Template talk:Antidualnature

Well this is odd. 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Care to be a little more specific? If you have suggestions for a better presentation then I am all ears. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not the presentation, the stance. It's pretty silly. 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dual Nature stance is what is pretty silly. I can't actually believe there is so much support for it. It goes against everything I been trying to achieve and how we been playing the game since 2005. O_o -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Zombies play as zombies, survivors play as survivors? Yep, totally unusual. :/ 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are describing the normal way of playing. Dual Players don't do that. It is the whole point of this template. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Missed this one, oops. That is how dual nature works - when alive, play as a survivor. Doot-dee-doo, survivory stuff. Then, when a zombie, play as a zombie. Nam nam nam, zombie stuff. Revived? Survivor again. It's pretty flavoursome and very grokkable. 22:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Grokkable? (???) Anyways, you just described how ridiculous it is. If you can't stick to one side of the game then you deserve the template I just created. I.e.: being treated like a spy from both sides. Why DN players could not see this coming is way beyond me. It is only logical. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read moar Heinlein. As for zba!!ngh, my own Dual Nature alt is a trusted ally with two survivor groups when she's breathing. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

To grok: verb, to understand innately and entirely. Also it's not ridiculous. It's competely flavoursome. When a survivor dies, they become a zombie. They don't become a dead survivor. Even if you want to completely remove the rest of the genre entirely (in which dual-natured play is 99.99999% par for the course), then you just have to look at how standing up as a zombie after dying gives you zombie play options. You can't barricade and install generators and pick up items as a zombie. You can eat and claw and ransack. Same goes in reverse - revived zombies can't ransack buildings or groan/bellow or infect survivors. They can free run and cade and search and all that other harman stuff. Dual nature just makes sense, it's pretty much the opposite of ridiculous. 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What I often find funny is how people try to defend themselves with situational evidence which make no sense in the conversation. Yes, survivors die and get revived, and zombies occasionally get revived too and then kill themselves. But when you are part of a side (humans or zombies), you are expected to go back to your side ASAP. Not because it is a trend or because you follow blindly what others tell you to do, but because you want to do it because you want to play one side or the other. Now, DN players don't do that. So what does that lead us? To the very least, it lead us to a third side which didn't exist before this DN stuff became popular. And after that, you expect the pro survivors or the pro zombies to accept them blindly without even an afterthought? No, sorry... It's not only ridiculous, it's crazy thinking.

I can think of plenty of reasons why I would never trust a DN player and even be inclined to treat them just like a zombie spy. And, without surprise, those reasons are pretty much similar to those I have to flag griefers and pkers as what they are: people you can't trust by their actions. Also pretty much why I think twice, thrice and sometimes a fourth time before wasting a needle on a random zombie who happen to have all the pro zombie skills in his skills tree... I'd often much prefer saving it for someone of my own group I am sure is not going to cause more havoc than if I just left him/her rotting in line. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  00:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What is this? What actually is this nonsense? Is this a joke? 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be a joke? That's how I been playing the game since 5 years anyways: spot people who do things we don't want to happen and add them to the list of people we don't want to work with. DN is simply a new genre to add to a new list. I took the time to investigate what DN players do before flagging them in my zombie list, about two to three weeks. That they play as true survivors or not doesn't change a thing in my own personnal lists when they get back the next day to chew on me and my friends.

By definition, this "group" is open to all. So, in essence, the PK next door is just as prone to become DN than anybody else. They simply can't be trusted because of that... And they publicly tell that they do play zombies. It simply make my life easier since I have less checkup to do before I know who to help and who to leave be. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  01:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to believe someone who has been playing this game for 5 years is so fucking dense and shortsighted. -- LEMON #1 00:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And there you won't see me surprised the least to read that from someone who simply don't understand how things works in the game. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  01:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After all your attempts at feigning literary sophistication I found the above response highly amusing. -- LEMON #1 05:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming from someone who simply don't seem to know that it is possible to create an alternate character to play "all the game possibilities"... I am, again, not surprised in the least. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I know you're trying really hard to make an impression on people but saying things that are obviously untrue, and don't phase me anyway, won't work. sorry. -- LEMON #1 05:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Denying something you said yourself three comments down this very one doesn't make you look more brilliant yourself. But you are right on something: I never been too good to fight the obvious. I prefer the simpler approach of pointing to it hoping not to embarrass too much those who don't understand... -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  06:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And once again you prove me right. Contrary to your above claim, you don't approach the obvious, you dance around it hoping no one will notice that you're avoiding the crux of the argument altogether, then flail around when someone lovingly drags you back to address the point. You've been doing it all day, regarding DN (hint: you haven't come close to explaining why this policy is necessary at all) and you're doing it right now; arguing for the sake of arguing over something that isn't even dependant on your anti-dualnature policy. As for me denying something I said below, perhaps you should learn to read, though I assume you're capable of that and are just noticing that I said A and tried twisting what I said so it means B. Not doing Dual Nature =/= not knowing how to have alts. I initially thought you were just trying to patronise me with a comment so untrue it was supposed to have some sort of offending effect on me. If it turns out you actually thought trying to pass it off as a valid statement was possible, it's even more pathetic, one I feel dirty having to justify. Please learn to argue with validity and relevance. -- LEMON #1 06:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy? What policy? Who ever talked about a policy? I said it once, I'll say it again: fell free to come back to me when you actually know of what you are talking about. Frankly, I am tired of losing my time in this senseless "debate". And by debate I mean your attempt to create a problem out of thin air. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  08:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Backing out? I figured you had as much to say. In your own words, fell free to come back when you agree to take me on again about the policy that is dual nature. Dumbarse. -- LEMON #1 10:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Backing out from what? Again, with the same question. It is probably really convenient for your brain to create facts that don't exist. You seem to imply that I am actually trying to start something? Like what? An anti-DN movement? All I did was make a template to show I doesn't agree with it, and you keep insulting me like if I had announced myself as the worse killer in all the history of the whole world.

I can't back off from something which only happen in your own mind. I hope you realize that soon. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually seriously lost here. What exactly is being 'made up'? 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't help yourself, you came back, I knew you would! -- LEMON #1 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, it's in-genre and sensible - how many films feature a survivor dying and then continuing to actively help survivors? I can only really think of Day of the Dead (the original loosely, more strongly in the awful awful remake), whilst every other instance is more along the lines of "Oh hey Johnny's dead. Oh hey Johnny's now eating Jimmy." 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. However, this is not a Holywood movie but an internet browser game. There is not a lot of games, movies or about anything zombie in which you can come back from the death 378 times and still remains exactly the same either, isn't? Thus I simply can't adhere to the comparison. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  22:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh! You're right! In a hollywood movie things should happen like in movies. In games, people should EXPERIENCE every facet of GAMEPLAY there is to be had in this fucking GAME!!!! Actually, no that's WRONG according to you. super massive sigh. -- LEMON #1 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why I said earlier that I don't want to turn this page into a fan page. To prevent nonsensical comments like this, for example. When you do realize that what you just said make no sense whatsoever in this conversation then feel free to come back to me. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The hilarious reality is all the bullshit you've said above makes no sense either. You're sidestepping the points, and showing how narrow, ancient and idiotic your view of UD's community is at the same time. And I'm not a fan, thanks. I don't DN, but you're just being a massive retard. -- LEMON #1 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Zombies standing neatly queued in a cemetery and being careful not to rock the boat in the meantime is what is pretty silly. I goes against everything the zomie genre tries to achieve and how it has been running since 1968. Srsly, DN is for me the only way to play a harmanbargar without feeling utterly and ridiculously out of place. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to turn this talk page into a fan page discussion about people who like Dual Nature or not. The template should tell you pretty much what I think about DN and I don't feel the need to add to it. The Talk:Dual_Nature_Policy page is there for that. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page that isn't restricted by being a group page/user page/admin page. Therefore, you can hardly force any discussion to an end. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

One way is Arby's, but an Arby's case based on this talk page is utterly ridiculous. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I could put an 800px pic on it. That would probably help to make it look like SERIOUS BUSINESS in A/A. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Or I could make a really bad joke about your signature which breaks policy! -- LEMON #1 00:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is like kinda funny. -MHSstaff 01:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my previous statement, I'll give you a very simple way to view "Dual Nature" characters.

Consider them as neutral benefits to whoever has them, if they get eaten it wasn't intentionally so, and it was not intentionally so that they got revived, however they stay true to whichever side has them at the time.

There is no spying, because the survivor in question would surely not be bashing generators or barricades if he was "Dual Natured", he genuinely wants to now play the part of the survivors, because they have him. Same as for zombies, if this person dies after a barricade has been torn down and the building came under siege, then it was not the person's fault for it in the first place, and when you lose someone to a zombie it's quite normal in my point of view for that person to now "start chewing on his friends" until they revive him, because that's what zombies do.

A high levelled player who you knew was a true "Dual Natured" player would be a great asset to your cause if you got them on your side, so you'd feel more inclined to use syringes on them, or focus them in an organized horde attack. If you think about it, someone getting eaten by the horde in an attack only to get up and walk to a revive point makes much less sense, he/she is a freaking ZOMBIE now, it's your job to revive them if you want them back.--EveryTimeV 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it unbecoming that there's even drama over this template; surely there have been other, more inflammatory templates, user pages, and group pages that are more deserving of drama? I'd say this ranks among some of the least offensive content ever uploaded to this wiki. Enough bickering. --Private Mark 03:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

People on UDWiki have differing opinions shocker!

UDWiki:Specific Case Editing Guidelines Thanks kids. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed the point entirely -- LEMON #1 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are people making such a fuss about a fuckin' template? --Thadeous Oakley 22:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You read my mind, friend. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  22:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making a fuss over the template, really. I just remarked that it seemed a bit silly. When I actually read the thought that went into it I felt there were things I should point out that seemed quite counterproductive or just plain bizarre. 23:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Misantropy, there is a reason why I replied to you and refuse to enter a real conversation with other guys like that Lemon guy. I liked our discussion because you can stay neutral in our different point of view over the whole thing.

The whole problem over our disagreement is that you keep talking about the philosophical implication of DN while I am talking about the direct implication of DN in the game. It's like theory facing reality on the field, that's all. But people like that Lemon guy... They look like fanatics who can't take the possibility that someone would not agree with them. I guess that ought to happen. (And the text that Lemon guy just posted under this while I was typing it is proof of that...) -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  23:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OH MY GOD, YOUR SUCH A MATURE GUY HAVING MATURE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MATURE SUBJECTS!11!--Thadeous Oakley 23:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See, you also get it wrong in reality. If you're slow to revive DN players, you're denying yourself a dedicated survivor on your side and keeping a zombie in the field. Clever hordes will kill DN players first if they find any when breaking a building, as they'll join the attack instead of shambling off for revives. The problem pro-survivors have is that they're denying themselves allies by not taking the opportunity to revive DN players when they find them dead - doing so gives them another man in their team as it were. Neither in idealistic or realistic terms is there a concrete reason to be dead-set against the policy, really. 23:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is where you are wrong. If I ever revived PKs in priority, I'll actually be working against my own pro survivor cause because we know that PKs kill other survivors randomly and thus create a bigger revive workload. It is exactly the same thing for DN players, whom futile playstyle lead them to continually destroy what they tried to achieve the day before that, zombie or survivor alike.

Let me give you an example: I am a pro survivor. In a theoretical example where I am killed in a barricaded room and I stand up... Being pro survivor, I'll either wait until I am dumped out or stand up and munch on other zombies inside to help other survivors to free up the building. Now, same example but I am a DN player: I am dead, in a building. I want to embrace my zombie status, so I rise up and I start munching on survivors left inside and then tear up the barricades I was helping to maintain hours ago.

If you can't understand how futile and ridiculous that is then I am unsure I will ever be able to change your mind. And it is certainly not in favor of survivors. Given the choice of someone I know is a pro survivor and someone else who might turn on your on any moment... There is no real choice. Avoid the DN player. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  23:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, if someone who was pro survivor has died behind barricades, he was either infected or the barricades have fallen, which in most cases mean you should just abandon the building and move on, DN Players are just another reason to abide by rat tactics in order to survive, the best thing you can do for DN Players if you don't want to the added trouble of "having to move bases" you just say only pro survivor in your groups, and dump the dead body outside. Having the neutrality just means that either zombies or survivors will simply have to put more effort into "winning the game" than they used to, by keeping the neutral players in their favour. In other words, revive Dual Nature, and if they die again it's clearly a sign that your particular building has been taken and make a retreat, anything else is probably an exercise in futility.--EveryTimeV 23:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it futile or ridiculous because I find it very very evocative. I understand your strategic point though, but I'm simply trying to counter with "revive him, then, and he'll cade up again". The longer he stays dead, the more damage he does as a zombie, after all. 23:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that... But seeing as I see them as zombie spies anyways, playing dead as zombies is where I want them to be.

Let me give you another example... I am part of a group. We have a forum. This is a pro survivors group, we don't allow zombies in... So, where do I post when I am a zombie? In a pro zombie forum, I guess? And then I am able to say "hey, there is a big load of survivors in such and such building because I was there yesterday. I know!".

Zombie spy. (And the same can be done in the reverse, I don't deny that. I am however against it one way or another, doesn't change a thing.) -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  23:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much all DNs I know spend more time alive than dead - including my own, who is a friggin' ghost town reclaimer, the kind of survivor that gets eaten regularly. The reason for that is the huge disparity between killing by zombies and getting a revive.

• The zombie has to spend 30-40AP on top of what he needs to take down the cades, while I just need to spend 1AP to move to the next caded building and be safe from being turned to Team Zambah.
• Harmanz OTOH just need to spend 10AP once to drag me to Team Harmanbargar, and many of them keep me on their contacts lists to revive me on sight. (At least I get darn often randomly revived in the streets without prior DNA scans - and I know from my zomie alts that that is _not_ an usual thing.)

As for forums, DN players just avoid them when they are dead? Just as pro-survivor players who run in alt conflict when their PKer or zambah is in their group's home turf? Has worked with both 404 and MCM for me. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have a strange suburb because it been several years since survivor can't hope to stand to a zombie siege by barricading buildings. 5 zombies standing outside a building and using XX:XX strategy will break in a building and eat people. Then they simply start again the next day once they get killed, dumped, and have 50AP back.

In a normal (non ghost town) suburb, there is always survivors to munch on once you bring the barricades of a building down. It is worthwhile for them to attack and dine on the less frequently online survivors. And people who are online often, like you and me, can move often and avoid hot zones to stay alive. I agree perfectly with that, I do it myself as a survivor and I very rarely get eaten by zombies.

All this, however, doesn't change a thing about what I said earlier. I know that DN players help barricade when they are survivors. That is not in contest. What is in contest is what they do when they are zombified. And that's all what I need to flag them as zombies spy. Trying to counter my arguments with those kind of fact is pointless, since it override them by default. Not to say that taking the example of a single player is quite pointless when we know that it is impossible that all the DN players play the same way than you or me do.

About the "we just ignore forums"... Considering that DN is a free movement in which anybody can join without an afterthought... Yeah, like I'm going to believe that the totality of the DN players are going to do that! -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Those who join survivor group forums should do. Just like those with PKer alts and zombie alts who join such forums and occassionally might run into alt conflict. Or are they an issue for you too? -- Spiderzed▋ 19:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that I really understand your question. But if you mean if I have a problem with people playing in pro survivor groups and having PKer alts or zombie alts... No, not at all. As long as they don't zerg and play their own side. I would even encourage them to do it, to "experience the whole game" as they wish.

This would, however, never stop me from flagging them as PKer or pro zombie in my personnal list and hunt them down with my pro survivor character. In fact, those two points are not even remotely linked together. If I see someone going against my pro survivor goals then they'll get flagged whatever they are. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  21:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Point is: When they have an anti-survivor alt, and lead it to the area their survivor group is in, do they forum spy for that time? Or can they be trusted to keep their knowledge separate between alts with incompatible goals, despite being run by the same player? -- Spiderzed▋ 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are talking about something which is already against the rules of zerging. Alts are supposed to stay away from eachothers, isn't? Thus I find the question moot since if someone does that they are already cheating.

I am against cheating in games, if you want to know. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  02:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't have to include zerging at all - in fact, it usually doesn't. Dumbed down example for you, as you seem to have trouble: Dude A has an alt in the Abandoned and MOB. MOB attacks Yagoton. Dude A withdraws Abandoned alt in time and brings in his MOB alt. Can Dude A be trusted to keep his itchy fingers of the Abandoned boards until MOB has passed through the area and he brings his survivor back in? -- Spiderzed▋ 15:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Cause it's fun. -- LEMON #1 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a really dumb template, and for that reason alone, stating anymore then the obvious stupidity it is is giving it more attention then it actually deserves. But that's just me. --Thadeous Oakley 23:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dang, I missed such an awesome debate. Here is my contribution.

{{Antiantidualnature}}

~ 04:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

guys.. let the troll make his stupid template. who cares.

no one is going to use it except him and his retarded friends. sheesh. this is why i miss corny the nazi.. a little.. drama!----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 02:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I KNOW! Bring him back. :( 18:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fucking hell, I still can't believe he said he fingered me in the arsehole. Fucking classic. -- LEMON #1 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

who hasn't fingered you in the asshole?----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 01:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)