Talk:Construction odds
Originally at Talk:Barricades#Construction_Percentages Talk:Barricades#Construction Percentages:
Does anyone know what the percentage chance is of adding on to a barricade at Heavily, Very Heavily, and Extremely Heavily? Just curious. --Antrobus178 20:44, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Good question. Perhaps we should start a page to submit results, as has been done with search odds. As a pure guess, I would think a natural thing to do would be to decrement it by 10% for every level above 10 (VS+2). --Dan 06:50, 30 March 2006 (BST)
- I've started recording my own data. Unfortunately, it gets complicated when other people barricade at the same time. At the moment, I'm recording AP spent and successful barricade attempts at a given barricade level. If I see the level go up while my attempt was unsuccessful, I'm currently discarding that AP and result because I have no way of knowing whether my attempt took place before or after the level change. If I see it go down, I discard that AP regardless of the result. In addition, I'm not going to record data on adding to EHB unless I am a) the one to increase the barricade to EHB and b) the only person barricading, because doing otherwise would make it too hard to get meaningful data. Make sense? —Revenant talk 16:44, 18 June 2007 (BST)
I have been gathering data aswell and hope you will include it:
(LVL/total/ok)
(N/14/14)
(Lo/16/16)
(Li/38/38)
(Qs/49/48)
(Vs/40/37)
(H/57/33)
(VH/56/25)
(EH/0/0)
Do you have any idea what formula may lead to this rate of success? My first guess was 100-2^x with x being 0 for N, 1 for Lo, 2 for Li... 6 for VH. This does not explain the EHB success rate and also does not fit the current numbers. Maybe it depends on the number of peaces that are already in place? Maybe there is no overall formula?--Paul Power 19:39, 17 October 2007 (BST)
- Cheers for this! It's all been included in with the rest, along with data from some members of groups I'm in. Now, for the next project... de-construction data? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no suspiction that different levels are differently destructed, right? If you're about to calc the values for the probabilities for using different aproaches in deconstruction - for example, 'arm's research covers them. --~~~~ [talk] 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is one wee problem with Arm's numbers, it only has maxed stats(going off of the %s cause he doesn't list skillsets/accuracy). That being said, 116 out of 500 attacks really is horrible for a game(although pretty much about right for the rates), it means that zombies aren't even getting 10 used AP a day on average on even barricades.--Karekmaps?! 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually summary number for claws there is 195 out of 832, somewhere about 23.4%. The value is believed to be 25% for maxed-out claws, about 12 successfull attacks in 50AP. I don't share your opinion of this being horrible... --~~~~ [talk] 12:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm including headshots which remove 6-10 AP from the total of 50, it's from 46. And 12 AP used a day out of 50 sucks, especially considering there is no reward at all for doing it because you're wasting AP on something that does nothing, at least as far as the player is concerned. At least searching gives you a visual reward.--Karekmaps?! 13:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually summary number for claws there is 195 out of 832, somewhere about 23.4%. The value is believed to be 25% for maxed-out claws, about 12 successfull attacks in 50AP. I don't share your opinion of this being horrible... --~~~~ [talk] 12:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is one wee problem with Arm's numbers, it only has maxed stats(going off of the %s cause he doesn't list skillsets/accuracy). That being said, 116 out of 500 attacks really is horrible for a game(although pretty much about right for the rates), it means that zombies aren't even getting 10 used AP a day on average on even barricades.--Karekmaps?! 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no suspiction that different levels are differently destructed, right? If you're about to calc the values for the probabilities for using different aproaches in deconstruction - for example, 'arm's research covers them. --~~~~ [talk] 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
lag bug or...?
the server was horribly lagging as this happenned... check the barricade level --~~~~ [talk] 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a fail % for every barricade level, it's just absurdly small for anything under Strongly.--Karekmaps?! 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
An idea
Hm. I have a weird idea about failings of the construction. Does anyone keep a track of what items are used when barricading (this by the way could be added to somewhere like Building Types as it gives a lot of flavor for the buildings). I've just had in Library (heavy+2 => very heavy):
- You try to add a desk to the barricade, but can't find a place for it.
- You try to add a display case to the barricade, but can't find a place for it. (2x)
- You try to add a broken shelf to the barricade, but can't find a place for it.
- You try to add a desk to the barricade, but can't find a place for it.
- You try to add some books to the barricade, but can't find a place for them.
- Using some freestanding shelves, you reinforce the barricade.
So actually there where pieces that didn't fit into the barricades (cannot find a place) and a piece that did fit. The weird idea is that a chance is rolled for which piece to be found and then the result depends from how many of that piece is already added to cades and/or some other limiting rules --~~~~ [talk] 07:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The idea written above didn't prove itself worth thus far, but i'm having fun by checking what stuff get's into the barricades in what buildings. Have a look here --~~~~ [talk] 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Zombies
Are you going to start collecting data on construction rates with zombies inside? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hell yes. I'll also gladly accept contributions… hint hint ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- From my experiments on buildings with 1, 7 and 10 zombies inside, it looks like the chance for failing does indeed depend on the number of zombies. Or then I was just lucky with the lonely zombie. Anyway, I'm going to mark the number of zombies alongside the other numbers. Do you want the data in small chunks or larger dumps? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
i also have such data and ask how you would like it?
|
the middle version: z=16 1/1(->l-1) 1/1(->l+0) 1/2(->l+1) 1/1(->l+2) 1/4(->qs+0) 1/1(->qs+1) 1/1(->qs+2) 0/1(->vs+0) |
the short version z=16 1/1(none->) 1/1(loose->) 3/7(light->) 2/3(qs->) |
The first is log dump, second is accumulation list with data for each step, third - accumulation list with data gathered by "current" cades state (as on your pages) --~~~~ [talk] 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I started recording them like this, so one "session" fits on one row:
Zeds None Loose LB QSB VSB HB VHB EHB 1 1/1 3/3 2/2 - - - - - 7 - - 3/10 - - - - -
I wonder if it's possible to fail without zombies lurching into your way? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- like, dragged <stuff> towards the barricades, through zombies, but can't find a place for it?... i suspect not. --~~~~ [talk] 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible. "You try to add a shopping trolley to the barricade, but can't find a place for it." With three zombies inside and barricades up at VSB. The other tries ended with the normal "but the zombies lurch into your way". Also, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about the number of zombies affecting the failure chance, as I barricaded a building with 56 zombies inside up to QSB in just 15 AP. Could be I was just lucky, but I could as well have been unlucky earlier. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, got it myself too. IMHO we should keep track of this, i.e. what caused barricade failure. this way we could gain info on "zombie prevention" chances --~~~~ [talk] 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, how should we record this? There should be some standard form because everyone's data has to be combined sooner or later. Earlier I marked them as Successes/AP Used. Now there are four values that must be recorded; successes, zombie-caused failures, normal failures and AP used. One of these can be left out as it can be calculated from the rest. I think Z-fail/N-fail/AP would be good with perhaps a shorthand version Z-fail/AP for cases when normal failures didn't occur. What do you think? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm keeping a full log for myself so don't care either way. Z-fails happen more on low levels and with big z-numbers, N-fails - on high levels and with small z-numbers. i don't think we need to overrate one over another, thus it's better to keep S/ZF/NF and AP = S+ZF+NF. --~~~~ [talk] 11:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, how should we record this? There should be some standard form because everyone's data has to be combined sooner or later. Earlier I marked them as Successes/AP Used. Now there are four values that must be recorded; successes, zombie-caused failures, normal failures and AP used. One of these can be left out as it can be calculated from the rest. I think Z-fail/N-fail/AP would be good with perhaps a shorthand version Z-fail/AP for cases when normal failures didn't occur. What do you think? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, got it myself too. IMHO we should keep track of this, i.e. what caused barricade failure. this way we could gain info on "zombie prevention" chances --~~~~ [talk] 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible. "You try to add a shopping trolley to the barricade, but can't find a place for it." With three zombies inside and barricades up at VSB. The other tries ended with the normal "but the zombies lurch into your way". Also, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about the number of zombies affecting the failure chance, as I barricaded a building with 56 zombies inside up to QSB in just 15 AP. Could be I was just lucky, but I could as well have been unlucky earlier. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I generally prefer the likes of the short format when I'm recording, but I like Midianian's format best so far – nice work! Also, with you guys actively contributing, I think I should have this page moved into a public namespace. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- And done, cheers Karek! Just for the sake of sharing... before I transfer them into Excel, my personal logs are in the shorthand format Level AP/Successes, like so:
==2008-01-23== VS 6/3 H 10/8 VH 1 Low 2/2 L 3/3 QS 5/3 VS 2/2
- I tend to record EHB on a per-level basis, so I know exactly where I've gotten to… Also, "Low" is if I cade both none and loose in the same run, because I'm lazy. ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yar, Midianian's is easier to read.--Karekmaps?! 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, this may cause us some recording issues… *sigh*. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why state that they need lurching gait?.. it's not said clearly in update and my vision is that they don't need. As for recording, anyway i'm going to record al levels rather then gather qs, vs, etc, but put on this page in midianian's format --~~~~ [talk] 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Turns out it was a false alarm… Dammit Swiers! :P You gave me "that sinking feeling" – next time I'll check the sourcing much more closely… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just adding something, although it might have already been said; I was barricading a building recently, with one zombie inside, and six survivors besides myself. The zombie did not stop me once. I got it all the way to Heavily barricaded +1. One barricade failure, not due to the zombie lurching into my path. - W 07:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not mentioned here, but I believe you can find reference to it on both barricades and interference. You need at least two zombies inside for the zombies to lurch in the way.--Karekmaps?! 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. - W 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Data!
Time for some data. I thought I'd already posted this table, but apparently not. It's from before I took my little "vacation", putting it mostly in february.
| Zeds | None | Loose | LB | QSB | VSB | HB | VHB | EHB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | 1/6/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/8/0 | |||||
| 85 | 1/0/0 | 0/1/0 | ||||||
| 86 | 1/0/0 | |||||||
| 12 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/4/0 | 3/5/0 | 3/2/0 | |||
| 3 | 1/0/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/9/0 | |||||
| 3 | 1/3/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/7/0 | |||||
| 2 | 1/3/0 | 1/4/0 | ||||||
| 6 | 1/0/0 | 1/6/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 2/0/1 | |||
| 2 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/0/0 | 2/2/1 |
Later on I started recording the date.
| Date | Zeds | None | Loose | LB | QSB | VSB | HB | VHB | EHB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-04-17 | 21 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 2/2/1 | |||
| 2008-04-29 | 2 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 2/3/0 | |||
| 2008-05-02 | 4 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/1/0 | 2/0/1 | |||
| 2008-05-06 | 4 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/0/0 | 2/1/0 | |||
| 2008-05-20 | 5 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/3/0 | |||||
| 2008-05-20 | 2 | 1/0/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/2/0 | 2/1/0 | |||
| 2008-06-06 | 7 | 1/0/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/6/0 | 2/2/0 | |||
| 2008-06-07 | 3 | 1/1/0 | 1/2/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/2/0 | 2/4/3 | |||
| 2008-06-12 | 2 | - | - | 1/0/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/4/3 | 2/6/4 | ||
| 2008-06-21 | 2 | 1/1/0 | 1/2/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/4/0 | 2/2/0 | |||
| 2008-06-25 | 4 | - | - | 2/2/0 | 3/2/1 | 2/0/0 | |||
| 2008-06-26 | 2 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/4/0 | 3/0/0 | 2/5/0 | |||
| 2008-07-15 | 3 | 1/0/0 | 1/7/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/5/1 | 2/1/0 |
There. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:11, 15 July 2008 (BST)
- Yes, but how much of the second numbers were due to lurching and not just normal RNG failure?--Karekmaps?! 19:35, 15 July 2008 (BST)
Renewed Data collection effort
Since it doesn't seem as though any percentage has yet been worked out, I'm going to start compiling all data I come across. I'll post it in the same fashion as above: (Success/Lurch-fail/Normal-fail)
| Date | Zeds | None | Loose | LB | QSB | VSB | HB | VHB | EHB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-08-08 | 2 | 1/3/0 | ||||||||
| 2009-08-09 | 1 | - | - | - | 1/0/1 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/4 | 3/0/2 | 1/0/13 | |
| 2009-08-09 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | 2/1/6 | |||
| 2009-08-11 | 1 | - | - | - | - | 2/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/11 | 2/0/10 | |
| 2009-08-11 | 2 | - | - | 2/2/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/5/7 | 3/4/4 | |||
| 2009-08-11 | 3 | 1/1/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/8/0 | 2/4/7 | |||
| 2009-08-18 | 2 | - | - | - | - | 3/10/4 | 3/0/1 | 3/0/6 | 2/4/12 | |
| 2009-08-18 | 3 | - | 1/0/0 | 3/6/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/1/2 | 3/6/12 | 3/1/5 | 0/0/1 | |
| 2009-08-19 | 7 | 0/2/0 | ||||||||
| 2009-08-19 | 6 | 1/8/0 | 1/2/0 | 3/4/0 | 3/21/0 | 1/3/1 |
--Zarneverfike 08:55, 19 August 2009 (BST)
I suspected that the number of humans in the building may have some impact on the zombie interference percentages. Further data will include the number of humans, though it initially doesn't seem to have an effect.
| Date | Zeds | Humans | None | Loose | LB | QSB | VSB | HB | VHB | EHB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-08-21 | 3 | 3 | 1/6/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/1/0 | |||||
| 2009-08-22 | 2 | 5 | 1/0/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/3/1 | 3/3/3 | 3/0/3 | 0/1/7 | |
| 2009-08-22 | 2 | 8 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/1 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/1 | 3/0/2 | 2/0/20 | |
| 2009-08-24 | 3 | 13 | 1/1/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/5/0 | 0/4/0 | ||||
| 2009-08-24 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | 1/0/2 | 3/3/7 | 1/0/5 | ||
| 2009-08-26 | 5 | 3 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/1/1 | ||||
| 2009-08-27 | 4 | 3 | 1/0/0 | 1/2/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/2/0 | 1/3/2 | ||||
| 2009-08-27 | 2 | 11 | 1/2/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/11/2 | 1/4/4 | |||
| 2009-08-28 | 10 | 18 | 1/0/0 | 1/3/0 | 1/16/0 | ||||||
| 2009-09-01 | 5 | 2 | 1/0/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/2/0 | ||||||
| 2009-09-01 | 2 | 5 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 2/0/0 | ||||
| 2009-09-02 | 2 | 8 | - | - | - | - | 2/6/0 | 3/3/1 | 2/2/10 |
--Zarneverfike 22:01, 2 September 2009 (BST)
Initial Hypotheses
So, I decided to tally all of the above data (disregarding zed and human numbers to get an idea of the effect lurch interference has relative to normal failure. After playing with the numbers, it appears that the lurch percentage is a certain percentage of what would otherwise have been successful constructions (had there been no zombies) as opposed to a percentage of the total AP spent (as is the case for dark construction, I believe.) To arrive at this, I added the number of successes and lurch failures, and divided by the total AP spent. Given the relatively low amount of data present, the percentages come pretty close to the actual odds. If the percentage was derived from total AP spent, one would expect the % to be constant across cade levels. Granted, these numbers are compiled and don't account for differences in zed numbers, however, the percentage differences at higher cade levels shift dramatically. Here is the compiled data and number crunching. Sorry if it is displayed in a confusing manner, but I was too lazy to create a proper table:
| - | None | Loose | LB | QSB | VSB | HB | VHB | EHB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | 43/37/0 | 31/37/0 | 93/94/0 | 82/65/4 | 68/84/32 | 34/34/54 | 21/3/44 | 7/5/63 | |
| (success+lurch fail)/Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97.35% | 82.61% | 55.74% | 35.29% | 16% | |
| Actual Construction Odds | 98.8% | 99% | 99.7% | 97% | 84.8% | 61.8% | 37.1% | 19.4% | |
| Lurches/AP spent | 46.25% | 54.44% | 50.27% | 43.05% | 45.65% | 27.87% | 4.41% | 6.67% |
The next step, once sufficient data is accumulated, will be to sort it out by number of zombies present, to see the percentage as the number of zombies changes (assuming there is such an effect,) then pin down the precise numbers.
--Zarneverfike 00:38, 3 September 2009 (BST)
More Data
| Date | Zeds | Humans | None | Loose | LB | QSB | VSB | HB | VHB | EHB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-09-04 | 3 | 2 | - | 1/1/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/4/0 | 3/3/3 | 1/1/3 | ||
| 2009-09-05 | 2 | 41 | 1/1/0 | ||||||||
| 2009-09-05 | 2 | 41 | 1/0/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/9/0 | 3/1/0 | 2/5/0 | ||||
| 2009-09-07 | 4 | 2 | 1/1/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/4/0 | 3/3/0 | 1/5/5 | |||
| 2009-09-09 | 5 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | 3/2/2 | 0/11/15 | ||
| 2009-09-09 | 3 | 11 | 1/0/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/4/3 | 3/4/12 | 2/3/2 | ||
| 2009-09-11 | 6 | 5 | 1/1/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/6/3 | 1/1/0 | |||
| 2009-09-15 | 3 | 22 | - | - | - | 2/4/0 | 3/10/9 | 3/1/11 | 1/1/5 | ||
| 2009-09-15 | 7 | 11 | 1/5/0 | 1/3/0 | 1/6/0 | ||||||
| 2009-09-16 | 5 | 2 | 1/1/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/5/0 | 1/1/0 | |||||
| 2009-09-17 | 2 | 1 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/3 | 3/0/4 | 3/0/17 | |
| 2009-09-20 | 2 | 2 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | ||||
| 2009-09-21 | 5 | 9 | - | - | - | 2/0/0 | 3/1/1 | 3/6/1 | 2/3/21 | ||
| 2009-09-21 | 2 | 15 | - | - | - | - | 1/0/1 | 3/0/2 | 3/0/6 | 2/0/16 | |
| 2009-09-23 | 2 | 2 | 1/1/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/6/2 | 3/3/2 | |||
| 2009-09-24 | 2 | 30 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/0/1 | 3/0/2 | 3/0/1 | 3/0/20 | |
| 2009-09-25 | 2 | 34 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/3/0 | 3/3/4 | 3/5/12 | ||
| 2009-09-25 | 2 | 5 | - | - | - | - | 1/2/0 | 3/2/4 | 3/0/7 | 1/1/12 | |
| 2009-09-25 | 2 | 4 | 1/0/0 | 1/3/0 | 1/2/0 |
--Zarneverfike 18:58, 25 September 2009 (BST)
| Date | Zeds | Humans | None | Loose | LB | QSB | VSB | HB | VHB | EHB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-10-27 | 5 | 0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 1/3/0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 |
| 2009-10-27 | 2 | 14 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/9/1 | 3/1/5 | 1/1/1 | 0/0/0 |
| 2009-10-27 | 2 | 2 | 1/0/0 | 1/0/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/8/0 | 2/2/0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 |
| 2009-10-27 | 2 | 0 | 1/2/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/0/0 | 3/1/0 | 1/1/0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 |
i forgot to record dates, so just today's here --~~~~ [talk] 18:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
| Date | Zeds | Humans | None | Loose | LB | QSB | VSB | HB | VHB | EHB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-04-25 | 3 | 12 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1/0/2 | 1/2/8 |
| 2010-04-23 | 4 | 3 | 1/0/0 | 1/1/0 | 3/4/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/11/4 | 1/0/1 | |
| 2010-04-21 | 4 | 15 | - | 1/2/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/9/0 | 3/4/1 | 3/2/1 | 3/0/0 | 4/1/9 |
| 2010-04-20 | 4 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | 2/2/3 | 2/1/5 | |
| 2010-04-18 | 2 | 6 | - | 1/0/0 | 3/1/0 | 3/3/0 | 2/7/3 | |||
| 2010-04-17 | 7 | 4 | 1/5/0 | 1/3/0 | 3/15/0 | 3/2/0 | 3/3/0 |
--Zarneverfike 20:40, 26 April 2010 (BST)
Preliminary Numbers
| Number of Zeds | Successes | Lurch Fails | Lurch % (Lurch Fails / (Lurch Fails + Successes) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 310 | 224 | 41.95% |
| 3 | 116 | 144 | 55.38% |
| 4 | 87 | 77 | 46.95% |
| 5 | 42 | 42 | 50% |
| 6+ | 86 | 156 | 64.46% |
| 2+ | 641 | 643 | 50.08% |
Because there is still not a lot of data to work with (especially with greater numbers of zeds) it's not entirely clear if there is an effect of lurch fails increasing as zed numbers increase. However, the aggregate data being so close to 50% seems to suggest that 50% is likely the effect across the board. --Zarneverfike 23:40, 26 April 2010 (BST)
EHB+N
Just wanted to confirm existance of EHB+4 as i've reached it barricading myself. there are no zombies and other survivors with construction in proximity --~~~~ [talk] 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Slip
this is weird... found the iwitness report accidently. Although, this is de-construction with crowbar... i'm too used to fire axe, are these messages common? --~~~~ [talk] 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I saw something like that the last time I used a crowbar. Seems similar to "It creaks". --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
New %'s/zombies now block
Are there any plans to figure out what the new %'s are not that zombies can block barricading if they are inside? I was defending the Ackland Mall when the zeds started coming in... The odds to get past them and build the barricades must be very-very low.--Airborne88
T|ZC|MI|E! 01:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
One Zombie?
Regarding the new barricading update, could someone please confirm that the percentages aren't affected if there's only one zombie in a building? I've found mixed information about this on the Wiki. Also, does the Lurching Gait skill make a difference? I've tried searching for this information already but it must be cleverly hidden. --Saralan Talk 404 ZHU ❤ 11:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- There should be 2 zombies, 1 zombie canot trigger interference. Zombies don't need any skills --~~~~ [talk] 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
EHB+7?
Yeah, it sounds outrageous. I accidentally brought back an alt so I moved him into a random nondescript building and started dumping his AP into the cades to try to keep him safe while he idled out. I got to EHB... then had another 7 successes in the ensuing AP. There were no zombies outside and one other survivor who didn't appear to be active at the time (I know you can't tell, but the odds of a lowish-level survivor actively decading while I was online are slim). Here's iWitnesses:
- VHB +2 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1000hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_VHB_740-7b4-446.html
- EHB +0 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1000hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_EHB_f86-d7c-13b.html
- EHB +1 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1000hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_EHB_698-16b-998.html
- EHB +2 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1000hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_EHB_006-b03-4e7.html
- EHB +3 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1000hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_EHB_446-eb7-cf8.html
- EHB +4 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1100hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_EHB_9bc-8fb-b06.html
- EHB +5 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1100hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_EHB5_58b-2a7-a99.html
- EHB +6 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1100hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_EHB6_3a5-2bb-e7c.html
- EHB +7 http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1100hrs_PRIVATE/IN_0-89_EHB8_2bd-dd9-73f.html
- Outside the building: http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/03-30-08_1100hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_0-88_outside_053-756-5a4.html
Now the best way to corroborate this is send a zombie/survivor there and try to decade it ASAP, and see if it takes 7 collapses to remove EHB. Otherwise it looks like it might have been a zombie outside working on the cades while I was, who left before I checked outside. Any takers? --David Suzuki 11:10, 30 March 2008 (BST)
EXTREME BARRICADE RESEARCH
Regarding extreme barricading percentages: the barricade percentages for cades above EHB could conceivably diminish as cades get stronger, if, for example, the barricade success rate is based upon absolute level of barricades, not just the displayed descriptive text. I'd recommend breaking it down further for EHB cades, to represent the AP spent moving 'cades from one extreme level to another. A tiny bit of data, which I'll update as I go:
>VSB+2 >HB >HB+1 <HB+2 <VHB >VHB+1 >VHB+2 >EHB >EHB+1 >EHB+2 >EHB+3 >EHB+4 >EHB+5 >EHB+6 >EHB+7 Session Details - - - - - - 1/1 1/1 1/5 1/3 1/20 0/7 - - - Powered Armory, no zombies 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/4 1/1 1/4 0/1 - - - - - - Powered Armory, no zombies 1/1 1/2 1/1 1/3 1/1 1/4 1/3 1/11 1/3 1/7 0/14 - - - - Powered Armory, no zombies -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/1 2/3 1/1 1/2 1/1 1/4 3/5 3/16 2/9 1/5 1/34 0/7 - - - Total ratio 2/2 2/3 2/2 2/4 2/2 2/8 3/5 3/16 2/9 2/10 1/34 0/7 - - - Unsimplified totals
The column heading ">VHB +2" represents the success rate of raising 'cades above VHB+2, or to EHB, and so forth. The numbers represent the ratio of successful attempts to total attempts. The bottom two lines represent total cumulative results expressed as a ratio, and unsimplified totals, respectively, and above lines individual sessions.--ØxØ 15:14, 16 September 2008 (BST)
- Awesome! I may have to have an alt do some extreme barricade research again... ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:34, 19 September 2008 (BST)
What does the number in the barricade form submit mean
e.g. in Haslock it's "map.cgi?barricade98" - could this be some raw representation of exactly what strength the barricade is at? Random832 01:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- The number is randomly tacked on at the end to prevent people from abusing the barricade function via page refresh or bots. For more information, I recommend you read Actions via "question marks".--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
