Suggestion talk:20110528 Balanced Search Rates

From DS

Static Search Rates

Timestamp: -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 03:21, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Stats balance

Scope: everyone

Description: Simple idea, we get Kevan to stop fucking around with search rates regarding survivor/zombie ratios. any thoughts on the intricacies?

Discussion (Static Search Rates)

No. I'm sorry, but higher search rates seem necessary in order to survive against teh dead. What's the alternative? Survivor population down to 1% and game over? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:43, 24 May 2011 (BST)

The words metagaming and intergroup coordination mean anything to you? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:48, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Considering metagaming didn't stop the survivor percentage falling below 20% I can imagine the percentage even going lower without the search rate boost, and good luck with group coordination when your the only one left alive at one point. To be fair, I do enjoy the real zombie apocalypse the dead bring, but we shouldn't go overboard; The game simply isn't designed to let one side completely dominate the other. Anything below 20% is just unhealthy. Malton will then just turn into a Borehamwood or Monroeville; a completely ruined city with a couple of survivors playing hide and seek with bored out zombies. Not fun for any side. The search rate boosts are to keep the population rates in check. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:42, 24 May 2011 (BST)

You can't claim something that hasn't been tried has failed. I also think you're missing the fact that that's exactly how the game has always worked, design or not, just it's usually the other side. Don't worry though, this is the response I expected, you guys really are predictable as a player subset. It's DIRT:NAP all over again. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:36, 24 May 2011 (BST)

To be honest, DIRT:NAP tactics don't work very well (and are not as fun) without buffed search rates. You could probably get a sulf-sustained revive cycle going, but that's just playing as zombies who eat syringes instead of brains- an amusing concept, but not much of a game. There needs to be an incentive (and ability) for some of the folks you revive to actually reclaim ground, or it gets dull rather fast.
For this suggestion to be "fair", you would also have to eliminate Brain Rot, or have headshot cause perma-death. That way both sides get an overwhelming advantage as they gain dominance. Welcome to "Urban PK".  Swiers 18:29, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I've seen it used very effectively actually. I was more referring to the reaction to the tactic before groups like CR started using it effectively.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:29, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Incorrect. DIRT:NAP and Hibernation Tactics can be very successful if implemented correctly. It actually can cause a lot of frustrations to zombies.--Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:36, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I'm thinking the last time he heavily, read as a group, did it was CR. The tactic has been finessed somewhat since then. 404 is a good example of how a group can use it very effectively as part of larger general strategy. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:44, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Wait, static search rates = perma-death for zombies to ensure balance and be fair? I think that's an exaggerated position...--

| T | BALLS! | 21:16 24 May 2011(UTC)

I would say a mild boost in search rates as the ratio drops. Something like say in UD's current state the rate is boosted by 10x make it like 4-5x better instead. Those are just example numbers to show the concept. In that way survivors get a little boost and it reflects the idea with less survivors picking through the rubble theres more to find.       14:19, 24 May 2011 (BST)

As a long-time survivor player I can say that the mega-boosted search rates take some of the fun out of the game for me. The little group of survivors I'm with have been doing an ok job at staying alive and we have been having fun with that. But it just felt cheap and empty to walk into a ruined NT and grab up like 15 needles in 20 AP. This takes the feeling of accomplishment out of the game for me, and it just feels like the game is rigged in my favor.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:21, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Because it is. 19:31, 24 May 2011 (BST)

That's why UD is a circle jerk and not an actual game. What sense of accomplishment can one ever have even during "normal" times when you know there is never any real danger and you're just treading water; with God looking down, raising and lowering the water lever to make sure that you never sink. Seems to be a theme with a lot of online games. The mechanics of the game are an irrelevant treadmill, and the metagame delusions of grandeur become its only reason for existence. No one can truly effect anyone else, nothing you do matters, no one has to TRY because I guess the truth is bad for business.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:57 24 May 2011(UTC)

btw that's what I love about the outspoken atheist science worshiping types that play this game. They're basically playing a game that simulates a babysitter God that makes sure there are never any bad consequences for anyone. What the fuck is THAT all about? I know it's just a "game" (haha), but one of you needs to explain what the appeal of this shit is to you guys.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:16 24 May 2011(UTC)

Haha, I know Kevan is jokingly referred to as God at time but ZL, it almost sounds like you're starting to believe it.
Anyway, there might be a better way of ensuring that the game doesn't collapse on itself but for the life of me I can't seem to think of one. Yep, the temporary search odds mechanics makes me feel like a cheap whore. Yeah, I'd like to see something done about it. No I don't really want to see UD end by way of total human annihilation (when the ends comes, everyone should die by fire IMHO). If a good suggestion for keeping the game from imploding comes along, I'll be all for it. Until then, I'm (temporarily) a cheap whore. ~ _{20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}

As far as UD is concerned, for all intents and purposes Kevan is God. Just look at all this manna from heaven. A game needs to have balance designed into it at a basic level. Changing the rules to ensure "balance" is not part of a real game. It's a sham pure and simple. You need stable rules on which players can firmly stand, or you're just jerking people off.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:11 24 May 2011(UTC)

Anyway, I still think Survivors need stable, but fairly good search rates (no, not the 75% success rate inside a ruined NT kind of good they are getting now) combined with much less carrying capacity. Plus, as I have suggested before, they need to drop things when they die to make death mean something to them.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:19 24 May 2011(UTC)

I seriously doubt it will happen. Kevan makes money off of the game continuing, and not having automatically adjusting ratios for search rates would allow for a potential end to the game. If enough people want a hardcore style of playing, Kevan will just create another city for "hard mode", probably with a tie-in to another zombie movie or series (frankly, I am surprised he didn't try to pimp the game out to Walking Dead). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:36, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Reality, people. The game has to be fun for the majority of people who play it. That majority is made up of casual survivor players who want bigger guns and don’t want to get eaten on a daily basis (if at all). What’s that phrase I keep seeing around here? Oh yeah: Deal with it. Kevan doesn’t owe anybody jack shit. The game is free to play. He owns it. If he wants to start spawning zombies with no legs that leave bloody trails across the pavement as the poor bastards drag themselves forward, while at the same time spawning survivors with BFG 9000s as starting equipment, then that’s just the way it is. You can piss on the game as much as you want, but really you can’t get enough of it and possibly want to have sex with it, otherwise you wouldn’t be here playing it and pissing on it. (I would like to see and play a new "hardcore" city, though. That would be hot.) --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 22:40, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I'm sorry but you might want to reconsider that "majority" comment nowadays. 22:47, 24 May 2011 (BST)

So there's a thought that the rates still need to adapt to the ratio but not quite as much? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:12, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah. Right now Kevan's rates are a tad extreme >.> but in the end I suppose this game is probably the most fun when its around 60:40 survivors:zombies because there is plenty of brains to be eaten and people to be shot. At that point search rates are decently normal.       14:51, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Do we even understand how the search rate increase works in terms of the survivor/zombie ratio? I mean the actual formula. It might be more worthwhile to suggest that zeds get a similar boost to the barricade knockdown rate when the ratio reverts back to a ridiculous survivor majority. I don't know if that's been suggested already. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:15, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Sounds good. Since an equal boost in zombie search rates has proven well.. ineffective to say the least. On a side note has anyone noticed any boost in zombies when the ratio favors survivors as it has in the past? I suspect not and in the case the barricade hit rate boost is a perfect idea.       19:08, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Haha zombie search rates. No as far as I can tell, zombies aren't buffed when survivor ratio is high. Survivors are nerfed, though (technically the search rates is the only thing buffed or nerfed but it affects survivors and PKers almost exclusively).

“	Yes, this is just a simple built-in balancing mechanic, triggered by the overall state of the game - at the other end of the scale, search rates drop when survivors greatly outnumber the undead. If you want a thematic reason for it, the pickings are richer for an individual survivor when there are fewer of them around to do the looting, and when the suburbs are getting too comfortably repopulated by the living, it's harder for them to find something that's been overlooked by everyone else.	”
—Kevan, via email via Revenant

~ _{19:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)}

I agree 874,000% with this suggestion. --Rosslessness 23:25, 26 May 2011 (BST)

---

...

The suggestion is rather vague but so is the game mechanic. Anyways, the dynamic search rates is an attempt to "normalize" the population, so one side does not get wiped by the other. When survivors have the upper hand, their search rates suffer, when the zombies have the upper hand, survivor search rates are better (as far as I understand). So now in Urban Dead's present state the search rates are much higher for survivors (especially at 15% survivors) to compensate the unnatural influx of zombies (the Dead are not always here in such numbers). What about when the Dead are not around (which is most of the time)? Survivors will not have their search rates reduced, thus giving them more of an advantage, and thus creating more extremes in the ratio. This probably gets boring for the winning sides, zombies shamble streets and can't find as much against survivors sitting in safehouses doing nothing. The ratio at around 50:50 gives something to do for both sides, one side not having the upper hand on the other. And I feel like if the game was constantly skewed to one side (which it is sometimes often for the survivors) it makes it less fun for people in general. UD's PvP, if it's not challenging for one side, it's boring, too much, people may leave. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:33, 28 May 2011 (BST)

tl;dr it's to balance the ratio near the middle, (probably) to keep the general populace happy --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:33, 28 May 2011 (BST)

People already are leaving, even before the dead came back. Gaining players isn't really an all or nothing affair. A game is going to attract certain types of players based on how it works. It appears the option Kevan has chosen is just to try and maintain the lazy jack-off contingent that comprises 95% or so of the UD population. But even those players are going to get bored eventually. It would be a risk to try and attract a new type of player and it may very well be too late for UD as its reputation repels the competitive gamer contingent. Better the death of the game though than what we have now.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:01 28 May 2011(UTC)