Suggestion talk:20100814 'Search X Times' Dropdown Box

From DS

Timestamp: Hyper Anthony 06:59, 13 August 2010 (BST)

Type: Game Mechanic/Efficiency

Scope: Interface/Server Load

Description: The search feature in-game presently requires a page hit for each search, which seems wasteful. A 'Search the area (1-MAX CURRENT AP) times' box would be much more efficient, allowing a player to search the area a number of times in one go -- with 1 being the default and their maximum current AP being the top limit. After entering the value and searching, a single page load would describe how many of which items the player recovered, and also if they discarded any as useless or were otherwise over-encumbered. Searching is something of a unique feature because it has minimum real-time value as compared to active combat actions against players or barricades, and is really the only in game function that is commonly used repeatedly. I don't ever recall being in a situation where a couple of minutes gained by not having to reload the page 30 times while searching would have turned the tide for me in an in-game situation. Encumbrance mechanics would remain the same, and if a player reached 100% encumbrance any items they continually picked up would be discarded (as they presently are in-game). If this were implemented I would expect that it would place some ease on the server and allow players with alts more IP hits every day.

Discussion ('Search X Times' Dropdown Box)

Yep. 1, 3 or 5 times, just like Zombie Pandemic does it, I'd vote keep. God that game's a master of streamlining the laborious part of UD. --

 

 

 

 

07:41, 13 August 2010 (BST)

---

The zerging thing's pretty irellevant, because there isn't a trade system in UD.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 21:31, 14 August 2010 (BST)

Stocking a jillion needles at once one the revive mule alt. 21:36, 14 August 2010 (BST)

would still take so many IP hits and would just be the same clicking the button so many times. --

 

 

 

 

02:00, 15 August 2010 (BST)

Search down to my last AP, URL hack a 50AP search, go drinking for two days? 02:08, 15 August 2010 (BST)

What is your obsession with URL hacking? You're basing all these hypothetical problems on the assumption you'll be able to get searches for free? You think Kevan is that stupid? --

 

 

 

 

02:29, 15 August 2010 (BST)

Even if, getting searches in advance wouldn't be a big deal anyway. All but the flak jack need to be used actively and require APs to do so. -- Spiderzed▋ 02:33, 15 August 2010 (BST)

In short, probably. In long, it's been the case with other actions in the past, which were only rectified with hindsight. It's just one of those things, like groove theory, or the Borehamwood AP thing, or cade bots (also bots are easier with this suggestion btw), that is probably going to be overlooked until it goes wrong, and the people exploiting it when it does aren't exactly going to be the fun ones. Also, edit conflict with Spiderzed: there's a large bonus in being able to consistently find large amounts of items with minimal effort from someone running multiple accounts. Even if done manually, without a bot, you're basically letting a zerg player take 2% of the time they'd normally take to stock any and all of their accounts up, potentially freeing them to create more. 02:37, 15 August 2010 (BST)

That same speech about conveniencing zergs could apply to a number of updates, like the syringe boost, the cade blocking, ruin decay, but when something adds convenience to 98% of the population in the same way it does the 2% that zerg, then perhaps it should be overlooked in that regard. Otherwise nothing would ever change in UD. --

 

 

 

 

03:16, 15 August 2010 (BST)

Obviously the case could be made that anything that benefits any player also benefits zergs, but something that significantly lessens their only real impediment (time) is going to disproportionately affect them. 03:20, 15 August 2010 (BST)

The only real impediment is IP, time is only as big a factor as the effort they are willing to put in to falsify their IP details. "zerging" is the one-word-insta-kill reason for every suggestion and I'm fucking sick of it being thrown around because a zerger would benefit from a good suggestion being implemented. Zerging= extra manpower so any addition to the game is theoretically going to benefit and using that excuse on this is one of the more tenuous ones that shit me off. --

 

 

 

 

03:41, 15 August 2010 (BST)

Whatever. I personally don't like it and that's my reasoning, I don't care who does or doesn't agree with me. 03:51, 15 August 2010 (BST)

Respect, I guess I'm exactly the same. Sept I do care who doesn't agree with me obviously ;D --

 

 

 

 

04:17, 15 August 2010 (BST)

If you like Zombie Pandemic so much, why don't you mar– er, go play it, then? Personally I was bored out of my tree after the first round of AP or Stamina or whatever it calls it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:32, 18 August 2010 (BST)

I got into it a lot more than UD but since it's in beta phase and characters get purged easily there isn't much drive to play it atm. I got a fair share out of it though. --

 

 

 

 

13:54, 18 August 2010 (BST)

I tend to agree that the argument to shoot this down because of zergers is pretty hollow. It's a boogieman. Why is a suggestions portal even maintained if zerging has really become such an issue that the slightest unproven possibility for them to exploit an interface change terrifies voters? It might be exploited? Really? It seems to me that zergers have already done plenty enough to ruin your game experience in UD if the response is absolute hostility to an otherwise sincere and helpful suggestion. Someone also addressed that this may become a slippery slope to suggestions for speed combat and barricading... I specifically addressed in my proposal the reasoning as to why searching is explicitly different as an activity as opposed to combat or cading, and don't see that as a fair concern in it's current justification. Could some elaboration be offered on that position?

At any rate, it seems that a 'Search x5' option has picked up some popularity in the vote and that would be a fair alternative and may even address some of the zerg concerns. It accomplishes similar goals of reducing hassle while searching. Should I scrap this vote and revise it to focus on that, or is it okay as is? Thanks for the input everyone. :) --Hyper Anthony 10:16, 20 August 2010 (BST)

Putting on my cynical hat I'd say leave it up. Then with about 12 hours to go before voting closes, if its not going to go on peer review, remove it for editing. Otherwise let it go. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:18, 20 August 2010 (BST)