Suggestion talk:20080225 Zombie Barricade Interception

A

If the zombies are all hanging around the entrance, how are they simultaneously able to get at all of the survivors in the building? Sounds like an active choice, much like groaning for more zombies, attacking a generator, or even just survivors searching for supplies during a siege. --Amanu Jaku 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since noone stepped up, I'll field this. Its not about zombies standing in front of the door, its about zombies being BETWEEN you and the door. They can be between you and the door while also being a foot away from you and chewing on your arm, and without intentionally choosing so.--Gregarious Instigator 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

B

I'm certainly willing to make compromises on this; there seems to be plenty of opposition to separate stacks, so it seems like that needs to go. The main point of this suggestion is to keep it from being a free Malton-wide buff for all zombies everywhere. It should at the very least require the purchase of a skill, and if it required 1 AP (just one!) to activate then I'd be happy. Where the skill falls in the tree doesn't much matter; I just don't think all zombies should have it for free, and that it should require an active choice on their part rather than a passive ability. -- NativeJovian 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

C

In reference to Swiers specifically: "It also allows "friendly zombies" to NOT block barricade building; IMO, one of the best features of the barricade block is it makes ALL zombies (even ones who were friends) more dangerous to have inside your safehouse." Why is this a good thing? How does it make sense, from either a game balance or common sense perspective? If a zombie doesn't want to block the cades, it shouldn't be forced to against its will. -- NativeJovian 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Two ways, 1)Zombies don't have the option to be pro-survivor, that makes no RP sense. 2)It's actually a pretty decently huge buff to indoor revives, specifically they don't have to spend time or AP in a revive point or elsewhere, they can just sit indoors with no effect to their friends who breath the air.--Karek^maps?! 02:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If survivors have the option to be pro-zombie, via death cultists and the like, why can't a zombie be pro-survivor? It makes plenty of sense. And the suggestion wouldn't prevent zombies from using it when they wanted to -- thus retaining the indoor revive point buff that you mention -- but wouldn't FORCE them to use it when they didn't WANT to. -- NativeJovian 03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong on the second part, the buff comes from them being able to turn it off, especially if it turns out it is culmulative(we don't even know that yet). As for the first one, the point is to encourage Zombie vs Survivor, not discourage it, you're suggesting the game actively encourage Zombies helping Survivors, there's no mechanic that encourages the Death Culting play mechanic, unless you consider Barricades to be such encouragement.--Karek^maps?! 05:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If survivors have the option to be pro-zombie, via death cultists and the like, why can't a zombie be pro-survivor? For the same reason zombies can't talk or search for items; their brains and bodies do not work the same way as they did when alive. In pretty much every zombie horror genre, there are evil people, even crazy people who help the zombies. There are NO zombies who are entirely friendly to humans. Non-voluntary violent actions as a zombie are entirely flavorful; in pretty much EVERY zombie film, some poor person gets killed by zombies, and turns on a loved one. But for the game to work, those actions can't cost AP, and can't be actual attacks. Cade blocking is a pretty decent middle ground; if you don't want to block barricades (harm humans), MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. (Gah, I'm a monster, must flee to save friends!!!) Hell, people can still search, use FAKs, and do other time consuming, non-violent activities with zombies around. Damn, man, who stops to put on bandages when there's a freaking ZOMBIE ATTACK IN YOUR LIVING ROOM???
Also, could you explain why survivors can barricade with zombies present (which require moving heavy objects some distance and positioning them carefully) but zombies can't ransack with survivors present (which simply require tipping heavy object over and making a big mess)??? Solve that problem, and I'll be more flexible about the other issues.  Swiers 07:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The same way that humans stand around meekly while zombies tear them apart and eat their flesh instead of running away or fighting back: game balance and limits of the system. My main reason for this suggestion is game balance, not flavor. As it is, the last update was too powerful; survivors are no longer realistically able to throw back zombie break-ins. Even just making barricade interception require a skill would go a long way toward fixing that. -- NativeJovian 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be reasonable if it took a skill, especially if that was a pre-existing skill (like, say, Ransack, which otherwise kinda sucks) that got a new effect added. The 1 AP mechanic sucks because it just doesn't work very well to pay to go into a "state" in this game. I'd disagree that the update is inherently to powerful without it, though; the rate of blocking could be tweaked down, but survivors DO have the tools needed to kick zombies out of building quickly (radio alerts, armed response teams) - they just are not using them as much as they need.  Swiers 04:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So your argument against the suggestion is that survivors are bad at the game? The point I'm trying to make is that automatically having every single zombie blocking all the time whenever they're indoors is obscenely overpowered. It needs to be a new, high-level skill (eg, a subskill of Ransack) at the very least. The standard tactic during a break-in before this update was to raise the cades as quickly as possible and then take care of the zombies inside -- and survivors were losing more sieges than they were winning even THEN. This update COMPLETELY destroys the effectiveness of that tactic, and my suggestion just aims to make things more reasonable. -- NativeJovian 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm arguing that the PURPOSE of the update was to make the old survivor tactics less effective, and that they haven't yet started using other tactics effectively as they could.  Swiers 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What other tactics are there? All survivor tactics necessarily revolve around having safe havens available in the form of barricaded buildings. This update was a huge blow to that, and that's why I think it needs to be nerfed. What tactics would you suggest that survivors use to counter this update? If you can tell me a decent way to counter it, I'll concede the point. -- NativeJovian 06:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for quashing indoor revive points. The only real reason I could see for one was to revive a rotter. I just think that if a zombie is actively blocking the door, then they would be attacking those around the door who are trying to barricade, thus the penalty to barricading. I don't agree with the idea that zombies can be at the door blocking and yet be able to attack survivors supposedly sleeping in secure places and presumably not clustered all around the front door like cord wood. --Amanu Jaku 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet finding one person to specifically revive or attack out of a horde of hundreds of zombie crowded into a small space makes any more sense? The stack is done the way it does for the sake of balance, not because it makes practical sense, same with zombie blocking.--Karek^maps?! 08:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, finding people in a horde would be hard. Hell, how do we know everyone's name in the mall? I don't feel that the zombies should be directly separated into two stacks, one guarding the door and the other inside and attacking, but that would become rather apparent in a siege, wouldn't it? The one chasing you isn't one of the ones guarding the door, so he shouldn't be allowed to block the door at the same time for free. --Amanu Jaku 09:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends, I just assume there's not much room in the buildings due to past recking/ruining of parts of it, that only a room or three are actually inhabited so there's not exactly much space between anyone.--Karek^maps?! 09:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I would more assume that would apply to ruined buildings. If I was a survivor, I'd sleep in the harder to reach places, and away from my fellow survivors in order to avoid being attacked from survivor and zombie alike. --Amanu Jaku 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but then you get the issue of how do you see the survivors, along with why can't you hide or barricade yourself in other rooms.--Karek^maps?! 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The dreaded 1AP

OoOOoOOooo. Beware! A cost might be associated with a free action! OooOOoOOOoo. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 16:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardly 1 AP unless you're math retarded, this would be millions of AP daily, it'd waste more AP than Headshot and barricades do combined with much easy. Really it's more of OoOOoOOooo. Massive Barricade AP Imbalance that has basically been killing the game for zombies for three years is finally being fixed! OooOOoOOOoo.--Karek^maps?! 09:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes! Millions of AP? I guess survivors spend billions barricading then. I play a tiny violin for the zombies who couldn't be bothered to spend 1 AP to block the doors. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Akule, it's exaggeration to make a point, and it's pretty damn obvious at that. The part you should be paying attention to is the one where this is a big enough AP loss to make it take more AP than Headshot and Barricades combined, as that wasn't exaggeration. Oh dear, must suck being a survivor and still having a 2:1-3:1 barricade advantage over zombies taking them down. Man, that almost makes up for the massive AP advantage both Revives and Hospitals give you, oh wait, you're using less AP then them, that's right. . .--Karek^maps?! 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to back a percentage bump on tearing down barricades over having omnipresent zombies. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 13:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"the massive AP advantage both Revives and Hospitals give you" -- you care to explain that? Zombies have a tremendous AP advantage as far as revivification goes. It takes somewhere between 1 and 15 AP for a zombie to stand up after being killed, depending on what skills they have and whether they've been headshot or not. It takes a minimum of 13 AP for a survivor to return to being a survivor, which is spread across two people. The actual number is typically much larger (the number 13 assumes 1 AP to find a needle and no travel time for either the reviver or the revivee) and almost always includes at least a day of waiting for the revivee (frequently much longer). So explain to me how survivors have a "massive AP advantage" for revives? If you're referring to combat revives, that's a generally losing proposition for survivors -- dedicated zombies can generally cause a lot more hassle as death cultists than they can as anonymous zombies... -- NativeJovian 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

Its worth noting that Kevan did not write that page, or (the I see) even add any editorial effort. He DID however write the latest game update. Which is a better guide to how the game should play- the game effects than Kevan puts into play, or the guidelines that wiki editors have written for suggestion authors? I put more weight on the former, and think its silly to constrain Kevan by the later if he chooses to do otherwise.  Swiers 22:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Kevan can clearly do no wrong. (Note: that was sarcasm.) Kevan accepts suggestions from the wiki (or doesn't) as he sees fit; if he things the update was fine, then he won't change it. This suggestion is only meant to show that I think the update is overpowered toward zombies (and, it would seem, a fair number agree with me). Kevan can take that under advisement as he wishes. "Kevan said" is not a grounds for judging a suggestion without some other reasoning behind it. -- NativeJovian 08:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He's never removed an update or nerfed it in such a manner as assigning an AP cost to something that didn't previously have one. The most you'll ever see is a lowering of the blocking percent which is highly inadvisable as it barely does the job it was added for now. All these types of suggestions are are whining about Ferals having a chance to actually get inside buildings. It's pathetic.--Karek^maps?! 09:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but neither is "the wiki said" any more support for a suggestion than "Kevan said" is reason to oppose it. Its an irrelevant appeal to false authority. You could have explained what you say above without propping it up with bogus support.  Swiers 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I did explain the suggestion without relying entirely on an appeal to authority. I think it's overpowered; it makes any concentrated siege a virtually guaranteed win for the zombies, and they already had a pretty decent advantage in the first place (see: mall tours, big bash, etc etc). The wiki quote was meant to help illustrate why it's overpowered, not simply say "the wiki said so". -- NativeJovian 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the mechanics...

Re: my objection to the update isn't the flavor, it's the mechanics. It makes the standard survivor tactic during break-ins (raising the barricades first, then dealing with the zombies that made it inside) completely unworkable, and even before the update survivors were losing more sieges than they were winning. -- NativeJovian 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize just how wrong that sounds? Zombies won't just stand there watching you run out around carrying sofas to the door. The update is just appropriate.
Survivors aren't supposed to stay in siege against immortal enemies and expect themselves to win. How many times in movies have you seen a situation where the humans actually held out long enough in one spot against hordes of zombies and win? Virtually none.
And zombies have changed their strategies many, many times before to adapt against survivors. It's about time the survivors adapt as well. --Aeon17x 13:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just say no to omnipresent zombies. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Zombies already simply stand there and watch as humans wander through blocks filled with dozens or hundreds of zombies. What's the difference here? Given the choice between flavor and game balance, I choose game balance every time. That said, you basically just advocated a game where survivors live in constant terror and do nothing but flee from zombies at every possible opportunity; something which is neither balanced, nor entertaining for either survivors OR zombies. (How much fun would it be for zombies if survivors fled at the first sign of attack, leaving nothing but empty safe houses for zombies to break into?) -- NativeJovian 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)