Talk:Necrotech Security Zones

Brilliant, Murray. You'll notice that Ghetto Cow has consistently tried to hold NTs in various sieges, and we are almost always disappointed by the lack of support we receive. Hopefully this will change that.--Lachryma^☭ 06:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How Would you defend a NT without people Free running in with Weapons/ammo from Malls or PDs? How would an NT hold if you didn't defend a mall or PD and only NTs? Zombies can break through Cades and get inside an NT very easily if they attack at once, then They could eat the survivors and Ransack if they weren't killed because you have no ammo to shoot them...

Uh... because all the zones I made are near malls making it easy to go a few squares over and pick up ammo. I'm not saying that revives are the only thing you need. Just the most important. You can use your guns and ammo if you're dead and no one is around to revive you. -- Murray Jay Suskind 16:40, 7 April 2007 (BST)

You know, most people don't seem to realize that in this game when you shoot zombies they just stand up again. If people actually made zombies fight "survivor zombies" who could practically stand up and be revived again upon death, hordes would probably get too frustrated to continue sieging. If Blackmore wasn't in Ridleybank the RRF would have given up after getting its ass kicked for so long, right? But like you said, Nichols Mall was crucial to keeping it well stocked with men and ammunition and once it fell to the Gore Corps and LUE, so went Blackmore.-Insomniac By Choice 07:54, 6 July 2007 (BST)

I would agree with that if we(RRF) had actually been attacking Blackmore before the Nichols hit, we were hitting everything in Ridleybank but Blackmore, and working on Barrville and the other surrounding suburbs, it was no fluke or mistake that Blackmore and Nichols fell on the same day. But yes, if a siege of an NT lasts a month or more, yes most groups will normally leave because staying too long/boredom could cause a lot more problems then losing a siege.--karek 12:24, 7 July 2007 (BST)

What I find interesting here is the trade-off between safety and efficiency. When NTs are spread out, then at each one there's plenty of nearby zombies wanting revived so the walking distance to reach those zeds is low, but it's risky staying in those NTs. And when the NTs are tightly packed, they tend to make a wide area around them zed-free, which means it's further to walk between an NT and a _populated_ revive point, so more AP is spent and there's less efficiency, but on the other hand, they're very safe. So there's maybe a balance here. --  T   06:05, 26 July 2007 (BST)

I really like what you've done on this Murray. I work for Extinction, who existence depends on the realisation that NTs are the key to survivors and take out these first. I think you could add a few more NSZs to you map though, with some analysis of where Autos, Factories, PDs and Hospitals combine to give Mall effect. In a safe suburb they are just less efficient (compared to Malls), however in a suburb under attack the zombies are forced to spread out their attacks to shut down each/any of those TRPs. Malls are harder to take, but one taken are equally as hard to retake. NSZs based solely on non-mall TRPs would be more flexible, being applicable even when the suburb is under attack. Massive TRP redundancy occurs in some places in Malton too. And why does there appear to be a need to make your NSZs retangular? Surely you could just have expanding squares around each NT? 'arm. 06:08, 27 July 2007 (BST)

This seems like a good strategy to me. I'll always carry syringes on me from now on.  Popsicle Pete  +  22:27, 3 August 2007 (BST)

Specialist290 made this. I posted it on the Extinction talk page, but it fits here just as well: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2332/malton5oc9.png --Insomniac By Choice 23:01, 3 August 2007 (BST)

That's an interesting map. It would make sense for zombies or PKers to concentrate on the grey areas when they're looking for kills. That way there's a high movement cost for survivors to bring in fresh syringes, which should increase the cost of revives. --  T   02:56, 4 August 2007 (BST)

Wow

This has gotten a bit of attention after I stopped paying attention to the concept. Being a zombie first, I've never put as much effort or analysis into this as I would for my zombie schemes. That's why I took the easy way out of making rectangles around the NT concentrations that jumped out at me instead of sitting down and actually doing an analysis of the map.

Anyway, I'd say that this kind of defense (relying on meatshielding and quick revives) would work well against most zombie attacks, but the recent success of megahordes has given me pause to consider how I'd try to figure out a good defense against a LUE or Mall Tour sized horde. My thought was something I'm thinking of dubbing "whack-a-mole" tactics. The principles are not too different than river tactics, but the practical application of river tactics has always been to simply run away. Essentially, if there are a number of vital buildings in a given area and you're facing overwhelming numbers, you try to negate your opponents advantage by forcing them to hold all of the vital buildings while you keep a concentrated and mobile group (which necessitates quick revives as well) jumping from building to building, taking them back. So say you have building x, y and z within 5 blocks of one another. A megahorde comes and despite a valiant defense, smashes building x. You regroup at y (again, quick revives are key) and the second the megahorde comes for building y, the survivors make a major move to take back building x. If they hold back enough numbers to make taking building x impossible, fall back to z to spread them out further until you are taking buildings back. If you succeed in re-taking buildings they've just smashed, you force them to spread out their numbers and significantly negate their numbers advantage. I need to develop this a bit more, but it is bubbling in my head right now. -- Murray Jay Suskind 20:04, 2 August 2007 (BST)

It's already being done at Dowdney actually(kinda). After the mall fell all the survivors went to both necrotechs and the hospitals, the revive queue got emptied completely almost before the day was out. LUE then began hitting other buildings and took out Dewes NT, so the survivors retreated to Hall, LUE tried to take Hall at the same time as Dewes but failed and the survivors at Dowdney retook Dewes as soon as the zombies moved into Hall, today Dewes and 3/4ths of the mall are barricaded. If they can keep it up they might be able to distract LUE for a while just by keeping stocked on syringes to revive any who die in an NT attack, although it might be done even better with three NTs less than 4 moves away from each other. The biggest issue would be stocking up I think, that is if the group/s doesn't feel like taking the easy way out.--Karek^maps?! 21:06, 2 August 2007 (BST)

Oh, and this might save you some time.--Karek^maps?! 21:05, 2 August 2007 (BST)

Dewes is in zombie hands, and the mall isn't in any danger of being lost. The problem is a lack of ferals. LUE is a little bit too coordinated for this sort of work. Or at least too much of a hive mind. If there were ferals wandering around the suburb as well (either because they were there already or came to join us), it wouldn't be an issue. In a Mall Tour type siege, it's really a big collection of ferals with some sizeable strike teams. LUE is a "strike horde". We'll probably take Hall again before we go and some other buildings, but it would take massively serene organization to get a good enough distribution to prevent four corners of a mall and two NTs buildings from being unransacked. Serene organization, or several dozen more ferals doing their own thing without respect to an overall plan.--Insomniac By Choice 22:59, 3 August 2007 (BST)

Very, but even if both NTs, or all NTs fall usually survivors that are prepared will have enough syringes to get people back on their feet for a few days, without rotters theres not really much even a mass of ferals could do to prevent that short of killing everyone before they have a chance to revive anyone. --Karek^maps?! 11:17, 4 August 2007 (BST)

Yeah, but you're not trying to stop revives entirely, just make them more costly in terms of AP to do. The extra movement there and back to another suburb severely limits a user's ability to defend against zombies. The Dribbling Beavers are organized enough revive operations would continue, but they'd far and away lose more people each day than they could replace. Right now there's still a deficit but they seem to manage to get their core people revived each day.--Insomniac By Choice 21:51, 4 August 2007 (BST)

Actually all it really takes is smart genny usage and stocking to high hell when you do have an NT. The cost won't really go up unless you hold them for a long time. But it might be devastating to poorly organized groups. Either way this still means more NTs and NTs are the easiest defended and retaken buildings in the game and they even provide a great resource when working.--Karek^maps?! 22:00, 4 August 2007 (BST)

a rant... enjoy...

Dunno who wrote this, they didn't even sign it:

How Would you defend a NT without people Free running in with Weapons/ammo from Malls or PDs? How would an NT hold if you didn't defend a mall or PD and only NTs? Zombies can break through Cades and get inside an NT very easily if they attack at once, then They could eat the survivors and Ransack if they weren't killed because you have no ammo to shoot them...

just as characters without Free Running do not belong in Mall Seiges (except as meat shields), neither do they belong in an NT operation. if you don't have Free Running, go to a hospital, get FAKS, heal for XP, get FR and then useful skills like Construction.

so, how do you defend an NT? combat revive. yes, combat revive, exactly. then dump and 'cade. then, and only then, shoot any revved zeds who might have risen before you dumped them. in theory, you don't even need guns, but i'd expect the use of ?rise to require some shooting or hatchet-work.

NTSZ is an excellent idea, but one aspect of the tactic needs to be formalised, i think -- mobility, as murray noted above. you don't really need to hold any single NT for an extended period of time, do you? what you do need is to hold one long enough for people to gather syringes, lots and lots of syringes. that's it. then you move on.

so you create (NT tech heavy) strike teams whose job is to clear an NT (with combat revives, and whatever other means necessary). get it operational, stock up on syringes, then tell everyone in the area to get their butts down there ASAP to do the same. then abandon the NT. don't try to hold an NT for more than 48 hours, tops, more like 24 max. this has the huge advantage of keeping the zeds guessing, keeping them split up. and if you can hold multiple NTs this way, all the better, but not even necessary. i'd label this a kind of mini River Tactics, Stream or Tributary Tactics, perhaps ;)

is this feasible? unfortunatelty, it would require excellent organisation, flexibility and teamwork and -gasp- metagaming on the part of survivors. and for some reason, the zambahz have the survivors beat hands down on this. why is that, i wonder, hmnnnn....?

and just to conclude... on a good polemical note.... ;p

IMNSHO scientists pwn this game. they can neutralise zeds without guns, how slick is that? scientists are followed in efficacy by civilians, who can get every skill for a simple 100 XP (including those pwning NT skills), how cool is that? meanwhile, the worst of all character classes -- military -- focus on redundant and overlapping combat skills, but have to pay a whopping 150XP each for those science skills that truly pwn for suvivors. how lame is that?

as far as i can see, there are only two uses for combat skills: clearing a revive cue of rotters and killing standing enemies inside (and ONLY inside) a building. otherwise they're useless. admittedly, these specific situations do make military skills important. thus, military characters make great pets... ermmmmm, i mean auxilliaries, yes, adjuncts, exactly, that's what i meant... adjunts to those of superior intellect... erm... able and equal partners to humble scientists, i mean, yes that, precisely... ;P --WanYao 13:24, 5 August 2007 (BST)

You've made the common mistake of things stocking up to be prepared for a long siege is difficult or takes time from the siege. You stock when you aren't in a siege, get 1 pistol or 1 shotgun and get shit loads of 2% encumbrance ammo, saves more space than packing up guns. The point is that necrotechs in a siege buy you far more than enough time to go a long distance away to an area well outside of the siege, stock up for a day or two then return. If it could be done in Ackland it can be done in an area with 2-4 NTs, especially because death means nothing, you can, in a matter of days, revive everyone and retake lost areas easily. They can't stop you from stocking on syringes because even the largest zombie hordes would be spread thin trying to hold 4 unconnected buildings at once, especially if they are also trying to clog revive points. Combat revive? No, no need to combat revive, although you could do it effectively, the more NTs you have the more time you have to move out and get supplies.--Karek^maps?! 15:39, 5 August 2007 (BST)

fair enough... and i will admit that i am a newb, and this is all just theory to me. i've never actually been in any kind seige yet, well not on the human side... i'm not sure i completely understand your point, but aren't you basically agreeing with me, and with the NTSZ policy? except that you're emphasising stocking up before a seige (of course...) and also going out of suburb to stock up on syringes during the seige. ok... but isn't a big part of any seige effectively a battle of attrition, a kind of contest of AP management? therefore, in a protracted siege, you can run out of syringes. so the question becomes, what's more efficient: getting the supplies locally, or in a neighboring 'burb? the answer to that i can't tell you, i'll let more experienced players field that question. but it seems logical to me that going far afield is a waste...

the difference between what i am saying and what i understand you saying, is that, in theory at least, my idea addresses the immediate tactical situation on the ground, in the suburb itself. it is very specifically a mobile defense for a specific area: it supports suvivors making a stand at a mall, is not about just abandoning the area and coming back later to fix it up. we all know that zed hordes now correctly target NTs as a matter of course in mall sieges. so, as i said earlier, a hit-and-run style NT defense helps keep zeds guessing, helps to divide their forces, which can slow down the seige. it also keeps your forces close to the important action where they may be needed, as opposed to a day (and lots of AP) or more away in a neighboring 'burb...

and if it's not obvious, everything i am discussing assumes the use of the Fertilise the Land and DIRT:NAP policies...

and even if i am just a newb who is totally off the mark here... it seems to me that a good discussion -- including shooting down my ideas if they're just silly -- is constructive, no? i hope so..... --WanYao 00:33, 6 August 2007 (BST)

*basically, i'm agreeing 200% with murray's "whack-a-mole" concept. i honestly think this is the way to go. even with lots of ferals around... unorganised ferals really don't stand a chance against organised survivor defense. and, the very mobility of the tactic in itself takes advantage of the fact that feral communications and response times to an ever changing situation are kinda slow... ferals follow the groans, head for big groups of zeds, they clump and cluster and just aren't that mobile, overall. this is what i have seen, anyway, being a feral tagging along behind a major organised suburb romp recently. ferals are reactive, not proactive, and "whack-a-mole" stays one step or more ahead of them. --WanYao 00:49, 6 August 2007 (BST)

Actually I'm not agreeing with you for a few reasons, all of which are the ones why most productive survivor groups discourage combat revives. Finding a Syringe is supposed to take about 15 AP(although it seems closer to 5 these days), takes 10 to use. Now that's not an issue assuming who you revive is productive but in the case of a zombie player who stands up for 1 AP it's a waste of 2 zombie AP but a loss of 25 survivor AP. Then you consider the potential that the 25 AP could have produced if you had revived a productive survivors and it's more like a loss of 74 AP because a good productive survivors would add 49 AP to the AP pool. Now if you revive a hostile zombie who doesn't just jump or let someone else kill them(which costs something like 15 AP from the zombie pool but gives them XP) they now don't have to worry about barricades and a horde infested building is an entry point for them, they walk in, waste 5-12 AP per survivor and can effectively remove between 150-550AP from the survivor pool, that's one zombie. An effective revive corp could counter that loss by always reviving pro-survivors at a simple cost of 1-5AP assuming movement to a designated revive point. Basically combat reviving survivors out of an NT hurts survivors because even if a small handful of say 40-70 zombies are going to death cult it only takes about 5 to kill 40-70 survivors. The best way is guns, the fact that you can run around in circles and keep up revives easier with more NTs means you will have more guns on the ground and more time for new guns to come in. How organized the zombies are doesn't matter because zombies are really a joke compared to survivors, it's all about how organized the survivors are. If survivors could get even an extremely small fraction of LUE's numbers as organized as LUE they would be able to drive them off with ease. They don't even need the same level of organization, less organized survivors that do things well can stall a large organized(or unorganized) horde for a long time which is part of the reason why this would work.--Karek^maps?! 11:12, 6 August 2007 (BST)

Vecusum aka Karek... you've argued against combat revives. but that's only one small part of the idea, all said and done one of the least important parts. the most important parts you haven't really even addressed... --WanYao 04:54, 7 August 2007 (BST)

Template

We need a template to promote this idea further. I've thought about this idea before stumbling upon this page and i'm a firm supporter of it. I would suggest Caigar as a starting point. Not because of its sentimental value; it's located in a more accessible location than the others and the NT buildings are nicely spread around it. Having 2 NT buildings next to each other is just a zombie magnet.Yeeth 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)