Talk:Suggestions/PKdebate

Brainstorming Thread On Pking

Part 1

Kevan has said he's opening to tinkering when it comes to PKing. I haven't had much success with PKing suggestions in the past and I think I could use some outside perspective. How about we (and by we and mean whoever is interested) shoot some ideas back and forth and see if we can come up with any working concepts? And if you do not think PKing should be changed at all ever and can't be swayed and don't have arguments against previous PK suggestions except that they were PK suggestions, well, there's not much point to posting in this thread. It's not meant to be another fruitless debate where nobody wins but just an area for those that are in favor of a change to throw out ideas. Feel free to criticize as long as it isn't "Nothing will ever work" since that'll just be ignored. Constructive criticism only please and who knows, maybe we'll find something most people can get behind. --Jon Pyre 07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, are you going to revise your tracking suggestion so that it just tells someone which direction the attacker went in? That's what a lot of the voters are asking for, so it looks like a winner. And that's tinkering with PKing. --Funt Solo 10:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. While that would be flavorful I don't see what the point would be. Nobody would ever actually act on that information because they'd be rightfully worried about the escapee spending a single AP going the wrong way and sending them on a wild goose chase across half the suburb. I want whatever's added to actually have a use as well as being flavorful. What about this for a suggestion, a skill that tells you how exhausted a PKer at the time of the kill. If they had 26+ AP at the time of the action they'd be marked as rested, 15-25AP would mark them as tired, 10-15 AP weary, 6-10 fatigued, 1-5 as exhausted. So this wouldn't tell you where they are but just how large your search radius would need to be. ("He was looking pretty worn out! I doubt he could have gotten father then 10 blocks!") So this skill doesn't really help them find PKers, it just lets them know how worthwhile it is to try to find them. If someone moved 20 blocks away maybe it wouldn't be worth trying. If it was just 5 it's certainly worth a shot. --Jon Pyre 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

if I were a sneaky as **** PKer I'd leave with 20 AP, go about three blocks, and then park with 17 AP left --Cman yall 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But that would get heavily spammed for the same reasons as the other ones that told you how far away they'd gotten to. What's the point? --Funt Solo 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds more workable but the PKer Griefers would hate it and spam it out of the water... not sure i like it either but hey! For a tracking skill the only way i can think that it might (possibly) work would be to give an initial direction from the location with a new action: 'follow trail' If any survivors are present in the next location the trail continues but cost 2 ap to follow. Why: because 1 is wasted asking questions! That way if they go outside or just luck into an empty building they escape notice and you are stuffed! I would be happy with this but then i have only ever PKed in revenge (randomly) for unwanted revives so don't really care if i get caught.--Honestmistake 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As for workable PKer suggestions the fairest i can think of is a free skill which would affect your profile but not be immediatly noticable. For bounty hunters reading their profile could include "they show youy a law enforcement emergency deputy licence" and psychos "this person seems to be a drooling lunatic, little better than the walking dead he/she so obviously emulates" the only real problem would be that griefers would almost certainly choose the 'boutny hunter' version! so it would only really help identify genuine psycho killers?--Honestmistake 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Funt. The other ones were spammed for two reasons. One was that some PKers don't want any alterations to their PKing. Can't do anything about those votes. The other reason was that there was no logical way to track a person. Here you aren't tracking them at all, you're just estimating how far they could have gone based on how tired they looked. That makes perfect sense, a guy who's red in the face and wheezing isn't going to get more than a few blocks. --Jon Pyre 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me try a new tact. Who here is really devoted to keeping PKing a viable playing option? What are your major objections to the suggestions that have been made already? Besides "Don't nerf my PKing". Maybe you guys can help me think of a balanced approach to PKing. --Jon Pyre 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're obsessed. Seek psychiatric help. --Funt Solo 09:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I second.--Gage 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue, Jon, is that you want two sets of rules. One for PKers and one for everybody else. The thing is, if you remove every PKer out there, add in one zombie for each of them. Is the death rate for survivors the same? No? Because if zombies can't cause as much death as a PKer, then its obvious survivors need a nerf vs. zombies. Not going to put up with that? Didn't think so. The game is harder for you now because survivors are lazy — for so long you had nothing to fear from zombies, and now that things are even you want it back the way it used to be… you just want a turkey shoot 'balanced' in your favour; admit it.

Since no zombie is going to stand for getting fucked in the arse again, instead of targeting zombies you target the other minority: PKers. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

PKing is a valid way to play and no amount of whinging will change that. Zombies still suck at low levels because all they can do is hit things and they don't do it very well. They have to hit other zombies or be online when a horde takes down a barricade to even get the chance of missing! Low level survivors in an area of heavy barricades soon become low level zombies and that sucks too! However once you get a few levels as either the game becomes more balanced, Zeds can find (and kill) their own food while harmmans get freerunning to help them avoid being meals! The problem with PKers is they get the best of both worlds, freerun gets them around quickly and (mostly) safely while guns always have the advantage over brawling. Unless they actually become an integrated part of the game ie: a new class or skill set OR are banned from attacking other folk they will continue to be a problem. They won't and shouldn't be banned so finding a way to make them fairer to play is the way to go to stop it being a (frequently) asshole griefer way to play is the only way to go! --Honestmistake 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Xoid, I've suggested many ideas in favor of zombies, some of them even implemented. If zombies really were weak enough to need PKers to pick off survivors for them I'd rather zombies be made stronger than needing to rely on agents among the other side. My objection to PKing has never been PKing itself, just that it lets survivors outdo zombies. I myself play a zombie, break cades, smash gennies, groan, and kill survivors whenever I can. Whenever I get revived I jump out a window because I don't want things to be too easy. If a skill were put in the game that made things unfairly hard for PKers I'd be the first to suggest a change to make things easier for them. You can accuse me of being obsessed with the issue but please don't call me a partisan. I suggest things for both sides.--Jon Pyre 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem Jon, is that you havent a fucking clue. Your suggestions would cripple PKing to the point where it is simply unviable as a playing style, and the reason for that is because absolutely anything that would facilitate the tracking or fighting of PKers would result in a vast increase in the number of players who take action against it (For a case in point, Syringe Manufacture, when it was introduced, vastly increased the number of people doing reviving, and this had the net result of flattening the zombie population, which further crippled zombies at the time). As it stands, PKers get known in areas, and are found and shot by a similiar number of individuals in an area that dislike this behaviour, There are also wandering killers, referred to as "Bounty Hunters" who, utilising among other things, external devices called "PK lists" wander the city killing PKers. On top of this there are opportunists who shoot Pkers as a result of these "list" devices. The PKing situation is, believe it or not, balanced as a result of all this, regardless of your delusions to the contrary. You are trying to fix a problem that simply does not exist. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You proved my reasoning superbly, I couldn't have done it better myself. If zombies can't match PKers, as you already admit, and PKers are currently exactly equal to other survivors… then survivors themselves are overpowered. Now that you've got zombies actually proving to be a 'challenge' (but still weaker… we know you don't really want a challenge, don't we?) you want the only remaining 'top dog' to be nerfed too. Hell, you even said it yourself: your zombie isn't as good against humans than another human. Something's wrong there, and it's not that humans are good at killing each other — it's not like we haven't been doing so since the dawn of time after all — it's that zombies still suck. They don't suck anywhere near as much as they used to, but they still can't compete on even footing.

Now, I dare you to mention the amount of AP wasted on getting ammunition. Go on, try it. You'll invalidate my deliberately flawed logic here and leave yourself wide open for looking like the ignorant fool you are. For someone with so many Peer Reviewed suggestions, you have an incredibly flawed, rose-tinted view of the game. No wonder you ran out of good ideas so quickly that you're now submitting more shit than Mr. Aushvitz could achieve in a lifetime.–Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that zombies are underpowered. What I mean is, I don't really know if they are. Certainly, a zombie playing as a loner does seem a bit ineffectual - but when they horde up, they're unstoppable (just look at the northern and central suburbs). Where survivors seem to have the edge is in playing as loners - and they've been doing it for so long that they can no longer mount a credible defence against an organised foe. It's ironic that the (supposedly mindless) zombies win through superior organisation, while the (supposedly intelligent) survivors fall prey to in-fighting and disarray. Zombies, of course, have the advantage of being able to concentrate their efforts because they don't need equipment or revive points, all their AP can be spent on the offensive. Survivors have a lot of things to juggle in order to stay in any semblance of control. It's difficult to call. (I don't think combatting PKing is that important an issue, frankly.) --Funt Solo 11:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why PKers are more powerful than zombies; what matters is that they are. If you don't believe me, consider these two questions: 1) What does it take for a zombie to kill a survivor? 2) What does it take for a PKer to kill a survivor? Now, in order for a zombie to kill a survivor, they have to waste an average of 68 AP destroying barricades. Even IF we assume that there are many zombies attacking, we would then have to assume that there are at least as many survivors defending a place. Each survivor is capable of barricading up to EHB, so the average cost for each zombie is still 68. Of course, that's more than a full day's AP, so unless they get lucky or all attack at a specific time when none of the survivors are on (but game balance assumes all things but combatants are equal, including coordination and tactical ability) it's impossible for them to take down the barricades before they get put back up. But if for zome reason the barricades didn't get put back up, the zombies would still have to spend about 35 AP to kill one survivor. Now, what do PKers have to do? They have to go into their local mall or PD, find maybe 12 shotgun shells, and use them. Even after you take into account searches and the difficulty of getting revived (which will never take too long with all the random revivers around), the amount of AP a PKer has to use to kill a survivor is laughable compared to what it takes for a zombie. Now, there are only 2 ways to fix this: Weaken PKers, or strengthen zombies/weaken survivors (it's the same thing in this case). Now, the only reason zombies are so weak against survivors is because survivors can force them to waste most (if not all) of their AP on barricades because they can put them up faster than zombies can take them down. So, weakening barricades (or strengthening zombies' ability to tear them down) is the only way to make zombies as powerful as PKers are now. Any other buff wil mean almost nothing, because absolutely NONE of the advantages zombies possess mean squat until they get through the barricades. Giving them combat buffs against survivors would have minimal effect, because survivors can consistently prevent them from ever being able to utilize them as long as the battlefield (numbers and tactics) is equal. But anyone will tell you that weakening barricades would break the game. Zombies would annihiliate the survivors, and we all know it. And if PKers are even MORE powerful, then what does that mean for them? It means that if they were as organized as the zombies were, there would be no zombie-players in the game. There would only be PKers and Bounty Hunters awaiting revives, as the real zombie players would all leave out of digust. Thus, weakening PKers somehow is the only viable option. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 04:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wake up, whingebucket! If there were that many PKers they'd need to start using AP to 'cade — JUST LIKE YOU — to hold territory 'cause sure as hell zombies are gonna start eating 'em as well. Which means your argument falls flat on your face in the unlikely advent of PKers becoming the 'third faction'.

The rest of your drivel comes back to exactly what I was saying in the first place: survivors do too much damage, period. Nerf survivor's damage and you nerf PKing. Christ, since you crybabies are never gonna put up with your precious damage vs zombies disappearing, why not just up the flak jacket's effect when worn by survivors? Artificial, yeah, but workable. Unlike the garbage you and yours are constantly espousing. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would put up with survivors being weakened. In fact, I would love it, because fixing PKing wouldn't solve the issue of zombies beng too weak compared to survivors. Problem is, few other people would. And the fact that PKers are unlikely to become a "third faction" doesn't change anything. If they are more significantly powerful than zombies, then they are unbalanced and need to be put back into balance somehow. Period. Population doesn't matter with regards to individual game balance. Remember, rare does not equal balanced. All it means is that the few PKers have a huge advantage over zombies while minimizing the overall effect on the game. But does that change the fact that X number of PKers nerf X number of zombies? No, it doesn't. And that needs to be fixed somehow. Personally, I would suggest an increase to the power of flak jackets when worn by survivors if I could make it work believably in the game (although really, isn't that exactly what dodging-type skills/mechanics would do?). Face it: PKers are unbalanced. It doesn't matter how or why; they are. Strengthening zombies in any way other than against barricades wouldn't change that. Strengthening zombies against barricades would break the game. Weakening survivors without touching barricades wouldn't help either. Weakening survivors' ability to barricade would break the game. So unless you've got some REALLY good idea, PKing has to be modified. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And if survivors got off their lazy arses and actually got organised they'd have long since cleaned out Caiger by now. It's not zombiedom's fault that survivors are lazy, incompetent and stupid. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

the only way to clear somewhere of zombies is to go away until they get bored, sure you can 'kill' one occasionaly or revive one and hope it stays human but while death means so little to zombies they will stay near a food source. if everyone near the mall moves away and leaves the zeds alone they will soon move on and we can take out stragglers and move back in! A Zombies biggest advantage is in being unstoppable while a humans is (should be!) manueverability and firearms. Humans are most effective if they use hit and run tactics, regularly moving their stronghold as hordes start to close in & in this way the 2 sides are fairly well balanced... Pkers however get all the advantages but few draw-backs, I do think the idea of improving flack jackets for humans might be the way to go, especialy if a counter benefit could be given to not wearing one! --Honestmistake 10:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unstoppable? Bullshit. The main horde moved on ages ago. What's left there considerably smaller and less organised. I reiterate: if you weren't all lazy loners, you would've taken it back long ago. You forced us to organise, now it's your turn. Step up to the plate or suffer in your jocks.

PKers have the same disadvantages as you do. Just like you, they're hunted by both sides. Just like you they need ammunition. Jesus Christ, do I need to go through the list? They get the benefit of killing humans faster for suffering more when they're finally put down and becoming a bigger target. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Zombie hordes are effectively unstoppable, even assuming both sides start with 100 members and humans kill 10 zeds for every 1 loss. the ap cost for humans to get back in the fight means most of them won't make it back quick enough to make a difference while those 10 zeds are back on their feet and chewing away at cades and survivors immediatly after they log on! unless they get bored they cannot be slowed down enough to make a real difference... Thats how it is and pretty much how it should be. --Honestmistake 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

Why not try a minor tweak, like making firearms slightly (about 5%?) less accurate against the living. Living people try to get out of the way when you shoot them, whereas zombies don't. It's fair because it only weakens PK effectiveness slightly, and also weakens bounty hunters eaqually. --Uncle Bill 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bullets travel faster than sound. If someone points a gun at you and pulls the trigger, you arent going to be able to dodge. If you are arguing that they are moving around and thus harder to hit, then the penalty should apply to any and all active zombies too. Something i dont think human players would like, since active zombies tend to be eating them. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the presumption is the human would be running around and taking cover at the first sight of a gun, while the zombie would just continue lurching forward. I'm not sure a passive negation is the best way to go about it though and besides I've already tried with an old suggestion called "Take Cover". --Jon Pyre 00:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the presumption is that it doesn't matter what someone would do in real life, it obviously doesn't happen in game. I am sick of this "but a human wouldn't stand around doing nothing" bullshit that survivors peddle. Stop it. If you're going to sleep through getting eaten, you're going to remain standing there while I diligently fill your sorry hide full of lead. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but remember the goal here is to balance PKing without destroying it. To me, that means you have to either make it harder to do or easier to retaliate against. --Uncle Bill 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically Bill. My only problem with PKing is that it's playing a zombie except the survivors don't have barricades. All I want to change with PKing is to have some defense or offense equivalent to barricades in power. --Jon Pyre 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You could always introduce a method for survivors to prevent Free Running into (or out of) a heavily caded building. Deliberately blocking all upper windows or similar. These would count in the same way as normal cading levels, but only against those trying to free run - getting in from the street would not be affected (ie: each building of this type would have two separate cading types that are raised and lowered separately). This would offer both PKers and survivors the ability to create safe havens from other survivors. Maybe limit it to only specific building types (towers?), as this would give zombies another likely survivor location to hit (other than resource buildings). Just an idle thought I had that just screamed to be pulled apart viciously *8-)...–Ray Vern phz ^•T 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That'd result in a lot of survivors getting stranded outside when they try to free run from that building. I suspect that it would be used against survivors in that manner. Instead of just overbarricading buildings people would use it to remove them from the free running network. --Jon Pyre 19:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was more thinking along the lines of if you fail to get into the protected tower, you return to the building you were free running from. You have the option of attacking the upper cades (and only the upper cades) from the adjacent building in order to break them down far enough for you to get in via free running (probably only 5 to 10 AP to do so - enough to eat into someones daily AP pool, but not enough to stop them entirely). If the ground floor cades are below HB you could still enter the tower normally. Free Running out of the tower does not put you outside in the adjacent block (unless next door is a open space), it just bounces you back in with a windows nailed shut message. You can still hit the upper cades to get out free run style (or the ground floor cades to exit to street). The problems I see are the level of complication and the potential for a tower that is surrounded on all sides by buildings to be unleaveable until the cading level is lowered. This may not be the place to discuss this....I may get round to putting this as a suggestion for discussion on this page at some point. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just think weakening the ability of players to free run is a bad idea. While I think PKing is a problem lowering survivor mobility would be far worse. --Jon Pyre 20:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to have a look at how many Tall Buildings there are (if this extra barricading type only affects the Tall type). If there are only a few per suburb then the loss of mobility is minimal. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to hide from PKers? Go to an island. --Funt Solo 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here ya go Funt Solo, I'm working on revising the tracking suggestion, hopefully to be more acceptable. Bounty Hunter, not to happy with the name of the skill though. Any suggestions about that, or any other aspect of it are welcome. I want to be sure it's the best it can be, before I submit it. I think it's got potential, as it's much more flavour than nerf -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 11:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That completely fails to overcome the most fundamental problem with any suggestion intended to do anything about PKers: That if there is soemthing introduced that makes tracking them easier, it will increase the number of people who are willing to give it a shot many times over. The only reason Pking is viable at all at present is because of massive survivor sloth and apathy. If twice as many people got off their arse and did something about Pkers instead of whine about it, like Jon Pyre, they would wake up dead nines times in ten. They only dont die because no one is looking for them. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 14:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, anything that makes it easier to bounty hunt also makes it easier to PK. You can't have one without the other. That suggestion is way over-complicated anyway. --Funt Solo 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Over-complicated? It boils down to buying a skill that means you can tell which direction a survivor killer left the building in for a randomly determined, but low, amount of blocks. I'm not trying to kill off PKing, it's not a problem for me (or for most people who have a sense of perspective I think) because the zombies are much more of a threat. This type of a suggestion just seems like a natural thing to do. It's a much weaker form of scent trail, for survivors -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 04:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I like how you completely ignored the point i made. Most likely because there is absolutely no way to avoid the problem it presents. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 06:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Grim nailed it once again, whiners. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 3

So, to recap, the possible ways to weaken PKing are:

1. Hide from PKers (islands, upper floors of large buildings, etc.) - But do it in a way that doesn't hurt new players.
2. Allow Bounty Hunters to track PKers - Anything that helps bounty hunters also helps PKers.
3. Make it harder for survivors to kill survivors - As before, only this also weakens bounty hunters.
4. Make it less rewarding to PK - Killing a fellow survivor is already worth 1/2 XP, but I don't think that's why people do it. It's usually more of a roll playing thing with outlaws seeking notoriety.
5. Mess with free running - Don't EVER do this.
6. Make zombies stronger - Weakens survivors as a whole.
7. Make PKing/bounty hunting impossible - Removes too much flavor from the game and a large chunk of the player base.
8. Make it easier to retaliate against PKers - It's already pretty easy via meta gaming (Rouge's Gallery or other PKer lists), but a lot of people don't take advantage of them or just don't want to use meta gaming. An in-game version would need to be somewhat plausible (maybe running a printing press from a powered office building to make wanted posters?).

All in all, I think most of the solutions we've come up with share at least one of these inherent problems. I think we need to look at the possibility that as much as most of us would like to weaken PKing, it might actually be fairly balanced. (Did I just say that? Somebody shoot me.) --Uncle Bill 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't use the PKer lists because I don't trust them. Anyone can easily frame someone in photoshop, or take a kill out of context. What about something which fundamentally works the same as the PKer lists, just in-game and absolutely unfakeable? Perhaps security camera with reviewable tapes? --Jon Pyre 22:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That might actually be kind of cool. I'd probably limit them to malls. --Uncle Bill 02:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If they weren't everywhere, they're next to useless. If they worked all the time, that'd nerf PKing. If doesn't work all the time then the lists are never going to go away and faking evidence is still a possibility. There is still the possibility that regular survivors get caught up in this when they shouldn't be. What happens if someone smashes the gens in the mall every day. Killing them would certainly be justified, wouldn't it? Gonna grief them too, Pyre 'n' pals? The more you try to find a solution, the worse a solution you come up with! Give up while you're ahead. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's already the digital camera in Peer Reviewed, which you can consider a portable security camera. I despair, I really do - and I fervently wish that all the something must be done crowd would just, I don't know, take up knitting. --Funt Solo 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, that hasn't been implemented (although I REALLY wish it would be). And until something is done, the situation remains. But Xoid's point about PKing griefers is exactly why PKing should never be outlawed. It's the only way to combat GKers and other griefers. And you can't remove GKing either, because sometimes you need to destroy a generator that some idiot put in the wrong building in order to save all the people hiding there. But PKing is a much bigger problem than GKing. At least with GKers you can just go find another genny and fuel can to reverse the damage. If you're a PK victim chances are you'll have to wait a while for a revive, waste someone else's AP/needle, and clog up revive ques. If bringing PKers into balance with zombies requires that things are made a bit harder for those combatting other forms of griefer, then so be it; the costs are worth it.--Reaper with no name ^TJ! 18:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly surprised by the defensiveness of the PKing crowd. It is an easy life after all. Hardly any of the survivors in the game make use of external resources when they play and there is no in-game capability to stop/punish PKers. All they really need to do is avoid areas with well organised groups (easily discernable from this wiki) and they are safe (that and having a non-pker friend follow them around with syringes for the quick revive). It's no wonder they don't want anything done. They can grief other players with impunity and then blame their targets for being too lazy/stupid to use out of game resources. The only other action that allows one player to remove AP from another player is Headshot (and that is a predefined, set amount usable only against zombies) - even suggesting another on the wiki would get you spammed to the back end of beyond - but PKing does it, and it costs the target as many AP and as much time as it takes to find a revive (which could be days if you don't use out of game resources). The PKers out there can call it whining if they want, but I still haven't heard a reason why PKing should remain as easy as it is, nor why they feel that players should be forced to use out of game resources.

Can I suggest we look at this from the other side of the coin? For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume that PKing currently isn't possible - why should it be put in as it is in the non-hypothethetical world, without in-game restraints? Would such a suggestion be pass review? (please remember the assumption when answering this). –Ray Vern phz ^•T 11:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that, after examining your edits, i found at least one case where you willfully committed vandalism regarding PKers, and the fact that you remain woefully ignorant of the apparatus set up by external forums regarding the naming and sytematic elimination of PKers. Until you have played a PKer, you have absolutely no idea how weak or powerful, or how easy/diffuclt their lives may be. In light of actually experiencing both sides of the coin (First Bounty hunting, then outright PKing), and witnessing the effectiveness of many of the bounty hunters on the old desensitised forum, i have to say that you are both full of shit and your poor argument is based on emotionally tainted reactionary responses and woefully poor understanding of the situation and the mechanics in place, both in the game and through external apparatus such as PKer lists. As i have said repeatedly: If people took to time to search for and eliminate PKers, Pkers wouldnt be such a big problem for them because then it would be the PKers who have to look for revives, instead of you. That said, I have to say that my Pker never found this to be a problem, even AFTER he got brain rot (And no, he doesnt play with a group). You have mechanics in game that let you know who Pkers are, and if you cant be bothered to track them down, whining about it wont change anything. Get off your arse and shoot back. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to drag that particular beef here, other than to say that I got fed up with their continual irrelevance (on an issue that didn't even concern them) and didn't realise that a group talk page was a protected arena (not that I'm arguing the warning - that was fair enough). If you bothered to read any of the related discussions you might actually see that. (but no, I guess you wouldn't - the PKer bias comes through far too clearly).

Nice dodge of the question I posed though - post a load of insulting shit (nice emotionless response btw) and hope everyone doesn't notice. Glad to see you can discuss this in a rational manner....

So - as you have mentioned them...kindly describe what in-game mechanics are in place for tracking or identifying PKers? Is it actually possible to do without some reliance on an external medium? If not, I ask again - why should players be forced to use an external medium? –Ray Vern phz ^•T 19:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias? I have no bias. What i did was look you up to see where you were coming from, and happened to spot some vandalism, for which i reported you, as any good moderator of this wiki should do. The circumstances do not matter. Vandalism is vandalism. As for in game mechanics: You get the names of the PKers. Combine this with a modicum of intelligence and you can *GASP* find them (If you use this interesting invention called a brain for the express purpose for which it was designed, and think about where a person would go to be unfound in casual searches, you can find your Pkers quite often). After this you utilise a tool found in game commonly called a "Shotgun" or even a "Pistol" to "Shoot" them dead. Then you click the dump body button, and announce that said person was killed for killing people using the "Speak" button. You can even take their profile link and use a device called a "DNA Extractor" to avoid reviving them if you happen to be a Necrotech. If someone kills you, tell your buddies. Of course, this is all seriously basic stuff, so i am forced to conclude that you are either a moron, or deliberately ignoring these simple mechanics in order to pretend you actually have a point (In which case you are still a moron). And only i attack you because you so richly deserve it. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Get the names of PKers.........from where (in game of course)? –Ray Vern phz ^•T 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(the rest seems to be your usual, pointless, insulting drivel. So much for rational discussion between adults).

Well, you do something silly, like pay attention when a Pker shoots someone dead. You might have noticed (Though i doubt it, given your clear penchant for missing the obvious) that when a person kills another person, or smashes a generator, or a radio, or even shoots you, you get a neat little message in your logs. Contained in this log is the name of the person who did it, and even a link to their profile. This is how you obtain the names in game in an understandably RP manner. There is also word of mouth, when other people tell you of them, though this is, like in real life, subject to all sorts of mistruths, once again deepening the RP behind it, and making it far more realistic. Once again, i dont believe you should expect to be spoonfed everything you want without putting in any work. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Telling your allies would work if the PKer stays in the same area. But a mobile one could strike again and again in different areas and perhaps never see the same person twice. And sure you could travel to every building and tell them "X is a PKer" or spray it on the wall but I'm not going to kill someone else on the word of a stranger. They could be framed. I think a mechanic like the PKer Lists would work in game. But taking a screen capture, cropping it, setting it up on flickr...that's just a bit too much work for something that's supposed to be a game. If something equivalent to the PKer lists was in game would you find that objectionable? Just a verifiable way to report attacks, no tracking or anything. Basically something to de-meta bounty hunting. --Jon Pyre 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you arent willing to put in the effort to stop them, you dont deserve to stop them. Players should not be coddled and given absolutely everything they need. An In-Game PK list would not work, for the simple fact that it would strip PKing of any viability at all and remove a great deal of depth and atmosphere from the game. In any case, if the Pker moves off and you never see him again, he isnt your problem anymore. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, really what can be done about a pker who has a secret friend to revive them? If you kill them, they're just back the next day. In-game or metagame, there's no counter available to stop them. --Toejam 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do unto them what you do unto zombies: You shoot them again and again until they GO AWAY. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that there are built in ways to protect yourself against zombies. There is no equivalent for protection against PKers. You seem to see PKers and Zombies as equal threats to survivors, but they are not. I'm not suggesting that any of the current ideas are workable, but there is definitely an imbalance. Try putting yourself in the position of a survivor who doesn't access the out-of-game resources, then suggest something yourself that you think would work.

I'll understand, Grim, if you find yourself unable to manage that small feat and have to resort to further pointless, insulting drivel to cover up your own failings. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking to just you here, but can we please stick to civility? Without even getting into the ethical reasons, ad hominem comments are off-topic. --Toejam 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethics be buggered, if Grim weren't a mod he would at the very least have recieved a warning for this shit; my congratulations too::::Rayvern for his sensibly avoiding the petty ranting and insults that grim seems to favouring today!--Honestmistake 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to be nice. But yeah, that's the problem with PKing as I see it. Zombies with free running. I know PKers are the minority but rare does not equal balanced. Even one PKer can wipe out three people in another well defended safehouse. Or kill the leader of a group everyone is looking to for guidance, despite them being surrounded by two dozen of their closest allies. In a turn based game your only defense is something that can set up before you leave. Barricades defend against zombies. What defends against PKers? The map is far too big to hunt your enemies preemptively, that'd just waste some of the AP you'll need to revive the three people that we're just PKd in front of you. All you can basically do is add the person to your contacts and color them , and hope you randomly come across them. You probably never will. And while you might think that never encountering the same person again means they're not your problem anymore that's just recycling the strife endlessly. It's not reassuring after a shark attack to have officials say the shark was spotted eating people a few beaches away so it's probably moved on. --Jon Pyre 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Honestmistake, there is absolutely nothing in the rules that states that everyone be nice. If people got warned for being abrasive and abusive, this would be a very quiet and empty wiki. My status as a mod does not make put me above the rules, however for me to be warned i would actually have to violate one, which i dont do. Secondly, i have not been ranting. I was pointing out in rather minute detail how a person can deal with a Pker in the area. The fact that i was sarcastic and altogether impolite while doing it does not in any way invalidate my statements. The only way to do that would be to go through my points and find a hole in my reasoning, which i assure you will be difficult, if not impossible. As for Jon Pyre: Fighting PKers is inherently reactionary. Indeed, your latest suggestions about it have been entirely along the line of tracking them down and killing them, so whining about stopping them before they start a rampage, as you seem to be doing is rather... well, how to put it gently? Retarded. Even in real life, it is very rare that a person gets caught BEFORE he tries to do something unless he opens his gob and stuffs up. In an Apocalypse situation, the chances of spotting a person who is going to fuck over others before they do so is practically nil, and this is indeed the case in the game. Also, killing a leader of a group does fuck all, since almost all group coordination is done externally, on things called forums or IRC. If a Pker is transient, then there really is no problem, unless you decide to follow him (Which is, admittedly, difficult) and there really isnt much you can do about him except spread the word on the radios and forums and hope someone else takes him out. For those who stay in the area, the steps i have outlined previously are quite effective, and enabled me to rack up a total of 9 Pker kills inside a week before i myself turned to the dark side (C'mon! Join the Dark Side! Its FUN!). There is also the added benefit of contact listing them and headshotting them at the local revive point until they get the hint. Many Pkers in my experience use revive points, or go directly to the source in order to get a revive (Which is often a great deal faster than waiting in the queue. Break into a NT bilding, say Mrh, and bobs your uncle, revived just like that. Hell, it even works when i want my rotters revived). And Rayvern, there is an inbuilt mechanism to protect you from Pkers: Flak Jackets. They are annoying as hell from a PKers perspective, as they eat up our hard to find ammo. There is another way: Find an Island. There are a few in the game, then barricade them to EHB. No Pkers will be able to get in. Nor will anyone else, but thats the price you pay for avoiding an enemy which has all your capabilities. Finally, the fact of the matter is that if it is made far easier for in game people to do things against Pkers, this will stack with the Out of Game efforts against them, and make the game unplayable for them. Also, as i have already argued twice in this discussion, if you make it easier to combat them, more people will do it, and it will quickly make the game uplayable for Pkers. You may not give a shit about that, but it is a vital and interesting element of the game, and i will not see it squashed by ignorant bugs such as you and Pyre. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 00:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can this thread get back to its original purpose, to discuss acceptable ideas of PKing defenses, besides adding them to your contact list and hoping to run into them someday, and stop being a purposeless insultfest? Bickering on the internet is like pissing in the wind. --Jon Pyre 00:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The need for Pking defenses is in dispute. until that issue is settled, there is no point in debating acceptable nerfs to PKing. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 03:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Do unto them [PKer and secret reviver] what you do unto zombies: You shoot them again and again until they GO AWAY". That's not really a solution. The Pker is likely doing more damage than they would as a zombie; there's still no actual guarantee that the Pker will ever leave; and waiting for someone to get bored enough to leave of their own volition is no fun for either party. --Toejam 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you make something outright impossible to do, there is absolutely no way you can prevent sufficiently determined people from doing it. Arguing that they may never leave and therefore something must be done can only lead to that conclusion, and since that conclusion has already been ruled out, you have to live with it, or move on yourself. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At least we can agree on 1 thing, we (I) do not under any circumstances want PKing stopped outright. What most of us do seem to want is an in game way for us to make PKing a fairer option, adding a bit of challenge to it might even make it more fun! banning it is a no-no, zero XP for it is also not fair. Automatic flags or in-game PKer lists are not reliable enough as they will not distinguish bounty hunters from crazies from assholes! I really do think a voluntary flag in the form of a skill or tag might be the only way to go, this would not stop assholes but it would give roleplaying PKers some solid in game excuse/reason especially if each tag got its own flavour text in the style of headshots "zombie Hunter" tag. Oh and as for a warning about insults and abuse: yeah i know mods are as free to do so as everyone else but the above exchange was unwarranted... all it really did was make you look like a child who thinks shouting loudest makes him right. I know this is untrue because you can and do make valid points so please try to reserve the venom for when it is justified and not just because you disagree with someone, most of us are more than willing to listen/read a reasoned arguement if we are not being called names for disagreeing. --Honestmistake 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 4

Well, it looks like this thread has degenerated into more of an argument than a discussion. Let's agree to disagree on this topic and move on to some basic suggestions. Those that don't have a huge inherrent flaw can be expanded on. Let's start with an in-game mechanic to help track human vs human violence. This should include PKers, bounty hunters, and GKers... Some key points to remember:

1. This should not work 100% of the time everywhere. Killing somebody in a crowded mall is different than killing somebody who is alone in a junkyard.

2. We can make it possible to get a general idea of which way they went, as long as it's not too exact. For example, if I robbed a 7-eleven and sped off in my getaway car, witnesses would know which way I went... until I was out of eye sight.

3. Make it useful enough that people won't have to rely on external PK lists. I've read a lot of complaints about how easy it is to Photoshop an image and frame someone, and I suppose that's true. Then again, who here has seen it happen?

Okay, so let me throw out an idea. Right now, when you witness a survivor attack a survivor (or generator/radio), you get a message that tells you so. A fairly simple add-on would be that if the attacker leaves, you get to see their next location. Did they go north, south, east, west, or outside? As a witness, it would be up to you what you did with this information. Do you rise up and hunt them down, or do you turn a blind eye and hope you're not next? --Uncle Bill 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to ignore my earlier point. I know there' s a lot of text here, but if you aren't going to read the pertinent parts, go away. Less than 100% effectiveness means that PK lists will still be used because of unrelability of the measure, which will continue to be abusable. Besides, that list isn't going to track why someone killed that person, is it? There's not way to implement it without hundreds of man hours on Kevan's part, and we both know that isn't going to happen. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just saying which direction they left shouldn't be a problem technically. But I don't think it'd be useful. Who would use their whole day's AP to search in a direction it's unlikely the person is in? What if the person goes 1s then continues sw from then on? There'd be no realistic way to find them and I don't think this would be used. That's why my (failed) tracking suggestion gave their current direction, as a hint where to look.--Jon Pyre 06:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be a problem, a rather considerable one in fact. Given that there is no reason to track data such as which way a person went from a building and store it, there will likely be no such system in place. This means that the system will need to be created from scratch to start with. Such a system will cause some server side problems with the huge amount of data and the amount of travel with free running. Then there is that fact that killing someone and leaving a building are, as far as the game is concerned, two seperate events. It would be a bitch to link them. Finally, since the thing can be rendered useless with one extra ap (Changing direction and doubling back FTW) there is absolutely no reason to go to such great effort for nothing. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 08:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, i broke this up into sections to make it easier to edit. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Grim on this. It'd be too underused to be worth coding, especially since you pointed out how easily it could be fooled. Hey, how about a compromise version of Tracking. I think the map is too large to find people. You like survivors taking the initiative. How about something in the middle? What if only the two players directly before or after a person in a building get a message saying which vague direction the PKer is currently? The idea is those who were right next to the victim watched the PKer flee from the window. It wouldn't tell everyone in the building, they'd need to wait for one of those two people to log in and say "I saw him head west! Let's fan out in that direction and look for him."--Jon Pyre 09:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be even harder to code. So far, judging from what ive seen of Kevan and his coding, i just dont think he is going to put in that kind of effort and make such a large leap in ability complexity. And what you describe amounts to remote veiwing. Unless you watch a person go there, you dont have any idea where he actually is. Asking a person who is similiarly uninformed wont magically make the information appear. Here are some handy hints: 1, look at the map. There are going to be buildings that are off free running routes between major safehouses and resource centers. Check these buildings for PKers who choose to remain in the local area. You will often be pleasantly suprised. At this point you let Mr 12 guage do the talking. 2: Check the endges of Neighbouring suburbs. 3: PK yourself, if only for a while on a throwaway character, to get an idea of how PKing works, and the side of the game it presents. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 09:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a tracking improvement is really the way to go. As already mentioned by Grim, the overhead of additional data storage and the server side development requirements pretty much put this sort of solution well out of reach. It is only really useful if the PKer remains reasonably local too. PKers are a problem for the whole of Malton (saying it's fine if they are not in your own area is just leading back to survivor apathy/laziness again) - I'm considering taking an alt on a round trip of Malton, to see just how many kills he can manage before being killed himself (maybe limit it to 2 or 3 kills per suburb) =).

The only idea that has so far seemed remotely workable is the idea that a survivor wearing a flak jacket is better protected than a zombie wearing a flak jacket - which would make both a PKers and a bounty hunters life harder.

An in-game PKer list would only be workable if it was 100% reliable. As a thought along this line, maybe put in an inter-police station list that people with the appropriate skill can submit PKers to and view in any powered police station in Malton. To make the list 100% reliable it should only be possible to submit those who have PKed (indicating a stored PK flag, that maybe times out after 24 hours? - not visible to other players though). The list entries should also automatically timeout after 5 days or so. Both PKers and Bounty Hunters could be listed (as both would have their flag set), so there would be some blue-on-blues with this. I don't think this should provide a profile link though - that would make life too easy, just the character name (and maybe group?). The hunters should have to keep their eyes open (having a profile link would mean that a person who got on the list would be addable to a players contacts list - making the timeout on the list a little pointless). There's probably a whole host of other issues with this idea though. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Been suggested and shot down before. Pkers absolutely depend on the system to be fallable. Also, this does fall prey to the exact same phenomenon i have decribed no fewer than three times in this discussion: If something is percieved by the players as being easier to do, a lot more of them will do it (Case in point, the introduction of Syringe Manufacture resulted in many, many times the number of people making syringes, which resulted in a super syringe Glut the likes of which hadnt been seen since the first Caiger Siege, which resulted in a huge drop in zombie numbers, as every dead human, and a lot of unwilling zombies were revived). If a lot more people start to act against it, PKing will, as a play option, become almost 100% fatal to the PKer and render such a mode of play unworkable. Pking only works because the mechanisms to counter it are not perfect, and cannot ever be. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a spurious point. The advent of syringe manufacture is like any new addition to the game - it causes some kind of useage spike because it's new. We all know that searching for syringes is more efficient than the high cost of manufacture. The forts have seen a sudden increase in action - because they were updated. That doesn't mean there's anyting wrong with forts - just that they're new and shiny. The introduction of christmas trees and lights has seen a massive spike in the amount of christmas trees and lights, but that won't last either (and wouldn't even if they were available all year round). What is a fact, is this: any suggestion which upsets the current PK status quo gets heavily spammed, so there's absolutely no point whatsoever in making such suggestions. Not because of what they are or what they'll do - that doesn't even matter in the slightest (except as part of a semantic discussion) - they just don't get anywhere. --Funt Solo 11:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If Bounty Hunting became more popular than reviving and healing and barricading would suffer as a result. It's for that reason I don't think more people would turn to Bounty Hunting, except perhaps for a week or so to enjoy the novelty. I think Grim you describe finding a PKer as too easy. Let's say you want to explore only the buildings in your suburb. That's a good 60 or so locations right there, more than one person can handle in a day. And the PKer isn't even limited to the same suburb! If they reserve even a scant 10AP to escape that leaves a 20 x 20 area they could possibly be in. 400 squares containing maybe 250-300 buildings! If they reserve more AP for escape the area grows even larger! So let's say you use ultimate coordination. You have 5 people checking on the hour, never minding about their jobs or whatnot, waiting for a strike. When something happens they go out on a premade patrols, spending all their AP and being unable to return or even attack when they find something. If the person is within 10 squares then they IM another person waiting somewhere with a full compliment of shotguns. He travels to their location and blasts them dead. So yes, it can be done with six people, willing to drop all other concerns, abandon their safehouse, give up healing and reviving and barricading, work in timed unison, and spend all their AP. If the person only went 10 spaces that is. If they went 15 spaces maybe it'd take eleven or twelve. 20 spaces away would probably take around 20 people. --Jon Pyre 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The system of PK lists in Police stations is fallible (PKers can list bounty hunters to pad it out), it also requires a significant effort on the behalf of any hunter (as they have to note the names of all those on the list and keep an eye out for them - so long as profiles are not on the "most wanted" list). No information regarding where a PKer was last seen needs to be stored at all. Submitting to/viewing the list isn't free either it would have to cost AP to do, and would require a skill. Stats for length of time on the list and number of submitters of a particular PKer can be kept in order to give an idea of the most notorious PKers (ever wanted to be able to prove you were the best?).

So still a significant effort required. No guarantee that any particular name on the list is in your area (it may well be a big list), and both the hunter and the hunted are listed (so no guarantees that a person on the list is an evil (*8-) PKer or a good bounty hunter).

Yes, it might increase the number of bounty hunters, but the ease of PKing was earlier ascribed to the apathy of survivors, yet any suggestion that looks like it may create enthusiasm for bounty hunting is shot down for precisely that reason....This suggestion may also increase the number of PKers - as they all try to top the list as the most Evil....–Ray Vern phz ^•T 18:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 5

I think part of the problem with Pking is that it's not clear whether it's either:

• a) a legitimate part of the game, or
• b) just being annoying, even borderline griefing.

The fact that it's possible to do it in-game isn't enough to make it OK, just as there are things you can say on the radio that aren't OK. I'd like to see PKing clearly becoming one or the other, either becoming obviously acceptable (this means doing things like adding skills, items, and maybe even a character class for PKers to the game, but also having pure in-game balances to keep them in check) , or PKing being utterly nerfed. I'd expect most people to accept PKing, if it was clearly part of the game. Look at boxing - players accept getting hit in the face -because it's part of the game. But this maybe-its-legit, maybe-it-isn't situation should be cleared up. Oh, and thanks Grim for splitting this up. --Toejam 19:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Edit - I'm not trying to get someone to persuade me, rather I'm saying there should be evidence in game that Pking is ok. As it stands, there's kind of a 'you're shooting you own team' feel off it. Edit2 - Basically, I want everyone to agree on the rules of the game we're playing. --Toejam 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a zombie apocalypse - there are no rules. I dislike when game alter the rules to fit what the designers wanted the game to be. I prefer that a game shows signs of evolution - quite aside from what the designers envisaged. Case in point: there was a jungle-warfare multiplayer game out in which people found they could climb trees, and hide in the foliage. Perfect spot for a sniper. People could hear where the shot was coming from, but never thought to look up, into the trees. Anyway, when it became apparent this was going on - a viable tactic within the given terrain, emulating real life jungle sniper tactics - the designers nerfed it - they made trees unclimbable. Which was a shite thing to do. The players had already sussed the tactic and adapted - they checked out tree tops along with the rest of the terrain - they could cope - they'd evolved. But rather than go along with the natural evolution of their game, the designers felt the need to kow tow either to the complainants or to their own sense of ego. In Urban Dead, whether it was designed or not, we have a collection of murdering maniacs roaming the (un-policed) streets, as well as the undead. Fight them yourself, if you will. Spend your AP trying to organise lookouts and resistance - but don't ask that the game provide a method of protection from a viable threat. --Funt Solo 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, PKing IS part of the game. One major problem is the PERCEIVED notion that PKing is becoming/has become THE focus of the game for too many players. I've seen some comments here stating that "PKing is the only FUN thing left in the game." (among other comments). Why? Because it is easier then fighting zombies. Simple as that. Personally, I think the BEST way to combat it would be the similar to the way you combat zombies. Teamwork. Most survivors still play the "lone wolf" mentality and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you are REALLY worried about PKing, then do something about it in game. Find some like minded individuals to set up house with (so to speak) or move away from heavy traffic areas. All this can be done without changing anything.

As for changing things, there is ONE agreed upon thing: PKing will NOT go away. So how do we work with that? Make it harder to PK? How? Shift the focus toward the survivor-zombie conflict? How? I believe that most, if not all, hardcore PKers won't stop PKing no matter what (for example, no matter how "powerful" zombies get).--Pesatyel 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We're making some progress. I'm now convinced that PK'ing/bounty hunting (same thing) shouldn't be messed with. I also agree that the tracking suggestions we've come up with either wouldn't work well enough or would work too well, but either way they'd be a bitch to code (not worth the effort). Thirdly, I think any changes we do make should be more reliable, in-game versions of what is already available out of game.

I think something similar to Ray's suggestion could work... a sort of "wanted list" at the police department. This might be a pain to code, but would it be worthwhile if we made a digital camera/wanted poster suggestion? (I can't shake the feeling it's probably been suggested before...) I'm thinking that if you had a camera in your inventory you could take a screen shot of whatever happened "since your last turn." (It wouldn't be an actual image, just the text.) You could then take the camera to the PD and make a wanted poster. It would also be cool to have a "10 most wanted list" of whoever has the most wanted posters. By the way, this isn't a bad thing. If we're going to "nerf PK'ing" (even a little bit), then the least we can do is throw them a bone and give them a chance at fame. --Uncle Bill 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Funt, I agree. Making trees unclimable was a pretty shitty thing to do in that game. Taking something out just because it's good is wrong. But a realistic counter to balance out snipers hiding in trees...maybe adding thermal goggles or something like that makes sense. I want to leave PKing a viable gameplay option. Just as is you can kill whoever you want and easily escape. It just surpasses a zombie's ability too much. Survivors not being able to attack each other is unrealistic. However a survivor being able to kill numerous people regardless of how many armed defenders are there and then escape with no feasible method of pursuit is also unrealistic. --Jon Pyre 02:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. What about allowing a PKer to only kill ONE person in any 50 AP period? And I highlighted the part of your post to show where I got the idea. I'm inclined to think we have to have ARTIFICIAL constraints on PKers (and GKers/RKers). Realism aside, based on the dynamics of the game. I highly doubt that a group of individuals in a house together would just let someone kill another in that house and then escape. But THAT is "realism" logic that doesn't entirely fit into the game. In that logic, the other group members may kill said person in response to his own murder (which is usually not possible given the AP/time constraints. How often do you ACTUALLY see a LIVE PK? Usually you see it well after the fact) or bar them from reentering after throwing them out (which, of course CAN'T be done).--Pesatyel 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Added Part 5. I dont see why i should not be able to open fire on a group of sleeping people, and kill as many people as the RNG gods allow. If people are around when i go shooting (And on several occasions when in higher populated buildings, this has been the case) and people shoot back, good luck to them (In fact, on one occasion, the person i was trying to kill woke up and tried to escape, and i actually chased him several blocks before blowing his brains out in the middle of a mall, on another occasion an active defender not only drove me off, but chased me down to an abandoned junkyard a considerable distance away and killed me). People in real life do go on killing sprees (I do not advocate picking up a gun and trying it out, though). I also shot a guy dead right after he said "Help please. Im infected!" (Yes, im that nasty). Live combat does happen between humans. Ive also witnessed Pkers stealing kills in zombie raids a number of times (one quite recently). In any case, history has shown that humans in Malton are sufferers of what i call Chronic Apathy Disorder, and with the exception of breif periods of lucidity, dont give a crap about anything, not even having their head twisted off and their brains devoured. Why would they stop people from escaping? How would they do it without spending an AP? --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

a survivor being able to kill numerous people regardless of how many armed defenders are there - but, Jon, that's the nature of a game like this, where players are only active for short periods of time and action. Zombies can kill numerous people regardless of how many armed defenders are there. A tiny bit of roleplay solves the problem anyway. In reality, I, as a zombie, might strike at someone 50 times in a row without them reacting. In my imagination, this all happened very quickly - and maybe the zombie just went in and disembowelled the victim with a single strike. The same for the PKer - he runs in, shoots two people's brains out, then runs out cackling and down a corridoor, up 12 flights of stairs, out a window along a makeshift gantry to the building next door. Still, you get told exactly who killed who - and maybe people give chase (when they log on). --Funt Solo 09:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that for a zombie to be able to kill several people at once they have to get past the barricades (ie: there is a way to stop them from killing several people at once). A PKer can free run into a heavily barricaded building, kill a couple of people and free run out again( which is arguably easier than hunting zombies, though less rewarding). A zombie has to put in effort to kill survivors, A survivor has to put in effort to hunt PKers, a survivor does not have to put in much effort to hunt survivors or zombies (and zombies are reasonably unaffected by death). Yet somehow there is meant to be balance.

I have no problem with PKing as an action in-game - it definitely should be possible. I'm just for PKers having to put in a little effort to achieve their goals rather than having it handed to them on a plate (as it currently is). Do so many people PK because it is so easy (in the same sense as if bounty hunting were easy then more survivors would do it)? –Ray Vern phz ^•T 09:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to argue entirely from a perspective of realism or a perspective of game mechanics. Yes zombies can break in and attack one person without other people taking actions. But survivors try to prevent that and build barricades. As currently stands there is no preventative action to defend from other survivors. If there was an apocalyptic world where people faced random attacks from other survivors there would sure as heck be patrols, armed guards, and lots of other measures to make it difficult to escape. And it doesn't make sense that a PKer can do exactly what a zombie does (I'm going to say the higher attack % and damage is balanced out by having to search) without dealing with barricades or something equal to barricades. It's not a matter of survivor apathy. There's just so much AP you receive in a day and you can't spend it all searching buildings at random and still survive against the zombies. The only reason PKing is as popular as it has become is that it's easier than playing a zombie. There's your survivor apathy right there. Why bother organizing a horde, attacking barricades, calling in allies with groans, when you can instead be a lone wolf in a trenchcoat, leaping from building to building and killing by yourself. A lazy zombie is a survivor. --Jon Pyre 15:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ray Vern, The effort on the PKer part comes from hiding from retribution. Also, finding an ideal target is difficult. If you wish to prolong your life and your secret, you need to attack buildings with extremely low populations, preferably with a single occupant. Also best are people who are without a group. If you just want to kill shit, then sure, it doesnt take much effort to actually do it, but if you want to make a life of it as a pker, you have to pick your moments, blast the isolated human, and maintain an appearance of harmlessness. Also, a Pker has to consider everyone in the game a threat, while humkans only really need to fear zombies (As PKing doesnt really happen that much, sure, it happens often, but the chances are remote that you will actually get picked off, especially in largly populated building). --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If there was an apocalyptic world where people faced random attacks from other survivors there would sure as heck be patrols, armed guards, and lots of other measures to make it difficult to escape. - Yes, things that you could organise. But you don't. Fuck, you could argue EXACTLY the same thing about zombie attacks. When the 'cades are breached, why don't all the survivors Free Run away automatically without having to log on or spend any AP? Your logic is so flawed it's almost laughable. --Funt Solo 22:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A PKer might eventually be found and killed. Meanwhile their (multiple) victims are immediately killed. Low population building? That's easy enough. 90% of the map is a ripe target. And killing a PKer is barely a punishment to them. By doing it you're essentially just draining 30AP from the innocent scientist somewhere who'll end up reviving them. And it's not the scientist's fault for just playing the game without double checking every person they revive against the third party PK lists. So the PKer spends maybe 50AP to load up on weapons, another 50AP to kill 2 people and escape. Those two people need to spend some AP getting to a revive point. Let's assume that cost is somewhere between 1-5 each. So the two people get revived, at a cost of about 46AP in total to some scientist (20 revive cost, 24 to find two syringes, 2 for DNA scanning). Now depending on the revive queue there might be an additional cost in terms of lost AP while the two victims wait. We'll call this number X, which ranges from 0 in safer neighborhoods to possibly several hundred. This is all the barricading, reviving, and healing they could have done if not standing in a cemetary. And all the AP needed to restore damage caused because there was less barricading, reviving, and healing. Then after the two people get revived they have to heal up 30hp each. So that's about 30AP to restore both of them. Then they need to return to their safehouse. That's another 1-5 AP each. So just so far..

Cost to PKer: 100AP Cost to Defenders: 76 + X + (4-20 additional AP) So this is on the whole balanced more or less...until you consider X. In a crowded mall with no zombies outside and a instantly revived queue PKing isn't such a problem. It might even be counterproductive. But in any area with a large number of zombies, where those extra one or two defenders might mean the difference between the cades getting up in time and a horde of zombies busting through a PKer can easily turn the tide. And unlike zombies there's nothing that can be done to stop them.

And Funt, in any turn based game logic will not work perfectly. Our perception of time can't translate to a world where people don't react to events for several hours. The important thing is that game balance is maintained. It doesn't do us any good to prevent a logical addition just because it doesn't match a mostly unrelated illogical feature. Game design doesn't mean slaving it to reality. Can horses jump over castles? Chess is still a pretty popular game. Urban Dead is less mathematically abstract and needs to keep more grounded, but it still needs game balance. --Jon Pyre 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Funt was arguing the EXACT same thing I was in my intial post in this discussion. YOU even said as much yourself. If there was an apocalyptic world where people faced random attacks from other survivors there would sure as heck be patrols, armed guards,... SET THEM UP! Or move to a less "PK prone" building. Sure, we all have only so much AP to use a day and a PKer can do a LOT of damage in that short a time frame, but most groups don't even TRY to deal with it. I'm in Sears Auto Repair in Tollyton and I see someone come in and kill someone. What do *I* do? Probably nothing. That survivor apathy you mentioned. But if I honestly believed PKing was going to be a problem, I'd try, in game, to do something about it. Find like minded individuals and set up "house" or move. Why don't people try using WHAT IS AVAILABLE before demanding stuff be added to make it easier for them?--Pesatyel 06:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Because there's a big difference between apathy and being unwilling to waste your AP on a wild goose chase. --Jon Pyre 07:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the difference is that if you weren't all so apathetic and got off your arse, it wouldn't be a wild goose chase. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If survivors did that who'd fight the zombies? Malton is big. AP is limited. Game imbalance is not the same as apathy. When zombies lacked Feeding Groan and couldn't find xp easily they weren't apathetic, they just didn't have a needed tool. --Jon Pyre 08:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, lets not even BOTHER trying. Lets just demand Kevan make it easier for us without the work. Honestly, I understand Jon's disapproval of PKing. I just don't understand this lazy need to force Kevan to make it easier on the "victims" then for the victims to actually have to try to do any work FIRST. Basically, PROVE that an anti-PKer idea is needed because nothing in game will work at all. But if you aren't even going to use the options you ALREADY have, you haven't and can't prove squat.--Pesatyel 08:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

those saying that survivors should take action are obviously either very lucky when they have, were dealing with revived zeds who just wanted to die or should actually give it a try sometime. after the same guy Pked me twice in 3 days in the same building i went looking for him, i wasted 2 weeks and the day after i gave up and went back to base he came in and tried again so i finaly got him... moral: its luck not effort that catches them and that is not fair.

Its also something that can't be ruled against without messing up that whole aspect of the game--Honestmistake 17:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Common sense is not apathy. If the only way to find a PKer is a wild goose chase that probably won't succeed it's not apathy if someone would rather conserve their AP for something besides free running at random. --Jon Pyre 19:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

thats just it jon, unless its somesort of voluntary flag then it will not be acceptable to the assholes who PK to grief. If it is a voluntary flag then it will not stop griefers so it loses a bit of its purpose!--Honestmistake 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about GROUP action, not necessarily solo (of COURSE it is going to be difficult to do it alone). But on the same token, Honest, you got PKed twice in the same building? Wouldn't the prudent thing be to MOVE? Or find some friends to help you? Probably not, because survivors DON'T help each other...which was my basic point. If that building you got hit twice in is your HQ, great. Find some people to populate the HQ with you that you all can share the responsibilities of dealing with the PKers. To be honest, I agree that we should have SOME form of "safeguard" against PKing. But that STILL doesn't counter my argument to PROVE that safeguard IS necessary. Is PKing rampant and out of control, no matter WHAT you do? We don't know because we haven't actually TRIED everything yet. Or actually come up with a GOOD idea to nerf PKing (regardless of what the pro-PKers think). The other question I've been wondering is just how bad/rampant IS PKing? In all my time playing, I've only been hit twice. Once I got my revenge (dumbass didn't even TRY to hide). In whatever building I'm in, occasionally I see a PK, but actually NOT that often. More often I see someone say "kill so-and-so, he's a PKer/GKer" like I'm really gonna go on the word of some random stranger. As a matter of fact, I think GKing is more rampant. When I logged in two days ago, the "since your last turn" messages noted a GKer hit the generator, someone set up another and he hit it AGAIN. Why nobody dealt with the guy, especially after the second generator, I don't know. But theres that apathy again. If it doesn't specficially affect YOU, why would I give a crap about it affecting someone else? Unless I'm a bounty hunter or part of a group, the AVERAGE player isn't adversly affected.--Pesatyel 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should PKing only be counterable by group action? Surely, in terms of balance, it should be possible for a solo player to hunt PKers as effectively as a PKer hunts other survivors? (I'll grant that anything that provides this level of balance would entirely nerf PKing - so I'm not expecting that, just something that assists a solo hunter). The stats page shows that there are around 38,000 active characters. The number of those in groups with greater numbers than 10 is around 5000, with likely another 1000-1500 more characters in groups with fewer numbers than 10 (this is all characters - zombies and survivors). Without going through all the rigmarole of working out the impact of multiple characters per player and the chances of each of a players characters being an a group somewhere (if anyone has information on this, it would be useful input - particularly if it throws my estimate out of the window =), I would estimate that no more than half of all players are actually in a group. If this is the case, why shouldn't bounty hunting be a viable solo character activity? –Ray Vern phz ^•T 12:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said players CAN'T hunt PKers solo and I never said it should ONLY be counterable by group action. I DID say it was a tactic that most players DON'T use, unless in a group (and even then, that might be iffy, I can't really say). Most survivor players have the "me first" attitude. If you, not in a group, saw someone get PKed in the building you happened to be in, would you do anything? Not to speak for YOU, but the average player probably would not. When you get PKed, again not in a group, do people help you? Do you ASK people to help you? And I wasn't talking about Bounty Hunting either (though, you would agree it should be EASIER in a group, right?). I was talking about just the average random PK, which is the basis for this whole argument.--Pesatyel 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...I wasn't targetting the comments at your post specifically, more making a general statement about the mix of users in UD and how extrememly difficult it is to bounty hunt solo in-game (kinda lept off the group comments in your post). Out of interest, it all depends which of my characters sees the PK - those PKs my Coalition alt sees around Miltown all get noted, screenshot and posted on our PK list. We do regular sweeps through the suburb and it's surroundings looking for those on the list(not always successfully mind =) - there are likely many other groups that do the same thing, and probably several solo players who use the out of game resources to list PKers. The problem is that bounty hunting is not built into this game - it requires an out of game resource to work (whether solo or in a group). I'd imagine that a PKed person would be treated like any other zombie looking for a revive, and if they are not killed they would likely be healed - so I'm not sure I agree with the me-first statement in that sense. In terms of whether a fellow non-group survivor would go hunting for my killer....probably not, but then it would require a significant investment of time and AP for very little return. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally the AP cost to prevent a PKer from killing people in your safehouse should be equal to the cost of preventing a zombie from killing people in your safehouse (perhaps somewhat higher for the fact that the PKer has to search for ammunition). I think if there was a method that cost 50AP to find and kill a PKer and was effective 30% of the time and a dud the rest that'd probably be fair. However I think it's unreasonable to call not organizing 10 people to burn several hundred AP in a hunt that'll work one out of ten times "apathy". I think it's just common sense. A method that prevents/counters PKing should be at least equal if not less than the AP cost to repair the damage a PKer does. --Jon Pyre 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I also mentioned finding a group. Yes it IS difficult to "round up a posse for a lynchin'" of a PKer because the random strangers in your "building of the moment" don't care, don't have the time, don't have the AP and/or are otherwise unaffected by what happens to YOU. But if you insist on playing Lone Wolf, the threat of PK is part of the package. If not and you wish to have a particular building(s) act as HQ for yourself, you'd be pretty ignorant to NOT try and find some others in game to share the responsibilities that come with having an HQ, be it from zombies OR PKers. I think you are wrong about your ideal PK comparison to zombies because PKing SHOULD be easier based on the nuances of survivor-survivor and survivor-zombie relationships. But, for simplicity's sake, what kind of suggestion would provide the zombie-equivalent PKer AP cost? Making it harder to hit (thereby causing an increase in AP spent to get a kill)? Making weapons do less damage survivors used on survivors? These kinds of of ideas are ARTIFICIAL over LOGICAL and are thus going to die because they aren't realistic, even if they perfectly equate survivor-survivor experience with a zombie-survivor one. Take a look at the response to my quick "PKers can only kill 1 survivor a day" idea above.--Pesatyel 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a question that hasn't been asked (okay, it might have been with the shear volume of text in this discussion) is just how "rampant" IS PKing? Based on Ray Vern's example above, does the group spend MORE time worrying about PKers then zombies?--Pesatyel 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ach, player killing is fun. It is not the majority activity within UD, but it's a nice side-plot inside of it. Don't, whatever you think, decide that making the game less fun is a good idea. --The Supreme Court ^RR 00:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Plus, not to mention, it involves mass preparation beforehand. A group strike by PKers is nearly as effective (in regard to AP spent purely attacking) as a zombie strike- attacks spent on barricades by zombies are minimal against unactive enemies. This is balanced with PKers in that they have to sleep several AP away from their target- a PKer is likely to die anywhere particularly heavily trafficked. Personally, I don't see the problem- everyone seems to focus that PKers are instantly dangerous. They're not, it takes days of stocking before killing anyone. --The Supreme Court ^RR 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it "fun" for the random victims? And WHY is it fun? PKers all but unanimously say that, but they don't explain why. I also don't think your "days of stocking" argument is a strong as you want to make it out to be. What dumbass, excluding newbies, doesn't keep themselves adequately equipped, even after a significant confrontation? You make it sound like the guy has NO items and must search/find them all first. You also don't take into account Free Running. PKers have significantly more freedom of movement than zombies. Something else you are ignoring is that, while it takes quite a bit of logistics to pull of a group PK assault, a PKer can do it all "lone wolf" and be very effective. A "lone wolf" zombie can't. If a PKer and a zombie both attacked the same EHB building, the PKer could get in, kill his target, if not more than one and leave, while the zombie is barely getting in and hitting his first target (presuming "normal" RNG).--Pesatyel 06:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that (in JO) it was fun to hide in the enemy base (where they spawned) and kill them where they thought they were safest. --Funt Solo 11:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it fun for the random victims? Is it fun to be headshot at a revive point? No. Both of these are in-game conventions by players- feel free to headshot newbies, I won't personally try to nerf that. However- all of my characters (PKer or not) find fun in trying to get retribution, however they go about it. PKing is interesting and you people keep on trying to make it and this game more dull.

First of all HEADSHOT CANNOT BE "TURNED OFF". And what the fuck does THAT have to with whether or not it is fun for get randomly PKed? And WHY is it interesting?....oh, damn ignore that since you didn't bother to answer my other question. My bad.--Pesatyel 07:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it fun? That is the stupidest attack on PKing I've ever heard, and damn there have been some good ones. It's fun because there's far more thrill, it's fun in the same way that shooting a zombie is, only they might come back to hunt you. It's fun because it's a damn game. Get a grip!

Wow, that's the shittiest answer anyone could come up with. "It's fun because it is." Amazing. And it WASN'T AN "ATTACK". It was a simple question. So you say there is "far more thrill"...then what? Dealing with zombies?--Pesatyel 07:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Days of stocking- if you're using exclusively shotgun ammo. Not particularly effective/ AP in the long term, but many PKers find fun in striking all at once, doing maximum damage. That's days of stocking.

I didn't say there WASN'T COORDINATION INVOLVED. But what total dumbass uses up ALL their ammo at one time, just because they can? Not to mention what dumbass would do "maximum damage" BY using up all their ammo?--Pesatyel 07:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A lone wolf will not have specialised revivers- it's not my fault PKers get revived, it's not the game's fault either. It's players. Go on an anti-PKer-revive suggestion spree if that helps you sleep at night. All in all, PKing is fun and in-genre, just as much so as combating zombies. Try one, you might like it. It would help remove your damn blinkers at least! --The Supreme Court ^RR 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck does REVIVING have to do with it? Do PKers have "PK" stamped on their foreheads like the Scarlet Letter? No. And, once again, THANKS for answering my question!--Pesatyel 07:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can actually see why PKing is fun, probably for the same reason playing a zombie is. It's thrilling in a spiteful way to bust in and see how much damage you can do. I play a zombie and I sure like snuffing survivors with it. I'd actually play a PKer myself if it didn't seem unfair. Despite having to search for ammo being able to free run past barricades is just too big an advantage. --Jon Pyre 06:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is EXACTLY why it is fun. PKing is so incredibly easy compared to fighting zombies. Notice how he ignored my comment about the lone wolf PKer and zombie attacking the same building? Fighting zombies requires finding a VS or lower building, going outside and looking around for zombies (or the sidetrek of using NecroNet Access), killing the zombie then going back to the VS building (or, rarely, having to find another). PKing involves going a building or three over via Free Running, killing someone or two (and probably dumping the body) and leaving again via Free Running. PKers probably wouldn't do it as often if there were any REAL challenge (which, I think, is what YOU have been saying). Honestly, I just want to learn why people who do it regularly find it fun, especially relative to dealing with zombies. Hopefully now that Christmas is over someone can actually enlighten me with somthing other than "it is fun because it is" or "because it is part of the game."--Pesatyel 07:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey if they find it fun I'm not going to argue with them. And it is part of the game and it is in genre. The flavor is good, the only problem is it ignores game balance entirely. But we're getting off topic. Some people like to PK, some don't. I don't really care what someone prefers, I just want to get it balanced. Any other ideas? So far I've tried suggestions that give you a hint where a PKer went, prevent a PKer from leaving as easily, reduce the AP cost to revive someone who was PK'd, and allow people to protect key figures. --Jon Pyre 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well cheers for posting in the middle of my comment, that's just plain lovely. I split it to make it easier to read, and that I could address every single point raised. I don't appreciate your rather irritating comeback- leave the flaming for forums- I'm not attacking you personally. I will reiterate your main concern: "It's fun because it's a damn game." IT IS A GAME. I play for fun, I find it fun. But, for those who appear to misunderstand the very basic concept of playing a game (for entertainment, I do believe), I play for FUN. Fun fun fun. Should I really have to explain the basic concept of fun to you? Do what you find fun, and I will too. This is a game. A GAME, damnit! I answered every bit of your question, but I'll do it again. Right, here we go: (1)Is it fun for random victims? Not particularly, but no less so than getting killed by a zombie and even less so than being a newbie zombie and getting repeatedly headshot. That was where the headshot part came in- it is relevant for comparison. (2)More thrill than fighting zombies? Hell yes. My main PKer has been killed in the region of 50 times, and perhaps 10 of those have been by zombies. The thrill of being hunted by someone equally competent looking for me rather than any fresh meat is very definite. PKing has far more thrill- you can't (even though you appear to be trying) deny that. (3)eh? You don't seem to make much sense with the ammo point. Why would you not use every last bit of ammo possible in an attack? "I'm going to attack you ten times then stand around for a bit". Erm... The point of the ammo argument is all you see is a PKer attacking you with guns. Overpowered? You may think so, but you've missed all the AP that PKer spent searching in order to be that effective. (4)Reviving has everything to do with the argument of a lone PKer vs group PKers. But then again, you appear to want to lump all PKers together, instead of actually understanding the issue. A lone PKer is overpowered in that they can ignore barricades, but have the weakness of more difficult revives- if players were so concerned about PKers, stop fucking reviving them! End of problem! Group PKers are not overpowered vs barricades- in a zombie strike, AP vs barricades become negigible with increasing numbers. PKers will all spend AP getting to the location, as they can't sleep in heavily trafficked areas, and may even spend more AP as a group not attacking. If you're really so concerned about PKing, coordinate survivors better into not reviving them and hunting them when you see them- that would make a more fun game too. Stop trying to take away the damn fun! Make playing a human better elsewhere, don't take away from what they've got. --The Supreme Court ^RR 23:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 6: Why Is PKing Fun?

I really AM just curious. What I said above IS just my speculation. You didn't seem to keen on the anti-PKer ideas I submitted above. But the main problem with all "anti" PKer suggestions is that PKers don't want ANY change in PKing status within the game (which leads back to my question of why it is fun). Oh, and I purposely did not indent this.--Pesatyel 05:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ihave PKed in the past and it was fun. I did it because my dedicated zombie objected to random revives. I found a way into the stronghold, tore down the barricades and shouted "free lunch" then i went on a killing frenzy and spent my last AP claiming the victims (all random) were death-cultists who got me a few days back... It worked and next day i got another 2 of them. This was fun because to me it was completely in genre and character, was it fair on the poor sods inside, Yes. Was it fun for them, probably not but this type of PKing is in genre and not really griefing. Basically i think it all comes down to what you want from the game and frankly some people enjoy trying to spoil other peoples enjoyment.--Honestmistake 12:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PKing is fun because it is the most dangerous playstyle in the game (And doesnt need to be any more dangerous at all, which all anti pker suggestions do). Not only do you have to worry about avoiding the zombies, but you also have to avoid people who will be looking for you, or remember your name as well, from those who saw you kill a person, and the person you killed, as well as others who read about the killings on online pker lists. Also, its much more fun than shooting zombies because unlike zombies, your victims have a decent chance of tracking you down and ventilating you back. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As Grim said, plus: It's a case of identified combatants vs each other, which human vs anonymous zombie combat simply doesn't have. you can also build up wonderful comraderie with those hunting you, or give real reasons for targeting those you do. That's why zombie hordes are so interesting to fight against- you have a visible identifiable enemy, which I also believe is the real fun behind PKing. You know who you're killing, and they know who you are. --The Supreme Court ^RR 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly why PKing is attractive. It gives you a chance to have specific enemies, something zombie anonymity prevents. It definitely seems like fun. But zombies without cades...that's what prevents it from being balanced. Even death is hardly punishment for a PKer. Why be a survivor in UD? To revive, heal, barricade, and protect other survivors. A normal survivor that becomes a zombie is prevented from doing what they want. A PKer that becomes a zombie though can keep on doing what they want: killing survivors. So slaying a PKer doesn't actually thwart them entirely, it just turns them from a Free Running Zombie into a weaker ordinary zombie. The person that ultimately ends up paying the cost is some random scientist that spends 20+ AP to revive the killer in a revive queue. --Jon Pyre 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that serial PKers are not really playing the same game as most players. The average player is fighting a harman VS zed war, baricades and mobility against hordes. Compared side by side the harmanz are better but once you get to large numbers that balance shifts very rapidly. PKers play a 3rd side in a game which isn't realy designed for them... because of this they have the human ability to move quickly and store AP in the form of guns and if a PK player can honestly say they build cades to defend themselves i will be very suprised! Against this they effectively have zombie anonimity due to the fact that very few players are sad enough to write/remember their names (coloured contacts HAVE helped in this respect) or check PKer lists. Basically the majority are not playing insane survivors they are just griefing players. Unfortunately there is no way to punish the griefers without punishing those who genuinely want to play 'broken' survivors or death cultists as only they realluy know which they are! Perhaps a carrot and stick approach with a reward matched by the drawerback would help, the extra challenge matched with a reward would make it more fair and fun for many while perhaps helping to identify the mostly 13 year old morons!--Honestmistake 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh & PKing isn't the hardest form of game play it is the easiest. Free run in, kill some poor schmo (possibly claim he did it 1st), free run away and then even if someone does come get you who in your hideout knows they are not the PKer and you the innocent victim?--Honestmistake 01:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I said Dangerous, not hardest. As a human, you have roughly 40% of the game population as your enemy. As a Zombie you have roughly 60%, and a PKer you have about 100% of the games population as an enemy. Unless they are a member of your group, they are a potential enemy. The anonymity you get sheilds you somewhat from this (Meaning you dont have a correspondingly high chance of being dead every single day). Those who identify you for what you are threats to you, as are those notified of your true colours (And i would say that reading PKer lists are at least 600 people, which would amount to about 2.5 humans per player (Since most people play humans. Documented fact) which would amount to 1500 humans, which is about 10% of the human population, and its pretty hard to hide for 10% of the population. Members of PKing groups play it even more dangerously, as they all but announce their choice to everyone even before they pull the trigger. It most certainly is the most dangerous way to play, and the only way to survive after you have been a pker for a good long time is by being paranoid. Oh, and you can never, ever, retire. You are marked for life once you kill. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 03:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't check the PKer lists because you can't store that many people in your contacts anyway, it requires a long time mucking around on third party sites, and screen shots can be easily doctored. A lot of PKers don't get posted there either because of the difficulty of having to take an image, crop it, and host it. Personally I think a good solution would be an in-game version of the PKer lists. I'll try to develop something along those lines, and I'd appreciate any suggestions. And Grim, I'd counter that while PKers have everyone in the game as their enemy they also have everyone in the game as their ally. Zombies will assist in attacking their targets, survivors will barricade the buildings they're in, heal them, and revive them. --Jon Pyre 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the answers guys. I don't believe PKing is as "dangerous" as Grim wants to make out though. I believe the AVERAGE player tends to ignore a PK when they see it (I see Bob kill Joe, why should *I* give a crap? I don't know Joe (or Bob)!) Unless Joe IS a friend or part of the average player's group, it won't matter to them unless they are bored (for example). There is also all the in game messages that "Bob is a PKER!!!!! KILL HIM ON SIGHT!!!!" kinda things, how the hell do *I* know if he is or not, just because YOU say so (or, worse, the RADIO says so)? I also believe that players should not HAVE to metagame, which is essential to PKing/Bounty Hunting. Most players just want to spend their 10 minutes killing zombies, eating survivors or rearming.--Pesatyel 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against the use of metagaming. But I don't think people should *have* to metagame in order to defend themselves. If a streamlined version of the PK list was added that should be fine. It's not an entirely new idea, but maybe something that let's you report murders at the local PD?--Jon Pyre 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my vague idea so far. New item found at PD's, a crime scene kit. If you witness a crime you may use the kit to collect evidence after the fact. You could then take this evidence to police stations and file it for other's to view along with a comment. So someone checking the PD could read "[Detective Name] filed evidence that Phil killed Bill. [Detective Name] wrote "Phil claimed that Bill had attacked his generator but Phil belongs to a group known for PKing"". If multiple people turn in evidence the file would change to "[Detective Name1], [Detective Name2], [Detective Name3], turned in evidence that Phil killed Bill. [Dective Name1] wrote "Phil claimed that Bill attacked his generator...". [Detective Name2] wrote that "I've seen Bill destroy generators in the past and I believe this killing was justified", etc..." The files would delete after a day or two so you'd only be able to look at reports for recent crimes. --Jon Pyre 08:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jon but that sounds kinda like you are clutching at straws. I don't think that would work and i am all but certain i would not be the only SPAM voter for it. Maybe a Morality track like Nexuswar so the more often you PK the lower it goes balanced by regaining points for healing? Of course their is no 'logical' way players should see this but i could live with that! --Honestmistake 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a detective skill would be a better addition than being able to view people's morality. People have said that the skill of tracking is too unrealistic even though it is theoretically possible, what do you think they'll say about looking into their souls? --Jon Pyre 16:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Problem lies where it always had. Even if I waste enough AP to actually log all the evidence...and people spend AP to access the evidence...it is bascially the same as "ShadowScope say: "Bill is a GKer. He deserved to die. Here's the tinyurl that proves it!" At least you know it would not be frauded, but really...why brother looking for the PKer when you can focus on living? Unforutnetly, it is the metagame that cause for victories. How come Caiger fell? Because of the metagame. How come Blackmore surivied for all this time? The metagame. By using the metagame, and by working together, players can elimante PKers. Only cooperation, and not in-game boosts are the way.--ShadowScope 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the idea is that it is (as is metagaming) based on people actually giving a crap. As I said above, the AVERAGE player, unless DIRECTLY (or a real friend) hit...they don't care enough to get involved.--Pesatyel 06:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In all of this discussion, I think we are missing ONE significant factor: Just how prevalent IS PKing? What % of the players are dedicated (I don't think occasional PKers should really factor in)? I mean if, say 1% of survivor population (170 players) are dedicated PKers...is there REALLY that big a problem? 10% (1700 players)? Is THAT too many? 25% (4200 players)?--Pesatyel 06:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably no more than 2 or 3 hundred, to be honest. Even PKer lists that have been running for more than a year are having trouble reaching that height. Pkers are very uncommon, PKers who still PK are even less so (Yes, a lot of them stop killing people for a change of pace) and start up again when they get bored. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

there probably are only a couple of hundred players who concentrate on PKing and they must do so because they enjoy it. The real questions should be; how many do it for a challenge? how many do it for RP reasons? and how many because they are retards who like trying to grief others? Its a fair bet that those who like the challenge won't mind some minor alterations to make it harderespecialy if balanced by more reward while those who like to play death-cultists would probably like naything that gives them notoriety, both these groups are playing the game andwould probably live with most changes... The griefers on the other hand get their kicks trying to spoil the game for others, they will resist any change that makes it harder for them. Many of them are probably zergers having spare characters to use while the main ones wait for revives, they do not try to play the game they abuse it and try to break it for others. The ideal solution then is one that makes PKing more fun to play while making it less attractive to morons. Removing PKing from the game is out and so is making PKers too easy to find(Griefers do not care so that only punishes genuine players) That means some practical way for players to work against PKers by making it harder for them to get to resources or victims. Whatever rational you use this has to mean making them identifyable to others as a 'third' side. --Honestmistake 12:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I tried to go for in a suggestion a while back that made people killed by PKers have a 1AP revive cost (still requires using up a syringe). Since I don't object to PKers killing people but them doing so for less AP I figured if it cost less AP to revive their victims that'd balance things out. It was logical too...Kevan attributed the 10AP revive cost on a mutation zombie virus that was more difficult to treat. A player killed by a human wouldn't have the latest version of the virus in their body and should be easier to treat. Maybe 1AP was too low though. What if reviving someone who was PKd cost 5AP instead of 10? That'd fit in nicely with the whole half xp when PKing discouragement. It wouldn't make PKers easier to find either, or protect their victims, just helps out the scientists that have to clean up the mess. --Jon Pyre 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Since people who get shot or jump off of buildings are able to stand up as zombies, it stands to reason that everyone is infected to some degree. Which means that it takes the full AP to be revived, as they are the same type of zombie. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, Jon. I had to ask myself who benefits the most from the 5AP revive cost, and it's not individual scientists, it's organized groups. Let's say for example, that my group, the Malton Fire Department is defending a mall or suburb or something. Things are going well, until a PKer walks in and takes out all the MFD members. (So far, this is fine for roll play purposes... the person might have a problem with authority or something.) What usually happens next is that it takes awhile to get these folks revived, and by that time the zombie horde outside is happily munching away at the civilians inside. With a lower revive cost, revive groups will be able to resurrect twice as many of their fallen comrades (provided they were all PKed). You may want to make the XP gained by revivers a bit lower (5XP instead of 10 when reviving a murder victim). --Uncle Bill 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put the first draft of the suggestion up on this page. And Akule, there's a logical reason why it would cost less to revive someone not killed by a zombie which I write out over there. And Bill, it really wouldn't reduce the revive cost by half since you're not accounting for the syringe. The cost to revive someone is about 12 to find the syringe plus 10 to use it and maybe another 3 for travel. So if the total cost to revive is 25 usually this just reduces it by 20% to 20. --Jon Pyre 20:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See, that's what I was thinking too. I mean if only 3% of the population are dedicated PKers, is that REALLY as big a problem as everyone wants to make out? I think most people see the "rise" of PKing as a sign that the game itself (you know, the one where survivors combat zombies) is growing stale/unchallenging. That may not be as good an example as we think. I think Honestmistake summed it up pretty well with the types of PKers: those looking for a challenge, those doing it for RP reasons and the retarded assholes. The problem with that assessment is that he is wrong in the idea the first two groups would be okay with "minor" changes to make it harder (certainly the griefers would)--Pesatyel 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Most players aren't zergers but we still have zerging countermeasures. Whether or not it's widepspread if it could in theory cause a well defended safehouse to fall that otherwise wouldn't from ordinary zombie attacks then it should be addressed. Rare does not equal balanced. But enough of the endless debate. What do you think about 5AP syringe injection cost idea? --Jon Pyre 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is because Zerging is what we commonly call "Cheating". PKing is not Cheating. Nice attempt at Guilt by Association Pyre. Also, i like how Honestmistake managed to paint every PKer who posted in this discussion against changes as either greatly stubborn, or greifing arseholes. Its one thing to attack an individual in a discussion, its another to try and smear an entire side of it. Kindly excuse yourself from the discussion now. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

One comment. ARE there ANY dedicated PKers here (the wiki voters) that WOULD be willing to allow for ANY kind of changes, no matter how minor? Be honest with yourselves.--Pesatyel 06:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not unless it is demonstrated to be needed with evidence, rather than repeated assertions that its needed without any real attempt to back up the assertion *glances meaningfully at Jon Pyre*. Also, sligthtly off topic, but i must strongly protest the premature archiving of earlier segments of an active disussion. The headings were added to make editing easier, not to break the discussion up into sections. I must strongly request the archiver replace the missing sections of discussion where they belong, and once the discussion is ended, it can all go in the archive in one go, nice and tidy. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Grim, if you want to go and de-archive the previous parts of this discussion, go ahead - you're a mod, you can take that responsibility. However, I didn't archive the previous sections just because of some whim. When this page reaches a certain length, all the templates stop working. It's happened several times this month. The easiest solution is to archive parts of the page that are roughly the oldest. Proposed suggestions that still appear to be under discussion get priority to stay and not be archived, as do policy discussions. This insanely long debate on PKing, frankly, should get a page to itself - it's not as if any useful conclusions have been reached except for this argument is endless. In the meantime, what's so difficult about popping along to the archive page to read the previous sections? So, there's your choice. De-archive and fuck up this page, or just go and visit the archive. I leave it entirely in your hands. --Funt Solo 11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Jon's point wasn't that pking is bad like zerging. It was that even problems that are unusual, such as zerging or the problems associated with pking, should be fixed. --Toejam 18:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But that comparsion falls short by the fact that zerging is CHEATING and PKing is not.--Pesatyel 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Evidence" was one of the things I commented on somewhere earlier. PROVE that PKing is a "rampant problem" if you really think something should be done about it. But I think one of the points Jon was trying to make was that the "proof" is in the EASE at which PKers can do their work, especially compared to zombies (you know, what SHOULD be the primary focus of the game). I used the example of a maxed out PKer and a maxed out zombie both hitting an EHB building from 1 square away. By the time the zombie has gotten through the barricades, he might have the AP to infect a few people (but probably NOT kill anyone). The PKer on the other hand in that same time can get in kill someone (or more) and get out. Where is the equivalence? My anecdotes not withstanding, Grim, what sort of evidence WOULD be "acceptable?"--Pesatyel 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. As long as PKers nerf zombies, then there is a problem. Even if survivors weren't so lazy and spent all their time killing PKers, that wouldn't change the fact that they can never stop a PKer from killing, because there will always be someone out there who will revive them. If they search in a PD, it will only take them 62 AP to kill a survivor. A zombie has to spend a LOT more. And if the numbers/metagaming are equal, the zombies will be unlikely to be able to kill anyone at all because the survivors can erect barricades faster than they can take them down. In short, survivors can stop zombies. But survivors cannot stop PKers. PKers will kill, and they will get revived. No one can prevent that. Furthermore, the whole argument that PKing is fun is ridiculous. Sure, it might be more fun for the PKer, but it sure isn't fun for the victim. Any "fun" that the PKer has is offset by the lack of fun that the victims have. Saying that PKing shouldn't be changed because "it is fun" is stupid because it doesn't increase people's enjoyment of the game. If one person has fun and 3 others don't, then can the game really be considered fun? No, and to a certain degree that is the case here. PKers get the benefits of both survivors and zombies. How is that not unbalanced? If your answer is "because I'm griefing people" or "because it's in genre", then you seriously need to play as a zombie for a while and see how hard it is, because there are no zombie movies out there where the psychos are more deadly than the zombies, and griefing creates no fun; it only steals it from other players (hence the term "griefing"). --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. you seriously need to play as a zombie for a while and see how hard it is. Case in hand: (1) Most PKers are the experienced/ older players of UD- you really think they've not played zombies? (2) You've never played a PKer yourself. And seriously- which zombie films has psycho survivors that are less dangerous than individual zombies locked outside? Zombies will be unable to kill anyone because of barricades- What?!. This is the least coherent argument yet against PKing. --The Supreme Court ^RR 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Plus- "PKers get the benefits of both survivors and zombies" liiiiiike standing up after being shot for example? Liiiike not using ammo to attack, for example? And "noone can prevent a PKer being revived" then go on a crusade to all the revive points, and stop it. It's apathy, not an impossible game mechanic, that's stopping PKer revives. And since when was PKing really "griefing"? Stand up, revive 3 squares away, stand up. Oh noes. --The Supreme Court ^RR 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Plus "survivors can stop zombies but not PKers"-show me a suburb decimated- nay, destroyed - by PKers. That's right- just one suburb by the 200/300 PKers in this city. Shackleville and Shearbank are good examples of precisely this not happening. I'll say it again: Ugh. --The Supreme Court ^RR 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Zombies will be unlikely to be able to kill any survivors if numbers/metagaming are equal because the zombies have to get through barricades in order to kill survivors. But survivors can erect barricades faster than zombies can take them down. So if the zombie attacks the barricades and the survivor keeps building them up, the zombie will never be able to get through unless they get lucky with the RNG.

And in every zombie movie the psychos are less dangerous than the zombies; that's why they always attack people one by one or when there's a distraction rather than just randomly killing people like the PKers in this game can do. PKers get the benefits of both survivors and zombies because either way they can still pursue their objective: killing survivors. I suppose I should've put it as "zombies with free running", but the point remains. And PKers haven't done that much damage in the game because there aren't many of them. But rare does not equal balanced. If there were that many PKers, they would indeed have laid to waste many suburbs by now. Just multiply the difference in power between one PKer and one zombie by however many zombies there are in the game (this number would be thrown off by the Mrh Cows, of course, but it's meant to be a rough estimate anyway), and you'll get how things would be like if there were as many PKers as there are zombies. And unlike survivors, PKers don't need to worry about defending territory or making barricades; they can just use the barricades that others have put up. As for your argument about PKing not really being griefing, that doesn't make sense either because PKing has no benefit other than the act itself. If it hurts people without giving you any benefit, then it is griefing by definition. If PKing isn't griefing, then neither is GKing, overbarricading, or anything else for that matter. Face it, PKers have a much easier time killing survivors than zombies do. They nerf zombies. Therefore, they are unbalanced. There's no arguing with that simple fact. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, movie comparisons DON'T work in UD, given the nature of the game (but that really isn't important). As for PKers having an easier time...well that's something pro-PKers would rather ignore. Or, at best, they use the "difficulty" of PKers having to deal with both zombies AND anti-PK players in game. Which is also a fallacy since the AVERAGE player doesn't give a shit about PKing (unless it happens to them or an in game friend; basically they have a REASON to care). Thus the "difficulty" isn't as extreme as they want to pretend it is. Seriously though, if they were TRULY looking for a CHALLENGE (as they seem to want to claim but don't because it tends to show how easy PKing can be), they wouldn't have a problem with some of the (at least the weaker ones) anti-PK suggestions. Hypothetically speaking, if PKing were even half as difficult as what zombies do...would they still PK?--Pesatyel 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been in weaker safehouses and seen a single PKer wipe out 3 people at a time, sometimes almost half the building's population. That's a pretty significant attack. While it doesn't happen everyday 3 deaths in the right place can mean the difference between a building surviving a break-in or getting decimated and ransacked. And I'm not comparing PKing to zerging in terms of whether it's right and wrong. PKing can't be compared to zerging that way. Zerging is cheating. PKing is a legitimate gameplay option. My only point there was that anything that could disrupt the balance of the game should be addressed, regardless of how widespread it is at the moment. And I put a suggestion up on the main page. --Jon Pyre 02:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So your complaint is that PKers could potentially swing a close battle in a building in favour of the zombies. That is not evidence of Pkers being overpowered, thats evidence of a massive pro-survivor bias, and the unwillingness to accept the validity of Death Cultist tactics. I mean, PKing must be overpowered because suvivors are only at 60%. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 07:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My complaint is that 1 person should have equal value in fighting survivors whether they're a survivor or a zombie. Otherwise playing a zombie becomes bad tactics. If 1 PK could destroy a safehouse while 1 zombie would be feeble and ineffective that's a clear sign that either survivors need to do less damage killing each other or zombies need to be made stronger. Since the only way to make zombies equally strong would be to give them free running it's PKing that should be made to have less of an impact. Any survivor vs. zombie game imbalance shouldn't require a PKer fudge factor to fix things, it should rely on solid zombie skills and fun zombie gameplay. If they're outnumbered because of weak skills, give them new skills! Many people say they play a PKer because zombies are boring. Well, let's make zombies more interesting! If you want to kill survivors playing a zombie should not be a disadvantage you accept for roleplay reasons. --Jon Pyre 07:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But your forgetting that most players playing zombies KNOW the limitations of playing as zombies and accept them, for the most part (that doesn't mean they don't want "better" zombies). You also keep saying that PKers should be "equivalent" to zombies in what they have to do to get a kill (primarily in spending AP). That's bullshit and you know it (especially when you say there shouldn't be "artificial" nerfs to PKing). There IS a difference between a zombie and a survivor. Survivors have certain advantages over zombies and PKers, BEING survivors retain those advantages. I'm not saying that PKing CAN'T (or SHOULDN'T) be nerfed. Just that how EXTREME a nerf are we even talking? Making them "zombie equivalents" is NOT it. Besides the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, just how "rampant" IS PKing in the first place? Something grim eluded to the more you bitch about it (no offense) the more it is likely to affect your character in the game. Tell me Jon, just how bad IS it in the game where you are? Is/are your character(s) getting hit frequently? The group(s) your character(s) getting hit frequently? Random PKs show up in your "since your last turn" log every time you log in? My character hangs out near a mall (occasionally IN it, but not if I can help it) and, occasionally, I'll see a PK. However, most of the time when I see one player kill another it is usually a bounty hunter or revenge seeker. Rarely are they "true" PKs. In fact, I HEAR people bitch about PKers more than I SEE them (yeah, like I'm gonna believe some anonymous voice on the radio telling people that "Bob is a PKer!!"). So, tell me, just how bad IS it?--Pesatyel 09:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon Pyre. If PKers wanted to play zombies with all the weaknesses of humans, they would have to be retarded. They want to play mobile guerilla fighters, with all the strengths AND weaknesses of humans. Humans have the option of being able to bank their AP in the form of ammunition. Zombies do not. If a human banks his ap in ammunition, he has every right to fire off that ap into whatever he likes at standard efficiencies. If it was a problem, it would be having an effect on the overall game balance, as displayed by the zombie/human ratio, which is 2:3 in the humans favour (And most likely even higher given the bias thats built into the percentage display (60.7% humans)). --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 11:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PKing isn't widespread enough to hurt the survivor cause. Hmm, I hadn't checked the stats for a while, it's depressing that the ratio isn't around 50:50 anymore. However while PKing isn't hurting the rather robust numbers of living in total it can have a devastating effect on specific areas. Let's use our good friend nuclear waste as an analogy for PKing. All out nuclear war (widepsread PKing) would ruin the world (Malton). However a few barrels of nuclear waste buried in someone's backyard (a few PKers preying on a specific area) can cause children (safehouses) to become horribly mutated (ransacked). You have to look at the broad effect on total population but also the specific effect in isolated battles. And no, PKing doesn't happen to me too often. Even generator killing is just three times a week or so. But I'm not in a particularly high profile place right now. I remember back at the Battle of Blackmore a few weeks ago when zombies outside outnumbered survivors probably 2:1 and the barricades needed to be constantly manned just two or three PKers were able to clear huge swathes of defenders at a time, helping cripple the defense. And while you can yell out "Cade!" when you know zombies are breaking in you can't yell out "Abandon your personal lives and continously refresh the screen looking to see if any of several hundred people are getting injured then identify the person at the bottom of the stack to tell who is attacking them and then use your AP to drive them off temporarily!" But about that ratio, I think the answer to weak zombies is to improve zombies. Not to let a number of survivors you yourself admit isn't that large take the fun of killing people instead. It's like a game of baseball now, PKers are out there doing home runs for them, while the zeds are being stuck on the bench. Sure they're winning but they're not playing! --Jon Pyre 18:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If 50 cops are having a pistol shootout with 50 crooks and you step in with body armor and a submachine gun and start killing cops, chances are you're not going to make much difference in the grand scheme of the battle before you get wiped out. But does that change the fact that you were much better equipped than anyone else there? No, it doesn't. You may have only had a small effect on the battle, but you sure as heck had more of an effect than any individual crook or cop that was there. Each individual PKer can do more damage than each individual zombie. The only reason zombies do more damage overall is because there are so many more of them. Remember, Rare does not equal balanced. If someone made a suggestion that gave 10 (and only 10) randomly selected zombies the ability to bypass barricades, it would get heavily spammed. Why? How much damage can 10 barricade-bypassing zombies possibly do? Certainly not enough to shift the balance of power in the game. I mean, they'd only be capable of killing about 2 survivors a day (takes an average of 34 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor). That would be, what, 20 survivors dead a day? That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. And yet most of us would consider this unbalanced. Why? Because while the zombie side as a whole wouldn't be overpowered, those individual zombies would be. But what I've just described is more or less what PKing is. PKers may not have much effect on game balance, but that does not change the fact that they are overpowered. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm liking these analogies. --Jon Pyre 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate them. They make you seem that there are proof, but they do not suffice. But giving 10 barricade-bypassing zombies would affect the balance of power. 20 suriviors dead a day would then be repeatable for each day. That would be 140 suriviors dying each week, 600 suriviors dying each month. And don't forget adding in the Muliply by a Billion. You don't give 10 zombies that power, you give most vetran Zombies this power. So more suriviors will die. This is why, when you give any zombie buff, the ratio shifts. Meanwhile, there are only about 300 PKers zombies have to reload, wasting days...as well as dying, which also waste days.

What you need is ACTUAL data that it actually is overpowered. This is why the ratio is key. Without data to show that it can actually, in game, harm people, well, all you get is these angoloies. It is all hypotheical, we need actual data, otherwise they could might as well be Nonsense.--ShadowScope 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's enough evidence that PKing can harm people. I personally have witnessed small safehouses have 3-4 people wiped out by a single person at a time. One time I even saw someone kill eight people in one go. Even if it took a few days to find enough ammunition to do that it's still much more powerful than a zombie. I'm not sure what you'd require as evidence. I don't claim PKing is a serious enough to threaten the game currently. Just an unfair advantage that comes into play occasionally. --Jon Pyre 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be pretty unlikely, however for PK nerfs to happen. Zombies complains of Suriviors' barricades, but of course, they will not be nerfed, because barricades are not serious enough to threaten the game currently. Zombies still complain, because it is an unfair advantage that comes into play occassionally. Yet they deal with it by using the metagame, and coordinating barricade smashing times, like Shacknews. The metagame is the only way to defeat PKers. This was the reason I suggested that, to encourge players to actually organize to battle Pkers, and not just nerfing PKers outright, and making PKers mad. By providing players a reward to stop PKers, then players may actually stop PKers and stop what you call as an unfair advantage. Peastayl states that Suriviors do not care about Pkers, this is why they are effective. Jon Pyre, you witness small safehouses be wiped out...did you stand up and search for the PKers? Or did you say, "Meh." I would say Meh, because I know that wasting AP hunting down the PKer when I could actually help myself live is a better option. No game nerf in the world can save Suriviors if they are not wanting to kill off Pkers. And if players are unwilling to organize, if they are unwilling to establish law and order...then they deserve to be killed off by PKers. Then the question remains: How do you inspire players to organize? If people (me included) cannot come up with a reason for players to fight PKers...then suriviors must live with PKers. What if all zombies decided to just do what you do? Suggesting barricade nerfs that would never get implemented because suriviors are angry that it would make them suffer...instead of relying on the metagame? Then zombies would never prosper and never have fun.--ShadowScope 23:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• There actually have been changes to address the power of barricades. Feeding Groan was implemented so that when a zombie finally does manage to break barricades every other undead nearby can take advantage of it. And ransack was introduced so zombies could sleep in buildings to prevent decoy barricades from being erected. Scent Trail identifies which building a person is hiding in and lit buildings are visible from a distance so you can pick the best targets. Barricades were made a lot more fair by these changes which while not directly weaknening the durability of cades could be called nerfs to their power. Zombies used to be, frankly, screwed. Extensive metagaming could have fixed things for them too but forced them to devote far more time to playing a game than they'd like. Introducing skills and changes was a fair solution for casual players. And yes, I have tried searching for PKers/GKers with very limited success as have others in my safehouse. So it isn't like I haven't tried before petitioning Kevan. --Jon Pyre 01:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Part 7

First point. "i like how Honestmistake managed to paint every PKer who posted in this discussion against changes as either greatly stubborn, or greifing arseholes." Well Grim seeing as how i have admitted being a PKer myself and i don't think I am an arsehole i think perhaps its you who should keep your close-minded stubborn ass out of the discussion!--Honestmistake 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is fun to kill other survivors, just not for them. It is far too easy to do and has no draw backs unless your victim is part of an actively organised and meta-gaming group. Nerfing PKers actual skills is a no-no but making them identifiable should not be. Would you be willing to accept a change to the game that made attacks by survivors on survivors show up as they happened, I mean how often would it actually have any effect? My guess is that NO you would not but such a minor change might prevent the most blatant killings that go against all reason and the spirit of the game by at least giving active survivors the chance to act against an otherwise invisible threat. Or how about some of the voluntary changes i and others have suggested? If you don't like them you don't have to add them to your profile but for others they may seem like a fun and possibly challenging game improvement. Honestly, if there was actually any point in PKing other than random greifing then i would not see a problem with it & would probably do it again but frankly the best reason (in my eyes) no longer applies for me (combat revives) and killing someone cos i think his name seems stupid is a bit lame (still done it though!). You and others ask for evidence that PKing is unfair and unbalancing but the very nature of that proof makes it effectively impossible to gather so how about you prove the opposite instead of just saying 'stop trying to spoil my fun'--Honestmistake 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm STILL waiting for Grim and some of the other hardcore PKers to give me an example of what "evidence" would be enough to prove that PKing is getting bad. I'm STILL waiting.... But I like your idea about showing ATTACKS by PKers. Currently, you only see "Bob killed Joe" and if this isn't in your "since your last turn" log (and your active against PKers) it can sometimes be too late to do anything. Bob will either be attacking the next person (which you wouldn't know, but allows YOU to attack HIM) or will take off. If we can see the attacks as they happen, players might stand a better chance of dealing with the PKer. I know people would bitch and whine about the spam generated, but if PKing ISN'T that "rampant", the spam would be negligible. If it IS "rampant" the spam might be a good indicator that it is a problem.--Pesatyel 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For me it would have to be proof that Pking is rampant and is having a large and measurable effect on the game as a whole with regards to populations rather than just individual battles. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 04:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If PKing ever became rampant it would be too late, the game would already be broken!--Honestmistake 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One solution to spam would be to have all the attack messages deleted if the kill happens. So you'd only see "Bill attacked Phil for 5 damage!" if you logged on during the attacks, or if Bill never actually killed Phil. If Phil is killed then you'd only see "Bill killed Phil" and none of the previous messages. That'd be nice and neat. On another topic Grim, if PKing has a negligible effect like you claim why do you care if changes are made to it (provided they still allow PKing to be a viable option)? If it wouldn't hurt zombies because it's too miniscule to really aid them, and it wouldn't hurt PKers like the last suggestion I made, why oppose it? --Jon Pyre 04:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Because all of your suggestions are intended to nerf Pking so that if does not have a survivors effect on a battle, which is wrong, and unfairly harms death cultists. Also, added part 7. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 07:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Death Cultists have a valid style of play but the game just isn't designed for them. You can oppose zombies by barricading or killing them once they're in your safehouse. The game simply does not account for PKers in any way. You can't barricade against them and after they escape your safehouse finding them is extremely unlikely, even if ten survivors drop every other concerns and spend 50 straight AP looking for them. --Jon Pyre 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, you are an idiot. The game is designed for both PKing and death cultist activities simply because it allows them. If the game "wasn't designed" for it, then you would find it on this page.--Gage 12:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because something works doesn't mean it is flawless. UD is in Beta and most of its aspects are open to improvements. UD worked before tangling grasp, it worked before radios, it worked before Feeding Groan, it even worked before barricades. But it's much better now even if originally the game wasn't designed to allow defenses beyond doors or attack strategies beyond randomly hitting buildings. Oh and Gage, if I was an idiot would I be a professor in practical mathematics at Princeton? --Jon Pyre 12:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, by the way. It's just a hypothetical question. But pointless insults that do nothing to help your argument have no place in a debate. But quite honestly Gage I have no interest in debating you. You have no argument beyond "This is the way things are and I like em" and vote spam on suggestions you sometimes clearly have not even read. I don't really see the point in talking to you since I'll clearly never convince you, and none of your counterpoints are anything beyond self-interested personal preference so by talking to you I won't even convince others. I know I'll never convince Grim but he at least comes back with reasoned argument. That's why this thread is designed as a workshop, not as a Gage VS. Pyre debate. Or really a Anyone Vs. Anyone debate. If you like from now on I can add your spam vote to my suggestions for you and it'd save you the effort of actually coming to the suggestions page at all. --Jon Pyre 12:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, if Kevan thought PKing was a problem, then I am sure he would fix it. He has the means to get the statistics for the # of PKs committed everyday. Let him decide, and drop this stupid tirade against the existing game mechanics now. You know how many times I was PKed before I actually started PKing? *None*. If it never affected a person who maxed out 2 characters before he started PKing, I can't see how it is a problem.--Gage 13:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The frequency of a problem helps determine whether a problem is large or small, but not whether it is or isn't a problem in the first place. Problems should be fixed, even if they are rare. The trouble with Pking is that even though it has lots of problems associated with it, it's also the solution to GKing and RKing and a raft of less clearly defined things like having an offensive name or overbarricading and so on. So there's no obvious ways to fix the Pk problems without causing more problems elsewhere. ---Toejam 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, Complaining about the small scale mechanics of it just because your side loses is pretty poor behaviour. It reeks of "I WANNA WIN!!!". The only way you are ever going to get a change is if you can demonstrate PKing is having a large scale detrimental effect on the game. FYI, on a small scale: A Group of zombies can break into a building, kill everyone and ransack it, and by that time the next day, all those humans will be back on their feet, the zombies will be on their backs leaking brain matter, and the building will be EHB. Does this mean we should change the mechanics, because a small zombie group cannot even make a dent in a normal non malled human population? The answer is that this experience alone doesnt, not unless it is indicative of a large problem across the whole game. Your Pking problem affects maybe one building a day (The problem where they turn a battle in favour of the zombies). Furthermore, you seem to want to nerf PKings effect to be the same as that of Zombies, which is patently silly given the huge fundamental differences between humans and zombies. The fact of the matter is that the overall damage per AP efficiency for humans is only a little higher than it is for zombies, but humans have the ability to bank up this ap in the form of shotguns and pistols, and then unload them on a target at their time of choosing. If you nerf Pkings effect on a building down to that of a zombie, you are killing PKing, as you strip from it the charm of being a human killing other humans, with human abilities and efficiencies, and just making them into free running zombies, which wouldnt be fun at all. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are major changes to the game, there will always be players who want to be PKers, and there will always be players who want to be zombies. But there's another group that's worth considering too: players who just want to efficiently kill survivors. These players should be channelled towards being zombies. Why? Because zombie/human conflict is generally (but not always) more enjoyable and more interesting than human/human conflict. There's more skills, more variety, and more differences between the two sides. And how are these players channelled towards becoming zeds? By making zombies more AP-efficient at killing survivors than PKers are. That's the reason I think PKers should be weaker than zombies. --Toejam 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Part 8: Conclusions

So, after THREE WEEKS of this discussion, what have we learned?--Pesatyel 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That we should all start ignoring the zombies and start killing each other? --Uncle Bill 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice. In any case, we recently made some progress. We isolated Jon Pyres core complaint. Now its time to move in on it and dismantle it. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My core complaint is that there is no viable defensive action an average group of players can do to defend themselves from PKers before logging off for the night. If someone plays against you there should be a way to play back, regardless of the overall size of scale of the problem. When you're playing a game that feature barricades as the sole preemtive defense the reasoning "Well, 1/4th the safehouse was killed while the barricades were up but that's really a small shift in the overall survivor population" isn't really much of a game. It's more of a statistics class. --Jon Pyre 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. The main problem is whatever "defense" the victims would have, so would the PKers. And disallowing the PKers from having it BECAUSE they are PKers, well those players would bitch and whine about it (no offense).--Pesatyel 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to shift the discussion slightly and talk about some concrete and specific examples people have had with PKers. I'd like to hear from as many points of view as possible (individuals, groups, PKers, zombies, etc.) What effect did the PKers have? Was it an organized group or a lone individual? What did you do about it? Maybe this will give us a better idea of whether this is really balanced or not. --Uncle Bill 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go first... I'm part of a large pro-survivor group that often has "border clashes" with an organized PKer group in the next suburb. Normally we leave each other alone, but occasionally they'll cross into my suburb and target a bunch of my guys. We typically respond by getting everyone revived, then we figure out where the killers are operating and we focus on them for a while. It works well enough to keep them from permanently setting up shop in my suburb, but not well enough to make them move away from theirs. In this case, I'd say things are balanced - group vs. group, both of which use meta gaming. --Uncle Bill 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member of C4NT and sometimes take part in their battles, but most of the time I'm off by myself leading a more or less "feral" existence. C4NT is a relatively large group but we have a habit of picking the most difficult (and thus glorious) fights imaginable. We recently holed up in the Blacmore NT in Ridleybank where about 200 survivors fought at least as many zombies for a couple days. The barricades were dropping every couple of minutes, defenders were constantly needed, and every morning a cunning strike force of 30 zombies would break through the cades simulatenously and wipe out a few dozen survivors in one go. Throughout it all the same few PKers would free run in, smash the generator, kill a few survivors, and escape. It wasn't a problem when survivors outnumbered zombies but once zombies began to overnumber the living those five, ten, fifteen defenders that would otherwise be there often meant the difference between the barricades getting fixed in time or a huge crowd of zombies storming in. Most of the time I hang out in small, not overwhelmingly powerful safehouses, the type with less than fifty people where you can talk to everyone. If a few PKers break into your safehouse and kill 9/25 or so people, as happened this morning, that's a pretty significant chunk of change. And there's not really anything to do about it. You add the attackers to your contact list, revive the fallen (if the loss of manpower doesn't doom your building), and hope they don't come back. Hope is a great defense but it'd be nice if there was something more proactive than that. And I'll admit that a PKing defense would benefit Jon Pyre, and in that sense my suggestions are self-interested. But I also have a dedicated zombie player I put just as much effort into and any PK nerf will hurt the allies that make my attacks more effective. Unlike some people I don't dislike PKing because it pits survivor against survivor. I think it's thematic. It fits the setting. I'd do it myself if it seemed like a game instead of shooting fish in a barrel. But something should make up for the lack of barricades as a defense. --Jon Pyre 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of river tactics? I mean, you're talking about the Blackmore - the most dangerous square in the entire game for a while this summer/autumn. Also, certain suburbs are PKer hotspots. Malls are PKer hotspots. My characters only ever get PKed by one specific group - and there are only four of them. 10000 squares, and 4 of them. I reckon I'm pretty safe. Maybe, what, 4 times in the past year they've PKed one of my characters. It's hardly worth my while even remembering, and the only thing I do to avoid them is not sleep in Malls. (One time, I thought it might be fun to fight back, and with some help I killed all four of them in one day. But I'm in it for the zombie fight, so I moved on.) So, PKers getting you down? Either avoid them (which is easy) or fight back (which is easy) - don't nerf other players enjoyment of the game just because you find a certain aspect to be irritating.

Further, I want to dispel your PKing is overpowered myth. It should be easier for a survivor to kill you than a zombie - a survivor can infiltrate. They have the same weapons and resources as you. It's an even playing field. It couldn't be more even.

Finally, if you nerf PKers, you nerf legitimate player vs. player combat. I'm talking about arena style battles. In the autumn, a group of 10-15 players set up a killing game based on the Button Man comic strip from 2000AD. They chose a few out of the way suburbs and whilst most players were doing the Fall of Caigar or the Battle of Blackmore, these guys had a rare old time killing each other off in competition style play. If their ability to do so had been nerfed, I doubt they'd have carried on the game at all.

--Funt Solo 10:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to reduce the ability of people to PK each other. And while it should be easier for a survivor to kill you than a zombie, thanks to guns and the element of surprise and whatnot, it shouldn't be an entirely free ride. The basis of my argument is this: The game is designed for survivors vs. zombies. Every survivor defense is designed to counteract a zombie assault. None of them are designed to protect people from their fellow survivors. If playing a PKer is a viable tactic than a method to make yourself safer from a PKer, other than moving to an entirely abandoned suburb, should also exist. --Jon Pyre 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Flack jackets. Kevan already put them in the game!--Gage 12:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Player x killed Player y. That's not designed to counteract a zombie assault. Also, one doesn't need to move to an entirely abandoned suburb - you're using hyperbole in place of a constructive argument, which just shows how intransigent your views have become on this subject. --Funt Solo 12:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This smells like an {{ohsnap}} moment to me Funt. Does it smell that way to you?--Gage 12:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon its time to give this up, if nothing else we have learned that the PKer players on the WIKI do not want anything done to change things and will now vote SPAM on anything which will do so... leave it alone for a few months and perhaps a few of them might be willing to consider making their gameplay more interesting. At the moment though people are just digging in and will not budge one way or the other, there is a strong case for some change but this is getting nowhere and is just going to get more and more bitter. --Honestmistake 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely, to say the least, that positions will ever change. Let me put it this way - Kevan has had over a year to change PKing. He could have included it in any of the myriad updates he's performed during the course of the game. Did he? No. Cyberbob  Talk  17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It agree it may be time to give it a rest, at least for a while, not because it wouldn't be a positive change but simply because it's very unlikely anything will pass. --Jon Pyre 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this thread is now about letting each side see the other side's position, more than about persuasion. It's also going to be useful to have all the PKing arguments collected in one place. --Toejam 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And Funt, I'd counter that Flak Jackets defend zombies from survivors more than they do survivors from their fellow survivors. And actually knowing when someone kills someone else is such a basic feature it was ridiculous it didn't exist from the start. I wouldn't call it a defense so much as having any knowledge of what is occuring around you, whatsoever. --Jon Pyre 00:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can honestly say my views have changed after participating in this thread. I'm a lot more tolarant of PKers now than I was at the start, although I will still hunt them to the ends of the Earth in game. For the most part, PKing/Bounty Hunting seems pretty balanced. PKer tactics just require smarter counter tactics, but that's the essence of any good strategy game. I think it's time to put this discussion to bed for a while. Thanks to all who contributed, and try not to take each other's comments too personally. --Uncle Bill 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this discussion has gone on long enough. I think we all know one another's views by now. The anti-PKers can rest content enough with coloring PKers red in their contacts for now. --Jon Pyre 05:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone play other games of this sort? How do they handle PKing? Maybe we can copy some of the best ideas. --Toejam 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently travelled to Tibet, and sought out the all-knowing guru of everything, in his quiet retreat atop a glacier. I asked him that very question and, after much thought (and a biscuit), he replied thus: We just leave it alone for a month or so. --Funt Solo 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He then asked if I had any toliet paper. I hesitated a few moments before admitting I did, knowing he'd somehow guilt me into gifting it and then it'd be an unpleasant three day hike back down to the nearest village. --Jon Pyre 07:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Half way down the mountain, I stopped and thought about what I just did. Then I went back, killed the guru, and took my TP back. Or I would have, but he had a magic flak jacket and was hiding behind cardboard boxes. Suddenly, wanted posters began to appear along the mountain path with my picture on them... --Uncle Bill 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I felt horribly nerfed and quickly tore them down. Several new posters appeared now listing me as a Poster-Killer, and these were laminated. A hail of gunshot distracted me from my displayed visage. "Oops," said the hermit, dropping his shotgun. "I forgot I'm a pacifist." --Jon Pyre 07:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully in support of "tagging" PKers, because NOBODY EVER PAYS ME ANY ATTENTION! ;-; Now I can get all the notoriety and attention I've always dreamed of! Yay! --c138 ^RR 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're doomed to get away with it. --Jon Pyre 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Maths Involved

This is a fairly long comment, and I'd appreciate people not breaking it up. If you have comments, please place them after the article.

I've got a future article pending about the current efficiency of Red Rum compared to survivor killers as a whole (given everything's recorded, there's an absolute wealth of statistics available to analyse), but it seemed fairly pointless without a point of reference. Trying to find something to compare us to galvanised me into thinking about the maths involved in this, and I've given it a bit of a shot. I've not studied maths in years and as such I'm a tad fuzzy, but thankfully the variables between PKer/ zombie were fairly simplistic. Bear in mind this could easily be wrong, and I'd welcome any corrections.

All calculations are based purely around maxed out characters wearing flak jackets to keep things simple. It will not take into account Bounty Hunting and revives, they are not easily defineable and open to wide debate. From The Firearms Efficiency Wiki Page, survivor capacity to inflict damage works out at 1.35 per Action Point (taking searching for ammo into account).

Damage=1.35AP

From The zombie skills wiki page, zombie capacity to inflict damage works out at 1.7 per Action Point.

Damage=1.7AP

Initially, a clear cut case. One on one, the zombie wins out for damage.

Barricades must be factored in, however. Here I'll assume both: Survivors are behind EHB, and zombies expend 68AP to remove barricades. From this, a zombie's damage capacity becomes:

Damage = 1.7(AP - 68)

One on one, survivors now have the upper hand. Zombies in fact, inflict less than zero damage if they attack an EHB safehouse.

This would appear to prove the point that PKers are overpowered. One for one, they are. But, survivors have always been overpowered one on one with respect to barricades. Where these numbers become important is in larger groups. To reiterate, the two damage capacities stand as:

PK: Damage = 1.35 AP

Z: Damage = 1.7(AP - 68)

The case I will use is two groups, one PKer, one zombie, attacking a safehouse in coordinated strikes. It's the simplest way of expressing these numbers I can think of. In it, aside from barricading the safehouse back up to full each night, the survivors inside do nothing but act as 60HP flak jacket meatshields.

To save my poor head (and work it graphically), I'm replacing "Damage" with y, and AP with x. The two formulae now stand as:

PK: y = 1.35x

Z: y = 1.7(x-68)

These two lines are not constant- they cross at one point. This point is where PKers stop being overpowered per AP, and zombies gain the upper hand in terms of efficiency. This point signifies nothing more than the number of players required. Through substitution, it can be seen this number is 6.61. My maths is awkward on this point, and I'm going to re-check it before posting my attempts.

If it is right however, it means only one thing: human strike teams are more efficient (even loners) per player until they number more than 6 people. At that point, zombie strike teams gain the upper hand in terms of efficiency (max damage over a period of time).

Bear in mind these numbers do not take into account survivors retaliating, but nor do they take into account Bounty Hunting and the following revive effort necessary.

All in all, the base maths (assuming what I've calculated is correct) is far more balanced than I thought. What perhaps surprised me most is that even Red Rum in its capacity as a seriously large PKer group, assuming our aim was simply to inflict as much damage as possible, would be far more efficient as a zombie strike team. In the end, it serves only to prove what we already know- Lone zombies are far less efficient than lone survivors. Zombies need to metagame in order to work efficiently, but are far more deadly when they do. In my opinion, it's the metagame that needs to operate more efficiently in order to counteract PKers, and not a game update. I'd appreciate any discussion under the next heading, I'll personally correct maths in this that is wrong. --Karloth Vois ^RR 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Nice work. I know what I'm about to say would muddle the math and make things harder to calculate, but having a baseline is helpful. The reality is that these three groups (survivor, zombie, and PKer) tend to use their AP differently, meaning not everyone will usually have a full 50 AP to fight with.

• Survivor groups have to barricade, heal, search, and scout. Normally each person has their own thing that they specialize in, but the end result is that not everyone works on barricades.
• PKers and bounty hunters usually have the luxury of not having to fight until they are ready. For instance, they can stock up on ammo in a safe location, then move, find and kill their targets, and run. These are all things that survivor groups could do, but unless the group is nomadic, they will probably stay in the same general area.
• Zombies come the closest to behaving according to your model. They form a hoard (through meta gaming or following each other's groans), attack a target en masse until they can get inside, then pour inside, preferably all at once. Dragging people outside takes away from the number of zombies attacking the barricades but also takes out a defender. --Uncle Bill 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I absolutely agree that not all players attack like this, but I feel it rebuffs the argument that PKers are ultimately game-breakingly overpowered. In the above, for example, the group of PKers will in fact do far less damage in total than the zombie horde. It's only because it's all so focused that people complain- I suspect PKers make up less than 5% (if even that) of total human deaths per day. All in all? It's simply a different method of play. --Karloth Vois ^RR 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, it does back Jon Prye's beliefs that Pking is overpowered, from a certain point of view. Jon Prye does not work in a horde, and is an ineffective zombie compared to a single, lone PKer. Possibly, this stat, if people pay attention, could encourge zombies who do not want to join a horde to become PKers/Death Cultists and harm the human race more effectively. Yes, it is the point that zombies should organize and form mobs, and not be killing machines, but I'm just commenting on the stat. I would also like to muddy the waters a bit more by making a note that while a PKer has all the time in the world to restock, zombies already have weapons locked-and loaded...and also add in death costs as well in case a zed gets headshotted before standing up and attacking the cades. It can increase the breaking point where PK squad and Zombie squad effiency are about the same...--ShadowScope 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I left out any death costs, simply because they weren't concrete. As far as the weapons stocking costs, they've been factored in already. I wanted a stat to show how effective PKers and zombies were per AP. The above stats are purely for base comparison without factoring individual situations. Feel free to add to them, but remember that whilst zombies will be shot, so will PKers. The cost to PKers is far more (I'm guessing about a 40AP penalty to the group without random revives). --Karloth Vois ^RR 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good analysis. What I'd point out though is that during most large battles there are usually a number of human defenders active. When the barricades start to drop there's usually a period of at least a minute when someone inside can start rebuilding. That makes it possible for defenders to actually prevent an attack before it starts. Meanwhile the enemy survivors can just free run in, kill the most active players before they even know they're being attacked, and leave the following zombie break-in entirely unopposed. While the zombies may end up doing more damage their assault is accounted for by the game design and can be worked against. I'd compare it to two swordfighters in the middle of a duel and suddenly a spectator beans one of the duelist in the head with a rock. Sure it might do less damage than the other fighter's sword, but it comes out of nowhere and you can't really block it. --Jon Pyre 20:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that someone else is finally doing some math. But I disagree with your conclusion that a large group of PKers is less effective than an equal number of zombies. When one is trying to compare the power of two respective things, they have to assume all external factors (skill, metagaming, etc) to be equal. This means that both sides would have to be active at the same time (otherwise each one has the advantage at whatever time they happen to be on). And in a battle where the survivors are barricading at the same time the zombies attack, the average net cost per zombie to destroy the barricades is still at least 68. If we assume that the zombies are attacking when the survivors are not online, then the zombies have a strategic advantage and the experiment no longer works, because all external factors are not equal. Remember, zombie hordes are no stronger than the sum of their members. They only do more damage than they could each do alone because of metagaming. And being more intelligent doesn't make you more powerful; only more effective. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Ridleybank Board: "Point of order: the Red Rum math is wrong, because their reference underestimates the damage humans can do. Even against flak jackets, humans do more like 1.535 dmg/AP instead of 1.35 dmg/AP. Plugging that into their equation (accepting the rest of their math), you need a horde of 700 zombies and not 7, for zombies to be better than PKers."-pmchem This is the URL of his calcuations: http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=13150348.

If this is true, then we need to call it quits. PKing can't be nerfed, zombies can't be buffed, this game is offically Urban.--ShadowScope 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)