Suggestion talk:20090610 Mobs, Hordes, and Swarms

Discussion from Developing Suggestions

Unbalanced and not a good idea. Zombies can see any number of survivors (and their profiles directly, without contacts), and this removes a player's ability to discern between 25 zombies (a fairly large threat) and 100 zombies (a massive, immediate threat). --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:10, 6 June 2009 (BST)

If we would change it, so if there is 25+ zombies there's lots of zombies, and if it's maybe 50 or 75 it's a horde? What would u think then? By the way, please sign all posts. --Rolfero 19:45, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Nah, this is just overpowering.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:13, 6 June 2009 (BST)

So, the simple answer would be to do the same thing with survivors, right? Problem is you can't since survivors are seen individually.--Pesatyel 22:30, 6 June 2009 (BST)

I don't see how this is is strictly overpowering.--Pesatyel 22:30, 6 June 2009 (BST)

At the very least you need a rough count (similar to EMR rounding), I mean you'd have to be thick not to be able to tell the difference between 25 zombies and 150. --  RoosterDragon  00:04, 7 June 2009 (BST)

How about the number shown is always off in a random range within plus or minus 20%. And it recalculates for every Player that loads the page. So, 10 zombies would show up as anywhere from 8 to 12. 100 zombies would show up as anywhere from 80 to 120. Fractions rounded, of course.--Zombie Lord 00:32, 7 June 2009 (BST)

How about the individual number for 1-24, "a mob" for 25-49 and "a horde" for 50-100... Should the need arise anything over 100 would show as "a large horde" Seems fair and clear and adds a hint of worry when the numbers start stacking up. --Honestmistake 01:09, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm... or like a mix between Honestmistake's and Zombie lord's. First, the correct zombie number is calculated. Then it goes off within plus or minus 20%. Then, if this number is 1-24, you see that number, and if 25-49 a mob, and 50-99 a horde, and more than that a large horde. That way you can determine how big threat it is somewhat accurate. Maybe we could lower the 20% to 10% or 15%. Ideas? --Rolfero 08:17, 7 June 2009 (BST)

That might be a bit too much. This game IS pretty simple. All we are really looking for here is a "rough estimate" idea of how many zombies are present, right?--Pesatyel 08:47, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I'll suggest it as quickly as I can. Discussion will be moved when done. --Rolfero 17:38, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, Honestmistake's idea would probably be the easier to code so I'd say go with his. Now you just need to come up with a list of size descriptions and assign them a scale.--Zombie Lord 18:56, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You can't target specific zombies so who cares how many there are? Besides, when you do encounter 100+ zombies it's pretty fucking cool to see that there are a 100+ zombies there. Giving the exact number makes the zombies feel more badass when they win and the survivors actually afraid when they are very outnumbered. You know, like in a zombie apocalypse game... -- #99 ^DCC 19:46, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I like this suggestion, it is logical and it would add to the flavor of the game. I think the description should be scaled based on the number of zombies after 25 or so. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:49, 8 June 2009 (BST)

If anyone have any objections against the following: At 1-24 you see the direct numbers, 25-49 it's called "a mob of zombies", 50-99 it's called "a horde of zombies", and 100+ "a very large horde of zombies" (or just "a large horde of zombies"), please speak now. --Rolfero 17:35, 9 June 2009 (BST)

25-49 a "large group" of zombies, 50-99 "mob", 100+ "horde", 200+ "mega horde." --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Good suggestion. I will take the freedom to change "mega horde" to just "very large horde" --Rolfero 19:46, 9 June 2009 (BST)

If anyone have any objections against the following: At 1-24 you see the direct numbers, 25-49 it's called "a large group of zombies", 50-99 it's called "a mob of zombies", 100-199 "a horde of zombies", and 200+ "a very large horde of zombies", please speak now. --Rolfero 19:46, 9 June 2009 (BST)

"Mob, Horde, Swarm?" I would be against limiting the use of the word horde to groups over 100 but that's just semantics--Honestmistake 08:07, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm... maybe 25-49: "large group", 50-99: "mob", 100-199: "horde", 200+: "swarm"? --Rolfero 11:38, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Keep it simple and lose the "Large Group". Mobs and Hordes just sound much cooler :) Oh and for the 100+ groups I think "Throng" sounds at least as good as "Swarm" --Honestmistake 14:08, 10 June 2009 (BST)

So 25-49: Mob, 50-99: Horde, 100+: Swarm? Or Throng? I think swarm sounds cooler. --Rolfero 14:21, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, Swarm does sound more menacing. For what its worth I'd vote for this... its kinda like taking zombie anonymity 1 step further --Honestmistake 17:03, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Count the Zombies

Should have mentioned this in Developing, but thought of it too late. Perhaps the Survivors could have some sort of "Count the Zombies" button. For a certain amount of AP they could get an accurate reading by actually counting. End cost: 1 AP for every 25 Zombies it ends up being. Just something for Kev to consider.--Zombie Lord 20:58, 10 June 2009 (BST)

That's not exactly fair, though. There could be 250 zombies and then with no warning the counter loses 10 AP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 08:57, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah someones vote gave me a similar idea... i thought 1AP for Mobs, 2AP for Hordes and 3AP for Swarms. Overall though, a flat 1AP cost would probably be better as this isn't really about punishing players so much as adding a little uncertainty and flavour. --Honestmistake 09:26, 11 June 2009 (BST)

I don't think any explanation for it would make sense either. Hey, you used to be able to see it, suddenly you can only see it if you spend AP staring! Not to mention if there's a cluster in a few spaces, around a mall or something - you'd have to move and count multiple times. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 09:32, 11 June 2009 (BST)

• UPDATE: "As the virus continues to mutate zombies now seem more active, prowling mindlessly about in search of food they are becoming difficult to count."
• "As the exertions of the day cloud your mind some feral instinct takes over and you shuffle around sniffing the air for the scent of the living"

That seems to pretty much cover the why of the situation to me... Its not like its some big NERF or change really and as long as the ability to count exact numbers remains in some (inexpensive) form for those who really care then I don't imagine it would screw anyones day up. As for having to make multiple counts.... its pretty rare to see multiple groups of 25+ and if you do live in a burb where you have several mob sized (or bigger) groups of zeds it might be worthwhile looking for new accomodation :) --Honestmistake 10:29, 11 June 2009 (BST)

No, it's not like this thing which makes zombies completely overpowered is a nerf. Why would anyoen think that?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:58, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Something DDR said in his vote made me think about this aspect of the suggestion and Reconsider. If this was implemented I would like to see a 1AP cost to get an exact count of the zeds in your current location, this answers many peoples problems with the change and does seem only fair. However, in addition to this I would like to see a new Zombie Hunter skill (That required free running) called "reconnaissance" which would bring up a 3x3 grid showing the exact count for each square. the grid would centre on the players current square and be of the interior if they are inside and exterior if outside. This action should cost 1AP and grant 1XP if the total counted is over 100 zombies. XP bonus should only be available once per 24 hours (like scanning)--Honestmistake 12:42, 11 June 2009 (BST)

So, basically, your saying follow the suggestion where instead of numbers you just have descriptors (huge horde or whatever) but if you spend an AP you can get the actual number. That's not too bad (thought I don't know about the XP bonus for it). My idea, from my vote, was to just have a toggle where you could display descriptors or numbers at your preference, but I think this idea might work.--Pesatyel 02:21, 12 June 2009 (BST)

"Keep Given how much input I had on this it would be strange if I voted against. Also I think its more badass to have a description label the zombies as a horde... it sounds more menacing than "62 zombies". Oh and I also want a cookie! --Honestmistake 23:08, 10 June 2009 (BST)"

You realize that large numbers of zombies already display as "There is a horde of XXX zombies here," don't you? :P --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:45, 12 June 2009 (BST)