|
|
| (733 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Navigation (header)}} | | {{Navigation (header)}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
| {|style="background: #CEF2E0;border:solid 1px #A3BFB1;padding:10px;width:100%" | | {|style="background: #CEF2E0;border:solid 1px #A3BFB1;padding:10px;width:100%" |
| |- | | |- |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| *If you wish to have an page moved, use the [[A/MR|move requests]] page | | *If you wish to have an page moved, use the [[A/MR|move requests]] page |
| *If you wish to have your own page removed, use [[A/SD|speedy deletions]] (criterion 7.) If you wish to have any other page deleted, use [[A/D|deletions]] | | *If you wish to have your own page removed, use [[A/SD|speedy deletions]] (criterion 7.) If you wish to have any other page deleted, use [[A/D|deletions]] |
| *For discussion pertaining to a particular page or user, use the page's talk or user talk page | | *For discussion pertaining to a particular user, post it on the user's talk page |
| |} | | |} |
| {|style="background: #F5FFFA;border:solid 1px #A3BFB1;border-top:none;padding:10px;width:100%" | | {|style="background: #F5FFFA;border:solid 1px #A3BFB1;border-top:none;padding:10px;width:100%" |
| |- | | |- |
| |When starting a new discussion on this page, please add it <span class="stealthexternallink"> [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:General_Discussion&action=edit§ion=new at the bottom] </span> with a relevant title. Please sign all comments using four tides (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), or the [[Image:Button sig.png|sign]] button. | | |When starting a new discussion on this page, please add it <span class="stealthexternallink"> [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:General_Discussion&action=edit§ion=new at the bottom] </span> with a relevant title. Please sign all comments using four tides (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), or the [[Image:Sign.png|sign]] button. |
| This page is for shorter discussions - please don't add irrelevant discussions (see the column to your left) or spam to this page. | | This page is for shorter discussions - please don't add irrelevant discussions (see the column to your left) or spam to this page. |
| Older discussions will periodically be moved into archives. | | Older discussions with no replies in the past month will periodically be moved into [[UDWiki:General Discussion/Archive|archives]]. |
| | |
| | ''See also: [[UDWiki:Open Discussion|Open Discussion]]'' |
| |} | | |} |
|
| |
|
| {{TOCright}} | | {{TOCright}} |
|
| |
| == Let's see if this works ==
| |
|
| |
| Testing if my url hackage to allow the use of the + button on a regular page worked. Looks like it did.
| |
|
| |
| Everyone okay with this (particularly the big blue box above)? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Add some big pretty links to [[CP]] and stuff. We should try and integrate all the community links within one another's pages. It'll promote usage. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 11:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::I'll add a navigation bar, somewhere then. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:16, 30 March 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| == AP loss for actions that don't actually require things to be done ==
| |
|
| |
| I've noticed after reading some suggestions such as "make clicking spray can less painful and more helpful" that certain people have a view that losing an AP for clicking a spray can, for example, is a good sort of negative reinforcement, and that the AP loss that results from said clicking will discourage you from making the "mistake" again. Why should clicking on something that doesn't do anything have an AP penalty? If someone suggested having no AP cost for speaking (which really does make sense, as speaking doesn't require much energy or action at all, other than opening your mouth), I would have to disagree as making speaking "free" would result in a lot of random useless conversations pertaining to people's mothers. However, I don't see why clicking on something that doesn't do anything (like clicking your binoculars in a building other than a tower) costs an AP. The only reason I can see that people would advocate such a penalty is like I said above; as a penalty and discouragement from making the "mistake" again. However, I feel that (for actions that don't result in any effect to players other than the person clicking, such as the binoculars or spray can example) this shouldn't result in an AP penalty, as simply pressing the wrong button shouldn't take up energy or whatever AP symbolizes. In fact, I'm pretty sure that using up one of your 160 daily hits allowed on the main page is enough of a punishment to anyone who clicks on something that doesn't actually do anything. {{unsigned|ScaredPlayer}}
| |
|
| |
| == Quantifying Danger ==
| |
|
| |
| So, I've recently been messing about with my [[User:ExternalMilitaryReportBot|EMR Bot]] to allow me to more easily update the danger level of suburbs based on the given report. I'm having it pull up suburb news so I can take that into account obviously, but for suburbs whose news is too outdated to affect the current report, having the bot automatically select a half decent status would be handy. I can always manually change the status based on what I see, or can instruct it to just leave the suburb alone if needed. What I'm really trying to get at here is: given statistics from an EMR, and given no other recent info, what danger levels would a human user tend to choose? Personally, I think the current descriptions are a little off given their age and trends in gameplay (very dangerous should be 100 zombies since there are less players these days, and ghost town should have a lower "max zombie" limit, 60 zombies in a dead suburb is pretty dangerous)
| |
|
| |
| Anyway, for the uninitiated, the current descriptors read as follows:
| |
| *Safe - Break-ins rare, max 50+ zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 10.
| |
| *Moderately Dangerous - Active zombies and break-ins, but no 50+ hostile hordes.
| |
| *Dangerous - Zombies inside many resource buildings; OR hostile mobs of 50+.
| |
| *Very Dangerous - Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested; OR hostile zombie mobs of 150+.
| |
| *A Ghost Town - At least 2/3rds of the suburb's buildings either Empty of Survivors or Ransacked/Ruined AND having no zombie mobs of over 10 and no total zombies over 60.
| |
|
| |
| For those unfamiliar with EMR, you might wish to pay a visit to [[EMRP]] and read up on what the shorthand means. Anyway, I started with the basic idea that the four infrastructure levels can map pretty neatly onto the four danger levels. *** being safe and --- being V.Dangerous. This makes sense.
| |
|
| |
| Next comes accounting for zombies, any suburb is V.Dangerous if it has 150+ zombies in. Dangerous if it has 50+. These are stated. I prefer 100+ for V.Dangerous myself. One can logically extend this basis whereby certain levels of zombies present moderate danger or safety given certain infrastructure. Infrastructure of **- is usually moderate danger, but no zombies in the area? Then it's safe anyway.
| |
|
| |
| Next comes fitting in the unusual ghost town. This isn't as hard as it first seems, a suburb with little to no infrastructure is dangerous to survivors, but at the same time a low zombie presence offers some sense of safety. So for *-- and --- suburbs with low zombie numbers, we can use this designation handily to avoid the weirdness of trying to use moderate or standard danger.
| |
|
| |
| I have given a rough diagram of the actual numbers I would use [[User:The Rooster/Sandpit/5|in my sandpit]]. It should be pretty self explanatory, infrastructure levels along the top, zombies down the side and the colour gives the danger level. If you were updating a danger level based on a report, would your status tend to fit the diagram, or would it vary significantly? {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 01:08, 31 March 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Maybe, you have to take into account of who the zombies are and where they are located. A mob of 125 zombies is fairly dangerous, but if all they're doing is sitting outside a mall, then they're not posing as much of a threat to the suburb as a whole. I might say moderate, instead of dangerous or very dangerous. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 20:38, 3 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::Aye, and I would agree, but say I wasn't privy to such info because the burb news hadn't been updated in a while and so I only have the report for reference. I would be stuck with my initial assumption. Although the program suggests a status, I have it look up the recent 'burb news for just such info so I can adjust the level manually if I need to. Regardless, given even just 100 zombies, I would always go for V.Dangerous no matter how intact the 'burb. The core question of my discussion however, being "Would you?" {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 20:54, 3 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::If someone told me there was "100 zombies in the 'burb" I would go by whatever the guideline said (so V.Dangerous). I suppose, it should be defaulted to the guideline, unless there is reason to change it? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 20:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::PLEASE remember that EMR don't include zeds inside buildings. both ghost towns and "Safe" Zones with groups of 20+ zombies in a single building aren't really covered. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:00, 3 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::I know that, but without omnipotence or somebody with a recent update on suburb news, I won't know that there are 20 zeds in wherever. If my choice is a not-totally-informed, but recent, EMR or an outdated bit of suburb news (whose accuracy varies). I personally would go with the EMR every time. However, in order to account for likely zombies in buildings, one might suggest that as a burb gets progressively more ruined I should assume a certain proportion of zombies are inside, thus things become more dangerous more quickly based on this limited info. And I assume higher levels of danger at lower zombies counts. In my diagram, the green/yellow/orange blocks shrink in size a bit and red takes over even more room. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 21:19, 3 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::Fair enough. Unless a bit of recent news contradicts the EMR, I think its the best we're going to get. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| == Project Userboxes ==
| |
|
| |
| I've been thinking about making a page for a while with most of the userboxes made on the wiki - like they have on [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:USERBOX|wikipedia]]. It will make it easier for newbs to make userpages (and we could expand it to have several common themes for userpages as well.)
| |
|
| |
| Thoughts? (sorry if I was a bit unclear.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:16, 7 April 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| :Short and simple, I think this is a good idea. <tt>:)</tt> --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 12:28, 7 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::Works for me, and would definitely help those who are new, because it's hard finding out how to edit your page properly, do what you want with it, and all of that. What about copy-paste templates or something? I know I would've used it... --{{User:The_shoemaker/Sig}} 00:01, 9 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| You know, I think I might do that. I'm going to make a template that new users can just copy and paste into their page, and then change it to their preferences, and presto! Easy. Here's the link: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/New_user_template --{{User:The_shoemaker/Sig}} 00:08, 9 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| Actually, now, its a list of code that they can use if they wish. I do believe it would help, though.--{{User:The_shoemaker/Sig}} 16:49, 11 April 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| == Building Status ==
| |
| I have only used wiki for a short time. I would like to help more. But I have a problem, I don't get how to update the building stats. Can any one help me? --[[User:Robert Egleton|Robert Egleton]] 03:11, 13 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Yep, lets say you want to update the report for [[Dowdney Mall]]. Well, see the danger report at the top? Click the (update) button on the top right of it, and then 'edit' that new page that comes up (it'll be the single danger report by itself). From there on, just update the information with what is more recent (there'll be a guide) Make sure to sign your posts over the older users, some people get anal about that (including me). Good luck. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 03:15, 13 June 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| Thanks mate. I see now. --[[User:Robert Egleton|Robert Egleton]] 03:18, 13 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Don't forget to post at the bottom <tt>:)</tt> {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 04:12, 13 June 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| == Another Question ==
| |
| Can you add a building status to a building that doesn't have one? If so how? --[[User:Robert Egleton|Robert Egleton]] 00:34, 14 June 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ==[[You know you've been playing Urban Dead too much when]]==
| |
|
| |
| On [[You know you've been playing Urban Dead too much when]], there are a couple entries that I wouldn't mind moving to a page like [[You know you've been using UDWiki too much when]]. Some of these are wiki-specific, and I have a few wiki specific ones that I would like to mention. What do people think? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 08:30, 23 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Sure, go ahead (perhaps as a subpage?) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:42, 23 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::I don't think we'll even need that, if we just made it similar to something that I mentioned above, we could just interlink the two together on the top of each page. I'll get started on it when I have the time and mindset. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 08:48, 23 June 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ==UDWiki:Featured Articles==
| |
|
| |
| I'm putting this here because there are 4 or so FA related articles with little content and no audience, so this is a better method (presumably) to get a response.
| |
|
| |
| The [[FA]] method is failing us, people. The system we implemented means that all [[:Category:Good Articles|GA's]] have to go through yet ''another'' vote to become a featured article, something all good articles easily could become without a second vote, particularly because ''nothing'' makes it through good article voting if it has ''any'' type of scrutiny from the community.
| |
|
| |
| Without the Featured Article system, the prestige behind good articles dies because there isn't anything to show for it, hence why we got bored of Good Article voting within a month. I propose we entirely get rid of FA voting and start cycling Good Articles as Featured Articles for a month, in order they were voted in. I would suggest a small area on the Main Page for this to go, but for now I am only interested in getting the FA system running, so we can actually give some of these articles some reward. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 09:10, 23 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Basically picking a Good Article to be featured? Therefore no need for [[FA/V]]? Ok! --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:36, 28 June 2009 (BST)
| |
button.
