Talk:On Strike

	Historical Group Talk Page
	This talk page belongs to a historical group that is no longer active. However, its wiki page is preserved to reflect the group's significance in Urban Dead history. Please do not edit this page or the corresponding group page without good reason.

Goals:

I assume that we have a specific list of grievances? Things we'd like to see changed? There's no point in going on strike without it.

Can we also have an oil drum to stand around, and put bits of wood in?

Strapon Bev.

--Littlelisa

Might I suggest that we list the actual PLAYERS who have gone on strike and the number of characters that they control? Put me down as Douglas Jackson, 4 characters, ALL ON STRIKE. --DJRJ 15:59, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Its pretty clear what our grievances are. Also, the thread that i linked to in the entry is the Strike thread on the UD forums, so if you have posted about going on strike there, you will appear there. --Grim s 16:12, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Wow, this seems pretty whiny for a group that just got buffed. --LibrarianBrent 18:26, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Don't like whining? Shut your piehole and lead by example, whiner. -- Clay 12:24, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Buff nothing. This change is not of any value to zombies. All it does is reduce the overpowering effect of Headshot and make my maxed zombie stand up daily with 44 AP instead of 49. If this is the best zombies are going to get, I see no reason for the zombies not to quit the game. I've been saying all along that zombies need more interesting play, and they're really not getting it. What does this do? Make it slightly less-bothersome to be killed everyday if you haven't maxed out on levels, and slightly more-bothersome if you have? You'll excuse me if I'm not ecstatic. I still can't do any more than I could do before, and in fact now I can do less. Yet the survivors think this should be enough to make zombies fun? Newsflash - they aren't. And since zombies aren't playing, survivors are getting to be less fun. More buffs and tweaking aren't needed; entirely new play-options or tactical considerations need to be added. Otherwise this game will stagnate into oblivion. And the zombies just feel it first, which is why they're striking; it's the only alternative to quitting when the game is currently this dull. --Drakkenmaw 20:50, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I think the fact that it "reduces the overpowering effect of Headshot" is of some value, if only low-level zombies. --LouisB3 20:53, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Think in terms of fun, not XP or AP or HP. Does this change mean the zombies have more fun? I don't believe it does. --Drakkenmaw 20:59, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I was simply quoting you to point out your self-contradiction.--LouisB3 22:25, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't know about you, but MY zombie has MUCH more fun when the value of his kills aren't erased instantly. 6 AP is a small price to pay for full health regeneration, anyway, especially with Body Building and a flak jacket. --LibrarianBrent 00:17, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Seems like at least 200 people disagree. Hence the point of the strike, I suppose... --Drakkenmaw 00:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I'd have a lot more fun. Even if my zombie's progression is now slower, at least it's no longer under threat of going backwards. Yeah, progression is slowed, but frankly I think this makes zombie progression a tad more rewarding. No more 99XP reset! Hooray! -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 00:41, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Wow, someone shows their lack of knowledge. --Qwako 18:30, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Mmm, since I have a level 33 main who plays both sides frequently, as well as three other accounts, I would say that I have significant knowledge about this matter. --LibrarianBrent 18:40, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well I play mainly humans but this seemed like a shitty deal for zombies, so my zombie alt Chickenhawk joined the strike and is in the park. I think the strike's a good idea because it will bring more attention to the overall issue (such as the fact that players with headshot alone outnumber the zombies). --SLA 18:43, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The headshot change seems like a buff to me, but maybe that's just because I'm tired of losing 300+ EXP to being PKed and then killed at the revive point. Supply crates are insignificant, since the minor buffs that they give are countered by the large amount of time taken to find them, as well as by the fact that zombies can find and destroy them to prevent any survivor benefit. --LibrarianBrent 18:46, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Sorry, I really can't believe people are still bitching about this: I think Kevan made a brilliant move: In one stroke, he made Headshot less of a source of misery for newbie zombies, and at the same time gave survivors half of a ghost of a chance in a pitched battle by removing the hoardes' ability to pop back up like jacks-in-the-box with Ankle Grab. Help the newbie feral zombies a little, nerf the high-level hoardes a little. Correct the balance of the two most bitched-about skills simultaneously. Perfect. -CWD 18:51, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Don't like bitching? Then shut your bloody cakehole and lead by example, bitch. -- Clay 12:24, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

He stole our AP. The most violently opposed change to headshot (Aside from permadeath) is that it should take our ap or nerf ankle grab. Also, it sends a big "Fuck you" to newbies, who, if you read the page, get so badly raped by this change that not even I, a devout zombie player, would dare try and play one. --Grim s 19:12, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You're aware that Ankle Grab was more unbalanced than Headshot, right? --LibrarianBrent 19:26, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Losing 5 AP for a headshot? Not rape.

Losing your charcter to Zombie Anthrax? Not rape.

Losing Urban Dead? Not rape.

Losing your dignity to some violent freak? Rape.

Get your priorities straight, you stupid ass. --Drew J 19:26, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Harm to newbie zombies? I gave up playing my zombie alt because it was simply impossible for me to level up. The nightly ritual of being killed and standing up the next day was tolerable before headshot, but after that it became nearly impossible for me to level. I would much rather deal with 15AP to stand up while keeping my XP long enough to purchase ankle-grab, in which case the headshot standup penalty reduces to 6AP. The old version of headshot is what killed the game for newbie zombies, not this version. I will admit that I am sympathetic to the current imbalance regarding zombies, and hope kevan fixes this, but the notion that this hurts newbie zombies is absurd. It is the established and maxed-out zombies who are mad at this because headshot became meaningless to them, not the newbie zombies for whom it has almost become impossible to level. Also, on another note, I find it quite hilarious that people are getting indignant and angry with Kevan and threatening to quit, when this game is being offered to us for free and is being paid for with his time and money. Delphius 14:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombies now can level every other day if they belong to a reasonably organized horde and the only thing the harmanz could do to even slow us down is use distributed defense and cower like feeble weaklings and little children. All headshot does now is tack on an extra 2.5 hours on the attack schedule everyday, or an average of 7.5 less XP per assault (for a maxed out zombie, less is lost for less potent zombies), which is trivial. (MU-HA-Ha-ha!)

Also this totally changes mall sieges; Due to the dense concentration of headhunters in malls zombies previously could expect no level advancement during a siege, that is totally different now. Actually I think I want to put a call out to Destroy Caiger! This time we'll do it right, siege the whole surrounding area and crush the local "Revivification industry" and raise the zombie count to unsightly high numbers! The only thing that would be even better is the "Big Building Upgrade" Kevan promised us. --Contaminated 19:20, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Except it wouldn't raise the zombie count, it would just raise the number of zombies Mrh?ing at revive points. --Qwako 19:32, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Nothing's going to raise the zombie count besides giving them some skills that make them more than violent killing machines. My (mid-level) zombie is quite happy at the change. She can now actually level, instead of getting a little exp before being headshotted back to zero. In fact, my high level survivor character could now switch sides for a challenge, which was impossible before this change. I can now RP on both sides. --Shadowstar 19:37, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Shadowstar can I ask why you deleted this from my comment? Also Brent this gives zombies a pretty much certain 35 AP per day, along with 2AP movement 5:1 barricades and 3 times as many humans it's a bit of an AP difference. Whoever has the most APs in this game has the upper hand and I think it's showing --Qwako 19:51, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Oops! I apologize for deleting something... (What did I delete?) I thought I just pasted that at the bottom of the page. --Shadowstar 19:53, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Maybe 35 AP for people who don't have Ankle Grab, which IMHO is the most important skill in the game. --LibrarianBrent 20:08, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

So you think that zombies should get 200 exp with a 20% to hit for 2 damage? As it's the most important skill according to you then then they should buy it first. I think the majority of people would die of boredom trying to get 200 exp with that.. (100 exp for ankle grab, 100 for combat skill)

I totally agree zombies need more interesting stuff added to make they fun to play as "freshly converted". Within an organized only one or two zombies pay the XP price for barricades. Within an organized horde more powerful zombies don't land killing blows so less powerful zombies get the bonus XP. Within organized hordes everyone is in the building and eating harmanz in under 5 minutes real time. Within an organized horde all headhunter within standard safehouses are die during the assault and thus couldn't remove XP (or now AP). On a whole zombie groups are much more interesting than human groups. Look at the Minions of the Apocalypse, Church of the Resurrection, Ridleybank Resistance Front, IZONE, and even the Drunken Dead. These are groups of people with a great sense of humor having good times. People don't understand how awesome the zombie metagame can be.

However I strongly disagree that the solution is to "stop killing". If anything we need to kill more.--Contaminated 19:55, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Great. Glad you're having fun. Glad you like zombies, you're one of the few I've seen. And metagaming is great if you're into it. But people should be able to play and have fun without metagaming. Right now they basically can't, as ferals. Unless they're masochists who get off on boredom. Wait, that would be almost everyone using the internet right now. Ooops. -- Clay 12:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• What are you talking about, "Buffed"? So we don't lose xp. Great. Now, instead, the new zombies are pretty much told to go piss off, being as it takes about 30 AP to bring a small barricade down by oneself and there's a huge potential they'll be waking up every morning with only 35. Not to mention the whole OMG DON'T MESS WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S AP that was supposedly an actual guideline for suggestion you guys have, and gee, I guess it's totally violatable after all. On top of that--you guys get to use our Ankle Grab skill, and stand up at 1 AP cost too. It's an actual advantage for us when we can do that. But now we might as well not even have taken it for all the good it does. And yet you guys get to still happily run around at 1 AP standing up (don't bitch about dying; you can find a revive sitting outside an NT for a tiny while, no problem). So what, shouldn't we just put Ankle Grab as a human skill now? Cos that's who it's benefitting these days. Striiiiiiiiike. -- Tabby 19:55, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ah, the don't mess with AP thing? You mean the one that I deleted from the page three times and which was contradicted by the FAQs from the get-go? If it's still there, that just means I have to delete it again. Ankle Grab clearly benefits zombies as well, and if you were smart, the revifification network would be your first target in any attack. I'm sorry, but I PLAY A ZOMBIE and regard the new changes as a significant improvement. --LibrarianBrent 20:08, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I started the game as a zombie and even though I have Headshot, I minimised it's use (see my userpage for the note) because I detested it's old version. This change? It's heaven in my book. Honestly I don't see why it is bad at all. I'd rather have lost 5 AP than XP to level when I was working my way up the zombie skill tree... o.O So, point being, I have to agree with LibrarianBrent. Or, let's put it this way - I, too, think there should be more game-improvements for zombies, but I don't think Headshot needs any further tweaking, hence why I find this strike rather... well, odd, really. I don't think I understand it. Sorry guys... but... good luck with the lobby; even if I don't agree, or understand it. -pinkgothic 00:06, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• While I agree with many of the points you guys make...is a strike really the way to deal with it? I mean, it's sort of like vegitarians boycotting meat, isn't it? Maybe coming up with a list of proposed changes in the Suggestion area, or even posting the best of the ones already posted here and showing strong support and need for them, would not only help you but help improve the game for everyone. Just a thought. --MorthBabid 20:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

There have been many zombie suggestions listed for a long time. They have been completely ignored, while there has been a steady stream of changes favoring survivors. When the system doesn't work, you have to work outside the system. This isn't a sudden thing, it's the result of long-term negligence. - Dashiva 20:59, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yes, it really is the way. And yes, it's just like vegetarians organizing a meat boycott - which is exactly what they do, by being vegetarian and promoting it. I eat meat, but I don't whine about vegetarians. Also, if they revealed some particularly abusive situation with a particular meat distibutor, I would buy from a different one until their boycott ended. I play humans almost exclusively, because zombies are less fun to play. The only people whining about the strike primarily play humans, or play characters that are already maxed out and switch casually back and forth. I don't see zombie players saying "Man, I'm gonna quit if anything about zombies is changed" - they know and I know it's not fun to stand up, get shot, stand up, get shot, stand up, get shot... Making zombies more fun would help me 2 ways - (1) if I wanted to seriously play zeds, and (2) playing as a human would be more fun in a zombie game if zombies outnumbered the humans. That's the whole genre - zombies all over the place, crowds, mobs - not "Oh look, I searched my whole suburb and found a zombie to kill! Sweet!" In a zombie game, humans should be dying left and right, not zombies. Right now it's fish in a barrel. It's like having a bullfighting game where the bull dies once every twenty times, and the bullfighter gets killed the other 19. Which is kinda like the whole vegetarian thing, come to think of it. But yeah. I want zombies everywhere in a zombie game. Call me crazy. -- Clay 12:24, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Do the high level zombie players honestly not realize how much this helps mid-level zombies? As someone who hasn't been able to level up for 2 weeks, this is a significant bonus. When the biggest complaint is that the change "nerfs high level zombies," (which isn't even remotely true, I might add) it's a good change. Mrdbeau 20:29, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

I haven't read through everything on this talk page yet, but I'm still waiting to buy Headshot. The fact that XP is now sacred makes me happy, but I'm still not benfitting from headshotting zombies, so until there's a toggle, I won't bother. --LouisB3 20:39, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Unfortunately, XP still isn't sacred. Headshot still takes it. You just don't get the message. CthulhuFhtagn 21:16, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Are you sure about that? --Daxx 21:49, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Looks like it only did that if you were headshot around the same time as the change was implemented, because it's not doing it anymore. CthulhuFhtagn 01:28, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

No, you got it right the first time: 'Headshot still takes it. You just don't get the message.' It silently takes 10% of your XP, by reducing your daily activities and XP gain by at least 10%. ;-) --Tycho44 03:42, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT) (GMT)

Apparently Kevan either doesn't play his own game or has a much different idea of a zombie apocalypse than the rest of us. The fact that people who openly hate each other are coming together on this should be enough to send a message. Kevan: Fix the game or we stop playing it. Slicer 22:07, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I totally agree that zombies are getting the shaft, but you guys realize how self aggrandizing and ingrateful this sounds right? "We're on strike from a free webgame Kevan makes in his spare time". Just stop playing for a while, its the same message without all the self important bullshit. --Zaruthustra 00:14, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well, in fact, doing that would go totally unnoticed, would send no message whatsoever, and thus would help no one to improve anything. As for how it sounds, do you know how pompous and smug you sound? And do you know how much of an ass you sound like, doing nothing but toss bullshit insults at people with legitimate concerns, rather than try to improve anything? Which by the way is what the strike is trying to do - to help improve the quality of a free game that you play. In conclusion, figure out a way to stop zombies from getting the shaft that works better than the strike... or shut your bloody cakehole. -- Clay 12:24, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Upwards of 700 members? Anyone think that someone might be zerging to increase the count? --LouisB3 02:38, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Or maybe people are actually concerned? Judging by the number of people on the forum who've responded positively, and the numbers by which other groups have gone down (The RRF and the Scourge have halved on the statistics page), the current tally of 831 is low. CthulhuFhtagn 03:26, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• I think someone suggested that headshot takes away HP (can't find the suggestion). Basicaly the idea was that when the Zombie stood up again they would have less HP based off how much extra dammage done after 0 HP. So if you had 3 hp left and was shot with a pistol then when you stand up you would have only 48HP (without body building). Someone can suggest this again if they think it's good enough - Jedaz 03:37, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Not going to work. People are constantly going to be getting headshot, and therefore standing up with reduced HP and being more likely to get headshot afterwards. So the complaint of "reduced AP penalty!" will become "reduced HP penalty, which translates to a reduced AP penalty!". (I think the suggestion got shot down for just these reasons.) — g026r 17:23, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

This is one of the most inherently stupid thing I ever read on the internet. Zombies not powerfull? Even with the current changes, I'm pretty sure that Zombies groups like the Minions of the Apocalypse are still unstopable. Humans overpowered? Give me a break. --Eagle of Fire

Eagle, I like you. I respect you as an opponent. But you still sound like an idiot. Yeah, the Minions of the Apocalypse are brutally dangerous. But there's less then a hundred of us. All of the organised hordes combined make up lees then seven percent of the total zombie population. Ferals aren't dangerous. If you have to metagame to be dangerous then the game is broken. --Stroth 23:37, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yes, and I guess taking the server down is going to help here? Not that I find there is something wrong at all, mind you. I actually don't like the changes myself, but I'm not just being utterly stupid and pretend to help a "worthy cause" when in fact all what this is doing is showing how stupid a group can get and be a great load to the server of a game which is free to play. You don't like it? Fine, I don't either. But if it end up I don't like the game enough that I leave, at least I won't bother hundred of players at the same time. As for the point that Zombies are or not powerfull, I said that because the main point of the Zombies stikers, at the time, was that they were not powerfull enough and/or were "nerfed down" by the recent changes... I don't really have to ask others to know Zombies are powerfull. You just said yourself that your group is not even a hundred, and yet nothing can stand in it's path... Immagine that Zombies, in general, begin to play like your group with intelligent objectives and a deadly endurance? As a survivor, what could you do in the end then, other than flee and run around? It's no less as "broken" than the current Zombie style of play. It's inherent to the game, IMHO.Eagle of Fire

No, you're not pretending to help a worthy cause. Neither are the strikers - we're having fun, and trying to improve a game we play, for fun. The strike is the most fun I've had so far in this game. But, you're wrong on one count: you are being utterly stupid. You're complaining that the strike won't help, but all you're doing is complaining. Don't like it? Fix something, ass. Kevan has already stated that he's friendly to the strike, and that the server load issue has already helped to improve the game by testing an unusual circumstance - assuming the game continues, rather than all the zombie players quitting out of boredom, that will be useful because hopefully it'll have times where huge crowds like this amass for other kinds of battles. The strike is the most fun thing about this game so far. Don't like the strike? Then shut your bloody piehole and quit, without complaining, like you're telling other people to do, you hypocritical ass. As for your "imagine all the zeds did that" argument, it's bullshit. Anyone should be able to play a feral zed and have fun without metagaming, and an organized horde should be able to win a fight with a barricaded building. Otherwise, there will never be enough zeds to make it a proper zombie game, and it'll remain a low-res version of shooting fish in a barrel. "As a survivor, what could you do in the end then, other than flee and run around?" HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A ZOMBIE FILM? THAT IS THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!!! It's what defines the genre. Humans run from zombies. They shoot at them, then run. They barricade, the zeds tear down the barricades, they run. They land a helicopter on a mall, barricade, are cool for a month, then bikers come through, trailing zombies, everything goes to hell, and everyone runs. The genre is all about variations on that theme! Unless the humans WIN, like in Shaun of the Dead, in which case, guess what? That means GAME OVER. Back to working at the electronics shop. What do you want, a domesticated, safe version of a zombie game? If you want the "Shaun working at the Electronics store after the zombies are all rekilled or domesticated" game, by all means make it. Good luck with that. -- Clay 12:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It's you who is getting silly here. Unless the humans win? What do you think the survivors are trying to do, as a general goal? Survive, and then just hide in a hole hoping the Zombies around won't come to eat them? No way, we do exactly what you said; we try to win over the Zombies. The Yagoton Revivification Clinic is an extremely good example of such a thing, as well as the Yagoton Optimal Defense Plan that my group, The Abandoned, try to enforce in our own area. We didn't wait for Zombies to knock at our doors to try to think about something to do to counter them, which is exactly what the game is for Survivors. If the humans win, like you said, I'd be very proud... Proud because it would mean we won. And that's all. And before you begin to complain that I have no idea of what I am talking about, I do have a Zombie alt which have all the Zombies skills except brain rott (hoping he will get raised someday so I can buy the usefull human skills), and I achieved that 2 times faster than with my main survivor player. Underpowered? I still say no way. I won't comment on the rest because you obviously didn't read what I said properly. --Eagle of Fire

Yeah, hi. "Eagle of Fire." <<snicker>> Over here. I don't know who you're talking to. I thought it was me. But you seem to have read someone else's post.

I didn't say you were "getting silly." I said you are being utterly stupid, and being a hypocritical ass.

As for all this "we survivors" vs. "you strikers" crap, for the fifteenth time, I play exclusively as a survivor at this point. I tried zombies, and they're boring, for all the reasons we strikers have been raising and more. Therefore, as a survivor, I also want to win against the zeds. But right now, if you were proud for the humans to win, you would flagrantly display your unparallelled stupidity. Being proud of a victory by we survivors right now would be akin to being proud of winning an alley brawl with Stephen Hawking when you had the jump on him with a bat, or an arm wrestling match with a passed-out sorority girl, or a chess game with a retarded monkey.

I've never complained about you not knowing what you're talking about. You clearly know what you're talking about, which makes it all the more impressively stupid that you're so obviously and insistently wrong. My suspicion is you probably levelled that zombie up before barricading existed or something, because I currently play low-level, not 25+ level, characters. The humans are incredibly easy to level, and the zeds are nearly impossible. Therefore, I gave up on the zeds. Obviously, so have most others, as there are only 1 out of 3 who are active. This isn't due to some brilliant startegic victory - it's due to the severe game imbalance, variety for humans with none for zeds, and resulting boredom for zed players.

I won't comment on the rest because you obviously didn't read what I said properly. No, you won't comment on the rest because you can't hack responding to my actual points, so you'd rather ramble on about how proud you would be of winning a footrace against a midget. I would like some real competition, rather than shooting zombies-in-a-barrel. -- Clay 08:56, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

This is exactly the first reason why I'm complaining about the strike, people like you. I'm not going to fall into your troll, especially that I noticed that you are literally flooding this page right now with them. Get real arguments if you want to argue with me instead of badly half hidden random insults. The only point I'm agreeing with you is that Zombies are boring (and I also find them easy to play). But changing anything won't solve this problem for me, I find them boring from the start and not from the actual gameplay they may have. --Eagle of Fire

"Zombie Scabs and Strikebreakers� have begun descending upon the loafers and hippies of the Zombie Strike movement. Zombie strikebreakers stand willing to use any and all means necessary to end the strike, up to and including the indiscriminate slaughter of zombie and human strikers. Zombie strikebreakers can be heard marching under various slogans, such as:

Better Dead than Red! End the Zombie Strike Now!

Scabs wanted for Zombie Strike!

What do we want? To kill the dead! When do we want to? Now!

Zombies are only people when they�re breathing!

Give the zombies an upgrade! Revive Often!

Say No to Zombie Suffrage!

--Littlepinkpig 06:15, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You zombies need to stop complaining. First you whine because headshot takes XP. I understand that. It's an RPG-type game, and it sucks to have your hard work arbitrarily taken away. But bitching about the change to Headshot? You're all really just saying that there should be no penalty for a zombie being killed. Why don't you just go suggest that zombies can't die while you're complaining about this. "Oh noes! I lost 6 ap because I died!" YOU DIED. Death = penalty. Get over it, stand up with full health, and resume clawing the Harmans like you did before. Sheesh! I understand that zombies need more variety, but going on strike because one poor guy doing this stuff in his free time can't appease everyone all at once? Cut Kevan some slack. And you can't attack someone because Kevan doesn't follow the general suggestion rules. It's his game, we just get to play it. Ok, I'm done. --PatrickDark 06:50, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

First, I play humans, not zombies. Do me a favor and stop making us look so pathetic and stupid. If you want people not to complain, guess what? Lead by example, shut your slack-jawed flapping cake hole, and stop complaining, hypocrite. I love complaining. It's awesome. What I especially can't stand are people like you, who whine about other people whining. It's one of my very favorite things to complain about. Second, death = penalty is a great ideology when you're on the side that dies once in a while, instead of every day. No, death should not = penalty for zombies. They're dead. If death = penalty for them, they will always be penalized, it will never be a balanced game, and those of us who want to play humans will never have a serious challenge. You might like playing rugby against 12 year olds with physical disabilities, but I don't see the appeal. Third, stop the idiotic "I'm defending poor Kevan" routine. He's already said he appreciates the strike, ass. It has already helped him improve the game in terms of server efficiency. The strike isn't against him! It's to point out the fact that tons of zombies are about to quit because the game is so unbalanced. If that happens, it'll be worse for him, and you, and me, and all the zombies, and all the other survivors. Well, not all of the survivors. Most of the pathetic excuses for humans, like everyone complaining about the strike because they wouldn't last a day in a game with zombies instead of shambling targets, will likely get exactly what they deserve - which is to become zombie chow - due to their incredible stupidity. In conclusion: your piehole = shut. -- Clay 13:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

So you think zombies should be punished for something that is unavoidable? --Qwako 12:28, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Why not? If zombies don't suffer some sort of penalty for dying then the only mechanism survivors have left to stop/slow the zombie hoard is to revive them. Essentially you're arguing for making zombies physically invulnerable. --DamageControl 23:23, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Essentially, you are clearly illiterate or stupid, since you can't understand the most basic points being made here. No one here has said anything remotely in support of zombie physical invulnerability. Or are you arguing against revives? After all, they make humans invulnerable. I'd be down for that, it would put some element of risk into playing a human. Obviously, there can be all sorts of ways to stop and slow zombies without penalizing them, putting them at an institutionalized disadvantage, or making the game boring for them. -- Clay 13:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

How do revives make humans invulnerable? When a human reaches 0 hp they fall over, having to spend 10 ap to stand up as a zombie and then have to spend X further ap finding someone to revive them. So they are clearly not invulnerable. When zombies (at least high level ones) reach 0 hp they stand up for 1 ap and continue fighting. No cost for being reduced to 0 hp = physical invulnerability. Headshot added a cost to dying for a zombie but it didn't affect high level zombies. So it gets adjusted and suddenly the high level zombies are whining for all they're worth. You argue that there is no element of risk in playing a human and yet your apparent support of the strike indicates that you think there should be not element of risk in playing a zombie. --DamageControl 19:09, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well, I'll explain again, even though you still don't get it and likely won't after I explain for you yet again. But I'll bear with you, because I love you.

Revive makes humans invulnerable because all they have to do after getting killed is stand up (costing them only 10 ap, not 15 as it does for zombies at level 5 and lower) and shamble to a revive point, then they're alive and human again. It's easy. I play humans, and I've never had to wander around as a lonely, alienated corpse more than a day after being killed (which is remarkably uncommon in the first place - I've only died as a human because of my own stupid mistakes, like running out of AP due to carelessness). Death is rare and painless for a human.

It is a daily and taxing ritual for zombies. They get no barricades to hide behind. You see, they aren't human. They don't have any of the things humans can take for granted, and they have many penalties. They have nothing to balance that. No, being able to stand up more cheaply (only at higher levels, which they generally don't reach because it gets too boring), and not having to go somewhere special to get a revive do not balance off everything else.

I support the strike, this is explicit, not apparent. This support does not indicate that I "think there should be not element of risk in playing a zombie." You still can't understand the most basic points here. I, as a primarily survivor player, want plenty of zombies in my zombie game. You see, in the zombie genre, individual zombies have nothing going for them. They would lose in a week, easily, against armed humans. Except for the fact that their bites are infectious or they rise up in overwhelming numbers from an asteroid, radiation, what-have-you, and they are not easily killed - they keep getting up and keep coming. So, a game which pits 3 fully functional humans with surgery skills, barricades, guns, communications, free running, and pretty much everything but tanks against 1 zombie which can aspire to moving as fast, doing almost as much damage, who will always be exposed on the street, who will always have to spend several times as many AP to break barricades as they take to put up, and on and on and on... can't function as a zombie genre game for long, nor can it even be a worthwhile fight. I would like it to. As a human, I would like to defeat the zeds and reclaim Malton. But not because the zeds are so few and so weak that there is no challenge in it.

Also, I want to apologize. You are the one person I see here who actually refrained from insults who I insulted anyways when I was delirious. I am a terrible person. But I'm OK with that. -- Clay 08:34, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ok. The 70/30 split of players is a different issue, and one that is mostly psychological, IMHO. It's caused by the same dynamic that has resulted in the vast majority of zombie genre films beings ones that tell stories about the survivors rather than the zombies. So I think a new player is more likely to play a survivor and no amount of rule changes will make much difference to that because new players don't look at the rules before jumping in.

Back to the other stuff, I'm struggling to take your assertion that revives make humans invulnerable seriously. For most survivors getting killed means 10ap to get up as a zombies, some large number of ap to shamble to a revive point (at 2 per block), and then 10ap to get up again as a human. I'd be suprised if it cost less than 50ap on average. That's a sizable penalty for dying. I.e. humans are clearly not invulnerable. Contrast that to a high level zombie getting headshot (i.e. worst case scenario) before the headshot changes: 1ap to get up and some experience the zombie not longer has a use for. Note also that high level zombies are immune to revives. There is nothing a survivor can do to a high level zombie. That is invulnerable. For a lower level zombie the experience was a major penalty.

I hope you're starting to see where I'm coming from, but let me be explicit anyway. The change to headshot means that a (non-maxed-out) zombie now pays an additional 5ap instead of 10xp per level where headshot. There is no zombie attack that averages 2xp per ap spent so therefore the new headshot is clearly less of a penalty. The only situation where the new headshot is always worse is for a maxed-out zombie. Therefore the players who are complaining about the change obviously care about high level zombies and not their lesser brethren. They are essentially saying "I'm not going to play anymore because I'm no longer invulnerable". To me that's an immature attitude. Don't forget that this game was supposed to be "a low-tech massively-multiplayer zombie apocalypse game where the living and the undead compete for the control of a quarantined city". Not much of a competition when one side has (had) invulnerable characters.

Thanks for the apology. That's a rare thing to get during a net debate... --DamageControl 20:50, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Dear DamageControl,

You are most welcome. I try to reciprocate what I'm given, and I failed to do so in your case.

OK, psychology first. If you think the abysmally low number of zombie players is almost exclusively psychological, and not something that will change within the genre, why are you resistant to making zeds much stronger than humans? If they will always be outnumbered, then they really should be three times as strong. In addition, if psychology is so important, how does it impact the number of players on each side if (in my experience) the zed side gets killed every day as a structural component of the game no matter how they play, while the other side gets killed at most once every two weeks if they play smart? This is a psychological barrier to getting and keeping zombie players even if there is zero tactical consequence to getting killed, even one ap. Why not balance that out with some other psychological component, which either makes it psychologically harder (scarier, more deadly, whatever) for humans, or to lessen this structural psych penalty against the zeds, or both?

On to the numbers you raised. Let's assume your 50ap penalty per human death is more or less right. You neglected to say a word about the zed side: for most of them (since headshotters outnumber zeds), it costs 15ap, and for those who levelled up prior to the Rambo-ization of survivors it costs 6 if they have ankle grab (I think - I wouldn't know, it's been too boring to level up zeds since I started playing). Let's say zeds might get lucky 2 days a week and not get killed, if they trail big groups (which also means almost no likelihood of human prey that hasn't been killed by the mob, thus eliminating their only real opportunity to get xp). This means that humans get hit for 50ap once every two weeks, unless they sleep in the street and chase zed mobs the rest of the time. Low level zeds get hit for 150ap every two weeks. High levels get hit for 60ap every two weeks. Disadvantage: zeds. Even without any version of Headshot, when zeds had a 1 to 10 ap tag per day, the spread was then 10 to 100 ap per 2 weeks. Of course, many high level humans get ankle grab with their easily farmed xp, so humans can cut their revive cost down to 17ap if they want, though never to 10 ap per 2 weeks. In this case, high level zeds had a 7ap per 2 week advantage over high level humans. Low level zeds still trailed low level humans by 50ap.

My question, which I explicitly asked of you yet you ignored, and which every other strike hater on this forum has ignored, is this: Even with the old state of affairs, with a minor ap advantage for high level zeds in the area of deaths, how in hell do you think that this would in any way outweigh all the advantages humans have? If you list human advantages, minus their disadvantages, on one side, and zed advantages, minus their disadvantages on the other side, it is totally clear that zeds overwhelmingly have more disadvantages than advantages, and humans have overwhelmingly greater advantages. Now, with a low level human lead of 100ap on deaths and 43apat high level, how is it that anyone thinks this game is anything but ridiculously and obviously easy for survivors?

I'm a survivor! You can't tell me I don't have a massive advantage over any given zed I come across, on a one-to-one level, and I know that we outnumber them more than 2 to 1! So, psychological factors aside, on a purely tactical level humans are at a massive, enormous, ridiculous advantage. A zombie apocalypse, in my humble opinion, should be more difficult for humans, and easier for zombies. That's how the genre works.

I can certainly understand that you would like to be able to put down a high level zombie long enough to get away if you are a high level survivor. But the current setup goes way too far. And besides, you can, right now. You can take it down, and while it's standing you can get into a barricaded building, and free run from there. I do think it should be possible, but not easy, to slow down a high level zed a bit more than 1ap - ideally. But ideally zeds would outnumber us by 10 to 1, any single zed would be a real threat to a low level human, a determined horde should be unstoppable, etc. -- Clay 05:14, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't see where you asked me specifically about overall advantages and disadvantages. It's a difficult question to answer. I don't think there is a significant inbalance between the two groups, especially with the introduction of Feeding Groan. One-on-one the question is all but irrelevant since it is very likely that only one of the two players will be active at the time of the confrontation.

You haven't at all addressed my point that the changes to headshot make the game better for the majority of zombies and that therefore the reason given for this strike is invalid. Do you agree that the changes only hurt high level zombies and help all other zombies?

I don't agree that zombies always get killed daily. I'm playing a couple of zombies now and I am simply not finding that to be the case. You're also assumming headshot gets used a lot more than it actually does. Most of the time a zombie pays 1 or 10ap and that is it. So you're exaggerating the cost for zombies. And for high level humans with Ankle Grab the cost is usually much higher than 17ap, because of the need to find a revive. The cost is 1ap to get up as a zombie plus 10ap to get up as a human plus the cost of finding a revive. If you can regularly find revives within 6 blocks of being killed you're doing a lot better than most of us. And all of that is without figuring in the cost of getting back to wherever you were, should be so inclined, or the cost of additional deaths as a zombie on the way to getting revived. Death is a major hassle for humans and at worst a daily annoyance for zombies, yet removing that annoyance would mean that there would be nothing a human could do to a zombie, so what would be the point to the game?

Finally, I'd like to point out that Feeding Groan has radically improved the effectiveness of unorganised zombie hordes. And that change is reflected in the stats: that 2:1 ratio you mentioned has just dropped below 2:1, due to a decline in survivor numbers and an upward trend in zombie numbers. The zombies seem to be doing pretty well just now. It'll be interesting to see the long term effects. --DamageControl 21:25, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Of course they should. Every interaction between characters is "unavoidable" - the action can't be countered by the receiving player because they're not logged in. Survivor deaths are "unavoidable" too, for even the best-barricaded survivor dies eventually from bad luck. (You know, a huge horde comes along and breaks in, that sort of thing.) --LouisB3 21:16, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I would have to say that my biggest hope for this strike is that all the children "on strike" stay away long enough to forget their passwords, so the rest of us won't hear from them ever again. While I agree that zombies need some new skills, refusing to play a free game because it isn't exactly the way you want is infantile. --Dickie Fux 15:10, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

My biggest hope for this strike is hypocrites like you are torn to pieces and eaten by armies of zombie schoolgirls for being intolerably stupid. Insulting people based on your age prejudice is retarded and gay. And I mean that in the most pro-disability and pro-queer way imaginable. Insulting people for their stated refusal to play a free game because it's getting boring enough that they're considering quitting is your fat slutty mom. And I loooove fat sluts. Especially your mom. -- Clay 13:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Perfect time for a strike. I reside at NYC, and there's a huge transit strike right now. --Kaspian Waters 23:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

WORD! Victory to the NY Transit strike! Victory to the Urban Dead strike! -- Clay 13:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

RRF participation in Stanstock 05 Redux

Kevan: "Look, new headshot! and Supply Crates!"

Petros (At secret HQ deep in Ridleybank): "Enough! Strike!"

RRF zambahz: "Ahmahn! BARHAH!"

(sounds of shambling)

Petros (looks nervously back toward Ridleybank): "Harman ar Hranz"

(ominous sounds of furniture moving in Ridleybank)

Zambahz: "Barhah! Harman an Zambahz ar Hranz Harazhar"

Peaceniks: "Next, a duet by Donny Osmond and Gloria Gaynor"

(ominous sounds of furniture moving in Ridleybank)

Zambahz: "R!ng R!ng R!ng R!ng R!ng Hrrm? BANANA! Harharharhar"

Kevan: "Hi zombies! No probs! Check's in the mail, and all that!"

Petros: "omg, I left the iron plugged in, Gotta Go, Sry!!"

(cartoon sound of rapid departure)

(silence)

Zambahz: "..?"

Funny stuff. Believe me, some juveniles hitting Ridleybank had nothing to do with my decision to bow out. I'm giving Kevan his chance to follow through on his promise. Good satire, though. Cheers. Petrosjko 00:36, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Kevan -

There are those who will take your answer as sufficient and have left the strike. However, there are still over 1200 strikers, even with those who left as a result of your response. It would go a long way to ease the strikers minds if you let them know what you have "in the works" for the next couple of weeks. Your vague "something in the next couple of weeks" has not satisfied many of them. There are many who have been hearing that answer for some time. A little more communication from you to them, and their sympathizers, would go a long ways -- Zilly Bavos

I disagree - Kevan is the one person I know who doesn't promise stuff and miss the deadline; he just delivers the goods. It's a good thing, and the ingrates who not only declare strike in a free game, but also continue to do so after a personal statement from the creator, should just bugger off. --LouisB3 15:16, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

If anything the people have stayed for Kevan's game that many of whom have paid for. The whining seems to be coming from the anti-strike people. This was the only way many people would stay to play the game. In other words, the only people who are concerned about it appears to be you not Kevan. Excuse people for not wanting to continue to be xp farms for survivors and AP savers for zombies.--Axe-man 11:21, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It is a good thing. All hail saint Kevan. Now that that's out of the way: The strike is fun, and also a good thing, in this free game. It happens to be just as legitimately a part of the game as running around killing zombies that can barely fight back. Don't like it? Shut your cakehole and quit the game, asshat. Also, anyone who tells strikers to bugger off deserves to be forcefully and nonconsensually buggered themselves. Without lube. As a rule. And that's one rule I would be more than happy to enforce, mediocretin. -- Clay 13:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I think you don't understand. I am not going to quit the game, because I am confident that Kevan will create some good balance. Without a bunch of bitching from people who act as though they have some kind of entitlement to a perfect game. If people don't like the game, they can quit - and that's what they're doing, if they really are going inactive. The Urban Dead "strike" is not a strike. Zombies are not organized labor. Kevan is not some megacorp employer. No one is being forced to work in poor conditions for low pay because of some kind of monopoly on the local economy. If you're going to get obscene about this, be sure to understand what you're talking about, as I can only assume you were defending the concept of strikes in general. --LouisB3 15:03, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Perhaps I don't understand. However, it is equally possible that you don't understand.

(1) People are not quitting out of lack of confidence in Kevan. Quit trying to make this into a personal attack on him, as so many anti-strike people are doing - it is not and never has been.

(2) The strike is not "a bunch of bitching." What you and the other anti-strike people are doing is "a bunch of bitching." The strike is a fun in-game organization, just as legitimate as the Amish loonies, the RRF, the various CoL's, the various imaginary Fire Brigades, the communist and anarchist survivor groups, the satan worshipping death cults, and so on. Obviously, it's the most compelling and fun in-game organization in the game, as over 1300 characters have joined, far outshining any other in-game organization. Your bitch-ass cake hole needs to = shut on this tired non-issue.

(3) This "sense of entitlement" is a creation of your imagination, not a feature of the expressed intentions of the people who have listed On Strike as their group. Again, more slander. Shut your piehole about this non-issue. I can just as legitimately claim that all your bitching about the strikers shows how you feel entitled to run how everyone else plays, or how you are ungrateful to the mods of this wiki for providing the space for On Strike, and everything else on the wiki, to exist. That is to say, not very legitimately. Shut.

(4) "...they can quit..." Well, yeah. Duh. That's the flippin' point, innit?

(5) "The Urban Dead "strike" is not a strike." NO F'N WAY! Seriously? ... This might be the most obvious statement ever broadcast over der interweb. Did you for an instant think that I considered this in-game collective action to be seriously comparable to a real world strike over real life issues? If so, you should have called a looney bin and reported me. That said, I defend the right to strike both in-game and real-world. In the real world, I'll defend it with my real life. In the game, my character will defend it with his purely fictional life. And on a metagaming discussion forum, I'm going to argue that both are legit. This is a strike, because hundreds of people are stopping work/play. Their play, which has become more like work, is entirely volunteer, and has come to consist of shuffling around toothless little non-threats for the cheap fun of suvivor players like me. Except that they are so toothless that even some of us survivors have decided to support their request - which is for zombie characters that can do something other than stand up (at a cost of 6 to 15ap every log in), bite a few times without killing if they're lucky enough to have a survivor stranded in the street from stupidity, but most often to stagger a few blocks and run out of ap without finding anyone to attack, and without the ability to dent any barricades, then get headshot again. Over. And over. Again. Even if the zombie players were getting paid to entertain me, I would still want them to be more numerous, and pose a far more serious threat than they currently do - in a zombie apocalypse game. They should be terrifying and hard to escape, even without metagaming. As it stands, they barely hold on even with well-coordinated metagaming against even independent survivors. If the zeds in this game are going to be this powerless, they should be automated NPCs run by the game (since it doesn't take any skill to stand up, shuffle, die, stand up, repeat) and there should be about ten times as many of them.

(6) "If you're going to get obscene about this, be sure to understand what you're talking about, as I can only assume you were defending the concept of strikes in general." You're one to talk. You "got obscene," starting off by telling us "ingrates" to "bugger off" on our group's discussion page. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You can't seem to conceptualize that someone might support the right to strike IRL and in-game, and you seem to get the two confused - then attribute your own confusion to others. In short, take your own advice before doling it out to others. -- Clay 03:57, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zilly Bavos: I agree with you that the imbalance is not fixed. In fact, things seem worse, with harsher AP penalties, and now, he's just added a zombie communication "feature" that will actually help humans more than zombies, by broadcasting the location of zombies (which is great atmospherically and in terms of the genre - you should be able to hear a huge crowd of zombies from a few blocks away - it just imbalances further towards humans). However, adressing your comments to Kevan is kinda ridiculous, since he can't possibly have time to read every UD associated forum. That's part of why the strike is useful - it provides a noticable indicator of dissatisfaction. Also, telling him how to go about fixing it adds ammo to the "leave poor Kevan alone" douchebags. This is actually the first time I've seen anyone on the pro-strike side write anything I thought actually was somewhat demanding, which of course is ridiculous when it's a free game. The strike is great fun as a new in-game event, and it's great for calling attention to the fact that many zombies are about ready to quit (and there's already only something like 1/3 as many zombies as humans, which is ridiculous). But he is doing it for fun, which means he can mess it up or shut it down or make it awesome or whatever he wants. The strike at best is a sincere suggestion. Don't give the anti-strike anti-everything cum dumpsters an actual reason to "defend" Kevan. He could leave it just as it is, and fundamentally that's fine. But we will have done our part to make known why a bunch of people are quitting, rather than just leave without making a constructive effort, which the strike is and should be. <SINGS: 'Solidarity Forever'> -- Clay 13:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

AP related stuff: Headshot makes it so that you have to spend +5 AP to stand up. It takes a zombie hunter 8-16 AP to do the deed. Construction makes it so that zombies have to spend +5 AP / 1 AP-spent-by-builders before getting to meat. Headshotters will knock down 2-5 zombies a day. Zombies lose 25 AP max. Once they hit the 5-6 zombie mark total, they will have to spend some time searching for ammo. Constructors will spend 10-17 AP and will knock 50-85 AP off of attacking zombies. They do not have to search for "reloads". That shows the discrepency in power that barricading has and just how Headshot was nerfed. - Zilly Bavos

What Zombies Need

By Contaminated

• Access Items as Zombie
• Beckon
• Big-Building Upgrade * **
• Dead Flesh
• Defile
• Howl **
• Preserved Ligaments
• Ransack
• Revival Syringe, Mark 3.0
• Sense Prey
• Slam Barricades
• Syringe Notification **
• Zombie Hand Accuracy Revision **

I think these things,which are already Peer Reviewed (*Or promised by Kevan himself) would go a long way to make zombies more fun to play. --Contaminated 21:12, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

(** Implemented )

Comments

• Don't forget:

Aberration/Monstrous Form

Zombie Classes

Zaruthustra's Mutations

Giltwist 22:49, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Barricade Queue

bbrraaiinnss 23:14, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You can't forget:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/6th-Dec-2005#Emotional_Atrophy_and_Ignore_pain

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/6th-Dec-2005#Skeletal_Ribs

--Qwako 10:40, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Posting to point out that scaling the AP (formerly XP) penalty based on Zombie level would go a slight ways to solving the problem. In addition, calculating Zombie level by exclusing Survivor levels would also aid this:

Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions#Separate_Zombie.2FSurvivor_Levels

--Squashua 16:52, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Also, I think Horror (Necrotherium Revision) would be a good thing to implement - mainly because they'd be scary as hell to run into, and also because I'd like to see humans and zombies banding together not just in protest, but against common enemies. --John Taggart 14:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Leave zombie ap alone, you already win the AP war by paying attention to your barricades, and can reload and rearm in safety, only venturing out breifly. Stealing zombie ap is one of the most violently opposed ideas for headshot. Make it give a chance of double damage or ignore flak jackets and it would be fine. Anything else is catastrophic. --Grim s 21:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Skeletal Ribs and Dead Flesh (flak jacket equiv. above) are exactly the same idea, under different names. You migt want to consolidate your list. Rhialto 11:33, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Someone else added that, I maintain the contaminated list seperate from the ideas posted in the comments. --Contaminated 18:43, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Now you're thinking. You need a good solid list of postive suggestions and ideas to match your greviances, and this is a good start. While I may not agree with the methods, things like this is your best chance at getting the message through. --MorthBabid 06:15, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Obviously, people have already been making all of these suggestions. They weren't being implemented. Now they are. Don't agree with the methods? Poor poor you! I'll lay awake at night worrying about whether you'll ever recover! It is hilarious to me that people are fine with mass slaughter (which this game is all about) but still get their panties twisted over a strike. Welcome to the apocalypse. -- Clay 14:01, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Howl is Already part of game. Our wishes are being answered! Should this be removed from the list, or put into a section labeled, 'Kevan is listening'?

I'd suggest adding Grim_s' Emotional Atrophy and Ignore Pain, it's probably the best zombie sugestion in the wiki. --Stroth 04:35, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It hasn't reached peer review, and I disagree. I think Revival Syringe, Mark 3.0 is the best suggestion because removes an Insta-Kill and makes the game more consistant. (Also it slows down survivor recovery rate without changing actual chances of getting revived)--Contaminated 04:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Eh, I consider that a cross class sugestion rather thaen a zombie sugestion. --Stroth 04:48, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I like the idea of a very strong incentive to buy brain rot, that is a wonderful idea, but raw killing power alone is not what is needed. I think Zombie Hand Accuracy Revision is more important because it enourages converts; Beckon, and Howl because it allows us to be more helpful to the local ferals. Dead Flesh, Preserved Ligaments, Syringe Notification all add to brain rotter satifaction. I think even better than Emotional Atrophy and Ignore Pain is Ransack and Defile because even they finally give zombies who are not killing a way to accomplish something in game. --Contaminated 05:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Do you mind if I move this coversation to the comments on my list section? --Contaminated 05:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Go ahead. --Stroth 01:22, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The Action Point Assessment Discussion

(moved from article) --Danjar 18:53, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I'd love to have this section rewritten by a "third party" volounteer, fixing its being party and its typos and mistakes. I can then fix the missing links; thanks if there's any volounteer! --Danjar 14:17, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I cleaned up the spelling and grammar some for you. I've got my own opinion on the matter, but I also have free time to burn. --Gugnir 01:40, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Thanks! If you agree we can take away these italic lines (you can do it yourself or, lacking an answer from you, I'll delete them on monday). --Danjar 13:16, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I made some more spelling and detail corrections. As far as my own opinions: by only looking at the casualty bottleneck (where zombies have their AP advantage), you completely miss barricading (where some players say humans achieve a 5-to-1 AP advantage), searching (because front-loading AP expenditures increases AP-usage efficiency by 2-1 or more), movement, coordination, zerging, and almost every other area in the game -- where humans have a huge AP edge. But why are these discussions taking place on On Strike's group page? This stuff should all be moved to a strategy guide, in my opinion. --Tycho44 17:00, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

You put some good points. I'm loving this discussion, and I encourage you to inetgrate your points in a more balanced version of the APs assessment analysis.

And yes, all of this is maybe misplaced in this page (at least now that the On Strike group seems to be disbanded). Maybe it could all go in a strategy guide, maybe in some other page (like that Action Points one). I think that the discussion on this last aspect is still open, I'd like to read some more about it, before making the move.

I'm also cut-pasting this part in the discussion section of the page, where I think it really belongs now. --Danjar 18:48, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Strike communication ?

Lots of new zombies on strike, please post communication guides on the front (strike) page! --Zalien 21:47, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

you're a bunch of morons. to quote a guy from the zombie skill page.. "DISSENT: Ankle Grab working the way it does, zombies are unstoppable, and the only real way for humans to fight back is to waste a zombie's AP by barricading up uninhabited buildings" - the new headshot gives us a way to fight back. You're just a bunch of crybabies that can't handle a fair fight. I will personally make sure to headshot any striking zed I come across.. Stupid crap like this makes me wish I'd stayed down in Galbraith so I could pop over and ruin your day at the protest rally. --Aiden H. 08:54, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Your're a moron. Do you understand how boring it is to do that day after day? This line made me laugh, "You're just a bunch of crybabies that can't handle a fair fight." If you call urban dead fair at this moment in time there is seriously something wrong with you. We can't handle a very unfair fight which is what we have now. --Qwako 09:32, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Got to agree with you Quako, and this is from the survivor side. It's become too easy to hit a mall or PD, load up, take down two Z's, level up, lather rinse repeat. I've had my clan moving toward Cagier Mall, just so that we can get into a firefight. When it takes you twenty AP of walking just to FIND, nevermind SHOOT, a zombie, it gets boring. Anything that makes this game a more target rich environment for Survivors is fine by me (even if it means I have to revive here and there.) -- General Maddox, 9th AF

Aiden, your mother gave me a rimjob last night, she loved it, and I filled that old cumdumpster full to the brim, once I found my blindfold so I didn't have to look at the battered ugly whore. You're a hypocritical asshat whining and crying about us crybabies!!! Which makes you my patron saint of pathetic stupidity for today. You'll headshot zeds!?!? OOOOOooohhh... I can hear their bones rattling in fear! Especially since that's exactly what you would be doing anyways, because you can't turn off headshot even if you wanted to. Stupid crap like you makes me wish I'd kept those Darth Vader style psychic powers that allowed me to strangle insolent douchebags from across the galaxy. Your jizz-dripping syphyllitic cakehole = shut.

Maddox, you are the kind of survivor that makes me proud to be one. Seriously, I was starting to think that by some freak accident only bedwetting douchebags with a fetish for crying, whining, and complaining about people who offer constructive criticism survived the zombie apocalypse. Respect. -- Clay 14:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The fact is, zombies until this point had a very major advantage in the skill department, which I assume was to try and make the idea of playing a zed more alluring. Newsflash: nine out of ten people will have decided what they want to play as, and stay playing as the second they enter they click "create a character." No skills are going to make them want to change. Skillwise, humans need something to negate ankle grab, because without it, there's absolutely no way a survivor can fight a zed with akle grab and live for very long. And if you kill us, we don't get to stand up again as the role we wanted in the first place for a mere 1AP. You cost us countless AP searching for a place to get revived, I think the 15 it now costs you is nothing when considering that. I completely understand that we need more zombie players, but making zombies into unstoppable killing monsters is not going to make more people want to play as them. The new headshot modification undoes the "unstoppable" aspect, while also making it easier for newer players that never had ankle grab to be nerfed in the first place, a chance to level up easier because if they get headshot, it's no longer going to cost them valuable XP. Trust me, I know how hard it can be to play as a zed, I have a zombie account. I just think you people crying over a change that helps level things on a skill basis is ridiculous. --Aiden H. 10:19, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The fact is, you're pulling this "zombie advantage" that existed "until this point" out of your ass... hat... whatever you call it. Newsflash: humans have something to negate ankle grab. Several somethings, actually. They're called (1) running to the next block, (2) entering a barricaded building, (3) building barricades, (4) free running, (5) shotguns. It's a zombie game. Humans are supposed to run from zombies, not stand there and mow them down. If you stand there toe to toe with zombies you should get eaten. At the very least, you should get bitten, infected, there should be no cure, and you're one of the dead. That's how the genre works. I, like you, play survivors. Yes, it sucks to shamble to a revive point. But in fact it costs me a lot less AP, because I only have to do it very infrequently. If I'm smart, I can find a pretty close revive, and I'm set. Zombies have nothing equivalent to barricades. This means they get killed daily. If this basic fact which already sucks is stacked with more penalties... hmmm... strikes... 1/3 as many zombies as humans... more getting bored and quitting... Zombies must be "unstoppable," if anything "undoes" this, the game can't work, brcause the genre doesn't work when zombies are "stoppable." I'm glad you "completely understand " the need for more zombies. So, beyond "you're morons," what are your suggestions on how to get them that you think would work. I just think you people crying over people trying to improve the game for everyone, claiming they're crying when they are in fact being totally reasonable and patient with your pathetic whiny ass, is about as awesome as terminal illness. -- Clay 14:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Did you know that before ankle grab was pyut in it took 10AP to stand for everyone? And did you know that before that it cost 1AP to stand up without any skills? That was the norm and the game was balanced. Somewhere between then and now it went wrong. Of course between then and now barricades and headshot was put in. Also, "there's absolutely no way a survivor can fight a zed with akle grab and live for very long." Hence the "survivor" bit. You are meant to run, your're not meant to be Rambo killing zombies left, right and centre. It's meant to be a game of hide and seek with the odds on the zombies side. The thing is at the moment it is the other way around. --Qwako 10:39, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You are meant to run, your're not meant to be Rambo killing zombies left, right and centre - Hence the "Zombie Hunter" part.. Though we hardly play Rambo. I kill maybe one zed every three days. Once again, you can't handle a fair fight. Wahhhh, emo tear. And yes, I did know all of that. Don't try to sling "good old days" crap at me, it won't work. --Aiden H. 20:14, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Once again, 71:29 isn't a fair fight. Unless you punch a zombie to death I can't see how you can kill 1 zed every 3 days.. My human can kill 3 zombies 1 day, reload the next and repeat so I have no idea what's so hard for you. I notice how you didn't refute any of my points, nice dodging there. --Qwako 20:48, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

He didn't refute or even address your points because he's a whiny gas-bloated assbag with nothing constructive to say who wants to do nothing but whine and bitch at people who are actually doing something fun (the strike) while actually doing something to improve the game (the strike). He thinks overwhelming numerical advantage, guns, barricades, revivification, surgeons with generator-powered hospitals, the ability to coordinate in-game with talking, cell phones, and tagging (with bonus xp), first aid kits, and the kitchen sink in his favor with a whopping half-price 5 point AP to stand up on the zed side (for those zeds advanced enough to get ankle grab - for the rest it's 15, therefore more than he'll ever have to pay to stand unless he gets headshot before being revived - itself highly unlikely) is a "fair fight." He's a crying little bitch who can't bear the thought of playing a zombie game with zombies, rather than clawless toothless slow-shambling targets in a nice little row, with him and two redneck gun-toting buddies to every one zombie they come across. The spoiled sack of sperm wouldn't know a fair fight from a US invasion of a starving third world country armed with rocks and sticks. -- Clay 14:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yeah, I'm with Qwako on this. If your human can't kill a zombie per day on average then the problem is you not the game. --MZM 22:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Actualy maybe he can only kill 1 every 3 days cause there no damn zombies left in most places --Littlelisa

He can only get that much because he's so pampered and overarmed and barricade shielded that he's not zombie chow, which he should be by now, due to natural selection. -- Clay 14:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I agree. the only way I can get a kill is if I enter the heart of Ridelybank then I only get mayby a max of 10 shots to kill a zombie and then I have to turn tail and run out of Ridelybank. this is the problem of the strike and is Pissing me off.--Deathnut

ZK'ing, anyone? --ALIENwolve 04:51, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Its nothing to do with the strike, theres no zombies anywhere anyway, stop trying to blame the strike for it. Boo Hoo zombies dont keep standing up outside my safehouse to be exp farms.--Littlelisa

Waaah, waaah, I can't kill any zombies because of the strike. Why won't you zombies come to my barricaded shopping mall, stand outside, and let me snipe you every day? Booo hoo hoo.... Sorry the game isn't even easier for you, Numbnuts, and even being totally pathetic you can only manage to kill one zed every day. -- Clay 14:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Where Are the Revivication Syringes

I search and search, but have not found anything.

Is this the change Kevin made?

Books were included in the NecroTech Building search find items a while ago, which made them harder to get syringes, but even before that, they were pretty rare :) Does that answer your question? (See also the News page's talk page and scroll to 5th December for observations about it...) -pinkgothic 14:34, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Messages to those on Strike

Solidarity brothers and sisters, and a merry BARHAHmas to you all. --Daxx 11:30, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Kumbaya?? Barhama Gangbanrh banahar!! Mrher Braghmas!!. --Richter XD 2:10, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I would like to say that while I sympathize with the strike, I can't make it to the rally personally. However, my good friend Ugo Bugov, late of the Lumber Mall Defence Corps (and I mean "late" as in the late Ugo Bugov) is en route right now. --John Taggart 15:45, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

What irks me is that the bias extends beyond the game mechanics. When I put up a page in the wiki to list all available suicide points, it was almost immediately submitted for deletion because "who would possibly want to know which buildings to jump from?" Well, zombies do. We're players too! And without us there's no game to play. Looking forward to Kevan's coming additions; even a bit higher hit % and damage would be welcome. --John Ember 17:47, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

We voted and it got kept if you remember, though the page still need more development. Try formating it like the revivifaction point page, listing barricade levels in the status section. As a sidenote, all this zombie-human cooperation is making for one strange apocalypse. (I blame the Council of Lovers and their "hug-a-zombie" policy) --Matthew-Stewart

What's wrong with the COL? I'm a member and we do nothing objectionable. Even to grumps like you. *hugs* 18:23, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)--Stroth 23:20, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yes, yes. The point is survivors don't realize that there are human players behind those zombie punching bags. However, I did take up your excellent suggestion about the formatting. It's a much better page. Still, one wonders why the survivors moved to delete an important zombie resource rather than improve it... --John Ember 21:40, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• merry christ/banharmas ( dunno if i spelt it right)

Headshot sucks...zombies are now useless...the ones that atualy play i respect to much to kill... 'walks over to a zombie shots it to death, yawns then walks back' --Redemptionx8 21:09, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well. Looks like you guys have managed to influence something. We can't see people now without an extra server hit, so we've just had infectious bite and taking out people with various skills tactics nerfed for unpaid characters. Survivor skills nerfed: communication and diagnosis. Seems you've cut all of us down to size. Great job guys. --Shadowstar 11:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Because everyone on the strike intended to ruin the server? And because the strike organizers didn't call off the strike a few days ago and told everyone to disperse? --Qwako 15:51, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Unintended consequences are still consequences. I'm hoping this is temporary. --Shadowstar 21:18, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It's only nerfed for people with more than two characters or only one available internet connection. Us casual and single-character players probably won't even notice the difference. It may even have been done for that reason... --Girolamo 11:03, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

If you think your time isn't valuable, I suppose. I don't personally have a problem with IP hits as such-- I've got two static IPs to play with, and only use two characters. Yet still, I say this is a bad thing. My zombie won't need infectious bite any more, because it's going to be too much of a pain in the ass to use it. --Shadowstar 11:14, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

This probably isn't the best place to talk about this though. I was just pissed off and needed to let off some steam at the people who finally made Kevan do it. We all knew something like this was coming already. --Shadowstar 12:22, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Really, would you make a petition for someone like ubisoft, and demand they include pink bunny rabbits in splinter cell? Spook 06:40, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Never underestimate the power of a bored mind. People will do wonders just to have something to do. Or to say they do... --Omega2 01:49, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Wake Up

Did you know that your strike is making this game collapse. With all those zombie characters going to one point and go in idle it removes a key part to the game, the zombie threat. I say stop your bitching and get back to what you are supposed to do. Attack strongholds, attack people, make living in malton hell. If you think that you are doing good by striking you are wrong and I hope that you realize that before this game collapses. --Deathnut

Wait... does this mean I can stop slaughtering humans and be one again? Aww... --ALIENwolve 03:32, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Do you realize that many people are striking because they are so tired of the game mechanics they're ready to quit? Would you rather they do that instead of striking, causing the game to collapse suddenly and completely? --Girolamo 10:57, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The twit wants us to play for HIS benefit, because he find the game boring without zombies, and we are helping make it more boring by gathering in the hundreds at Stanstock.--Grim s 11:27, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Did you know that your strike is making this game collapse. With all those zombie characters going to one point and go in idle it removes a key part to the game, the zombie threat. Yeah, that's the point, douchebag. You stop bitching, and you start playing zombies for me to use as target practice, asshat. If you think you're doing good by posting tardtastic comments on the strike page, you're wrong, and I hope you don't realize that until your tiny little head implodes from the sucking of the vacuum inside your skull. You get back to what you are supposed to do - killing yourself for the benefit of humanity. Quit making us look bad in front of the zombies. It's embarassing. -- Clay 15:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Awww, d'poor baby. Trying to guilt trip us into coming back and being XP farms. How cute. -- Tabby 15:02, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well, you fools are quite the XP farm for me right about now. --ALIENwolve 19:16, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Speaking of which, any XP farming sack of shit without On Strike listed as their group anywhere near Stanstock should be immediately torn to pieces. Then revived. Then headshot. -- Clay 15:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Interesting stuff: some players argue that survivors are practically out of danger nowadays. Well, one of my survivors got killed three days ago (he's a loner, just as a Feral zombie, but human), and he still needs to be revived. Your neighborhood can really change your opinion on how "easy" life is. Another interesting thing: life will be really easy for survivors if zombies are just bunched up in a park without making hordes to attack the humans. I'm not meaning to flame anyone, just stating my point of view. This strike is valid as protest for this Headshot tweak doing so little to help balance, but in the long run it will not help the zombies. After all, as the zombies gather in the park and sing along, the survivors stock up loads and loads of ammo for when the strike is over. --Omega2 17:40, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Wait, wait, wait wait!!! Are you telling me you had a lone, unskilled survivor, in a zombie apocalypse game, and he died? That is ASTOUNDING!!! TRAGIC!!! Call the strike off, everyone, a survivor died, obviously there is no need to continue striking, go back to shuffling your boring xp farms around for our least-competent survivors! So sayeth me, a SURVIVOR!!! Muhuhahahahahaahaaa!!! I speak, and zombies must obey!! As for the survivors loading up on ammo, as a low-level survivor I can tell you that is easy to load up on ammo any time. So - no change. Keep that strike a-rollin'. -- Clay 15:23, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The strike is so much more than a protest against the new headshot, which actually makes zombies less fun, even though we do actually get to level up as a result. Instead we are robbed of our playing time, maxed zombies are harder hit than before, so we cant even laugh off a headshot anymore, which was one of the few joys i had, the other being making lots of sexually explicit death rattling inside a safehouse and standing up time after time after time after time after time to waste human ap (Actually, thy got exp out of it, but they had less ap to play with as a result. I always considered this one of the better advantages of ankle grab, as we could actually put a dent in survivor ap in much the same way they do with barricades).

The strike is a direct result of zombies, especially the major hordes (which have been around for several months and are actually preventing this game from becoming a total survivor victory through sheer weight of numbers) deciding that after three months of getting nothing but empty promises and a steadil;y dwindling supply of zombies leaving the game due to the game becoming less fun, deciding that enough was enough and calling for strike action to bring the extent of our plight to kevan. For the last week i have only played my Zombie, Gorbonzo, out of sheer bloody mindedness and a sense of duty to the Ridleybank Resistance Front, and even that is fading quickly (And im supposed to be one of its leaders, or so Petrosjko tells me). We decided that instead of all just giving up, we would make one last desperate call for improvements and balance.

The new skill helps a little, and it shows that Kevan actually has his heart in the right place, but it does nothing to restore the excitement that was about the game back when the Many were active. There is no fear anymore, and humans have learned how to defend themselves from zombies. It has gotten to the point where people are posting threads in the zombie forum on glitchkriegs UD forums begging hordes to attack their mall. There is no fear in the game. Zombies are treated with utter contempt by human raiders, who are relentlessly encoraching on the zombie controlled suburb of Ridleybank just to find some zombies, and to play the game the way they feel it should be played: With a risk of being killed and eaten (Which happened to The Gingerbread Men not too long ago when the RRF discovered their safehouse in Ridleybank and demolished it (Scent trail can be quite useful on occasion).

Sorry for the long entry, but things had to be said. --Grim s 19:11, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

AMEN!!! Or BARHAH, or whatever's P.C. with you zombies. I am a survivor, and I don't know how y'all managed to be so patient. Those of you who are left, that is. The strike should continue until balance is restored, and hordes of you critters are chasing "harmanz" like me through the streets again and I have to face death every time I go outside. Until then, I'm tagging in favor of the strike full time. -- Clay 15:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Many good points. I agree the skill introduced shows that Kevan's heart is in the right place, it only took a couple days and now that he has dealt with server issues (imagine how much is not only server use is saved at stanstock but every single mall or popular hospital/police department ) these small additions for zombies are less of a worry. This skill makes ferals able to take advantage of hordes cracking safe houses.

I think ransack would give zombies the final boost they need. Humans would no longer be able to simply walk in an start clicking the search button like lab-mice after a siege. This would make the conflict between survivors and zombies an actual battle. I belong to the Minions of the Apocalypse, the deadliest horde in all of Malton, and I believe this single ability would bridge the gap between survivor power and zombie power. --Contaminated 19:38, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

OK, sorry. I think I didn't say exactly what I mean (damn English being my second language). The strike is a good idea and all, and I think it's OK to stop, as long as you don't grind the server as you (the strikers) did. In the end it went for good, as it forced Kevan to rework on the system and save on the server load. It's all righteous and I agree it's working.

My real point was this: life is going to be pretty hard for zombies after the strike, since they simply left the survivors sitting there and spending AP that would be otherwise spent hunting or barricading, in searches for ammo. I've seen a few groups taking advantage of the strike to rebarricade and reorganize. By bringing so many zombies to a place, you emptied some other sectors of the city, and when the strike is over, the survivors will hail the outcome with a nice rain of bullets and revification syringes. Sure thing, when this is over you'll have the greatest single horde to ever walk Malton.

I agree completely with you both, Grim and Contaminated. And I actually think that this new zombie scream thing is awesome, as it will allow the zombies to tell the others when they've found their prey, without giving them worded comunication. Zombie speaking to each other and making tactics like survivors do is surely off-genre, as they're supposed to be mindless, tireless fighting and eating machines. Now, mobs calling other mobs and becoming hordes through roars and screams, without words, sounds much nicer, and stylish! It even brings a new feeling to the survivor gameplay, as they know there are zombies converging to their area, but they can't do anything to help except to get ready to the blow and prepare to flee. If I knew a way to talk directly with Kevan, I'd both congratulate and thank him for that (I also play zombies, so that's very useful to my shamblers).

Now to a question: I know it wouldn't have so much impact as the strike, but wouldn't it be easier to just do the petition thing, all the tagging propaganda, and change the faction tags of everyone that would join the strike to "More Fun For Zombies", or any other tag alike, and keep hording around without that strike idea? Kevan would still know how badly the zombie players (or even survivors, as I walked past that park and saw quite a few of them) want gameplay improvement for their side, and the game wouldn't have gotten so unbalanced, strategically speaking.

Hmm, this one turned up big, too... Sorry. I know it's already done, as everyone is already on strike and such, but I had to ask that. Not to mention that I "Zombies are on strike" sounds a bit... off. At least you guys are having fun in your party. --Omega2 23:12, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

No, not easier. Tagging is harder than the strike, I've been tagging in support of the strike. That alone is lower visibility, take more effort and AP, etc. "More Fun" just sounds like a zombie horde, not a collective action. Besides, I think "Zombies on strike" sounds awesome. It's the most fun thing I've come across in this game so far.

Also, as a survivor, the zombie moaning is only going to help me. I always hate having to walk around a suburb looking for zeds to kill. Now I'll be able to stroll right up to them with even fewer APs and waste them. Which I'm sure will be loads of fun for them. -- Clay 15:32, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

A Message to the Trolls

Please grow up. It's hard to take you seriously when you just flame everything you don't like. If you disagree with an argument, attack that, not the user that put it forth. To the people on this page that maintain basic Internet etiquitte, and mannerisms at least on par with a twelve year old, I applaud you. --PatrickDark 06:30, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well, well, well. Aren't we so very mature, Patrick. I like how you avoided directing your comment to me by name, and even made "Trolls" plural, when I'm the only one on this discussion page who has flamed "everything" I don't like. However, in fact, I didn't. There are arguments here I don't like, or disagree with, that I didn't touch, or that I responded to with respect, because they earned it by initiating a discussion respectfully, rather than waltzing into another group's discussion page and opening discourse with insults, with or without any actual substantive content.

What I did was come here, because it's the first group I've joined in this game after starting a few weeks ago. Here I found that the "discussion page" of the On Strike group was full, not of discussion, but of insults, directed at the people in this group. Now, maybe you're a pacifist, but in a zombie game IC or OOC I'm not, and I don't turn the other cheek.

You see, I'm not concerned about being taken seriously. If I want to be taken seriously, I have conversations with people in the real world, not in a zombie game or on its wiki. If I want to have ridiculous stupid fun, I play a goofy crazy zombie game, and if I'm so inclined, maybe I even post some comments on the discussion section of the wiki. In games, it's often fun to shoot well below "on par with a twelve year old," because that age range knows how to have fun, unlike pretentious, smug, superior internet asshats. Especially a-holes who tell people to adhere to respectful ettiquette and attack ideas rather than personalities, but hypocritically open and finish off with passive-agressive, backhanded, gutless personal insults rooted deeply in age prejudice. I applaud you, Patrick, for entertaining me almost as much as the hypocritical anti's who whine about whiners. Almost. Keep trying.

You can do it, you're mom's a whore. I'm sure she taught you how to persevere when times are tough and the odds are against you (like humans in UD, who only have barricades, guns, surgeons, helicopters, tagging, cell phones, the innate ability to open doors, a 3 to 1 numerical advantage, and so on, against the terrifying zombie power of standing up again after being killed within ten seconds by a harmaaaaannnnzzzz). Much respect to your mom, and whores everywhere.

It is conceivable that this is a general call for an imposition of your ageist idea of ettiquette on everyone, not just me. If so, disregard the part about plural "Trolls." Other than that, all the same applies, except I applaud you for your even-handed disgust with the wave of anti-zombie whiners who clogged up this group's discussion page, as much as you're disgusted with me. Something about the timing and rhetoric of your post, though, makes me believe my initial suspicion that I'm the only one you were addressing, which is funny since this is the discussion page of a group I'm in, and all these douchey sons-of-fat-sluts came here to pick crude insult exchanges with this group but can't put a decent insult together between the lot of them - their collective whine/bitch/complaint being, "Waaaaaaaaahhhh!!! Stoooop whining/bithcing/complaiiiiiiiiniinnnnnnnnggg!!! It hurts Kevaaaaaaannnns feeeeeelingssss!!!! Waaaaaaaahhhhh! Cry!!! Cry!!! Wail!!! Wail!!! Bitch!!! Moannnnnn!!!" Which is especially funny, since they aren't zombies but they moan twice as often. -- Clay 08:01, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I can't tell if you're being serious or satirical. Either way, that tirade was hilarious, and I must applaude you as well. Though if I wanted to point fingers, I would have. I'm confused as to why you said you've flamed everything, then said that you didn't. You're labeling yourself there. --PatrickDark 05:41, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Thanks, Pat! I'm glad you enjoyed it, hopefully as much as I did. To clarify - the only part I was serious about was "I'm not concerned about being taken seriously." So it really doesn't matter whether I was or wasn't flaming. The entire internet is an illusion, rooted in the illusion we call reality. One more miniscule paradox like that won't hurt anything. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

But just in case it helps you savor that last rant just a little bit more, I'll clarify the intended rhetorical effect of my use of "flamed everything." First, I put it in quotes, to show that I didn't believe the usage was correct in that instance, though that was likely the majority perception. Then, I clarified that I actually avoided insulting people I simply disagreed with, and only to respond with insults where they were first offered by others. Where I failed on that count, slipped, and insulted someone who on second read was not offering insults, I did my best to apologize. I have no problems with labeling myself. For example: I am awesome. Another type of label I don't mind self-applying: I sometimes enjoy trash talking. -- Clay 09:03, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Strike Tactics

Hey strikers! Well done! This is the most fun I have had in this game so far, and I'm a survivor. I want the game to be fun for zombies too because I want plenty of them roaming around - it's supposed to be a zombie apocalypse!!! I also want to apologize on behalf of the living for how obnoxiously rude the anti-strike humans have been acting. It makes us all look like asshats, and we're not all asshats. That said, it does seem clear that some douchebag humans are XP-farming/scabbing the strike. I've also noticed a lot of my fellow humans at Stanstock are NOT listing 'On Strike' as their group. For some this may be just not knowing any better. But for many it's probably because they're XP farming parasites - more loathsome and parasitic than zombies by far. My suggestion - pro-strike humans, start tagging and talking in the park and the surrounding four or five blocks radius to tell us "harmanz" that if we don't have On Strike listed as our group we'll be considered hostile and eaten by zeds. I've seen dozens of humans there with "Group: none" which is no good. Of course, there should be a window of time between advertising this policy and implementing it (if it's generally agreeable) so that sincere supporters have time to edit their profiles. And then a few of the less casual xp-farmers will just change their profile. So there needs to be some place to report farmers when they attack your zombies. If any other survivors are hard core enough to start a flying picket/strike defense team of PK humans to gun down these farming exploiters, it would be better, even better to then headshot them repeatedly if there's any way you can track which zombie they are in the crowd. We could sorely use a list of known XP farmers around the park, too, which would be good for deterring such habitual anti-social scum. Some have already declared themselves on this page. Also, I have to point out that as a survivor, the new zombie moaning is only going to make zombie hunting easier for me. I love it, it's great for atmosphere and perfect in terms of the genre. But with zeds this weak and humans so plentiful and overpowered, it'll be even more of a shooting gallery. Here's to solidarity, and making UD playable for zeds again! -- Clay 15:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

That's all nice and good and warm and fuzzy, but I've got to tell ya -- The zombies just slaughtered ALL of the survivors that were 'On strike' at Whetcombe Park last night, myself included. Now instead of 'helping get equal rights for zombie players', I'm a long way from home and dead. Thanks alot. It is now open season on zeds for me, and the way the game should be played. Young zeds look out! Thanks for the betrayal. --Zod Rhombus 16:15, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Hit the revive list at the forum, and mention that you were killed at Whetcombe while on strike, and I doubt you'll have to wait long for a revive. One of the reasons that I wanted to get the strike wound down quickly, at least the 'humans standing in the park' portion, was because it was inevitable that ferals and griefers would descend on Stanbury in due time. Petrosjko 21:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

That sucks, Zod. I haven't trusted my human characters around there either, due to the zombie scabs and human PK groups targetting Stanstock, especially since we've not developed any sort of collective defense of Stanstock like I was suggetsing.

Now that the reactionary Pinkerton baby-killing scum have declared gang war on us, our human members don't even need to be hard core to kill them on sight - it's self defense, and we know neither of us will now be listed as PKers if either kills the other. Also, since we now have openly declared violent enemies rather than just backstabbing farmers, I no longer think we should do the policy where our zed members attack anyone listed as anything other than On Strike around Stanstock. We should all attack the Pinkertons as the highest priority. Second priortiy would be anyone known to be attacking around Stanstock but not flying the Pinkerton flag. -- Clay 09:18, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I can sort of understand Zod's situation - it was likely the Zombie Scabs, not On Strike zombies, swooping in for an easy meal since we had no defense plans. That's our bad, for having no defense plans - which the organized member groups should have planned out well before calling the strike. Not smart, but a forgivable oversight.

I just logged in, and my human character that has busily been running 'round tagging for the strike, who plainly has "On Strike" listed as his group, who was inside a heavily barricaded building, was killed in Ridleybank by the following Ridleybank Resistance Front members:

Bob Casey - Level 15

ZombieJoeZ - Level 16

Yaneh - Level 15

RRF is the first signatory on this page as a member group of On Strike.

If this sort of scabbing by On Strike member groups continues, I'm out. I'll get back to super-easy xp-farming from zombies, and assume any further cross-species solidarity gestures in the interest of imporving the game by RRF are lies for a little cheap XP, for my own safety. Not as much fun as the strike, but more fun than getting 100% definite and obvious betrayal from you punks. The stated goals and issues of the strike are valid. I want zeds to be a real threat in this game. I am happy to work in good faith with anyone to support these goals, and I'm willing to risk being killed by Pinkertons, Zombie Scabs, and other enemies of the strike on top of the usual easily avoided ferals and non-striking hordes in pursuit of these goals. But this is the opposite of solidarity. If it is not addressed with suitable punishment administered by RRF on these three members, with screencap proof, I'm gone like the wind. -- Clay 09:38, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The trash talk here has been a hoot, but I'm still waiting on a response from the RRF or the other groups re: RRF's violation of basic solidarity. I want to give y'all a chance to respond, after all. In the meantime, I've removed 'On Strike' from my characters. -- Clay 09:07, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I'm not a part of the RRF in any way, shape or form, but I think I remember reading that although the RRF in general and its leadership specifically are in favour of the strike, individual RRF members are not required to join the strike, or even respect the safety of the strikers, and that the RRF cannot guarantee the safety of any survivors wandering the streets in Ridleybank. Or something along those lines.--Alcoholic 13:07, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

If that's the case, RRF never should have listed itself as a "member group" in the strike. It's a basic rule of solidarity and group discipline when groups and individuals go on strike together: their members don't even cross picket lines, much less attack other strikers. Besides, my character wasn't "wandering the streets" at the time, but was holed up alone in a barricaded building. Whatever. I've pulled my characters off the strike. I waited a few days for a response to this cowardly backstabbing, got none, and now I'm back to slaughtering zombies. I'll take particular relish in the future from killing RRF members. Clay 13:55, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Gang War Declared!!!

Hey hey!!! Zombie Scabs, Strikers Go Home and the Pinkerton Detective Agency have all declared opposition to On Strike! This is great. One of the sure ways to know you're effective is when you generate opposition specifically targetted at you. That said, there's no time to pat ourselves on the back. We need to decide how to respond to this evil redbaiting scum. Strikers Go Home have carefully avoided use of any language that indicates their declaration of gang war on our group. As such, our human members should not attack them to avoid being put on various PK lists. Also, if any of our human members are killed by any humans, we should immediately take screen caps and place them on any known PK lists. Zombie Scabs has been more explicit about their violent intent. I would like to know what others in On Strike think about responding to their threats with force. Of course, since they're a zombie group, our human players can kill away. Pinkerton Detective Agency has done us the great favor of giving all humans ion our thousand-plus membership free reign to kill them without any concern about being listed as PKers, given that PK lists don't recognize attacks in declared gang wars. They have clearly announced not only their intent to kill anyone listing On Strike as their group, but also anyone in the vicinity of Stanstock. So, my suggestion is that every zombie sympathetic to or belonging to On Strike should kill them on sight. Any human in On Strike should also kill them on sight. If anyone notices one of their members near Stanstock, this should be announced. Humans killed by PDA in the vicinity of Stanstock who do not list On Strike in their group should post their members as PKers on all available lists. -- Clay 09:12, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Strike Status?

The Call for Action is looking a bit outdated, post-Groan - would be good if an RRF member or other striker updated this. (Are striking players mostly satisfied with zombie status following the addition of Groan, or demanding further changes, or waiting solely for Headshot to be revoked, or what?) --Spiro 14:03, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I updated the numbers. Most of the strikers are probably still waiting for Kevan to implement further changes. Since he's acknowledged the problem, though, a bit less than half of the strikers have gone off it. Slicer 03:00, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Many of the human strikers have left from the biting or died. --ALIENwolve 19:59, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

there is this edit the LCD has withdrawn from the strike on the main page. Shouldn't all Groups that supported the strike be listed on the On Strike page permanently ? And when a group withdrawn then it be noted on some kind of history tree ? --hagnat 01:09, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

That would be nice, and that would make sense, but since when did anything in malton actually make sense. :( grumbles Tom mot 00:08, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Because our demands were met. We are a survivor group anyway, we just did it as a BARHAH courtesy. If zeds get nerfed...it'll be Stanstock '06 for LCD! :D --MaulMachine 00:09, 07 January 2006 (EST)

So is anyone still seriously on strike, now that the zombie-survivor ratio is higher than it's ever been, or are the last 300 just people who've forgotten to change their profile back? --Spiro 15:09, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

i have a question can my group can rejoin ON STRIKE we have same goal--Kcold 22:04, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

As far as I'm concerned this strike is over, and the RRF are a bunch of backstabbing asshats. Clay 13:58, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

-- Keep personal comments to yourself. -- Andrew McM 14:05, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Active Survivors : 28309 (55%) Active Zombies : 22526 (45%) as of 19:12, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT) Martonic17

Group / Known Members

Caiger Mall Survivors / 309

Ridleybank Resistance Front / 243

Mall Tour '06 / 231

On Strike / 177

Creedy Defense Force / 130

Yep, this proves the strike is pretty much over. -- Andrew McM 20:31, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Official Response

Please note the date of this statement, and that the only new Zombie skill implemented such then is of debatable worth. --DirkDirkly 03:20, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Have you logged in lately, or are you just waiting for this page to be tell you to come off strike? Feeding Groan has given the ferals a lot more action and XP, and zombie numbers are up to forty three per cent, the highest they've been in recorded game history. --Spiro 10:25, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)