Suggestion:20130325 Voice Recognition/Radio

	Removed
	This suggestion has been removed from voting due to an alteration of the suggestion's mechanics after voting had begun.

20130325 Voice Recognition/Radio

PayneTrain 07:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion type
communication

Suggestion scope
survivors

Suggestion description
Very simple actually,if you have someone on your contact lists and you hear them over the radio you are able to recognize who is saying what,this would enable easier communication and actual chatting between players through the radio rather than calling out random crap through the radio.Don't shit me about realism and unrecognizable voices because of static.If UD was realistic we couldn't see people in the dark but in UD we magically can,!!!so you can suck it.....it would come out as 25.92 MHz: "Yes,Yes faster,faster please!!!yes....(1 hour ago) you recognize it as being the voice of your mother

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- This sugestion sounds good. I think that it is possible for someone to recognize the voice of someone they have met over the background noises of a radio.Lpha 23:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
2. I actually rather like the idea. You should be able to recognize people you're familiar with, and it'd help to sort the random banter out from official messages on frequencies that are in use by groups. —Aichon— 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
3. I think this would help with people who want to know if the distress call on the radio know if It's worth pursuing. Stefan Kozlov 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
4. KeepIt makes sense, and isn't imbalanced. TheColdflame, 24:30, 26 March 2013
5. Keep-It makes perfect sens and doesn't inbalance the game.Also it would be easier when trying to comunicate between small groups of survivors.Hermite 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. First, I got no idea why you don't include zombies? They have contact lists, too. Second, survivor communication is not a problem as is. Third, since radio can reach so many ,part of the (I assume) intentional flaw is you don't know whether the person on the other end is really who they say or not, letting death cultists have some fun. This would be a major advantage to survivors, although I admit they would probably be too stupid to use it as such. --_K 23:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

   re-Zombies don't really communicate through the radio(they cannot speak through it,only listen),their brains aren't developed enough to recognize people only through their voices,maybe?lol,besides it would be pretty useless even if they could.Survivor communication is very hard for teams cause they don't know who they are actually speaking to (could be someone impersonating another person).Now to the problem of death cultists,the death cultists don't need to say who they are at all,the game recognizes people on our contacts list and if anyone of them is speaking on the radio,the game recognizes it and communicates it to us,so they can't have any "fun" at all really cause you'll know if they are impersonating someone or not...--PayneTrain 07:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

   Zombies making use of scouts would find it right handy to be able to identify radio users. I was actually agreeing your assessment of the effect on death cultists, but that should be a flaw of radio and this would take it away. This would effectively allow entire survivor groups to communicate in-game across the city with no concern of false reports. That is a big change in balance. Zombies can't even use real words. I honestly don't see this as different than giving survivors machine guns or something equally as ridiculous. It gives one side an enormous communication advantage, while ignoring the other side. No one in their right mind thinks zombies have an advantage, so this just exacerbates the existing imbalance. Including zombies would be helpful, but fundamentally the idea creates imbalance for non-metagamers in the survivors' favor. --_K 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

okay i get what you are saying and I've read the post of all the others that have voted kill,and have finally come to the decision that this will and should also be available for zombies,hope you guys are happy now and will probably change your votes to keep!--PayneTrain 11:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Kill This makes game sense, but unfortunately I have to oppose anything that clearly unbalances the game even further in survivors' favor, even if only slightly. If we ever get some zombie buffing, repropose this and I'll support. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

   re-Is this really a legitimate reason to vote Kill? The advice article just below this says that claiming something else needs to be implemented first is not valid --Boneshred The Hungry 22:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

   I think that means you shouldn't vote kill because there is a better idea that isn't implemented. Bob was saying unless something is done to address balance, this only makes it worse, although it's a minor balance issue. I think the guidance would mean he shouldn't vote kill because he thinks "survivors getting tanks" should be implemented first. --_K 23:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, that's how I interpreted it. I simply think it shouldn't be implemented because the game is unbalanced towards survivors. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

   I am keeping kill, but for a new reason: I believe it makes the most sense and is best for gameplay if zombies can also recognize the voices of their contacts. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

2. Kill An aesthetic vote for sure, but I like the ambiance of the crackling old radio that you can't quite make out who is talking. Sticking a sig on each would make it more like a mass networked cellphone/chatroom, and I don't particularly like that idea --Boneshred The Hungry 22:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Nah. Have to say that the anonymity has its perks, and gives players options that its loss wouldn't compensate for. Sometimes not having all the information makes for a better game. 01:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
4. nope. as mis--User:Sexualharrison14:05, 27 March 2013

Spam/Dupe Votes