UDWiki:Open Discussion/What do we like/dislike about playing zombies?

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

What do we like/dislike about playing zombies?

Timestamp: Ms.Panes 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Type: Discussing current game mechanics
Scope: Anyone who plays, but mostly zombies
Description: I don't know if there's a place to discuss game mechanics in general. If there is, could someone point it out to me?

Ok, lots of things are being suggested, with lots of cries of, "Zombie nerf!!" and, "Survivor nerf!!" So, what I'm thinking, instead of proposing a specific suggestion, we could talk about what's fun and not fun about playing zombies, get a better perspective on their situation, so that it'll be easier to make better, more fun suggestions in the future. I suppose we could do the same with survivors, but right now I just wanna talk mostly about zeds.

I just started playing a zed not too long ago. He gets killed a lot (often headshotted) which sucks a lot of AP. I don't mind too much because my main character is a survivor, but I imagine if he was my main guy I would be getting pretty frustrated with it about now. Actually, I think standing doesn't suck up nearly as much AP as searching, but, -for me-, searching is less frustrating because: 1. I am never -forced- to search. 2. I get to click more, and each time I click there's always a *chance* that something good will come up. It's like the excitement of scratching off a lottery ticket, I guess.

So, my frustration with standing up as a zed is not just how much AP it uses, but that 1. There's no sense of accomplishment/satisfaction in performing the task. 2. You have no options until you stand. 3. It happens a LOT. He's probably died more times than days I've spent playing him. AP sucked from standing is the most frustrating part of being a zombie for me, so I'm buying ankle grab as soon as I have the chance.

Now, what I like about being a zed is, even though people on the wiki complain about how hard it is to get ahold of survivors, I've found harmanz sleeping in the street and jumped in during a break-in often enough to be satisfied with that aspect of the zombie experience. Sure, I've only killed someone once (he was only at two health when I found him-wow!), but getting a few hits off is fun, too. I figure it makes it easier for other zeds to finish him/her off, plus I get a few XP for trying. I don't use the wiki map when I'm a zed, I just waner around a bit. If I don't find anything I smash a few 'cades until my next log in. In fact, first day I played I came across a generator in an open building and destroyed it. That was so satisfying.

Now, my problem with break-ins is that either there's too few zeds in there and I get killed and dumped before I log on again for some real damage, or there's too many zeds in there and I don't get any whacks in when I log on later because all the harmanz are dead. Still, I don't feel too bad, because at least I contributed to the break in, even if I only got a couple whacks or was I only a meat shield. It'd be a lot more fun if I got my share of the brains, though.

So, how do the rest of you guys feel about playing zombies? I'm sure I could say more, but I don't want to ramble too much. --Ms.Panes 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion (What do we like/dislike about playing zombies?)

What we need to accept is that the game is incredibly well balanced with a pendulum shift from zombie to human control. We also need to accept the fact that, while elements of the game will always be unrealistic, it should take longer for a shambling uncoordinated zombie to deconstruct a barricade. If 70 zombies with ankle grab get inside a mall, the mall has fallen. There is no way, barring a 500+ survivor group playing at the exact moment said zombie invasion occurs, to remove said horde. The pendulum balance between zombie and human will occur until we shrink the map by advancing the barricade. With the current rules it is impossible for humans to stop a dedicated zombie siege just as much as it is impossible for zombies to stop humans from relocating to less populated suburbs. Only a smaller map can bring us to the final conflict that, to be honest, is exactly what all of you are advocating. -Flash Badness, April 14th 2:32

I couldn't disagree with that more, especially considering I can think of a few times exactly what you mention has happened and it had a very different result.--Karekmaps?! 10:40, 14 April 2008 (BST)
In the past year and a half Survivor defenses have been destroyed faster each and every time as survivors simply pick up their balls and go play somewhere else. The game as it stands has a remarkable ebb and flow between survivor and zombie dominance which, I think has been the intent since day one. - Flash Badness, April 14th 15:32
Only is you consider zombie "dominance" as territorially based, and even then only if you consider places that never get frequently updated or information out as zombie dominated.--Karekmaps?! 05:42, 15 April 2008 (BST)
Well I understand your point but there are a few factors that we should consider here. 1) A dead zone should be considered zombie dominated since the living consider it uninhabitable. 2) Two thirds of the map are currently listed as uninhabitable red zones. 3) Based on the Romeroesque nature of the zombie hordes, individual humans should be superior in all aspects of construction related to barricades. 4) Well coordinated groups of humans should successfully be able to extricate a horde of similar numbers through technological superiority, i.e. FAK's, syringes, firearms... 5) A horde of sufficient size should be able to outlast most human sieges in an urban combat situation. These five conditions should be present in this type of game/simulation and they are present right now. Flash Badness 13:58, April 16th 2008 (EST)

Honestly, I think they are pretty good right now. When a large number of zombies focus on one area (AREA, no SINGLE TARGET) feeding groan is MASSIVELY effective. That's really fun for me right now.
Probably the most serious issues are the massive AP suckage newbie zombies suffer (15 AP lost to headshot, 2 AP to walk, means they don;t really get to play as much as a newbie survivor) and the fact that they are VERY hard to do anything with if you lack Vigor Mortis. In combination, these things give newbie survivors who die a very bad impression of what zombie life must be like, discouraging them from trying a zombie character, I expect. On top of the normal human tendency to assume humans are the "heros", that results in zombies being the perenial under-dog, numbers wise.
If I had to make a single recommendations, it would be that the AP cost to stand be dropped to a base of 5. That would mostly aid newbies (on both sides) who lack Ankle Grab. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Useless, you want to really make it so zombies don't waste 1000s of AP doing nothing vs survivors getting something for just about every 2 ap spent but don't want to remove barricades then barricades need big nerfing, like remove accuracy from hitting barricades and just make it 100%, still wastes AP but it's now a 1:1 ratio instead of 10:1. It will never pass though cause, of course, people believe it's balanced when it's closer than it's ever been but still insanely far from balanced, that is unless you've forgotten to take your medication. As for survivors, only thing that makes them boring is that they are too efficient, nothing interesting ever happens to them that they don't instigate somehow.--Karekmaps?! 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree about your barricade ideas Karek, 1:1 ratios are just AP drainers for both sides. I think we can all agree that barricading is the only effective weapon against zombies in this game. But we can also agree that it is too strong vs feral zombies (a larger portion of the zombies by my guess). Two situations occur if we "reduce" the barricades:
  1. Feral zombies get a boost, which is what we all hope to achieve, so they can get in within the AP cycle and actually cause damage, even with reasonably strong barricades.
  2. The hordes get it even easier, and during major sieges where barricades buy time, they would no longer buy enough time. And survivors would lose sieges even faster.
Simply put, an overall buff to zombies vs barricades isn't going to be possible. Well actually it is... it would just kill sieges even quicker. But my point was, 1:1 is a no. With 1:1 you simply make barricades useless. - Whitehouse 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Crazy Idea! Make barricade accuracy higher if there are fewer zeds in the square, or- fewer humans in the building! I donno. BoboTalkClown 01:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Not so crazy. There is already a PR suggestion that would increases the barricade hit rate when the building is empty. I think that's about as far as you could get with such a thing, though. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 01:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well a suggestion of less than 11 zombies getting full hit ratio on barricades is not a bad idea. - Pardus 12:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That's easy to counter, though. Zombie attacks barricade at full hit, then when they're down to 1-2 AP, they move off the square so the next zombie can get the full hit%. --Ms.Panes 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a lie that has been spread by survivors who have become too dependant on barricades. There is only one anti-zombie weapon in this game and that is the revive syringe, all barricades do is make the game suck for both sides, zombies more, but most survivors problems that make the game unenjoyable for them stem from barricades. A 1:1 ratio is the closest it could ever get to removal but at least then it's not an insanely efficient AP drain, at least then it's a stall tactic like it is meant to be, not something they base their whole strategy around. Oh, and hordes getting a boost isn't a bad thing Hordes are a mass of weak players, if hordes were more efficient it would for the survivor metagame to actually evolve and exist, or more then that, it would force them to actually a)fear the zombie horde and b)think their actions through. And no, with a 1:1 ratio I make barricades stop 1 zombie at a time, not 43.--Karekmaps?! 04:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What's a lie? That barricades are the most effective weapon? Most certainly not. Barricades are far more effective than the syringes. Because reviving a bunch of players who don't want to be survivors is just silly, and pisses them off. Syringes are only an anti-zombie weapon flavor wise. Gameplay wise it's just a tool to bring back those who wont attack survivors when they are zombies anyway. If everyone played Dual Nature I might have been inclined to agree. And personally I'd rather see the ferals buffed than the hordes. That is a big problem, that ferals are too weak. - Whitehouse 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Survivors Do Not Need Barricades. And no, barricades are actually not more effective than syringes, they are only more effective than syringes if the syringes are being used for combat revives, otherwise revivification has a massive numbers advantage over everything else in the game. Ferals can not be buffed without buffing the horde, the horde is strong because it's a mass of players, that's it's only strength. Nothing more nothing less, if survivors did the same thing with the same numbers they would be stronger, they just chose not to and so everyone whines about hordes being overpowered. Barricades serve one purpose, preventing zombies from really playing the game, same purpose as headshot, it's the only way to explain the 1:4 ratio for averages, just like it's the only way to explain 15AP stands and 2 AP movement, the goal is to keep zombies from using AP and thus playing the game in any constructive way at all. If I proposed an idea for zombies similar to barricades it would get shot down in 5 seconds as being overpowered and my copying your arguments word for word would get me laughed out of there. There's a bias that most people have and you're suffering from over exposure to it.--Karekmaps?! 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's something that might shed some light on the situation: Quote from Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots:
"* Leave Barricades Alone
Barricades are a central mechanic at the core of Urban Dead. A turn based game requires its players to leave their characters unattended for long periods of time while they wait for their AP to recharge. Without barricades, survivors would not be able to protect themselves while they are gone. Barricades are designed to be easier to construct than to destroy because survivors need extra protection. Avoid suggestions that excessively weaken barricades or allow zombies to bypass them entirely."
So, the way I read it is, barricades are overpowered because people are expected to play once a day, with survivors not automatically getting killed by the time they come back. Now, here's a thought- what if we actually make barricades stronger, by giving them an extra level (Super-Duper-EHB+++), but... it costs the survivors more AP to construct the extra level than it does for a zombie to tear it down? Humans get maybe 1/5 to put it up, but zombies get 1/3 to collapse it (bonus chance at the highest level, SDEHB, only)? Or, different numbers, I dunno. This would be due to the barricade being increasingly unstable at this point. That way, at higher levels, it's actually in a zombies favor AP-wise for a human to barricade that high. It's a risky AP drain, and by the time the zombies get it down to where it's in a survivor's favor AP-wise to rebuild, they've already wasted their AP. Whaddaya think?--Ms.Panes 09:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you would need to find a new name for this game. Perhaps Post Apocalyptic PK war, or Mad Max, Warriors of the Destroyed City, but people get up after they die and shamble home to come back to life. There sure as hell wont be any true zombies around if cades get buffed. The upgrade would only be used on central buildings like malls that have thousands of AP to spare, or on places that dont have hordes destroying them. Remember, a person can bank a days AP into barricades, and unless someone tears them down, those AP stay banked forever. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe limit which buildings can get the buff so that it doesn't get used at malls/etc., and have the extra level slowly break down on its own? Like, one notch per 24 hours? So, once you have it at max, to keep it there you'd have to spend an extra maybe 5 AP or so per day? --Ms.Panes 11:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't believe everything you read on the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots page, it has been proven wrong, frequently, in the past. Not to mention the portion you quoted obviously doesn't realize that barricades go beyond EHB+3 and that they were not always a game mechanic.--Karekmaps?! 11:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
According to this, the game was less than a month old before barricades were put in, and judging from the frequency of major updates in the beginning it seems like barricades were planned from the start.
I'll admit that it's possible for the suggestion Dos and Do Nots page to be wrong, but his logic on barricades made sense to me. How high do barricades go, anyway? I haven't counted. --Ms.Panes 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Karek, I am not disagreeing about barricades being overpowered, that much has been obvious for a while. My reluctance is to approve of giving hordes more strength, which will come if you buff zombies overall. Hordes as you say are a group of weak players, but their strength combined is considerable. I still disagree about barricades not being a primary tool against zombies, simply because the goal of a survivor is to survive, and therefor the barricades are the best way of doing that (if you also relocate often enough). Syringes are tools for bringing back mrh? cows who wont even bother to harm survivors. It's not an active depletion of a zombies AP, which is the only way to stop zombies. Unfortunately as you have said, this game is much about preventing the zombies from using their AP against the survivors, which is kinda hard to change. Of course, if barricades were weakened to 1:1... well it truly would become a survival game. - Whitehouse 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem though. Depleting the other sides AP is not the only way to stop them but, as syringes are balanced in find rate to be better than zombies kills rates, it is actually depleting their AP more to revive the dead than to barricade or kill more zombies. Reviving gives survivors x AP by bringing back a helpful survivor but it also means zombies lose the AP they used to kill the survivor, which is 30-40AP assuming average, it's only about 20-25 AP to revive someone, 31AP at most if all you do is manufacture. So when you revive you both waste 30-40 zombie AP and add 40-50 net AP to the survivor side, all for the cost of 31AP maximum. Even if only 1/2 of all zombies revive chose to help survivors you are in the positive by a lot of AP. Barricades only use more AP because people spend more AP on barricades than they do on reviving due to the assumption that barricades are the games main mechanic. The games main survivor mechanics are Reviving and Healing, everything else they do not need. Barricades serve only the purpose of keeping zombies from having fun(using AP), while at the same time keeping survivors from enjoying the game in a real way, it doesn't help the survivor cause and it isn't a game mechanic, at least no more of one than the original headshot was.--Karekmaps?! 15:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of it like that. I cant really argue against that. The only point I would disagree on is adding the adding 40-50AP by reviving the survivor. Isn't that more like retrieving what was lost when the zombie killed the survivor (seeing as people in general don't play Dual Nature)? Zombie kills survivor, detracts 40-50AP from survivors pooled AP, but at a higher cost than the survivors use to retrieve it, so the zombies are still losing out on it. By that logic it would seem the zombies are losing about 20-30AP (assuming 40-50 AP to kill, 20-30 to revive) more than survivors every time they kill someone and that person is revived. Does that seem about right or did I entirely miss a point? - Whitehouse 16:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
If barricades weren't used, almost all buildings would most likely be unpowered and ruined, which would decrease the availability of syringes. Fixing ransack/ruin doesn't cost much, but getting a generator and fuel (which are required for both better search rates and manufacturing syringes) does cost a lot. And considering that there were no barricades, you'd have to either face that the generator is going to get destroyed really quickly, or settle for ruined+powered search rates. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea: When a barricade is completely destroyed a survivor has to "clear the debris" before they can re-'cade/close the door. Any survivor can clear debris - no skill required. The point would be to give the zombie who just then tore the 'cades down a few extra seconds to get in if a survivor is online at the same time. I imagine it wouldn't happen too much normally, but that in a mall siege or similar it'd give the zombie the chance it needed to get into the mall. The "clear debris" button's ? command could be rotated just like barricades to keep people from spamming it. The "clear debris" button would replace the barricade button, but if you happened to click barricade ('cuz you hadn't refreshed the screen since the last of the 'cades went down) it would NOT cost any AP and just give the message "You need to clear the debris first." Is this helpful enough to be worth suggesting? Any survivors who think it would be unfair (please say why)? --Ms.Panes 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If "?cleardebris" would be rotated, "?rise" should be rotated too. It's exactly the same kind of situation. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that the ap costs for dying are so little, because my zombie doesn't really care if he gets headshotted or not. My survivor characters would be unhappy if that ap cost were lowered. There's only 2 things I dislike about being a zombie: (1) in-game communication skills are still kind of weak (which is why I was suggesting something like that "smash glass" idea I had that didn't generate much discussion) and (2) they don't seem to have as much to do as survivors. Zombies don't get any items to use (which wouldn't make sense) so it seems like their options for gameplay are pretty much walk, bash barricades, attack with hands, attack with bite, and sometimes ransack/ruin, whereas survivors can cade, revive, bounty-hunt, use radios, heal, attack zeds with an assortment of weapons, etc. So I'd just like to see more things for zombies to do (without causing any change in balance). --PdeqTalk* 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the zombie experience (though not as much as the Pk'er experience) except for one thing: Vigour Mortis; it should be done away with. Instead, zombies should automatically start out with the attack %s, as though they had vigour mortis to begin with. This is to give newbie survivors who've been zombified more of a chance. I'm not sure what skill the Corpse class would start with, except memories of life, 'cuz I hate doors too. That's just my opinion, feel free to pick it to pieces. --TriPolarClicky! 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if some of those zombie classes suggestions that are in PR were to be implemented, so people could choose from a few different starting skills, such as the ones you mentioned. --PdeqTalk* 05:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The easiest start for a newbie zombie is to find a big mob. Traveling with Big Bash gets you XP very quickly. And it's a huge fun. Because:

  1. You don't get killed often (my Big Bash zombie hasn't been killed for weeks) - because there are at least several zombies in every block it is difficult for to single you out and when facing a big mob most survivors do not shoot zombies, but run. So less APs lost on standing up.
  2. You can always find open buildings with survivors inside. Feeding Groan works very well with big mobs. So more APs spent on clawing and biting survivors and less - on bringing down barricades and/or walking around trying to find an open building.

I think big zombie mobs are a lot more efficient (most importantly in terms of AP use) than small mobs. Small mobs are fun when you play in a good company and do a lot of meta-gaming. So I think all zombie newbie guides should start with a sentence like Find a big zombie horde and follow it. -- John RubinT! ZG FER 10:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe after you die a couple times as a zed the game should remind you, "Tired of losing a lot of AP from getting killed? Remember, zombies have to hide too. To avoid being killed, find a lot of zombies at one place and get lost amongst the crowd."
When you first start playing you might not read it, or might forget it because it didn't seem important. A person might be more willing to pay attention after they've just been headshotted. I know I am! --Ms.Panes 12:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a major problem with the game. Simple fact of the matter is that at its core, it is deeply unbalanced in the survivors favour. You just dont see the effects so much these days because zombie metagame is so advanced. To get an ideal look at the game you need to do two things. You need to find an area without an active zombie horde (not a green suburb though), and then in that area, you need to play a level 1 zombie without joining any group. You will not get very far very fast. Now try a level 1 human. You can get all the human skills very easily. You can even manage it without dying if you are either lucky or smart. It is because of hordes and events like the bash that there is anything that even remotely resembles parity in the game. If you removed metagame from the game entirely, the entire city would be green in two weeks, maybe three. The problem is that a sizable portion of the zombie population NEEDS to metagame for the species to be effective at all, while survivors could all be free agents and not suffer a drop in efficiency. It is this requirement for metagame that is the funamental problem with the game, forced on the zombie population by overpowered barricades, as well as the hideously unbalanced state of the early game in late 05/early 06, and now its a problem that cannot be fixed with a simple solution, since weakening barricades to reasonable levels at this time would result in the hordes eating everyone. Also, human search rates are, to be blunt, insanely high. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the thing about search rates. I think the current search rates are pretty fair. Humans have a 25% of finding items in any powered building and a 50% in Malls, only after buying Shopping and Bargain Hunting.--GunFox13 01:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You havent been around as long as i have. Back before powered searches fucked the game humans were doing fine. Hell, the sensible syringe rate was 5% back then. Now its fuckin 15%. The only thing preventing the bottom from falling out of the zombie population is the 10ap required to revive. if it was still 1ap we would be at 20% zombies or less, all the time. The massive find rate means that, while humans cannot revive many people a day, they will never, ever, run out of syringes. Its become impossible to halt the revives. FAK's in two AP at a mall? Thats a great way to render infection absolutely harmless. A full load of ammunition in two days instead of four, yeah, thats real fair. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What Grim is saying is true. Being a zombie back in the day was a pain in the ass. Now, even without the old headshot, it's still a pain in the ass. I wish that the rates and stuff were small again. I haven't really felt much of a challenge while playing as a survivor, unless I do something really stupid, like taking over Moggridge PD with a band of 7 people. It's become too easy over the years.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Buy Brain Rot, that makes living as a survivor a bit more challenging ;). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Come on, we both know thats not as challenging as used to be. The hardest thing is PKers actively targeting us. :) -- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish i were only joking when i say that it doesnt make it harder by very much, since only bad luck or stupidity can get you killed in the first place so long as you play smart and avoid hordes (ferals are about as threatining as ants). Getting a rot revive is easy if you know how. I got them constantly with my ex pker Hank Wimbleton. Just claw into a powered NT building and Mrh, needles will come along shortly. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... that's why I said "a bit". I'd say out of my three deaths since last summer, one was bad luck, one stubbornness (sounds much better than stupidity, doesn't it?) and one was stupidity. But hey, at least you can brag about living with Brain Rot! --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 02:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never played as a zombie, but I think new zombies are a little too weak. In fairness, we should at least give zombies a better starting base, like 30% starting attack accuracy or something.--GunFox13 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It gets to be a real pain in the arse when you're stuck as a zombie with pathetic attack %s. --TriPolarClicky! 16:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Accuracy doesn't matter much, it's all the other things like barricades, 2 AP movement, 15 AP standing(every damn day).--Karekmaps?! 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess with the barricades it would depend on the situation you're in. If all you're getting is 'cades, that sucks, but if you're still getting a satisfying quantity of brains then they're not too bad. I've been on the good side of a feeding groan from time to time. I didn't mind the 2AP movement too much. Actually, the 2AP movement costs have been harder on my survivor character than my zombie because she has to travel so far to find a decent revive spot. But, I agree about the 10-15AP standing up costs being harsh. If my zed only got killed once in a while it wouldn't be so bad, but I've been averaging 1 death a day. I think there either needs to be a way to either space out the deaths, or to make it less harsh when it happens. What about increasing everyone's max HP a bit? Or, someone proposed an underground system - maybe that could be somewhere for zeds to hide? Maybe instead of a whole complicated thing you could have a stretch of sewer or subway here and there? Sweirs thought of cutting the stand up cost down to 5 AP. That might work. --Ms.Panes 09:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombies are seriously lacking in variance and choices. Survivors have loads of weapons to choose from. Some of them are plain worse than others but there are real choices, where choosing one makes you better in one aspect but worse in another. Zombies can choose between claws and bites. Sure, a bite can infect the target and heal yourself, but you only have to infect once and zombies usually are at full health. There is no real choice as the bite's damage per AP is just worse than the claw's. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not about variance, that's an argument that has been brought up time and time again. It's about survivors being able to stop everything a zombie can do with little effort. The game actively greifs zombies for being zombies. It's headshot without the xp reduction.--Karekmaps?! 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think zombies should have more to do. For example: I'd like to have a reason to stay in a ruined building besides being a meatshield to slow down survivors from re-taking the building. They go in, shoot a few zeds, and leave, and unless I'm really lucky, I'll never log in when they're there to give them a chomp. The problem isn't just that altruism gets you killed, it's also that it's boring. And somehow those doors are always closed, so I can't wander around and go back in later. Maybe instead of making doors non-MOL openable in regular buildings, make them openable in ruined buildings. MOL gets the normal 1 AP open button, but non-MOL has to bash them a few times, and repairing the ruin fixes the doors. Or at least let me gesture at the door! (can you?) --Ms.Panes 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to raise the base accuracy for claws by 10% to 35% and make death grip only a 10% boost instead of 15%. Bite's base accuracy could also be raised by 5%. This would make the game much more newbie friendly. --BlobdudeTalk TM MC 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That would also make the game more zerger friendly, which is probably the reason why the game is so hard for the first few levels. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this to the open discussion area due to the fact it is an open discussion, not a suggestion. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked into this and one reason zombies start out so weak may be that when zombies die, they're still zombies. They can just get up and start again. Human can't do that so easily, when a human dies, they turn into zombies. So now they have to hope someone near them can revive them and if not they have to slowly move to a revive point and risk getting killed by bad trenchcoaters (I say bad, cause I do believe there are good trenchcoaters). Getting back on track, zombies can get up over and over again, they can get combat revived, but thats what Brain Rot is for! Humans fight not to die, zombies fight to kill humans.True as I've said before that zombies start out a little too weak, but this maybe why--GunFox13 02:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not just that. After buying a few skills, the zombie class actually seems to level up quicker in my experience. Take this for example. When I started my zed, my PKer and survivor were already in the 20s. Now, my zombie's in the 40s while my PKer and survivor are now in the 30s. So really, the zombie class seems to level up a lot quicker. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Then you sucked at doing the right things, my zombie can't get a level in every 3-4 days, takes about 10 and that's in a mall siege. My survivor used to get 3 levels every 2 days, minimum, because I had to stop to restock. Get a shotgun and start shooting you'll max out in probably a week.--Karekmaps?! 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That argument has been brought forth time and time again, and the fact of the matter is that that isnt the problem. The problem is the vast difference in diffculty between the classes. The ONLY way any of my human characters die these days is if i forget to log into them for a week. If i run around, i dont die. I walk into buildings, shoot the zombies out, cade buildings up, and run away. Hell, even my PKer has a good time surviving even though 100% of the games population is his enemy (Once he gets reported though, shit will hit the fan, but till then...). The only way to be effective as a feral is to hope like hell there is a horde in the area, or at the very least, a veteran maxed feral zombie who doesnt mind spending all his days ap breaking open a building and groaning (These are not common). The human game has variety and, unfortunately, all the individual power. If humans metagemed properly to a similiar extent as zombies, then zombies would starve. they would have a hard time doing much of anything, in fact. Break intoa building, catch maybe a half dozen people, and ruin it. The surviving people scatter, zombies get no food. Horde attcks mall, residents flee, hordes get hollow victory, humans suffer few losses and escape. As i have been saying for the last two years: Human skills are geared towards the nomadic life. People are playing them as sedentiary territory holders, and then they bitched and moaned when they kept losing. Kevan, unfortunately, listened to them and buffed them beyond all reason. And the result is the collossal clusterfuck we have today, where zombies are forced to horde to be effective, and humans can waddle around playing nationstates with light chance of zombies. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
When I play my zed I wander, attack, wander. I get bored staying in one spot (unless there's an available brain there), and it's not because I'm not getting anywhere with smashing the 'cades, it's because I like going from place to place. I like wandering with my survivor, too. Maybe we should make it easier for ferals to organize? Like, one knocking on the door isn't a threat, even if you're alone, as long as you can barricade, but... make it so that other zombies can more easily join in. Like, if I knew where other zombies were heading I'd go in that direction to smash 'cades. If I knew they were going to stick around I might stay outside the building for a few days, too. But I can't ask them, and they don't say on their own. Maybe I could mrh?, but from what I read, that seems to be so ingrained as a revive request I doubt anyone would know I was asking a question.
Come to think of it, the problem isn't just lack of communication options, but that it almost seems like you have to metagame to understand what they mean. Like, I was using "brnhr" as a general grumble, but then I read on the wiki that it's a request to be killed by another zombie, so as to prevent being headshot. That's not what I was trying to say at all! I think it would be fun to try to learn to communicate with each other if saying the wrong word wouldn't get you killed. Like, maybe a couple ferals could find each other and group up, wander around together and learn to communicate with each other, and as they learn to communicate the group slowly becomes better coordinated and creates their own language. Then you'd have different zombie groups wandering around Malton that each have their unique language and strategies, all without metagaming. And maybe some of these groups could start to work together to create a "common" zombie language, much like Swahili is a common second language in Africa.
For zombies to learn all this language stuff, ferals first would have to be able to travel together more easily, and then they'd have to be able to practice communicating with each other without using all their AP doing it. --Ms.Panes 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Brnhr hasn't been used that way in a while, the only one I think any significant group of people even remembers/uses anymore is Mrh?.--Karekmaps?! 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I guess it was used that way back when headshot stole XP? I guess it wouldn't make much sense to ask to be killed to avoid losing 5 AP... --Ms.Panes 05:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No it was used after the headshot removal, but now I think more people use gesturing to themselves, well that and you never ever see anyone say brnhr anymore.--Karekmaps?! 05:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the truth of the matter is that it never caught on. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Meh, the few times I have seen brnhr used it was used as a polite request for a revive, usually inside an NT.--Karekmaps?! 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, new idea. Along with the drop down menu of things to say, it should have, for lack of a better word, emotions. Ex: "A zombie said "mrh?" It looks at you inquisitively.", "A zombie said "grh." It appears docile.", "A zombie said "Graaaaagh!" It seems frustrated.", "A zombie said, "brnhr." It looks aggressive.", "A zombie said "graaagh." It seems to want something from you." You could mix any word with any emotion, or select "none" for the normal "A zombie said "mrh?" " thing.

With that at least there'd be some way for me to indicate what I wanted, or at least make it clear that I was trying to communicate rather than saying random words for no reason. --Ms.Panes 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like that. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I started as a zombie, because I didn't want to be the prey. I didn't want to be scared when I left the game each day. Most of all, I wanted to do what most zombie games don't let you do- be a zombah and munch on bra!nz! Turns out- instead of being a majoriry, zombies are a minority! They are the ones who need to devise a smart strategy!!! It's fairly funny, actually. BoboTalkClown 18:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's screwed up. I don't activly play my Human anymore b/c it got so borring, I fully leveled in 2 weeks, after that the only way I could get killed was to go to a red suburb. --BlobdudeTalk TM MC 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Take that lying mouth of yours and wash it out with soap. There's no way possible you could've fully leveled in 2 weeks... unless you're talking about getting survivor skills only; in which case you haven't fully leveled at all. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it only felt like two weeks? But, yeah, Blobdude couldn't have, because if he averaged 1XP for every AP he spent (a very good rate, indeed), he'd have gotten 50 X 14 = 700 XP. If he got 4XP for every AP spent (by standing on one spot, where no zombie/PKer ever killed him, and zombies regularly moving in and out of the square for him to scan, and none of them being rotters...) then he'd have 50 X 4 X 14 = 2800 XP under absolutely freaking perfect conditions. --Ms.Panes 14:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Except survivors can average better than 1XP per 1AP even if all they do is heal, healing is 5XP per 3 AP, and that's completely unskilled.--Karekmaps?! 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've said it before. Zombies are a lot stronger as soon as they obtain a few skills. And Karek. 5XP per 3AP is true, but if you start as a consumer, it'll take possibly 2 or more days to obtain some FAKs, that is if they didn't start in a hospital. Back when I had 30+ characters, I had a consumer who couldn't do shit because all the freakin' buildings in the area were overcaded. And not a single zombie was to be seen in sight. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Completing the survivor skill tree requires a minimum of 2100XP. 2100XP / 14 / 48 = 3.125. He should have gotten an average of 3.125XP per AP, which is damn near impossible. Even 5XP per 3AP is just 1.66XP per AP, which is only a bit over half of the required 3.125. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There are better methods of XP gain than FAKs Midianian.--Karekmaps?! 13:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Both Pistols and Shotguns give a much higher rates of XP gain.--Karekmaps?! 13:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Only temporarily, not if you take searching and hunting into account. Hunting for zombies (that is, leaving a safehouse and coming back) usually takes 5 to 15 AP. And those AP give absolutely no XP. Getting fully leveled (all survivor skills) in two weeks means that you have to get 150XP per day, every day. That simply can't be done with firearms. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange, I seem to have no problem doing that with firearms.--Karekmaps?! 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I dare say that's quite impossible. Even with the shotgun, just getting 150XP takes ~23AP on average (or a couple less if you manage to kill somebody). This leaves you with ~25AP to restock for another day like that. 25AP is not nearly enough even in a powered mall. It simply cannot be done every day, for two weeks. And you have to take into account that you don't have all the skills in the beginning, making an already impossible task even harder. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What I like about survivors is that they are faster, and more powerful, because of firearms. Zombies are more robust and have steadier weaponry.--Shotstol 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot about that. One of the big advantages of being a zombie is you don't have to spend days to search for weapons. --Ms.Panes 11:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to spend days to search for weapons as a survivor either, Guns, Axes, and knives all have very good find rates.--Karekmaps?! 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools