Talk:Salt The Land Policy
Scary... zombies could end up winning if this catches on. --Cman yall 05:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually they cant win anyway. The problem here is that when the NT building gets captured by zombies, most survivors just retreat to the more safe suburbs. So, The more Suburbs are in zombie control, the higher the concentration of survivors in the safe suburbs. Zombies, on the other hand, will have to spray their forces to cover all the NTs they already have. But yeah, the whole idea is good, i've minded it on my own before visiting this page, and my Zombie character Wgah'Nagl always follows it. (Though most of the time he lives in the safe suburbs, trying to break into caded NT buildings) --KiT 00:20, 9 May 2007 (BST)
This practice could lead to more zombie zerging abuse. The idea of "Dogpiling" into a ransacked NT building would work very well with this concept. A single person with 15 zeds could easily control 3 NT buildings.. as long as it only takes 1 zed to break in --Kinnison 03:02, 31 May 2007 (BST)
- It could lead to that, but in reality there's not many zombie players who want to zerg, and a whole lot of zonbie players who strongly oppose zerging by zombies or anybody else. Any attempts at what you propose above end up being solo efforts, which seem doomed to fail. --Seb_Wiers Imagine 03:43, 31 May 2007 (BST)
- I agree with Swiers. This policy was spawned as good tactics, not to incite zerging. I don't think it's even widely used. Having tried to control NT buildings as a zombie in a (non-zerging) bunch of zombies, it is NOT easy if there are relatively organised humans opposing. I'd say humans would be far more capable of 'dogpiling' to stop NTs from being ransacked; a new zombie moves at half speed to a location and takes 10 pistol shots to kill. A new scout can free run 50 blocks and takes 17 claw hits (at a lower hit rate) to knock off. With that in mind, humans 'dogpiling' has been documented on numerous occasions (especially around Caiger) and it hasn't been shown for zombies (this is, admittedly, harder to prove). So don't say more zombie zerging abuse, please. --David Suzuki 09:15, 31 May 2007 (BST)
- To think that human dogpiling is the same as zombie dogpiling into a building are forgetting how ransack works. I did say IF it takes only one zed to break into a building, and also this whole concept of "salt the land" is only for already open and ransacked NT buildings. What is to stop a player from having 5 "stand by" zombie alts near numerous NT buildings waiting for an opening to dogpile into? the APs spent by the zed dogpile would far out way the APs spent by survivors trying to clear and re barricade the building. Please lets think this through before we resort to old knee-jerk reactions to touchy subjects. --Kinnison 00:51, 1 June 2007 (BST)
- You ask me to think this through, and yet you completely fail to realise that your accusation could perfectly easily be levelled against survivors. In the exact reverse of your scenario, a survivor could wait until a ransacked NT only has one or two zombies in it, run in, kill them, barricade it, then create 5 Scouts who would immediately occupy the building. If anything, the initial action (clearing the NT) is far easier for a survivor than a zombie, as survivors can kill more zeds in a day than vice versa, and the barricades they put up foil retaliation attempts. Human meatshield zergs have been [caught in action].
- What I'm saying is that the zerging issue is completely unrelated to the Policy. Zergers will zerg on both sides. Salt the Land does not endorse, incite or make zerging easier. End of discussion. --David Suzuki 07:27, 5 July 2007 (BST)
- To think that human dogpiling is the same as zombie dogpiling into a building are forgetting how ransack works. I did say IF it takes only one zed to break into a building, and also this whole concept of "salt the land" is only for already open and ransacked NT buildings. What is to stop a player from having 5 "stand by" zombie alts near numerous NT buildings waiting for an opening to dogpile into? the APs spent by the zed dogpile would far out way the APs spent by survivors trying to clear and re barricade the building. Please lets think this through before we resort to old knee-jerk reactions to touchy subjects. --Kinnison 00:51, 1 June 2007 (BST)
I added the AP cost for a combat revive on there. Nalikill 15:49, 5 July 2007 (BST)
My Crew is discussing about adopting the policy, so I made a Template
 |
Salt The Land |
| This User or Group supports the Salt The Land Policy & acknowledges that all zombies should end their day in a ransacked NecroTech building whenever possible. |
Simply add the following {{STLP}} to any page where you with this to be displayed
--Blutrabe 14:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
New Salt the Land Template
I made this a few days ago, but forgot to mention it here. It's smaller than the above one, conforming to the 250 pixel-wide standard for flagboxes. You can call it with {{Salt The Land|User=YOUR NAME HERE}} to get what's below: --the one, the only, sushiknight (talk contribs HARD E.N.D.) 19:23, 10 August 2007 (BST)
|
Salt The Land |
| YOUR NAME HERE supports the Salt the Land policy. |
Salt The Land Policy
is a good idea. but Can someone explain to me exacly what "ransacked" means? If the survivors are gone, and new one's keep coming in then that will be glorious. Because there probably be nubs and they wont even know about the NT buildings into later! it's such a good plan. but I was sorta thinking that what if the survivors are making a website like this and there planning out to destroy our zombiemanity? then what are we gonna do? and what if there reading our website here and there going to do the same thing? REACH ME AT
and be sure to message me if you want to join the (K.P.O.H.E) King6273's Project Of Human Extinction
Thank-You! [[1]]
Um, a question...
So when you have all the NTs, and the survivor population eventually goes extinct, then what?
There's a difference between victory and just plain ruining the game. Either way,
I'm curious to see what you plan on doing then. Doctor How 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uh... I think they were joking. It's not like it's possible anyway, and if by some miracle it happened, Kevan would be able to chill out for a while. Salt the Land is just a basic, efficient zombie strategy. --David Suzuki 10:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Even if that did happen, survivors could recover. You just create a new NT scientest, scan the plentiful zombies for enough XP to buy lab expereince, search up a syringe in a ruined building, and revive somebody. And yes, you CAN do all that on your first AP cycle, when zombies are plentiful; you might end up at negative AP's, but who cares, you were gonna die either way. Hopefully the person you revive is smart enough to either stay down until there's a lot of revived bodies laying around, or to stand up and use their stock of syringes to revive 4 or 5 other survivors who then either stay down, or do the same.
Swiers 19:13, 16 July 2008 (BST)
- So true, man. And besides, there are hundreds of new survivors every day. --Scooterman33 21:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even if that did happen, survivors could recover. You just create a new NT scientest, scan the plentiful zombies for enough XP to buy lab expereince, search up a syringe in a ruined building, and revive somebody. And yes, you CAN do all that on your first AP cycle, when zombies are plentiful; you might end up at negative AP's, but who cares, you were gonna die either way. Hopefully the person you revive is smart enough to either stay down until there's a lot of revived bodies laying around, or to stand up and use their stock of syringes to revive 4 or 5 other survivors who then either stay down, or do the same.
The Growing Destruction
It may not seem like it but Malton's definitely going to be in zombie hands soon. This tactic helps the horde greatly. --Arcology 19:03, 27 June 2008 (BST)
- Hardly. This tactic is over a year old now, and back in march the population of Malton was over 60% zombies. Survivors bounced back despite this tactic, partly because search rates (even in ruined NT buildings) got bumped up quite a bit when conditions got like that. Swiers 19:08, 16 July 2008 (BST)
Unfortunately, Arcology is right. It might not be too long before Malton goes down completely into zombie hands. --Scooterman33 22:26, 17 May 2011 (BST)
STL Revamp
Who's maintaining the policy page? I'd like to do an edit on it to clean it up and really focus on the main bits plus include a brief history of groups such as Extinction, the Eastonwood Ferals and The Dead that have helped maintain the NW Malton dead zone up until the Eastonwood's disbanded. Ridleybank is another example even if the RRF don't really salt the land beyond it.
I've also got a Salt The Land Alliance page, based on the NATO Treaty, that could be included as a basic signup page for groups interested in ruining and holding NT's. And Swiers, the STL Policy is a very effective and fun gameplay strategy used by a number of us zed groups. It won't destroy Malton or UD but it does offer a viable alternative to the usual brain farming red/green shuffle game. There are also lots of town based smaller zed groups that while not focusing on NT's specifically do maintain an interest in holding their suburb.
I'll post a Salt The Land Policy/Beta page before going ahead with any edits and anyone interested can add/edit it as we go.--Zeug 06:31, 17 October 2008 (BST)
