Talk:Strike For Syringes

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Please leave a name and timestamp to avoid trolling and to be polite
Forgot how? The second button from the right does it automagically.

'NB: This change will only affect reviver characters / groups, and will not impact on regular NecroTech. XP harvesting comments are secondary to the AP cost issue - the reason this organisation was brought about was the massive increase in AP cost, no others.'

Members Who Support This Strike

  1. I see sections for members who oppose the strike, why are there not places for members who are sympathetic to the strike? --Theblackgecko 05:22, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Fixed this by putting in places for members who support the policy. I put the members who support the strike first, due to the debate tradition that the affirmative side is allowed to go before the negative side.--Theblackgecko 05:31, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    I didn't add in a section for Sympathizers because I didn't add in the "Members against the Strike" section either. It was added by someone else and I'm loathe to remove it. In either case, you can note your solidarity by adding us as your group affiliation in your UD profile and spread the word that; hopefully sensible people, don't believe this alteration helps the situation. Quasispace 08:25, 29 March 2006 (BST)

-Moved from SFS Page
Reasons-

  1. I agreed when the zombies went on strike for a better game role. And I still believe that the game is unfairly baised to the survivors. Even after the revive being nerfed. I'm sorry to say this, but making reviving 11-30 ap use is not helping anyone. The problem is not that there are too many good survivor skills, its that there are too little zombie skills. You won't be able to achieve anything by forcing survivors to stay dead. --Fireswordfight 01:00, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  2. At first, I was sympathetic to but not entirely for the strike. This new 10 AP cost for revival is ridiculous, but people out there still need revives. But as I think about it more and more, I'm thinking I'm in on this. If you zombie players want to bitch about a population imbalance, I hope you get it. Let's see how fun the game is once the majority of players are zombies who can't find survivors to kill because the survivor players are all waiting for revives that'll never come. --Arcibi 04:01, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  3. It's been 3 days, and I've had two zombies waiting for revives for those three days. (1 at a revive spot, 1 inside the damn NT building!) I've been headshot 5 times, dispite being perfectly revivable and all were at the outside revive spot. I was even standing alone for two days, no rotters around. I've had another char wandering the city, trying to revive people, but because deaders sit on top of stacks of zombies, it's hard to not waste AP and syringes. It's frustrating because you spend 4 days gathering syringes to wander around and clean up a neighborhood and now I'll have to switch to killing zombies again, which they'll just stand up again for 1 AP. Not everyone wants to play as a group, or a zombie, or the repeated 'play smarter' mantra that most of the zombie players are saying. It will impact the casual players, cause once they're dead, they're stuck dead unless they hang around a NT building for 3 days. And by that time, they lose interest in the game, and quit. I currently 'play' like 9 'moves' a day most days, make syringes, which isn't really fun, but it's better than clicking search 50 times while waiting for the slow website to reload. But now stack on top of it that I need to play a 'outside' day where I make sure I have enough AP to access necronet, go outside, revive some people (who are most likely waiting for my services), then try to find someway back inside the building so I can get one last syringe in? Yeah, what if I screw up and submit a revive twice, then i'm stuck outside with negative AP. Plus, it's more likely I'll go over the '160 AP a day', which is aggrivating. Anyway, just my two cents, but until it's fixed, my 75 some syringes will stay holstered. (yes, I combatted revived alot, it was the only way to take down a massive force without joining a large group, and I don't feel like getting organized. Most humans are independant.) --GoNINzo 23:11, 31 March 2006 (BST)
    • Yep, it was the only way for one person to drop a massive force in one playing session. So sorry that you lost it, and that your 75 some syringes won't end up decimating the local horde in a day and a half.--Guardian of Nekops 05:29, 1 April 2006 (BST)
      • Yep, they will all have to spend 4 AP each to recover. versus the 21 plus move I need to make the syringe. OHNOS!--GoNINzo 20:27, 3 April 2006 (BST)
        • 4 AP if they have Ankle Grab and are right next to a building high enough to jump from that they can get into (most zombies don't have free running, and most barricades are past very strongly). Without Ankle Grab it's 20 AP just to stand up twice, and without a handy building they wait outside for their friends to kill them, which might not take a lot of AP but certainly can take a lot of real time, especially if you've also revived every other zombie in the suburb. Almost like waiting for a revive, sometimes; it can take hours in balanced suburbs, and in survivor-controlled suburbs I've survived for three days at a time, intentionally walking into the middle of hordes, with people who were trying to help out a fellow survivor killing the zombies attacking me and healing me up with FAKs in quite an amazing fashion (not that I'm complaining about that, I appreciate the effort anyway). In short, don't assume it's trivial to be Combat Revived if you've never been on the other side.--Guardian of Nekops 22:03, 3 April 2006 (BST)

i did support this but now i dont. realisticly would you actually expect survivors to win in a zombie apocalipse. Really. have a think about it. annon

I support this strike. Keep on not reviving!--Morzas 06:23, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Thumbs up. --Qwertyu63 14:29, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Members Who Want to Strike But Know Better

  1. 10AP is far too much. If there is a problem, and there is not, 5AP is more reasonable. I saw some other good ideas on a forum with making it 10AP to Revive in a building filled with 50 or more HUMANS. 10AP to revive in a Mall, PD or Hospital. 1AP for every level of the one being revived (up to 10AP) so new players don't get hosed because no one wants to waste their 30AP on them. There are far better alternatives than the 10AP cutting humans off at the knees. BUT Humans will only get hosed by going on Strike. Because of the Last Strike, we can now only shout to the closest 50 people in a building. If we strike, we will only further hurt ourselves.--NathanDansforth 21:19, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  2. I want to strike, but I can not do it. People still need to be revived, and I will tough through this until something happens. I must admit, I am kind of pissed off that I searched for a week for 15 syringes and I can not go out and use them all in one shot. So anyone thinking about striking should not do it because of the simple fact that people still need to be revived. I am not opposed to the strike, I believe in what you are saying, but, like I have said, there are dead survivors who need to be revived.--TheBigT 23:58, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  3. I don't like this change for a reason I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. It is not fun. Right now, scientists can basically do three things. They can DNA scan, which isn't fun because it doesn't do anything useful, it's just a way to gain experience. They can revive people, which isn't fun because it costs too much AP. Healing people is fun, because it requires strategy to get the most out of it, and is a valuable skill to help people survive. If I play a combat character than I can take fifty actions every day. But if I play a scientist (like I am playing right now) then I can only do three things a day? I don't like actions that cost a lot of AP because it means that you can't play the game and do things as much. Which, as I mentioned, isn't fun. Maybe this change is needed for balance, so I'm not going to say that it should be removed, but further things need to be done to balance the game now that scientists are barely playable. I think that DNA scan should allow you to identify individual zombies, to make it actually useful instead of just a way to gain experience so that you can do something that's actually fun. Also, scientists should be able to buy a skill that reduces the AP cost of reviving. And lastly, more science skills should be added to give scientists further support roles. By the way, I agree that people should test out the change and see how it effects the game before striking, but no tests are necessary to determine that actions requiring huge AP investments at once are not fun. --EvilRoeSlade 22:45, 30 March 2006 (BST)
  4. I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, the AP cost for a revival is now rather high. On the other, in terms of game balance this is a definite improvement. Combat reviving was getting ridiculous. Regardless, I don't think striking is the right way to get a change. The reason the original strike worked is that it had massive support. This strike obviously doesn't. Besides, striking loses its effect if you throw down your weapons/syringes/corpses every time something changes. To summarise: I agree with the grievances behind the strike (although I can see the other side's point of view), but not with the strike itself. But good luck getting a change through. --Alcoholic 00:33, 1 April 2006 (BST)
  5. I'm all for the strike, but I'm not going to personally partake in it. Because newbie NTs are now basically nerfed, they need to find other sources of XP. It's most likely they take to healing, and that they'll get Diagnosis as their next skill. That's fine with me, but now nobody's reviving. I'm putting down my guns and I'm going to be reviving all around the Fort Creedy area. If you need a revive desperately, you should go to the Creedy Intelligence Tool(http://cdf.aypok.co.uk/public/) to get one much faster, especially around the Creedy area. To sum it up, I support those who strike, but in order to keep us all alive, I'm going to focus on reviving until something has changed. I don't need anymore skills - well, I could use some more, but they're not needed to survive - so I'll just sacrifice my AP for others. -Erados 21:49, 1 April 2006 (BST)
  6. This simply makes being a NecroTech employee an even wose option than it already is, with civillians becomming NecroTechs, but keeping all the good things about being civillians (100XP for every skill). I completely agree with the aims of the strike, but nobody has really put forward a good case for cyber-striking actually being anywhere near as good as actual real-life striking. And because bosses never take any notice of real life strikes, how can we expect Kevan to give a damn about this strike? --Otware 18:27, 3 April 2006 (BST)
  7. I'm for, but as someone already should it should be something like 1 AP for every level you have until you reach level ten, when it stops at ten. If this rate keeps up without upgrades for humans zombies will kill everyone, causing a very boring game. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Peterblue 20:28, 21 April 2006 (BST).
  8. Hello I know that this idea has been ignored for years -as all those who would relieve survivors from the blatant game unfairness griefing them even more with each update- but it came to a point that survivors are curently facing complete extinction again, whole Malton is turning red suburbs, not really the best moment to go on strike, but I support the idea of restoring a non exagerated AP cost, because we need it before playing this game as survivor becomes a nonsense (isn't it already?)
    Objections? Oh it is just to easy to answer that I just have to shut up and go play another game as the other disgrunstled survivors now inactive players.
    Or will you say I have just to play as a zombie? Did I mention that to be able to help survivors and do anything good I had to start as a zombie? level 1 survivors are just extra zombie food in current situation.
    But my goal is that survivors dont die, and for that you need at least a high level survivor alive who can start revive people. Playing "Urban Undead" zombie wars wouldnt bring back anyone to life. NT syringues as the only way to make the difference between Malton survival or total annihilation, are a very sensible feature that cant be nerfed tenfold without huge consequences (from which this huge contribution in discussion thread sorry but I have to be bold).

    First remark: combat revive has little impact on those who absolutely dont want to be revived as it doesnt affect hundreds of brainrotted zombies with Brianrot being a cheap upgrade now. Almost all NT buildings are in zombies hands and brainrotted from hostile groups are well known to often pk or spy when they are revived, so no one wants to revive them anyway (even the big pricks will like wasting less ap reviving another) and it is way easier to die than to be revived!

    Second why all updates took almost into account only the point of view of the already favored protagonists. They also cant face extinction: Its amazing to see how so much care is given with almost every game update to boost zombies and to nerf survivors constantly while existing game features already made it impossible for zombie to disappear but very likely to survivors to disappear entirely.
    Even if all Malton started filled with only survivors, there would be hundreds of the same deathcultists and prohostile zombies ever-wiki-lobbyists and fake "survivor" yesyesmen, who would just jump by towers windows or mass murdering anyone, well its the hobby of certain KOS guys even now anyway.

    Third By the way if you are a survivor and fear the undeads and pkers in their strike breakers costumes and restrain from voting it will only make them stronger, they will kill you anyway, they threatening you on a poll, its an abusive behaviour, dont make them stronger by accepting more unfairness in this already unbalanced game. So support massively you needn't strike just support.

    Fourth: Enough of this updates that seem to force people playing as zombies! (constant survivors nerfing in skills efficiency and cost, innovative and efficient new skills zombie side only such as digestion, infected bite, fleshrot as incentive to take brainrot etc)Survivors have being griefed enough for playing the way they wanted to.

    Fifth Tenfold AP cost goes against common sense and many game balance do nots

    Sixth: Survivors rely on each other just to be able and continue playing their favorite style, increasing tenfold a cooperative skill AP cost can be perceived only as an obvious attempt to break survivors solidarity and favor their enemies once more and finaly seventh: revive is the survivors only hope against complete extinction! Extinction is near! Wake up before it is too late! Please Support your side! Sarkomance 06:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Members Who Do Not Support the Strike

  1. Against - There are two issues here- those that believe that the XP bonus should be increased for reviving your friends, and those that believe that the AP cost should be eliminated. Your group should specify what it stands for first. Karlsbad 00:07, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Agreed. Have written the aims and hoped resolution. Slavedriver 00:51, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  2. Against - We need to bring back the mark I Seriously guys, stop being such whining little craps Mpaturet 00:20, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Roll on MKIII. Someone has suggested a slow-acting serum that works after a given number of actions, to try to stop combat reviving. Mark I tended to just give a free lunch, sadly. Slavedriver 00:51, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Please remain civil. Quasispace 08:40, 30 March 2006 (BST)
  3. Against - I have a few issues. First, low level Scientist class characters have FAK healing, Scanners, and less importantly, Tagging from which to gain XP. They shouldn't be out reviving, because revives have never been an XP gaining device. The AP cost modification for revives doesn't change that fact. Revives are for bringing players back to the living, they aren't meant to be a level-gaining skill in my opinion. Syringes, especially after manufacture were simply too common; players could literally be revived multiple times in one day, and the convenience of Necronet Syringe manufacture meant that more survivors would take the (drastically less) time to stockpile syringes, and many players now could simply nab a syringe while passing through a NT Building. The new change really only effects in a major way players using NecroNet to stock up almost literally dozens of syringes and then reviving entire queues at once. The casual player who only revives his friends is mostly unaffected, and there is only a slight inconvenience to people who would work revive lines - as they can still make syringes for two days, then come out and revive 4 people on the third. Combat revives are essentially removed from play with the upgrade, which I dare say is a good thing. As a final note, It's only been 5 hours since the change has been implemented from my time of writing - It would be prudent to wait to see what the actual effects of said change are before coming out and arguing against it. Nubis 02:11, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Going completely away from the Topic, Scientists are horrible at gaining XP. For a NT you have a Scanner and have to locate a Zombie that hasn't been scanned yet(Depending on when you log in, a trevail unto itself). For a Doctor you have to spend time finding FAKs and then Humans that are hurt (You don't gain XP for healing yourself). Tagging is barely better than the Reading mentioned above and REQUIRES you buy the Tagging Skill to get 1 XP for a tag. Which results in Scientists having the slowest progression up the Skill Tree. Since this isn't the point of this group let's avoid further discussion on this point.
    Back to the topic of this Group, We Don't Care about the XP, it's useful as a comparison to other activities. It's a secondary issue. Our Primary Complaint is that 10 AP to use a Syringe is excessive. A Character has already spent 20 AP to make a syringe or sometimes 30+ to find one(I've spent 50 AP and not found a single Syringe). The Change imposes another 10 AP to even use it. For a Scientist, 20 AP is not a drop in the bucket. You don't just run in and "nab" a syringe. The current change has me spending about 1 Full Day of AP just to help 1 person. Have you ever waited in a 100+ queue of zombies waiting to be revived? I've spent a Week waiting and comtemplating just plain quitting. I know people who quit just because they couldn't get a revive.
    Prudence may be a virtue, But we're taking a stand and showing everyone what this change means. Clearing the Queue sounds fast, but the person who clears a 40+ queue has spent ~20 Days making enough Syringes for that day. Does that seem like a Quick effort? How many people die per day? How Many People have the Lab Experience to use a Syringe? So am I going to waste 1 Day to Revive my Friend or the Random Newbie? (Ignore the fact that for 1 Day I just earned 5 XP) Quasispace 03:23, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  4. Against - Actually, I support the strike, but you don't have a place for that. </sarcasm> I look at it this way: With all you blasted whiners dropping out, there will be that much less people doing the reviving, in addition to the "problems" this is going to cause already. That means us zombies will be roaming the map killing everything in sight, so when you people finnally do come back, you'll be up against overwhelming odds! Hooray! My advice? Play the game, stop wasting your syringes on zombies that might be rotters, and save them for people you know. Mia Kristos 01:31, 29 March 2006 (GMT)
    Except that Joe Newbie who doesnt have anyone in the game that knows him gets killed, and no one will revive him because no one knows him, or even knows he needs one. (No Username or Timestamp :( )
    1.) Wouldn't hurt to, you know, actually PLAY a zombie for a bit. 2.) If they're that Desperate, they'll find the forums or some other place to request it. --Mia Kristos 04:53, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  5. Against - As a member of Malton Science Group, I disagree with the claim that revives ever were a valid XP gaining tool for young survivors. It is patently not true. Most of my levelling up as a NecroTech came from DNA Scanning, followed by Healing once I could afford Diagnosis. Both activities have always been far more AP-efficient than reviving as a means of earning XP.
    Furthermore, the strike fails to examine the positive effects of the change for scientist characters. Primarily, the extra AP cost forces specialisation. With the debut of Syringe Manufacture, a large number of maxed-out survivors -- survivors who did not play scientists but had nothing else to spend AP on -- bought the new skill and began stocking up on syringes during slow combat times. These survivors began performing a lot of the revivification work that previously had been the domain of scientists, the only players dedicated enough to risk the frustration of the RNG in searching NecroTechs for 50 AP day after day. Now, those same survivors will have to think carefully about whether to spend their AP on reviving or on combat. My guess is most of them will choose combat. Thus, the niche for dedicated scientist characters in the revive system has reopened. I expect a lot of dedicated revivers will be much less frustrated by walking to a revive point only to discover that someone else with 20 stored syringes revived the whole queue. The revive love will be spread around a bit more now.
    Finally, as a zombie, I resent the implication that zombie "complaints" following Caiger II or the dissolution of the Seagulls had anything to do with the recent change. Both events are very, very recent, and Kevan, as we all know, tends to act slowly. This is not a criticism, it is a compliment. He has always been very careful to weigh the situation before introducing major changes like this. If you want my opinion, the real cause of the change to revives is the precipitous drop in zombie population that followed the introduction of Syringe Manufacture. This drop is not an anecdotal observation, it is fact, compiled from close scrutiny of the UD Stats page[1]. The revive change is Kevan's attempt to fix a gross imbalance in the revive system as it was, not a knee-jerk response to zombie whinging. furtim 03:05, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Furtim, by the same token you could say that the initial Headshot Skill introduction wasn't a Knee-Jerk Response either. Version 1 of the Headshot was widely criticized and rightly so. The XP damage made the game no fun to play as a zombie. I'm not trying to say that alteration isn't needed, but the severity of this one is too great. (I've responded to the XP comment in an above comment and don't want to waste more space by repeating it.) Quasispace 08:25, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Your comparison completely falls apart, because XP Headshot was turned into AP Headshot after the former had been in place for months. You're calling for a strike hours after the game news got out. This is so not the same that it isn't even funny.
    Furthermore, the severity isn't nearly as bad as the strike assumes. It's not a question of 1 vs 10 AP for a revive, but rather 21 vs 30, once searching/manufacturing is factored. Only a 43% increase in AP expenditure, hardly "severe". Furthermore, consider a dedicated reviver with a nigh-infinite supply of zombies to revive. After he uses his full supply of syringes, he was down to two revives per day: 40 AP to make two syringes, 2 AP to actually revive, and the remaining AP are for travelling to/from the revive point. With the new change, he's down to four revives in three days (two days manufacturing, one reviving), or 1.3 revives per day. This is not "severe". You guys are getting severely confused by the number 10 popping up, when there are more factors at work.
    However, the overwhelming factor is FOR GOD'S SAKE IT'S BARELY BEEN 24 HOURS WE DON'T KNOW HOW BAD IT IS YET. furtim 20:28, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  6. Against - Rotter's Relief, a full-servive revivification clinic, opposes this strike. We do not believe this obsoletes NTs, from either an RP or game mechanic perspective. Revivification is not and never was a viable option for experience gain, with an original XP:AP efficiency of 0.24, and now 0.16. Experience efficiencies are much better for DNA extraction (4), dumping bodies (1), and First Aid (0.625, 0.714 with bargain hunting).
    Rotter's Relief strongly opposes the strike's policy of ZKing because this is pure griefing. Instead, we encourage striking players, zombie or otherwise, to gather in a central location as a show of numbers and solidarity. ism 02:49, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    -Moved from Members against Section Quasispace 03:23, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  7. Against - We the zombies wholeheatedly support your plan. No revives just makes things easier for us! You idling out and leaving UD will get rid of the moaners and groaners who bitch over every survivor nerf, and being ZKed means that we don't have to worry about being headshot! Thanks!
    P.S. - Don't items B and C contradict each other? You can't ZK if you don't log in... --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:26, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Have to say, this is a massive kick in the teeth to revive players... if it were reduced to even 5AP that would be playable, but 10AP is ridiculous. I'll be logging in every so often to shoot / stand up and moan (as applicable), but I wish you greens the best of luck; try not to leave stains on the city. PS - Bloody picky zombies. ¬¬ Slavedriver 00:54, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  8. Against I agree wholeheartedly with theteeheemonster, and would like to extend an invitation for you meatba-err poor persecuted fellows to come to wray heights for a good old fashioned feast strike--Mpaturet 00:35, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  9. Against Moan about occasionally being outnumbered.' Try always outnumbered. But hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Petrosjko 00:47, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    well if the 800 or so Zombies that idled out outside of Caigar stood up and left... Conndraka
  10. Against Let them whine. I suspect most employees of NecroTech, such as myself, will sigh, shrug, and continue their daily fight for life. Besides, the "OMG NO XP" argument makes no sense, as nearly everyone knows DNA Extraction can net you 60 XP in a day if you're in a moderately infested area. They'll live with it. Or they won't. And if they won't, hey! More zombies. Gabriel Nox 00:54, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  11. Doesn't Care - And the rarer the revives, the more zombies there will be standing around for DNA extraction. XP problem solved! Edit: When I wrote this comment, it was not under a "Members Who..." section. I actually don't give a crap about the strike one way or the other. And, just so you know, putting two lines between #'s prevents the numbered list from formatting correctly. --Dickie Fux 01:57, 30 March 2006 (BST)
  12. The thing is, it already takes 20+ AP to get a syringe. It's already a big hassle to get one, and now we need to spend an extra 9? An extra 4, fine, maybe I can deal with that, but 30 AP to revive someone, plus getting to the NT buolding and to the revive point and such is just too much. --Ju Ju Master 01:03, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  13. Against - Do you have any idea how much AP it takes to kill a survivor? Let's do the math, shall we? Maxed out claw does 3 damage. A human with bodybuilding has 60HP. Therefore it would take 20 hits to kill that human. Now a zombie's claw attack has a 50% chance to hit, meaning 40 AP must be spent. Tangling grasp can be negated, as it is lost as soon as another zombies attacks, making it next to useless in a large siege. So if it takes 40 AP to kill a human with 60HP, and 34 or so AP (including going outside, etc) to revive them, this is a lot more balanced than the way it used to be. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:58, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    That si true, but it not only uses a lot of AP on the reviver, but also the person being killed. If you add the penalty of the 10 AP, plus the 2 AP lurches to find a reviver, plus the time it takes, then add the previous 25 AP needed tor evive him, it's pretty fair. I agree that dying shoudl ahve consequences, since it is dying, right, but it's not like zombies have a hard time when they die. (Just for the record, I'm not one of the people going on strike, I think that's just dumb, I'm just stating my opinion) --Ju Ju Master 03:06, 29 March 2006 (BST)
    Except you forget that it is possible for a charachter to be killed from full health with a Flak vest in 8 AP. I've done it. I've had it done to me. But thats beyond the point, Dunell Hills has about 350 awaiting revival after those glowing guys ate our lunch... Thats going to take a while even if the Zeds in the area didn't attack any scientists that move into the area to do revives... Conndraka
    Condraka - Can you explain to me how a zombie can kill someone in 8 AP? Pretty please? 4 X 8 = 32, and 3 X 8 = 24. Neither of these are full health. I'm not talking about PKers here. And what ever happend to the "Humans store AP for stronger attacks" mantra? Do PKers not count as survivors? Did their ammunition and weapons materialize out of nowhere? Ju Ju - Your argument ignores the survivors who buy ankle grab/lurching gait. But if you really want to nitpick, I'll add in getting through the barricades. A maxed out barricade has 17 levels. There's a 20% chance to destroy one for each attack. 17 X 5 = 85 AP. I'll be nice and subtract 25 AP it took to put those barricades up. That's still 60 AP just to get to the target, not including the killing. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:39, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  14. Against - Well, that didn't take long. Guys, if you're going to strike, at least wait a couple days before you start attempting to rally support. Right now you're acting like some doomsday profits, declaring the end of the world when you haven't even given any time for the effects of the change to show up. --Velkrin 01:21, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  15. Against - Don't let the barricades hit you in the ass on the way out. Seriously, experienced players have been calling for some time for a reduction in syringe efficacy. Don't you want death to be a little scary, a bit more than an inconvenience -- this being a zombie apocalypse and all? By the way, you can add my horde, Ars Requiem to the list of groups who disbanded because making any kind of a dent in the fast-food revive culture of Malton had become a hopeless affair. --John Ember 02:55, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  16. Against - Death had become no problem at all to survivors which is absurd. This change punishes reckless playing styles and encourages the development of the human metagame. - Davedavinson 08:14, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  17. Against - I am totally for the new change, it gives death a bit more.. Fear. --Dark Wingstalker W! 15:51, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  18. Against - Boy, there sure is a lot of people on this side. I'll give proper reasons later. -- Andrew McM W! 22:29, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  19. Against - This change has been a long time coming. Do you people realise that recently one third of the bodies littering Malton at any one time were being revived? Anyway, the revive lines are still going strong, and this cuts combat revives down to size. I honestly don't know what you guys are complaining about; you can still revive four zeds a day, each. You just have to think about it now, and be careful. --Guardian of Nekops 04:41, 30 March 2006 (BST) Edit: Also, I find it quite notable that I am still being regularly Combat Revived. Being the nice zombies I am, I go straight outside to be eaten instead of killing the fool who revived me, but the point is that harmans are still wasting syringes and 10 AP on me to inconvenience one player and feed the zombie horde. Spread the word about that, and you'll be able to actually help the human cause.--Guardian of Nekops 18:46, 1 April 2006 (BST)
  20. Against - All the change does is remove the psychological attraction that Syringe Manufacture added to the game which will revert it to an equilibrium at or around the level prior to the implimentation of the skill. It was never meant to increase the number of syringes in circulation, but it did by making them easier to obtain, since this negates that, i can only conclude that all people who are in support of this foolish notion are supporters of the Zombie Safari mode of play where zombies exist solely for your shooting and reviving pleasure and are in desperate need of a connection to reality. --Grim s 07:35, 30 March 2006 (BST)
    To dispel your notions, I'm not in the Zombie Safari Mode. I for one don't Combat Revive, it's just bad tactically speaking. I've heard of other suggestions that would lower the impact of what others have mentioned(Suicide Revivers packed with syringes, for example), but the 10 AP cost just makes it more difficult for me as a Reviver to consider helping random players who want a revive. Did I stockpile syringes before heading to Caiger? Yes. But by the time I reached it, I'd used up 10 of 15 helping random people that I came across. Quasispace 08:40, 30 March 2006 (BST)
    And yet you ignore the point i made. Please realise that i know a dodge when i see one. This doesnt make it much harder for any person dedicated to reviving people. In fact, the Malton Science Group (A Dedicated revive group) are glad for the change, as it will mean they will be able to do their job for the first time in weeks, as trenchcoaters took the easy insta-make syringes and did all the jobs for them. All this change does is revert it to the way the situation was pre necronet, without removing syringe manufacure and at the same time solving the combat revive problem (1ap 100% accurate instakill weapons are bad). Personally, i think you people need to grow a pair and accept the fact that, after all this time, kevan got up and actually did something to restore the balance to the game. Besides, the strike boat sailed when we did it back in december, and everyone can agree that playing conditions for zombies were fucking atrocious way back then. --Grim s 12:36, 30 March 2006 (BST)
    Again, everyone, please be civil. I'm trying to keep this a good discussion without resorting to things like questioning if the Brain Rot Skill has seeped into your Real Life. Stating that a comment is a dodge is itself a dodge. MSG with its' 30 members is fine to have their own opinion on this matter, it doesn't make them "right" nor does it preclude me from taking a different view. MSG wasn't much help for the 50+ zeds in multiple revive queues that I saw while I was shambling along looking for help. As a person with multiple zombie characters, I'm sure you've invested the 100 XP in Ankle grab, so that your so called "Instakill" weapon inconviences you for all of 1 AP. And for the dedicated Zombie Character, I'm sure the Brain Rot Skill is completely useless against a combat revive.Quasispace 04:49, 31 March 2006 (BST)
    Listen here buddy: As i said initially, All the change does is remove the psychological attraction that Syringe Manufacture added to the game which will revert it to an equilibrium at or around the level prior to the implimentation of the skill. It was never meant to increase the number of syringes in circulation, but it did by making them easier to obtain, this negates that. (Snipped out a word), You have completely and utterly avoided addressing this point, and in light of this point all you strikers look like is a bunch of petulant children whining because you cant always have your way. Please limit your counterarguments to the things i have said. --Grim s 14:47, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  21. Against - Quite simple, really. Previously, it used to take less AP for an NT to revive a survivor and for both run to safety than for a maxed zombie to kill him, WITHOUT taking barricades into consideration. Something to think about? --Siddhant 11:52, 30 March 2006 (BST)
  22. Against - I think it's jolly ungrateful that every time there's a balance change we go on strike.--The General 14:28, 30 March 2006 (BST)
    I didn't go on strike when Tangling Grasp was added, nor when the Vigor Mortis Skill was adjusted. From what I can tell aside from this group, there have been 2 others. One to protest the Headshot skill that attacked XP and another who feel that the Zombie/Human Balance is not working Quasispace 04:49, 31 March 2006 (BST)
    Yes, and I was opposed to those strikes as well. This is a free game created using Kevan's free time, I think it's jolly ungrateful that we are demanding him to make changes to his game.--The General 17:14, 31 March 2006 (BST)
    And insulting to suggest that he's not going to pay attention to how a major change affects the game, he's just going to leave it and wait for the shouting. I imagine this is doing a lot more harm than good. If Kevan implements a change now, it's going to look like he's caving to the demands of strikers and that, hey everyone, strikes work! What else shall we demand? The figures on zombie-human numbers and reviv-queue lengths are going to be screwed up by the fact that unknown amounts of reviv teams are refusing to work, as well. If it looks like dropping the cost to 6AP would fix the current balance he might make it 7AP to compensate for striking NT staff. Or even assume that any rise in zombie numbers is entirely down to reviv staff being whiny, and not bother to fix anything. This strike isn't helping anyone, the way it's being run. --Lurking Grue 18:54, 31 March 2006 (BST)
    There was only ever one strike, the On Strike group. It was quite confused about its aims, but it was mostly about the imbalance, about zombies getting a rough deal. The strike actually started after the Headshot XP change was made, probably just as an overreaction from people who thought that this was all Kevan was going to do to fix balance issues, but did give a voice to zombie players who'd been feeling badly neglected, and humans who'd been getting bored, for weeks. That's weeks. --Lurking Grue 18:54, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  23. Against - From an atmospheric point of view death should be something to be concerned about. 10ap from one of the many revivers out there at least creats a little concern. Its more fun for my survivor to feel the danger. From a balance point of view an instant zombie "kill" should take more effort than 5 shotgun blasts (assuming all hit and no flak/body build) I think 10Ap is a good choice for a cautious change --Mortificant 15:45, 30 March 2006 (BST)
  24. Against - Finally, Urban Dead is a little closer to the "Zombie Apocalypse" game it should be, and not a "Zombie Minor Inconvenience" game. --Gakalath 15:40, 30 March 2006 (BST)
  25. Against - My god, it actually takes the same amount of AP to revive someone as it takes a zombie to kill a 50 hp survivor standing out in the open! How horrible! - CthulhuFhtagn 01:19, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  26. Against - ZOMG spoof'd --Undeadinator 05:16, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  27. Against - A zombie can kill, at most, one survivor in a day. Even with the nerf, survivors can revive 2-3 in a day. 'Nuff said. --McSnatherson 23:37, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  28. Against - This will balance out things because the zombies will actually have a chance to win the game by killing all the survivors. I bet the sounds really good right now for you zombie players. =P --Dude003 05:45, 1 April 2006 (BST)
  29. Against - Maybe some Player will drop since they wouldn't get a revive in 3 Days. Most Zombie Players drop in the first week, becuase they kill nothing and get Killed daily. Unorganised Zombie Players have to log every 30 minutes, luckily hearing the feeding groan in time. Barricades are going up again very fast. (you cant smash one alone and get a proper feeding afterwards.) In Addition make 3 syringes in 2 Days, revive 3 Fellows on third. I kill one Human a day. Since thee are more humans than Zombies its balanced (Some Humans have Zergs for revivng.) Zawa o' Draugr April 1st 16.00 GMT
  30. Against -I'm a survivor, and I like to get revived. Perhaps 10 AP is a bit excessive. But getting a revive (revive requests on forums, the CDF revive system, massive signage all over the place, etc.) has become so efficient that it was becoming quite absurd in terms of gameplay. Coming back to life had become as routine as searching for bullets. Makes you wonder why we call ourselves 'survivors'. Instead of this complaining about the available technology, we should figure out better ways to revive and indeed stop people from getting killed in the first place. Making it harder to get a revive might also enduce people to join a group and get organized. Coop swampy1 April 2st 17.00 GMT
    • Part of the reason that that came about was because Brain rotters would sit in queues and make NTs waste their Syringes(DNA scans could be inconclusive, since the Brain Rot Skill /was/ not necessarily revealed with a scan). When Syringes were not as reliable to obtain, one wasted syringe was one too many. Thus you ended up with meta-gaming to get a revive that would allow survivors to ignore Brain Rotters that were in the queue. Was this a good thing? Depends on who you ask, was the fact that people had to resort to this to get a revive a bad thing? Definitely. This change essentially makes meta-gaming even more necessary. Now it isn't the rotter eating your syringe, it's the NT who doesn't have AP to spend/waste on helping random players. In keeping with the tone of the game, I'd like to avoid making people have to join a group to get revived. If you have feral zombies, you should be able to accommodate "wild" humans. --Quasispace 09:22, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  31. Against - Considering the recent changes in the game, scientists have been given a fair set of skills to balance the increased AP cost of revives. --Theblackgecko 18:47, 3 April 2006 (BST)
  32. Against - I'm a lowly NT employee and I do find it slightly hard to level up. However, I think 10 AP for a revive is entirely fair. For survivers, death should be a serious issue, and there should be a focus on not dieing in the first place instead of on easy revives. However, I would suggest making it easier to find/manufacture syringes. One possibility that I would welcome would be to introduce a new skill to be bought after you have NecroNet access: Expert Lab Technician, which would make it cheaper to manufacture syringes. This would make the NT carreer path more attractive, as being able to get this for 75 points would make it worth the 150 points I have to spend on free running. I'm only talking about balancing among surviver classes here; I'd be all for giving the zombies a new skill, too. Ikleiner 04:54, 5 April 2006 (BST)
    • Except this change doesn't punish the survivor that dies, it punishes the NT tech who tries to help that survivor. And not everything can be solved with another skill, nor should problems be solved purely with skills. --Quasispace 09:22, 5 April 2006 (BST)
      • It punishes both. Dieing is more serious if the people who would revive you have a harder time actually reviving you. But as I said, I'm not complaining that it's too hard. Not everything can be solved with another skill, but as you said, the change specifically punishes NT techs, thus I suggest rewarding specifically NT techs a little. Of course there would be others ways to nerf combat reviving, e.g. making the serum take a while to work or giving zombies a way to fight the process (e.g. brainrotter outside of NT buildings have a natural antidote in their bodies and if you bite one while 'infected' with the serum there is a fair chance of killing the serum), but still any such change makes being an NT slightly less attractive. Ikleiner 21:49, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  33. Against - These pathetic "strikes" are simply disrespectful to Kevan. Don't like it? Go make your own game.--Wifey 08:54, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Strike for What?

Frankly, this wiki page would have a better chance of gaining attention and provoking discussion if you said WHAT YOU WANT, in addition to whining and/or striking. Here, I'll go ahead and start - I play 3 NetAccess Survivors; here is what I want:

  1. Most of all, I want DNA extraction to work! I'm trying to keep a census of the enemy hordes in my suburb and locate fallen feral survivors and all I get is the *&^%$ SPECIMEN SCANNED RECENTLY message over and over. Huh?!? Come on, NT Bosses, you've got their DNA already! Would it be so difficult for you to say: "GraahBrainz has been recently scanned" or "n00bShopper has been recently scanned"? I don't demand XP, I don't demand their profile #, I want their NAME already, even when they're recently scanned! --fixed on March 31
  2. While we're at it, how about telling me when the extraction target has Brain Rot! I dutifully poke my extractor in and get DNA info for GraahBrainz. So I stick him with a Syringe -- but wait, he has Brain Rot! Too bad! I got "lucky" first-time, and didn't get his CORTEX DAMAGED warning. How about: "The cortex of GraahBrainz has been badly damaged, but you manage to extract DNA information successfully:..." --fixed on March 31
  3. So I go about my DNA extraction & Syringing, and now I discover that the DNA extraction queue is maintained completely separately from the Syringe queue -- WHAT? I've just DNA-extracted n00bShopper. I want to Revive n00bShopper, not GraahBrainz! Either break down and give me their actual UD profile identification numbers, or else link any Revive to the most recent DNA Extraction. --fixed on March 31? <- this has not been fixed, it displays a name and proifile, but no possible way to add that profile to your contact list so you can revive said scanned zombie
  4. Next, I want Combat Revive to consume a bunch of AP, maybe 5 at once or maybe 20% success rate (failure doesn't destroy the syringe). I agree that the anti-zombie weapon that does 75 damage with 100% hit rate for 1 AP and 1 inventory slot (and has a guaranteed reload for 20 AP) is idiotic. But a BFG that costs 10 AP to use has very limited combat utility, even when it only takes 15 AP to reload. Tweak upward the syringe search success rate, unless you think that NT Scientists are teh r0xorz.
  5. I want Revivification to give me XP commensurate with AP spent, just like other survivor career paths. 20 AP search + 10 AP use means 30 XP or more per successful revive, not 5 XP. --fixed on March 31?

--Tycho44 03:09, 29 March 2006 (BST) Thanks, Kevan!! --Tycho44 10:27, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Now we're talking! I can't support this strike in any way. I've never been a fan of combat revives, and given the dwindling zombie interest something had to be done. But it has been true for a long time that scientists are suffering as a class, and this change hurts them even further. The first three suggestions would go most of the way to making this change truly a combat revive penalty and make the scientist a more playable class, without IMHO unbalancing the game. Tweaking this mod so that it more target at combat revives would be great, but may present design challenges. How about just setting it to 10AP to revive characters that started as a zombie and 2AP for survivors? The last suggest goes way to far, and might not be needed to any degree once the first few were put in place, allowing scientists to be more effective. --Gilant 16:45, 31 March 2006 (BST)
If Zombie interest is the case, why not add some new Zombie skills or boost Zombies a tad? Instead, Kevan has slapped every "Harman" player in the game with a penalty. -- Amazing 03:28, 1 April 2006 (BST)
And some of us Harmans are very glad of the penalty. I've spent the night in Ridleybank, Stanbury Village, Darvall Heights, and other supposed redzones without any trouble. It takes my character weeks to die (usually by PKing) and at most a day to get revived. If you look at the Suburb Map, you'll see that 21 suburbs are GREEN, which in my experience means often as not that scientists can't even find a standing Zombie to Scan or Revive. The Game Designer described his vision as a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, not a Zombie Safari Hunt or a Zombie Petting Zoo. New zombie skills aren't the issue: You can't create apocalyptic fear when revivification is incredibly trivial. If you want to be invulnerable to death, rethink your career path: play a ZOMBIE instead. If you want to search, barricade, heal, scan, revive, tag, and talk on your cell phone, play a HUMAN. --Tycho44 10:50, 1 April 2006 (BST)
I agree there's some psychological element to this, that he could have tried to word it so that it sounded like a boost to someone rather than a penalty, but ultimately it would have had to have nerf the same tactics, and I think you'd get the same reaction from the same people (those who'd either been stockpiling syringes for mass-combat-revives, or who'd stopped thinking of death as being any sort of problem for them - which are you?). A lot of push behind the zombie strike was high-level zeds being annoyed that suddenly headshots were a problem for them again, where they hadn't been before, that it was only a problem for newbies. You can't keep building the game up. If one side's overpowered, sometimes it's better to weaken it directly than to just make the other side overpowered as well. Particularly when you're having to factor in the constant daily influx of new players, that any zombie buff would have had to have been automatic for all zombies. --Lurking Grue 11:15, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Organizations who support the strike

The Malton DEA officially supports this strike. With the necrotechs on strike, the flow of dirty Revive to the streets will be slowed and the NT scientists that we PK will be slower to be revived. All of these things are good, in our eyes. Keep up the good work! You're on the side of the angels now! --Jorm 20:43, 29 March 2006 (BST)

The RAF supports the Strike.--Deathnut STRIKE!]|RAF|W! 23:19, 29 March 2006 (BST)

Not all of us boss --Private Chineselegolas RAF 01:33, 30 March 2006 (BST)
I jumped the gun and didnt ask everyone if they supported it. --Deathnut STRIKE!|RAF|W! 03:19, 30 March 2006 (BST)

The Final Resistance. supports this Strike also. --Rogue 23:43, 29 March 2006 (BST)

Whilst some members of the Crossman Defense Force may support the strike, I know for a fact that I don't particularly care about the strike. Being PKed repeatedly has made me rather apathetic (Yes, apathetic, not pathetic.) when it comes to UD political matters. --Exo2000 18:40, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Compromise Suggestions

  1. Since the story behind this change is that the syringes aren't as good anymore. Why not make the ones you find the old ones that take 10AP and the ones you make new and fresh and only cost 1AP. -- Frederick 09:10, 30 March 2006 (EST)
    • Zombies spend 10AP standing up unless they buy a subskill, whereby they spend only 1AP. Maybe there could be an extra Lab Experience subskill, along with NN Access, to reduce the cost? Would represent the knowledge of recognising the most effective methods to revive, the most potent syringes, avoiding duff batches and so on. This would help redress the balance a little, although any low-to-mid level character would still have it damn harsh. Slavedriver 22:39, 30 March 2006 (BST)
      • The first one, I don't agree with. A MkIII syringe would mean that nothing will be changed after a few days. People will drop the MkII syringes, and just make new ones.It won't achieve what Kevin wanted to achieve. The second idea seems a bit more fair. But in that sense, it would still not affect the general game since most survivors have extra XPs lieing around and would buy it at the first possible chance. I think it should be random, some times it takes 2aps to revive, sometimes 3... but never more then 5 and never less then 2. That way, we have a comprimise between both sides and relatively slow down the revive process. --Fireswordfight 00:55, 31 March 2006 (BST)
        • If it didn't mean a restructure of the skill tree, I would suggest having Brain Decay as a tier 1 Z skill, whereby revival had a 50% chance of not working, and Brain Rot buyable from that, giving 100% outside of NT buildings. Or maybe if they wanted to discourage random revives, they could keep it as-is, and have an extension skill to Brain Rot whereby anyone who tries to revive a Z with that skill has a swing taken at them as if the Z had attacked using hands? Random AP is interesting, would make it pretty scary when down to a few AP and all the plans fall apart... but I would shy away from the logical extrapolation of having a Z skill that makes the Z need random AP to revive: for one thing it would make the currently random revive system a nightmare, plus it's pretty much obsolete with Brain Rot. Either you want to be revived, or you want to eat the reviver. Slavedriver 17:58, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Here's my idea, make it that all revives must first have a DNA extraction on them by the person doing the revives. That means it takes at least 2 AP for revives and that a quick Combat revive will be impossible in a horde. --Rogue 10:22, 1 April 2006 (BST)
    • How about, when a Z is successfully scanned, you get an option to the side: "Revive this Zombie?". I think everyone with a syringe would have an extractor as well, so it wouldn't be a problem if you couldn't use syringes without scanning first. Make the cost of revival 2AP, for a total of 3AP, and you have a system that isn't extortionate, but means that combat reviving doesn't happen, takes slightly longer (real time) to revive, and can't be done with a single AP. Slavedriver 17:58, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • That would slow it down a bit, but it wouldn't deal with the detractors who think that there are a glut of syringes in circulation. In most cases the problem with "anti-suicide" Bombers taking out hordes would still exist, it'd just be that the User might get XP for scanning a zed before they jabbed a syringe in a them. Personally I'm fine with even 5 AP to use a syringe, but 10 is too drastic IMO. --Quasispace
      • In a similar vein, a couple of weeks before the Necronet implementation came along I was thinking of a similar idea but for a totally different reason(increasing the number of syringes but would have kept it less effective as a weapon.) But it was more along the lines of NTs using their collected DNA data to make the syringes. So instead of using AP to manufacture a syringe in the current system it would have cost the player XP(from DNA scanning). But it hit a snag in my mind with the implementation, because it'd pretty much be the domain of High Level Characters with XP to burn since the lowly NT tech isn't going to have much XP to spend. Again, the cost had to be high or everyone would just buy a warehouse full(which is part of the problem at the moment). Quasispace 11:02, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Another Needed Improvement to DNA Extraction

Quote: How about, when a Z is successfully scanned, you get an option to the side: "Revive this Zombie?". (from Slavedriver 17:58, 4 April 2006 (BST)) Yes, exactly. Regardless of how many AP it costs to use a Syringe, the fact remains that DNA Extraction should obviously allow you to immediately target that particular Zombie with your Syringe. It makes no logical sense that you know which Zombie you've poked for DNA, but you can't figure out which one to poke for Revival. Changing this would be a boon to NT Scientists without compromising the AP cost or game flavor. --Tycho44 08:03, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Three Comments

I've added my group, Crossman Defense Force to the list. We're all pretty unified in the opinion that Kevan's made a pretty big mistake here -- We're currently debating if we will change our affiliation, however.

Also, you may want to add other games to the list for people to play while they cannot/will not play Urban Dead. It makes it easier to stop playing UD if you can refocus on another game for the time being.

Possible options include:

Outbreak, DragonSpires, and a couple others whose URLs escape me. -- Amazing 01:26, 1 April 2006 (BST)

  • I've been playing Dead Awaken recently... it's not like UD, it's more like KoL with zombies and a higher focus on PvP over dungeon crawling. it's good fun. Slavedriver 18:02, 4 April 2006 (BST)

Also, it might be a good idea to make note that no new AP penalties on existing actions should be implimented from now on. In other words, never make feeding groan take 15 AP, never make manufacturing a syringe cost 40, etc. - Kevan should find a way to balance things without creating obscene penalties that punish players on either side. -- Amazing 03:26, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Unfortunately, the only way to balance syringes was to make them cost more, or to make them not work 100% of the time. There's no such thing as a creative solution that doesn't involve a nerf in such cases, and your argument fails to acknowledge that fact.--Guardian of Nekops 18:54, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Agreed. If you want a creative solution, propose one. --McSnatherson 09:36, 2 April 2006 (BST)

Comment

You guys are pathetic.I am a survivor yes. I am influenced by the new change and I would like to tell you something. Malton is a jungle, the stronger survives. If there is a new predator you have to adapt in order to survive, and if you dont you will die. This new update adds fear,adrenalin and this is what the game needs.So quit whining and start killing.The zombies are already gaining upper hand while you are intending on doing nothing.Well I will be damned if I just sit on my ass and wait for the end. --Johnny Rico 16:19, 2 April 2006 (BST)

Strike Breakers

The new Malton group Strike Breakers will be opening fire on anybody who supports this strike. Thank you for your time. If you'd like to get involved of bashing some hippies, come to strike breakers and put your name down. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:54, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Just a Quick Note

When the two changes came out (Syringe and DNA scanners) I knew that at least some scientists would get pissed off. I do agree that the change was bad for scientists, and that something needs to be done to make the class better to play, but I will not be joining the strike. I will, however, share with you a musing.

When the changes came out, I was thinking "wow, if scientists went on strike, they'd have the best acronym ever: "SoS" standing for "Scientists on Strike", "Save our Syringes", or anything else delightfully witty like that. Just something I thought should go here ^^ BuncyTheFrog 01:36, 4 April 2006 (BST)

Another note

Another group was set up to mock this group, Strike for Mia It also had basicly a Copy\Paste of eveyrone in this group on there. It's just insulting. The Strike Breakers I can understand but that was tacky. I wanted to delete all the non-members of the group from the list which, guess what, was nearly everyone! But I can't without be a vandel. I suggest someone put it up for deletion. --Rogue 06:04, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements