Talk:Suggestions/11th-Jan-2006
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Suggestion discussion
Today's suggestions
Heightened Awareness
- Kill - I don't like this because it allows players too much information about their environment. There's something fun about not really knowing a lot about your surroundings. Also, this requires pulling a lot more information from the database whenever someone steps outside. Instead of merely displaying player locations for nine squares, this suggests adding eight more calls for barricade strength, eight more for generator status, eight more for cell tower status, and one that I can't quite figure out for the "horde of zombies", given that the game already displays the number of zombies in a visible location... Therefore, kill for gameplay reasons, and definite kill for technical considerations (24 more database calls per outside movement is a bad idea). Bentley Foss 05:36, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re: - Gosh, server and code are such horrible excuses for a Kill. By your reasoning, let's take out colors for blocks and names of buildings, then we'll save tons of resources! -- Amazing 06:16, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re: - Server-murdering objections are never horrible "excuses" for voting kill. Please see "Keep It Simple!!" in the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots on that matter. I had, if you will note, gameplay objections too. Further, it's not just the colors in your suggestion that cause problems--it's all the extra information that has to be pulled in order to support your color scheme. The game must, currently, perform 9 calls to get all the location names/graphics you see. Then, it has to pull 9 more queries to get the various players standing within those areas. Then, you need a few more for graffiti, barricade status, etc. in your current block. On top of this, your suggestion, as I said before, would add 8 more calls to support your barricade formatting, 8 more for generator formatting, and 8 more (or specialized code to check to see if the square is a cell tower square) for cell tower formatting. Now, multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of actions that occur outside each day. That's a lot of extra work.
- Re: - Gosh, server and code are such horrible excuses for a Kill. By your reasoning, let's take out colors for blocks and names of buildings, then we'll save tons of resources! -- Amazing 06:16, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Bentley Foss 17:52, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Comment: - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the lag in the game is not the database, but the webserver. I mean, most databases running on a decent machine can withstand the 5,000 or so users that might be logged on at any given time. I know of websites that can withstand thousands of viewers pulling down info constantly, with every refresh. I think the bottleneck is at the webserver, and adding an extra classname or two to the stylesheet is not that much extra load. If someone knows otherwise about the server situation, I'd be interested to hear it. --Intx13 17:31, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re - As a rule, databases are almost universally slower than webservers. This can be alleviated by various technical tricks, such as multiple databases pulling the data simultaneously, keeping slightly-out-of-date aggregate information available on the web server and pointing users to it (at the expense of accuracy), and other tricks. UD isn't suited to approach #2 for obvious reasons. I doubt the game would see any benefits from approach #1 either, because implementing such a solution for UD would be too costly/complex/etc. for a free game. Just trust me, the database is the bottleneck. Bentley Foss 17:51, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- The thing is that this is still up for Kevan to decide and worry about. You're voting on the suggestion, not the server impact. It'll probably still be a Kill but at least it won't be for crud reasons. -- Amazing 18:28, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Tht argument suffers from a logical fallacy--namely, once used, there's no limit to when one must stop using "It's up to Kevan to decide" as a valid argument. If everything is ultimately up to Kevan, then the community's input is worthless. The UD community is being used as a filter, and it is therefore their responsibility to look at the entire scope of the suggestion and vote on the merits of that suggestion. I just happen to be one of the few people who looks at the technical issues involved. Bentley Foss 03:58, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Highly incorrect. Claiming that Kevan can decide for himself if server usage is an issue in no way validates the production of inane or rediculous suggestions. All it means is that Kevan can decide for himself if server usage is an issue. -- Amazing 04:50, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Likewise, one can always use the argument that "Kevan can decide whether zombie roller skates are a worthwhile item" or "Kevan can decide whether 50 damage, 95% accuracy rockets are a good idea" ad infinitum. One cannot use this argument because it's a statement of fact. One might as well claim "This suggestion is valid because it is written in English." Kevan always decides what goes into the game. It's up to the people voting on the suggestions to voice their opinions on all aspects of the suggestion so as to filter things before they reach him. By filtering, the community hopes to ensure that those suggestions on the Peer Reviewed pages are actually something that a majority of people actually like, so a new introduction won't just infuriate thousands upon thousands of players as soon as it's put in. I voted kill because A) I think preserving some mystery adds to the atmosphere of the game, and B) because I think it would literally slow the game down if implemented as written. I think we're just going to have to disagree here, because we're both obviously not seeing the point the other person is trying to make. Bentley Foss 05:27, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Well, you're drawing lines between Server Usage and zombies on rollerskates, so I guess this conversation is over. -- Amazing 23:15, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- No, I was drawing lines between the "It's all up to Kevan to decide" argument and the fact that "It's all up to Kevan to decide" is an invalid argument. Therefore, I don't believe "It's all up to Kevan to decide" is a valid objection to my "Kill" vote, which is really what I've been trying to say this whole time. I do not believe that you have yet addressed that issue. Do you agree that "It's all up to Kevan to decide" is a valid reason for a Kill vote or not, and why? I would be grateful if you'd limit your reply to that issue. Bentley Foss 05:53, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Do me a favor and point out where I said "It's all up to Kevan to decide." and don't try to tell me how to respond or what to say. It's incredibly rediculous. -- Amazing 06:08, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Please see your above reply at 18:28, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT). I will admit that "this is still up for Kevan to decide" has minor differences from "It's all up to Kevan to decide", but I feel those differences are minor at best. I would very much appreciate it if you would stop focusing on technicalities (namely, the way I worded my above question) and using annoyance/etc. (at my request to get a straight answer out of you) as misdirection. I do not feel that you have answered the question, which I shall propose again, as follows: You've made the claim several times that "Kevan can decide" whether or not suggestions should be implemented. It is my opinion that, for the examples stated in the above discussion (namely, that this argument can be applied to every single suggestion no matter how ridiculous it is), using any variant of "Kevan can decide" is not really a valid objection to someone's Kill vote. Do you agree or disagree, and why? Bentley Foss 16:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- "Minor"? It's FUGGING DIFFERENT in meaning and phrasing! You've really lost all credibility. You don't want me to focus on your phrasing becuase you're trying to skew what I'm saying to meet your own ends. Yeah, I'm sure you'd LOVE for me to stop catching your tricks. Also point out the times I said that "Kevan can decide" on any other issue than Server Strain. Oh sorry, was I picking out your fibs again? -- Amazing 03:47, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- So, I say that "Kevan can decide" is not really a valid objection to someone's Kill vote. Do you agree or disagree, and why? Bentley Foss 05:28, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- It's a valid objection to all Server and Code issues. It is not a valid objection to common sense, gameplay, or realism issues, etc. and so forth. -- Sorry you failed to force me into answering one way or another. Though having an answer be black or white certainly suits your personal goal in the discussion, that's not how the world works, pal. -- Amazing 00:04, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Well, you didn't actually provide your reasons why, but at least I finally got some kind of answer out of you. Until next time, then. Bentley Foss 08:56, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- It's a valid objection to all Server and Code issues. It is not a valid objection to common sense, gameplay, or realism issues, etc. and so forth. -- Sorry you failed to force me into answering one way or another. Though having an answer be black or white certainly suits your personal goal in the discussion, that's not how the world works, pal. -- Amazing 00:04, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- So, I say that "Kevan can decide" is not really a valid objection to someone's Kill vote. Do you agree or disagree, and why? Bentley Foss 05:28, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- "Minor"? It's FUGGING DIFFERENT in meaning and phrasing! You've really lost all credibility. You don't want me to focus on your phrasing becuase you're trying to skew what I'm saying to meet your own ends. Yeah, I'm sure you'd LOVE for me to stop catching your tricks. Also point out the times I said that "Kevan can decide" on any other issue than Server Strain. Oh sorry, was I picking out your fibs again? -- Amazing 03:47, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Please see your above reply at 18:28, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT). I will admit that "this is still up for Kevan to decide" has minor differences from "It's all up to Kevan to decide", but I feel those differences are minor at best. I would very much appreciate it if you would stop focusing on technicalities (namely, the way I worded my above question) and using annoyance/etc. (at my request to get a straight answer out of you) as misdirection. I do not feel that you have answered the question, which I shall propose again, as follows: You've made the claim several times that "Kevan can decide" whether or not suggestions should be implemented. It is my opinion that, for the examples stated in the above discussion (namely, that this argument can be applied to every single suggestion no matter how ridiculous it is), using any variant of "Kevan can decide" is not really a valid objection to someone's Kill vote. Do you agree or disagree, and why? Bentley Foss 16:19, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Do me a favor and point out where I said "It's all up to Kevan to decide." and don't try to tell me how to respond or what to say. It's incredibly rediculous. -- Amazing 06:08, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- No, I was drawing lines between the "It's all up to Kevan to decide" argument and the fact that "It's all up to Kevan to decide" is an invalid argument. Therefore, I don't believe "It's all up to Kevan to decide" is a valid objection to my "Kill" vote, which is really what I've been trying to say this whole time. I do not believe that you have yet addressed that issue. Do you agree that "It's all up to Kevan to decide" is a valid reason for a Kill vote or not, and why? I would be grateful if you'd limit your reply to that issue. Bentley Foss 05:53, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Well, you're drawing lines between Server Usage and zombies on rollerskates, so I guess this conversation is over. -- Amazing 23:15, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Likewise, one can always use the argument that "Kevan can decide whether zombie roller skates are a worthwhile item" or "Kevan can decide whether 50 damage, 95% accuracy rockets are a good idea" ad infinitum. One cannot use this argument because it's a statement of fact. One might as well claim "This suggestion is valid because it is written in English." Kevan always decides what goes into the game. It's up to the people voting on the suggestions to voice their opinions on all aspects of the suggestion so as to filter things before they reach him. By filtering, the community hopes to ensure that those suggestions on the Peer Reviewed pages are actually something that a majority of people actually like, so a new introduction won't just infuriate thousands upon thousands of players as soon as it's put in. I voted kill because A) I think preserving some mystery adds to the atmosphere of the game, and B) because I think it would literally slow the game down if implemented as written. I think we're just going to have to disagree here, because we're both obviously not seeing the point the other person is trying to make. Bentley Foss 05:27, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Highly incorrect. Claiming that Kevan can decide for himself if server usage is an issue in no way validates the production of inane or rediculous suggestions. All it means is that Kevan can decide for himself if server usage is an issue. -- Amazing 04:50, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Tht argument suffers from a logical fallacy--namely, once used, there's no limit to when one must stop using "It's up to Kevan to decide" as a valid argument. If everything is ultimately up to Kevan, then the community's input is worthless. The UD community is being used as a filter, and it is therefore their responsibility to look at the entire scope of the suggestion and vote on the merits of that suggestion. I just happen to be one of the few people who looks at the technical issues involved. Bentley Foss 03:58, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- The thing is that this is still up for Kevan to decide and worry about. You're voting on the suggestion, not the server impact. It'll probably still be a Kill but at least it won't be for crud reasons. -- Amazing 18:28, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re - As a rule, databases are almost universally slower than webservers. This can be alleviated by various technical tricks, such as multiple databases pulling the data simultaneously, keeping slightly-out-of-date aggregate information available on the web server and pointing users to it (at the expense of accuracy), and other tricks. UD isn't suited to approach #2 for obvious reasons. I doubt the game would see any benefits from approach #1 either, because implementing such a solution for UD would be too costly/complex/etc. for a free game. Just trust me, the database is the bottleneck. Bentley Foss 17:51, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Comment: - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the lag in the game is not the database, but the webserver. I mean, most databases running on a decent machine can withstand the 5,000 or so users that might be logged on at any given time. I know of websites that can withstand thousands of viewers pulling down info constantly, with every refresh. I think the bottleneck is at the webserver, and adding an extra classname or two to the stylesheet is not that much extra load. If someone knows otherwise about the server situation, I'd be interested to hear it. --Intx13 17:31, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
