Suggestion talk:20100927 Barricade Frenzy

RE: DDR

1. Kill - no doubt this will get a cascade of keep votes because of the author, but here's my say- I don't think this is necessary or as balanced as Kevan's safehouse implementation was intended to be. Here we have survivors expending 30AP just so they can get an AP benefit at a safehouse, and here all a zed has to do is walk up to the place and claw at the barricades. The zombie won't even need a skill, unlike the survivors. Sure, it's only for barricades whereas the survivors get a 10% chance on all actions, but multiply this by a million and you get a furthering of the annoying anti-seige inducing gameplay that cade blocking created. Again: forcing survivors to either kill or run in a seige rather than cade and heal is part of what is killing UD atm, and IMO the current situation of cades is the only thing keeping the game a fraction of how good it was before cade blocking, this would ruin (no pun intended) that IMO. Zombies need buffs, but not in this department. Never thought I'd have to say this to you swiers, but: dude, DS. -- LEMON #1 06:21, 27 September 2010 (BST)

   Ah, but survivors get to choose their safehouses, and get a 10% chance of not spending an AP on every action performed in there, including barricading. Do I really need to go into barricade construction odds versus destruction rates? This isn't overpowered and you fucking know it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:03, 28 September 2010 (BST)

   Reading helps. I don't actually think I said overpowered in the entire vote, let alone hint towards it. -- LEMON #1 08:15, 28 September 2010 (BST)

   It's called reading between the lines. If I mischaracterised your argument, I apologise. Now address the argument plox. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:20, 28 September 2010 (BST)

   Okay okay. Well, I don't think it's so much unbalanced or OP in the way that it would cause the game to fall into unbalanced chaos, I just think that while zombies need buffs, the cade system is good ATM the way it is (at least in the aspect I'm about to outline). I've always been a large advocate when it comes to arguing against the anti-siege direction the game is taking, particularly in regards to the 'cade blocking' update of most things. As I've expressed before on a couple of occasions, that update changed the game against survivor solidarity in numbers and has decentralised the structure of the game in that respect (keep in mind this has only ever been my opinion, no fact). An update like this would further push the game in that direction, and I don't want that IMO, and that's where I'm coming from when I'm voting. -- LEMON #1 08:31, 28 September 2010 (BST)

   Dam Tactics were ALWAYS a bad idea, dude. It's just the game was so broken in favour of survivors for so long that they became the norm. Guerilla style is where it's at - always has been, always will be. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:35, 28 September 2010 (BST)

   It depends on your definition of a "bad idea". If you mean certain death, well, eventually (though not always). If you mean not fun, well I disagree. Perhaps what I don't like about the direction of the game is the fact that at least survivors had the choice back then. What made the game more vibrant and fun was that there were big glorious events for survivors to go to and employ those strategies, choose between tactics, and try things like dam tactic if they felt like it, see how long they lasted. Hell, back then they may have been able to last more than 10 days against a horde their size. Now it's just hold out then run away. -- LEMON #1 08:42, 28 September 2010 (BST)

   You can still mount glorious defences. Survivors just need to move away from the building-centric mindset and defend suburbs or larger regions instead. Smart survivor groups have been doing this for literally years now. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:05, 28 September 2010 (BST)

   O really? You're with the MOB, right? When was the last time someone succesfully glorious defended a building or suburb against you? I agree with DDR, and I mentioned my opinion on this before, sieges were teh best UD had to offer and taking them away through cadeblocking was the worst. I can summarize the current options for survivors in two words: Run, Reclaim. That's it. River tactics is the best strategy. There is no point for a level41 surivor to interact with a zombie. Killing a zombie has no point whatsoever, nor has "defending" as you will always end up dead. It's just run, run, run away. The only real amusement for many human players is PKing and the drama surrounding it. It's a sad state of affairs, but atleast I can enjoy the occasional manhunts. --Thadeous Oakley 10:07, 28 September 2010 (BST)

   Although they don't describe it as such, their last visit to Yagoton ended in what looked like defeat. They spent 14 days making very slow progress, losing a good few buildings to the living, and were forced to pull out with the suburb mostly caded. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:17, 29 September 2010 (BST)

   Of course we don't describe it as such. That's because we ruined the whole place before leaving. I was just busy that week and we were already leaving the suburb, so I never updated the MOB Locator with final info (side note: I actually do that more often than not, for instance, do you think we left Raines Hills looking like this when we left?). It definitely took a lot longer than we wanted, and there was a lot of back and forth since it was the first organized resistance we had faced in a long while, but once we went about it intelligently and cut off their supply lines, the suburb crumpled after a few more days. —Aichon— 02:17, 29 September 2010 (BST)

   So long as we're discussing how fun sieges without cade blocking were, perhaps we should consider what it's like to claw at barricades for ten days and never being any closer to your meal then the one day you get the cades loose (which is followed shortly by watching them rise back up to EHB). --VVV ^RPMBG 00:17, 29 September 2010 (BST)

   This. 01:00, 29 September 2010 (BST)

   It's a LOT of fun...once you crack it open and get in. The payoff for the zombie comes at the end, and it's almost always worth it when you get to remind those harmanz of the futility in trying to barricade. Anyway, I do agree that zombie interference is necessary, but it's just too strong as it is right now. It shouldn't go away, but it should be made a bit less powerful and scale better. —Aichon— 02:17, 29 September 2010 (BST)

   You don't like it? Fucking vote no, I won't question your motives, unlike what you, Rev, and others are doing here (even though I could think of plenty of fantastic and provocative responses to what you've said). I'm voting my way, you fucking vote yours and then fuck off. Faggot. -- LEMON #1 06:27, 29 September 2010 (BST)

   I'm the one that used the word "overpowered", and I stand by my use of the word. Collapse rates for barricades are right where they need to be already, so a buff to them is uncalled for, and a comparison to Scout Safehouse is apt both because the mechanic works in a similar way and because Swiers himself brought it up in the suggestion's description. That said, yes, I agree that a direct point-for-point comparison, such as what I did, doesn't make complete sense, but it does help to show just how powerful this suggestion would be in comparison to something already in the game. When someone is buffing something that doesn't need buffing with a change that is orders of magnitude more powerful than a similar mechanic for the other side, I like to use the word "overpowered" to describe it, and I believe I'm justified in doing so. You're welcome to disagree, as I'm sure you will. ;) —Aichon— 11:01, 28 September 2010 (BST)

RE: Idiots

This has nothing to do with Scout Safehouse other than using a heavily-toned-down version of a mechanic introduced with that skill. (10% chance of saving an AP at one specific location, in this case only when attacking barricades.)

Read the fucking suggestion and stop fucking confusing the two! Just because Scout Safehouse is a shitty skill doesn't mean that this is overpowered. (I can't believe I had to write that.)

In a just world, your votes would be struck. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:11, 28 September 2010 (BST)

Fair and Balanced?

Does this mean most zombies support Republican? --Aeon17x 10:28, 28 September 2010 (BST)

RE: Aichon

There is no real-play way to use feeding groan for just 1 AP. You need to be in a location with survivors for feeding groan to even be an option, and you really need 5+ survivors for it to be worth using. 5+ survivors means barricades, which means the zombies spent 40-80 AP getting in. And unlike safehouse scouting (which I admit is a totally counter-productive use of AP for survivors- it should cost 5 or 10 AP max), this only affects one specific action- it doesn't even affect attacks vs other characters, vs generators, using ransack, etc. Of course, its the one action everybody (except zombie group leaders) insists is balanced, so... :P  Swiers 05:18, 28 September 2010 (BST)

I can see where you're coming from, and your tactful implication that I overstated the situation does seem to be correct. Even so, I do still consider it to be overpowered, since I don't think that barricade collapsing is in need of any help at all (this, from someone who has led strikes and I've held out in sieges within the last month or two). Other aspects of the zombie game need buffing, but not this one. —Aichon— 06:03, 28 September 2010 (BST)

The situation this is really meant to help with is where you use Scent Trail to follow a survivor home... and don't quite have the AP to break in. That would be almost purely a feral buff. Currently Scent Trail really only benefits metagaming zombies, because they are the only ones who can communicate where the prey is and co-ordinate to tear down the cades. Perhaps what is needed is some way for a zombie to communicate that they are standing outside a building which they followed a scent trail to.  Swiers 21:36, 30 September 2010 (BST)

I'd totally be up for that. Some sort of action that would say, "A nearby zombie sniffs the air and then growls menacingly at the building in front of them," to other nearby zombies. I do agree that feral gameplay could use some buffs, but tampering with barricade collapses isn't the way to do it in my mind. It needs to be something specific to ferals, rather than something that hordes could use to great effect as well, otherwise it has the potential to swing the balance. —Aichon— 00:02, 1 October 2010 (BST)