|
|
| (102 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Guides]] | | <noinclude>[[Category:Guides]] |
| ==Developing Guides== | | ==Developing Guides== |
| ''This section is for presenting and reviewing guides which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.'' | | ''This section is for presenting and reviewing guides which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.'' |
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
| <span style="font-size:1.75em; color:red">'''Please add new guides to the top of the list'''</span> | | <span style="font-size:1.75em; color:red">'''Please add new guides to the top of the list'''</span> |
| ---- | | ---- |
| ==[[User:Chief Seagull/Working for NecroTech]]==
| |
| A little something I've been working on - while [[Guides:Scientist]] briefly covers all aspects of science-class characters, this one is specifically geared toward NecroTech scientists. Any bases I haven't covered? Any bits that still need work? {{User:Chief Seagull/Sig}} 16:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :At a first glance, it appears to be a nice little RP-flavored guide. I might give you a grammar-nazi breakdown in a bit. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 19:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::Overall solid, but... I disagree with not reviving PKers. Heavily. The damage that PKers do is of little actual consequence (just compare kill costs with revive costs), and they typically grab a revive earlier than later from some clueless labcoater anyway.
| |
| ::Reviving them gets you on their white list if you are lucky. In the worst case, they just treat you like any other survivor.
| |
| ::Scanning them and then purposefully ''not'' reviving them however is cruising for a bruising. Some PKers are plainly easily pissed off and kill you for neglecting them wrongfully. Others will recognize you as someone who knows and cares about PKers - someone who might be an easily upset crybaby that feels strongly about being PKed and shows a satisfying reaction, or someone who could snitch to the RG and thus raise the bounty hi-score. Either means that you will be PKed, potentially multiple times if you prove to be the right kind of shark bait. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::That's really just anecdotal evidence; heck, most of the ones I know "repay" the reviver with bullets. But regardless, this is supposed to be a pro-survivor guide and, while skipping a PKer *may* have them target you, it still stands that you're reviving someone who will turn around and kill other survivors. Which you'd have to spend 10-20AP reviving. Which is, overall, counter-productive to the whole "pro-survivor" ethos. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::''"When you grab a revive, always smooch off the locals first. That's 10AP that are spent by the local survivor population rather than by Cobra, and we like it that way."-Cobra PK Guide.'' {{tongue}}-[[MHS|<span style="color: Black">'''MHS'''</span>]][[User_Talk:MHSstaff|<span style="color: DarkBlue">'''staff'''</span>]] 20:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Conflict of interest? In ''my'' Developing guides? It's more likely than you think! More at 11. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 21:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Conflict of interests? My Dual Nature revives PKers indiscriminately, plainly because it's common sense to do so. Denying revives is not only fruitless, but proves that you are a great target that will care a lot when it's PKed. Further reading on this tangent: [[Malton_College_of_Medicine/policies#PKer_Policy|MCM's PKer Policy]] (the group I see running into trouble with PKers _the least_ plainly by healing and reviving them like everyone else, and otherwise ignoring them) and [http://s1.zetaboards.com/brainstock/single/?p=180073&t=2594393 Amber's inside scoop on how not to get PKed] --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::I can certainly see where you're coming from Zed. When I wrote that, I was thinking about how reviving a PKer/Cultist would affect the local population rather than the individual. It would certainly make sense to mention how reviving the PKer '''might''' get you on their whitelist, but that's a gamble as it depends on how the PKer plays the game. Reading through Amber's guide has also flagged up something I haven't mentioned on the guide - zergs and text-rapists. Question is, how do I describe a zerg in a way that fits in with the rest of the guide? {{User:Chief Seagull/Sig}} 12:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| Okay, I've added more about reviving PKers, rapists and zergs. Look okay? {{User:Chief Seagull/Sig}}
| | ==[[User:Axe Hack/The Art of War]]== |
| :Not really happy with the quanititative comparison ("more reviled") between PKers and zergers/text-rapists while the difference is more qualitative, but I can see your troubles with mentioning to DNR text rapists/zargarbargarz while keeping up the tone. Wouldn't have a better concrete suggestion either. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 12:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
| | It should be obvious since I've stated this a long time ago on this wiki somewhere, but I'm quite the fan of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. And recently, I've been thinking. How can we best incorporate the Art of War into Urban Dead? This is what this is. "How to incorporate Sun Tzu's the Art of War into Urban Dead." 'Cause there's that very small strategy element in UD that some players tend to miss. And the Art of War is a good start for anybody trying to devise their own tactics to use in this game. |
| ::If you look at this from a meta point of view, both zerging and text rape have been addressed within the game mechanics itself (zerg flags and ignoring contacts) while PKing hasn't, so (from a survivor's RP perspective) saying that they are more reviled is accurate. If I can think of another way of writing this, I'll try it. {{User:Chief Seagull/Sig}} 13:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::There, I think [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Chief_Seagull/Working_for_NecroTech&diff=1809869&oldid=1809853 this] reads a bit better now. What do you think? {{User:Chief Seagull/Sig}} 13:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Terrific. Off to [[Guides/Review]] with it! --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 13:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| As someone who's played 3 or 4 PKer accounts over time, I disagree to a ridiculous degree on the whitelist thing. As recently as Red october, I intentionally targetted one of the revivers. I would never give somebody preference just because they'd revived me once. In terms of PKers, I think any publicity is ''bad'' piblicity. If I see somebody in a building whose name I know, they'll likely be my target.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 14:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
| | But...I need a good load of help. So...discuss! --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 05:51, 5 July 2012 (BST) |
| | | ===Comments=== |
| | | Bump? --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 06:21, 11 July 2012 (BST) |
| | |
| ==[[Tidal Tactics]]==
| |
| | |
| Cast an eye over it, peoples? Mostly looking for more examples to give and perhaps some better layout-ing. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:00, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :Firstly, I think you mean fail, not fall in the opening paragraph. Secondly River tactics is not based off hyper organised large scale movements. I can, and have done it on my own. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:08, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::Secondly, you don't always start at point 1, and you've made no mention of darks. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:10, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::Zombie river? Regular river is just a tactic of avoidance, but zombie river is based on the inevitable victory of a massed horde. And no, I meant fall. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:12, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::Your opening paragraph cites river tactics, not zombie river. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:14, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::Thirdly, Id say blackmore fell as much to do with [[Beachhead Tactic]]s as to zombie river tactics. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:13, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::See those to me are interlinked, the former an important factor in the success of the latter. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:14, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::Indeed, I'd mention them both. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:15, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| Man, I hate to say it but you should probably dumb it down. Don't assume that everyone that could benefit from the guide reads at a college level. Don't get me wrong I thought it was well written, just probably too well written to retain the attention of everyone. --{{User:Vapor/sig}} 16:33, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| | |
| "due to successful beachheads, it was the attrition of the constant Tidal Tactics that prevented the survivor foothold from spreading to other buildings. " Virtually every building in Ridley was reclaimed, and several of the trp's had 20+ survivors in them when blackmore fell. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:41, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :For reals? I'd asked and was told that nothing was held for more than 24 hours at a time. If that bit's wrong then I'll take it out. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:42, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::who told you that? Factories, hospitals were up for days at a time. Thats why the constables were able to attack them with strikes most evenings. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:43, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::Oh. I'll get to fixing that then. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:44, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::Yeah, when the constables took time to focus on a TRP, it fell rather quickly. Otherwise, it was just your standard feral-smash-cade act. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 16:46, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::Most buildings were repaired and caded, but there were ''very'' few occupants, with the possible exception of the TRPs close to Blackmore. Blackmore itself fell due purely to Beachhead tactics. As Papa Moloch put it, "''we barely had to flex to take down Blackmore. The first semi-coordinated evening attack finished the place immediately.''" --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 18:27, 16 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| | |
| Oh, and [[SFHNAS]] weren't really trendsetters. Give some respect to [[Rowcliffe Must Fall]] --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:44, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :Added. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| I skimmed through this when you made it yesterday, and it looked really good then. If facts need qualifying (a la Ross' comments) sort that out, but it's looking pretty good from what I can see.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 16:46, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :Since you're mostly a survivor player, your thoughts on the notions of demoralisation would be great. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::In terms of the demoralising effect of somebody dying? Not really, imo, but my home suburb's been ruined for 2 years, so I may just be used to it. --{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 16:59, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::Just trying to find the balance between encouraging "log in, fucking hell zombies, run" and maximising AP effiency. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 17:01, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::I'd be somewhat in line with Yonnua (and my home suburb, while adjacent to his, ''hasn't'' been ruined for two years). You can't really do anything to demoralize the survivors: most of the ones that have doubts just cut and run at the first sign of trouble, leaving behind the stubborn ones that'll stick it out until the end.
| |
| ::::Given that a siege is a war of attrition (survivor supplies v. zombie patience) you (might) want to put in a section on preventing zombie demoralization. You know, just a few ways to keep the ferals entertained and keep them from getting distracted and chasing other opportunities.
| |
| ::::Now, stylistic nitpicking.
| |
| ::::# You should break down the "Play by Play" bullets into paragraphs (either with a double space or <nowiki><br></nowiki>). Right now it's reading as a wall of text, and that's going to turn off casual readers.
| |
| ::::#"...was reached primarily '''due to Zombie River Tactics, due to successful beachheads,''' it was the trickling effect..." You should join the bolded clauses to read "due to zombie river tactics and successful beachheads" as the current format breaks the the flow.
| |
| ::::#As George Orwell once famously took eight pages to say, [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm get to the point]. So far as I can tell, your thesis, "hit it hard, keep hitting it, then hit it again tomorrow," is all the way in the third paragraph and doesn't really stand out. I'd recommend you move it to the end of paragraph one, around where you've bolded '''tidal tactics''', and possibly bold it as well.
| |
| :::::#On a similar hyper-nitpicky note, just link straight to [[Zombie River Tactics]] instead of being creative and saying "true river tactics." It's an unqualified statement, and it isn't readily clear what your talking about. Similarily, I have
| |
| :::::#And while it's great for flavor, most people will have no idea what the hell "[[Marzan]]" is. I'd recommend a brief explanation of the word (i.e. "Marzan -the city's true zombie name-"), so you don't lose your reader. Also, you don't need to link to it twice.
| |
| ::::That's all I can think of at the moment. It's a nice read, but right now it's far from reader friendly. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 17:58, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| | |
| [[Talk:Guides:Ghost_Town_Reclamation]] Iscariot's insights into how to make a guide American friendly. Well worth a read. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:49, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :Whilst entertaining it's also quite specific to GTR. :/ {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| think it shows what level you should pitch at! --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:58, 14 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| I've pretty much done everything here bar the excessive dumbing-down. How does it stack up with the changes considered? {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
| | '''Crit 2'''. Delete. [[User:James Slimm|James Slimm]] 07:48, 28 July 2012 (BST) |
