Suggestion talk:20071030 AI Zombies
From The Urban Dead Wiki
My thoughts on this suggestion
I have often wondered why this hasn't already been implemented. No rhetoric about "popular beliefs about zombies" or "this would lead to such and so" changes the fact that this would vastly improve the game.
The numbers are consistently weighted toward survivors in this game. This matches the protagonist POV of the genre - very few zombie films feature zombie protagonists.
Zombies don't have to be stupid, nor does AI for zombie NPCs have to be stupid (though it obviously could never match the brilliance, metagame coordination, and fashion sense of our esteemed PC zombie comrades). It could be whatever Kevan wanted it to be. But zombie NPCs would probably be easier to implement than many other, living, computer game NPCs.
And you can tell people to play zombies until the real-world zombie apocalypse comes: they won't. Vast legions of zombie players are not going to appear from nowhere. Thus, there will never be vast legions of zombies to outnumber survivors (as it should be, in this genre) until some sort of NPC system for zombies is established - or IP limits are removed for all zombie characters, in which case the dedicated zombie players could possibly make up for the numbers with alts and lots more of their spare time.
Clay5x 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Vast legions of zombie plares are turning up as if from nowhere: for The Second Big Bash. And in direct response to others feeling they ought to ramp up the zombie impact in the game, no less! It is the nature of games like this that the apparent limitations bring out a lot of creativity. I rather like the result, even if my character in the area is on the opposing (and seemingly currently losing) side. --Richardhg 05:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just remember, we're only losing because we/you/they suck! :P.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- From the stats page:
- Active Characters : 35488
- Standing Survivors : 17360 (59%)
- Standing Zombies : 11850 (41%)
- And the second Big Bash has already brought out those vast legions? Case closed. --Clay5x 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Er, no, not realy. All you've proven is that at this particular time survivors have a 9% advantage. This advantage is in a relitively constant state of change and I have never seen it go much above a 10% difference. Thing is, If you play as a survivor (I do) you can sometimes go for as much as a week without any direct threat of zombies, during which time you're being harrased by other survivors, usualy. However, when a horde attacks your suburb, well, then it realy feels like a zombie apocolypse. If you had vast leigons of zombies (as genre appropriate) bulked up by your AI zombies, survivors wouldn't stand a chance. And if you want to talk about appropriate for the genre, than we should realy have an entire city full of zombies with about 5 "good" survivors and a motorbike gang. If you wanted genre apropriate stats they would look a bit like
- From the stats page:
- Just remember, we're only losing because we/you/they suck! :P.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Standing zombies: 99.9%
- Stnading survivors: 0.1%
And no-one wants that. Also, using the statistics page to prove your point doesn't realy cut any ice unless the percentages start to reach 75-25. The game designer keeps a pretty close eye on the stats and tweaks certain search percentages if things get out of balance. --SeventythreeTalk 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Odd, I guess I'm "no-one." Because I want a zombie apocalypse game to involve humans being vastly outnumbered by zombies, which would mean from 90% vs 10% to 99.9% vs 0.1%. Survivors shouldn't stand a chance, really, in a zombie apocalypse. Of course, the vast hordes of zombies in any true zombie apocalypse game shouldn't be as powerful as the current player controlled zombies, especially the high level ones. There's always room for those too, with zombies like "Big Daddy" in "Land of the Dead." But after a zombie outbreak, once whings got to 60% vs 40% in favor of survivors, the entire thing would be over in a week, and would be "back to normal" more or less, like the end of "Shaun of the Dead." --Clay5x 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, you are in a minority if you feel that an inbalance of that level is in the best interests of the game. Even most of the seriously hardcore zombie supporters, or survivor supporters do not want to see the game ratios 90% in their favour, reason being Fun comes before realism, and with a 90-10% Z-S ratio, no-ones gonna be having fun. Survivors won't be getting anywhere fast, and most of the zombies would be shuffling around aimlessly wondering where all the walking happy meals went. If you want to play a game where zombies outnumber survivors to that extent, and the vast majority of zombies are weaker than the few reaminng survivors, may I suggest an offline game, like dead rising? Sorry, but as you may have noticed from the votes, UD is never going to be that game. Best to give up the ghost realy.--SeventythreeTalk 16:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I've long since given it up. I know I'm in a tiny minority on this wiki and among UD players who stick with the game - because they like it the way it is. But the fact that I have no hope of changing the prejudices of this wiki or changing UD doesn't mean there's no point in giving voice to sense. Dead Rising is fun, and it involves massively outnumbered survivors. It would be more fun if it were massive and multiplayer, just as UD would be more fun if it were more like Dead Rising - by being a zombie apocalypse. Realism isn't what I'm talking about - just being somewhat faithful to the genre. I think a 90/10 or 95/5 ratio would be fun. It would be a MMO zombie apocalypse. --Clay5x 02:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not to but in too much on your discussion guys, but if this were a true zombie apocalypse, wouldn't it be a bit hard for those playing as survivors to stay alive during real life matters, such as school? If the percentages were as you say, then finding revives would be a complete bitch.... if I do say so myself. People would wander around for days looking for a still active building. One can say that the answer to this would be to move from building to building constantly, in a nomadic sense, but since we can't freerun into ruined buildings, it would only be a matter of time before most of Malton is ruined... and, at that point, there won't be any place to run to. (except for hiding inside Ruined buildings, but even that's playing with fire). And then, we all die. Permanently. Just stating my idea on this whole argument. --Private Mark 03:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for your comments. I do think a legitimate risk of extinction (for either side) ought to be a real possibility. But the main problem you point to is that if there were suddenly ten times as many zombies as now, with otherwise all the same rules, survivors would have such a rough time that they might not be able to make it no matter how hard they tried (unlikely, given the number of survivor characters, ease of revives, guns, barricades, etc, but more likely than now) - which I don't think should be the case, though I think it should be harder for survivors. To include so many more zombies would require several other tweaks to balance it - like more realistic gun effects: for example, a shotgun to the head kills a zombie. NPC zombies don't stand back up afterwards. That sort of thing. --Clay5x 03:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- If there were a steady supply of NPC zombies being created by the computer, then there would be no risk of extinction for the zombie side. --Sterling Bershadsky 06:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for your comments. I do think a legitimate risk of extinction (for either side) ought to be a real possibility. But the main problem you point to is that if there were suddenly ten times as many zombies as now, with otherwise all the same rules, survivors would have such a rough time that they might not be able to make it no matter how hard they tried (unlikely, given the number of survivor characters, ease of revives, guns, barricades, etc, but more likely than now) - which I don't think should be the case, though I think it should be harder for survivors. To include so many more zombies would require several other tweaks to balance it - like more realistic gun effects: for example, a shotgun to the head kills a zombie. NPC zombies don't stand back up afterwards. That sort of thing. --Clay5x 03:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not to but in too much on your discussion guys, but if this were a true zombie apocalypse, wouldn't it be a bit hard for those playing as survivors to stay alive during real life matters, such as school? If the percentages were as you say, then finding revives would be a complete bitch.... if I do say so myself. People would wander around for days looking for a still active building. One can say that the answer to this would be to move from building to building constantly, in a nomadic sense, but since we can't freerun into ruined buildings, it would only be a matter of time before most of Malton is ruined... and, at that point, there won't be any place to run to. (except for hiding inside Ruined buildings, but even that's playing with fire). And then, we all die. Permanently. Just stating my idea on this whole argument. --Private Mark 03:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I've long since given it up. I know I'm in a tiny minority on this wiki and among UD players who stick with the game - because they like it the way it is. But the fact that I have no hope of changing the prejudices of this wiki or changing UD doesn't mean there's no point in giving voice to sense. Dead Rising is fun, and it involves massively outnumbered survivors. It would be more fun if it were massive and multiplayer, just as UD would be more fun if it were more like Dead Rising - by being a zombie apocalypse. Realism isn't what I'm talking about - just being somewhat faithful to the genre. I think a 90/10 or 95/5 ratio would be fun. It would be a MMO zombie apocalypse. --Clay5x 02:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, you are in a minority if you feel that an inbalance of that level is in the best interests of the game. Even most of the seriously hardcore zombie supporters, or survivor supporters do not want to see the game ratios 90% in their favour, reason being Fun comes before realism, and with a 90-10% Z-S ratio, no-ones gonna be having fun. Survivors won't be getting anywhere fast, and most of the zombies would be shuffling around aimlessly wondering where all the walking happy meals went. If you want to play a game where zombies outnumber survivors to that extent, and the vast majority of zombies are weaker than the few reaminng survivors, may I suggest an offline game, like dead rising? Sorry, but as you may have noticed from the votes, UD is never going to be that game. Best to give up the ghost realy.--SeventythreeTalk 16:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
