Talk:Bashing Back: The Battle of Pitneybank

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Added the three categories I think are most pertinent; will add on "conclusions" shortly.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and Wording and Additions

Updates, 1/30/08

Several small updates. Some formatting things, an increase in zed numbers (there are certainly more than 400 of them bashing out there at the least), and an adjustment to the zed casualties to reflect the recent large incursions. Also, started a new section for this large incursion era of the battle.--James Ennis 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Date

I think it's fair to say this began when Fort Creedy fell; before then, the big bash was wholly focused on taking down the fort.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the whole big bash was focused on Creedy. Some were attacking buildings around farmer NT so it was maybe just before creedy fell. tom1504

Survivor and Zombie Casualties And Commanders

If you have anything to add in either of these categories, please, please, pleasse add it in. We desperately need numbers for this.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You've left out MoTA and all the other member groups that form the bash, the bash is a seperate group but also an event. Don leads the group, he helps direct the event.--Karekmaps?! 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I lumped the whole BB2 in together because it lists "Who's Rolling with the bash". As for leaders, just holler here as to who you all are. --Blanemcc 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I added (To The) Four Winds, as well as The Fortress to the groups of survivors since they were their and are still their now.--XxCannon FodderxX 00:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Was Bullgod here? Are you sure you're not meaning the PKer (double-i) BuIIGod? Also, there are a shit-ton of survivor leaders still off the board. (No time to add them now, sorry.) --Sexy Rexy Grossman 06:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll make some edits when I get a chance on the zombie side too, there are several things missing and even more that shouldn't be there at all. I don't have the time right now to clear everything up though. I'll correct other things too (like the siege of Creedy lasting 8 days? There was no siege and it took us less than 3 to eat through everyone.) Anyways, I'll get to it eventually. --DonTickles 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There WAS a siege, brief though it was, and I counted the 8 days from the SNS to the time the last building was ruined when I gave the 8 days figure, which is the same figure I used in the First Ruining of Fort Creedy  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If memory serves me correctly, we came a good couple of days after SNS. According to the wiki, SNS happened a little bit before christmas and lasted to christmas. While the bash started hitting Creedy on New Year's Eve, with it falling on the 2nd of January. Also SNS isn't affiliated with the Big Bash.--Fliptiger 07:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If you consider a few hours as we shambled over and stepped inside a siege then sure, but from the time I gave the order to the time a break in that was not repelled bringing down the entire fort complex there was a few hours gap. SNS was a one time event on Dec 23rd and not directly related to the zombie siege on Creedy which began on the 30th and ended around the same time on the 2nd when I gave the order for Farmer, though SNS did help a great deal of course. Regardless they are two separate events, the taking of Creedy took 3 days, none of which contained a defense that can classify the attack as a siege. Sieges indicate a defense that holds for at least a small amount of time, this did not happen at Creedy.--DonTickles 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Creedy Population

The population of Creedy was greatly reduced by the SNS and fear after that; it was around 300 survivors overall at creedy.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My intel had 105 survivors in the Gatehouse on our entry, 220 in the armory shortly before the Gatehouse fell, and 50+ in the infirmary when the Armory was almost down, I can only guess at populations in the barracks and standing outside and how many ran in the time between when we attacked and when we got those numbers. So I'd put the human population of Creedy at 450+ when the Bash arrived.--DonTickles 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Zombie Death Tally

If you were at Creedy and killed a zombie in the period mentioned, please, post here, in the following format: #~~~~ and make a new line for every kill you scored  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this matter at all, kill counts are unimportant beyond the number of people present. --Karekmaps?! 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just edited the Total Casualty Count for zombies to Unknown but High. We can't really keep track of the numbers, but every break-in (so far, at least) has been wiped out and tossed back over the cades. And there have been a lot of break-ins lately, so that means a lot of headshots being dished out.--James Ennis 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Death Tally

If you were at Creedy and killed a survivor as a zombie in the period mentioned, please, post here, in the following format: #~~~~ and make a new line for every kill you scored  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive put the death-toll at 750+ so far. Maybe 500-600 dead at Creedy (from both PK and zed kills) and another 150 at Farmer NT. --Blanemcc 03:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The survivor deaths tally is absurdly low for a month long siege. In the final wave alone, the zombies probably killed more than 300 people, across the course of the siege they would have killed at least a thousand more, easily. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The zombie deaths tally is absurdly low for a month long siege. Across the course of the siege they would have killed at least a thousand, easily.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Same quality of argument with same validity: absolutely 0. The "thousand" is implausible, and even if it was, you'd need to apply that same argument to the zeds, and estimate how many broke in over the course of the siege. Only the verifiable, "status quo altering" deaths, so to speak, are counted. Those during points that made a difference.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is the point of death tallies, that was just a stupid addition from the get go.--Karekmaps?! 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent PK tally

If you were at Creedy and killed a survivor as a survivor in the period mentioned, please, post here, in the following format: #~~~~ and make a new line for every kill you scored  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

POV Dispute

*puts on serious zombah face.*

"This article contains no sense of balance, neutrality, or realistic reporting. It is created by survivors, for survivors, as a way for them to brag about what they thought was going to be another Caiger. Do not believe most of what you read, do not think that zombies are pompous enough to have a single leader of such a horde, and do not believe that it is only the big bash. You may be stronger than some of us but you are not stronger than all of us. Zombies are not PKers although we do have some PKer friends, yes, they taste like chicken, thank you for asking, They do what they want when they want and are not tools of the zombie hordes."

Ok, so the point of that is a few things. This article is braggalicious, it's not even close to neutral, the name sucks, the POV all over it sucks, the claims of repelling 100+ zombie break-ins sucks(has yet to happen), the attempt to make this a battle for the suburb sucks(as it isn't), and the name sucks. Wait until after the fact when a real article can be created and sorted, and a good name chosen, one that actually addresses what happened here. This was not a "Battle for Pitneybank" it's a battle at Giddings Mall, Fort Creedy was different, Fort Creedy had a purpose and was part of what happened to Fort Perryn, if those two things had been included in an article it would be factually realistic, but this is just plain foolishness. The POV was fatally obvious from opening summary paragraph, no, the right hand informational template.--Karekmaps?! 08:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

*Tries to put on serious survivor face, but can't; a zombah ate it. Has to get by with another serious zombah face.*

The 100+ zombie thing DID happen though, according to reports. I think it was on the 28th. It was spread out over two corners, but 100 zeds is still 100 zeds. Of course, the CURRENT 100+ zombie thing is busy clawing everyone's face off. *shrug*

However, waiting until the battle is over is probably for the best, yes. Get some perspective on it, and all that jazz. --James Ennis 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. This page may be for bragging or not...but why do people complain about this page and not this one! Can you tell me why a page like that exist? --Skritz

People don't complain about the Battle of the Bear Pit because they don't care and or don't remember. There was significant drama over the Battle of Blackmore page.--Karekmaps?! 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooo. Man. I put in a lot of effort, but I removed the POV from the article, rewrote it almost completely, doing my best to eliminate the accrued POV from many small biased edits.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove that tag until the dispute is resolved. And no, you have failed at removing the POV, hell you failed at even addressing most of the things I mentioned.--Karekmaps?! 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I did my best; Feel free to make any changes needed to remove the POV, tell me which groups to add to the Zombie groups section, tell me which sections offend you and I'll remove them. I changed the battle box to mention all of the groups on the zombie side.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
And why are you predicting stuff? Whats "many large breakins were repulsed until the mall fell." that all about? And changing the title to "The End" for the newest section? Do you have a time machine? And i don't really see how you've eliminated POV, from what i can see you added POV and took away some of the flavor from this article.
You change (about the new update) "This galvanized the zombie force, as the horde ruined buildings to the north of the mall, including the Dewell Building." to "This proved a morale boost to the Bash.". Why? That was accurate info and is exactly what happened. You also took out a lot of information from the Morrish and Auto Repairs section, such as the listing of groups who sent aid to the Morrish building. Listing them is not redundant, and putting "(fully listed in the Groups section of the battle summary)" just sounds lazy. Basically I'm saying the article was better before. I say roll it back and wait for the battle to actually end, before discussing changes or adding anything else. --Kikashie ELT 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed it because I was trying to eliminate the POV; horde is a necessarily loaded word.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't want drama, don't want arguments, but I was just wondering what makes horde a loaded word. I was the one who added the original New Life for the Undead section, and I want to know how to better my wiki reporting. As a survivor, horde is the term I use for any group of zombies working together (whether their coordinated or just attacking the same building) numbering 50 or more. Again, for clarity, I'm not upset, not making demands; I just want to be PC with my rotting bretheren. Also, I'd agree that the page has POV problems (Bashing Back is cool but hardly fair as a name, and I don't know why anything other than the Giddings Mall area is included), but I don't think bragging in and of itself is wrong so long as it paints an accurate picture. We harmans have a right to brag if we keep the baddest undead guys out for three weeks, just as much as you guys have a right to brag now about your iminent takeover of Giddings. But then again, what do I know. --Soloman Frisbee 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Horde tends to be purposefully vague, it's often used to make the number or proportion of zombies to survivors seem a lot bigger than it is. It's generally best to specify horde size when speaking of a horde. Bragging is a problem because it is wrong, at least in the article, announcing victory before the end of the siege? Hardly realistic, as recent events at Giddings will tell you, it's also extremely useless to future readers of the article(as they want to know what happened, not how pompous the participant were about it), so if you want to brag might I suggest talk pages and forums. --Karekmaps?! 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I'm going to do my best to maintain a neutral point of view here, but I know I have a pro-survivor history, so if this starts to sway I ask everyone to just try and filter out the propaganda.
Anyhow, horde seems a rather accurate assessment- as I recall at one point essentially the entire Bash was congregating outside Morrish, and the nearest number I can remember for that was something like 497. After that they spread out to hit the suburb and Giddings' support buildings, but all in all ferals and Bashers numbered almost exactly 500 at full ebb. As to survivor numbers, several people died more than once but a mid-January estimate put Morrish and Giddings' totals together at approximately 700. This article is rather POV, yes, but it does not ignore the facts- the building held, then it fell. Those are the facts, but if you want raw facts you can find them in the sidebar.
While I'm always against propaganda in principal I often find myself drifting into it anyhow. The problem is that this fight HAS no NPOV angle- either you fought the horde or you fought with them, and the zombies seem somewhat reluctant to write their own article on the situation (possibly because they were held up for a month here after rolling over the south like a steamroller, but I can see myself getting off NPOV so enough of that). There's nothing stopping a Counter-Point to this article's point, but trying to make the point fit your own point is just going to result in edit wars, flaming, and drama llama. The best course of action would probably for someone like Karek, who knows what they're doing, to write up a Counter-Point article for the zombie angle, and then we link to both as Survivor and Zombie perspective. Otherwise we have 500 zeds and 700 breathers trying to fit all their views into one little article, and no single wiki page can hold that kind of pressure.
All complaints about this rambly speech may be directed to the Ministry of Information.--Boris 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to say survivors were repulsing attacks of 100. While they did very good jobs for about a day and half after the update, when roughly 50-60 zombies finally came into the mall at the 7:00 PM (-6 GMT) Strike time, over the course of 30-40 minutes, chaos ensued and bodies on BOTH SIDES fell rapidly. However steady groans led to nearby feral activity, and by roughly 7:40 we had about 100 zombies in the mall. By that point, most zombies had run out of ap, and were down to the final 4-5 or so reserved for ?rise. At this point, my zombie was out of ap, so I just logged and continued on my merry way. I checked in later at around 8:15, and we were down to 40. I wouldn't call that being repulsed. The humans put up a hell of a fight, but I'm not sure if repulse "the zombies" is a correct term. To say that the humans responded and killed and dump many of the zombies that attacked, I would whole heartedly agree with. But at some point, all the actives on each side essentially ran out of ap (and/or ammo). When I checked back at about 9:30, we were back up about 70. Granted, these numbers are approximate, give or take 10. I just know that after getting 100 zombies in the door, we never really fell below 30 zombies for more than 5 minutes at any given point.RisenJihad MEMS DORIS

Specific POV complaints.

Preferably in the fashion:

  • {{Quote|Section Title Here|Quote Here}}
Reason Here.

Any complaints about POV will be rectified as soon as possible.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got rid of it. Discussion page is cluttered as is. --James Ennis 06:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

SERIOUS Specific POV complaints.

Preferably in the fashion:

  • {{Quote|Section Title Here|Quote Here}}
Reason Here.

Any complaints about POV will be rectified as soon as possible.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Have the page renamed by page move from this POV travesty to The Battle of Pitneybank --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Pitneybank is still POV, it's not about Pitneybank, we already did that. That name is survivors making it more important than it is/was just so it sounds big--Karekmaps?! 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not "big", but if not "The Battle of Pitneybank", then what would you call it? "The battle of Fort Creedy, the Farmer Building, the Morrish Building, Giddings Mall, the MacMillan Hotel, two auto repairs, two warehouses... and a factory."? --Kikashie ELT 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, feel free to rape the rest of ths suburb before you move on. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I'm pro-survivor... I was just saying that if it wasn't called the battle of pitneybank, then how else could we sum up the events that transpired... er, are transpiring? --Kikashie ELT 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
oops, messed up the indent. Meant to have it under karek --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The point Grim, is that it doesn't describe what happened. The title is meant to reflect the article, the article isn't meant to be artificially enlarged to reflect the title. The fall of Fort Creedy was seperate, the fall of Fort Perryn was seperate, Giddings stood alone, Morrish and the two auto repairs are and always have been considered part of the Giddings Complex. There was no Battle of Pitneybank, this was completely about Giddings, with a month spent at Giddings, no where else.--Karekmaps?! 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So would you be satisfied if this were called "The Battle of Giddings", and the Farmer building section moved to a section of the First Ruining of Fort Creedy page?  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait. Until. It. Is. Done. And. A. Common. Name. Is. Used. Don't make one up simply so you can get an exclusive, UDWiki is not a newspaper, we aren't competing with anyone for who is the first to issue breaking news. You're compromising the articles integrity by even making it this soon.--Karekmaps?! 06:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said on Karek's talk page... truly pathetic. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Personally, I'm calling this the Big Roadblock -- the antithesis of the Big Bash. It literally stalled the BB2 on one suburb for one whole month. It shows that when survivors of all groups and classes team up, they're just as tough as the combined hordes are.

Perhaps in the future, when it's Big Bash time again, the survivors could rally once more in one mega mall and do their best to defend it! Epic sieges are epic, and always good to watch for the amount of lulz to be had on the radio.

But that's just me. --Aeon17x 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Thanks

Now that the battle is all said and done with, thanks for everyone -- survivors and zombies -- who made this battle worth hanging around. Bravo to you all! --Sexy Rexy Grossman 06:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! *puts on closing theme to Dr. Strangelove* --Boris 15:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hands tinfoil hat to author of headline below

Enough, man. Stop spamming pages. Offer proof or shut the hell up.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And to those claiming POV on the zombie side: I'm starting to agree with you. More POV is added every minute; maybe this should be put up as user project developments, and we can take the most neutral pieces of our individual projects, put the sections together, and make a workable page, and get this travesty deleted; I do my best, but the POV is added faster than I can edit it out.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To: Blanemcc. YOU CANNOT BE NEUTRAL. STOP MESSING WITH THE PAGE. Someone please arby him to keep him from removing the balance from this page.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Zerger in mass helped start the fall of both Gidding & Morrish

All of the names and profiles were made some time ago, but if you check, they were all made within the same time frame or even within mins from one another. Also the group no one ever heard of "Christ you're stupid" is in almost everyone of them if not all of them. He was visible inside and outside starting off the big finish. I had them still in my contacts from the first time he zerged and it was spammed across survivor forums.

This makes the whole battle less of a win for the zeds, and less of a fight for the survivors. To DAVYWAVY, or whatever you want to call yourself ... I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO SEE YOU BANNED AND/OR KNOWN AS A CHEATER! All of these profiles are in a group called "Christ you're stupid" their was a similar issue roughly 5 months ago with them, and he still continues to use these to zerg.


Christ you're stupid is a group that their is no wiki group page listed, but yet under game statictics has a group of 20. Not to mention almost all of them are with the exact same skills, with only diagnosis and body building being the only real survivor skills obtained.


Christ you're stupid 20 17 346


If you need visible proof look no further. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

If you want further proof, ask Bullgod for the original attack he did that got him banned from Feral Undead


--XxCannon FodderxX 10:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha, that's rich. This type of junk takes a real ignorance of reality. Just out of curiosity, how many survivor zergers do you think there were there, I can tell you it was more than 0.--Karekmaps?! 11:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Were it not for the fact that essentially none of these accounts are level one, as is partypical of zerging accounts (not to mention that all of them were created last summer), this would be a mightily heavy injunction (though it seems unlikely that this level of zerging could have gone unnoticed before being caught). As it stands it's probably a "Flustered Brethren" situation- a group of individuals all discovering UD at once in real life. I have to agree with Karek that this is not zerging, though I have to recommend that Karek try to keep a slightly more neutral point of view.--Boris 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The majority of them were added to the zerg list here, but when they were in three separate groups. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any survivor zerging. Arfcom was on the survivor side, and is mostly comprised of zergers. Basically, zerging is found in every suburb and in every battle in the game. That's nothing new. --Akule School's in session. 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You zombies have been revealed as foul hypocrites. Hope you enjoy your meaningless, cheated victory. --TerminalFailure 9:39, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Umm, where's the proof again? I was part of a small forum where a lot of us all joined up within hours of each other (admittedly most of them have left UD now), and made our own group and coordinated our actions -- boxy talki 14:48 1 February 2008 (BST)
True that. Take LUE for example. At its peak when we had 300+ actives, most of our members joined within a few hours of each other. We regularly got zerging accusations as well, but what the accusers don't realize is that as members of a forum we get coordinated very closely, so it's not odd at all that we start and move together.
The only one who can call those folks as zergers is Kevan, who can check their IP addresses to see if they come from one source.--Aeon17x 14:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This does not appear to be zerging. The entire case is predicated on the fact they have similiar ID's and the same group. As pointed out above, such things happen with forums joining games. The biggest condemnation against this being a zerger is the levels of the zombies in question. They also have different real names, where they have been supplied at all. To have gotten them to such high levels would have required almost daily playing. Given a 160 ip hit limit, either a person decided to spend about 6 hours a day every day playing the game using proxies, or they donated $150+, and then played 6 hours or more a day. Neither scenario is particularly likely, and supremely unlikely in this case, given that they were made five months ago. Its a group, just like any other. Also, the screenies show the zombies inside long after the massive foothold was established. Theres no proof they even participated in its creation. All in all, this is yet another foolishly inept attempt by the harmanz to claim that they lost only because the other side was cheating. How I wish I could say I haven't seen it time and again in the years this game has been up. Ah, well. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are such things as botting. Im staying neutral on this as I see this guy as being innocent until proven guilty. However, I am going to out forward a suggestion in which a validation page is added to UD to stop bots from logging in and carrying out zerg attacks. --Blanemcc 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The information about the guy who played the characters can be found here. juicybrainsucker was a former member of the Feral Undead but was banned for zerging two days ago. --Akule School's in session. 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Need i point out that one alt from a known zerger doesnt actually mean that the individual is zerging at the time. And if its one individual with even just two alts there, it wouldnt make a difference. There are always bad eggs. Best you can do is punt em out and tell em to piss off, since kevan doesnt accept reports. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I believe this is the second time he was banned there Akule, and from the same evidence, i.e. a specific group saying theses same accounts were zergs with no more evidence than this. The last time would be around when the first Fort fell for the First time, in which they also tried claiming that it was all this guy even though there were over 200+ zombies there. Over 80 zombies broke in at the same times over multiple days and yet they think it was this guy that did any of the work, sorry to break it to you survivors but it was the Big Bash, MotA, etc. Not some little zerger who you keep around this area and bring out every time you get beaten at something.--Karekmaps?! 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The evidence was the origninal post that was another survivor group that had the issue, I just happen to have them in my contacts when 12 of them came crashing threw the cadesat the same time. All the accounts were made roughly at the same time, with very little time apart, this player was caught zerging before, and this person has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIG BASH for the big bash fought well and this person shows the negative of the game as a whole. I am also checking into some survivor zerging as well. However I noted this one first due to pass issues as well as the present. --XxCannon FodderxX 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, uh uh, sure, totally, I can see that's exactly what you meant when you title the section "Zerger in mass helped start the fall of both Gidding & Morrish"--Karekmaps?! 16:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
In mass as in 20 character yep. If I wanted to say BB was all zergers trust me I would say so if I thought it was true, however, this scumbag zerger is not or never was assocated officially with the Bash, hell their isn't even a wiki group page or anything out their promoting this "Christ you're stupid" group. So read into whatever I write all you want. --XxCannon FodderxX 12:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
A zerger didn't help start anything, the fact that you claim that to be so shows your ignorance.--Karekmaps?! 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sooooo, Conclusions

Anybody else think that the conclusion section at the moment is a weeeeeeee bit biased? Apparently the defenders of Giddings were stupid. Apparently Giddings was a slaughterhouse. Apparently Giddings fell with 160 survivors facing 100 zeds in the SE. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Nope, can't say I remember any of that. I remember survivors moving into the SE, some of them fresh from the needle, but dying at a faster rate since they couldn't get the cades back up. I remember a day long battle, not a siege, not a massacre, not a slaughterhouse, but a battle that lasted the entire day and had both sides tearing into one another. And I remember there, at my last death, 200+ zombies facing 150ish survivors, a fair while before the corner fell. Come on guys, seriously?

Oh, and one strategy related question for the zeds: During the fighting, it seemed that zombies were at first focusing on keeping the cades down instead of attacking survivors, allowing more of their undead buddies to come in. Is that what actually what was going on? I ask because I'm thinking of an article on such a tactic. --James Ennis 06:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say more than a wee bit. And yes, it was, there were at least 4 different strategies tried after the update, obviously the last one is the one that worked.--Karekmaps?! 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you Karek. --James Ennis 11:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the tactic in question: check it out and see what you think, folks: Beachhead Tactic. --James Ennis 12:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This may just be an old man's attempt to stir up trouble, but "Combat Reviving is now show to be a bad tactic" should be clarified, don't you think? There are still plenty of situations when it has merit, just not extended sieges...you may all yowl about how combat reviving sucks at me now. PadreRomero 15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Meh, they drew a lot of very strange "Conclusions". The Combat Revives one is one of them, it really had nothing to do with this siege.--Karekmaps?! 15:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
and "Calls for help were repeatedly ignored"...It may just be me (I was there until about 2 hours before all corners were sacked) but the calls for help were ignored mostly because we had huge groups of zombies breaking in all around us...kinda swings a man's priorities PadreRomero 16:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the article is factually incorrect, the majority of it I would say. For example calls for help weren't ignored, that's why the zombies had to make sure the lights were kept out, when calls were made it always resulted in actives coming to the corner. --Karekmaps?! 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Any conclusions based on the January 23rd update should be just removed. A significant part of its effect was the boost in zombies' morale (and numbers) and the corresponding drop in survivor-morale. Drawing conclusions based on the week before the ruining is guesswork at best. Or better yet, remove the whole section. Some of the conclusions are plain false (like the combat revive one) and others have no real relevance to this specific siege. The only reason why the section exists seems to be "People should play this way!". --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I wish we had something to limit original research to something quantifiable like Search Odds.--Karekmaps?! 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawning conclusion on the update as a whole based on this siege is problematic. Tactics are still adapting and claiming any particular strategy as being useless is simple opinion. The conclusion on combat revives doesn't really belong here as the update really only adds another factor to that much large debate. I've replaced the section of "Conclusions" with a single "Conclusion", or end, of the battle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meridian100 (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.

Score one for sanity! PadreRomero 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sounds reasonable- just don't like removal of anything unless reasons are stated somewhere. -Kanoneziel 13:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have helped create a newer version of the article, Perhaps you may enjoy a slightly updated version? --Chaplain Drakon Macar 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I DIDN'T CREATE THIS FREAKING PAGE!

I DIDN'T CREATE THIS FREAKING PAGE!  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you made the majority of the original content so in a very real way you did create this page.--Karekmaps?! 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rant.

See user page for admittedly self-indulgent rant. -- Hinotori 11:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them well equiped or overly organized(not to say that some individual groups weren't organized, but as a whole survivors do not organize outside of in small groups that have near no inter-group communication or coordination.) As for the update, quit whining about it and do something, like say organize, or re-plan survivors defense so that you aren't all in malls, which, beyond great search rates, are actually the strategically weakest buildings in the whole game(excluding mansions and cathedrals). As for fun. No. Zombies have been so weak for so long that most of them become PKers, Death Cultists, or survivors simply so that they would be able to make an impact, it has and was a frequent thing to see survivor so bored in an active siege(over 100+ zombies against, on average, 60-70 survivors) that they would actually result to PKing, or simply leave the siege altogether. This makes zombies a bit of a threat, for maybe the first time in 3 years.--Karekmaps?! 12:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical Facts

Here are some historical facts which you may or may not wish to work into the history. I have a survivor alt in The Randoms and a zombie alt running with The Bash, which gives me the access to both boards cited here. No characters mentioned are actually mine.

Did a single character turn the tide of The Bash siege at Giddings? You decide.

  • January 10th, 2008. As part of "Operation New Year's Resolution" a group called The Randoms was in Daversbank to help the local survivors of the DRRP defend against a zombie incursion. The Kynaston Buidling, the local NT, was becoming a focal point of the battle. On January 10th a member of The Randoms posted an announcement on the private section of The Randoms board that the zombie called "Bub", run by Kevan, was among the group of zombies outside. This is verified by an i-Witness screenshot at http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/01-10-08_1400hrs_PRIVATE/IN_75-91_busy_night_369-2c0-eb8.html
  • January 11th, 2008. A survivor named Daeryon, member of The Randoms, posted on The Randoms board the following quote - "Told the Zombies outside Knayz that they should go north because the big bash needs their help".
  • January 11th, 2008. On the Barhah.com site, under the Bash II heading, the user called "Don Tickles" posted that "Bub" had arrived at the Morrish Building. A screenshot is provided on the Barhah.com site to verify this.
  • January 12th, 2008. On The Randoms board, the character Daeryon posted the following: "Hah! My idea worked! (at least partially). On my way to get gennies I stopped outside Knayz and told the zeds their brethern needed them at the seige of Giddings...it worked on at least one. "Bub" relocated to Giddings."
  • January 23rd, 2008 After several days at Giddings, "Bub" disappeared. Then, on this fateful day, the upgrade came through giving zombies greater ability to prevent re-cading upon entry. Did this upgrade affect the success of The Bash. Undoubtedly. Here are some known facts about the series of daily attacks from The Bash on Giddings occurring between 7:30 PM and 9:30 PM EST each day, consisting of the maximum number of zombies standing in the mall at any one time and the amount of time before the last zombie was evicted from the mall (taken from the private section of Barhah.com):
* Prior to January 23rd - two prior attacks had peaked with 25 zombies inside and about 1 hour inside
* January 23rd - peak at 28 inside, one hour duration
* January 24th - peak at 40 inside, 1.5 hours duration
* January 27th - peak at 31 inside, 1.5 hours duration
* January 28th - peak at 75 inside, 2.5 hours duration
* January 29th - attack never fully repelled
* January 30th - SE corner ruined
* January 31st - NW corner (final corner) ruined

Did a single character, Daeryon, by suggesting Bub visit the siege, cause Kevan to decide that the zombies needed a boost? You decide.

-- Plinker, February 3rd, 2008

Um....uh....no comment.--Daeryon 14:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Another historical detail that has come to light. An entry from the news archive of the Malton Police Department places them in The Morrish building at the time of this Battle, January 25th. They are not listed in the "groups" section of the main article, though perhaps this has been an historical oversight and this should be corrected.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 14:02, 4 May 2010 (BST)
The MPD are listed, they're part of the DEM, which is listed in the group column. :P --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 14:18, 4 May 2010 (BST)

Enough with the quotes

Please. I can understand one or two from each side, but more than that is ridiculous.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep the Dump, Kill, Cade, Heal and drop the we are quite fucked? It would make the article better in appearance and help with the historical voting...--Chaplain Drakon Macar 23:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me; just keep the # of quotes human.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Right! --Chaplain Drakon Macar 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
While i don't approve of your removing my quote without telling me, i will admit that the page looks more proffesional this way: more like a neutral examination of a historical event. It's still quite POV though, and i edited the "Fall of Creedy" intro a little to make it less so(kinda unrelated). I would however suggest that we put back in(or add in) one more survivor quote. Maybe the "this is the way the world ends" one? I mean the "cade,dump,heal" thing is used in every siege, not just this one. And the only other quote is from a zombie. To make it fair we might add in one more zombie quote too? More than that would be annoying overkill though. Anyways, just trying to contribute. --Booleanearth 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I do apologize for not finding you and asking first, I didn't bother contacting as I changed and I support one more survivor qoute (especially the "this is the way the world ends...", I had forgotten about that one...). Also I believe that a "professional" appearance may help this pass in voting...--Chaplain Drakon Macar 06:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hay guise - you don't actually need to ask Nalikill anything before you do it. He's acting as though it's "his" article, which is pretty damn funny when you take into account the fact that a) he didn't make it, b) he's responsible for much of the POV which existed at the time of the Historical nomination and c) it is, like most things on this wiki, a community effort! --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sucks.

This page sucks. I don't think there is a possibility of salvaging it, either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorm (talkcontribs) .

I wouldn't go so far as to declare it categorically unsalvageable... though perhaps realistically you are correct. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Most all of the content would have to be removed and it started from scratch, after a Move Request of course.--Karekmaps?! 16:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You all are pathetic! All you di is bitch and talk about how horrible the article is. "Most all of the content would have to be removed and it started from scratch" Why? Because it dosen't reflect your point of view? This wiki is rife with POV violations! Look at the Battle of Bear Pit page! Ya thats a neutral POV! Maybe you alll should either help, or do as your mothers told you most likely not so long ago. "If you haven't anything worth while to contribute, then shut the hell up!" Thank you and good night--Mr NoName001 07:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
lol --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 14:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
lolque?-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I secon....fourt...thir...(insert proper number here...) Mr NoName001's demands...you folks really should back off or actually do something to contribute...of course that is assuming if you were there...--Chaplain Drakon Macar 20:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Fourth? Pretty sure you mean second there, bub. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'm not that much of a dick. But as of right now, I'm going to be for the hell of it. Shut the fuck up yourselves. Give me one good reason why any of us should even be worrying about the page? The people who could actually make this thing not suck, don't want to because their NPOVity and work on the page will be drowned out by the dozens of other fools who think having a quote that says "this is the way the world ends" is so fucking important. Anything we'd do to fix this mess would immediately and mercilessly be ripped apart by the fucking trenchie idiots of this wiki. So, fuck it. The article is screwed, and shall be screwed for a very long time. Now kindly go eat your keyboard or something.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

O where to begin....first I am not nor have I ever been a trenchie(except that period where I was doing a trenchie tribute and had a quite trenchie description on my character)so your attempts at being insulting....well they aren't. Second claiming that your voice will not be heard/matter is the same reason 40% of americans don't bother to vote each election, and then go on to bitch about the gov sucking. If you don't vote, don't bitch! Same applies here. If you have no desire to participate in makeing the wiki better, then STFU about it. Your voice dosen't matter. Sure you might scream louder, or more often, but you are of less consequence then a person that actually tries. I applaud the fact that people are trying to make the page better, but complaining about it not being to your likeing is much like screaming into a hurricane. You might feel better, but you don't accomplish a whole hell of a lot. Make a suggestion to improve the page and quit wasteing space talking about how much everything sucks and you hate it. If it's really that bad, then why do you insist on commenting one it, unless your just a flamer?--Mr NoName001 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I although I do tend to agree with your opinion on the over abundance of trenchies on the wiki Suicidal. This is one of the few times I've seen your name at the end of something I disagreed with. You attention seeking whore ;) --Mr NoName001 05:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
lol --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, no, we're a wiki, not everyone is forced to contribute but articles do have standards of quality. Time is not an issue, not all changes need to be done ASAP which means that you're just being loud.--Karekmaps?! 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That gives me an idea... to the Batcave! --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You two are the snarkiest tag team netbullies I've ever seen. It doesn't matter that you're right about the page's quality. I check this article every so often to see if it has been improved to a readable standard, but the self-righteous, masturbatory bile is digging a hole through my corneas. I'll try to stay away from the talk page from now on, but seriously, what is up with your attitudes? -- Hinotori 11:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Grapes are fun! --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I forgot about this conversation. I wasn't calling anyone here specifically a trenchie. And I have a public service announcement.

...

...

Testiclites. That is all.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anybody want templates?

I wanted to offer Battle of Giddings templates I made to anyone who wants them. I'm not terribly handy on the wiki, so I'm afraid you'll have to copy the code from here. Both zombie and survivor versions are available.

If you don't like 'em, that's fine; just keep it to yourself please. --Soloman Frisbee 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay, templates! --Ghills 23:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like live coverage first person videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE-SwaYwDL4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERVXOF8pjvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Oo9H77BxA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9iVvOpziuM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WJB__EkQKs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxzgq4YNI80

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it1aQAKL4Uo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuxC5fjavB0


They are mine, i can rename them accordingly. Just let me know if you are interested and what you would like the title renamed to. The man 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that in your version, the definition of hero is "the guy in furthest away from the combat who takes pot shots at the zombies, with 'minimal' hits on fellow survivors.";)--Akule School's in session. 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion editing

Reverting the statement made by Axe, editing so it has grounds, but I believe there is ample proof that the update DID contribute to the end of the battle, since the battle ended literally within 24 hours of the barricade nerf, if I remember correctly. Also, Axe claims that there is no proof Kevan made the change as a direct result of the Battle of Pitneybank, and this gives him ample reason to omit the given statement. Not only is this irrelevant to whether the update directly affected the battle (not the other way around), but its common knowledge that Kevan played his zombie character Bub in the entirety of the battle, and he personally experienced the longevity of the battle. And yes, the sentence he deleted should be in the article simply because it is a fact that the change did lead to the end of the battle, which (in my opinion) the survivors were winning. DanceDanceRevolution 08:48, 26 July 2008 (BST)

The battle did not end within 24 hours of the barricade nerf, where do you even get that misconception from?--Karekmaps?! 15:22, 26 July 2008 (BST)
Just to make my point more clear, that's disputed on this very same page under one of the paranoid summaries about the Bub Conspiracy.--Karekmaps?! 15:30, 26 July 2008 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements