Talk:No Random Revive Policy

And if you don't metagame

Is the point of this to make everyone metagame or wait for a combat revive? I wholeheartedly support randomrevives, but then again, there will be random revives until the end of time so, no worries Banana, while punks still combat revive, e'erbody's gun' rev' suckas at rev points. -Banana Bear4

I agree with Banana Bear4. This page seems like an attempt to get people to metagame. There are new players who may not know how to use the revive request tools, so your policy hurts those players who probably needs revivification most. --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 07:45, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Some people will agree with this policy and some people won't. Obviously not everyone's going to support it and that's fine by me. I'm not going to force everyone to this point of view. Heck, there are people within the MFD that won't support this and they will still revive at revive points. If we're advertising the wiki page for revive points they'll hopefully see the tools listed up at the top. --Torvus 00:02, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

As a player who's main character is a zombie and main alt is a PKer, I support this policy. I think it is a good idea for both sides. Less combat revives, less breathing PKers, ultimately more zombies. As was mentioned, it is quite unlikely to be universally adopted, but if even a statistically significant number of players practiced this, I think newbie zombies and the whole of the survivor population would benefit. --Unlife 01:54, 12 April 2006 (BST)~

This policy is fundamentally a good idea, as it stops noobs reviving PKers, but other than that, I am not in full agreement. Combat reviving is uncommon, since syringe use is expensive. My suggestion is to have a revive request page on this Wiki. Whether it will work or not, I don't know. Anyway, there are still revive points, but metagamers are favoured their more often. --Anotherpongo 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A non metagame approach to the "no random revives" policy is this: if it looks like this character prefers to be a zombie, don't revive it. 15 zed skills, 2 survivor skills, and a profile that says "this zombie wears a large flashing don not revive badge"... chances are it doesn't want to be revived. 10 survivor skills, no zed skills, and a "non descript zombie" profile... probably does want to be revived. The drawback is that PKers will probably be revived, but who knows, the kindness of strangers may yet shine a light on their dark, sad, twisted souls, and convert them back into decent people. --Cman yall 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cman yall, you don't have to metagame to know wether someone wants a revive or not. My survivor has in his zombie description that his eyes say he wants to live and my zombie makes it similarly obvious he doesnt want to be alive. Also reviving PKers isnt really a big problem since they're a bigger threat as a zombie due to the halved exp from killing survivors while alive and the fact that flak jackets reduce the damage they can deal. --Sephikus 01:09, 7 June 2007 (BST)

Title

Do you think it should be called the No Random Revive Policy? Its current title may confuse people too lazy to actually read the page. Khukri 07:49, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

Just Revive (or Revivification) Policy? I'd love to see something even catchier (on the lines of the 'Sacred Ground Policy') if anyone has any ideas! --Gilant 15:52, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

Any and all ideas are welcome --Torvus 00:02, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Network of Trust? Restricted Revivification? Universal Revivification Triage? Sensible Syringe Use? --Lint 21:33, 23 March 2006 (GMT)

Sensible Syringe Use has a good ring to it, actually. What do other people think? --Torvus 00:53, 25 March 2006 (GMT)

Okay, I'm new to reviving in UD and metagaming also. I don't understand the idea of revivication requests and random revives. I haven't seen a way to choose which zombie to revive. Some clarification would be nice.--Boovis 04:34, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Hmm, it doesn't appear to be mentioned here or on the Revivification Request page. Basically, you click on a character name on the Revive Request tool and add their profile to your contact list. Having their profile in your contacts allows you to identify the zombie. So now you won't waste syringes on brain rotters and as a result won't waste AP looking for replacement syringes. You'll have to remember to purge your contact list from time to time because I believe it has a 150 contact limit (unless that's been changed recently). --Lint 05:06, 10 May 2006 (BST)

• Wow, you're right. Sorry for the oversight - I'll fix this shortly. Thanks! --Gilant ^talk|DEM 14:41, 10 May 2006 (BST)

• Thanks for the clarification. I saw that you added it to the revive page also. I noticed after the fact, that I clicked the wrong edit button for this page. Should I move it up? Like I said, I'm new to metagaming and the whole wiki challenge.--Boovis 17:29, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Slogans

• Practice Safe Revivification!
• Strangers are danger! Revive known friendlies only.
• A DNA scan is good, a profile is best.
• Are you willing to risk the lives of your family and friends for a mere 10 XP? Revive wisely.

• Honor Universal Revivification Triage or you'll really get HURT!

Content

I went ahead and edited out the reference to the MotA in the write up. After having some experience first hand with these guys I've found them to be strictly honorable. They Do not use human info and standing orders for the MotA are to jump out a building when revived...not breaking barricades or spying.--Kristi of the Dead 17:18, 5 April 2006 (BST)

so, is this a thign agis revives or to help revives work better?

well --shaun 22:24, 25 July 2006 (BST)

Depends on your metagaming stance. If you do metagame, namely by going on one of the aforementioned lists, then it helps you in the sense of revives. If you're playing a normal (non-metagaming) survivor, then it hurts because the only way to ensure a revive is to get added to the list. If you play your character as both a zombie and a survivor (which I believe is the intended purpose of the game and is how I play) I think it consigns you to being a zombie, and moreover, discourages even further from getting Brain Rot. "Yes, the canceling of scans is all wonderful, but not only will I have to wait for an undamaged NT building, I also have to sign up on this Revivification Request thing?" Not much in the spirit of the dual-nature character, as it forces you to a side. For zombie characters, it could go either way. You do, on the plus side, get the benefit of people not randomly jabbing you with syringes, but it also means you're less likely to get any human items or skills, which I hear are quite popular among some zombies. Me, I'm against it, since even if it does stop PKers, what's so important about that? PKers are just another threat in this dangerous landscape, and instill a proper sense of self-preservation. It's why humans have flak jackets and Free Running. Like Max Brooks says, the survivors are the biggest threats in a zombie attack, the zombies are just in the middle. It should actually be like that. And generator killers, well... that's part of the point for helping the zombie side, isn't it? Remove the humans advantage (even if you need to destroy every human in the room to do so. Hm, maybe it should be changed to that). So, it can very much help you if you choose to play a human, and only a human, and don't mind metagaming. In almost any other case, there are drawbacks. --Kalir 16:26, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Not attributed to the above rant, but this should seem less opinionated and more informative. This is a wiki, y'know. --Kalir 16:28, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Ain't this useless?

I mean, we can now see the profile of who we are jabbing... I assume most people do it before actually injecting the person... -Certified=Insane_UG 07:55, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Whatever happened to RP?

It seems to me that this policy runs completely against RP purposes. If you're survivor in a zombie infestation, and you actually have the means to turn zombies back into living people, what would you do? Find a cemetery somewhere and wait for peaceful little zombies to line up and stick them one by one? No. You save whoever you can, wherever you can, however you can. Personally, I'd love it if everyone randomly revived. Then I could just play a survivor until getting killed, then play a zombie until getting revived, then repeat. Best of both worlds, and way more realistic than zombies acting like humans or humans freaking out and committing suicide just so they can be zombies again. As it is, you're stuck acting very unnaturally for the role you're supposed to be playing. -Timzor 07:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, when I first started playing I randomly revived to get zombies to the join humans and fight other zombies. When there were a horde of zombies that took over the town, I started reviving everyone in hopes of getting a horde of humans to fight off those zombies.

If they don't get brainrot, I assume they don't mind being revived. Also, humans can get killed on purpose by jumping off buildings then coming back to life as a zombie.

Back to RPing again. If you found out that the only way to really "kill zombies" were to convert them back to humans, what would you do? You'd convert them to humans of course because killing zombies is only delaying them. Converting zombies to humans, not only "kills the zombies" but gives you an extra human ally to fight against the zombies.

It seems you might as well just remove Revivification Syringes all together and just simply allow zombies to turn back to human any time they please. Newuser12345215 00:42, 17 April 2007 (BST)

I agree with the RP ethic, too. I can somewhat justify revive points on the idea that there's something human left ticking in the zombies' brains that drives their random gait toward some glimmering hope of being human again. But the idea of a nice, orderly, meta-gamed queue is silly. I'll still do random revives with a strong bias toward random revives near revive points. (and if I get Zed'ed, then I act like one! see The Opportunists.)

-Spudley 05:21, 26 April 2007 (BST)

This does not necessarily violate the RP ethic when you consider the fact that there are members of a known 'death cult' amongst the zombies. Really depends on the prevalence of groups such as DOA.

Article style

I was just looking at the article and noticed something odd. It's all backwards. look at the section titles- Disadvantages lists points that are for random revives. It seems silly to me. Does it seem silly to anyone else? Monsieur 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Not to me. But what I did notice is that this article is waaaay out of date, and incomplete. It references DOA! how long ago did they leave UD, and what newbie has even heard of them?? gad... I think it's the incompleteness that make the placement of "Disadvantages" seem awkward... The article also doesn't mention DNA scanning... I don't know if DNA scanning is officially part of the Random Revive policy or not... But I think a reference to it at least ought to be made: DNA scanning is better than nothing, better than totally blind revives, at least... Actually, I never use the DEM tool to revive, I just scan, and I've considered myself a non-random reviver on that account. Hmph.

Testing the waters ... is there a consensus out there for a rewrite/revision? --WanYao 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what about the starters

During my first few days of playing urban dead I have been killed and became a zombie; this upset me a bit (but allowed to exp faster actually); while I was walking across my suburb someone revieved me - and I magically stopped being a zombie - I was so happy.. Ted Blackheart 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)