Talk:S.O.S.

SOS what its about

As you can see in all that hostile comments painted everywhere even above TOC
SOS could change something else they would let us alone (unless its pure griefing :P)
SOS is a wide defined movement including all kind of players that would like that playing the survivor side would be more enjoyable
Could be anyone would like just an update or two but it also includes the "Pro Survivors" who care about the future of their survivor characters.
It may surprise some others but we have the right to play urban dead and hope to make survivors win, which is almost impossible with current system, so yes we have the right to like a more open ended real challenge for both antagonists and to ask for it.
We have the right to dare ask that we could play also a survivor for fun and not just to role play a hamburger for zombies in a loaded dice extermination simulation
We have the right to think the game now favors too much the zombies and to worry about game balance and fairness in the game. As now we are faceing same harassments as are treated minority groups because yes till now actually pro survivors were less active in wiki and suffer from it also in game updates.
The SOS has nothing to to do with game stats, nothing to do with wathever game theme is
or whatever anti survivors enjoy the game to be.
Its just a movement that tries to brainstorm ideas of players who would like to help the survivors cause
and to finaly get their voices to be heard.
The main web page has been protected against the perpetual vandalism attempts.
My point of view has been wiped out many times by the same people that want to kill the movement in its egg, so here is the link to a separate page here
PS As you noticed we should keep going with SOS those many attempts of discrediting or silencing us like flooding and even putting comments above TOC, trolling the whole page, those people with flaws in reasoning that prefer harrassing and completely wipeing out our comments to hide them from other people, those who call whoever that dont share their point of view as retarded , its a good way to encourage us to continue thank you for your support and dont worry I'll paste again if you vandalize again my contribution.
--Sarkomance 07:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the comments at the top of the page down to an appropriate section. Have you tried playing a zombie alt for a while, Sarkomance? It may give you a little perspective on the game. This game moves in cycles, and the zombies being on top will change over time. Zombie players need to be able to have fun playing as well, and if survivors could absolutely guarantee their safety, there would be no tasty brainz to be had, they'd be the ones who would be XP farmed by survivors (as they used to be, and will again, no doubt). Go get yourself a revive when you die (everyone does, it's not permanent), and have fun running from the horde -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:44 22 December 2008 (BST)

What Boxy said. Although a 50/50 split would be theoretically perfect, you are never going to maintain one in practice. It's challenging for my survivor when zombies have the upper hand, and a lot more fun. Heck, it's also a lot of fun for my zombie too, but for different reasons :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No Green Suburbs

Why bitch about this? It's MALTON. Nowhere is supposed to be safe. You should always have to be on the run or fighting for your life. No matter how extra heavily you barricade, no matter how much you stock up, you should always be unsafe if you are breathing. That's the only thing that makes the game interesting if you are a survivor. I've seen people spend too much time freaking out over PKers, it's high time that the zombies became the biggest threat in game. This is when you should actually be learning how to hide, how to defend yourselves and how to play the game better. Whining and moaning that you have to spend AP on the move or can't kill 12 zombies in one day just like you saw that guy do in this movie that time isn't the way to go. --Johnny Bass 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Band-Aid

I've only been playing for several months (survivor only), but IMHO survivors are very disorganized. RRF is very organized. Papa says "here is a map. Kill everything colored red." And they do it. It's not because zombies are extraordinarily powerful, it's because they converge on a single goal.

Many humans, on the other hand, refuse to speak in game. I've seen the sentiment described as "don't waste AP talking, do something that helps the survivor cause." That's ignoring your single greatest asset as a survivor, the ability to share info and keep up morale. I've made PKers laugh and move on from a building just by joking with them, reviving the person they killed and making them apologize, healing them and asking them nicely not to misbehave, etc...

And there are countless fractured survivor groups with only a handful of members, working to protect indefensible positions. Let's stop it! Rather than appeal to the game creator to tip the scales in our favor with elaborate, ill-conceived rule changes, why don't we come up with a set of policies that allow disparate survivor groups to work towards a common endgame? Why don't we do some data visualization and focus on concentrating forces in the most defendable parts of Malton, rather than trying to light up every worthless building?

If you don't want to use politics and charisma, be a zombie. If you just want to shoot zombies with a shotgun, play Left 4 Dead. If you want to RP and talk with funny people and work together towards an endgame, all the while staving off zombie ruination, then you should play as an Urban Dead Survivor.

I'm going to start a page called Operation Band-Aid if you want to talk about a more constructive way out of this crisis.

Operation_band-aid

Capsid 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this assessment. My suggestions work to encourage much needed intelligent gameplay amongst the survivors by competitively rewarding support behavior critical to the survivor cause, rather than significantly altering game mechanics. --The God Emperor 02:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If increased XP for support roles is really all that S.O.S. is about, I'm all for that. At least for installing equipment, fueling generators, and repairing buildings (1/5 of the repair cost would be nice). (Survivors tend to cade out of self-preservation, and healing already gives you a good chunk of XP...so I don't think a boost to XP gain is really needed for those). --Jen 02:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cading should be rewarded both because zombies are alloted an XP incentive for tearing them down, and because it's still currently a thankless, AP sapping task that features no individual incentive. The object is to encourage humans to take the initiative on support tasks, and XP rewards for cading succeeds at this. As long as the XP/AP ratio is kept in check (I'm not suggesting 1/1 rewards here), there is absolutely nothing wrong with rewarding cade building up until VS++ status as I've suggested. As for healing, it's still not competitive with combat in terms of the XP/AP ratio. What I would specifically like to see happen is something like XP rewards = to HP healed for the first five (5) points of healing, and 1 additional XP for every 2 HP healed thereafter. Not only would this promote taking the initiative on healing, but it would also encourage survivors to acquire the First Aid and Surgery skills.--The God Emperor 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Barricading? AP-sapping? Not compared to debarricading it's not. Not even bloody close. Indeed, up to VSB barricading an unoccupied building carries a near 100% success rate, compared to the zombies' 25% debarricading rate. Further, referring to barricading as 'thankless' is rather comical, as barricades are most often the only thing keeping you alive; thus you should not need thanks for doing it. As for healing, that, barricading and reviving are the greatest individual weapons in the game and with the exception of barricading they already provide experience points, which makes two of them dual-rewarding as an incentive to help others whilst barricades help oneself as much as anyone else in the building. --Papa Moloch 04:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Objectively it is AP-sapping. Further, you do not benefit 'as much as anyone else' when you barricade because it comes at the cost of your action points. The others do not have to pay, and you are not directly rewarded for your initiative; in this capacity it is a thankless task. Further, there is clearly a need to provide an XP incentive for barricading when players so commonly focus on killing lone zombies rather than repairing barricades in the midst of a zombie assault to disastrous consequences; again they are behaving the way the incentive structure tells them to behave. Finally, I reiterate there is absolutely no reason not to reward barricading as long as the XP/AP ratio is kept reasonable. Arguments akin to 'a good deed is its own reward' fall flat both with respect to this, and every other support behaviour as repeatedly evidenced by the reality of in-game survivor actions.

Moving onto healing and reviving, these feature uncompetitive XP/AP ratios as compared to combat, which is again why you see survivors firing their guns instead of minding their FAKs. Further it is illogical that healing isn't rewarded in a manner somehow proportionate to its efficacy and outcome. --The God Emperor 06:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Barricading brings instant reward: It provides a layer of defence behind which to hide and AP-wise runs at a 4-1 edge over debarricading. Throwing up barricades is easy and, AP-wise, cheap because it creates instant defence for anyone using the building, thus it can defend an infinite number of survivors. These advantages are why debarricading carries an experience point reward and barricading does not. Barricading is its own reward and anything which further rewards the already heavily-used tactic of barricade strafing is damaging to the game. Further, complaining about something not having an XP reward on the basis that it helps other people too is rather a selfish mentality. Healing of and reviving others carry experience point rewards because they involve helping others ahead of oneself, with no immediate potential benefit (you could well be healing or reviving the person who will one day heal or revive you, or barricade your safehouse, or block a ruin, or clear a building, etc, but that is not immediate). These actions are weapons which need no buffing beyond the search rate adjustment which Kevan has already implemented. The manner in which you post suggests that what you are really demanding is a form of UD social engineering, in which people's play practices are manipulated out of them. Massive rewards for already hugely rewarding activities are no way to foster balance. The reward for survivors playing smart is staying alive, just as the reward for zombies playing smart is getting fed. The smart way for survivors to play is to heal, revive and barricade, but then the smart way for zombies to play is to join an organised horde. Both further the aims of their kind far better than the usual practices, so would you want zombies given immediate rewards just for joining a horde? I would not. Smart play rewards itself: It's something that comes from experience and learning from others; it does not need to be hardcoded or fostered as a game mechanic. If people play stupidly that is their lookout, whether they are survivor, zombie or PKer. At the end of the day though this is all moot, because this crying over game balance will soon be established as entirely pointless when the usual order of Malton is restored. The experienced players have seen this cycle happen many times before and we'll see it happen many times in future: Survivors are getting screwed so Kevan buffs their search and hit rates; zombies are getting screwed so Kevan buffs their debarricading and hit rates. It's the way the game turns --Papa Moloch 07:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Social engineering is precisely what's needed given the relative diversity of actions the survivors must undertake (as contrasted to the zombies which need do little more than horde and fight simultaneously) in order to effect a solid and robust resistance, and the indisputable illogic of the currently broken XP incentive system. The failure of the current system is readily evident in its irrational overemphasis on combat, effective penalization of support activities, and its apparent consequences on survivor behaviour in the form of epidemic trenching. Survivors by far and large are doing what the game is telling them to do, and that means reckless, self-destructive combat. Now, while it's all well and good to call out people for selfishness, and argue that long-term incentives exist for under-rewarded support activities, the reality is that pie in the sky game design does not work. It is too much to ask that survivors continually self-sacrifice in the name of the greater good for little to no individual reciprocity. Human nature responds to immediate, direct, tangible incentives, not abstractions of the collective good, which is all too repeatedly shown by what the survivors actually do. Additionally, why should combat dominate the XP incentive structure as it does? Why should trenchies get all the XP when the real contributors get shafted? Why should suboptimal play be more heavily rewarded than intelligent behaviour? With all this in mind, you cannot say with any credibility whatsoever that the current XP incentive system is not broken. Perhaps it works for Zombies with their almost single-minded emphasis on combat, but the same is not true of the Humans. 2 and 2 do not equal 5. Lastly, reworking this XP system simply makes methods aside from combat competitive means of XP gain. It does not force, or coerce people into dropping their play-styles so much as it encourages them to play more intelligently.

Further, I challenge you to demonstrate how a modest XP reward for barricading would be 'damaging to the game'. True barricading has its advantages. However, those advantages are not always immediate, and are never direct. Further, the AP edge it confers is not a plausible case for precluding survivors from being rewarded. Killing a zombie grants a meaningful AP edge, so why is it so heavily rewarded? Because it aids the survivor cause; indeed it aids the survivor cause precisely because it affords an AP edge. As well, I recommend dropping the hyperbole about 'massive rewards' and 'hugely rewarding', because I do not advocate 'massive rewards' and no support activity can be earnestly called 'hugely rewarding' when you consider its XP/AP ratio as compared to combat. Collectively? Maybe. Individually? Never. I've proven my case as to the benefits and necessity of a reworked incentive system, now I invite you to actually demonstrate material issues with it.

Lastly, you really should remove your trolling signature. A little maturity goes a long way. --The God Emperor 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody's making really good points. I want to ask about XP as a way out of the crisis. Doesn't it only help very new survivors? Are we aquiring new survivors at such a rate that XP boosts will turn the tide? Isn't everybody essentially equal by about lvl 10-15? Capsid 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would surmise that XP remains a powerful incentive for most players at least until they acquire all of the abilities of their chosen side, plus several essentials from the other; until at least around the mid twenties. For completionists, the dual natured, and the undecided, it can remain one up until the low 40s. So in otherwords, yes, XP incentive revision should prove a powerful and effective tool for addressing the problem. --The God Emperor 06:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• "elaborate, ill-conceived rule changes"? From what I see it has been a bunch of "elaborate, ill-conceived rule changes" over the past year, all favoring the zombie side that has led to this crisis.--mvario 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no crisis, Mvario, aside from survivors players panicking over being in the minority and having their long-secure suburbs put in a little danger. Survivors are nowhere near out of the game; they just need to adapt and start playing smart for once. Although Capsid's Band-Aid ideas are not all that revolutionary (look up the SSZ), they're the right answer. A strike is the wrong answer.--Jiangyingzi 13:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Survivors on Strike?

So you are on strike because the game is unbalanced? Bloody hell. If you don't like it, why put humanity in a worse spot by idling out? Get off your arses and start to do some work to MAKE us better! --Haliman - Talk 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what would need to change?

It is a zombie apocalypse game, but it's an open-ended on with no victory conditions for Humans. The only avenue is really zombie victory and thus game termination and restart. If the actual point of the game is for eventual zombie domination, then no changes are really needed.

One possible change would be to undermine the zombies just continually standing up where they drop. If zombies were randomly respawned on the city map several blocks away after a headshot, the hordes would be somewhat diminished and would give human players something of a chance when the swarms come. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpace (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 December 2008.

Balance?

I agree that the zeds have the better end of the stick at this time. Nice would be weapons that could damage more than 1 zed at a time like a molitov cocktail, or having the cost of rising from the dead higher. That said, a never ending balance is another kind of hell. What would happen if the revive syringes got less effective, and the cost of rising again was 20 AP? I think that it would increase the value of staying alive, and not getting killed no matter what you state was living or dead. I wonder if Kevan is looking to rest the game after a final zombie victory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todreich (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2008.

Let's get wiped out?

After all is it so wrong for zombie apocalypse? Lets get an end date with rescue coming and nuking of all zombies afterwards ;) and see if anyone makes it. However if Malton is to stay open-ended some extra zombie hunter skills would be just what the doctor ordered. Well, actually some new zombie hunter skills that are really annoying for zombies. Right now it's impossible to actually hurt them. It costs 1-6AP with Ankle Grab to get going again and barricades can't do the job against hordes (even though cumulative APs of builders would be enough to make zombies bash it for eternity, it's good enough for zeds if they wake up at a given time, bash it down in seconds and break in en masse, before first builder waking up). To add suggestion not yet mentioned - zombies may somehow wear-out. Headshots (or new skill) could lower their AP regeneration cumulatively. First would hurt only as much as current version of HS. However getting hits to the brain daily would mean meager AP regeneration in a weak. Effect would go away completely after like 3 days of not getting banged. Feeding on fallen enemies could also lower it. --Peterus 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• There's no escape from Malton, bud. Whatever the zombie plague is, you've already got it, and the rest of humanity would be supremely stupid to turn you loose. The quarantine isn't just for the walking dead...you breathers are zombies, too. You just aren't zombies at the moment.--Jiangyingzi 19:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Making this better

You know, you could make this bigger. Give pro-survivor groups and solo's the chance to show support, make a "signed by" list for example. Make support templates. Just some ideas.--Thadeous Oakley 22:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This could mostly be improved by deleting it from the wiki and forgetting it was ever brought up in the first place.--Jiangyingzi 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Troll away.--Thadeous Oakley 00:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly serious. There is no crisis here.--Jiangyingzi 18:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sign!

You guys should sign your posts, so I know where to send the cheese with your whine--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the backs of the envelopes for ya. Send away! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A little late

Kevan has already upped search rates back up to your little trenchie hearts' desires earlier this week. What's the point of this if the problem has been fixed? It'll take time but you'll get back to your easy living ways that made the game far too easy for you to survive in game. ZOMG, we're not the majority.... THE GAME IZ TEH BROKEN! Give me a break. --Johnny Bass 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about surviovors dropping below 50%. Right now there're no green suburbs. Considering that there're only two real tactics for breathing here - outannoying and outboring zombies - we'll probably be all eaten. At least the newbs. As it's pointed out in the article - zombies were powered up several times. Most notably ruins of ransacked center of the town are hampering chances to successfully reconquer them. I do not mind getting eaten, but game simply won't be open ended like this. After current front-line gets ransacked up till the southern boarder zombies will be able to effectively wipe everyone out. Any new presence in the center will be severly penalized by ton of extra AP needed for rebuilding.--Peterus 08:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh...one of my survivors has been working to reclaim heavily ruined areas for quite some time. The AP penalty isn't crippling. And the place gets up and running in a week or two, as long as you have a couple folks watching eachother's back. While many survivors may be running to the SW, waiting for the zombies to arrive, a great many are actually being proactive, and are in the north, working to reclaim decimated areas. The zombies won't wipe everyone out. And another tactic available to survivors is to maybe start working in coordinated strike teams...like the zombies do. --Jen 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you harmanz could do what intelligent ones like Jen here are doing then you'd be doing just fine and dandy. Seriously, organise "Repair strikes", where one person repairs a building, a couple more come in and barricade. Minimal effort really, but most harmanz are too stupid to realise how easy it is.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Chillax

I can understand how, when faced with a challenge, a person can become resentful... but we've seen worse times. Just because your formerly green suburb is no longer an Eden doesn't mean you can't have fun. Hell, have you seen Barrville lately? AH is sitting pretty, dodging zeds, catching revives... and enjoying it.

This is a zombie apocalypse after all. Hardcore Rockabilly, Retired FAE Axes High ^{AH RR RRF}

That's not the point - that a suburb has turned from green to red. The point is that they have ALL turned - there are no green suburbs left. When over half of the suburbs are either red or ghost towns (as they are now), to me this is a sign that things are clearly out of whack. And each day that goes by makes it harder to do something about those ghost towns because of the cumulative effects of ruin. No one is resentful here but we do feel that we have a legitimate point. --Lucas Black

The zombies are taking over? Maybe is because the game is a damn Zombie Apocalypse/Survival Game, not a SimCity with zombies being a mild irritation? ADAPT. The old times, when sitting on your "fortresses" and shooting zombies are dead. COORDINATE. I have never seen more than ten survivors acting together, save mall sieges and events (November the 5th). SURVIVE. You are SURVIVORS. You should SURVIVE, not "kIllZ Al ZaMbahZ!!11!shift+oneone1!"--Shotgunna Ramma

It's fine to say that if all the humans change their play behavior things will change, but in reality that's not going to happen. The current situation is not a result of a change in behavior but in a years worth of changes to the game favoring zombies. Some of those changes were needed, but the result was that there were too many and the overcompensation is threatening the game. I couldn't find a recent graph of the populations so I made one...

What I see is the human population lower than it has ever been before, and still declining rapidly. I realize there is a certain amount of zombie joy in the air with taking over the whole map in site, but from what I hear (and I'm not there) it's not a whole lot of fun to play in Monroeville these days. If there isn't some balance restored to the game then Malton is going to soon be like that until it is.--mvario 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While I believe overhauling the XP incentive system is a major step in the right direction, it is certainly not the only one. I do believe some mechanical adjustments should be pursued in order to restore a measure of equilibrium. Thank you for illustrating the trend clearly and concisely. --The God Emperor 16:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a ball breaker, but BOTH numbers are trending downwards. Can you actually read a graph or just the parts that suit you? The overall trend for both zombies and survivors is a downward trend with survivor numbers being the one decreasing at the fastest rate over time. Does this indicate that a year's worth of buffs are ZOMG too strong? No, this indicates a growing disinterest in the game from both sides. The short term increases/decreases of population numbers? They appear to be normal fluctuations in game. Adapt, don't bitch. --Johnny Bass 17:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While both zombies and survivors are trending downwards, the fact that the human trend is significantly and notably steeper than the zombie's is a meaningful one. This indicates both a decline of interest in the game, and a probable imbalance favouring the zeds. --The God Emperor 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Or the disinterest is primarily on the Harman half...

Yes they are, and yes I can read a graph, can you? Try looking closer. First the trend for survivors is not only decreasing at a faster rate over the length of the chart but also in the short term. On the other hand if you look at zombie population since May it is actually trending upward. Going back a year it is relatively flat. If you want I can make these graphs for you with trend lines since you seem to only be picking up on the parts that suit you. And it's not "bitching", just pointing out some broken game mechanics. I'm guessing you identify with the zombie side since you're taking time to bitch about the criticism of a system that currently favors that side.

Broken mechanics? Like what? The most major update in favor of the zombies (or at least the one that you would run into most frequently) is barricade blocking and that was something that was heavily needed on the zombie side of things and is more in genre. I left alone the short term results of the graph because those will correct themselves soon enough with the already increased search rates. My survivor (yes I have one that I enjoy playing very much right now) is having a blast with great search rates in unlit NTs and hospitals. Why bother talking about the short term on there when the population numbers will go back to being more than 50% harman. I see it as you "bitching" because the updates in favor of zombies weren't that strong. OMG, free running is a little more of a pain. No big deal. Wow, it takes more AP to repair buildings that were probably in zombie strongholds. Wow, you've got dark buildings to hide in.... Wait, that was a good thing. Flesh Rot just did something that most zombies already had. Feed accomplished nothing. So I ask you, where are the super powerful zombie updates that you're talking about? Also, with zombie population going up, RRF's recruitment hasn't been this good in a few months now.

I don't recall ever saying anything about "super powerful zombie updates", just that almost all the updates in the past year favored the zombie side in one way or another, and combined they overcompensated for any unbalance in the human direction. If you disagree then that is your prerogative. If you take umbrage with the phrase "broken mechanics" then I'll just say "unbalanced mechanics" instead (and I'll stick with that one). And if you want to call it bitching, then knock yourself out. I'm just calling it the way I see it. And if it all balances out in the long run, or if a change to search rates makes a difference then those will become apparent.--mvario 19:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of this is good...most is stupid

I rather like that first set of your suggestions, about players getting a bit of XP for performing support roles. I think the lack of them has been a problem for a long time. XP for currently thankless tasks would encourage SMART playing, which is something survivors desperately need to learn. But the other stuff is just plain stupid. Survivors don't need flamethrowers, or miraculous crucifixes, or zombies being forced to feed 24/7. All they really need, to balance out the latest zombie buffs, are improved search rates. We don't need anything new - we just need to be enabled to do our current jobs more frequently and successfully. What was really hurting survivors recently was the decay update, combined with ABYSMAL search rates. Low search rates mean more frustration...and also too few supplies to do anything. Kevan's just fixed that, and the city will be showing the results shortly. It's not the end of the world. --Jen 14:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dammit Jen, you're a ninja!

  _
 (-)
\/D\

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some Additional Suggestions

Dude, I'm sorry, but these are hideous. While some of your "core" suggestions have merit, most of the "additional" ones of them are straight off the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, others are familiar from Frequently Suggested, and others are just not well thought out. May I please suggest reading through both of those, having a good hard think, and then taking anything that's left to Developing Suggestions for some discussion with (hopefully) helpful peers?

1) Skills for either zombies or humans should start to degrade after a certain point the longer someone remains one or the other (i.e. a dual skilled player that remains a human over 30 days should slowly start to lose zombie skills)

Leave Other People's Skills Alone. People earned those skills.

2) Survivors need Weapons of Mass Destruction. Recommend something like a) flamethrower and b) Molotov cocktails that will injure more than one opponent at a time. Fuel cans can be precursors to the fueling of flamethrowers or making of Molotov’s. Wine bottles would also be needed to make Molotov’s (makes these items useful to be found and kept). Both are wildly inaccurate (unless a skill or skill is bought) with a chance of "splash" damage. This damage is indiscriminant can hurt zombie, barricade, generator, and human alike if splash occurs. Fire damage CAN NOT be healed in zombies. Make the flamethrower a hard item to find (or construct in a junkyard), very heavy, has a chance per turn of exploding (goes up if attacked) and with a one shot use (one fuel can, one shot) but with extreme damage (20-30) to large crowds.

Perhaps surprisingly, I actually agree that Area of Effect Abilities could be a fun addition to the game. However, given the amount of times it's been suggested, I severely doubt it's going to happen.

3) Zombies holding a crucifix should have a 1% chance each turn of being "miraculously" cured and turned back into a human. Adds an element of uncertainty.

Crucifixes should be useless, just like in real life. These are science zombies, not magical ones. Hence the NecroTech-employed scientists running around reviving people.

4) Humans with the Brain Rot skill should have a 1% chance of "combusting" into a zombie.

Because OBVIOUSLY it's not hard enough to play a Brain-Rotted survivor already, what with it being exponentially more difficult to get/coordinate revives. No, every Brain-Rotted survivor is just a zombie in pajamas (wolf in sheep's clothing) who's planning to kill all harmanz, whether they know it or not! POOF! There you go, zombified again! How exactly does this help survivors again? >:3

5) Items carried by a zombie should have a 5% chance of falling off every turn. Only makes sense that items carried would drop off eventually.

Right... so the trenchies lose their guns and ammo as they walk to the RP. Brilliant! Newsflash: zombies can't use items, so this will only harm survivors.

6) Lastly, zombies should be forced to feed in order to maintain their health. Otherwise they should loss health like infected humans.

So let me get this straight, a zombie logs in and stands up from headshot with the 60 HP they've only recently gained thanks to Flesh Rot. Then they go wander and bash on cades for 44 AP, maybe opening a building if it's VS or lower and the RNG doesn't rape them too hard. Now they're down to 16 HP, just perfect for a trenchie to come in and kill them in 2 shotgun blasts, right? Because what Malton really needs more of is idiots with guns shooting every zombie in sight for easy XP.

All that said, please, do yourself a favour and read up on the game mechanics and have a read through Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested. You may have some decent ideas in there, but you'll be much better off and your suggestions better recieved if you can avoid the common pitfalls.

One thing you DO have is enthusiasm, which is always good to see. :) So, assuming I haven't put you off altogether (I hope not), maybe I'll see you about Developing Suggestions? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything Revenant said, but with more vitriol. Seriously, you harmanz actually have it hard for once, enjoy it. It's actually a zombie apocalypse now.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys sure those suggestions were sincere? As far as I can tell that whole section was written by a person who has a grand total of three edits, all of them were the construction of that section. Could be trolling with a throwaway account. - User:Whitehouse 15:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well...the thought definitely crossed my mind. Especially with magical crucifixes and combusting zombies. On the other hand, some of the other things on the list seemed plausibly serious...Poe's Law, anyone? --Jen 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of Poe's Law before, definitely appropriate for this. Without 3 and 4 you could easily think it was sincere, but with them you just can't be sure. - User:Whitehouse 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was under the misapprehension that the "additional suggestions" were made by the same person as the earlier ones. After looking at the edit history and talking to The God Emperor, this is obviously not the case, and I probably wouldn't have bothered with such a reply had I checked that first. Also, yes, Poe's Law definitely applies. Regardless, typing that response was very cathartic, so if it was a successful troll then I tip my hat to you, sir. :D ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll post. Removing. I take it there are no objections? --The God Emperor 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An easier solution

Looked at the Omnimap? Zombies are doing so well because they've moved out of the traditional NW area and are in the North East and SW. If survivors were working as a coherent force I'd just say head west. Yes the repair costs are high, and you will die a lot at first but its a lot easier than standing up to a couple of hundred zeds. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

finally some sense! i always suspected the omnimap held the answer to world hunger.--xoxo 17:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why this strike is a very bad idea

When it comes down to it, this strike is essentially a cheap attempt to get an entire raft of suggestions -- incomplete suggestions, at that -- approved by Kevan without submitting them to the standard peer review process. If a solitary change, even one, is implemented to the game via this strike it will set a terrible precedent. Why would people want to go through the trouble of developing their suggestions on the discussion page and then putting them up for a vote when it's more efficient to rabble-rouse a bit, make a wiki page for your latest strike, and ramrod your ideas right through?

If the suggestions on this page have merit, submit them normally and let nature take its course. Don't try to go over everyone's heads by threatening to take your ball and go home unless we all play by your rules. Go to this page and brave the waters.

Honestly, neither 40% survivors nor lack of green suburbs is cause for alarm. Survivors are a long way from out of the game. As per most of the more rational voices in this discussion, survivors don't need Kevan to come galloping up on a white horse to save them. They simply need to play smarter. Maybe this change will enforce better survivor play (unless the recently implemented search buffs do their work too well).--Jiangyingzi 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really a Troll

Hey, I just wanted to throw some data in. I disagree with the strike (I actually thought it would be a masterful bit of pro-zombie propaganda to get the breathers to lay down and go dormant) but the Stuff about Band aid was written by my brother in law. He's new to the game and we are both figuring out the wiki. : )

I figured the current situation would make for a great chance to fight which was way better than the cycle of cading and waltzing out to blast some zeds, return, repeat. We're just kind of new to this end of gaming so it may take a few for us to spin up.

Removing this page seems kind of counter productive. I went back and read through and got some great pointers like checking out the do's and don'ts. This is instructive and I appreciate it. Can this be left up for a bit so we can stoke the coals of newbie interest?

Thanks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todreich (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Pissy comments?

Way to maintain NPOV, Lucas. You're also wrong about a couple of things: firstly, the original On Strike consisted of both zombie and human players...there was a wide consensus that the game needed some serious alterations. Secondly, the "additional views" section of the page is clearly a suggestion list, and my points regarding going through channels remain legit. As the person above me mentioned, those of us who brought up the suggestion process informed at least a few new players about how to make a proper suggestion around here.

I suggest that Lucas' bit about pissy comments, and possibly everything following it, be struck from this page.--Jiangyingzi 17:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I consider 'pissy' a very mild word - and an accurate one to describe many of the comments posted. I wasn't offended by them - I more or less expected some of it - but if one is going to make comments with that tone, you should expect to be called on it. As for NPOV, this is a group page - I hardly see that one would need to keep a NPOV - especially since I started the thing. All we were saying was 'change something' and that was done. Like I said, not because of this because this had just started up, but the game is now back in balance. Usually I would appoligize in case anybody was offended, but not this time.--LucasBlack 18:50, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Your implication is that every "zombie player" who made a counterargument here did so in a small-minded and ad hominem manner, and that's not true. A lot of folks made reasonable counterpoints to your proposal, but you've painted the opposing voices with a very broad brush. Your personal interpretation of the language you used is one thing, reader perception is another. I still think you should change it.--Jiangyingzi 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't want to imply that all those who made opposing arguments did so in a non-constructive way. I've gone ahead and changed it and thanks for pointing out that it could be misinterpreted that way.--LucasBlack 9:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I don't care about the numbers.

you guys are a bunch of pussies and deserve to be eaten. don't you get it? when the map is all RED this game is more FUN. here's an idea. play muti-alts. play all sides of the game. maybe you won't cry so much if you really knew what was going on. PUSSYS!----Sexualharrison 07:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well...

You survivors got your wish. Damn, I was starting to enjoy my zombie apocalypse. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It finally feels like a zombie apocalypse, eh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:58 2 December 2008 (BST)

Quit bitching. Suburb & Standing Survivors : 13104 (59%) Standing Zombies : 8898 (41%). _■^■ 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

1. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
2. --Shotgunna Ramma seconds that, and agrees that this is a Zombie Apocalypse Game, not SimCity with Zombies as things to be shot upon on the street. 04:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Strike! Strike! Strike! Strike! And none of this half-assed stuff either, I wanna see everyone stop work, down tools, up placards, and marching on the streets in protest! If you break ranks, YOU are the problem with the survivor cause and responsible for the zombies winning.ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Kevan's doin' it wrong... --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
5. I just took a really wicked shit. Why didn't I get XP for it? Kevan, FIX THE POOP MECHANIC!!! --Papa Moloch 07:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
6. All together now: *Ahem* BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
7. RRFfanboy thinks this is a laughing matter, in the same matter BBB is ;) 02:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
8. as above.... thats right this idea just sucks. like you do.----Sexualharrison 08:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Spam - BAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Suck it up and play. Zombies in On Strike had it worse than you do now, pathetic bastards.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Red Rum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing! Extinction It's The Hard Knock Life!} 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   you know this isn't a vote right?----Sexualharrison 12:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I'm just taking the piss.-- Adward  23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   I am sorry to see that when the shoe is on the other foot, the zombie lovers just call survivors a bunch of complainers. I also should let you know that participants are likely much higher, but with alts idling out after 5 days, those with the SOS tag in their group will be removed from stats. Don't forget that many are already participating, though they simply didn't change their group name. The actual number of "members" is likely very high.--Kolechovski 17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not a zombie lover and I can tell you that you're a fucking whiner. The zombies went on strike over 2 years ago when their numbers dipped to 20% and you're doing it when it is barely under half. This isn't even the worst that survivors have been to. During Big Bash in the summer of 2006 there were 85% red suburbs, 10% orange, and 5% yellow. Quit your fucking whining. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 18:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Sonny, his opinions don't count because he's a zerging scumfuck. His comments carry as much weight as Finis. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   I happen to know Kolechovski, and I happen to like him too. We are both members of the Crimson Clan, where zerging is against the rules. Maybe he zergs with his alts, maybe he doesnt. Why make such a fuss? And if you don't mind, I'd rather see slightly less foul language too. It doesn't make pleasant reading; and if you have to resort to swearing to make your point, then it's not a very good argument, is it? --Jsrbrunty 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

   -Yeah and we all know that the Crimson Clan have never, ever, been caught zerging. Gee, how familiar does one of those names on there look, Jsrbrunty?--Papa Moloch 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

None of the above signatures seem to be supporting the "strike", so they don't belong on the main page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:08 21 December 2008 (BST)

Fact - Group page, you have no right to edit according to you whims. Fact - They haven't been removed already by the group, as you know under wiki tradition, silence implies consent. Fact - Take it to vandal banning, and watch yourself lose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact, you yourself, being not a member of the "group", don't have the right to carry on abusive arguments on their main page. You take it to A/VB, and see how you go -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:12 21 December 2008 (BST)

Fact - The section implies that 'opinions' may be added and they have not already been removed by the group when they have been editing the page since. That implies consent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And your insistence that it's a group page implies much more strongly that it's asking for opinions from supporters of the general concept, no abusive commentary from all and sundry -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:23 21 December 2008 (BST)

That would be your opinion, the fact is that the page owners have allowed these comments and not already removed them, therefore, inaction implies consent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Much more likely that they don't understand wiki policy in this regard, and don't want to get in trouble for removing others posts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:28 21 December 2008 (BST)

Wouldn't the correct course of action been to ask them, rather than assume intent and unilaterally impose your will on the wiki? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:35 21 December 2008 (BST)