User talk:Zardoz
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
HI!
I see you're new around here. There's plenty to do around here. Join a group, do some article writing, or for a laugh you can check this out. If you have any questions or need any help with anything, I'll be glad to do so, or find someone more skilled who can :) --Nallan (Talk) 07:21, 8 April 2008 (BST)
- Just wanted to say hello as well. --Airborne88
T|Z.Quiz|PSS 20:43, 13 April 2008 (BST)
- Thanks!-- ZZ
05:21, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Thanks!-- ZZ
FYI
It's best you ignore J3d: he's a drama whore and right now he's really butthurt about some wiki issues.--Luke Skywalker 07:28, 8 April 2008 (BST)
Searching
| Zardoz said: |
| I would appreciate if someone could link me to an explanation of how UD handles searching for items on my talk page. For example, if an item has a 2% chance to be found, does that mean you are guaranteed to find it after 50 searches or that each search only has a 2% chance of finding an item? The reason for my curiosity is that I would like to calculate just how much AP (on average) would someone have to spend for the worst case scenario and just how AP efficient Pump Shotguns would really be. Thank you. |
- The second case you mention is correct. Current guesses put the rates (in a light gun store) at about 9% for a pistol, 9% for a shotgun, 17% for a clip, and 17% for shell. PD rates are closer to 4.5% for pistol, 1.2% for shotgun, 8.5% for shell, 8.5% for clip, with radios and such having their own percents. People who worry about "search dilution" are usually being silly; if you add a new item with its own search rate, you just increase the total chance of finding SOMETHING (by the rate of the new item) and don't decrease the chance of finding any single item.
As for analyzing the time it takes to find something, there's several ways to look at it. One (IMO the most accurate) is to calculate how good your chances are of finding at least one with 50 AP. The formula for this is 1-[(1- rate)50] The rates you give are unclear (Mall Gunstore 2/3%? What about with Bargain Hunting? A lit mall?) but, with a 1% rate gives you a 40% chance of finding one after 50 AP. At 5%, that goes up to a 92% chance of finding one with 50 AP. So it looks like worst case scenario, you;d find a pump shotgun in a day or two (while still loading up on shells and other good stuff) and best case, you'd almost certainly find one (along with all sorts of other useful guns and ammo) in a single day.
Swiers 00:01, 9 April 2008 (BST)
- Thank you for taking the time to write Swiers! :) To make sure I understand your formula correctly, if we work with, say, the rate of finding a Pistol in a mall (9%) we have: (1-(1-0.09)50)=0.99 or, a 99% chance of finding at least one pistol while searching a mall using 50AP. When I listed the search rates for pump shotgun all I did was take the rates for a regular shotgun and halve them.
- At this point I keep wanting to say that we are "missing the big picture" and that - when you consider Ankle Grab, large zombie hoards and downtime when searching for ammo - the Pump Shotgun is fairly balanced but that's likely because I hate to see an idea go. Currently I lack the knowledge to try and balance the Pump Shotgun against the "worst case scenario" of people carrying 11 of them at a time without making the pump shotgun irreverent (e.g. too low search rates or silly requirements). That's alright though because I have another idea to introduce: gun sacks. This is most likely the opposite of what just sprung into your mind and I'll be looking forward to fellow UDer's reactions.
- Once again, thank you for your post!--Zardoz 00:48, 9 April 2008 (BST)
- Yeah, you've got the math right. You don;t need to use 50AP, I just picked that as a representative number. A related way to look at it is to figure out how much AP you must spend to have a 50% chance of finding the item at least once. Note that this is a bit more complex than just saying "5% to find means you find one every 20 AP". My formula gives more detail on the individual level, but the simpler anylisis works just fine when you consider the game as a whole.
For example, the pistol at 9%, turns up (on average) on search in 11, so 1000 survivors spending 11 AP each likely turn up 1000 pistols- good enough for judging game balance. But for any one survivor to have a 50% chance of finding a pistol, they only need to search about 7 times , because [1-(1-.09)7] = .48, meaning they will have found one 50% of the time. Note that 14 searches still doesn;t garuntee they find one (it gives a roubghly 75% chance) but it also makes it pretty likely you find MORE than one. Whether such individual details matter... well, its nice to know.
The balance issue basically boils down to this: how much do survivors benefit from being able to effectively haul around a lot more loaded shotguns, or to haul around a large(r) AP worth of loaded shoguns plus whatever they carry now. I doubt that's a huge buff, but it also doesn't seem like a good thing to mess with, given the main people who benefit (PKers and trenchies) don't actually help the survivor cause much. I suppose the potential for one survivor to kill 4+ zombies in one AP cycle does help survivors repel attacks and claim buildings, but I expect that potential would be squandered, except maybe in defense of malls that are going to fall anyhow. What it really nerfs, IMO, is small zombie groups vs small survivor groups. Swiers 03:44, 9 April 2008 (BST)
- Yeah, you've got the math right. You don;t need to use 50AP, I just picked that as a representative number. A related way to look at it is to figure out how much AP you must spend to have a 50% chance of finding the item at least once. Note that this is a bit more complex than just saying "5% to find means you find one every 20 AP". My formula gives more detail on the individual level, but the simpler anylisis works just fine when you consider the game as a whole.
To your vote
Bureaucrats and Sysops of the wiki have absolutely nothing to do with game updates. They don't run the game, they don't code it, they don't design it. Wiki Events don't detract from game updates, because the only one who updates the game is Kevan, and he does not participate in the day to day operation of the wiki. --PdeqTalk* 12:40, 13 April 2008 (BST)
- Thanks for the history lesson: shame I couldn't care less. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zardoz (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 April 2008.
Hiya
Zardoz, hope we can agree to disagree about the ?rise and ?dump thing. I'm never going to think that using http code in place of the button provided in game to get around limits and speed up standing up/dumping zombies is not an exploit, any more than I'll ever change my mind that zerging is a cheat. I still like reading what you have to say in Talk:Discussion though, whether I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing, and hope you feel the same as well. k? --Tselita 16:43, 25 April 2008 (BST)
- k. My only request, whether justified or not, is that you try to stay away from the "I'm a girl and not good with technology" shtick: it's very groan inducing.-- ZZ 08:39, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Dude, when I say that it's mainly because I'm playing to a certain crowd - Iscariot mainly, because he calls me 'girlie'. Rather than get angry I just joke along with it. Jack13 says how he can't get over that I'm a girl. Several people mention stuff about it so I just joke about it. Though to be honest I do suck with technology. Has nothing to do with being a woman though - I'm just more creative-minded, less computer-technical. --Tselita 23:01, 25 April 2008 (BST)
- I would encourage you to "play" to a larger crowd by ignoring the issue all-together instead of trying to play along. Since the cat is out of the bag (and it's rarely fun to make a new account) I'm really unable to stress that point well enough.--ZARDOZ 21:02, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- Dude, when I say that it's mainly because I'm playing to a certain crowd - Iscariot mainly, because he calls me 'girlie'. Rather than get angry I just joke along with it. Jack13 says how he can't get over that I'm a girl. Several people mention stuff about it so I just joke about it. Though to be honest I do suck with technology. Has nothing to do with being a woman though - I'm just more creative-minded, less computer-technical. --Tselita 23:01, 25 April 2008 (BST)
Regarding the rise/dump issue: my main problem is with your language. Sending commands from the URL bar is not an exploit nor does it, in my opinion, "get around" any game limits other than those set by the game's server hardware and the user's connection. For example: whose fault is it that a page is taking a long time to load during a siege and because it didn't load fast enough a zombie was dumped (or rose before it could be dumped)? Getting around game limits would be for rise/dump not to have an IP hit or have a beneficial effect other than their intended use. If you insist on arguing against rise/dump commands please fine-tune your language.--ZARDOZ 22:02, 25 April 2008 (BST)
- It does get around something though - I've seen zombies get up TWICE... sometimes even Three times, while people are trying to dump, because they're using the ?rise exploit. It's like using a cheat in Doom - sure you can do it, but that doesn't make it ethical. You can do a lot of things which aren't ethical. You can zerg, because Kevan hasn't made a way to stop it entirely. But it's not ethical. You can radio spam. Can't be stopped. Not ethical though. Now i'll be honest, I consider myself to be VERY fair when it comes to playing. I don't like people griefing, I don't like people using hacks, or cheats, or exploits. I can't do anything about it, but if a vote comes along which tries to stop it, i'll vote keep on it. Period. Always. Without a second thought. And I just started a new zombie character in Feral Undead, but I am not going to use the ?rise 'technique'/exploit with my zombie either. Not sure how you want me to fine tune my language. Just agree to disagree with me on it. I'm trying to be nice to you. I just would like to be friends with as many people on this wiki as possible, even if I disagree with them. It's just a game, after all, and no reason to not be cordial. If you think that I'm say ing that if you use ?rise and ?dump, I'm calling you a cheater, I'm -not-... ok? Sorry if you thought I was. You just never will see my zombie doing it. --Tselita 23:01, 25 April 2008 (BST)
- You do know that ?rise will only save a maybe a second or two right? Unless your connection and load time sucks in which case it's not going to help you anyway. However, ?dump has, in the past, been used with other bug triggers to dump you before you get killed.--Karekmaps?! 13:45, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- I will drop the issue of whether url actions circumvent the intended process or are simply a bonus aide to people who lack a speedy connection or when the servers lag. However, once again I urge you to use precise language: url actions are not an exploit, hack, crack, or a cheat as they are not against the current ruleset nor circumvent any game limits. To illustrate, if I was on a T1 line and Kevan was running the game on a huge server farm I would be able to click the rise or dump button even faster than current URL actions allow. Finally I remind you that unethical actions can still be quite legal and if you choose to avoid participating in url actions kindly leave the same choise to other players.
- Okay let me think... what would be a good way to describe them. How about 'against the general spirit of the game?' By which I mean Kevan went through the trouble of designing a button which says Stand up, and one that says Dump the body, so he obviously intended for people to use it. Would that be better for you than the word exploit? --Tselita 21:19, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- What I would really appreciate is if you stopped responding to individual paragraphs and instead responded after my signature to help maintain flow. You are welcome to use comments if you'd like. As for describing url actions I'm surprised that you need a label at all. If you insist, I would propose: ...url actions... "lend themselves to abuse" or "interfere with the game's true intentions".--ZARDOZ 21:38, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- Like I said on my discussion page in response to you, I didn't realize that was wrong, and I won't do it again, unless it's by accident. My apologies. And fine,from now on i'll refer to ?dump and ?rise as actiosn which interfere with the game's true intentions. That seems appropriate enough. That seems to me like the same thing as an exploit but for the sake of compromise, i'll use that term instead. --Tselita 08:30, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- What I would really appreciate is if you stopped responding to individual paragraphs and instead responded after my signature to help maintain flow. You are welcome to use comments if you'd like. As for describing url actions I'm surprised that you need a label at all. If you insist, I would propose: ...url actions... "lend themselves to abuse" or "interfere with the game's true intentions".--ZARDOZ 21:38, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- Okay let me think... what would be a good way to describe them. How about 'against the general spirit of the game?' By which I mean Kevan went through the trouble of designing a button which says Stand up, and one that says Dump the body, so he obviously intended for people to use it. Would that be better for you than the word exploit? --Tselita 21:19, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- I'm also somewhat disturbed by you professing that you will blindly vote on any suggestion you think is or is sold as "anti-cheating". I hope you will take time to judge each suggestion on its own merits and see how flawed some of them are.
- To conclude, I appreciate your attempt at maintaining dialogue, but I couldn't care less if you were trying to be "nice" to me. :)
- Hey now... you should care about people being nice. I maintain dialog with you because I'd rather get constructive criticis than the type of criticism I get from Karek and people like that (swearing, namecalling, etc). At least constructive criticism I can use in my future suggestions. Oh, and if you check my past votes, I don't just make them blindly. But I do have a general method to my votes. If it would help remove what I consider cheating, and isn't far out in left field, I vote for it. Of course I judge each suggestion on its own merits. I just happen to have a certain yardstick against which I put them up --Tselita 21:19, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- This is the internet. See:
--ZARDOZ 21:38, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- Btw - I voted kill on Wall of Shame --Tselita 07:37, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- I know. I linked that page in an attempt to show an example of a bad suggestion where I feel you made the logical choice.-- ZZ 07:56, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Zardoz. Seriously for a second.... do realize that I don't have any sort of animosity towards you. Sometimes we do agree. Sometimes we don't. Just as you don't care if I try to be nice, I don't care if you agree with my votes or suggestions or if you think they're stupid. At least you keep it civil and don't curse me out about it or call me names. So that's why I speak to you with a respectful tone. I'm sure there are a lot of other suggestions where we've voted the same way. And I'm also sure you'll make suggestions which I vote keep on, and suggestions I make that you vote keep on. Actually I think you probably have already. I know occasionally you've made comments in talk:discussion that I've already used to better future suggestions I make.--Tselita 08:27, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Sounds good to me. The debate thread regarding URL actions has grown so long already that I'm starting to lose both track and interest. It was an interesting discussion and I saw your ultimate point. I believe we can both agree that URL actions, regardless of whether they are used for better or worse, fundamentally exist in a gray area and it will only be up to Kevan to turn them off or allow them. With that, I definitely look forward to exchanging thoughts with you on the suggestion discussion page and seeing how this game progresses.-- ZZ 08:38, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Yes, I think we both do agree on that, and I look forward to it as well. :) Btw, I really do love those smileys... do you find them or make them yourself? --Tselita 08:47, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- Sounds good to me. The debate thread regarding URL actions has grown so long already that I'm starting to lose both track and interest. It was an interesting discussion and I saw your ultimate point. I believe we can both agree that URL actions, regardless of whether they are used for better or worse, fundamentally exist in a gray area and it will only be up to Kevan to turn them off or allow them. With that, I definitely look forward to exchanging thoughts with you on the suggestion discussion page and seeing how this game progresses.-- ZZ
- Zardoz. Seriously for a second.... do realize that I don't have any sort of animosity towards you. Sometimes we do agree. Sometimes we don't. Just as you don't care if I try to be nice, I don't care if you agree with my votes or suggestions or if you think they're stupid. At least you keep it civil and don't curse me out about it or call me names. So that's why I speak to you with a respectful tone. I'm sure there are a lot of other suggestions where we've voted the same way. And I'm also sure you'll make suggestions which I vote keep on, and suggestions I make that you vote keep on. Actually I think you probably have already. I know occasionally you've made comments in talk:discussion that I've already used to better future suggestions I make.--Tselita 08:27, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- I know. I linked that page in an attempt to show an example of a bad suggestion where I feel you made the logical choice.-- ZZ
- Btw - I voted kill on Wall of Shame --Tselita 07:37, 28 April 2008 (BST)
- This is the internet. See:
- Hey now... you should care about people being nice. I maintain dialog with you because I'd rather get constructive criticis than the type of criticism I get from Karek and people like that (swearing, namecalling, etc). At least constructive criticism I can use in my future suggestions. Oh, and if you check my past votes, I don't just make them blindly. But I do have a general method to my votes. If it would help remove what I consider cheating, and isn't far out in left field, I vote for it. Of course I judge each suggestion on its own merits. I just happen to have a certain yardstick against which I put them up --Tselita 21:19, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- I will drop the issue of whether url actions circumvent the intended process or are simply a bonus aide to people who lack a speedy connection or when the servers lag. However, once again I urge you to use precise language: url actions are not an exploit, hack, crack, or a cheat as they are not against the current ruleset nor circumvent any game limits. To illustrate, if I was on a T1 line and Kevan was running the game on a huge server farm I would be able to click the rise or dump button even faster than current URL actions allow. Finally I remind you that unethical actions can still be quite legal and if you choose to avoid participating in url actions kindly leave the same choise to other players.
- You do know that ?rise will only save a maybe a second or two right? Unless your connection and load time sucks in which case it's not going to help you anyway. However, ?dump has, in the past, been used with other bug triggers to dump you before you get killed.--Karekmaps?! 13:45, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- It does get around something though - I've seen zombies get up TWICE... sometimes even Three times, while people are trying to dump, because they're using the ?rise exploit. It's like using a cheat in Doom - sure you can do it, but that doesn't make it ethical. You can do a lot of things which aren't ethical. You can zerg, because Kevan hasn't made a way to stop it entirely. But it's not ethical. You can radio spam. Can't be stopped. Not ethical though. Now i'll be honest, I consider myself to be VERY fair when it comes to playing. I don't like people griefing, I don't like people using hacks, or cheats, or exploits. I can't do anything about it, but if a vote comes along which tries to stop it, i'll vote keep on it. Period. Always. Without a second thought. And I just started a new zombie character in Feral Undead, but I am not going to use the ?rise 'technique'/exploit with my zombie either. Not sure how you want me to fine tune my language. Just agree to disagree with me on it. I'm trying to be nice to you. I just would like to be friends with as many people on this wiki as possible, even if I disagree with them. It's just a game, after all, and no reason to not be cordial. If you think that I'm say ing that if you use ?rise and ?dump, I'm calling you a cheater, I'm -not-... ok? Sorry if you thought I was. You just never will see my zombie doing it. --Tselita 23:01, 25 April 2008 (BST)
- Karek - Christ, really? All this fuss about ?rise when ?dump is much worse? Somehow I'm no longer surprised that perceived zombie abuses get more headlines :)--ZARDOZ 21:01, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- Oh and if ?dump can do what Karek is suggesting it can do (though I've learned to not really listen to Karek much anymore), then it -is- worse and like I said in my vote, ?dump should be gotten rid of as well. In any case, see you around. --Tselita 21:21, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- Karek - Christ, really? All this fuss about ?rise when ?dump is much worse? Somehow I'm no longer surprised that perceived zombie abuses get more headlines :)--ZARDOZ 21:01, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- Oh yeah, there are a few big known bugs like that Zardoz. Speaking of easily abusable, high profile bugs that no one ever complains about, you should ask around about the 0 time bug some time, or, better yet, scroll through Bug Reports and the Bug Reports archive. There's even a Whole Page dedicated to known bugs that have not been fixed. --Karekmaps?! 08:50, 28 April 2008 (BST)
Nail Guns
I brought the nailgun suggestion up for a vote and used a lot of the advice you gave me in talk:Discussion, thanks :) --Tselita 18:34, 5 May 2008 (BST)
Hail to the Template, Baby
|
Play on Names |
|---|---|
| This user received a template with his likeness. Get it? Sean Connery is a gifted actor, who has made many great movies. The movie 'Zardoz' was not one of them. But Zardoz was a huge flying head which people feared... so that's sorta cool. Do not google this movie. Sean Connery's costume will be burned into your retinas. |
“He who seeks rest finds boredom. He who seeks work finds rest.” - Dylan Thomas
“She who is bored at work finds templates.” - Tselita
Enjoy your template --Tselita 19:20, 27 June 2008 (BST)
