User talk:Slartybartfast

My thoughts on your response to my vote, it's a bit rushed and I couldn't post it on the suggestion itself anymore, so here it is anyway.

It'll take longer to destroy the game for sure, so yeah it'll be an improvement. But most important in the end everything that forces people to do something is very bad for the game. people who don't like to play zombies already quit the game in frightening numbers when they are merely killed and can be revived. Forcing people to do stuff they don't like is simply griefing, not only doesn't it work, the game wouldn't need it if it did. zombies are at an all time high. seriously why whould you want to piss off thousand of people for simply not playing the way you like it? I doubt that you would like to be forced to play survivor for a week everytime you get combat revived. remember the old headshotthat took XP? that almost destroyed the game, and that would be a picknick compared to what you are suggesting. Any skill that forces people to play the other side whould be a hundred times more griefing and destabalizing. If you look at the history of the game development a simply change in AP cost, or a new skill that allows some better communication shifts the balance tens of percentage points before stabalizing. Less is more when it comes to improving the game. And I know that is what you want, a better game, like we all do.

Dont let this stop you from trying to make suggestions that improve the game, But take my advice when I say that you have more effect on the game by trying to make it a bit more fun instead trying to rescue it by tackling the biggest problem. Think small and you'll have the biggest impact.--Vista ^W! 20:57, 6 April 2006 (BST)