User talk:JohnRubin/Reload
Your comments are very welcome!
Hmm, if you really wanted this to be successful, you'd need not only zombie groups, but human converts too. There's a reason why zombies aren't winning now.-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As what AHLG said. Also, there would actually be *more* conflict and competitiveness in the game by survivors resisting the Reload idea- On Strike worked in part because the endgame action was achieved by *not* playing the game instead of playing the game remarkably well. The increased interest by the survivors refusing to lay down and die, therefore feeding the Hero Complex that most survivors have, would in part prove that the game doesn't need a wide-reaching re-design. And with the stated goal of "rebalancing the game", which would obviously weaken survivors and putting them at a worse spot than they are now, would provide survivors all the reasoning in the world to feed that Hero Complex. --Karlsbad
The only "legitimate" way I see this could be achieved is by convincing all the survivors to commit suicide. Really, zombies just are not enough threat to take them all down if they don't want it to happen. Plus, the game gets a bit boring when its more than 50% or so zombies (not enough targets for them to hit) and thus swings back- so you would have to achieve the shift QUICKLY. And honestly, even if you talked all the regular wiki readers into it, I don't think that is more than 10 or 20% of the games population. 
Swiers 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much that as when you get much over 50% zombies survivors go into panic mode and actually walk into ruined suburbs, the only way it can even get as high as 50% is through survivor apathy and idiocy. Most groups spread that the game is and has been balanced since On Strike even if nothing has really changed beyond malls and headshot.--Karekmaps?! 16:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I like it, but I'm not sure it'll be such a great hit with more small minded users.--Cap'n Silly T/W/P/C
06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I could support the goal, but the only thing you seem to be suggesting is that players switch from survivor to zombie. The majority of players will not do this and the zombies won't be significantly strengthened by the turncoats. Unless there's more to this, it's just not going to work. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have long supported an end to the game so that we all get to make a fresh start with tweaked mechanics and possibly a few of the more radical suggestions implemented... That said I think what is needed is a second server running "reloaded" with perma death potential! That means that those who don't want to let go don't have to while those of us looking for a new challenge can find it. One key point I think would be to bring in a permanent loss of 1HP every time you are struck with a revive syringe, call it diminishing returns ;) Slowly diminishing stocks of essential items like ammo and FAKs would also add to both the challenge and the feel of collapse. I don't know if you saw it but I remember a discussion on a game reset a while ago that threw up some interesting ideas (and opposition) can't remember if it was a suggestion or a discussion though :( --Honestmistake 11:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I would support it if Kevan ran a different server. Leave Malton as is, an ongoing beta, and then create a second city with different rules. Hey, it's a zombie apocalypse. Why can't two cities be quanrantined? --Jon Pyre 15:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Praise... Allah... This is an indecently good concept!!! I also like the 2nd server idea. However, I think that another way to solve this without making survivors pissed is to have tons of zombie bots. Really dumb zombie bots that dissapear when they die, but spawn back in. This will make everything seem more like a zombie apocolypse! However, I'm backing this. BoboTalkClown 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this would ever work. While I support the idea, and would love to see it happen, it would just upset too many people. The only option would be a second server. And I am not sure how Kevan would feel about that. - Whitehouse 09:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The Real Issue
The real problem is that players don't die. You can't really kill a zombie or survivor. The zombie just gets back up; humans can be revived. It's like wtf? This leads to little personal investment in the character since someone is bound to revive you if you wait in the right spot, put in a request, or say "Mrh?" enough.
Take away revives and make headshots real and then suddenly it counts (a hit elsewhere could knock the zombie down but not "kill" it). I'd make it a small chance to hit the head at random and a greater chance with an "Aim for the Head" skill (which costs extra AP). When all the survivors or all the zombies are dead, restart the game, and you get a winning side. That's how I'd do it. An alternative could be a waiting list (would be rationed to kep the value of "living" high) to re-enter the game if you don't want to make a formal "restart", with the explanantion being people slipping in through the quarantine or a handful of surivors "found" hiding in a basement. I really think that would work on Urban Dead II.--Ram Charger 01:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
