Talk:Evolution of Survivors Tactics

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

--Gamestriker4 19:34, 26 June 2008 (BST)==Plan== Copied from User talk:Paradox244

Let's look at the map. See the Red? Stay the fuck out of the red. See the area that Big Bash is in? Stay the fuck out of that area. See the suburbs near Malls? Stay the fuck out of Malls. See the areas that have zombies? Stay the fuck out of them. Learn to run. When you hear zombies coming you should do what you'd do in real life. Run for your fucking life. Only stop to clear out 1 building to sleep in. Then restock and then run. Sonny Corleone WTF 20:34, 23 July 2006 (BST)

So, by this clan survivors would be nomadic loners, devoid of any contact or grouping, who would let the zeds take over any building they want, spending all their AP finding a place to get more AP and praying that the zeds didn't find them and tear down the weak cades before they died, then they just stayed zeds because nobody would know to revive them? --Paradox244 20:37, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Watch the movie Dawn of the Dead 78. There's this gang. This gang wanders all around going to buildings with zombies, killing them, turning it into a temporary base, and then leaving. Do that.

And use Gorilla Tactics

Gorillatactic.jpg Sonny Corleone WTF 20:39, 23 July 2006 (BST)

But how would we reclaim areas taken by the zeds? We couldn't. They would enter and destroy our work, and the newbies would be so frustrated they would leave. Also, spending all your AP trying to find a place to get more AP would not be fun. Did you forget about that? Fun. That's why we play the game. And your strategy would be a lot of fun for the zeds, but not much for the survivors. It would be pretty boring. No long term goals, nothing really to do. No way to take back territory, that's not much fun. Get it? I'm sorry if you don't like playing as a survivor, but your vision of the game is not the kind of thing people do for fun. The majority of survivor would probably just up and quit. And then nobody would be having fun, would they?--Paradox244 20:43, 23 July 2006 (BST)
20 survivors went to Greentown with syringes they saved up before Big Bash hit. They saw what was coming. They ran before it came. They went to Greentown and revived as much people as possible. They cleared out a bunch of buildings for temporary safehouses. Impossible. Talk to Flareblade of the Roach Klips. He's doing it right now. Sonny Corleone WTF 20:45, 23 July 2006 (BST)
So basically you want us to just give up the entire western half of malton and not try to actually reclaim any territory?--Paradox244 20:46, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Oh noes! An enemy army is going to invade your very city in two days. What do you do? Grab what you can and leave or stay there and fight off the bombs dropping from the sky? Fucking ran man. Don't reclaim territory. No one owns anything anymore. You need to work together to hold short time safehouses. Then move on. Sonny Corleone WTF 20:50, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Here's the problem with that, fun. Surviving and not much else is definatley in genre, but not much fun. Doing the same thing over and over to avoid dying is what I've been doing for a while, and I'm sick of it. It's boring and useless. What's the point of fighting a war if you aren't trying to win? You want the zombies to fight and the survivors to survive. It's flavorful, but boring for the survivors. Suggestion Do and Do Nots says make it more, not less fun and put yourself in the other person's shoes. And you are not doing that. Even if you want to play the survive way, most people do not. That is not how we wish to play the game, even if you think it is the right way. --Paradox244 20:53, 23 July 2006 (BST)

So sitting in a Mall is fun? Shooting zombies at a revive point is fun? And survivors can have fun by fighting. When I was a survivor in Stanbury Village when the RRF attacked Nichols Mall in October I had to constantly be on the move. Attacking only zombies that got in my way. And believe me, you won't always be on the run. There will be times when you can stay in a suburb for a month or two. But as soon as you hear zombies coming you must leave. Sonny Corleone WTF 21:09, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Yes, I tried that. It wasn't fun. Like I said, this is a war. You want us to not fight the zombie advances at all. We must. Take the movie Land of the Dead, that was a movie like what we're doing. Trying to push back the hoardes. That is what we find fun. --Paradox244 21:35, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Is your idea of fun "winning" against the zombies? Let's try that idea on for size. The survivors have won. There are either no zombies, or they are powerless. So now you… what? Play house? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:59, 23 July 2006 (BST)

I don't expect to win, I don't want to win. I want to fight. Really fight. Not just survive and run from the hoard, but put up a real fight and live a little. --Paradox244 22:03, 23 July 2006 (BST)
You want to fight, but you want to be on the "leading edge" of the fight? Part of fighting is being the underdog sometimes. Zombies have been the underdog for a long time. Don't think I don't know what I'm talking about, either: I have characters on both sides. But survivors have had it far too easy. Just sit in a safehouse, stock up at the mall, shoot some zombies when you feel like it, or talk on the radio. Your turn to have to work. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:08, 23 July 2006 (BST)
I want us both to work. I want both survivors and zombies to be able to have a good fight, a real fight. At the same time. --Paradox244 22:11, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Maybe I phrased that wrong. I don't want the game to be easy, but I don't want anyone to work. I want both sides to actually have a chance. But I want it to be fun. Hard, but fun. I'm sorry if the zombies were shorted in the past, but that's no reason to want to make the survivors misrible. Take it up with Kevan. --Paradox244 22:14, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Guess what? Zombies aren't making survivors miserable. Survivors are making survivors miserable. It's not that we're making things harder, it's that we're playing appropriately, but you guys are still acting as though we're the underdogs. Old tactics don't work anymore. Evolve or die. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:17, 23 July 2006 (BST)

I really agree with Paradox244, what happens when everyone runs out of syringes? Oops, can't go to a NT building because its ransacked with 5 zeds in it. Shoot the zeds? can't, ran out of bullets and everywheres ransacked, make a new...OOPS! can't, newbs without free-running will be unable to survive. What I'm saying is we should approach this like a tug-of-war, for some time the zeds get the fun, like with the Big Bash, then the survivors get something, like the 5th of November, an this goes on. I am saying some suburbs should not be targeted simply for a group, survivor or zombie, so they can stock there and regroup there instead of being permanent nomads, what I mean is approaching my view like a endangered species list, like there should be at least 2 suburbs under survivor control, and vice versa. How about that?--Canuhearmenow 22:17, 23 July 2006 (BST)

That's bullshit. How about this? We'll give you guys certain suburbs if you guys give us certain "attack free days." Out of ammo? Grab a fucking fireaxe. Too many zombies to kill? Leave. Go to another suburb. Form a larger group, then attack en masse. Old tactics do not work anymore. Learn new ones. Perhaps monopoly is more your style of game? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:21, 23 July 2006 (BST)
I don't know who thinks zombies are the underdog, but they're idiots. We are trying new tactics, but when you can't get ammo, revives, or faks it's kind of hard to do anything. And I agree with Can, but it's not so much an issue of a truce as it is an issue of the game itself. If the ability to take those vital abilities away exists, someone will use it. Enough someones to make this situation occur again. A deal would help, but not a lot and not for long. Also, you can't just say to discard guns altogether. That's just stupid. And you can't find a fireaxe without a fire station. --Paradox244 22:23, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Here's a crazy idea: try coordinating for once. It's really ironic, actually. Zombies are pathetically crippled when it comes to in-game communication, but we have excellent meta-game communication, and guess what? We coordinate. Do you think we're kicking survivor ass by just wandering around and attacking aimlessly? Absolutely fucking not. You guys have cell phones, radios, spraypaint, and unhampered speech. Use it. The days of "go outside, kill a zombie, step back in, barricade a couple of times, talk for a while" are over. Learn to fight. Learn to group up. Don't have a fireaxe? Organize a group to take over a fire station. Lost a mall? Run. Run like hell. Fuck the newbies, barricade to EH. You cannot afford to fight alone anymore. But feel free to ignore my advice if you want. It's so fun to watch Malton fall to the zombies for once. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:29, 23 July 2006 (BST)
We've been metagaming and coordinating like there is no tomorrow! We do that, what you think we are morons?!--Paradox244 22:33, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Morons? No. Weak and lazy? Yes. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:34, 23 July 2006 (BST)
My gosh! You mean...we may actually have to use things like the radio and mobile phones to coordinate tactics instead of calling everyone a bunch of fags over every goddamn frequency?! You mean...actually work together to retake a Necrotech building? You mean I can't just mindlessly step outside, click a random zombie a few times to shoot him and then step back inside? Holy shit, my survivor brain has just exploded.
You people need to learn how to play the game instead of mewling like kittens. --Mookiemookie 22:24, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Do I look like a noob? Even doing those things it's impossible to play as a survivor! That's what I'm saying! --Paradox244 22:27, 23 July 2006 (BST)
how can we use a radio or mobile phone in this scenario?!?! Mast gennys will be destroyed immediatly, radios require energy, and by this time we won't be able to search for any because every building is ransacked with 4 or 5 zeds in it!--Canuhearmenow 22:27, 23 July 2006 (BST)

listen to me for a sec, actually listen to what Paradox244 is saying, he is located in Dunnell Hills, Dunnell Hills is basically a sign of things to come for Malton. Paradox, will you describe in detail how effective it is to do what Bob and Sonny are saying survivors should do? listen to someone with Experience on the matter.--Canuhearmenow 22:34, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Hold on while I laugh for a minute here. Hahahahahahahahaha! Stop sniveling kid. I've been playing this game, on both sides, way longer than you. You are hardly in a position to point at me, or Sonny for that matter, and claim I don't have experience. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:38, 23 July 2006 (BST)
I know you have experience, but does it involve in what I am saying?--Canuhearmenow 22:40, 23 July 2006 (BST)
What, fighting groups of zombies against all odds? Yes. Besides, what the hell are you complaining about. Kevan just gave you guys a buff. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:42, 23 July 2006 (BST)
In Dunell Hills a survivor cannot survive. This is evident in that there are no survivors in the Hills. None. Save for one single safehouse with maybe twelve survivors the Hills are totally deserted. There are no cades on any of the other buildings, each is ransacked with a zed or two in it. These zeds will not respond to you if you attack them or anything. I wonder why... anyway it is almost impossible to survive there. The only ones who can are a few DHPD members who have managed to get control of one building. A lone survivor could not. He could not get a revive, ammo, faks, anything. He would have his cades torn down over night and be devoured. I guarentee it. The only way to survive is with a sizeable, dedicated group, and barely even then. And the Hills aren't alone. My zombie has wandered through several suburbs and sees the same thing everwhere. He can barely get any brainz to eat, the ones he can are, incidently, from those who follow the nomadic strat Sonny outlined. Those die quick. It doesn't work. --Paradox244 22:41, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Really? You can't survive alone? Huh. I wonder who was saying that earlier. Dunell Hills is overtaken? Leave the fucking suburb. Regroup in a different one. Hurr. And I strongly disagree with your statement that there are no survivors left. It would appear that there are nearly 14,000 of them left. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:45, 23 July 2006 (BST)
leave to a different suburb? Hmm, which one? Ridleybank? nope. Roftwood? no. Pimbank? no. should I go on?--Canuhearmenow 22:47, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Four down, 96 to go. Keep going, fallacy-boy. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:51, 23 July 2006 (BST)
I said that there are no survivors in the Hills. Or a full half of Malton for that matter. You want us to permanintly abandon that half. That is insane. --Paradox244 22:48, 23 July 2006 (BST)
I do? Really? Quote me on saying that. What I want is for you guys to either develop new tactics, or shut up and stop crying, but don't complain that it's "unfair" to you. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:51, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Hey Bob, seeing how this is getting some pretty serious arguing, can we please move this to a new page, and tell us what it is called please? Thanks!--Canuhearmenow 22:53, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Bob, I have a question. How is it fun being a Nomad? how is it fun having to do these Guerilla Tactics? While Guerilla Tactics are fun most of the time, the game will have just lost its allure by then. Think with me here. While this is a zombie apocalypse, isn't there in any good apocalypse show a "Super-Fortress" like The City in Land Of The Dead? so, shouldn't Survivors get at least some suburbs to call home? If not, wheres the fun?--Canuhearmenow 23:06, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Are you honestly asking for zombies to give you guys some suburbs for free? That's just retarded. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:09, 23 July 2006 (BST)

I believe survivor tactics do need to change as the game evolves. Some one said (I'm not sure where) that new skills don't gradually cause changes because so many long time players are sitting on banked XP. When a new skill comes out many players are able to pick it up right away affecting the dynamic of the game. Learning to adapt to those changes takes longer for the other side, especially if the zombies get the buff because they have an innate advantage (temporary death). Ransacking buildings has made a dramatic change to the game IMO. Survivors have it harder but it is possible to compensate. Large groups of survivors will be able to provide a safe haven for others unless a large horde takes them on, in which case the survivors should bug out. Basically, you must know when to cut your losses and move on. The size of your group determines how often you will be forced to move. DHPD-SDC FmrPFCBob 23:18, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Sonny's Plan

If it was up to me I'd give survivors a couple of suburbs and tell them they can have it. I'm a man of my word and I'd make sure we'd never hit them. As long as survivors stay there to kill the zombies that wander in and we kill the survivors that wander out, it would be cool. You know what? I like the idea of survivors having an island of land that they can call their own. Like Fiddler's Green. Except we wouldn't invade unless the deal was broken. We wouldn't use any excuse to invade. If we find a "Candyland" invasion shit you can expect a huge fucking battle. But yeah. I'm not into it because I feel bad for anyone. I just find it to be a fucking cool idea. So if I could get a bunch of survivor groups to support it including the DEM, NMC, CDF, ACC, etc. I could pass the word on and try to get it done.

What y'all think? Sonny Corleone WTF 23:31, 23 July 2006 (BST)

It's intriguing, but it would have some major kinks to work out. And no suburbs with a mall - on principle. --Darth Sensitive talk • W! 23:47, 23 July 2006 (BST)
I like it Sonny, and you seem true to your word...--Canuhearmenow 00:08, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Seriously? I would support something like this, on the contingency that zombies got the same number of suburbs to call their own (Ridleybank obviously, and perhaps others). I can't see the peace lasting forever, though. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:12, 24 July 2006 (BST)
This is my offer. NE Malton and a section of the SE. The rest is zombie territory. We may give a few areas around the survivor suburbs for a free for all. Zombies would allow survivors to migrate to these areas. We will give no other places up to survivors. NE and one from the SE. Any other suburb and you get half a Mall and the Armoury of a Fort. You get one Mall with Dulston already. If this was to be ratified the zombie leaders would pick survivor leaders. Usually group leaders. If group leaders are interested please contact me. I am true to my word on this. I am doing it because I think the idea of a survivor homeland would be awesome. Sonny Corleone WTF 01:36, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Sonny, I'm very interested in hearing what you think of my alternate plan. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:41, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Done. And if survivors do not accept this I can promise the end of major revives. When Yagoton get's hit. And it will. All major revives are gone. When Big Bash hit's Miltown that's one less suburb in the agreement. When we take out the NE it means it's over. We'll move west and take out Yagoton. That'll be your end. Accept this and I promise that you will live. Sonny Corleone WTF 02:03, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Wow, Sonny, what a horrible idea you've created. --Mookiemookie 02:04, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Horriblly awesome? Sonny Corleone WTF 02:05, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Well, I won't abide by it. Neither will the 7657464 ferals either. --Mookiemookie 14:09, 24 July 2006 (BST)
And this isn't what I thought you meant at all. This does not win the coveted Darth Sensitive Seal of Approval™. --Darth Sensitive talk • W! 14:59, 24 July 2006 (BST)
They don't need to accept it. They just need to run to Caiger. Keep your lag. We'll spread out and dig in. -- 343 U! 15:43, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Sonny, I have to say, your plan sounds ridiculous, and I doubt it would ever be able to be implemented, but I am strangely attracted to it. Maybe it's the whole role reversal thing, like zombies are the overlords now and humans are the captives (which almost aptly describes the current situation anyways, so meh). A couple of questions though, what would you do for newbies who happen to start off in the opposite corner of the game? Would you give amnesty to lower-level characters who don't attack the zombies?--Experiment C 01:24, 27 July 2006 (BST)

You're the reason why kids are beaten and AIDS still existing. You're supposed to be the underdog. We're supposed to be the majority. And we'd kill newbies. And this wasn't supposed to be serious. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 03:40, 27 July 2006 (BST)
So, when you said "I am true to my word on this." you really meant to say that you aren't serious at all about it. I see. --Kiki Lottaboobs 02:07 27 July 2006 (EST)
Meh, I still say it sounded interesting, if only in some kind of morbid sense. --Experiment C 16:21, 27 July 2006 (BST)
If it would happen I'd be true to my word. But it isn't so why should I bother? It's like "If all countries are willing to ban weapons you'll have my word that I'd help spread peace." But the chances of that are slim to fucking none. If it would happen I'd be true to my word. But it isn't. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 17:54, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Marty's Plan

Nice but not practical, I say we all play in whatever way is most advantageous, survivors don't need to relinqush their hold on places, but they do need to revise their tactics... If a suburb is too difficult to hold the way your are doing it, then come up with a new way to hold it, or don't hold the whole suburb. The horde's can only do so much if you condense your population or outsmart them... That's why caiger is so effective... even without the cade bots... Besides no agreement like that can last. it'd be like me making a deal with a great white not to eat me while i was bleeding my guts out in the water... Eventually something will give and at that point we'll all be in a nice small area. PS: Though survivors our tactics do need to change, because what happens when the zombies overrun everything, who will be around to revive us. at this rate by the end of the year, the survivor population will be 0 --MartyBanks 23:51, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Bob's Plan

My plan is fairly simple: survivors have gotten complacent and lazy, and they're being shaken up because the old way of doing things no longer works. I see two possible solutions:

  1. Large zombie-survivor cooperation, with emphasis on blocks of suburbs set out for each side. The understanding would be that no zombies would be hostile in the survivors' suburbs, and no survivors would be hostile in the zombies'.

    For example, zombies could take Ridleybank, Pimbank, Stanbury Village, and Roftwood, and survivors could take Darvall Heights, Eastonwood, East Becktown, and Richmond Hills. The remainder of the map would be a "no man's land," free-for-all as it is now. However, I have strong doubts about how long that arrangement would last.

  2. Survivors should simply adapt their tactics, focusing more on group work, and employing their inherent communication strengths.

–Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:18, 24 July 2006 (BST)

Nice plan's Bob... I gotta admit... but one thing, from the hard work that i have seen the survivors do, i can tell you they are anything but complacent and lazy.
These neigborhoods don't secure themselves... and that really takes AP and cooperation. --MartyBanks 00:28, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Thanks. I don't mean lazy in that sense, though. I mean lazy in the way that they're used to attacking zombies: step outside, take two or three out, then hop back in the safehouse. That just doesn't work anymore. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:31, 24 July 2006 (BST)
What do you expect us to do? --Paradox244 00:32, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Learn to read, apparently. I just told you. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:41, 24 July 2006 (BST)

Hey guys, Sonny Corleone is already bringing the CoL back to discuss the matter. I feel he will choose his plan.--Canuhearmenow 00:35, 24 July 2006 (BST)

Hahahahahaha. Things don't happen like that with the CoL. n00b. Also, please, for the love of Zombie Baby Jesus, learn to indent properly. If the response before you starts out with :::, yours should start with :::: –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:41, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Ok, I did the Indent thing, but then how will we do the whole "We get this suburb for a while and you get this one?" without some Meta-gaming discesions? just curious...--Canuhearmenow 00:44, 24 July 2006 (BST)
No, no. The CoL, or something like it, could certainly bring about that change, but don't expect it to happen that fast or be quite that clean. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:47, 24 July 2006 (BST)
No. In open suburbs survivors have the ability to spread out easier than corners. At least in a corner they can't spread out easily. Sonny Corleone WTF 01:44, 24 July 2006 (BST)

Bob's Alternate Plan

After thinking about my previous plan, I've come up with a possible alternate plan. It's based on the (quite possibly false) assumption that survivors and zombies would be able to keep the peace.

Under this plan, zombies would be given the suburbs of Ridleybank, Pimbank, Stanbury Village, and Roftwood. Survivors would be given the suburbs of Darvall Heights, Eastonwood, East Becktown, and Richmond Hills. For convenience, I will refer to these blocks as ZHQ (Zombie HQ) and SHQ (Survivor HQ). The suburb blocks were chosen based upon their significance (Ridleybank for zombies, Darvall Heights for survivors), relatively neutral placement on the map, and bordering suburbs in between.

Specific guidelines would be set out for each side:

  1. Survivors in ZHQ are welcome, so long as they do not attack or revive any zombie, or barricade any building.
  2. Zombies in SHQ are welcome, so long as they do not attack any survivor or building, or ransack any building.
  3. Survivors or zombies in the enemy's HQ are there at their own risk, and are completely fair game to be attacked by the other side.

The remainder of the map would be neutral, and continue to exist as it does now.

To facilitate keeping the peace in these specific areas, a new umbrella group would be formed: the Malton Alliance of Zombies and Survivors ("MAZS," pronounceable by both survivors and zombies). Any single player or group of players would be free to join this group, under the contingency that they abide by its rules.

Survivors in SHQ, or zombies in ZHQ, who are not part of MAZS, but who do not violate its rules, are welcome. Survivors in SHQ, or zombies in ZHQ, who are or are not part of MAZS, and who violate its rules, are not welcome, and are fair game for either side.

To keep everything stable, a council of twenty-one members will rule the MAZS. It will consist of ten zombies, ten survivors, and one last player to be a "tie-breaker." Zombies will elect their council members, and survivors theirs, but the tie-breaker member must be agreed upon by both sides.

The council will be responsible for keeping the agreement in place and functioning normally.

A little sketchy right now, but that's the general idea. If people like it, I can expand on it further and get things started. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:57, 24 July 2006 (BST)

No again for suburbs being in open areas. Only corners. Sonny Corleone WTF 01:44, 24 July 2006 (BST)
I second the motion. Not that my vote matters or anything, just thought I'd put my two cents in. --Paradox244 02:29, 24 July 2006 (BST)

You both seem to have entirely missed the point. The point was the idea, not those specific suburbs, that number of suburbs, etc. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:36, 24 July 2006 (BST)

Ok. I'd support it if the suburbs were changed to the ones I picked. Then if survivors need room we'd give up some more suburbs so that they can have their land to free run around in. Also most of the Map would be zombie though. Only a few selected suburbs would be neutral for fighting. Like Africa in the book 1984. Sonny Corleone WTF 02:55, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Sweet. (And yes, something tells me that you'd be elected to the Council.) Why do you prefer a mostly zombie map, with a survivor-only section, and a small fighting section? Why not have two sections — one survivor, one zombie — and the remainder of the map be neutral? This is a fighting game, after all. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:58, 24 July 2006 (BST)
The entire West, SouthWest, and Central will be zombie. The NE and SE will be survivor. Places in between like Santlerville and Pitneybank would be fighting ground. But part of this agreement would be zombies choosing the survivor leaders of the suburbs. That is to ensure that survivors don't go Candyland fucktarded. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:01, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Let's talk specific suburbs as boundaries (map below for reference). Here's my idea:
The diagonal section from Chancelwood to Paynerton, and everything east, would be survivor. So would the diagonal from Hollomstown to Houldenbank, and everything east. This would give the survivors 20 suburbs, but with a 2-suburb break in between the 10-suburb sections. Zombies would have the diagonal section from West Boundwood to Dunell Hills, and everything west, as well as from Williamsville to Crooketon, and everything west. This would give the zombies 20 suburbs as well, with the same situation as the survivors. The remainder of the map (the diamond/cross-like section in the middle) would be no man's land.
Malton Danger Map
Dakerstown Jensentown Quarlesbank West Boundwood East Boundwood Lamport Hills Chancelwood Earletown Rhodenbank Dulston
Roywood Judgewood Gatcombeton Shuttlebank Yagoton Millen Hills Raines Hills Pashenton Rolt Heights Pescodside
Peddlesden Village Chudleyton Darvall Heights Eastonwood Brooke Hills Shearbank Huntley Heights Santlerville Gibsonton Dunningwood
Dunell Hills West Becktown East Becktown Richmond Hills Ketchelbank Roachtown Randallbank Heytown Spracklingbank Paynterton
Owsleybank Molebank Lukinswood Havercroft Barrville Ridleybank Pimbank Peppardville Pitneybank Starlingtown
Grigg Heights Reganbank Lerwill Heights Shore Hills Galbraith Hills Stanbury Village Roftwood Edgecombe Pegton Dentonside
Crooketon Mornington North Blythville Brooksville Mockridge Heights Shackleville Tollyton Crowbank Vinetown Houldenbank
Nixbank Wykewood South Blythville Greentown Tapton Kempsterbank Wray Heights Gulsonside Osmondville Penny Heights
Foulkes Village Ruddlebank Lockettside Dartside Kinch Heights West Grayside East Grayside Scarletwood Pennville Fryerbank
New Arkham Old Arkham Spicer Hills Williamsville Buttonville Wyke Hills Hollomstown Danversbank Whittenside Miltown
–Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:30, 24 July 2006 (BST)
No. Sorry. The survivors can have those suburbs mentioned. But the rest of Malton is ours. And what is wrong with Mornington on that map? Sonny Corleone WTF 03:50, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Ooh, good catch. Minor template error, now fixed. Question: would the zombie areas be protected for zombies, or neutral/like the entire map is now? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:22, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Zombie designated areas will not be allowed for survivors. Anyone there will be killed. If survivors go Candyland invasion then expect the deal to be broken and hell broken loose. We will open up designated areas for zombies and harmanz to fight. Most likely the areas around the survivor suburbs. Of course this is only talking if this will happen. I doubt it will since survivors are stubborn and will be killed first. Sonny Corleone WTF 04:35, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Well, I don't get it then. If the zombies have most of the map, and the survivors have those two sections, where would the fighting area be? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:47, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Border suburbs. Suburbs bordering the survivor suburbs. Sonny Corleone WTF 04:59, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Huh. Why so few suburbs? Kind of defeats the purpose of the game, doesn't it? I understand giving survivors a place, and zombies a place, but as someone with characters on both sides, it doesn't seem really fair the way you have it set out. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:02, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Dude, we'll see. First survivors need to accept the olive branch. If they do we'll draw up plans for where they will go. Then we'll pick areas to fight on. And what I said would make 10 suburbs to fight in. May not be enough, which is why we'd expand the battlefield. If we zombies see that we need to. We're not interested in a gameover with zombies winning. We need survivors to remain alive for a food source. Survivors don't need us. That's why why zombies were at their low point they told us to fuck off. Now we're being nice and offering them a way out. Think of it as the Blue Pill to get out of the Matrix. Or deciding to go into the farms and then do the fighting in the Matrix. Fuck it. It's Midnight here. Sonny Corleone WTF 05:13, 24 July 2006 (BST)
No. We won't accept your proposal for a number of reasons. Primarily, you don't have the control over enough zombies to make your decree worth anything. If you did exert such control, survivors would be something you could easily wipe out. Besides, I don't think I'll take advice on how to stay alive from someone who is already dead -if you were any good at it, you'd be a alive. --Kiki Lottaboobs
a) This kind of defeats the purpose of the game.
b) IF the fighting is in the no-man's-land, where do the Dual natured players go?---Scout talk Click! 15:58, 9 September 2010 (BST)

Karlsbad's Procilmation of Doom

Not really. I just don't think my idea is any sort of plan but rather a common-sense realization of actual tactics.

  1. Survivors should actually start to group at a meta-cognative level as yet unseen for any group save for the Creedy Defense Force or the old Axes High. This means that you should plan "cleaning times" where you and 5-10 other survivors come to a specific building and shoot all the zombies (most likely with shotguns) and then barricade the area up to EH.
  2. Have detailed reports constantly streaming in as to the status of buildings within the area you are opperating in.
  • When a building falls, get a cleaning-crew out there to set-up shop
  • When multiple buildings are falling, be prepared to have a fall-back safehouse at the ready that you can sit in.
  1. Don't revive people that you don't know or that you don't think will help you. This means survivors wanting to "reclaim Ridleybank" or "get back into the bearpit" where they will die because they are not as large, organized, or prepared as the zombies.
  2. Always have a stock of syringes, or ammo, at the ready. Have at least one Generator and Fuel on your person as well.
  3. If you know that a horde is comming, jump over them. As in reclaim the area 15 to 25 blocks behind them. This serves as a method to slow down the "second wave" of feral zombies from sweeping across where the leading edge of the meta-horde has hit.
  4. Stop Thinking in Suburb-terms. Its just a name. Put your bases on edges strattling suburbs or at a four-corners location; the harder you make it for zombies to quickly assertain a method of clearing a suburb, the better your survivors will be.
  5. If you have a full of inventory, don't shoot random zombies at the street; revive them!

I think that's it. I used to have a meta-guide on the old Dezzens boards, but that was munched up. --Karlsbad 01:24, 24 July 2006 (BST)

EVOLVE OR DIE! Or, pitch a fit, be a crybaby and have a "strike" so that the mean admit makes changes because you don't like how the game works. Hahaha, a little walk down memory lane can be SO entertaining.--GuyIncogneeto 21:45, 23rd July 2006 (EST)

Wow, that added nothing to the discussion, GuyIncogneeto. I think that those are good points to consider. --Kiki Lottaboobs
I wrote a rather good (At least according to the people who responded) long guide and posted it on the guides page. You can use that. --The Grimch U! 23:58, 2 September 2007 (BST)

The Padre's Proposal

Most of these plans ignore a basic tenant of human nature: People don't follow rules, especially online gamers. Any proposed truce, or human/zombie free zone will only be broken by trenchcoaters (or whatever you call a zombie trenchcoater). Any organization on a grand scale will be polluted by those among us who are by nature disorganized (myself), Or will serve as a drama factory for those of us who refuse to follow orders or think they should be the ones giving them (And the Angels have seen enough of that). The plans above will only see quantifiable results if a large chunk of survivors follow through with these rules...which simply will not happen. The best you can do is encourage people to heal and barricade (perhaps with a few upgrades to the scientists among us, it would sure be nice.) and to look out for one another. The Zombies have us beat on almost any front imaginable from a raw mathmatical standpoint, but the Human classes were designed (I think) to thrive on cooperation. Just RP you charicter as he/she would act in an outbreak of this magnitude: help your friends first, and slay your enemies later, in the long run, this will make the game more enjoyable for all, and yeild the closest thing to a victory we can achieve.

PadreRomero 15:13, 24 July 2006 (BST)

Good point. But like you said how the bulk of survivors wouldn't accept any of the plans above, the bulk of survivors won't follow yours. They want to defend Malls. They want to die. They may complain about it but for some reason, in the back of their mind, they want that to happen. If not then why do they continue? Sonny Corleone WTF 16:07, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Ultimately, Sonny, if more survivors don't learn to play cooperatively, they will fail. I don't think they want to die, I think they want to ignore the fact that their old style of gameplay is no longer suitable. They want to think of zombies as something they can easily control and defend against. The day of the weak zombie is gone, and the fact that the game is played by people, and people often resort to denial rather than face the facts, is what's hurting them. If people can't face the very real crisis of global warming, what makes you think they'd be able to handle their game world turning upside down? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 16:34, 24 July 2006 (BST)
It's lovely and all that you think this place would work so well, but playing a survivor, it simply doesn't; I am/was a part of a group that hid out in Pegton, and ventured into the fringes of neighboring suburbs, but we operated in Pegton because the zombie population was low (Mainly ferals), and there was no mall which made a target. What happened? Well, at first we saw what seemed to be zombie spies. You can't be certain, but a lot of first level scouts just hanging around the buildings, people with all the zombie skills, but human with free-running, body-building and diagnosis (No combat or revive skills what so ever.) We were a bit nervous about this activity, then we logged on yesterday and everyone's dead. We took as much precautions that we could, we might visit the neighboring malls but /never/ slept there, once a week we'd go to the Necrotech building, capture it, set up a generator and make as many needles as the group could, then destroy our own generator to make the human presence seem disorganized in Pegton. But guess what? We logged on one morning, and large groups of zombies had all coordinated to hit all our safehouses simultaneously overnight. We've got one guy alive. Sorry, but the game is horribly skewed against the survivors, even if you try to play "smart." The degree of meta-gaming zombies involve themselves in (Which is /supposed/ to be their weakness; poor communication. IRC solves that simple enough though; no AP to talk!) and the alt abuse which goes on with zombie spies makes any attempt to play a survivor ridiculous; in the end, the game is about AP management, and the deck is stacked against survivors. For a survivor to become revived, it requires at /minimum/ 31 AP (Pooled) to return to their "side"; 10 AP for the dead to rise as a zombie, 1 AP for reviver to find a syringe (Saying you're lucky as hell and find it first look), 10 AP used to the syringe, and then another 10 AP for the recently dead to rise (And wounded, at that! Hooray more AP used to return to 50 HPs and remove infections!) For a zombie, worst case scenario is 15 AP to rise from a headshot. On top of that, it requires a 2nd tier skill (At least 200 XP) to even be able to revive someone. A zombie 2nd tier skill is Ankle Grab, which reduces their penalty to 1 or 5 AP. Which 200 XP was far, far, _far_ more efficient? I suppose if you don't much care about the game being balanced then that point is moot, but a deeply unbalanced game is making this very unenjoyable for the survivors. As such, the game is pretty much wrapping up to an end. Zombies have won. There soon won't be any Necrotech offices left, and with that the only humans will be newbies who won't stand a chance. Congrats, I suppose, but it's the natural course of things with the rules we have in play. GuyIncogneeto 12:08, 24 July 2006 (EST)
Don't Complain, first off, this is a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, we're all gonna die, accept it. This is not fantasy, with its epic battles, clashes of good and evil on equal footing, and badass special effects. This is horror, the good guys are outnumbered, outgunned, and out of luck. If we pull through, it makes survival all the more terrific. My chief complaint with the game is that most of it's players think their playing ruinscape or D&D, where they can just ride out and shoot things (either that or their obnoxious PKers). Survivors need to learn to survive, barricade, and heal, not just shoot. If we learn to get along, and if Scientists and Civilians become a little more useful and fun to play, the game will return to equalibrium.
It may be a zombie apocalypse, but it's also a game. If you're doomed to die no matter what choices you make, well, that's not the most compelling reason to play, is it? I find all of this rather funny in contrast to the "On Strike" zombies of days gone by; before, the game was "unbalanced" and unfair to zombies, so they didn't find it fun and refused to play. Now that things are different, it's "STFU AND DEAL!" Maybe survivors ought to have learned a lesson from the zombies outside of "metagame more." GuyIncogneeto 15:50, 24 July 2006 (EST)

I do think that we in the world of the living need a little boost, but as an RPer, I just think we need more things to do. PadreRomero 17:46, 24 July 2006 (BST)

JamesW6179, chill out and grow up. Don't act as though all zombie players use "OMFG ZOMBY SPIES," as though people who play zombies are any less fair, as though you have no control, or as though zombie players shouldn't metagame. Don't like the way things are? Fine. But don't make yourself look like an idiot. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:12, 25 July 2006 (BST)

No...no. Let him. He's actually quite entertaining. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:14, 25 July 2006 (BST)
You can pretend the problem of alts and such don't exist, but it happens. And due to the nature of the game, its abuse tends to be much more advantageous for zombies than survivors. But no matter, there really isn't much to say about alt-abusers other than they're a problem people have to deal with; it's a free game, you can theoretically run as many characters as possible, and if you're particularly inclined, can reasonably hide the fact. I do like how you completely avoid discussing any of more "meaty" commentary though, about game balance and such. Kudos for avoiding debate. Finally, childish? I'd say just a teeny bit less than "I'm taking my ball and going home!" pouty shit with "On Strike" back when the pendulum was swung too far towards survivors. GuyIncogneeto 1:42, 25 July 2006 (EST)
So wait, the fact that the barricade action doesn't trip Zerg flags is a pittance? Or maybe you are unaware that lvl three characters jumped by 800 just before the Mall Tour's Caiger assualt, the perfect level for manufacturing syringes.
Anyway, you complain about alt-zombies sitting in buildings? Clearing a group of zombies out of a building now requires survivors also to have actual commited metagamming and because zombies are the only players that are doing this at the moment it is a game-balance issue? Unless the camping alt never swings at barricades you will never see a zombie used effectively that way, because as soon as a building is cleared and EH'd then the zombie is as ineffective as a Mrh?Cow. So you predicate this opinion on the fact that other zombies are spending their AP to open buildings and because survivors aren't trying to then effectively clear those buildings and somehow these mystical camping-zombies are at fault? --Karlsbad 07:59, 25 July 2006 (BST)
You have to be bloody insane! Every survivor group I've encountered metagames with a vengence! You can darn well try to blame things on lack of survivor coordination, but it's not. It's a matter of the game mechanics themselves. And that's the truth. --Paradox244 00:57, 27 July 2006 (BST)
Really? Okay; Consider a group of, oh, 50 survivors commited to moving and playing at the same time GMT. I will give a reasonable range of numbers for each action and then compute the highest possible to account for bad days of RNG.
*AP Searching and arriving at a safehouse- maybe 10 to 15 averaged over the group if you metagame well.
*AP to kill zombies: dependant on weapon used: using Fire Axe it would take 50 to 42 AP per zombie divided by number of members in the group.
*Unransack 1AP for all survivors.
*Barricade 10 to 25 AP divided by number of survivors, plus possible re-fitting incase of a zombie attacking during recharge period
So, lets say 25 barricade & unransack costs = .5 AP per survivor, plus 15AP to get to safehouse, and then Zombie Killing (given 50 members) is 1AP per survivor per zombie, making it only cost about 15.5 plus 1 per Zed. So it doesn't actually cost that much if you start playing well; maybe only 25 total if you try and reclaim a mall. So, do you actually have any response or are you going to whine more? You have half of your entire AP to spend checking barricades and finding syringes and sticking your members. If you aren't playing at this level, you aren't metagaming well enough. --Karlsbad 01:32, 27 July 2006 (BST)

The "Who Gives a Damn, it's Just a Game" Plan

Every single suburb is a free for all. Whatever the zombies hold on to, they hold on to. Whatever the survivors hold on to, they hold on to. If something gets invaded by one side or the other, they fight to keep it, or run if they believe they're outmatched, or fight knowing they are outmatched and die with honor/stupidity. Each side adapts to the other constantly, as this way the game must keep changing.

Everyone does what he/she/it wants. Groups do whatever they want. This includes being stupid, rampaging though suburbs, starting a new group, barricading, tearing down barricades, shooting, bitching, dispanding a group, scratching, reviving, searching, biting, grabbing, talking, running, suiciding, slashing, beating, eating, setting up a government, pk'ing, rioting, going on strike, hosting soccer games, tearing down a government, using flares as fireworks, and dying.

It's Kevan's game. He never said, "play like this or GTFO." As long as he hasn't said it, I don't think any players, zombie nor survivor, has the right to. It's one big sandbox, and nobody can control it. Well, I suppose Kevan could. But like I said, his game, so whatever. --Christian Bond 03:02, 25 July 2006 (BST)

Dude...this is all for fun. Metagaming fun. We know it won't happen. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:09, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Then cut the flinging of insults and end this discussion, or come up with something useful, please. --Christian Bond 16:10, 25 July 2006 (BST)
And the insults are where, Mr. Doesn't Know How To Sign? Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 04:27, 25 July 2006 (BST)
I like this plan. Flares should be used as fireworks more often. Seriously, just try to enjoy it. I've been dead for a week now...and let me tell you, it sure is quiet when you're out. Smile and enjoy the apocalypse. PadreRomero 15:19, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Sorry about leaving my previous comment unsigned, I forgot. I tried to go back and edit it, but the wiki wouldn't let me back on. --Christian Bond 16:10, 25 July 2006 (BST)

Merc's Plan

EH buildings, leave generators running so the zeds think that there are survivors inside buying time for more to get out of the suburb. We could have desiginated people to run through the sub, warning unaffliated people, barricading, telling safepoints in other suburbs. Tagging misleading or misdirecting directions. We can hold key resource points for them to stock up and get out. Forming raiding teams and/or organizing raid groups with call signs so that we have sub divisions of our groups fighting capacity. The real Achilles heel in this type of suituation is the fact that we will need to, either consistently and stubbornly hold Necrotech buildings, hospitals, or Malls to find syringes for revives, or the more risky approach is to hold it like any other resource point. Only long enough for people to spend ap finding syringes and moving on and getting the heck of out dodge.

Note: This kind of tactic works better if you are with a survivor group--Mercsenary 04:02, 3 August 2006 (BST)

So in other words...barricade strafing. Great. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 04:04, 3 August 2006 (BST)
That's what you've been doing... This is about NEW Survivor Tactics. -- BeefSteak WTF 23:41, 5 August 2006 (BST)
There is an old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There is a place for 'cade strafing... --WanYao 23:41, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Another new Plan

This is aimed at all in the SE and in the E.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3264/erghzc9.jpg

Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 03:20, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Use River Tactics

The zeds concentrate. They move in packs and hordes and mega hordes. the larger the pack, the more devestation they do wherever they go. But they go where they do to get the brains that makes the game worth playing. Operation Tumbleweed put it plainly: leave. Playing a zombie (which I have) is all about breaking into a building and killing and infecting as many people as possible. The most depressing event I had as a zombie was tearing down the barricades on a completely empty safehouse - what a waste of good brain eating AP. River Tactics is the answer. Operation Tumbleweed was what inspired River Tactics and I think it is the most sound strategy to combat zombies who (as I have already argued) like to congregate. All we have to do is track them, and move around them. Abandon territory, don't try to re-enact the Alamo; it ended badly. That's my call. I'm a CI of the MPD, and my whole district is operating with these tactics. It's working for us. --Kiki Lottaboobs 02:07 27 July 2006 (EST)

It makes sence, and it would keep you alive, but it just isn't all that interesting. I'd rather die a lot but enjoy the game then just keep running. Once zombie groups get enough momentm, they'll just keep coming, chasing after the humans who run.--Christian Bond 16:05, 27 July 2006 (BST)
Here's my answer to River Tactics and Barr Strafing- Ruin. Ruin is like barricades for zombies(But less powerful)! You ruin every freakin building in a suburb! They can't barricade, and it's much harder to look for ammo, and revive! That is fun!

BoboTalkClown 02:17, 25 August 2007 (BST)


When all you do is run away, 2/3 of the map turns red... then all the harmanz whine and beg for buffs. Feh...
And what happens when there's nowhere left to run?....
But, seriously, River Tactics are flawed because they don't take into account human nature: humans don't like leaving their homes until they are absolutely forced to. So, even in a mere game, most of the survivors are not going to heed your call and run: they'll try to make a stand. If you want to succeed in organising people, you have work with their natural tendencies and inclinations -- not against them.
River Tactics are also flawed because there other options than simply booking it 20 tiles away at the first sign of danger....
River Tactics are right in that long-term static defence against the zombie horde -- i.e. "playing Alamo" -- is suicidal.
Therefore, guerrilla tactics. REAL guerrilla tactics... --WanYao 23:36, 2 September 2007 (BST)


THISis my plan.Sorry if make a section for this but,I can't edit the wiki very well,but my plan can be summarised in two words:GO NUTS!!! Just combine several tactics to defeat the horde in a suburb and actually combat them.I call it War Tactics.

Scout's plans

I have two options. One is for the die hard survivor; Communicate with other survivors, I think zombies communicate better because they like the challenge of doing it vs how easy survivors can talk. Dedicate yourself to the cause of a suburb, and stick with that suburb through thick and thin. Familiarize yourself with the suburb and don't give it up!

Option two: Join Dual Nature. Whether you live or not will be immaterial, and you can't lose whether the suburb's status is green or red. How is that for evolveing? :P

I have done both options, one is a survivor alt, another is a dual nature alt. I must say, it is more fun to be dual natured. Having designated survivor/zombie suburbs is impossible and will defeat the whole purpose of the game. I for one would either break the rules with all my alts (zombie, survivor, and Dual Natured), or leave the game. I respect the no zerging rule, but that would be ridiculous.---Scout talk !!! 16:26, 9 September 2010 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_of_Survivors_Tactics&oldid=1775921"