Suggestion talk:20080604 Barricade Bash: Version 2

RNG and Decimals

Go into a dark building and you'll see decimals. Also, the flare's starting accuracy is a decimal. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:12, 5 June 2008 (BST)

About some of the against votes

Why the hell should zombies be forced to work in groups? Some people don't have the time for the coordination, and you are saying "zombie shouldn't have the ability to take down one of the standard maintained levels of cades", the two standard levels being VSB and EHB. You realise this is currently leaving the ferals out in the cold a lot of the time? /short rant - W 23:54, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Even with the suggestion implemented, as I explained in my vote, a fully skilled zombie would still not be able to take down an EHB+2 building. And he still would not be able to kill anyone if he too down a VSB building. And, yes, coordinated zombies are already powerful -- as it should be, because coordination should improve your success! And when survivors coordinate at the same level as metagaming zombies -- or even just approach it! -- they kick some serious effen bum on the undead. This won't change, even with this buff. But this would help ferals and newbie zambahz. Helping ferals and newbies = good thing. --WanYao 01:06, 6 June 2008 (BST)

Zombies has AP advantage in fight (because of low death cost). Humans has advantage in barricading. You think that should be "balanced"? And should people get exp for barricading then, like zeds for unbarricading? Leon Clinton 05:42, 7 June 2008 (BST)

And if the zombie doesn't get to fight because the cades are in the way? We are talking about a lone zombie trying to get through a standard level of cading by survivors (VSB or EHB). The zombie can currently supposedly get in to a VSB building with 10AP to spare. They don't get to utilize enough AP to make their combat advantage count. - W 14:55, 7 June 2008 (BST)

Getting exp as a newbie survivor is not easy either. New zombie can get exp from attacking barricade itself or by attacking other zombie. He can find that in abundance easily. While newbie survivor needs to spend a lot of AP to find ammo, then zombie, and then a safe place. Leon Clinton 23:07, 7 June 2008 (BST)

Have you ever tried leveling off of barricades? It's 1 xp per hit, but you have an accuracy of, as mentioned in the suggestion, 12.5%, it would be faster to level off of Books. And if you don't want to deal with searching don't search, you can always start as a Scientist and DNA Extractor your way up the levels, only xp resource in the game more efficient than them are guns on a survivor with all the gun skills.--Karek^maps?! 23:16, 7 June 2008 (BST)

Well, I can recommend same to zombie player as well - start as a scientist:) Newbie zombie life is not easy, yes. But I doubt that it's the best way to fix it. Leon Clinton 08:51, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Thats just stupid. Why would you say that? Why is'nt it the best way to fix it? Why do you not back up your arguments, I'm not having a go, lets just get some more productive discussion.--KOOKY 17:53, 10 June 2008 (BST)

non-author replies can go here

1. Kill - As Pvt Human, but being nicer about it. And one of my characters is a zombie currently in a siege. People keep saying there are two things which survivors have which protect them - barracades and mobility. So why keep trying to take those two things away - if zombies want to break down barracades more easily, do it with a group. Zombies are powerful against barracades when in large numbers. And to WanYao, survivors can't do X:00 strategy because in a siege, zombies decide the timetable for attacks on cades, not survivors.--Tselita 21:30, 5 June 2008 (BST)

   Tselita, once again you're missing the whole point of what it means for survivors to play smarter, i.e. stop playing "Stand and die"!!! X:00 and real-time coordination are insanely useful and effective for survivors. But as an offensive tactic to clear and use TRPs -- not as a passive tactic for repairing barricades. Think outside the barricade, already... And, also, seeing as metagaming zombies tend to have set attack times... Hmmmmmmnnn... Also, why the hell should zombie players be forced to metagame their asses off in order to get inside a building? Because that's how it is at the moment. Honestly, it seems from here like you're missing out on two very important UD experiences: a) playing a non-metagaming baby (or even adult) feral zombie and b) playing as a survivor with real-time group coordination and strike teams. Both experiences would open your eyes. Maybe .... --WanYao 00:59, 6 June 2008 (BST)

   WanYao, I -am- playing a zombie. And we're attacking a fort. Just because zombies can't get into every building on their own doesn't mean we should make it even easier for them to get in by themselves. A group of zombies, metagaming or not, can still get into a building. You should know that - the Big Bash had a core of metagamers, but a large amount of the strike force were non-metagaming ferals.

   I just take exception to your statement that survivors need to coordinate their efforts using X:00 strategy because that is a logical impossibility. Because X:00 strategy involves people metagaming to do things at a set time every day, as a means of using AP to their max efficiency. What are survivors going to set their X:00 timing for doing? To flee a building? You don't need X:00 strategy for that. People just leave whenever, before the zombies break in. For barracading? Impossible - because you can't set a time for when the other side will break in - it's not your choice.

   What I've found that successful zombie groups do is they have a group who do metagame, but they use the non-metagamer zombies tendency to just attack whenever to their advantage as well. Look at most of the zombie movies even. The zombies usually get in only after one of the survivors panic and do something stupid to open a pathway for the zombies, or when they try to escape. It's very rare to see a zombie movie where the zombies simply break in with no assistance from the living humans doing something stupid. I'm not even talking about just Romero movies. The same happens in Resident Evil. The only exception I see to this is "I am Legend" which do not feel is a zombie movie in the first place and the 'zombies' are quite a bit more organized. Even with that - he holds out for THREE YEARS. When I've played a feral, I mainly got kills 2 ways - by getting survivors who are on the street or joining up with a big horde and latching on when they break in. If zombie players are unable to get in on their own by bashing and bashing by themselves, they should figure another way to do it - others have figured out alternate ways after all.

   And no, I don't feel zombies should be forced to metagame. Though it does make them a lot more effective than survivors who metagame. I also don't think they should be so powerful that a single zombie can break down the barracades using just their hands. Zombies have the advantage in straight up combat, and once they are in a building, they have a fair chance of blocking re-barracading, once there are enough of them inside. Their anonymity offers them an additional layer of protection as well. They don't need to be INDIVIDUAL powerhouses - zombies are supposed to be a horde. A single feral zombie should be easy to take out.

   Lastly, there are a lot of people who seem to be making a lot of guesses about me in RL. Mostly wrong guesses. There are also a lot who seem to assume my characters in game. I won't tell who 3 of them are, but most people already know I have a character named Tselita (level 18). That's the survivor character. My other three are a low level zombie in Feral Undead, a mid level (level 22 now) zombie not in any group - I started her as a zombie and for the most part levelled her as a zombie, and a low level survivor (currently level 4) who I'm going to put on a PK path once I reach level 10 (so I can get some insight into being a PKer). So I do understand zombie strategies and I have some insight into playing a zombie, both for being in a group and being on my own, especially the latter since I did that for months, while the group thing I've only done for a month or so. Just because I havent done it for years doesn't mean my views aren't valid. --Tselita 21:32, 6 June 2008 (BST)

   Can I get the Cliff Notes version of this? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 23:56, 6 June 2008 (BST)

   Here you go: "SHIT FROM A FAGGOT" --#19 - DrPain ^TMG 00:58, 7 June 2008 (BST)

   That's offensive. You should have said: Feces from someone that practices an alternate lifestyle that involves penis/anus/penis interaction on a regular basis. Please think of the children. Besides, I think all of that was just a movie review for I Am Legend with spoilers. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:07, 7 June 2008 (BST)

Tselita, your example of the Big Bash doesn't wash. BB2 had large numbers and a core of dedicated metagamers who used real time strike teams to crack difficult buildings. And of course there was the forum where people posted targets, open buildings, etc. A lot of people lurked that forum... And, when we encountered buildings with a strong, coordinated survivor presence, the sieges were hard. C4NT gave us a go a few times, one of the the first was at the Angerstein NT Building in East Grayside, I remember it well... and I'm not even addressing the Giddings Siege, which I missed out on, actually. Anyway... non-metagaming ferals can't get into decently defended buildings on their own. Period. I've stood around buildings with dozens of standing ferals bazillions of times... and no one makes any progress, it's pathetic. Also... FU are a great group, don't get me wrong, but as far as I am aware they do not run real time, IRC-based stikes, but operated a lot like the Big Bash did, vulturing or relying on loose coordination and/or massive numbers. Also, fort defenders are generally morons. Try fighting a real survivors group... try sieging a whole suburb or part of a suburb, not just one pathetic little building full of trenchcoats... you'll see a difference. The conclusion is that you don't really understand zombie tactics if you've just vultured and haven't participated with a real horde.

Now, as for the effectiveness of survivor coordination. Once again you've completely missed my point. Type less, read more. Seriously... And think outside the effen barricade, already, how many times do I have to repeat that??? You're stuck in this paradigm of "Stand and die!" static defence for survivors. And that's where all your misunderstandings and misconceptions stem from. In that paradigm, of course survivor strike teams are pretty pointless, duh. Then again... if you know your opponent's often public, fixed strike times... I mean, recall a while ago coordinating in RT with other survivors after we figured out Extinction's regular strike times up at Caiger Mall, and it worked well until #s overwhelmed us in the end... But anyway... A not-so-big strike team of survivors going into a building coordinated in real time can very quickly clear bazillions of zombies and then get the barricades up... whether with guns or with syringes, or both... it's bloody effective and it overcomes the totally ineffective, "piecemeal" way that survivors usually try to reclaim an area... which typically amounts to people not really doing anything until after the zombies have got bored and moved on. Again, I remember a strike team of like half a dozen clearing and 'cading Bale Mall in a matter of minutes... Admittedly, it was lightly garrisoned, but it would have stood there Ruined for days if people had tried piecemeal and individually... Double the size of the strike team, and you can deal with a lot of incursions quickly and effectively. The conclusion is that you don't really understand smart survivor tactics if a) you can't think outside the barricade and b) haven't participated in a well-coordinated survivor group using these smart tactics (including RT strikes, but even that's not critical).

And... finally... I don't give a shit about the specific alts you run, that's not really relevant. What is relevant is the serious gap apparent in your understanding of critical elements of higher level zombie and survivor play. And, I have no interest in dragging your RL existence into this, taking personal potshots at your or your RL... and acting like a jock asshole calling one homophobic names... is for others... But if you're going to argue what I consider to be utter nonsense about UD, I'm going to challenge and call you out on that. Period. Nothing less, nothing more. --WanYao 12:02, 11 June 2008 (BST)

"Leaving the ferals out in the cold" is the whole point of barricading to begin with, as the realism of a lone zombie, or even a small group of zombies posing such a major threat to a any heavily fortified, and populated safehouse would be highly unlikely. --Officer Dick Trickle 20:26, 11 June 2008 (BST)

That's the whole point! A few zombies don't pose a threat to a heavily fortified, well-populated safehouse. And they still wouldn't pose a serious threat even if this suggestion was implimented. But they'd pose a little more of a threat than they currently do. Which is good, because being a feral sucks ass right now -- survivors are very strong, it's part of the currently unbalanced game mechanics, i.e. massive the AP imbalance. This would be a huge step to redress that imbalance. --WanYao 00:54, 12 June 2008 (BST)

Readdress the imbalance how? Zombies, ferals or hordes, have the advantage as it is. They stand up at full hp for 10-15 AP (1-6 w/ ankle grab), yet for a survivor to survive, they'd need to stand up, walk to a RP, wait for someone to needle them, stand up again at 1/2 hp, find an entry point, and re-FAK the half of their missing health +any lost to possible infection. So by all means, go ahead and tell us how it's the zombies who have the disadvantage? --Officer Dick Trickle 17:23, 12 June 2008 (BST)

On the most basic level, it costs a survivor less AP to revive another survivor than it does for a zombie to kill then, including searching for needles and all that other stuff you mention. That doesn't include zombies bashing barricade OR survivors searching for FAKs and healing etc. -- but even with those things factored in, survivors still win the AP cost war. Zombie's unlives are simple. But not easy. If you want the actual stats/math, talk to sweirs or karek, I think they have the actual numbers... --WanYao 16:01, 14 June 2008 (BST)

I know this is basically the same thing I just said, but if no one has any skills: Zombie stand up = 10 (15 if headshot). survivor stand up = 10 to be zed, ? to get to RP, 10 to stand up as human, ? to find entry point, ? to find FAKS, ? to restore their health. What the hell are you talking about it costing less for survivors? 10 = 30+? Sure, zombies just starting out cost 2 AP to walk, but survivors without free running are screwed too, and with the search rates for humans being so low in the beginning, it balances out in favor of the zombies. (i.e. to load one shotgun: 1 AP to find gun, 2 AP to find shells, 2 AP to load shells, 2 AP to fire, and all of the AP from "you search and find nothing", on top of having to find new ammo 2+AP, and missed shots. Considering that most survivors carry multiple firearms, add in the numbers for however many they have.)

The other thing is, as with any other zombie fiction, zombies are usually more terrifying when you're faced with a medium-to-large sized group, as single or small groups are easily kept at bay. Just watch any zombie movie. also, imagine if you will, an extremely heavily barricaded building. As a zombies weapons include their teeth, and bare hands, realistically, how well do you think you would fare with just bare hands when you're rotting?

As there's always suburbs on the danger map that are dark yellow, and red, I think the zombies aren't doing all that bad as it is. --Officer Dick Trickle 19:04, 14 June 2008 (BST)

You really are quite good at making stuff up and complaining about inequity when comparing numbers that aren't supposed to reflect each other anyway. Revives aren't comparable to headshots, that's just stupid, revives make zombies survivors, headshots don't make zombies survivors, headshots don't make survivors zombies, headshots just make zombies headshot zombies, they aren't the vehicle for reducing the number of zombies in-game, that's revives. Zombies killing survivors is their vehicle for making less survivors, that's far less efficient than even the most paranoid ramblings can make revives out to be, but, the real number for cost of revive, it's not 30+, it's actually about 20, and that's me giving you some additional AP added onto the absolute minimum number to account for a bad run on the RNG, add in 3-5 AP to move to an RP and you get 25 AP, and that's high end stuff, it costs 1 zombie ~30 AP to kill you on a good day, on average it's 36-40, that's without barricades, add in barricades and they're usually not killing you, zombies waste about 100 AP to break down the barricades on each break-in, if their lucky they'll kill 4 survivors afterwards, at most it's usually 10, before the barricades go back up, I regularly revive more than that in 5 minutes.--Karek^maps?! 02:01, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Author's Reply to most of the against votes

Most of those who are voting kill are players who appear to play only survivor characters. Playing as a zombie is an entirely different kettle of fish. To fully appreciate the game, you have to play as a zombie. The experience is much, much different to playing as a survivor. As a survivor you have many avenues that you can take in order to gain XP. You can heal, you can attack, you can revive, you can spraypaint, you can dump bodies, you can extract DNA, you can repair things and you can read. That is a grand total of 8 ways in which you can gain XP, most of them you don't even have to spend that much AP to do. On the other hand, zombies gain XP by attacking, breaking barricades and breaking other equipment. That is 3. Virtually all of them involve getting into a building. To get into a building, you have to break down the barricades. However, that is damn near impossible at the moment.
I'm now going to quote a few voters and attempt to make them see the other side of their arguments:

• Ioncannon11:Hell no! The zeds can already jam cades, now you want a lone zombie to be able to break into my safehouse? No way.
  • Zombies are players as well. Some people don't have time to metagame and as a result can't take part in the sieges and RT strikes that some players can. If you actually look at the numbers that I've suggested, instead of knee-jerk voting against, you'll find that this would provide a very welcome challenge for most survivors (probably not counting trenchcoats who prefer to sit in their EHB safehouse with all their group around them waiting to die) and might actually make the game more fun to play. A zombie apocalypse where the zombies are unable to get a meal, is not as good as it sounds.
• Scotw - not needed
  • This proves that either a) you have never played as a zombie or b) you have been playing with your eyes shut and is definitely not a valid argument against this change.
• Irounds - would give zeds too much of an ede- would seriously unbalance the game
  • The game is already unbalanced in the favour of survivors. As I mentioned above, you have very reliable routes to gain XP. Zombies don't. As a result, many new zombie players don't bother playing anymore because they don't get enough experience to level up and actually cause some damage. They then abandon their zombie characters in favour of the easier to play survivors. To be honest, I've played almost every class in the game (probably par Scout) and I've found that zombie is even harder than a consumer. New zombies have to resort to ZKing to gain XP which is very bad if, like me, you want to Role-Play an actual zombie. Consumers can still heal people to gain XP reliably.
• Pvt human - 1 zombie should NEVER be able to take down a barricade by themself easily, this suggestion is bullshit.
  • There is really nothing I can use to respond to this other than: "You are an idiot".

If you really do doubt this suggestion, then fair enough. But if you actually think about this logically, rather than letting your bias for your preferred side get the better of you, you will see that this is really needed desperately in order to prevent the game becoming a PKing free for all. One of the reasons PKers exist is because they are bored of standing around a safehouse all day, making occasional trips to shoot zombies on the streets.
If despite all this, you still want to vote kill, please provide a decent reason. All suggestions to improve are welcome. Constructive criticism is the whole point of the suggestions system. -- Cheese 11:23, 17 June 2008 (BST)

You can't argue with ignorance Cheeseman, they don't care about the facts and no matter how right you may be they'll still ignore it. They don't care about the game balance, and they don't care about how necessary a change might be, all they care about is them having an easy time of it and never having to work for pretty much anything in this game. The point is that no matter what you do they'll vote against it anyway simply because it gives zombies a chance at actually doing something.--Karek^maps?! 13:10, 17 June 2008 (BST)