Mark 07:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion (From Voting)
Although this system primarily covers Infinite-use items, there is no reason that a good system for limited use items (and shotguns/pistols) could not be implemented in addition to this system in the future. This system does not prevent additional Give/Trade systems being added or replacing this one in game.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:25, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Per Gnome's vote
Silly Gnome. Don't you know? If K. Bunny restricted it to booze, he would get lots of dupe votes! Don't you remember this? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:12, 7 April 2009 (BST)
