Talk:S.O.S.

It finally feels like a zombie apocalypse, eh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:58 2 December 2008 (BST)

Operation Band-Aid

I've only been playing for several months (survivor only), but IMHO survivors are very disorganized. RRF is very organized. Papa says "here is a map. Kill everything colored red." And they do it. It's not because zombies are extraordinarily powerful, it's because they converge on a single goal.

Many humans, on the other hand, refuse to speak in game. I've seen the sentiment described as "don't waste AP talking, do something that helps the survivor cause." That's ignoring your single greatest asset as a survivor, the ability to share info and keep up morale. I've made PKers laugh and move on from a building just by joking with them, reviving the person they killed and making them apologize, healing them and asking them nicely not to misbehave, etc...

And there are countless fractured survivor groups with only a handful of members, working to protect indefensible positions. Let's stop it! Rather than appeal to the game creator to tip the scales in our favor with elaborate, ill-conceived rule changes, why don't we come up with a set of policies that allow disparate survivor groups to work towards a common endgame? Why don't we do some data visualization and focus on concentrating forces in the most defendable parts of Malton, rather than trying to light up every worthless building?

If you don't want to use politics and charisma, be a zombie. If you just want to shoot zombies with a shotgun, play Left 4 Dead. If you want to RP and talk with funny people and work together towards an endgame, all the while staving off zombie ruination, then you should play as an Urban Dead Survivor.

I'm going to start a page called Operation Band-Aid if you want to talk about a more constructive way out of this crisis.

Operation_band-aid

Capsid 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this assessment. My suggestions work to encourage much needed intelligent gameplay amongst the survivors by competitively rewarding support behavior critical to the survivor cause, rather than significantly altering game mechanics. --The God Emperor 02:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If increased XP for support roles is really all that S.O.S. is about, I'm all for that. At least for installing equipment, fueling generators, and repairing buildings (1/5 of the repair cost would be nice). (Survivors tend to cade out of self-preservation, and healing already gives you a good chunk of XP...so I don't think a boost to XP gain is really needed for those). --Jen 02:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cading should be rewarded both because zombies are alloted an XP incentive for tearing them down, and because it's still currently a thankless, AP sapping task that features no individual incentive. The object is to encourage humans to take the initiative on support tasks, and XP rewards for cading succeeds at this. As long as the XP/AP ratio is kept in check (I'm not suggesting 1/1 rewards here), there is absolutely nothing wrong with rewarding cade building up until VS++ status as I've suggested. As for healing, it's still not competitive with combat in terms of the XP/AP ratio. What I would specifically like to see happen is something like XP rewards = to HP healed for the first five (5) points of healing, and 1 additional XP for every 2 HP healed thereafter. Not only would this promote taking the initiative on healing, but it would also encourage survivors to acquire the First Aid and Surgery skills.--The God Emperor 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Barricading? AP-sapping? Not compared to debarricading it's not. Not even bloody close. Indeed, up to VSB barricading an unoccupied building carries a near 100% success rate, compared to the zombies' 25% debarricading rate. Further, referring to barricading as 'thankless' is rather comical, as barricades are most often the only thing keeping you alive; thus you should not need thanks for doing it. As for healing, that, barricading and reviving are the greatest individual weapons in the game and with the exception of barricading they already provide experience points, which makes two of them dual-rewarding as an incentive to help others whilst barricades help oneself as much as anyone else in the building. --Papa Moloch 04:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Objectively it is AP-sapping. Further, you do not benefit 'as much as anyone else' when you barricade because it comes at the cost of your action points. The others do not have to pay, and you are not directly rewarded for your initiative; in this capacity it is a thankless task. Further, there is clearly a need to provide an XP incentive for barricading when players so commonly focus on killing lone zombies rather than repairing barricades in the midst of a zombie assault to disastrous consequences; again they are behaving the way the incentive structure tells them to behave. Finally, I reiterate there is absolutely no reason not to reward barricading as long as the XP/AP ratio is kept reasonable. Arguments akin to 'a good deed is its own reward' fall flat both with respect to this, and every other support behaviour as repeatedly evidenced by the reality of in-game survivor actions.

Moving onto healing and reviving, these feature uncompetitive XP/AP ratios as compared to combat, which is again why you see survivors firing their guns instead of minding their FAKs. Further it is illogical that healing isn't rewarded in a manner somehow proportionate to its efficacy and outcome. --The God Emperor 06:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Barricading brings instant reward: It provides a layer of defence behind which to hide and AP-wise runs at a 4-1 edge over debarricading. Throwing up barricades is easy and, AP-wise, cheap because it creates instant defence for anyone using the building, thus it can defend an infinite number of survivors. These advantages are why debarricading carries an experience point reward and barricading does not. Barricading is its own reward and anything which further rewards the already heavily-used tactic of barricade strafing is damaging to the game. Further, complaining about something not having an XP reward on the basis that it helps other people too is rather a selfish mentality. Healing of and reviving others carry experience point rewards because they involve helping others ahead of oneself, with no immediate potential benefit (you could well be healing or reviving the person who will one day heal or revive you, or barricade your safehouse, or block a ruin, or clear a building, etc, but that is not immediate). These actions are weapons which need no buffing beyond the search rate adjustment which Kevan has already implemented. The manner in which you post suggests that what you are really demanding is a form of UD social engineering, in which people's play practices are manipulated out of them. Massive rewards for already hugely rewarding activities are no way to foster balance. The reward for survivors playing smart is staying alive, just as the reward for zombies playing smart is getting fed. The smart way for survivors to play is to heal, revive and barricade, but then the smart way for zombies to play is to join an organised horde. Both further the aims of their kind far better than the usual practices, so would you want zombies given immediate rewards just for joining a horde? I would not. Smart play rewards itself: It's something that comes from experience and learning from others; it does not need to be hardcoded or fostered as a game mechanic. If people play stupidly that is their lookout, whether they are survivor, zombie or PKer. At the end of the day though this is all moot, because this crying over game balance will soon be established as entirely pointless when the usual order of Malton is restored. The experienced players have seen this cycle happen many times before and we'll see it happen many times in future: Survivors are getting screwed so Kevan buffs their search and hit rates; zombies are getting screwed so Kevan buffs their debarricading and hit rates. It's the way the game turns --Papa Moloch 07:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Social engineering is precisely what's needed given the relative diversity of actions the survivors must undertake (as contrasted to the zombies which need do little more than horde and fight simultaneously) in order to effect a solid and robust resistance, and the indisputable illogic of the currently broken XP incentive system. The failure of the current system is readily evident in its irrational overemphasis on combat, effective penalization of support activities, and the apparent consequences of survivor behaviour in the form of epidemic trenching. Survivors by far and large are doing what the game is telling them to do, and that means reckless, self-destructive combat. Now, while it's all well and good to call out people for selfishness, and argue that long-term incentives exist for under-rewarded support activities, the reality is that pie in the sky game design does not work. It is too much to ask that survivors continually self-sacrifice for little to no individual reciprocity. Human nature responds to immediate, direct, tangible incentives, not abstractions of the collective good, which is all too repeatedly shown by what the survivors actually do. Additionally, why should combat dominate the XP incentives as they do? Why should trenchies get all the XP when the real contributors get shafted? Why should suboptimal play be more heavily rewarded than intelligent behaviour? With all this in mind, you cannot say with any credibility whatsoever that the current XP incentive system is not broken. Perhaps it works for Zombies with their almost single-minded emphasis on combat, but the same is not true of the Humans. 2 and 2 do not equal 5. Lastly, reworking this XP system simply makes methods aside from combat competitive means of XP gain. It does not force, or coerce people into dropping their play-styles so much as it encourages them to play more intelligently.

Further, I challenge you to demonstrate how a modest XP reward for barricading would be 'damaging to the game'. True barricading has its advantages. However, those advantages are not always immediate, and are never direct. Further, the AP edge it confers is not a plausible case for precluding survivors from being rewarded. Killing a zombie grants a meaningful AP edge, so why is it so heavily rewarded? Because it aids the survivor cause; indeed it aids the survivor cause precisely because it affords an AP edge. As well, you really should drop the hyperbole about 'massive rewards' and 'hugely rewarding', because I do not advocate 'massive rewards' and no support activity can be earnestly called 'hugely rewarding' when you consider its XP/AP ratio as compared to combat. Collectively? Maybe. Individually? Never. I've proven my case as to the benefits and necessity of a reworked incentive system, now I invite you to actually demonstrate material issues with it.

Lastly, you really should remove your trolling signature. A little maturity goes a long way. --The God Emperor 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody's making really good points. I want to ask about XP as a way out of the crisis. Doesn't it only help very new survivors? Are we aquiring new survivors at such a rate that XP boosts will turn the tide? Isn't everybody essentially equal by about lvl 10-15? Capsid 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would surmise that XP remains a powerful incentive for most players at least until they acquire all of the abilities of their chosen side, plus several essentials from the other; until at least around the mid twenties. For completionists, the dual natured, and the undecided, it can remain one up until the low 40s. So in otherwords, yes, XP incentive revision should prove a powerful and effective tool for addressing the problem. --The God Emperor 06:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• "elaborate, ill-conceived rule changes"? From what I see it has been a bunch of "elaborate, ill-conceived rule changes" over the past year, all favoring the zombie side that has led to this crisis.--mvario 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no crisis, Mvario, aside from survivors players panicking over being in the minority and having their long-secure suburbs put in a little danger. Survivors are nowhere near out of the game; they just need to adapt and start playing smart for once. Although Capsid's Band-Aid ideas are not all that revolutionary (look up the SSZ), they're the right answer. A strike is the wrong answer.--Jiangyingzi 13:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Survivors on Strike?

So you are on strike because the game is unbalanced? Bloody hell. If you don't like it, why put humanity in a worse spot by idling out? Get off your arses and start to do some work to MAKE us better! --Haliman - Talk 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what would need to change?

It is a zombie apocalypse game, but it's an open-ended on with no victory conditions for Humans. The only avenue is really zombie victory and thus game termination and restart. If the actual point of the game is for eventual zombie domination, then no changes are really needed.

One possible change would be to undermine the zombies just continually standing up where they drop. If zombies were randomly respawned on the city map several blocks away after a headshot, the hordes would be somewhat diminished and would give human players something of a chance when the swarms come. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpace (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 December 2008.

Balance?

I agree that the zeds have the better end of the stick at this time. Nice would be weapons that could damage more than 1 zed at a time like a molitov cocktail, or having the cost of rising from the dead higher. That said, a never ending balance is another kind of hell. What would happen if the revive syringes got less effective, and the cost of rising again was 20 AP? I think that it would increase the value of staying alive, and not getting killed no matter what you state was living or dead. I wonder if Kevan is looking to rest the game after a final zombie victory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todreich (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2008.

Let's get wiped out?

After all is it so wrong for zombie apocalypse? Lets get an end date with rescue coming and nuking of all zombies afterwards ;) and see if anyone makes it. However if Malton is to stay open-ended some extra zombie hunter skills would be just what the doctor ordered. Well, actually some new zombie hunter skills that are really annoying for zombies. Right now it's impossible to actually hurt them. It costs 1-6AP with Ankle Grab to get going again and barricades can't do the job against hordes (even though cumulative APs of builders would be enough to make zombies bash it for eternity, it's good enough for zeds if they wake up at a given time, bash it down in seconds and break in en masse, before first builder waking up). To add suggestion not yet mentioned - zombies may somehow wear-out. Headshots (or new skill) could lower their AP regeneration cumulatively. First would hurt only as much as current version of HS. However getting hits to the brain daily would mean meager AP regeneration in a weak. Effect would go away completely after like 3 days of not getting banged. Feeding on fallen enemies could also lower it. --Peterus 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• There's no escape from Malton, bud. Whatever the zombie plague is, you've already got it, and the rest of humanity would be supremely stupid to turn you loose. The quarantine isn't just for the walking dead...you breathers are zombies, too. You just aren't zombies at the moment.--Jiangyingzi 19:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Making this better

You know, you could make this bigger. Give pro-survivor groups and solo's the chance to show support, make a "signed by" list for example. Make support templates. Just some ideas.--Thadeous Oakley 22:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This could mostly be improved by deleting it from the wiki and forgetting it was ever brought up in the first place.--Jiangyingzi 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Troll away.--Thadeous Oakley 00:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sign!

You guys should sign your posts, so I know where to send the cheese with your whine--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the backs of the envelopes for ya. Send away! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A little late

Kevan has already upped search rates back up to your little trenchie hearts' desires earlier this week. What's the point of this if the problem has been fixed? It'll take time but you'll get back to your easy living ways that made the game far too easy for you to survive in game. ZOMG, we're not the majority.... THE GAME IZ TEH BROKEN! Give me a break. --Johnny Bass 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about surviovors dropping below 50%. Right now there're no green suburbs. Considering that there're only two real tactics for breathing here - outannoying and outboring zombies - we'll probably be all eaten. At least the newbs. As it's pointed out in the article - zombies were powered up several times. Most notably ruins of ransacked center of the town are hampering chances to successfully reconquer them. I do not mind getting eaten, but game simply won't be open ended like this. After current front-line gets ransacked up till the southern boarder zombies will be able to effectively wipe everyone out. Any new presence in the center will be severly penalized by ton of extra AP needed for rebuilding.--Peterus 08:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh...one of my survivors has been working to reclaim heavily ruined areas for quite some time. The AP penalty isn't crippling. And the place gets up and running in a week or two, as long as you have a couple folks watching eachother's back. While many survivors may be running to the SW, waiting for the zombies to arrive, a great many are actually being proactive, and are in the north, working to reclaim decimated areas. The zombies won't wipe everyone out. And another tactic available to survivors is to maybe start working in coordinated strike teams...like the zombies do. --Jen 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you harmanz could do what intelligent ones like Jen here are doing then you'd be doing just fine and dandy. Seriously, organise "Repair strikes", where one person repairs a building, a couple more come in and barricade. Minimal effort really, but most harmanz are too stupid to realise how easy it is.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Chillax

I can understand how, when faced with a challenge, a person can become resentful... but we've seen worse times. Just because your formerly green suburb is no longer an Eden doesn't mean you can't have fun. Hell, have you seen Barrville lately? AH is sitting pretty, dodging zeds, catching revives... and enjoying it.

This is a zombie apocalypse after all. Hardcore Rockabilly, Retired FAE Axes High ^{AH RR RRF}

That's not the point - that a suburb has turned from green to red. The point is that they have ALL turned - there are no green suburbs left. When over half of the suburbs are either red or ghost towns (as they are now), to me this is a sign that things are clearly out of whack. And each day that goes by makes it harder to do something about those ghost towns because of the cumulative effects of ruin. No one is resentful here but we do feel that we have a legitimate point. --Lucas Black

The zombies are taking over? Maybe is because the game is a damn Zombie Apocalypse/Survival Game, not a SimCity with zombies being a mild irritation? ADAPT. The old times, when sitting on your "fortresses" and shooting zombies are dead. COORDINATE. I have never seen more than ten survivors acting together, save mall sieges and events (November the 5th). SURVIVE. You are SURVIVORS. You should SURVIVE, not "kIllZ Al ZaMbahZ!!11!shift+oneone1!"--Shotgunna Ramma

It's fine to say that if all the humans change their play behavior things will change, but in reality that's not going to happen. The current situation is not a result of a change in behavior but in a years worth of changes to the game favoring zombies. Some of those changes were needed, but the result was that there were too many and the overcompensation is threatening the game. I couldn't find a recent graph of the populations so I made one...

What I see is the human population lower than it has ever been before, and still declining rapidly. I realize there is a certain amount of zombie joy in the air with taking over the whole map in site, but from what I hear (and I'm not there) it's not a whole lot of fun to play in Monroeville these days. If there isn't some balance restored to the game then Malton is going to soon be like that until it is.--mvario 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of this is good...most is stupid

I rather like that first set of your suggestions, about players getting a bit of XP for performing support roles. I think the lack of them has been a problem for a long time. XP for currently thankless tasks would encourage SMART playing, which is something survivors desperately need to learn. But the other stuff is just plain stupid. Survivors don't need flamethrowers, or miraculous crucifixes, or zombies being forced to feed 24/7. All they really need, to balance out the latest zombie buffs, are improved search rates. We don't need anything new - we just need to be enabled to do our current jobs more frequently and successfully. What was really hurting survivors recently was the decay update, combined with ABYSMAL search rates. Low search rates mean more frustration...and also too few supplies to do anything. Kevan's just fixed that, and the city will be showing the results shortly. It's not the end of the world. --Jen 14:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dammit Jen, you're a ninja!

  _
 (-)
\/D\

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some Additional Suggestions

Dude, I'm sorry, but these are hideous. While some of your "core" suggestions have merit, most of the "additional" ones of them are straight off the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, others are familiar from Frequently Suggested, and others are just not well thought out. May I please suggest reading through both of those, having a good hard think, and then taking anything that's left to Developing Suggestions for some discussion with (hopefully) helpful peers?

1) Skills for either zombies or humans should start to degrade after a certain point the longer someone remains one or the other (i.e. a dual skilled player that remains a human over 30 days should slowly start to lose zombie skills)

Leave Other People's Skills Alone. People earned those skills.

2) Survivors need Weapons of Mass Destruction. Recommend something like a) flamethrower and b) Molotov cocktails that will injure more than one opponent at a time. Fuel cans can be precursors to the fueling of flamethrowers or making of Molotov’s. Wine bottles would also be needed to make Molotov’s (makes these items useful to be found and kept). Both are wildly inaccurate (unless a skill or skill is bought) with a chance of "splash" damage. This damage is indiscriminant can hurt zombie, barricade, generator, and human alike if splash occurs. Fire damage CAN NOT be healed in zombies. Make the flamethrower a hard item to find (or construct in a junkyard), very heavy, has a chance per turn of exploding (goes up if attacked) and with a one shot use (one fuel can, one shot) but with extreme damage (20-30) to large crowds.

Perhaps surprisingly, I actually agree that Area of Effect Abilities could be a fun addition to the game. However, given the amount of times it's been suggested, I severely doubt it's going to happen.

3) Zombies holding a crucifix should have a 1% chance each turn of being "miraculously" cured and turned back into a human. Adds an element of uncertainty.

Crucifixes should be useless, just like in real life. These are science zombies, not magical ones. Hence the NecroTech-employed scientists running around reviving people.

4) Humans with the Brain Rot skill should have a 1% chance of "combusting" into a zombie.

Because OBVIOUSLY it's not hard enough to play a Brain-Rotted survivor already, what with it being exponentially more difficult to get/coordinate revives. No, every Brain-Rotted survivor is just a zombie in pajamas (wolf in sheep's clothing) who's planning to kill all harmanz, whether they know it or not! POOF! There you go, zombified again! How exactly does this help survivors again? >:3

5) Items carried by a zombie should have a 5% chance of falling off every turn. Only makes sense that items carried would drop off eventually.

Right... so the trenchies lose their guns and ammo as they walk to the RP. Brilliant! Newsflash: zombies can't use items, so this will only harm survivors.

6) Lastly, zombies should be forced to feed in order to maintain their health. Otherwise they should loss health like infected humans.

So let me get this straight, a zombie logs in and stands up from headshot with the 60 HP they've only recently gained thanks to Flesh Rot. Then they go wander and bash on cades for 44 AP, maybe opening a building if it's VS or lower and the RNG doesn't rape them too hard. Now they're down to 16 HP, just perfect for a trenchie to come in and kill them in 2 shotgun blasts, right? Because what Malton really needs more of is idiots with guns shooting every zombie in sight for easy XP.

All that said, please, do yourself a favour and read up on the game mechanics and have a read through Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested. You may have some decent ideas in there, but you'll be much better off and your suggestions better recieved if you can avoid the common pitfalls.

One thing you DO have is enthusiasm, which is always good to see. :) So, assuming I haven't put you off altogether (I hope not), maybe I'll see you about Developing Suggestions? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything Revenant said, but with more vitriol. Seriously, you harmanz actually have it hard for once, enjoy it. It's actually a zombie apocalypse now.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys sure those suggestions were sincere? As far as I can tell that whole section was written by a person who has a grand total of three edits, all of them were the construction of that section. Could be trolling with a throwaway account. - User:Whitehouse 15:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well...the thought definitely crossed my mind. Especially with magical crucifixes and combusting zombies. On the other hand, some of the other things on the list seemed plausibly serious...Poe's Law, anyone? --Jen 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of Poe's Law before, definitely appropriate for this. Without 3 and 4 you could easily think it was sincere, but with them you just can't be sure. - User:Whitehouse 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was under the misapprehension that the "additional suggestions" were made by the same person as the earlier ones. After looking at the edit history and talking to The God Emperor, this is obviously not the case, and I probably wouldn't have bothered with such a reply had I checked that first. Also, yes, Poe's Law definitely applies. Regardless, typing that response was very cathartic, so if it was a successful troll then I tip my hat to you, sir. :D ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll post. Removing. I take it there are no objections? --The God Emperor 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An easier solution

Looked at the Omnimap? Zombies are doing so well because they've moved out of the traditional NW area and are in the North East and SW. If survivors were working as a coherent force I'd just say head west. Yes the repair costs are high, and you will die a lot at first but its a lot easier than standing up to a couple of hundred zeds. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why this strike is a very bad idea

When it comes down to it, this strike is essentially a cheap attempt to get an entire raft of suggestions -- incomplete suggestions, at that -- approved by Kevan without submitting them to the standard peer review process. If a solitary change, even one, is implemented to the game via this strike it will set a terrible precedent. Why would people want to go through the trouble of developing their suggestions on the discussion page and then putting them up for a vote when it's more efficient to rabble-rouse a bit, make a wiki page for your latest strike, and ramrod your ideas right through?

If the suggestions on this page have merit, submit them normally and let nature take its course. Don't try to go over everyone's heads by threatening to take your ball and go home unless we all play by your rules. Go to this page and brave the waters.

Honestly, neither 40% survivors nor lack of green suburbs is cause for alarm. Survivors are a long way from out of the game. As per most of the more rational voices in this discussion, survivors don't need Kevan to come galloping up on a white horse to save them. They simply need to play smarter. Maybe this change will enforce better survivor play (unless the recently implemented search buffs do their work too well).--Jiangyingzi 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)