Talk:Combat Revive

regarding those templates

They are just too frikken big. Please fix them, size them down to normal template proportions... --WanYao 18:27, 10 July 2008 (BST)

Changes needed (March 2006)

Due to the recent change to syringes, this page requires a change. If nobody more competent than me wants to take a stab at it, I'll take care of it in a day or so. --Guardian of Nekops 23:13, 29 March 2006 (BST)

I added a couple small changes that will suffice as just a fix. If you want to rework this page than you can. --TheBigT 05:20, 30 March 2006 (BST)

Updated (completely overhauled) as per request. --Tycho44 23:37, 14 April 2006 (BST)

I would suggest chaging the page to be more accurate in the section titled "Combat Reviving is a Poor Use of Syringes". As anyone who has searched for a syringe knows, it takes less AP to find a syringe than to manufacture one. Thus the arugment of "it uses 30 AP minimum: 20 to make one and 10 to use it." is an outdated and incorrect representation of the actual cost (in AP) of combat revives. --Smeggie 15:38, 11 October 2006 (BST)

I have added the counterargument, hopefully no one will mind. This is supposed to be a neutral wiki, so I added the balance. Nalikill 15:43, 5 July 2007 (BST)

I see both sides of the arguement of combat revives and i think that under some circumstances combat revives are an effective way of beating back the undead hordes, such as the big bash. However, the combat revive as a day-to-day use isn't acceptable. In short combat revives should be limeted to overrun suburbs.--Warlord zephyr 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some space should be given to the concept that carefully targeted combat revives can actually be by far the most efficient use of AP in the game for survivors. This is possible because of the many players that play both sides of the game, both zombie and survivor. Self identified adherents to this call themselves "Dual natured" or "Opportunist", but it is a common practice among others too, particularly newer players. Scanning before reviving, and taking the time to research any presence on local and global kill lists, as well as looking up any unfamiliar groups (I find doing this takes around 30 - 45 seconds) reasonably ensures that the revived will be an ally. You remove a zombie from the attacking horde and add a new defender for the relatively cheap cost of a needle. --Quincy Kildare 00:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks and combat revives

I'll throw this out there for the strategy gurus. It seems to me that with the new block skill in place, there's a serious advantage to clearing a building of as many zombies as possible...does this mean that in small sieges where reletively few survivors are up against a larger and better coordinated horde, combat reviving actually works as an excellent menas of quickly clearing a building when Ammo is short? Discuss. PadreRomero 16:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

More AP tradeoffs

There is another factor that I think needs to be considered when deciding whether to combat-revive: the AP lost by a victim waiting at a revive point for 25 hours or more whose AP are maxed.

Imagine a character (who we'll call "Reviver") emerging from the apartment building where she's been sleeping, carrying an axe, 10 syringes (enough for the moment) and an axe. She also has 6 FAKs but would like more, so heads for the hospital 2 blocks to the south, passing a monument on the way. Reviver discovers that the hospital has been overrun by zeds and must decide how best to use her AP to help clear the hospital. Let's reserve 4 of her 48AP for getting home afterwards. That leaves roughly enough to chop up a zed (without body building) with an axe and dump the chunks outside, and maybe an AP left over to close the doors. Alternatively she could combat-revive 4 zeds and dump them outside, but would have to replace the syringes the next day (fortunately she knows of a currently secure, powered NT building 4 blocks east of the apartment building.)

Meanwhile her friend (called "Victim") was eaten a couple of days ago and is waiting for a revive at a cemetery 4 blocks west of the monument. Victim now has maxed AP and is missing out on his allowance but is still nowhere near the front of the queue. If Reviver chooses the chopping option or combat-reviving option, he will miss out on another day's AP before finally getting revived when the lab assistant eventually comes around again.

Reviver has a third option, to go to the cemetery (8AP round trip), revive (10AP) and heal (3AP) her friend who will then head to the hospital and (with 31 of his 35 remaining AP, assuming he doesn't have Ankle Grab) and assist in the clearing of the hospital. Now they have 56AP for clearing between them (and 8 for returning to the hideout) and have gained 47AP (Victim uses 3AP more travelling than if he'd gone straight back to the hideout but no longer loses a day's AP allowance.) Reviver still has to replace the syringe, but remember she would otherwise have used it on a zed who didn't want to be revived, and possibly led it to the hideout.) The effect is even greater if the revive queue is really long and Reviver has 4 or more friends there who can be relied upon to help with the clearing.

There is a potential downside in that the hospital will take longer to clear and nearby survivors must travel farther to get FAKs (depending how far it is to the next nearest hospital or mall) for a short time (probably less than a day on average.)

One could probably come up with a simple formula for net "team" AP gain/loss based on the average queue size at the local revive point but I think that would be misleading as the AP spent travelling to a faraway mall because of a hospital or PD staying ruined longer could be quite high.

I also think it is a mistake to be worry about whether the revived victims have anywhere safe to sleep. Reviver must know of a hideout and can lead them to it. If she didn't then she wouldn't be at that cemetery in the first place.

I'll almost certainly have missed some details but my intuition at the moment says to avoid buying brain rot for my zed character and lurk in areas where combat revives are common and revive queue lengths are not far from the magic 25 hour threshold (Kempsterbank springs to mind), because it encourages selfish behaviour by survivors, costing AP for the team in the long run. --Explodey 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally...

Excessive combat revives (IE: I've NEVER been shot, but have been revived a dozen times, at least!) are why this player packs several shotguns and a crowbar on his Zombie. If I get Combat Revived, I head straight into a building, free-run into a safehouse, smash the radio/generator and blast the crap out of all the medics/NT Technicians I see. Several other revivees are doing this too. Revive spammers, be warned! -Echo 04:15, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Well, I just don't see why it's ok for zombies to turn humans into zombies, but not ok for humans to turn zombies into humans. Bit of a discrepancy if you ask me. If you don't want to be revived, stop biting and scratching and stay outside. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 23:10, 3 July 2010 (BST)

It's not that it's not okay, it's that it's very AP-efficient compared to the AP cost of clawing someone to death (~40AP vs 10AP plus an item). The action isn't the issue so much as the efficiency of it being over-powered. 00:11, 4 July 2010 (BST)

I would argue this point, it is not unfair; in fact, it is the great equalizer. You neglect to mention the cost of finding the item required. On average, it takes 8AP to find an NT syringe. This puts the total AP cost to 18 to combat revive. Compare this to the cost of a zombie to kill a survivor. With the appropriate skills, my zombie natured character is usually able to maul someone to death with 30 AP or less. Upon occasion, it takes much more than this but upon occasion it also takes my scientist more than 20 AP to find a syringe. Beyond this, syringes can only be found in NT buildings which makes this an advantage within an NT facility but not anywhere else as a survivor must return to an NT facility to restock. Conversely, a zombie never needs to restock his claws; therefore, his inborn can of whoop-ass need never run dry. Strategically, a combat revive can be used to great advantage but only with great preparation and strategic application. As a counterpoint, its effect can be entirely neutralized by the brainrot skill. In conclusion, it is an advantage in an NT where needles are found and brainrot negated, but it is not unfair to assume that there be one type of building in Malton where survivors have an edge. (whether or not this is also the case in a fort is debatable). I must agree with Istacon here, any zombie can make it so they never get CRed: get brainrot and stay out of NTs. Anywhere else, a good CR every so often is the price one pays for keeping death-culting on the table.

-- Albert Schwan  04:22, 4 July 2010 (BST)

CRs are still way cheaper than killing a survivor, even with the hassle of searching for syringes. Smart death-culting is the only way to counter this and break even in the AP race, aside of brain rot. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:07, 4 July 2010 (BST)

Discussing the AP race, I would add that this is a race that survivors lose in all cases but barricades and CRs. There are leveling factors even in these areas; I will not get into barricades on this page, but as a CR is directly involved with the transition between death and life, the trouble caused to a zombie by receiving a CR relative to the trouble caused a survivor by a death and infection will also come into play. I do not want to launch into a comparative analogy of zombie and survivor playing styles here (I have user and group sub-pages for that) but rather to convey that this issue is far more complicated than 10AP for a CR vs 30AP for a mauling. We have all seen that under most circumstances zombies can take out survivors at a ratio of at least two to one. Yet I digress, the thread was started by the idea that CR are a “dirty business” and those who perform them are criminals who need to be punished. Most seasoned players have gotten past this and accept that this is the way scientists operate. We are not exploiting an AP loophole, this is how the concept of NT works. This is why we are scientists and why we agreed to pay more for all our military skills in exchange for a tag that says so. Scientists will CR you. If a trenchie CRs you in a fort, do what you have to do. I have to admit I am struck with a pang of anger sometimes when a PKer rolls into a science building, unloads with a shotgun, and calls themselves an action hero for dispatching a bunch of unnamed scientists. Death-culting and PKing are parts of life in Malton but lose the moral high ground. When it comes to the ethical elements of the act, if the actions and circumstance fit, you must acquit. -- Albert Schwan  21:02, 4 July 2010 (BST)

Look what I made!

	Prefer to get shot? Rot!
	Itsacon thinks that reviving a high level zombie who's too much of a coward to buy Brain rot is fair game.

--Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 08:28, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Reality

Imagine you are barricaded in your office, school, home, etc. Suddenly the barricade collapses and a flesh-eating zombie lurches through the door and begins biting you and your fellow companions.

You have at your disposal a knife, a crowbar and a handful of syringes containing a bio-chemical agent that will not only stop these zombies from attacking, but actually restore them to life. What do you do? Run, and leave your companions to be eaten alive? Waste all of your energy trying to stab or bash the advancing zombie into temporary submission? Or do you use the syringe and save your life, your friends' lives and possibly the life of the human infected with whatever changed them?

On the other hand, you are a zombie. You are wandering the streets looking for living flesh to consume. You are constantly learning new skills, and you have the chance to allow your brain to rot so irreversibly that the bio-chemical agent will not return you to a living state. But you chose not to allow this to happen. For some reason you cling to the desire to become a human when the need serves you.

Now, when someone you are about to kill defends himself by revivifying you, you get angry. You return to life, and your first action as a human is to take a gun, find the person responsible and kill them; human killing human.

Which of these scenarios is more realistic, given that we're talking about the dead walking the earth?

I have not once heard a compelling argument against combat revives.

There is a simple solution to avoiding being revived. Get Brain Rot.

There are facilities in operation that can still revivify you, even with Brain Rot.

It is entirely reasonable and realistic that a survivor would use any means at their disposal to stop an attacking zombie.

-- Askhere 16:22, 13 Novemberr 2009 (PST)

Proposed link to be added to this page

My group has developed an argument in favor of combat revives that deals with the ethical issues involved in this policy. I propose to add a link to it to this page but wish to post it here for review before I do, as this is such a high traffic page. Please let me know how people feel about its inclusion.

-- Albert Schwan  07:49, 18 April 2010 (BST)

Scale?

I don't see anything addressing the scale of combat revives. I would think the negatives of combat revives less important when performing large scale combat revives, like TBP and 404, versus a single player providing a few. Mainly the difference being a couple of combat revives might clear a building but leave a sufficiently sized horde; whereas, a large scale combat revive might create more death cultists, it's effect of hindering the horde would out-weigh the death cultists it has created. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 14:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that scale really comes into this. To me, a single survivor CRing a zombie or two to clear a building is more efficient in my mind by about the same ratio as several survivors CRing several zombies to take back a held and garrisoned building. The fallout I would think is also proportional as more revives leads to more Death Cultists but more survivors are more able to deal with them. A single survivor using CRs against a superior zombie force stands little chance but that is more about the numbers themselves than the tactic. They stand less chance using guns and the difference, though smaller should have a proportional rate of change between the two tactics. In a large scale event where some CR and some do not, CRing does lose a lot of its effectiveness, but again, I think this is more about lack of coordination than the scope of application. The one places I might grant that scope dramatically changes the effectiveness of the tactic, would be in a fort where death cultists have a lot more tactical versatility than zombies, or in the case of random street CRs. The later would be a case where scope would definitely have an impact as only a large scale effort would make much of a difference at all. At least that is how I see it.-- Albert Schwan  _{Saturday, 17 November 2012}