Suggestion:20110528 Balanced Search Rates

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Stop hand.png Closed
This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

20110528 Balanced Search Rates

-- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:04, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Suggestion type

Suggestion scope

Suggestion description

The huge margin between zombies and survivors in the past month has revealed the extent to which search rates are manipulated based on the S:Z ratio. We have had ridiculous claims of extremely high syringe rates in ruined NT buildings, etc. This has caused a fair bit of discussion in the UDWiki community at least, many groups in the game wish to see it gone so that more of a challenge is offered to survivors and so zombies are a bit more rewarded for their successes.

Basically, I'm proposing that the dynamic search rates be altered so they are much less extreme. I think the extent to which the search rates are altered by the ratio should be a fraction of the strength they are now, possibly abolished altogether. I think Kevan should decide that based on the feedback given in this vote.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
# justification ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

  1. Author vote. I want a bit more of a challenge tbh -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:05, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  2. Support/Keep. Say this passes are you just going to show the results to Kevan?        13:49, 28 May 2011 (BST)
    Yes, if the support is strong enough for a change I'll definitely be posting this to Kevan as a mixture of both a suggestion and a makeshift petition. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 14:12, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  3. Keep them static. We're coming to get you, Barbara 14:11, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  4. Survivors need tough love. --Rosslessness 15:51, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  5. Keep - Static.-- | T | BALLS! | 16:52 28 May 2011(UTC)
  6. Keep- More killing is good. --Akbar 04:41, 29 May 2011 (BST)
  7. Keep Good Static Good Hagnat Good Zombie Good Lord! --Emot-siren.gif LABIA on the INTERNET Emot-siren.gif Dunell Hills Corpseman The Malton Globetrotters#24 - You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 18:19, 29 May 2011 (BST)
  8. Keep - The search rates hitting 1 needle/AP (IN RUINS? I DIDN'T KNOW PEOPLE COULD SEARCH RUINS UNTIL EVERYONE WAS DEAD JESUS HOW CAN YOU SEARCH A RUIN?) was completely ridiculous. Zambah apocalypse becomes a pipe dream :( --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 20:05, 31 May 2011 (BST)
  9. Keep The ridiculous find rates when the survivor ratio gets too low is stupid. Get rid of "coddle the survivor" and maybe make the game the zombie apocalypse it should be. This won't ever actually happen of course, but it's nice to dream. --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Crywig.gif 21:25, 1 June 2011 (BST)
  10. Keep My own investigations into the matter have shown me that it truly is insane how much these search rates are altered. Additionally, whoever suggested that "making it easy for survivors to find stuff" is a victory condition for zombies needs to critically re-evaluate their thought processes. Mordred 18:20, 5 June 2011 (BST)
    Really, when it takes major game changes such as this to keep the survivor ratio over 25%, it IS a victory for the zombies. --Fjorn 04:23, 4 June 2011 (BST) - non author RE -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:28, 5 June 2011 (BST)
  11. Keep As above. --Fjorn 04:23, 4 June 2011 (BST)
  12. Keep I see the "kill/spam pro-zombie suggestions" crowd is out in full force. Can't let those zombies have fun in this game no sir! *sips beer, cocks shotgun, finds 40 syringes in a ruined building* --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 14:09, 4 June 2011 (BST)
  13. Keep This is a Sisyphean vote because Kevan will never change the search rates because he is a terrible game designer who couldn't design a Find-Your-Way-Out-Of-A-Paper-Bag game. While fixed search rates would be nice, and go a minute fraction of the way toward fixing the game's innumerable problems, I get the feeling it'll never happen because of what a lazy schlub Kevan is. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 17:20, 4 June 2011 (BST)
    Keep - Kill yourself faggot --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 04:38, 19 June 2011 (BST)
    (after voting deadline, unfortunately) -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 04:54, 19 June 2011 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. The suggestion is rather vague but so is the game mechanic. Anyways, the dynamic search rates is an attempt to "normalize" the population, so one side does not get wiped by the other. When survivors have the upper hand, their search rates suffer, when the zombies have the upper hand, survivor search rates are better (as far as I understand). So now in Urban Dead's present state the search rates are much higher for survivors (especially at 15% survivors) to compensate the unnatural influx of zombies (the Dead are not always here in such numbers). What about when the Dead are not around (which is most of the time)? Survivors will not have their search rates reduced, thus giving them more of an advantage, and thus creating more extremes in the ratio. This probably gets boring for the winning sides, zombies shamble streets and can't find as much against survivors sitting in safehouses doing nothing. The ratio at around 50:50 gives something to do for both sides, one side not having the upper hand on the other. And I feel like if the game was constantly skewed to one side (which it is sometimes often for the survivors) it makes it less fun for people in general. UD's PvP, if it's not challenging for one side, it's boring, too much, people may leave. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:33, 28 May 2011 (BST)
    tl;dr it's to balance the ratio near the middle, (probably) to keep the general populace happy --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:33, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  2. Kill I'm fine with the current system to be honest. Like I mentioned at the talk page, I think these are necessary to ensure some balance in the population ratio. Maybe the system needs some tweaking but that seems to beyond the scope of this suggestion. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:34, 29 May 2011 (BST)
  3. Kill: No.Treviabot92 21:18, 1 June 2011 (BST)
  4. Kill Personally, I'd like to more about how this works before even thinking about changing it. --AORDMOPRI ! T 21:39, 2 June 2011 (BST)
  5. Kill: I have enough bad luck finding what I need with present "high" search rates. Dynamic search rates, as I understand, were put in to keep the game balanced. If anything they need to be raised.--Moodie  Talk  Contributions 23:31, 2 June 2011 (BST)
  6. Kill: The search rate adjustment is put there for a reason: balance. How can survivors recover megahorde otherwise? Creating new scientist alts? That won't even work when all NTs are ruined. -- Kittithaj 00:51, 3 June 2011 (BST)
  7. Kill: The survivor population is already low enough even with the higher search rate. The adjustment is there to ensure the survivors aren't wiped out. What are the zombies going to fight against when the survivors are gone? Themselves? Look at how quiet the other two permadeath cities are now after being overrun by zombies. Besides, higher search rate means nothing when syringes are so AP intensive to use in the first place. -- Crystal Roselle 6:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  8. Kill: Balance is a good thing. As it is one of my characters (played survivor only) has been waiting for a revive for well over a week. If I were a new player or not that dedicated, I'd just leave the game for a while. The last thing this game needs is fewer players, imo. --Zarneverfike 08:48, 4 June 2011 (BST)
  9. Kill That is why you have ruin. Both the NT's in my character's vicinity are well-ruined and salted and I can't get much of anything from them. I had to go to another suburb in an attempt to restock on needles and died yet again. I wouldn't have a problem with a static rate IF it was much higher and ruin didn't affect it so much. Of course, in real life less survivors WOULD realistically mean a greater amount of things for those remaining to find-supply and demand, ya know.Ronarprfct 19:04, 6 June 2011 (BST)
  10. Kill: As above. Shadok T Balance is power 09:45, 11 June 2011 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - There's not even really a suggestion here. Not to mention that static search rates are a bad idea, there's a localized population adjustment too iirc. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 19:04, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  2. Spam Kill this... with fire!! And i play zmobie before anyone accuses anyone of sumthing --hagnat 19:44, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  3. Spam What you are actually suggesting is removing established victory conditions from the game, hence my spam vote. When the search rates bang up like they did, its an indication that zombies reached their "victory condition", and the game is being "reset". Gracious winners would be happy with that. And when the rates drop back down (at 25% / 30% survivor), the game gets more challenging (in a normal sense) again. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 20:07, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  4. Spam While I agree that zeds need to be improved a bit overall, this suggestion wouldn't do that. It would just reward those who play zeds out of spite. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 22:43, 28 May 2011 (BST)
  5. meh as above-- HEY! HANDS OFF MAH BOOBS!   bitch   COBRA!  אמת01:06, 29 May 2011 (bst)
  6. Spam - Will hurt zombies in the long run, since the usual state of the stats page is a survivor majority. -- Spiderzed 16:44, 29 May 2011 (BST)
  7. Spam - Uhhh... ~Vsig.png 14:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Spam - --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:20, 1 June 2011 (BST) unjustified vote -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:28, 5 June 2011 (BST)
  8. Spam - Seems to be a silly idea, doesn't it?--Trendiggity 01:27, 2 June 2011 (BST)
  9. Spam - Pin down the details and don't offer options. While I would personally appreciate the challenge more, and am in favor of smoothing out the current jumpiness in the search rate, it would be bad for the game if the survivors had no recourse when they were about to be wiped out, so a static search rate, or even one as drastically different as you suggest, is not the answer. The game still needs to be enjoyable for those who aren't veteran players with lots of know-how on survival. That said, if the search rate curve was smoother, I would certainly like that. It's a bit jarring to have great search rates some days and normal ones on others when the ratio hovers around the low end. Aichon 15:59, 7 June 2011 (BST)