Talk:Main Page

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Message Archive

Remember to always sign your messages,
by adding four tildes (~~~~) in the end of your message.

Contents


[edit] Stats Page Down?

Doesn't seem to be working now. Any comments or observations? Ioncannon11 05:01, 25 May 2008 (BST)

it's working fine for me. try again.--J3DSR! 05:03, 25 May 2008 (BST)
It flips out on the hour, every hour. It's just updating, I believe. -- AHLGTH 05:04, 25 May 2008 (BST)

[edit] Quitting

I am a new player and i think this thing is a challange comon all the zombie games and movies are about a little weak group with 1% of success that what makes it intresting[im also looking for a group im deep in zombie territory level 1 survivor i a unbarricaded building...my name ingame is barakiva]

I think it's about time to quit playing this game. The new blocking skill for the zeds is just too overwhelming. There's no safe place anymore. Heck, you can't stay alive for more than an hour. Zombies just aren't penalized enough for dying. Revives take way too much AP and time when contrasted with a zeds ability to just stand up for 1 AP and no waiting with ankle grab! This game just isn't any fun for me anymore waking up dead all the time and waiting around for revive. Who's with me? (Just for the record, I don't like playing a slobbering, rotting corpse stumbling around moaning "barah" or whatever it is they say.)Medic 812 19:33, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Then don't wait around for a revive, pursue one aggressively.--Karekmaps?! 20:25, 2 April 2008 (BST)
Why do you need other people to quit with you? Just go if you aren't having fun anymore.--Dirk McLarge 21:09, 2 April
I don't necessarily need to have anyone join me. It's really just a question for the reader of the post to consider. If you are as frustrated with the games recent turn of events due to updates as I am, you may want to consider leaving. Think about it. Medic 812 05:00, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah, because the game is obviously completely trashed, hence green suburbs are now reappearing on the danger map, most suburbs have barricaded buildings, ruined NTs are spitting out syringes at unprecedented rates and survivor numbers are up to 41%. Seriously, when will people learn that Kevan isn't an idiot and won't just let his game turn to shit overnight? The guy knows what he's doing. --Papa Moloch 05:36, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Meh. If you're dying once an hour, we're probably not going to miss you. Except for the fact that we now need to figure out something else to use as bait. Have you had a look at the stats page recently? Survivors are back up to 41%. Looks like there are plenty of other people out there that are able to find revives and stay alive. Sanpedro 05:39, 3 April 2008 (BST)
There's no safe place? So you're saying me staying in the same building for almost a week now is hallucination? Owwww... --~~~~ [talk] 15:55, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Don't suppose you would be willing to share that secret location would you ;) --Honestmistake 16:40, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Lookit the map, and then consider that survivors are currently making a point of keeping mum when a suburb is safe. Its pretty obvious which burbs might be considered green. Oh, wait, 4 of them already are. Gee, and only a week or so late... ‌‌‌ ☢ 18:28, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Meh, suburb isn't a convincing argument. It's pretty biased all the time and it's not possible to avoid this biasness, simply because of design of it as a public my-ego-is-bigger-than-yours resource. EMRP is a bit better if it is updated automatically (i didn't keep a track on that project). Anyway suburb i'm in is marked orange right now --~~~~ [talk] 19:56, 3 April 2008 (BST)
EMRP is outdated though... 300 zombies in Dartside? It's a survivor tea party down there. -- AHLGTH 20:24, 3 April 2008 (BST)
One does not simply quit Urban Dead. I should know. --Daranz.t.mod janitor 21:42, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah, we're all dead. Unless you live in South Malton. You know what, where is it written that survivors are supposed to win anyway? You may notice that in one part of this sprawling expanse we call the wiki, Kevan's name links to the IMDB page for Day Of The Dead. That should say something to you. If it doesn't....watch more zombie movies...Besides which, if this game was supposed to be a cakewalk for survivors than what would be the fun in playing. Don't criticize Kevan for fixing imbalances in his own game...--AViewAM 00:11, 13 April 2008 (BST)

I agree that zombies have become a tougher egg to crack, but remember that this game can go on forever. Who knows, one day the zombies could be all "WHYZ AREZ all the suburbs green?" After all, UD has had its share of the humans having an upper hand, then zombies have their chance. Dont worry, it'll be back to us in good time. I agree Daranz' comment that one cannot quit Urban Dead. I once thought of quitting due to the game getting boring. I was looking for any similar games that have graphics and more advanced technology. But there was no other game similiar with more advanced technology. So i found myself reading and clicking again, just like the old days. --Surfreak 12:31 Apil 17 2008 (PST)

i seem to remember a time when only ridleybank and a scant few other 'burbs were red, most of the map being green, and we didn't complain half as much as ive been seeing from our human counterparts. --Bullgod 21:34, 18 April 2008 (BST)
There have been quite a few times actually. Whenever we don't have LUE, Shacknews, the Dead wandering around. Even happened when BigBash2 was around because before the interference update all it took to hold a mall was enough bodies.--Karekmaps?! 22:13, 18 April 2008 (BST)
yeah i got lulz the first time i saw people wanting to quit...now i just get a sick feeling in my stomach. you people call yourselves survivors in a zombie holocaust... *shakes head in disappointment*--J3DSR! 10:42, 19 April 2008 (BST)
every one can stop complaining now. VVV --Bullgod 10:48, 3 May 2008 (BST)
image:5-3-08.png
I love it how everyone doubted this day would come, tis unfortunate. I wonder when people will start posting correct danger reports. And wtf is the dead doing? They have 1200 members, surely they can cause mass zombification keeping the percent below 40 with relative ease...--J3DSR! 11:27, 3 May 2008 (BST)
I think the Dead are effectively a collection of ferals scattered about the city at this point, who just happen to have that group name. A lot of them are probably going to idle out, or are barely active enough not to idle. Watch their numbers over the next 10 days. BTW, survivors are now at 56%. ‌‌‌ ☢ 04:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)
And some people thought this was the end... it was just a bump, albeit a large one. -- AHLGTH 04:55, 8 May 2008 (BST)
I soooooooo knew this was going to happen. I made this prediction MONTHS ago at the height of The Dead's reign. And so the cycle begins again... Unfortunately, this is my least favorite part of the cycle. -- Mordac the Refuser 19:58, 19 May 2008 (BST)
You know what made the difference? Look at the revivifying body numbers. I don't think the ratio of revives to standing survivors has EVER been a consistently high as in the past two-three weeks. ‌‌‌ ☢ 05:13, 8 May 2008 (BST)

[edit] All the Red burbs

Look at the suburb map. This blows man. I'm going to smoke weed.Ioncannon11 03:54, 30 March 2008 (BST)

The scary thing is that this is an improvement.--Scott Timewell 04:12, 30 March 2008 (BST)
It's great for zombies, and for survivors who want to battle hordes, rather than fighting each other or hanging out at the mall >:) -- boxy talk • i 06:00 30 March 2008 (BST)
I actually find this to be WAY more fun. I've never before found facing the hordes so challenging before. What with the 'no cades while zombie presence' addition and increased zed enthusiasm I'm having much more fun. Boots 19:40, 31 March 2008 (BST)
Just a hint; I wouldn't totally go by the suburb map. Zombies seem to be attractive to the color green or yellow. ;-)--Zaphord 06:02, 2 May 2008 (BST)

[edit] Monroeville

Wow, Monroeville is gay for zombies now that headshots are introduced as permanently killing zombies.....all players have to do is save up on ammo now and go outside and kill a zombie and come back inside and stock up again.....if you have 4 shotguns a couple pistols and lots of ammo you can pwn.....Diary of the Dead just became Diary of the Living......GG Kevan --Krazyxman 23:50, 4 April 2008 (BST)

Rumor has it that a city in America's State of Pennsylvania has been infected as well... can anyone confirm this? Associated Press - Monroeville, PA Outbreak --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 09:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Arthur T Bone.... I can confirm that Marty, the streets are strangely silent. I don't know how many survivors there are but the situation looks bad! --Honestmistake 09:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Ooc: There's no necrotechs, I'm gonna really be unhappy if I die while I'm gone... PS: the Pkers have already shown up... I spotted ZillyLillyPilly... People only get one life in the new city folks... it will be really uncool if you all go crazy and start pking so soon...) --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are too many survivors, hopefully a few PKers will make this game interesting. If you get Pkd just suck it up and play as a zombie!
It's just how spawning works, move a ways away from where you spawned and you'll find either nobody or zombies. And remember it's about the size of Malton but with 1/4 of the population.--Karekmaps?! 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Bummer, my character died... I'm outtie for now... good luck in Monroeville all... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 15:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monroeville Mapping

Okay, First Suburb I spotted... South Monroeville... add them as you see them... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Central. --Honestmistake 09:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As am I. I found a mall, or rather, I found four one-square malls together in a L pattern. --Amanu Jaku 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There's also a West Monroeville.--Finis Valorum 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I hit a border when I tried to see if there was an East. --Amanu Jaku 09:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Central seems well served by Hospitals, I've seen 4 very close together.--Honestmistake 10:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I started in west and travelled about 30 blocks before i hit central. Also, UDtool kept changing suburb link, and i think that goes off the x,y coords of the blocks themselves. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in South Monroeville, and tried using both Iwitness and the new GPS bookmarklet I had whipped up. Iwitness functions, but gives the wrong co-ordinates. THe GPS bookmarklet works, but the x-coords in the page code were stuff like 353, and the code in the BM only picks up the 53 part, because I assumed all co-ords would be 2 digit numbers (I was making this last night, before Monroeville existed). I could modify the code in both cases, but I think for the bookmarklet, its safe so use it as is; users know what city they are in!
So, does anybody know what the "boundry co-ordinates" of Monroeville are? I need that to get the co-ordinate detection to work properly in Iwitness (actually, for the bookmarklet also). ‌‌‌ ☢ 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1-100 on the Y axis, from the looks of it, and about 300-400 on the x axis.--Karekmaps?! 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All italics on the site

Italics on site
Italics on site

I just came to the site to find all of the text in italics, anyone else?--Memoman 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not just this site, seems theres something wrong with my browser or fonts.--Memoman 03:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me and this is how the site is suppose to look, I dont remember it being in italics. I'm using firefox, maybe I did something that I could easily undo? --Memoman 03:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it just on those links, every website you visit, or is it all the text on the wiki. And no, it shouldn't be in italics.--Karekmaps?! 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not just those links, its just about all text on this site, it seems to be a certain font because on some other sites I have italics where there shouldnt be too.--Memoman 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank goodness, it went back to normal on its own.--Memoman 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on with Iwitness?

Does anyone know what's wrong with Iwitness lately? There's nothing there for 2008. -- Mordac the Refuser 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Iwitness has nothing to do with the wiki, it's a project run by Swiers. If you're having problems with it try it's forums.--Karekmaps?! 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We Need Updates!

This game is in desperate need of pro-Zombie updates, as the Survivor-Zombie ratio has hit 65-35 today. There are less than 10,000 zombies in the game now. Also there are more standing Zombie Hunters than standing zombies. Is Kevan going to address this issue anytime soon? I REALLY hope so, because my recent ingame experiences have shown that survivors have it way too easy.-- Mordac the Refuser 01:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. History has shown that all kevan cares about are the statistics, and the discussion on the wiki possibly. The discussion on the wiki is mostly survivor oriented, given that the zombies base themselves off Barhah.com and only a token few such as myself and karek see the wiki as worth our time while the rest think its a survivor oriented drama clusterfuck. The statistics never tell the true story, and kevan has made some epic screwups as a result (I wrote a list, but that would be counterproduictive at this time). Unless the zombie population completely folds, kevan wont do shit. Its his way. Buff humans when they whine, but do nothing for zombies. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
*shrugs* I have no idea what's going on in terms of planning, but right now, even the statistics show that Zombies are getting the shaft of this game. I'm not saying we should go on strike, but if someone proposed it, I'd probably join. -- Mordac the Refuser 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt, this game hasn't has gotten old, stale and is in need of a revamp, mainly in the zombie department. -- AHLGTH 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The game has been unbalanced towards zombies since he added cades. he doesnt realise that the statistics just show how many are, at that moment, on each side of the line. It doesnt show their motivations, or, more importantly, the amkount of effort they are putting into something. For zombies, they [put a huge amount of collective effort into coordinated strikes to bypass the survivor ap advantage of cades and do some damage. Humans just click a buttion a few times then wander off, without a care to metagame or coordination. Humans die when the zombies go on a rampage not because they are underpowered, but because they are uncoordinated, uninformed loners in the path of a decent number of highly coordinated highly informed zombies. Then, when zombies eat the humans, they whine and he buffs them. Zombies dont whine, Never have. We just point out mechanics fauilutres, get ignored, and eventually go on strike. Id actually prefer a different name for a new strike if it were called: "I QUIT". Everyone just lays down their zombies and goes on with daily life till they forget about UD. that would be funny, watching kevans game crash down as all the metagaming zombies left. No amount of change would fix that up. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I meant has. -- AHLGTH 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats what i read it as. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

the harmaz are organising 'man hunts' now. thats where a volunteer agrees to run and hide in a specified area and teams try to nail him. they are so bored and feel non threatened by us that they are making their own entertainment now. the game as a zombie apocalypse is dieing so to speak. the wiki suggestions for zombah improvements are all voted down because of 'balance' but zombies should be more powerful than harmaz in this game so they CAN take over thats what a zombie apocalypse is, isn't it? i think Kevan saw zombies as the slow shambling things seen in the likes of Dawn Of The Dead, when to give us the edge they ought to be the maniac fast moving horrors of 28 Days Later. maybe let the harmaz have some improved weapons but we should be faster and stronger. another suggestion i heard recently was that it is unrealistic to have fully encumbered harmaz carrying toolboxes, fuel cans, portable gennys and all manner of weapons able to effortlessly clamber over barricades in and out of buildings at will with no loss of speed or energy. (room of a little tweak here perhaps?) something needs to happen to make it more fun to play as the undead or the game it's self will die.

rotty / tommaguzzi --Tommaguzzi 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We have humans in Lockettside that sleep outside hospitals now. It's depressing. -- AHLGTH 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not that much better for Harmanz. There are strongholds where people spend more time roleplaying their "fur pile" party than worrying about zeds. The threat has diminished to the point where its become a joke. Freerunning means you never have to leave cover and can always escape if you decide to. Nerfing barricades would help ferals and other casual zombie players but would give the metagaming hordes a free lunch, whats really needed seems increasingly (to me anyway) to be a game restart with real penalties for death on both sides. Without risk the game will remain stale, as a zombie I don't want a free lunch and as a survivor I don't want to feel like the zeds are just an inconvenience! --Honestmistake 14:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the organized hordes SHOULD get a free lunch. Really, what would the harm be? Survivors recover damn fast from the damage a horde can do once it moves on, and zombies SHOULD be a threat. I remember that games early days, where if you heard a horde was coming, you did you best to get the hell out of the way! ‌‌‌ ☢ 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And the news continues to get more depressing, as the ratio is now 66:34. Maybe if we got more zombie players to join the wiki, we could do something. -- Mordac the Refuser 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the main things that need to be changed are the success rates related to barricading. Here's my issue. A few months ago Kevan seemed to lower the success rate for higher level barricade building and by Christ there has been some complaining about that. However, barricades up to VSB still retain pretty much a 100% success rate and as you go higher the success rate does not drop that much. It's only once you are in VHB that you start to drop some serious action points to failed barricading. Meanwhile the success rate for breaking the barricades remains exactly the same. Therefore the lower level barricades are guaranteed to be built, but a maxed-out zombie attacking has only a 25% chance of removing each level. 100% vs 25%. That is a fucking astronomical imbalance in the game. The other day I pissed 15 AP up the wall trying to get loose barricades open. Kevan, with one of his updates, defined loose barricades as a pipe jammed in a door. 15 AP to shake loose a piece of frigging pipe?! Barricade removal should be altered in order to make it so that the higher, harder levels should be as hard to remove as they are now, but as the levels are removed the zombie success rate should go up on order to recognise the lightening of the barricades and also to equate to the ease of building those lower levels of barricading. Another problem related to barricades in the game can be spotted in the current Big Bash situation in Pitneybank. The Bash are organised, so large numbers of zombies attack at once, remove all the barricades, but are then thwarted almost instantaneously by an active coming online and barricading. That's one person vs. ex-number of coordinated zombies. When it's a guy barricading before the doors are open I can accept it and it makes sense, but when zombies are crowding through the doors?! How the ever-loving-fuck does it make sense that with the undead pouring through a door a single guy is going to be able to just stroll past them, close the door and start flinging barricades up with 100% success? That makes no sense whatsoever. Once zombies are inside the barricading success rate should fall significantly and keep falling as more and more zombies get in, necessitating killing the zombies (more AP-intensive) before building the barricades (not AP-intensive at all). The problem is that Kevan and the survivor lobby seem terrified of the power that that would give the big hordes, but guess what: Not every zombie is in the RRF or the Big Bash! And when they are, they should be more dangerous because they are coordinated in a way that their opposition just aren't. Kevan seems to be determined to leave the game fucked and severely disadvantage 10,000+ zombie players just because, ZOMG! Less than 1000 zombies spread across several groups ranging from the tiny to the large, happen to be organised. --Papa Moloch 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly Moloch, there haven't been 10,000 zombies since December.--Karekmaps?! 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


For crying out loud, what makes you think ZOMBIES are a necessary part of the game? The game HAS have changed, for better or worse, as there are more harman players that want to play in the game than zarman players. If more people want to play Human, then the game should be based around Humans. There's no stopping it. Besides, DARIS, the PK, DORIS? They are much more interesting than the Big Bash.--ShadowScope 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting theory, Zombie Apocalypse that has no zombies, genius. Why did you even log in today?--Karekmaps?! 23:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This game is called "Urban DEAD" not "Urban Life With a Few Zombies in the Background" -- Mordac the Refuser 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The game always was always heading to be "Urban Life", Mordac and karek. Always have, always will, unless "Grim" stages a military coup. And it is because of Kevan and the humans, and I believe they both desire it that way. I say, if they want to play Urban Life, then they should. The game doesn't need to pander to a playerbase of 30% (nor should it), it should pander to those that mostly and actually enjoy play the game, like the trenchcoaters, the PKers, the average Human. If these people can have fun by themselves, then why in the world must we listen to zeds? I don't like it, I never liked this fate, but you know what, I'm going to accept it.
Tell me, if this is even an 'apoc', tell me why nobody ever dies for real?--ShadowScope 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I know about the history of the game, but your reason is just plain idiotic. The game doesn't pander to that player base because it has actively pandered to survivors regardless of what the number of zombies players were for the last 2-3 years so the argument that the majority of players wanted to play surviors is just plain dumb. Players play survivors because it is easier, because zombies are actively discouraged from playing the game, and because the history of the game screwing zombies has made most all the players who want/wanted to play zombies either leave in disgust for greener pastures(like Nexus War) or convert to Pkers/survivors. --Karekmaps?! 01:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm... Military coup. Sounds like fun. Grim's revolutionary army is now recruiting. The evil dictator kevan shall be overthrown! --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

so shadowscope according to you the zombah are now existing (the undead find the term " to live" offensive)in a fascist state. are they to become a marginalized ethnic minority to be freely discriminated against by all harmaz? i'm disgusted. maybe you'll want to start compelling them to exist in ghetto's before being forcably deported to another game sometime soon. i'm sure if you could you may even be thinking about a final solution. but that would be a little pointless wouldn't it?--Tommaguzzi 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Credit where it's due. Looks like Kevan is taking the situation seriously and has moved damned fast to add what I consider to be some valuable buffs: http://www.urbandead.com/news.html --Papa Moloch 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn well he did. It seems fairly minor for the most part, but I think the blocking ability is going to shift the equilibrium of the Siege of Giddings Mall quite significantly. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That was my first thought too. How much of an affect the blocking has on barricading percentages remains to be seen, but the possibilities and rewards for coordinated zombie play look very promising. --Papa Moloch 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you... the SA/Soul Hunter coalition has been putting up a big fight in the hills... and when I tried barricade strafing today I encountered a building with two zeds... I spent twenty AP just getting the cades to lightly +1... now i see what you guys are saying about the ratio problem; but right now it's going to be impossible to do anything in a seige, because most survivors are less active... the fight you zeds recieve are from a small fraction of the survivor population at any one moment (certain survivor groups are somewhat of an exception) --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but if anything that reconfirms just what a good balancing update it is. Everything that you've said of survivors is also true of zombie hordes. Not all zombies are timed strikers. Indeed, the timed-strikers in the RRF probably don't account for a quarter of the horde. Whilst the zombies are outside the barricades they are very much at a disadvantage. Before this update the same was true once past the barricades too, but this allows for a reversal of that scenario to give zombies the advantage once inside and so it gives zombies a gaming period in which they are stronger. --Papa Moloch 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The zombies are way overpowered. There's very little a survivor can do to a zombie, even with headshot. Reviving doesn't work if the zombie has human skills, as he/she only comes back WITH GUNS! There's a "Zombie Hunter" section in the skills list. I think we could use a new skill or two in that area, as the zombies are just too powerful as of right now. I don't even waste my time on the zombies because it's pointless. When you kill a zombie, you just waste AP, time, and ammo and all they have to do is spend 1-6AP and they're back with no problem. I just PK. When you kill a pro survivor, they have to wait for a revive. Then, once they ARE revived, they're at half HP and sometimes infected. Meanwhile, when a zombie dies, they just "Stand Up" and are back in the frontlines with just 1 (or 6 in the case of a headshot) AP being spent. I don't see any balance in this. There needs to be a new zombie hunter skill in order to help balance things out a little. Something to damage their AP.

And for the record, I'm not someone saying this because of Giddings. Giddings fell because the survivors all fled the SE corner instead of remaining inside. I'm saying this because I'm annoyed by how powerful zombies are. I mean seriously, when I'm a zombie I don't even care when someone kills me, I just stand up. That's absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at 09:59, 1 February 2008.

Maybe that says something about what the goal of the game is, i.e. not killing zombies.--Karekmaps?! 11:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, no one seems to get is... 'yeah... make the cades weaker... but don't tie our hands...' from my experience for every 8-12 active zeds in a seige, you'll get maybe 3 - 4 active survivors on the cades... this is not always the case, but it seems to be the norm... so the ratio is sick... even if you want to keep the ability to keep us from cading, which you want... a building with 70 survivors should be able to put up cades against 15 zeds inside, so the failure percentage is all wrong, it should be adjusted to include survivor counts as well as zombie counts... at least thats what i believe, that way it will reward zombies for coordinating, and not tie coordinated survivors' hands... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't need to be extra adjested. mathematically by the fact that all 70 survivors would make attempts to build cades, the chances of them to go up are more than when 1 survivor does. --~~~~ [talk] 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Karek, are you trying to tell me that we're supposed to be defenseless against zombies? If that is indeed the case, then that's pretty retarded. I mean, you will never win against the zombies, so why do survivors even give a damn about protecting malls from them? According to what you just said the game isn't about killing zombies. SO WHATS THE POINT?? Like I said before I just kill players, so it doesn't bother me too much. It just sucks that theres no logical reason to ever kill a zombie other than for XP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at 20:55, 1 February 2008.

Yeah, but besides that... (Stating the Obvious: Urban Dead is a game in which you exhaust your points and are done.) if you have 70 people in a building, no one in their right mind should expect that even 10 up to 15 of them are active at any one point unless they are all coordinating and are in the same time zones... but you have to keep suspension of disbelief alive for the game to continue to be fun... and if the other momentarily AFK players dont factor into the calculations then all of that is lost... i certainly spend no more than thirty minutes a day in urban dead, and I play a lot... maybe an hour if it's a big siege... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm telling you that you aren't using what you have right. Survivors are perfectly fine against zombies, even with this update. Hell, frequently the survivors in Giddings mall barricaded and kicked zombies out and that was in corners with 150-120 people against 50-80 zombies, that shows pretty well that 15 zombies vs 70 survivors is very manageable and that's using a bad defensive strategy. The job of survivors isn't to kill zombies, it's to eliminate zombies/the infection, as such your weapon is not shotguns.--Karekmaps?! 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why are shotguns even in the game? More so if you're imply we revive them, that's just stupid. Then they just stand up WITH GUNS! The only time this works are with zombies that don't have the skills to use guns. Even then it's stupid, because they'll just run into a mob of zombies, get killed, giving more XP to the zombies, and then being right back to groaning or whatever it is that they do.

All I suggest is one or two new Zombie Hunter Skills to give Survivors a better way to combat the zombies. You have A WHOLE SECTION titled "Zombie Hunter Skills" AND ONE SKILL! JUST ONE! That's ignorant. The one skill you have is WORTHLESS ANYWAY! All it does is cost a zombie 5 extra AP, which totals in at 6AP for most zombies. 6AP is nothing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

6 AP is something, 6 AP is an 8th of the AP gained a day total, it's more time zombies can't play the game, Zombie Hunter skills do nothing but keep people from playing the game. And also, the assumption that you'll get shot is absurd, most zombies don't have anything in their inventory.--Karekmaps?! 07:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How would it keep people from playing the game? Are you telling me that giving people MORE SKILLS would stop them from playing the game? If anything, people have been asking for more skills for too long now. If you're implying that all they do is damage AP and stop zombies from platying, well WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO TO A ZOMBIE?? The only thing that can hurt a zombie right now is to damage their AP, and there simply aren't enough ways to damage a zombies AP. You waste time, AP, and ammo killing a zombie, and the only affect it has is a tiny loss of 6AP. All new Zombie Hunter skills would do is help even out the playing field and perhaps add variety to an aging game.. And 6AP really isn't nothing. I've been a zombie, being headshot was nothing to me because I knew I'd just get up. More time they can't play the game? BS. Chances are the zombie already has more than 6AP when you headshot it, so you're not really hurting it. It'll just get up and be back to whatever it was doing. I question how long you've actually played the game as well, because I've seen plenty of occassions where a zombie is revived, then comes back and does damage to the survivors in some way. It's not alays with a gun either, sometimes it's with a crowbar where they attack the barricades or generator. Reviving them is just stupid, and if we're supposed to revive them rather than shoot them, why even give us shotguns and pistols? Whats the point?

The only thing that is absurd is how meanginless it is for someone to ever shoot or revive a zombie. The worst thing you can ever do to them is keep them out of your safehouse or a mall, and hope you literally bore them into leaving you alone. I've fought the zombies and took place in mall sieges. It didn't take me long to realize what a pointless battle it was, and I just started killing people. I find that much more entertaining and find that killing a player actually has an effect on them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

You assume a lot and back up nothing. Reviving is a hassle to zombies, theres a reason the ones with the guns get the guns and it's because Zombies don't like being combat revived, is that so hard to understand? When the ratio swings to 70-30 it's sure as hell not because zombies are being killed. --Karekmaps?! 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviving is NOT a hassle to zombies. Are you unaware that there exists entire groups THAT THRIVE ON COMBAT REVIVES??? These groups and people count on people like you to go and combat revive them, then they return and kick your ass with guns. You're not damaing the zombies, you're damaging the survivors with combat revives. You think zombies haven't learned to adapt to combat revives? I laugh at you then. I'm sure a small percentage hasn't figured it out yet, but any zombie worth anything has adapted, and you're acomplishing nothing with combat revives. You're better off just shooting them and thinking to yourself "I REALLY OWNED THAT ZOMBIE WITH THAT 6AP STAND UP COSTS! HAHA! LOL! PWNT!!!". I'm not making assumptions. I'm stating the facts. Combat reviving DOES NOT WORK! Groups like Gore Corps just love it when you combat revive them. You're the one backing up nothing and making assumptions.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Laugh all you wish, the numbers support me, the fact that the Gore Corps were made, if you even know how they were made, support me. It's probably also time you realized the groups are the minority both in the game and of zombies. Most zombies are not in groups.--Karekmaps?! 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am laughing especially since you just told me I didn't back anything up, and then you turn around and continue to make claims like "DA NUMBAS SUPPORT ME!!!!!". I don't care about "numbers" anyway, I care about the simple fact that zombies have adapted to combat revives, and they are simply unstoppable as things are right now. I'm aware of how Gore came to be, and it proves my point about zombies adapting to the combat revives. Funny, apparently I don't back anything up yet you're the one who has addressed very few of my points. I address ALL of yours, you address few of mine. They are not the minority, you have to bear in mind that while most zombies are in groups, they are VERY well coordinated and expertly work together. It's no secret zombies coordinate better than actual players. With that being said, how can you tell me with a straight face that the minority of zombies have not adapted to combat revives? Do you honestly believe that?! If so you have my deepest pity. The majority have adapted, and it becomes apparent to me that you simply don't know as much about the game as you would have me think. I am aware that some zombies don't bother to turn PKer when they're human, rather, they just let a mob kill them. How is that effective? That still doesn't hurt the zombie as a mob will kill them in no time and earn XP for it. You're just wasting your own time and AP reviving them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Combat reviving works because of the simple fact that it's cheaper to do and more expensive to recover from than killing. You'll avoid PKing, GKing and other griefing as long as you don't act like a fucking moron and revive at random. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does no one even bother to read? I just told you it does NOT work and explained why it doesn't. I suppose it is cheaper than killing them but both are equally as useless. I said it before: Zombies can easily recover from Combat Reviving by simply jumping out of a window or letting a mob kill them. As I said before, there are also those that actually thrive on dumb fucks who combat revive. I fail to see how it is more expensive to recover from. It costs 1AP to stand up from being combat revived. they can't possibly spend more than 5AP getting themselves killed (They have half their HP when they stand up, genius), so we're looking at... 6AP. 6 FUCKING AP! THE SAME AS IF YOU HEADSHOT THEM! IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK! Why is this so hard to understand? Since none of you will fucking read let me break it down for you.

Numerous zombies actually thrive on combat reviving, as most people are discovering. They come back with a means to do damage to the survivors as humans. No one has really properly addressed this point either, save for Karek who merely claimed "DAT DOESNT HAPPEN!" when clearly it does. I saw it happening in both Giddings AND Creedy. It's happened to me in the past when I revived a zombie who had a boner for me. He came back AS A HUMAN AND KICKED ME IN THE BALLS! IT DOES HAPPEN! IT HAPPENS OFTEN! Combat reviving IS RETARDED! Zombies have learned to smash cades, generators, and survivor skulls when they get revived. THEY HAVE FUCKING ADAPTED! WHY ISN'T THAT SINKING IN?!

It does dick anyway because they just get themselves killed in some way or another if they don't decide to remain human. You're only wasting your OWN TIME AND YOUR OWN AP! I'm surprised you haven't figured this out for yourself yet. Why are you people so DENSE? I've never had to repeat myself like this to people before. What do you not understand? Is there something I'm not making clear enough?

Oh, I forgot to mention... I know about the whole "MAKE SURE THEY DUNT HAVE MILITARY SKILLS!!!!" and other crap mentioned in that link, I mentioned it a few posts back. Thats the only thing that really comes close to being effective, but it honeslty doesn't do much either, as they won't have a hard time getting themselves killed again and they'll be right back in there. And honestly, getting rid of a select group of zombies is ineffective anyway. I have done this before, and while I applaud people for trying to come up with ways to deal with zombies, the fact that such strategies have to be deployed proves that we DO need more Zombie Hunter Skills or something to help even the playing field between zombies and survivors. The fact that we're coming up with stuff like "ONLY REVIVE N00B ZOMBIES!" (which is basically what that link is doing, it ignores the advanced and much more dangerous zombies) shows how desperate survivors are for some effective method for combating zombies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

First, VSB tall buildings are quite a rare sight, so killing yourself is going to take a lot of AP because you have to find and get inside a tall building before you can do it. And if you were dumb enough and revived them outside a VSB tall building, they still have to spend at least 4 AP; stand up, enter, jump and stand up. Second, letting the horde eat you wastes an absolute minimum of 9 zombie-AP (stand up, 7 to kill with maxed bite, and then stand up again), while the average (with maxed claws) is somewhere around 17. It doesn't matter who loses the AP, it's that much AP which won't be used on taking down barricades or killing "real" survivors.
Sure, there's zombies who shouldn't be combat revived, but there's always some gun-toting trenchy who'll take care of them. Skipping them costs an extra AP, but combat revives are still a lot cheaper than killing because a single syringe is about as hard to find as a single shell or pistol clip in a powered mall (neither of which is enough to kill a zombie).
Once a building is cleared, we get to the real waster of zombie-AP: barricades. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

^Yes barricades are AP wasters for zombies, I mentioned earlier that the best way to deal with them is (literally) bore them to death by keeping a building caded. It's true that zombie AP will be spent killing the revived zombie, but they're also gaining XP for this. Bear in mind, the only way CPR works is if the zombies are low level, well if they let zombies gnaw on them, they're giving XP to those zombies, making the low levels a little stronger everytime. I never bothered to jump out of a building for the same reason you mentioned, however letting a mob kill you is the usual method, and it too is flawed. I am aware that reviving is better than killing, but being limited to only reviving weak zombies isn't very effective, and reviving the ones (like Gore Corps) who have the capability of killing survivors is obviously a dimwitted plan.

This leaves only barricades as the most effective AP waster for zombies, and to be blunt, thats boring. And not terribly effective itself, as once a single zombie has broken in, he leaves a path for more to follow. Thanks to the new update you're gonna have to kill them before the cades can be really worked worked on as well.

This isn't good enough though. We need a new Zombie Hunter Skill to help damage their AP and actually encourage us to use guns against zombies. After all, guns may as well not even be in the game if the only (current) effective method in eliminating them is syringes. Even syringes aren't terribly effective. It doesn't seem very balanced when a player has to stand in a cemetary and wait for a revive while a zombie can just stand up and be right back to work.

I'm finished on this subject though, as it is likely to be a back and forth affair and I simply don't have the time to waste on a back and forth debate on something I don't even care about. I don't have to worry about revives (Member of a group called CRASH, which has it's own line of revivers) and I never mess with zombies anymore. Waste of time. Let them take over Malton for all I care. They're simply too overpowered to deal with, and I find it much more entertaining to duke it out with players.

So keep using combat revives, and keep telling yourselves that UD is balanced. = )—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Actually, this is pretty much exactly the thing you should take my word on, there are few people who are more qualified to tell you that zombies killing Combat Revivers is a rare occurrence, but, since you obviously don't know enough to know that I would be the one in the know, let's do numbers.
Survivors uses 5-6 AP, finds a syringe I can tell you from both extensive personal experience and multiple resources that syringes find rates are 12.5% in an unpowered building and roughly 18-20% in a powered one. A single revive can be between 10-15 AP(and since Brain Rot is actually pretty rare unless dealing with a Select few groups it's more often 11 AP). Killing a Zombie with shotguns will take between 10-16 AP, with searching not included, with a flak jacket it will take 13, if you include search rates it's 5 AP per cartridge of ammo, 20 AP per fully loaded shotgun, Or, more realistically, it's about 12ish AP to get a loaded shotgun, as it's 1 loaded shotgun every 10 AP, partially loaded being half the finds and fully being the other half.And I actually think 12 might be a little generous to the reality, it's probably closer to 9ish..
Right there alone it already shows that syringes are more efficient as you need 5 fully loaded shotguns to kill a zombie, on average, if the zombie has a FLAK jacket or Body Building you won't even get that, and the 5 fully loaded comes out to about 50-60 AP. That means that you're spending 15-18 AP to revive(including searching up the syringes) a single zombie or 50-60 AP(including searching up the ammo) to kill a single zombie. All the difference to the zombie, as far as you're claiming, is 5 AP so why is it worth you spending 30-40 more AP than you have to? It isn't.
It isn't worth it because the difference to the zombie isn't just 5 AP, the difference to the zombie is a lot more than 5 AP, it's 5 AP when headshot, using the numbers Midianian mentioned above it's more than 5 AP for another zombie to kill a zombie. Significantly more as it's about 20 AP to kill a zombie with Body Building and 14 to kill a zombie without it, for a zombie that is. But, what is it to the zombie that's been revived? Well, it's a wasted day most of the time(when overbarricading actually helps) as not all zombies have Free Running, I'd actually go so far as to say the majority do not as it is a survivor skill and the majority of zombies are so low in levels that they were either killed dedicated survivors or have no survivor skills at all. At the very least it's the AP to stand+The AP to enter a building+The AP to free run to a tall building(usually an NT)+The AP to Jump+The AP to stand again. Bare minimum this is at least 1+1+0+1+1, or 4 AP, so even assuming the building you combat revive them at is a tall building that is VSB or lower you only save them 2 AP, such a situation is so rare that it's reasonable to say that it almost never happens, and/or you're a fool for reviving them at an entry point. Even if they have to move 1 square to find an entry point it adds -2 AP to the whole move, and thus making a minimum of 5-6 AP unless you, the combat reviver, is a complete fool. This means that Combat Reviving will have, at the very least, as much impact as shooting them with a shotgun did.
Now, since you love the Death Cultist argument lets poke holes in that boat while we're at it.
As was noted above, killing someone with shotguns, searching included, takes 50-60 AP. But that's misleading, as it assumes common non-flak, which is actually the case with zombies but not survivors. See, survivors can be expected to almost universally have Flak jackets as they are minimum encumbrance and surprisingly easy to find, that adds another 3 AP onto the average kill rate, and taking the same search rates from before that's about 15 more AP. So, to kill a single survivor, the revived zombie first needs to get 65-75 AP worth of ammo, then they have to go through roughly the same thing that a normal zombie does with the movement AP, except now you have to add on AP for locating the combat reviver, or survivors, I'll not do that and stick with minimums again.
Already our friendly Death Cultist has used up 70-80 AP, how woefully inefficient of them, but worse still since they are a survivor they also weaken the horde as a whole because they just lost 5% on barricades, are not absorbing wasteful gun AP, have spent an absurd amount of AP just so they can kill someone, and, most notably, do not provide the interference effect.
Death Culting doesn't hurt combat revives, unless, you happen to be in a building with less than 3 survivors per Death Cultist, which would be something you did to yourself. I've always said it and now I have shown you part of why I've always said it, Death Culting actively hurts zombie hordes.
If none of that helped make my point then maybe this will. Every single combat revived zombie who becomes helpful survivor can make up for 3-4 that don't, the history of the game ratio and the Feral Cloud effect both show that a large number of zombies in any large zombie group will become useful survivors when revived, enough that I can, with full confidence, tell you that 1:3 would be low. Combat Revives are as much a threat to survivors as zombies were unstoppable before the January 23rd update--Karekmaps?! 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you type 2 massive paragraphs just to tell me reviving is better than shooting? I fucking knew that, if you read anything I said YOU COULD SEE THAT I KNOW THAT! So you just wasted 2 paragraphs. It's part of the reason we need another zombie hunter skill. As of right now the most effective way to combat a zombie is a fucking barricade, and thats sad. The 2nd are syringes, and that is even sadder. Why the hell even put guns in the game if they are 100% useless against the official game enemy THE ZOMBIE? THEY MAY AS WELL TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE GAME! If we had a 2nd zombie hunter skill, we may actually be encouraged to shoot a zombie as opposed to sticking a needle in it. As of right now, guns only serve as a weapon for humans to kill each other with. I find it funny how you don't say much at all until I say I'm done on the subject. Then all of a sudden you throw up some huge paragraph (Half of which is you telling me something I already know) on the subject.

Also, most of the "Death Cultists" ALREADY HAVE GUNS! You're assuming they (for some reason) DO NOT! They may eventually have to spend about 40AP+ gathering ammo, but no more than. 40AP worth of ammo from a mall is more than enough to kill plenty of survivors. A horde of 500 zombies aren't going to lose much considering the revived one is in the mall KILLING THE ENEMY! Some of them destroy generators and weaken barricades as well. Does that not benefit the zombies? You claim they hurt zombies because they're survivors, and thats absurd and retarded. How are they hurting the horde just for being human WHEN THEY GO AROUND SMASHING CADES, GENERATORS, AND KILLING SURVIVORS? You act like this doesn't exist when it DOES!

As for this claim that revived zombies become helpful survivors... I never heard of that. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I never seen or heard of such a thing. So I can't comment on that. However I doubt that it's true because the majority of the survivors in this game are stupid and cannot work together. If you listen to the radio enough, you'll see retarded claims of CRASH being zergers SIMPLY BECAUSE CRASH USES TEAMWORK! This shows how survivors cannot seem to handle the concept of working together, and every dumb survivor does major damage to the whole group in a sieging mall. Now, I don't claim to know anything about the subject of "zombies turning into good survivors", but if the majority of the survivors are retards, is it not a safe assumption that a zombie turned survivor will be just as ignorant? Remember: Dumb survivors hurt everything.

I said before that I was done, as theres no reason for me to even care about the situation, and I am. I only replied this time because you typed up a nice long paragraph, and I didn't wanna leave it unaddressed. That, and the fact I have a real issue with not letting something go... I'm working on that one... =p

Let's reiterate.
You'll avoid PKing, GKing and other griefing as long as you don't act like a fucking moron and revive at random. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's like sex: if you don't watch where you're sticking it, you'll get shat on. Check their profile and the Rogues Gallery. If they're from a big zombie group, don't revive. If they're a PKer, don't revive. In other words, use your common sense... if you have it. --Aeon17x 15:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And try to understand that the weapons didn't just magically pop into the Death Cultist's inventory, they used AP on searching them earlier. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This guy appears to have no point other than general moaning about how survivors are weaker than zambahz (post update?). They're not, end of story. Bloody whingers! --Karloth Vois RR 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


With such staggering intelligent arguments being flung around here like shit in a zoo, I'm surprised UD isn't a full zombie game by now. Nice logic there "Karloth vois", I guess your reading skills are less than sub average, seeing as how plenty of points where made by the fellow complaining about the new zombie upgrades, where as the people he was arguing with could do nothing but ignore them, cover their ears and scream "LALALAALALALALAL NOPE NOPE!!! IM RIGHT UR WRONG LOLOL PWNED!!!". Idiots.

-Your father

My dear chap, Omega9's entire argument is based around the premise that killing zombies is ineffectual, given that they can just stand back up. He's absolutely right- it is an inefficient use of AP to kill zombies simply to damage them. Oddly enough, that (combined with barricades) is the very base mechanic of this game and the two sides. Harmanz have the advantage with barricades, zahmbaz have the advantage with straight kills/deaths. He's utterly missed the point that shooting zombies is only purposeful in order to regain the barricade advantage- by shifting them outside.
My point was that whinging about the new updates (which are generally loved in the metagame; even with most pro-survivors) is only going to irritate people. You seem to be after some flames- I can't be arsed. --Karloth Vois RR 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't know my entire argument, as I mentioned a large number of things. I made a lot of points, very few of which have ever been addressed, hence why I'm done with the whole argument. I can see that I'm wasting my time, because you're all the typical dumbasses who ignore all valid points and instead go off into their own little fucked up world.

I have plenty more arguments and points to use to back up my position, but when no one seems to read them (much less answer them) why bother? More so, I don't fight zombies anymore so I don't really have the right to be arguing in the first place. And "Your Father", I'm not complaining about the zombie updates if you're referring to me. Apparently you don't read either....

  • sigh*

Combat reviving is stupid and pointless. Combat reviving low level zombies wouldn't be helpful, but only detrimental to the survivor cause, since low levels have a higher chance of getting killed repeatedly in Urban Dead, and reviving them would be a waste of action points and revivification syringes. --Fido14 PP 01:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Combat reviving a low level zombie is actually a very SMART move. Its a very AP efficient way of turning a zombie into a corpse, and this a very fast way of clearing them out from inside a building (which is the only time its a "combat revive" and not a "random revive"). Low level zombies pose no threat when alive. It may cost them 10 AP to stand up as a survivor, and another 10 to stand up as a zombie when they die. Finding a tall building they can use for suicide costs some more AP. If they let other zombies kill them, they cost the zombie side even more AP than suicide does. Over all, CRing low level zombies is a win for the survivors. Heck, many low level zeds try to earn XP by finding and using medkits, which means they may be helping survivors! ‌‌‌ ☢ 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are unfortunately wrong. --Fido14 PP 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting him wont work. Where are your equations? Where are your arguments? in this case sweirs is correct. Reviving a low level zombie helps humans more than zom,bies, especially given that almost all tall buildings are maintained at EHB. There have actually been times in this games history where zombie players flat out advised new zombies to play human and get a few hundred exp before becoming undead. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti

the other day while tagging a factory, in stead of getting the normal message 'you spray #### here.' i got a message 'you improve your work' can anyone fillme in on this? it's not a building where i should gain xp from my taggin skill.

oh, and am i posting on the right page?--Jack13 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you spraypaint over your own graffiti you get message about "improving work". It's always been like this --~~~~ [talk] 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's funy, 'cause i was replacing a tag someone had covered the day before.--Jack13 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you really, really sure that wasn't you? --~~~~ [talk] 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Really, really sure. I only have two tags that i use, and i was covering a wraning from one group to another. --Jack13 14:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Its maybe possible you submitted the graffiti request twice by accident, either your own or a net glitch, and never saw a report for the first time you tagged. ‌‌‌ ☢ 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Swiers got it me thinks....--/~Rakuen~\Talk Image:domo.gif 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page and Template:Navigation

Moved from the Protection page-- Vista  +1  14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The newest "First time playing" template should be merged into navigation; as it is now - it's wasting space and streching page.

Please, remove it's table from Main page; for easiness i already remade how navigation template should look, here - just copypaste. I've also shuffled the Radio link in Game Information closer to phones link, as asked somewhere --~~~~ [talk] 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually personally I don't consider it an improvement as it messes the clean look of the other boxes. As it's the most trafficked page I'd say it can't hurt to discuss it on the main page' talk page first before we mess around with it.-- Vista  +1  14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What? Maybe there's some different browser issue, but i don't see where/how it messes other boxes. Please, provide a screenshot. As for discussing first, check here --~~~~ [talk] 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The lay-out is the same in FF as in IE, so I don't think it's a browser issue. The complaint seems purely about the fact that the boxes are at the bottom not that there are two extra lines of space because of the First time playing box that stretches the page. My problem is that your edit makes the boxes lose their alignment, it looks less tidy and more cluttered end thus more "UGH". Why not remove the First time playing box entirely in favor for a link in the main text for example?-- Vista  +1  17:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
1)I don't see any alignment change... 2)Because of reasons why the First Time was put there in the first place! Newbie won't find it there. --~~~~ [talk] 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is one, the boxes all line up with their tops in a nice row under the current version(with administration floating lower then the others), your's doesn't. I have no clue why it is different in that screen you provided but it is.--Karekmaps?! 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
So that's current layout that is wrong (browser-dependent displaying), not mine remaking... That proves that it should be changed at least to make it look ok anywhere. If you'll check the code - there's a lot of rowspans made for each cell, although table only has 1 row... Anyway, now that i've seen "top edges aligned" layout - i don't like it and find "center alignment" better --~~~~ [talk] 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually as they are supposed to line up with their tops in a nice row your's is wrong as well. Center alignment is a big change, and one for the worse IMO. Which browser and wiki skin are you using?-- Vista  +1  14:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Opera, default skin. I still don't find top-alignment good - ugly bottom lines and Admin's stuff ugly in bottom. --~~~~ [talk] 17:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


While we're on the subject, Template:Navigation could do with some updates - for details, see the last few sections of its talk page. --Toejam 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Front Page Warning Header

This wiki should have on the front page in clear red letters: "THIS GAME IS NOT FRIENDLY TO NEW PLAYERS, AND LETS HIGH LEVEL PLAYERS TAKE POTSHOTS AT LEVEL ONE PLAYERS SO THEY CAN LAUGH ABOUT IT AND PUSH EACH OTHER INTO BUSHES." - ZachsMind 11:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to rant about this, and no i do not believe such a thing will be put up. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! We dont all kill level one survivors and then push our friends into bushes. I push them into highly dangerous revacation needle piles. :P No, It wont ever be put on the front page. Not all of us do that, but some do so. The best and only thing you can do is move to a new suburb. Or leave the game. doc crook MM P 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably also not the place to respond to trolls, more suited to here--Karekmaps?! 14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
A zombie bit me in UD the other day. This game definitely sucks. --Daranz.t.mod janitor.W(M)^∞. 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not our fault they run out of AP and end up on the streets.. --Darth LumisT! A! E! FU! U 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Considering an Undeletion request...

Hi! ...If you couldn't tell, I'm entirely new here. If any of you happen to be zombies (The horror, the horror...!), could you kindly refrain from chewing on me for a while? I already had to carve up this one bugger who wouldn't let go of my arm, and now I'm quite out of AP. ...Silliness aside: I'm considering putting in an Undeletion request, but I'm not sure if I'm going to ask for the right page to be undeleted. I searched through the archive of deleted pages (Or at least, ones that were notable enough to warrant 'keep/delete' votes) and I believe I've found the page I was looking for:

Diaries of the Second Siege of Caiger Mall. It was reported in the deletion request to be blank - but the article I'm thinking of used to be linked from the Second Siege of Caiger Mall page. It included quotes, speeches, poetry, and other stirring reports of this unbelievably uplifting effort by survivors to hold Caiger against all odds, and, all in all, I valued it a great deal. If anyone knows which article I'm talking about, could you point me in the right direction by giving me the name, so I can submit a proper Undeletion request over at that section of the Wiki? Even if it might not come to anything, I figure that article had a big enough effect upon me (And others, I'm sure) so as to merit the insignificant effort it takes me to check around and try to find it, to say nothing of getting it back. Thank you in advance, whether you're able to help or not! --Kaoru Nagisa 13:32, 7 September 2007 (BST)

[edit] Survivor Stories

...Also, while I'm on the subject of articles that seem to have vanished, I distinctly recall one that had a lot of personal accounts of notable interactions between survivors. I found the new version of this page, but it didn't have this one story that absolutely warmed my heart when I first read it - this story about an individual who enters a building, and decides to spend the night there, despite a zombie already being there. He gives it a long speech, then curls up with a line similar to 'So, if you'll kindly refrain from eating me in my sleep, I'd be very grateful.' As I recall, he made it through the night. Although this certainly doesn't fit with the 'Survivors vs. Zombies', or even the ever-infamous 'Survivors vs. Survivors' motif that Urban Dead espouses, I thought it a very worthwhile story to have.

Especially after having recently had an experience such as this, myself...(My experience, in fact, has led me to trying to track down this one zombie-gal named Sesshamaru. I spent the night in a movie theater with her, and we talked long into the evening. She could've easily killed me, and a friend of mine who'd come to my rescue could've easily killed her, but I convinced my friend and Sessh to get along for the night. Considering she was a brain rotter and a member of the MOB, I'm quite proud of this, and would love a chance to speak with her again. If you spot her, try not to shoot her in the face. I'd hate to see it marred. Stick to side-headshots! ...Please. Anyhow. So, if anyone's got any information about this story, please respond and enlighten me.

Also, is there an area where I could possibly add an anecdote or two about the funny goings-on that occur in Malton? (Besides the 'Noteworthy x'-type pages, which I'd obviously have to be nominated for to get on, and besides the story pages. You gentlemen can pay the same rate the editors do if you'd like me to write for you. Hahaa...only kidding, there, magazines and newspapers that use my work have yet to pay me even one red cent...) Once more, thank you in advance for even sitting down and reading all of this. --Kaoru Nagisa 13:32, 7 September 2007 (BST)


[edit] Advertising box is not big enough

I am using firefox with text size increased from "normal" by one. The google ad box on the left does not expand and so it cuts off the advertising text. Since Kevan earns money from clicks you might want to fix this. Bubba 21:16, 22 September 2006 (BST)

Hmm. Never noticed that, but yeah. Unfortunately, Kevan is the only one who can fix that, as far as I know. I'll put something to his talk page. --Brizth M T 21:23, 22 September 2006 (BST)
There's no way to expand the box without eating into precious space used by the rest of the wiki's articles. The wiki looks attrocious enough at 800x600. If the box were made larger or dynamically resized itself, *shudder* I pity whoever has to have it at that resolution with enlarged text. Believe you me; there are people who have to suffer that — it's just a matter of whether they use the wiki… –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:07, 23 September 2006 (BST)

[edit] Generator Map?

Would it be possible to have a map of Malton showing suburb and % of lit blocks? From there, you could click on a suburb to bring up a map of it showing lit and unlit buildings. It would be quite easy to maintain, since everyone would just edit in their safehouse's status plus the surrounding blocks and Zeds could do the same with whatever they're sieging. --Heretic144 03:20, 27 March 2007 (BST)

It would be a helluva lot of work, requiring individuals be responsible for each safehouse, and probably horribly out of date. However, I certainly won't stop you from trying!--Karloth Vois RR 18:48, 27 March 2007 (BST)
I'm not computer skilled enough to set it up myself. I do have some ideas of how to keep it updated though...you would create an alt every day and have them sweep a suburb, noting genny status, and update the map, let the alt fade out and never attack or anything with it. You would be throwing the hordes a bit of fresh meat, but also collecting valuable information.-Heretic144 00:53, 29 March 2007 (BST)
It would be a TOTAL pain in the ass to set up. The NT Status Map attempts somthing similar, but only for NT buildings. It took a lot of work to set up, and you are talking about maybe 50 times as much information. Its also unlikely that it would get suitable updates; the NT Status Map often has incorrect info.
Your Alt Sweep idea has a few faults; its a lot of work, and it chews up people's IP hits. I haven't heard from a SINGLE person who wanted to join the Necro-Cartographers, an I only need 22 to get all the info I want. You'd need more like 50-80 to get the same level of coverage for every building in the city, plus even better co-ordination than I propose for the NT mappers.
There's ways to do this, but the wiki is not the ideal tool for it. And yeah, even more than is the case with the NT Status Map, the info would be more use to zombies than survivors, so there's no likely reason survivors would want to co-operate in collecting it if zombies could access it. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 03:13, 1 April 2007 (BST)
whooooooooa... the alt idea is ZERGING, folks, c'mon!!!.... --WanYao 04:08, 6 August 2007 (BST)
Meh. Not really any more so than using a zombie who has lurching gait (and ankle grab, ideall) for the same purpose would be. Sure, the zombie isn't a throw-away alt, but the net effect is exactly the same. Well, except the survivor can enter buildings. But then, the zombie WILL get revived. Trust me on that... ΔΔΔ Swiers  16:14, 6 August 2007 (BST)
you would create an alt every day and have them sweep a suburb, noting genny status, and update the map, let the alt fade out and never attack or anything with it ... in my book that's alt abuse... maybe i'm a minority of one, oh well... i still think it's alt abuse. --WanYao 04:34, 7 August 2007 (BST)
This map already exists for the northwest, located here [1], and it is reguarly updated with generator status (among other things) by the NecroTech Junkies group. You're welcome to organise a group that creates and maintains a similar thing for the other 3 quarters of Malton. --Generator killer 13:11, 28 August 2007 (BST)
Yyak! It's so much not comfortable --~~~~T''' 14:41, 28 August 2007 (BST)

[edit] 50 HP (well, 42) In One Go?

And on a final note, was a skill added to the game that allowed a player to heal someone back to full in one action, without the use of a medipack or a 'You were healed by x' message? I was recently in Fort Creedy. After a trip to the local Revive Point (to try and speak with Sesshamaru, who'd been hanging around there, and who I'd asked to meet me there) I returned to the Fort - infected, and nearly out of AP. I stumbled into the Infirmary with only eight HP remaining, and then used a few AP to state that I was badly wounded and infected, and would deeply appreciate any medical help anyone could provide. I also apologized for how abrupt and demanding I was being, but explained that I simply didn't have the strength (AP, meta-game-wise) to say much more.

Unable to do anything, I left it alone for a while - went on with my day, and all that jazz. When I returned, though, I had a single message reported - no other actions, and I know my browser didn't refresh that page while I was busy. It was a simple "You're welcome." from a player whose profile identified them as reasonably high-level. I was very confused by this, until I looked at my HP, and realized it was full, again - not only that, but I'd been cured of my infection. (I think I might've even had a bonus AP, but if so, I immediately used it to say 'thank you, very much!', and a few other things, to the individual I only now realize probably wasn't there anymore, and couldn't have heard me, even if he was.)

...Suffice to say, I'm still puzzled. Even worse, this happened before I had iWitness, and the data (including the profile data for the fellow who healed me) expired from both my temporary-file cache and my history before I could retrieve it. I have no proof that this happened - only a burning curiousity as to whether I've somehow missed out on a skill that I can't even see on my own skill tree, but one that must exist, considering it was used on me. For the third time, now, thank you in advance for any information or assistance. --‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉ Kaoru Nagisa 13:32, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Somehow you missed the messages where you where healed. When healing in powered Hospital/Infirmary with Surgery skill one can restore 15HP with 1 FAK, so it would be at least 3 heals you recieved --~~~~[Talk] 17:15, 7 September 2007 (BST)
I'd like to believe that I somehow missed the message - and if that's the only explanation, then I must have, somehow. All three of them, even - though I can't even imagine having somehow missed at least three consecutive messages. I know about surgery (though didn't know that it worked in infirmaries as well as hospitals), and I still maintain that it wasn't used in this instance. Are you sure there's no other possibility? ...regardless, thank you very much for the info, especially about surgery being usable in infirmaries! --‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉ Kaoru Nagisa 22:52, 7 September 2007 (BST)
Yes, i'm sure --~~~~ [Talk] 07:54, 8 September 2007 (BST)
It's also worth noting that simular messages get grouped. you might have missed a single message that stated: X healed you for 15 points ...and again ...and again. that would be easier to miss.-- Vista  +1  18:10, 8 September 2007 (BST)

[edit] Alt Characters

What is the maximum number of alt characters you can have? I have quite a few (10), and I am just wondering. And is it possible for me to request to have several of them deleted? --Vkkhamul 21:52, 30 September 2007 (BST)

One can have as many alt character as you like I suppose, but you must be careful not to move them within close proximity of one another. Also, no, characters can not be deleted. However, if you do not log into a character for a few days, I believe five, the character will be removed from the game until logged back in. As such, the character merely exists as an ID and interacts in no way in-game. --TSG reads Daily Ruminations - You should too! 22:25, 30 September 2007 (BST)

[edit] Main Page Layout = Ugh..

Is it just my browser, or are all the information tables and guide pushed to the bottom of the Main Page?! I don't think the newbies would appreciate that.. --Vkkhamul 01:54, 18 October 2007 (BST)

"First time playing" template is the cause. It should be better floating... --~~~~ [talk] 17:58, 18 October 2007 (BST)
What's wrong with it? (Screenshot would help.) I'd suspect it's something to do with your screensize or browser. Looks fine to me on firefox -- boxy • talk • 13:40 13 November 2007 (BST)
In discussion there is screenshot how it looks for me... i'm not sure what was Vkkhamul's issue any more. --~~~~ [talk