Suggestion:20080825 Searching In A Dark Building

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20080825 Searching In A Dark Building

Jon Pyre 16:27, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Suggestion type
Flavor mostly

Suggestion scope
Survivors

Suggestion description
It'd be a fun bit of flavor to allow searching a dark building to reveal glimpses of what the darkness hides.

I suggest that on searches that don't return an item a person looking in an unpowered dark building receive one of the following:

1. A glimpse of one present decorative item (if any): "You see the dim form of a Grecian urn in a corner, but find nothing useful"
2. Whatever is spraypainted there (if anything): "You bump into a wall. In the shadows you can barely make out "Everyone is dead" spraypainted on it"
3. An estimation of how many dead bodies are present: "You spot several dark shapes on the floor. As you try to figure out what they are one stirs slightly." This one has the practical use of informing survivors if dead bodies are in the building, but it doesn't let them dump them. I suppose being able to tell if dead bodies are in a dark building could be useful but having to search three or four times for a rough figure doesn't seem overpowered. To balance this out I suggest just letting zombies with Scent Death automatically know how many dead bodies are in a dark building, not that I think it'd help them much either.

So a minor flavor addition to the search function, with maybe some slight use for someone who wants to hide in a dark building. Nothing crucial to the game, just think it'd be a nice detail.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep, I like the general idea. There will probably be protests at letting survivors know that there are corpses in the building though. - User:Whitehouse 16:32, 25 August 2008 (BST)
2. Keep - I like it.--Truezombieboy 17:38, 25 August 2008 (BST)
3. Keep - I like it. And don't abuse the Spam function, please. --BoboTalkClown 00:17, 26 August 2008 (BST)
4. Keep - <3 Flavor. --• LtZurSee slapped your nose with a newspaper for a heal from CORAM (0 seconds ago) 12:15, 26 August 2008 (BST)
5. Keep/Change - Not a flovor change because of point #3, but keep it. While searching you could bump on a dead body. It's logical. However I share the same  Swiers's point of view. But I vote keep it because the idea has a good start. - Bug MacLock 16:04, 27 August 2008 (BST)

   Keep - I love the idea. Adding flavor to boring searches will bring in more new players. -- Tereseth 3:12 (MT) Incorrectly timestamped vote struck. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 09:34, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - This isn't just a flavor change. The whole dead bodies bit is definitely a crucial detail in the game. And that's just spam abuse, WanYao, come on and vote properly. --Aeon17x 16:40, 25 August 2008 (BST)
2. Kill - Has the essence of a great idea. If somebody spends the AP to search a dark building they can find things to pick up (in theory). So all of the above seem to be fair, useful information the player "finds" by spending AP.
   However, giving some piece of info on EVERY missed search makes searching a 100% certain-to-benefit activity, which it is not meant to be. Instead, a % "find rate" should be assigned to each of the possible informative outcomes- otherwise its very nearly free info. Also, I would ditch the free scent death bit; using scent death actively already gives that info if the user knows how to read it, and giving it for free would encourage scouting dark buildings by life cultists.  Swiers 18:25, 25 August 2008 (BST)
3. Kill For the following reasons. 1 shouldn't be all failed searches. 2. The dead bodies bit. 3. The complete misunderstanding of talk suggestions. Its for sounding people out, bouncing ideas, NOT suggestions by committee. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:46, 25 August 2008 (BST)
4. Kill - Above. And some below.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:39, 25 August 2008 (BST)
5. Kill/Change - As Swiers. Really, Jon. You're getting potentially good ideas killed because you're not taking them to Talk:Suggestions. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 21:57, 25 August 2008 (BST)

   Chill - as above. --Bob Fortune ^RR Timestampless vote struck. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 09:34, 3 September 2008 (BST)

6. Kill - These gentlemen have nailed it. --ZiP^MH+LUE 22:28, 25 August 2008 (BST)

   Kill Nope. --Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||22:56, 25 August 2008 (BST) No justification: struck. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:27, 25 August 2008 (BST)

7. Kill - for realism, if you can find objects, you can find bodies - but for game-play, those bodies should stay hidden for the time being. Unless you provide a solid game-play reason for doing otherwise, your role-play reasoning is too weak alone to carry this through. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:24, 25 August 2008 (BST)
8. Kill - It's true, A round of Talk:Suggestions-ing might have been able to save this suggestion, but it's too late for that... Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 23:28, 25 August 2008 (BST)
9. Kill - It adds flavor in an area where no one will pay attention to it. When most people, me included, are searching around we click the button as fast as we can. We only look at the text long enough to see if we find something or not. Then you start talking about seeing dead bodies, and now zombies lost a small foothold they had against survivors when it comes to the use of buildings.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:02, 26 August 2008 (BST)
10. Kill - Not a bad suggestion, but I perceive this as unnecessary.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  05:23, 26 August 2008 (BST)
11. Kill - Because I'm not Wan Yao so I don't strive to reject a suggestion the easy way, and I don't abuse players. But this suggestion is alrighty but I feel it unnecessary, for the same reasons as Grim. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:19, 26 August 2008 (BST)
12. Kill - I'm admittedly not insecure enough to have to take my anger out on some guy who didn't bother putting a suggestion with some merit up for discussion (my logic circuits scream "AD HOMINEM!"), because he's got better things to do than hang around on this wiki (I look up to you for that), but please, take some time out of your precious schedule to allow us to discuss things and improve upon them, even if they are simple. It's not like you have to do much. Back to the suggestion, I don't like the third point too much, or the 100% chance of finding something. Mystery is good. So no. --Anotherpongo 11:17, 26 August 2008 (BST)
13. As Wan, but less Spammy. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:04, 26 August 2008 (BST)
14. Kill as above--Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 16:27, 26 August 2008 (BST)
15. Kill - 1 and 2 are good flavor, even though a lot of people wouldn't pay attention to it as SirArgo stated earlier. But 3 is too much free information. --Jared^{Talk W! P!} 18:05, 26 August 2008 (BST)

    * These "Free" information cost 1 or more AP. - Bug MacLock 16:04, 27 August 2008 (BST) Non-author reply struck. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 16:22, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Spam - You get spammed not because this idea is without merit: in fact, I think it has a lot of merit, suprisingly... unlike most of your other mass-produced crap suggestions. No, you get this spam vote as a FUCK YOU! because you don't have the decency and the courtesy to take your suggestions to Talk:Suggestions first. Where this idea, particularly point #3, could have been properly fleshed out developed. But... no... you're too good for that, or something... Spam off, John Pyre. --WanYao 16:35, 25 August 2008 (BST)

• Re Yes. I am too good for that. I'm a busy man and I don't want to spend eight days developing an idea in committee. I'll do it for something freaking complex. For something simple like this I don't see the point. Searching in dark buildings. Seeing a random thing hidden. It's fucking simple. I'm not designing a NASA shuttle. Like it vote keep. Hate it vote kill. I don't really care if that makes me sound like an asshole or not. If you want to vote spam for all my suggestions go ahead. I don't really care if these make it in the game or not. I'm suggesting what I think are good ideas out of the fucking goodness of my fucking heart because I fucking enjoy this fucking game. If you don't like them, or Kevan doesn't like them, or anyone else doesn't like them I don't really give a damn. Don't put them in the game. Boo fucking hoo. This isn't some storied institution so fuck your protocol, I'll do whatever the hell I want. --Jon Pyre 17:00, 25 August 2008 (BST)
  • "Boo fucking hoo [...] I'll do whatever the hell I want" ... Exactly, thanks for proving my point about your lack of respect for the community. But since that seems to be the prevelant attitude and ethos here, I might as well join in the fun... And if that includes calling you names and criticising you for not respecting the community by consulting them before you spam us with yet another half-baked suggestion... which requires users to spend their valuable time voting and commenting on it... Well then... fuck, yeah... I mean, if none of this really matters to you, as you claim, why not just print these up and have your mommy hang them on the fridge and say, "Oooh, what a pretty suggestion, John!"? Yeah... exactly... Spam off. --WanYao 18:38, 25 August 2008 (BST)
    • Advice to Voters
      Rule No. 1, "You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated.." Read the rules dickhead. You say his vote has merit, yet you vote spam because of the actions of the User.--CyberRead240 10:25, 26 August 2008 (BST) - Non author re struck. Also, count breakiness repaired. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 10:34, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Note - Vote struck. Vote on the suggestion, not the user. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:16, 26 August 2008 (BST)

1. Spam - I am violently opposed to letting people have access to the obscured information in dark buildings. The fun bit about it is that you just dont know if there are zombies taking a nap on the ground, which is cool. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:46, 25 August 2008 (BST)
   • Re Fair 'nuff. I only included it because I think the flavor gained outweighs the suspense lost but I see your point. --Jon Pyre 17:02, 25 August 2008 (BST)
     • Its a small balance alteration you are trying to sneak in under the guise of a flavour change. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:21, 25 August 2008 (BST)
2. Spam - You obviously didn't think this through, that or you thought no one else would. In what way does knowing the number of dead bodies not help survivors in dealing with them? 1 I don't mind, 2 & 3 though are absolutely not needed and are far from simply flavor. Btw, the spam vote is because I know this will be back sooner or later and as others have said the main namespace is not where you should be developing your ideas.--Karek^maps?! 00:14, 26 August 2008 (BST)
3. Spam - As above. --Papa Moloch 15:52, 26 August 2008 (BST)
4. Spam - Who can argue with Grim's logic?? LemonHead7t7 *̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡|͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|]]| ̡̡̡ ̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡*̡͌l̡* ^{Talk/PDA/Red Rum/MOB} 22:04, 1 September 2008 (BST)