Suggestion talk:20100927 Barricade Frenzy
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
RE: DDR
- Kill - no doubt this will get a cascade of keep votes because of the author, but here's my say- I don't think this is necessary or as balanced as Kevan's safehouse implementation was intended to be. Here we have survivors expending 30AP just so they can get an AP benefit at a safehouse, and here all a zed has to do is walk up to the place and claw at the barricades. The zombie won't even need a skill, unlike the survivors. Sure, it's only for barricades whereas the survivors get a 10% chance on all actions, but multiply this by a million and you get a furthering of the annoying anti-seige inducing gameplay that cade blocking created. Again: forcing survivors to either kill or run in a seige rather than cade and heal is part of what is killing UD atm, and IMO the current situation of cades is the only thing keeping the game a fraction of how good it was before cade blocking, this would ruin (no pun intended) that IMO. Zombies need buffs, but not in this department. Never thought I'd have to say this to you swiers, but: dude, DS. -- LEMON #1 06:21, 27 September 2010 (BST)
- Ah, but survivors get to choose their safehouses, and get a 10% chance of not spending an AP on every action performed in there, including barricading. Do I really need to go into barricade construction odds versus destruction rates? This isn't overpowered and you fucking know it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:03, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- Reading helps. I don't actually think I said overpowered in the entire vote, let alone hint towards it. -- LEMON #1 08:15, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- It's called reading between the lines. If I mischaracterised your argument, I apologise. Now address the argument plox.
ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:20, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- Okay okay. Well, I don't think it's so much unbalanced or OP in the way that it would cause the game to fall into unbalanced chaos, I just think that while zombies need buffs, the cade system is good ATM the way it is (at least in the aspect I'm about to outline). I've always been a large advocate when it comes to arguing against the anti-siege direction the game is taking, particularly in regards to the 'cade blocking' update of most things. As I've expressed before on a couple of occasions, that update changed the game against survivor solidarity in numbers and has decentralised the structure of the game in that respect (keep in mind this has only ever been my opinion, no fact). An update like this would further push the game in that direction, and I don't want that IMO, and that's where I'm coming from when I'm voting. -- LEMON #1 08:31, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- Dam Tactics were ALWAYS a bad idea, dude. It's just the game was so broken in favour of survivors for so long that they became the norm. Guerilla style is where it's at - always has been, always will be. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:35, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- It depends on your definition of a "bad idea". If you mean certain death, well, eventually (though not always). If you mean not fun, well I disagree. Perhaps what I don't like about the direction of the game is the fact that at least survivors had the choice back then. What made the game more vibrant and fun was that there were big glorious events for survivors to go to and employ those strategies, choose between tactics, and try things like dam tactic if they felt like it, see how long they lasted. Hell, back then they may have been able to last more than 10 days against a horde their size. Now it's just hold out then run away. -- LEMON #1 08:42, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- You can still mount glorious defences. Survivors just need to move away from the building-centric mindset and defend suburbs or larger regions instead. Smart survivor groups have been doing this for literally years now. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:05, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- O really? You're with the MOB, right? When was the last time someone succesfully glorious defended a building or suburb against you? I agree with DDR, and I mentioned my opinion on this before, sieges were teh best UD had to offer and taking them away through cadeblocking was the worst. I can summarize the current options for survivors in two words: Run, Reclaim. That's it. River tactics is the best strategy. There is no point for a level41 surivor to interact with a zombie. Killing a zombie has no point whatsoever, nor has "defending" as you will always end up dead. It's just run, run, run away. The only real amusement for many human players is PKing and the drama surrounding it. It's a sad state of affairs, but atleast I can enjoy the occasional manhunts. --
Thadeous Oakley 10:07, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- O really? You're with the MOB, right? When was the last time someone succesfully glorious defended a building or suburb against you? I agree with DDR, and I mentioned my opinion on this before, sieges were teh best UD had to offer and taking them away through cadeblocking was the worst. I can summarize the current options for survivors in two words: Run, Reclaim. That's it. River tactics is the best strategy. There is no point for a level41 surivor to interact with a zombie. Killing a zombie has no point whatsoever, nor has "defending" as you will always end up dead. It's just run, run, run away. The only real amusement for many human players is PKing and the drama surrounding it. It's a sad state of affairs, but atleast I can enjoy the occasional manhunts. --
- You can still mount glorious defences. Survivors just need to move away from the building-centric mindset and defend suburbs or larger regions instead. Smart survivor groups have been doing this for literally years now. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:05, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- It depends on your definition of a "bad idea". If you mean certain death, well, eventually (though not always). If you mean not fun, well I disagree. Perhaps what I don't like about the direction of the game is the fact that at least survivors had the choice back then. What made the game more vibrant and fun was that there were big glorious events for survivors to go to and employ those strategies, choose between tactics, and try things like dam tactic if they felt like it, see how long they lasted. Hell, back then they may have been able to last more than 10 days against a horde their size. Now it's just hold out then run away. -- LEMON #1 08:42, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- Dam Tactics were ALWAYS a bad idea, dude. It's just the game was so broken in favour of survivors for so long that they became the norm. Guerilla style is where it's at - always has been, always will be. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:35, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- Okay okay. Well, I don't think it's so much unbalanced or OP in the way that it would cause the game to fall into unbalanced chaos, I just think that while zombies need buffs, the cade system is good ATM the way it is (at least in the aspect I'm about to outline). I've always been a large advocate when it comes to arguing against the anti-siege direction the game is taking, particularly in regards to the 'cade blocking' update of most things. As I've expressed before on a couple of occasions, that update changed the game against survivor solidarity in numbers and has decentralised the structure of the game in that respect (keep in mind this has only ever been my opinion, no fact). An update like this would further push the game in that direction, and I don't want that IMO, and that's where I'm coming from when I'm voting. -- LEMON #1 08:31, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- It's called reading between the lines. If I mischaracterised your argument, I apologise. Now address the argument plox.
- Reading helps. I don't actually think I said overpowered in the entire vote, let alone hint towards it. -- LEMON #1 08:15, 28 September 2010 (BST)
- Ah, but survivors get to choose their safehouses, and get a 10% chance of not spending an AP on every action performed in there, including barricading. Do I really need to go into barricade construction odds versus destruction rates? This isn't overpowered and you fucking know it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:03, 28 September 2010 (BST)
RE: Idiots
This has nothing to do with Scout Safehouse other than using a heavily-toned-down version of a mechanic introduced with that skill. (10% chance of saving an AP at one specific location, in this case only when attacking barricades.)
Read the fucking suggestion and stop fucking confusing the two! Just because Scout Safehouse is a shitty skill doesn't mean that this is overpowered. (I can't believe I had to write that.)
In a just world, your votes would be struck. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:11, 28 September 2010 (BST)
Fair and Balanced?
Does this mean most zombies support Republican? --Aeon17x 10:28, 28 September 2010 (BST)
