User:Maverick Farrant/Sandbox 5

Building Population Cap

Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Building change

Scope: Large populations of survivors and sieges

Description: This idea spawned from discussion about how it is quite impossible to have a siege at all similar to those of the early days of Malton, the ones that people remember fondly even if they were on the "losing" side. If implemented, all buildings would have a limit on the number of persons that could possibly be inside. This limit would be 50 for any single-block building and 80 for any block of a multi-block building (like a mall). Most frequently this would affect survivors trying to free run into a building. If the target building is already full to capacity, the player will get a message similar to the one they get when trying to enter a fort from any location other than the entrance: "This building is at maximum capacity, there is no room for even one more body." This can either drop the survivor outside (and cost the usual 1AP) -OR- this can keep the survivor where s/he is (and cost 0AP) **DISCUSS THIS ASPECT** The other major change from this suggestion would be sieges, where a building may potentially be at maximum capacity with survivors inside and zombies break down the barricades to get in. In this instance, 1 zombie may get in over the maximum capacity (3 in a multi-block building)--simulating a zombie(s) standing in the doorway and attacking survivors. This will naturally provide even more incentive for high-level zombies to utilize Feeding Drag (to allow more zombies to feast on bra!ns), as well as lead to new tactics for both sides in large horde-style sieges.

Discussion (Building Population Cap)

No. Just no. Because when you've got 1300+ Z's rattling on YOUR front door, and you have only 80 Survivors, you are fucked. Seriously. There's no way to achieve Critical Mass unless you actually organise it and time it, which a mallrat/trenchie won't. Add the residents if this does get implemented, which it won't, and what happens to the people above your 80 number in their now? Cookies and Cream

When you have 1300+ zeds knocking on your door, 8000 survivors won't keep them out. --Haliman - Talk 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your forgetting it is easier to defend (1 barricade level per 4 successful claws) OR escape (free running) then for zombies to get in.--Pesatyel 04:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Haliman brings up one the big assumptions with this suggestion. In small numbers, survivors are WAY better than zombies. In large numbers, zombies are WAY better than survivors. The idea behind this suggestion was to create a situation where both sides would potentially be limited to somewhere in the middle where actual numbers would mean less than coordination and tactics. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you also have to consider that you could have EVERY character in the building...but if nobody is on to play them when the attack happens it doesn't matter.--Pesatyel 05:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So damn broken. This basically allows anyone with enough meatshields to be immune to barricade failure for a while. Only allowing three zombies inside a mall? Populations normally get above 10 per corner in serious siege break-ins. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 12:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Only three zombies IF that particular block is full, and only UNTIL they use Feeding Drag to pull people out into the street (which isn't even entirely out of genre). If that particular block only has--say 46 survivors in it--then with this suggestion you could have up to 35 zombies in that same corner. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Horrific in every way!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Use the cap only for free-running. Entering from the street should be unaffected, which leaves sieges alone. 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So if a building is at capacity then you cannot free-run into it, as a ruin? That could work as well, using the 1AP alternative in the suggestion. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So If 50 survivors are in a building, only one zombie can enter at a time? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Scenario : 50 survivors in an NT. Zombie horde of 64 outside breaks through the barricades. Initially, only 1 zombie can get inside, until they start pulling survivors outside to make room for more zombies. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would this have been inspired by OBR about to get face smashed by MOB in Grigg heights? Anyway, This breaks sieges horribly! Zergers can shut down free run lanes by clogging them with alts. Forts will become even more broken "Whoops, even though you found a magic moment where the cades on the gatehouse were VSB there were 50 Survivors inside so... FAIL!!". So broken I could go on for miles. -Devorac 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said in the actual suggestion this was brought about by a discussion with Aichon on historic sieges compared to sieges (such as they are) now. And yes, I realize the potential for abuse by zergs and griefers, but I think any area that has 50+ zergs in it already has bigger problems than any this suggestion would create. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, one I had been considering myself actually. I was thinking more along the lines of 100 per building (which would make a 4 block Mall capable of holding 400). However, instead of making it impossible to enter, maybe the "crunch" of people would lead to attack penalties, much like a dark building. It does have some problems as others have pointed out, but maybe with a little work and some actual constructive ideas from others, it could be made to work. Will be thinking on it.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:29 7 January 2010(UTC)

Well its official, this idea is now garbage. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Attack penalties are so intangible, and already unique to dark buildings. Putting them anywhere else makes them less so. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a pro-survivor, I love it! If survivors Maximized capacity at a Hospital and only one zombie could enter then that building could hold out forever without even needing barricades! Oh wait, that is completely UNFAIR to the zombie side of the game. --YoEleven 01:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See response to rosslessness above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm no, sorry. To 'Feeding Drag' a survivor they must be at low health. 50 people in a hospital would easily keep one zombie from ever getting anybody down to that level. Or as revenant said, what if they had a zombie mascot? Then they could hold out forever in any building type. --YoEleven 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that it was you and I having that conversation, I can see where you're coming from, and, I kinda like the idea, but, as you and I also said last night, we couldn't think of a perfect solution, and I'm not sure that this is it either. As others pointed out, human zergers would be an issue, and griefers could lock down buildings to prevent legitimate survivors from entering. I like the idea of limiting the ability of the beachhead tactic as the number of survivors reaches capacity though. Maybe you could simplify it to do just that instead? Like, for instance, change the interference rate so that it gets lessened based on the survivor:zombie ratio, so, at 2 zeds vs. 2 zombies, it might be as strong as it is now, but at 2 zombies vs. 50 survivors, it might be negligible. Same end effect, less possibility for abuse. —Aichon— 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good alternate suggestion possibility. I don't see this as a perfect solution by any means (see all the zerg/griefing comments), but a possibility worthy of discussion. I know that apparently I have been visiting the wrong malls, however, because I don't think I've ever seen even 80 survivors in a single corner. But again, that is just my personal experience. Any thoughts from the other folks here on Aichon's idea to have the barricade interference rate based on zombie:survivor ratios? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was kinda thinking about this too. My thoughts were that it would depend on what kinda building it is (a stadium could hold a LOT of people). The basic benefit is that it cuts down on the mall/nt-centric aspect of the game by making people spread out. The bad thing is that it messes up Free Running (which need to be nerfed a bit IMO, but not like this). In the end its probably not going to be able to be worked out well enough to overcome shortcomings and player dislike.--Pesatyel 04:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the intial reaction that is a possibility. I still think it is something worth looking into all the same. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah. In real life these buildings can hold a lot more people than that, and the proposed mechanics are just awkward. Example: A full hospital with a zombie mascot (I've seen them) would be impregnable. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. So have we decided this suggestion is fail? Cookies and Cream 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's rather rude. It's not like he's blowing off the points brought against the suggestion, and he's actively soliciting discussion about the very valid issues he did raise. The point of this page is to develop suggestions after all, so you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the suggestion, since it does have merit, even if it wouldn't work as-is. There's a diamond in this rough, I think. —Aichon— 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether the diamond is sharp and dangeresque is a big risk, though... this sort of this is really touchy and very difficult to do carefully/properly, and UD doesn't exactly have a test or beta city/server to try this out on. I have to say I'm not a fan of the idea in general, though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the building population cap isn't gonna happen. The diamond I was referring to was the issue he was trying to tackle and the fact that he came up with something that did tackle it, just improperly. —Aichon— 04:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Howsabout changes to free-running so as to treat buildings of X-many people as ruins for the purposes of free-running into them? They're not inaccessible, just not-easily-accessible-to-survivors. It'd make sieges more interesting as movement would involve more in-the-front-door flow. Coupled with the addition of an ability to dump X bodies at once, for X AP (say, up to 10 at a time?), to help clear bodies in a manner like, but not as powerful as, the old dump mechanic, it might change the siege dynamic somewhat. I'm just poopin' ideas out here, Iunno if any are good. 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, we need two sets of complementary changes to be made. Zombies need to get buffed at the small-scale, and humans need to get buffed at the large-scale, if we ever want to see sieges again. Of course, the question then is if we even want sieges again, and how these sorts of changes would affect gameplay. From my thinking, more sieges mean that we basically create more stalemates, rather than decisive victories one way or the other. Stalemates aren't fun, in and of themselves. At best, they're tense, so you'd have to make some way for them to stay interesting for each side in the meantime.

If we rigged the interference rate to be directly related to the ratio of zombies:humans in the building (after all, a crowd of 50 survivors could surely barricade with just 2 zombies in the way), that might buff humans on the large-scale, by giving them a better chance to repel attacks when they have the numbers (right now, beachhead tactics are too powerful). We'd need to give zombies something as well though to keep it even, so I'm thinking that they should be able to do more damage once they do get inside the barricades. That'd make each zombie present in a breach that much more valuable, and would also help them at the small-scale, which is where they lag behind survivors. Nerfing humans with the free-running idea is interesting, but I think it's problematic and doesn't really help zombies at the small-scale, which is what we need to see. —Aichon— 05:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Balance it with the addition of one of the 'feeding lunge' style suggestions, I guess. 16:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So now,when the survivors are about to lose a mall,They just simply congregate in one corner of the mall reaching maxium capacity and just wait for the zombies to go away.--Kralion 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Except for the whole "no barricades to protect them" thing, your idea would work. With no barricades though, zombies could easily attack at will and would easily massacre the humans if they congregated in just one corner (it'd be slower than current, yes, but it'd still happen, nonetheless). Moot point though, since the suggestion, as-is, is no longer being pursued. —Aichon— 23:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Survivor:Zombie Interference Negation

Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:26, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Type: Mechanics fix

Scope: Zombie interference

Description: Zombie interference and the beachhead tactic are too powerful. Where there could be tension for control of a building/mall, there is instead a kind of "lost cause" mentality when even a small number of zeds break into a building--regardless of whether there are 4 survivors or 86 survivors. This suggestion seeks to remedy that somewhat while still keeping zombie interfence and the beachhead tactic viable; this is meant to go along with Zombies > Barricades (When Inside). Zombie interference takes effect when there are two or more zombies in a building. Based on preliminary experiments, current best guess is that it hampers barricade chances by roughly 50%. I suggest that this should be less of an issue if there are sufficiently more survivors present than zombies--10 to 1, in fact. How much of a difference I am leaving up for debate, but I was thinking 15% for every 10 extra survivors with there always being a minimum of 5% zombie interference. Example: 2 zombies and 14 survivors = zombie interference functions as normal 2 zombies and 20 survivors = zombie interference is 15% less (so zombies only block barricades 35% of the time instead of 50%) 3 zombies and 40 survivors = zombie interference is 30% less (or 20% chance of z-block) 4 zombies and 86 survivors = zombie interference is 45% less (46 extra survivors, but must always be at least 5% chance of z-block) 5 zombies and 48 survivors = zombie interference functions as normal

Discussion (Survivor:Zombie Interference Negation)

In the genre, how many people hang around when a zombie breaks in to the building? Even if there are a hundred people in a mall with you, when you zombie breaks in, you flee. Currently, I think the game reflects this well.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:21, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Actually survivors don't flee. They cade/kill. This is the reason for beachhead. If they fled the scene then zombies would not have to keep an open door.--Dirty 08:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I really like this idea. Interference is currently overpowered and doesn't scale well at all with the number of humans and zombies. Having it scale appropriately would be a GREAT change for the game. —Aichon— 09:49, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Cade blocking is fine as it is now. Not all zombies act in strike teams, some of us prefer to go feral and see it already as a big success to squeeze 3 or so in before the cades are up again. There's anyway already a built-in advantage for the survivor's numerical advantage, as they can shoot down intruding zombies to make the building cadeable again. No need to bolster that further. --Spiderzed 14:44, 29 April 2010 (BST)

This. Changes based on the existence of organised zombies can't ignore the extreme difficulty of playing as a feral. 14:51, 29 April 2010 (BST)

How often does a group of 2-3 ferals break into a building with 20+ survivors though? I kept that in mind when setting up the ratio so that the focus is on organized hordes and would have as little effect on ferals as possible. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:38, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I've seen that regularly, especially with timed Feral Movement tactics and/or high-profile targets as malls or fort gatehouses. If you want to leave the ferals alone and only nerf organized hordes a bit, leave the cade-blocking of lower zombie numbers alone (up to 5 or so), and nerf everything above that mark. --Spiderzed 22:27, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I think you just need to suggest a leash that can be applied to survivors only, based on a check of what percentage (50? 65?) of their last, say, 200 AP has been spent on attacking. This can be used to drag idiot trenchies to break-in sites where their bullets will actually do some good. --Mold 05:46, 30 April 2010 (BST)

I kinda like the current barricade blocking the way it is. The current situation encourages survivors to keep the barricades up at all costs in a siege, because letting zombies in has a compounding effect. I appreciate the thought you put into the percentages, but as others have pointed out, it would make things a bit more difficult for ferals.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:38, 30 April 2010 (BST)

---

Barricade Interference Ratio

Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 22:57, 5 June 2010 (BST)

Type: Balance

Scope: Everyone

Description: Zombie interference as it currently sits is IMMENSELY powerful. A great mechanic, but as it currently sits I think it is far too powerful. Regardless of how many zombies are in a building, zombie-blocking is roughly 50% (i.e. 50% of the time you would have gotten a barricade level added, the zombie blocks it). I propose that this percentage is variable based on the number of zombies:survivors in a building. The ratio I am thinking of is a 1:10 ratio to lower the Z-block percentage by 10%. Thus, if there are two zombies in a building, there need to be 20 survivors to lower the Z-block percentage down to 40%. This is stackable, but never lowering Z-block to less than 20%, regardless of the number of survivors. Some example figures: 4 zombies: 30 survivors = 50% Z-block 4 zombies: 50 survivors = 40% Z-block 6 zombies: 120 survivors = 30% Z-block

Discussion (Barricade Interference Ratio)

Shouldn't 6:120 be 20%, or am I missing something?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:40, 5 June 2010 (BST)

Nope. 6:60 would lower the Z-block by 10%, so 6:120 would lower it by 20%. 50%-20%=30% --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:51, 5 June 2010 (BST)

I assumed you mean 1:10 did nothing, and each further ten beyond that lowered it by 10%.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:27, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Well as you know I want interference removed entirely, but if it is to be kept, then I'd suggest making the block odds equal to the number of zombies in the building, regardless of survivors (5 zeds = 5%, 50 zeds = 50%, 100+ zeds means it's impossible to raise barricades). Easier to compute, and for people to grasp mentally. In any case, you're not giving zombies anything to compensate them for this nerf. What's in it for zeds? --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 00:34, 6 June 2010 (BST)

This isn't really meant to give anything to either side so much as balance a mechanic that is currently a little on the overpowered side. The best way to do this (based on previous incarnations of this suggestion that I've made and input from both career zombies and survivors) without significantly hurting ferals is to make it ratio dependant. The sticking point always seems to be the exact ratio and the Z-block reduction. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 00:54, 6 June 2010 (BST)

(EDIT CONFLICTED)Hashk's suggested numbers make more sense, however it would be very difficult to get up to 10 zeds in through the doors if they were hardly making any impact to the barricade rates. Maybe there is a baseline % like 10%. Dunno. And if cade blocking truly is overpowered, then it can be nerfed without any compensation. That's the whole point of nerfing really.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:57, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Yup, and god knows I think interference is overpowered. Grossly so. However, I also think zeds are too weak just now--quite the paradox, that. So I can't see me supporting anything that weakens them further, no matter how fair it may be. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 01:09, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Here's an idea. When a bunch of zombies break into your building, use 1 AP to step into the next building. The zombies will have to spend 50 to 100 times the AP to get past the new cades there. It's called surviving. You might even splurge and spend 4 or 5 AP to get even farther away. Kevan has given you every advantage in the game and you're whining because you can't have a particular building at all times. BOO HOO. There's nothing "IMMENSELY powerful" about cade blocking. I'll tell you whats "IMMENSELY powerful": The ability for survivors to effectively teleport from building to building (carrying hundreds of pounds of equipment) for a single AP and escape what took zombies probably 100 AP to achieve. And what did they achieve? The "honor" of maybe being able to attack a survivor a few times. If they even have the "skills" to open the fucking door, that is.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:18 6 June 2010(UTC)

For a zombie "lord", you seem pretty butthurt. You are telling me that when over a hundred survivors are dealing with three zombies, that they should see a rather significant decrease in their ability to erect barricades. I'm sorry, ZL, but that is just a plain LOGIC FAIL. Also, please keep in mind that this is an effort to balance 'cade blocking, not remove it entirely. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 01:36, 6 June 2010 (BST)

If your 100 survivors cant handle 3 zombies, then that's just FAIL on their part entirely. It's more than "balanced" as it is. Survivors already have a retarded advantage on cade building vs. cade breaking and if that does not work survivors can just teleport away. Whats next, reverse cade blocking? More survivors in a building exponentially decreases cade breaking %? Besides this is Urban Dead, logic does not exist in this universe as anyone can plainly see my 500 pounds worth of equipment toting teleporting friend. Kevan has babied you all enough.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:44 6 June 2010(UTC)

Zombie Lord, you might have a look at some of the discussion in Soph's other suggestion below. You are correct that survivors can teleport away for 1AP. And what Soph is saying, if I may paraphrase, is that there currently isn't any incentive for survivors to stand and fight when they can just teleport. Essentially, people are saying that we are being robbed of continued conflicts between survivors and zombies. Survivors don't want to fight because they feel they will lose, and zombies are deprived of a fight for the same reason. Instead you get to spend your AP munching through cades to find an enemy that evaporates the moment you finally engage them.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:04, 6 June 2010 (BST)